Development of A Bellmouth Airflow Measurement Technique For Turbine Engine Ground Test Facilities

c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
AM A A
A01 34358
AIAA 2001-3676
Development of a Bellmouth Airflow

Measurement Technique for Turbine
Engine Ground Test Facilities
D. K. Beale, T. L. Hand, and C. L. Sebourn
Sverdrup Technology, Inc., AEDC Group
Arnold Engineering Development Center
Arnold Air Force Base, TN 37389
37th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit

8-11 July 2001/Salt Lake City, UT
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 22091
AIAA 2001-3676
Development of a Bellmouth Airflow Measurement Technique

for Turbine Engine Ground Test Facilities*
D. K. Beale, * T. L Hand, and C. L Sebourn
Sverdrup Technology, Inc., AEDC Group
Arnold Engineering Development Center
Arnold Air Force Base, TN 37389
Abstract
The Arnold Engineering Development Center
(AEDC) initiated an airflow measurement technique
investigation to address turbine engine test requirements with respect to both accuracy and cost of airflow measurement. This paper focuses on the
development of the bellmouth as a lower cost alternative to the choked venturi for measuring airflow in
direct-connect turbine engine tests. The effort
encompassed the development of a research test
cell to serve as an airflow calibration facility, the
testing of bellmouth models, the application of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to the prediction of
bellmouth flow characteristics and flow coefficients,
and the validation of CFD through comparison with
experiment. Results presented begin with comparisons of the computed and measured bellmouth
boundary-layer total pressure profiles, as well as
the core flow Mach number distributions. Next, the
computed flow coefficients are shown in conjunction with comparisons to experiment. Finally, the
paper shows comparisons between the airflow
measured with the bellmouth, using the computed
flow coefficients, and airflow measured with a calibrated reference venturi. The results show that with
careful selection of the static pressure measurement plane, the bellmouth offers a promising alternative to the venturi for airflow measurement in turbine engine tests.
Area in bellmouth straight section at

measurement station, in.2
Cd
Flow coefficient (discharge coefficient)
Dt
Diameter of venturi at throat or diameter

of bellmouth straight section at measurement station, in.
Axial location of core flow measurements in bellmouth measured from start

of straight section, in.
Lbl
Axial location of boundary-layer measurements in bellmouth measured from

start of straight section, in.
Ls
Length of bellmouth straight section, in.
M, MACH Mach number in bellmouth straight section
Nomenclature
At
Lcf
Wall static pressure in bellmouth

straight section at measurement station, psia
PHI
Angular position around circumference

of plenum, venturi, or bellmouth cross
section measured from top, deg
Ps
Stream static pressure, psia
PSTA
Axial location of bellmouth airflow measurement station expressed in units of

Rt downstream from start of straight
section
Pt
Local total pressure, psia
PTA
Total pressure measured in plenum

chamber A, psia
PTB
Total pressure measured in plenum

chamber B, psia
Ptinf
Freestream total pressure in bellmouth

or venturi core flow, psia
Radial position in bellmouth or venturi

cross section measured from centerline, in. Used in defining locations for
measured or computed flow fields.
REY
Reynolds number of bellmouth or venturi based on local throat flow conditions

and Dt
* The research reported herein was performed by the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC), Air Force Materiel
Command. Work and analysis for this research were performed by personnel of Sverdrup Technology, Inc., AEDC Group, technical
services contractor for AEDC. Further reproduction is authorized to satisfy needs of the U. S. Government.
f
Senior Member of AIAA.
This paper is declared a work of the U. S. government and
not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Rt
Radius of venturi cross section at throat

or radius of bellmouth cross section at
measurement station, in.
Tt
Total temperature, R
TTB
Total temperature measured in plenum

chamber B, R
T38, T39
Designations fortests 38 and 39,

respectively
Velocity, ft/sec
Actual mass flow, Ibm/sec
Wjdeai
Ideal mass flow, Ibm/sec
Axial station in bellmouth or venturi, in.

In bellmouth, measured from start of
straight section. In venturi, measured
from throat station.
Yp
Venturi or bellmouth boundary-layer

probe immersion, in.
Density, Ibm/ft3
Introduction
Turbine engine ground test facilities provide the
aircraft system developer the means to evaluate
propulsion system configurations at various stages
of the vehicle development cycle. Early in the development of a new system, the ground test facilities
furnish the information necessary to help ensure
that the design process converges to a vehicle that
meets the mission objectives. In this role, the turbine engine test facility helps predict the performance, operability, and durability of an integrated
airframe-inlet-engine-nozzle system, enabling the
designer to make valid design decisions prior to
prototyping. As the vehicle development cycle
progresses, the turbine engine test facility provides
information necessary to refine the design and prevent shortfalls in the fielded system. Following the
fielding of a system, the ground test facility continues to serve in the development of system
upgrades and in the resolution of any problems that
might arise. In each case, the task of the turbine
engine test cell centers on providing the needed
simulation fidelity early enough to reduce the overall system development costs and risks.
In a general sense, turbine engine ground tests

may be categorized as performance tests, operabil-
ity tests, or durability tests. Performance testing

encompasses such parameters as turbine engine
thrust and fuel consumption, which, in turn, influence the entire spectrum of aircraft performance
including takeoff, maneuvers, fuel consumption or
range, and landing. Operability testing involves
such parameters as engine surge margin when the
engine is subjected to the distorted flow developed
by the airframe and inlet. Durability testing involves
evaluations of the structural integrity of the system
components. The parameters to be simulated and
the simulation fidelity required by the turbine engine
test cell depend, to a large extent, on the type of
test being performed as well as the specific test
objectives. However, common to most turbine
engine ground tests is the requirement to quantify
the engine airflow rate accurately.
The Arnold Engineering Development Center
(AEDC) offers a number of direct-connect turbine
engine test cells to satisfy performance, operability,
and durability evaluation needs. The AEDC facilities generally include provisions for measuring airflow rate using critical flow Venturis. The venturi
consists of a choked converging-diverging nozzle
that can be used to derive airflow rate from measurements of total pressure, total temperature, and
throat area.
During the past decade, the AEDC test mission
with respect to turbine engine testing has encompassed both fighter aircraft propulsion systems and
transport aircraft propulsion systems. As a result,
the accuracy in the airflow measurements and the
need to reduce the costs associated with those
measurements have become key elements in the
AEDC technology investment strategy.
Performance tests, particularly those associated with transport operations, emphasize airflow
measurement accuracy. This emphasis results
from the influence of airflow rate on the performance parameters, and therefore, on the assessment of aircraft performance. In the case of transports, engine performance with respect to fuel consumption is a prime consideration, and perhaps a
deciding factor, in the awarding of engine supplier
contracts. As a result, AEDC transport engine customers have issued airflow measurement accuracy
goals as low as 0.23 percent. Although such goals
may have originated from the transport requirements, the fighter aircraft requirements have also
increased the emphasis on range and, consequently, airflow measurement accuracy.
the venturi be removed. The installation and

removal of Venturis to accommodate engine transient test procedures introduces time and dollar
costs into the turbine engine test program.
The first overall objective of the AEDC airflow

measurement improvement effort was to improve
airflow measurement accuracy. This objective was
prompted by the goal of meeting customer accuracy requirements. Accuracy improvement focused
on the critical flow venturi. In particular, the accuracy improvement considered the effects of venturi
installation configuration and facility flow quality on
the airflow rate measurements. The approach
included three overall steps: 1) measurement of the
venturi sensitivity to parametric variations that
appear among the various test facilities, 2) identification of parameters limiting venturi accuracy, and
3) accounting for the critical parameters in the venturi specifications or calibrations. Results of venturi
parametric investigations appear in Ref. 1.
The second overall objective of the AEDC airflow measurement improvement initiative was
prompted by the costs associated with using critical
flow Venturis. This objective, also the subject of this
paper, was to develop methods of acquiring accurate airflow measurements in turbine engine test
facilities that avoid the venturi costs. The approach
consisted of developing the bellmouth airflow measurement technique as an alternative to the venturi.
A bellmouth serves as the transition between the
test facility plenum chamber and the engine air supply duct in virtually all AEDC direct-connect tests.
Furthermore, this bellmouth generally resides in relatively close proximity to the test article. Therefore,
a bellmouth methodology naturally fits into AEDC
test capabilities.
Although capable of providing accurate airflow

rate measurements, the critical flow venturi carries
with it a number of inherent costs. First, critical flow
operation results in a substantial loss in pressure as
the flow passes through the venturi. The energy
required to accommodate this pressure loss must
be provided by the facility air supply plant. Thus,
driving the venturi demands a direct increment in
power input to the facility and the associated utility
bill. Second, provisions must be made for adjusting
the effective venturi throat area, according to airflow demand, to maintain choked operation. In
some facilities this is accomplished by physically
exchanging Venturis to match nominal throat diameter with airflow demands. This procedure requires
disassembly and generally must be executed
between tests. As a result, the test matrix must be
arranged to accommodate the process. Other facilities use an array of small Venturis, each with a
remote-controlled open-close capability, to permit
adjustment during the test. In this case, the operator opens the number of Venturis required to provide necessary throat area. This approach still
requires test time for actuating the Venturis as well
as investments in venturi maintenance. Finally,
because of time lags introduced by the remote location of the venturi with respect to the engine, tests
of engine transient operations generally require that
AEDC completed and validated a bellmouth airflow measurement capability. The method includes
flow coefficients calculated using computational
fluid dynamics (CFD), a data reduction algorithm,
specifications for the required bellmouth static pressure measurements, and an uncertainty analysis.
The method was experimentally validated in two
overall steps. First, the codes applied to the flow
coefficient computations were validated through
comparison with bellmouth boundary-layer and
core flow pressure profile measurements. This step
was applied early in the development process. At
the conclusion of the development process, the
final product was validated through comparisons
between airflow measured with the bellmouth and
airflow measured with a venturi. This step used a
test bellmouth mounted in series with a reference
critical flow venturi.
This paper is intended to present the test community with the results of the bellmouth airflow
method development. It contains descriptions of the
CFD approaches applied, experiments applied,
results of the CFD code comparison to boundarylayer and core flow measurements, and results of
the bellmouth method comparison to the critical
flow venturi method.
Approach
Central to the successful development of an
accurate bellmouth airflow measurement capability
is the characterization of the flow coefficient. The
bellmouth flow coefficient relates the ideal, onedimensional (1-D) inviscid flow rate to the actual
flow rate and thus serves as the key parameter in
the bellmouth methodology. The flow coefficient
may be determined experimentally or computed
using CFD. The approach applied in the present
work used both methods. Experiments provided the
means to validate computationally determined flow
coefficients. The CFD then provided the tool for
scaling and interpolating the coefficients to characterize the bellmouth for AEDC Engine Test Facility
(ETF) test applications.
Experimentally, the flow coefficient may be
determined by any one of three methods. The first
is to pass a known mass through the bellmouth,
while recording the time to determine a flow rate.
Normalization by the ideal flow rate yields the flow
coefficient. This method has been applied in a number of facilities across the nation. The second
method establishes the flow coefficient through
direct comparison with a calibrated reference, or
secondary standard, flow-rate measuring device. In
this case, the bellmouth is mounted in series with
the reference airflow measurement device. The
actual flow rate provided by the reference may be
normalized by an idealized flow rate determined by
the bellmouth to yield the flow coefficient. The
assumption that the same mass flow passes
through both devices demands care in preventing
leakage between the devices in the test facility. The
third method applies flow-field probing systems to
measure the nontiniform flow conditions across the
bellmouth cross section. The distributions in the
flow conditions, characterizing deviations from the
ideal 1-D flow, represent distributions in the mass
flux across the bellmouth cross section. Integration
of the mass flux and normalization by the ideal flow
rate provides the flow coefficient.
Experiments in an ETF research test cell provided the means to establish a bellmouth flow coefficient in the laboratory environment. The experimental approach encompassed two of the three
methods of measuring flow coefficient. First, the
apparatus allowed the flow coefficient to be determined through comparison to a calibrated reference venturi. Second, the apparatus provided the
flow-field measurements necessary to determine
the flow coefficient using the mass flux integration
method. The latter approach also provided detailed
flow-field measurements for validating the CFD
results.
Figure 1a depicts the general experimental
approach. The research test cell includes provisions for mounting flow measurement devices in
series. These provisions include two instrumented
plenum chambers with flow-straightening devices
and two bulkheads for mounting Venturis or bellmouths. During the development, the facility was
subjected to vacuum and pressure tests to demonstrate negligible leakage from the volume between
the two bulkheads. A calibrated venturi installed in
the upstream bulkhead served as an airflow reference for the test bellmouth installed in the downstream bulkhead. The test bellmouth also included
instrumentation for measuring the flow field in the
straight section. The instrumentation included
boundary-layer total pressure rakes and a traversing static pressure probe covering the bellmouth
core flow region. Under the assumption that static
pressure in the boundary-layer remains constant at
the wall value and the total temperature remains
constant at the plenum value, the boundary-layer
rakes allowed an integration of the boundary layer
mass flux. Under the assumption that in the core,
total pressure and total temperature remain constant at the plenum values, the traversing static
pressure probe yielded the Mach number distributions. Thus, the two probing systems provided the
measurements required to determine the mass flux,
which varied across the throat radius because of
viscous effects in the boundary layer and streamline curvature effects in the core. Integration of the
mass flux yielded the actual airflow component of
the flow coefficient.
Figure 1b depicts the general CFD approach.
The CFD grid represented the bellmouth geometry,
the plenum supplying the bellmouth, and the
exhaust duct downstream of the bellmouth. Computation and integration of the mass flux distribution
across the bellmouth cross section provided predictions of the actual airflow. Normalization by the 1-D
c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)1 Sponsoring Organization.
Station A
Station B
-u
Test
Bellmouth
Reference Venturi
System
a. Bellmouth Experiments
b. CFD
Fig. 1. Bellmouth Airflow Development Approach
inviscid ideal flow determined at the specific measurement station yielded the flow coefficient. As
shown in the figure, the computational grid contained a number of grid lines distributed down the
straight section of the bellmouth. Integration of the
flow field at each grid line provided a series of flow
coefficients corresponding to various stations along
the straight section.
The development process included CFD code
validation, algorithm development, and algorithm
testing as shown in Fig. 2. The depicted process
disregarded the presence of the reference venturi
during the CFD code validation and algorithm
development steps in order to permit a true demonstration of the capability in the final step. The process used flow-field measurements acquired in the
bellmouth itself to validate the computed flow-field
characteristics. Computed bellmouth boundarylayer total pressure distributions were compared
Bellmouth Flow
Probing at Station B
directly to the experimental measurements. Similarly, the bellmouth core flow static pressure computations were compared directly to the traversing
static pressure probe measurements. Thus, the
process evaluated the computations on the basis of
the detailed flow fields rather than simply on the
overall flow coefficient. Subsequently, integration of
the CFD flow-field calculations provided flow coefficients over the range of Mach numbers and Reynolds numbers required for AEDC operations. The
data reduction algorithm incorporated the computed flow coefficients for the bellmouth mass flow
calculations.
The final step of the process consisted of the test
and demonstration of the algorithm. For demonstration purposes, the algorithm containing the CFD
flow coefficients was coded into an existing data
reduction program and used to process the bellmouth data. At that point, and for the first time in the
process, the reference venturi airflow measurements were considered. The demonstration consisted of comparing the bellmouth airflow processed
using the new algorithm with the venturi airflow.
The following sections provide more details on
the execution of the process development
approach.
Apparatus
Test Facility
The research test cell originated as a 15-percent

scale model of the ASTF C-2 test cell used in the
development and validation of freejet test methods.
In preparation for the bellmouth
Bellmouth CFD
method development, the facility was
extensively modified to incorporate
the features required in the airflow
calibration experiments. The reconfiguration process added a second
plenum chamber in series with the
existing plenum. Both plenums
received flow treatments to ensure
Beiimouthoata Processed uniform plenum flows, as well as
using Algorithm
instrumentation rakes to sense the
plenum flow quality.
XL:
/v
Fig. 2. Bellmouth Airflow Development Process
In the present configuration, the

test facility contains a 54-m.-diam
upstream plenum chamber, desig-
nated plenum A, and a 36-in.-diam downstream

plenum chamber, designated plenum B. As shown
in Fig. 3, each plenum terminates in a bulkhead with
provisions for mounting up to two Venturis or a bellmouth. The selection of two different diameters for
the chambers allows for study of plenum-to-venturi
(or bellmouth) area ratio effects. Furthermore, the
hardware contains provisions for varying installation parameters, including the relative spacing
between the venturi or bellmouth inlet lip and the
bulkhead, between the lip and the plenum wall, or
between the lips of two adjacent Venturis for the
parametric tests.
Calibrations depending on comparisons to the
reference venturi require the assurance of essentially zero leakage from the volume between station
A and station B. The facility upgrade incorporated a
number of features to help provide this assurance.
First, plenum wall penetrations for instrumentation
and control connections were located either
upstream of station A or downstream of station B.
Likewise, the design positioned wall penetrations
for the remote-controlled probe traversing mechanisms either upstream of station A or downstream
of station B. Gaskets prevented leakage in the few
flange connections that did exist between stations A
and B. The seals provided by the gaskets were verified by capping bulkheads A and B, pressurizing
and evacuating the volume between A and B, and
monitoring pressure changes over a prescribed
time interval following valve off. To ensure integrity
of the remaining two joints, the junctions between
the venturi or bellmouth flanges and the station A or
B bulkheads, double o-rings were used. During
testing, monitoring of the pressure between the orings showed that the joints remained leak free.
formities or turbulence. Plenum A uses a series of

devices comprised of a porous plate, a honeycomb,
and three screen assemblies. The screen assemblies are separated sufficiently for dissipation of the
wire wakes before the flow encounters the next
screen assembly. The flow treatment devices provided a smooth plenum wall without protrusions
such as mounting tabs or support rings. Plenum B
applies the same series of flow straighteners. However, plenum B also contains a porous plate corebreaker to help disperse the plenum A venturi exit jet.
The primary facility instrumentation provides for
the measurement of total pressure and total temperature distributions in both plenums A and B as
well as air supply and exhaust pressure. Instrumentation rakes, described in Ref. 1, distribute probes
both radially and circumferentially in the plenum
cross sections. Total temperature probes consist of
shielded and vented thermocouples. In addition to
the probes, each plenum includes wall static pressure orifices and high-response pressure instrumentation. The facility uses electronically scanned
pressure transducers to multiplex the steady-state
pressure measurements.
Test Articles
The bellmouth airflow measurement experiments used a reference venturi in conjunction with
a test bellmouth. Two geometrically similar Venturis
featured throat diameters of 5.64 in. and 10.1 in.,
respectively. With a diameter of 16 in., the bellmouth operated downstream and in series with one
of the Venturis selected on the basis of the required
bellmouth Mach number. The venturi size selection
provided choked venturi conditions for all of the tests.
The bellmouth model design applied the specifications for the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) low-beta bellmouth design. The
specifications,
which
Upstream
Plenum B
Downstream
Plenum A
Venturi
Bulkhead
(36
in.
diam)
Venturi
Bulkhead
Air Supply Duct
appear
in
Ref.
2,
include
(54 in. diam)
an elliptical contraction
section with the semimajor axis equal in
length to the throat diameter and the semi-minor
axis equal in length to
Flow-Straightening Spool
Exhaust Duct
two thirds of the throat
diameter. The low-beta
Fig. 3. Research Test Facility For Airflow Measurement Experiments
Each plenum chamber contains a series of flow

treatment devices designed to remove flow nonuni-
design also specifies a straight section equal in

length to 0.6 times the throat diameter and throat
static pressure orifices positioned 0.1 diameters
upstream of the exit plane. Figure 4a provides the
nominal dimensions of a 16-in.-diam bellmouth built
to the ASME specifications. The model deviated
from the specifications in that the inlet section
length was truncated from 16-in. to 15.804 in. for
added mechanical clearance in the test installation.
The bellmouth apparatus included provisions for
extending the length of the straight section beyond
that of the ASME configuration. The extension was
motivated by the presence of the duct between the
bellmouth and turbine engine in ETF test installations. A removable duct matching the inside diameter of the bellmouth straight section could be added
to furnish an additional 24 in. or 1.5 Dt. The extension permitted the execution of experiments
focused on evaluating the effect of the downstream
ducting length on the bellmouth flow coefficient.
Figure 4b includes a depiction of the extension.
9.60-
16.000
34.00
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
10.000
11.000
12.000
13.000
14.000
15.000
15.804
8.000
8.021
8.084
8.189
8.339
8.534
8.778
9.075
.429
.848
10.340
10.921
11.611
12.448
13.503
14.955
17.000
a. 16-in.-diam Bellmouth Model

/- Conical Extension
-17.625-
45deg
2 Conical Extension
Configurations:
Sealed
Vented
1/8-in.
Sealed yGap
Open,
2 Straight Section
Configurations:
9.6
b. Bellmouth Installation
Fig. 4. Bellmouth Model
33.6
The development of secondary flows in the form

of vortices in ETF bellmouth installations became a
concern in the 1990s and led to the adoption of an
installation modification as a preventative measure
in virtually all ETF bellmouth installations. Consisting of a conical-shaped extension joining the plenum wall and the bellmouth contraction section, the
device eliminates the plenum wall stagnation point
necessary for vortex attachment. As a result, bellmouth inlet vortices fail to form. Typical installations
use an extension with a 45-deg angle as shown in
Fig. 4b. The length of the extension in a typical
installation depends on the relative diameters of the
plenum chamber and the bellmouth.
The bellmouth contained instrumentation for the
measurement of the wall static pressure distribution, high-response wall pressure, wall temperature, and boundary-layer total pressure profile. Figure 5 illustrates the bellmouth measurement locations. The wall static pressure orifices were located
longitudinally along a ray running from the inlet to
the exit and circumferentially around the cross section at three stations. The line of orifices, installed
for diagnostic purposes only, extended along the
top of the bellmouth at an azimuth angle of 0 deg.
As shown in Fig. 5a, static pressure orifices at azimuth angles of 45, 135, 225, and 315 deg supplemented the 0-deg orifice at station 8, 8 in. downstream from the junction of the contraction section
and the straight section (X/Rt = 1). An average of
the four static pressure measurements characterized the static pressure at station 8, the ASMErecommended measurement station. The average
excluded the diagnostic pressure measurement at
0 deg because of the potential for interference from
the upstream 0-deg pressure orifices. Three static
pressure orifices located at azimuth angles of 90,
180, and 270 deg also supplemented the 0-deg orifice at stations 3 (X/Rt = 0.38) and 5.4 (X/Rt = 0.68).
At station 8, a Kulite high-response pressure
transducer sensed fluctuating static pressure.
Chromel/Alumel thermocouples sensed bellmouth wall temperature in the locations shown in
Fig. 5a. The wall temperature measurements provided the material temperatures needed for thermal
expansion corrections.
The bellmouth contained two 13-probe total
pressure rakes for the purpose of measuring
boundary-layer total pressure distributions. The

rakes were located at bellmouth stations 3 and 8,
respectively. Figure 5b illustrates the rakes and provides the probe immersions. Each probe tip consisted of a 0.01-in.-ID tube flattened to a 0.005-in.
height for boundary-layer profile resolution purposes.
The available test apparatus included two separate remotely controlled traversing static pressure
probe systems that mount at stations A and B,
respectively. The station A system uses an aft-facing probe that extends from a strut in the plenum
through the measurement station.1 The station B
system uses a forward-facing probe that extends
from a strut mounted in the exhaust duct. The bellmouth, being mounted at station B, employed the
latter probe traversing mechanism.
The forward-facing traversing probe system
used a 0.219-in.-diam probe with a conical tip as
shown in Fig. 5c. A pair of 0.020-in.-diam static
pressure orifices, located at the 90- and 270-deg
positions on the probe body, sensed the local static
pressure. The probe system allowed the probe
measurement station to be adjusted between bellmouth stations 3 and 8. The probe sting attached to
a vertical strut that penetrated the exhaust duct wall
and interfaced with the traversing system drive. A
PC-based control system permitted the operator to
program the probe position through any desired
sequence of set points within the range of travel.
Throat
---
Dt
Typ Static Orifice

0.020-in.-diam Sharp Lip
Wall Static
High-Response
Pressure Orifice () Static Pressure (HR) Skin Temperature (*)
PHI,ctog
X, In.
PHI, deg
X, In.
PHI, deq
a. Surface Measurements
o - PT Probes
Odeg
Typ Probe Tip

=Hr Flattened
o?213
0.005 in.
nii
YP
270
Probe Immersions, in.

Stations 0.019-0.4
Stations 0.012-0.36
View Looking
Downstream
b. Boundary-Layer Measurements
Station 3
Probe Traverse
The two venturi models matched the geometry

tested by Smith and Matz,3 differing only in size. As
described in Ref. 1, each venturi employed a circular-arc contraction section followed by a conical
divergent section. The circular-arc contour
extended from the inlet plane to a station downstream of the throat, where it intersected with the 6deg diffuser.
Each reference venturi contained instrumentation for the measurement of wall static pressure distribution, high-response wall pressure, and wall
temperature. In addition, the 10.1-in.-diam venturi
contained total pressure probes for the measurement of boundary-layer total pressure profile. Reference 1 provides the venturi measurement locations. As in the case of the bellmouth, the wall temperature measurements provided material temperatures needed for thermal expansion calculations.
Static Pressure Orifice

at Throat Station
Strut Section
Sharp Leading/
Trailing Edges
PROBEBODY
0.02-in.-diam
Static Orifice
0.016-in.
Radius
Section A-A
c. Station B Traversing Static Pressure Probe

Fig. 5. Bellmouth Instrumentation
Each test configuration included the bellmouth
model installed in the station B bulkhead and a reference venturi installed in the station A bulkhead.
8
The apparatus provided for a number of parametric

variations. These included the spacing between the
conical extension and the bellmouth surface, the
straight section length, static pressure probe longitudinal position (pressure measurement station),
and boundary-layer rake positions. The 10.1-in.diam venturi served as the reference for the bulk of
the tests. However, to test bellmouth Mach numbers corresponding to idle conditions while maintaining choked flow in the reference venturi, the
5.64-in.-diam reference venturi was used.
Test Procedure
The experiments encompassed acquisition of

the various types of measurements needed to
determine the boundary-layer mass flux distribution, core flow mass flux distribution, and bellmouth
flow coefficient based on the reference venturi.
Although all of the bellmouth tests used the same
overall bellmouth configuration, a number of hardware changes occurred during the tests to vary critical configuration parameters. These parameters
included bellmouth extension gap (Fig. 4b), bellmouth straight section length, and flow-field measurement station in the bellmouth straight section.
Test parameters also included the bellmouth flow
conditions defined by the nominal Mach number
and Reynolds number at station 8. Reynolds number, based on the station 8 diameter, ranged from
1.0 x 106 to 5.75 x 106 to provide a database spanning laminar and turbulent boundary-layer conditions. Reynolds numbers above approximately
2 x 106 yielded fully turbulent boundary layers at the
measurement stations. Lower Reynolds numbers
produced laminar or transitional boundary layers at
least at the forward measurement station (station
3). The primary Mach number range spanned conditions from 0.31 to 0.7. However, the Mach number
range was extended down to 0.1 to provide a database for future investigations of bellmouth airflow at
engine idle conditions.
Test conditions were established by setting the
plenum B total temperature (TTB), plenum B total
pressure (PTB), and station 8 static pressure (P, at
station 8). The experiments used a nominal total
temperature of 530R throughout. Therefore, the
PTB and P settings yielded the required combinations of bellmouth Mach number and Reynolds
number.
During the execution of the test procedures, the

pressure transducer module ranges were adjusted
to help manage pressure measurement errors. This
entailed dividing the test conditions into three
groups corresponding, respectively, to low-range
pressure, mid-range pressure, and high-range
pressure. Low-pressure conditions used 5-psid
transducers referenced to PTB, mid-pressure conditions used 15-psid transducers referenced to
atmosphere, and high-pressure conditions used
50-psid transducers referenced to atmosphere.
Matching pressure transducer range to pressure
measurement range required physically switching
pressure modules during the course of a test
period.
The experiments applied two data acquisition
procedures corresponding, respectively, to the
measurement of boundary-layer total pressure profile and the measurement of core flow static pressure profile. The traversing static pressure probe
remained parked on the bellmouth centerline during
the acquisition of the boundary-layer data. A data
recording consisted of five data points obtained in
succession. The five data points also provided the
measurements needed for comparing the bellmouth and the reference venturi measurements.
The core flow static pressure survey tests involved
driving the remotely controlled traversing probe
through a predetermined sequence of positions.
Each survey consisted of 17 probe positions spanning the bellmouth diameter. Data acquisition procedures included a pause at each probe position for
pressure system stabilization and data point
recording. The PC-based probe control software
provided "push-button" sequencing of probe position and pause time to help expedite the surveys.
The high-response measurements were recorded
on analog tape during the survey, when the probe
reached the bellmouth centerline position.
The test matrix applied during the experiments
appears in Fig. 6. The matrix presentation includes
a table delineating the test parameters. These
include reference venturi diameter, conical extension gap, bellmouth straight section length (Ls),
boundary-layer measurement station (Lbl), core
flow measurement station (Lcf), nominal throat
Mach number, and nominal throat Reynolds number. As previously mentioned, the nominal bell-
9
mouth conditions were defined at station 8. Figure

6 also provides an illustration defining the key geometric parameters Ls, Lbl, and Lcf. Each length is
referenced to the start of the straight section as
shown.
The next series of tests applied a conical extension installation with the gap removed and the junction with the bellmouth surface sealed. The initial
tests included boundary-layer measurements at
both stations 3 and 8, as well as core flow measurements at station 8. Subsequently, the station 3
The initial test configuration included a bellboundary-layer rakes were removed for repeat
mouth conical extension gap ofJ). 125 in. The 10.1tests. Inclusion of the repeat tests with the station 3
in.-diam venturi provided Mach numbers of 0.31,
rakes absent yielded a data set necessary for veri0.4, 0.5, and 0.7. At each Mach number the full fying that the station 3 rakes were not interfering
range of Reynolds numbers, listed in Fig. 6, 1.0 with the station 8 rakes.
x 106 to 5.8 x 106, were tested. The tests provided
The final series of tests using the 10.1-in.-diam
a complete set of boundary-layer and core flow
reference
venturi included the addition of the 24-in.
measurements at bellmouth station 8.
extension to the bellmouth straight section. The
resulting 33.6-in.-long straight section precluded
Following completion of the initial station 8 meause of the traversing probe system. However, the
surements, the traversing static pressure probe
tests provided boundary-layer measurements at
was repositioned to station 3. The station 3 tests
station 8 over the range of Mach numbers and Reyprovided core flow measurements at two intermedinolds numbers.
ate Reynolds numbers and the complete initial
range of Mach numbers. The weak dependence of
The final entry in the test matrix depicted in Fig.
the core flow static pressure distributions on Rey6 describes the test with the 5.64-in. diam reference
nolds number rendered testing of all Reynolds
venturi installed. The configuration was added at
numbers unnecessary.
the request of AEDC customers to help address the
issue of airflow measurement at engine idle condiThe third entry in the test matrix focused on protions.
The test configuration allowed experimentaviding additional boundary-layer measurements
tion
at
low bellmouth Mach numbers and Reynolds
including the station 3 profiles. With the traversing
numbers while still providing high-quality, choked
rake parked at the bellmouth centerline, boundaryventuri airflow measurements for reference.
layer measurements were measured over the full
initial range of Mach numbers and the full range of
Computational Fluid Dynamics Description
Reynolds numbers. Thus, the resulting data set
Computational fluid dynamics assumed a key
included measurements of the boundary-layer
role in the bellmouth methodology that of furnishgrowth along the straight section.
ing bellmouth flow coefficients
for use in the data reduction
Bellmouth
Extension
algorithm. The bellmouth
Gap
methodology applied CFD for
two
primary reasons. First,
Straight
Conical
Section Boundary- Core Flow
unlike the AEDC Venturis,
Reference Extension Length, Ls Layer Meas. Meas. Sta., Throat Mach
Throat Reynolds
each bellmouth will probably
Venturi
Gap (in.)
(in.)
Sta., Lbl (in.) Lcf (in.)
Number (E6)
Number
8.0
9.6
0.31,0.4,0.5,0.7 1.0,2.0,3.0,3.9,5.8 differ from others in design.
8.0
0.125
10.1
Furthermore, budget and
2.0 , 3.9
3.0
schedule
constraints will prob1.0,2.0,3.0, 3.9, 5.8
8.0
3.0 and 8.0
ably
preclude
execution of
0.0
1
exhaustive experiments for the
80
purpose of characterizing
N.A.
33.6
unique bellmouth designs.
0.10,0.15 0.20, 0.25
1.0
8.0
9.6
5. 34
'
i
Second, AEDC
subscale
research test facilities are
Fig. 6. Test Matrix
10
incapable of providing the entire range of full-scale

Reynolds numbers. Implementation of the bellmouth method requires a means of scaling results
to full-scale facilities. As a result, the bellmouth
development process adopted CFD to fulfill these
tasks at the inception of the project. The overall process for developing the bellmouth technique
revolved around validating CFD tools, and then
applying them in building algorithms.
During execution of the earlier portions of the
airflow measurement techniques phase of the
project, a number of perfect-gas Navier-Stokes
codes and code variations were applied to computing venturi flow coefficient. These included NPARC,
NXAIR with K-e turbulence model, NXAIR with
Spalart turbulence model, NXAIR with the SST turbulence model, and WIND with the SST turbulence
model. Based on the findings, NXAIR Version 5.0
with the SST turbulence model was selected for the
initial bellmouth development.
Fig. 7. CFD Grid
The CFD matrix, appearing in Fig. 8, focused on

the following two objectives: 1) validation of the
code, and 2) development of flow coefficients for
use in the data reduction algorithm. To address the
The computations modeled the 16-in.-diam bellfirst
objective, the matrix included the majority of
mouth configuration applied in the experiments.
the
conditions
tested in R2A2 with the conical
The computational model included the bellmouth
extension
sealed.
The exceptions include the Mach
itself, the 45-deg conical extension sealed to the
numbers below 0.2 and Reynolds numbers below
bellmouth surface, the plenum supplying the bell2
x 106. Trial computations of the low Reynolds
mouth, and the exhaust duct downstream of the
number conditions revealed the inability of the code
bellmouth. The computational model used one of
to
compute boundary-layer transition. The laminartwo axisymmetric Chimera grids, depending on the
transitional boundary-layer issue will be addressed
Reynolds number range. Each grid was composed
in future planned work. To address the second
of the following four component grids:
objective, the matrix was expanded to include the
expected range of full-scale Reynolds numbers.
!
Component
; 1 .x 1 0 6 < R E V < 6 - 1 0 6 1 x 1 0 7 < R E Y < 6 A 107 Test conditions typifying full-scale fighter turbine
upstream Plenum < 102 pts in x direction ! 102 pts in x direction ; engine tests and large high-bypass transport turand Bellmouth
7- pts in y direction \ 91 pts in y direction : bine engine tests served as the basis for extending
61 pts in x direction
Downstream
61 pts in x direction ! the CFD matrix.
Plenum
3eiimouth Lip
3ulknead
93 pts m y direction
I 145 pts in y direction
31 pts in y direction
7 1 pts in y direction
Reynolds Number (REY. millions)
;
i
3.9
5.75 10
20
40
60
.20
Figure 7 provides an illustration of the computational grid, which was designed for a viscous solution and thus packed points near the walls of the
bodies. The y^~ values of the first points off the wall
were less than or equal to one. The work included a
grid study to verify grid independence in the solutions.
.31
1 .40 !
'.SO!
CO
5 .60
.70
Fig. 8. CFD Matrix
11
All of the computations used the 16-in.-diam

bellmouth grid and a total temperature of 530R
with an adiabatic wall assumption. Total pressure
was adjusted to provide the required Reynolds
numbers, and static pressure was adjusted to provide the nominal bellmouth Mach number.
boundary layer verified the ability of the code to

model viscous flows. Comparisons of the computed
and measured flow fields in the core region verified
the ability of the code to model static pressure variations induced by streamline curvature effects. Validation of the code using such detailed measurements eliminated the possibility of coincidental flow
coefficient agreement with a code that was not
actually replicating the flow features governing the
flow coefficient. This section presents comparisons
of the boundary-layer and core flow characteristics
between CFD and experiment.
For the purpose of code validation, the CFD procedure included computation of the boundary-layer
total pressure profiles at stations 3 and 8. These
would be available for direct comparison with the
corresponding experimental measurements. Likewise, the CFD process provided the static pressure
distributions at stations 3 and 8 for direct comparison to the experimental results.
Comparisons between the computed and measured boundary-layer flow fields consisted of the
total pressure distributions. The primary conditions
compared included all combinations of M = 0.31,
0.4, 0.5, and 0.7 and REY = 2 x 106, 3 x 106, 3.9
x 106, and 5.75 x 106. Each computation was executed with the turbulence model activated. Figure 9
contains plots of the comparisons corresponding to
the two measurement stations for selected Mach
number-Reynolds number combinations. Each plot
applies the total pressure, normalized by the
freestream or core total pressure, as the ordinate.
The abscissa consists of the immersion in the
boundary layer expressed as the radius ratio, R/Rt.
R is referenced to the bellmouth centerline so that
R/Rt = 0 corresponds to a position on the centerline
and R/Rt = 1 corresponds to the wall position. Both
measurement stations appear on each plot, with
the symbols designating the measurement and the
line designating the computed result.
For the purpose of algorithm development, the

CFD procedure involved the computed flow variables at each grid node throughout the bellmouth
straight section. At each grid station along the
straight section, between stations 2 and 8, the
results were used to compute a flow coefficient.
Each solution included fifteen such flow coefficients, defining the variation with station location.
Each flow coefficient was determined by integrating
the computed mass flux across the particular cross
section and then normalizing by the ideal 1-D flow.
The ideal flow was determined using the core total
pressure and total temperature in conjunction with
the computed wall static pressure at the measurement station.
Results
The bellmouth airflow investigation centered on
three steps: validating the CFD codes, developing
the algorithm, and evaluating the algorithm. In addition to a demonstration of the algorithm through
direct comparison with the reference venturi, the
evaluation step included an assessment of the
measurement uncertainty and a specification of the
measurements required to implement the bellmouth method.
Boundary-layer comparisons spanning the

Mach number range at a Reynolds number of 3
x 106 appear in Figs. 9a and b. Figure 9a contains
the comparison at M = 0.31, and Fig. 9b contains
the comparison at M = 0.7. This particular Reynolds
number yielded a boundary layer dominated by turbulent flow. The plots illustrate the agreement
between the CFD and the experimental measurements. A noteworthy feature of each plot is the flat
section in the profiles appearing at both measurement stations. At the upstream station, the flat section occupied the region from 0.985 < R/Rt < 0.995.
Moving aft, the section grew in extent to occupy
0.97 < R/Rt < 0.995. This feature, perhaps because
of the presence of the conical extension, appeared
in both the computed and measured profiles.
CFD Code Validation
The detailed flow-field measurements, spanning

the boundary layer and core flow, served as the
basis for validating the CFD code. Comparisons of
the computed and measured flow fields in the
12
Boundary-layer comparisons obtained at the

other end of the spectrum appear in Figs. 9c and d
for Mach numbers of 0.31 and 0.7, respectively.
The general observations noted in the REY = 3 x 106
case also applied to the REY = 5.75 x 106 comparisons. However, the deviations between the computations and the experiments were slightly lower
at the higher Reynolds number. One might speculate that as Reynolds number increased, the laminar-to-turbulent boundary-layer transition zone
moved further upstream, rendering a boundary
layer with a more turbulent shape at the measurement station.
As the Reynolds number dropped below 3 x
106, the agreement between the experimental and
computed boundary-layer profiles deteriorated. The
decay was most evident at the forward station as
the measured profile started to assume a shape
more characteristic of a transitional boundary layer.
Figure 9e provides the results at REY = 2 x 106 and
M = 0.7. Again, the results suggested that the lower
Reynolds number moved the transition region aft
and thus influenced the forward station profile. Progressing aft to station 8, the boundary layer
assumed the fully turbulent profile, and the agreement was restored. The results showed that at Reynolds numbers below 3 x 1O 6 , the errors associated
with using the computed flow field would be higher
at the forward station.
The boundary-layer comparisons led to the conclusion that the NXAIR code accurately modeled
the fully turbulent boundary layer and would be
applicable in that regime. The results also yielded
the expectation that the accuracy in the computed
flow coefficients for the forward bellmouth station
would start to decrease as the Reynolds number
dropped below 3 x 10. Similarly, the accuracy in
flow coefficient at the aft station would start to
decrease if the Reynolds number dropped below
2 x 106.
1.010
IE
*~*fe=:^r^A
0.990
0.970
Q.
0.950
"hw^L
" ^.
BK
Data (Sta 3.0)

SST (Sta 3.0)
Data (Sta 8.0)
SST (Sta 8.0)
Ifc^
||
\
. . ' . . . i
n osn
0.940 0.950
0.960
0.970
R/Rt
0.980
0.990
1.000
0.990
1.000
0.990
1.000
0.990
1.000
0.990
1.000
a. M = 0.31, REY = 3E6

1.000
0.920
*
0.840
QL
0.760
Data (Sta 3.0) i

SST (Sta 3.0) j
Data (Sta 8.0) ]
SST (Sta 8.0) i
0.680
0.940 0.950
0.960 0.970 0.980

R/Rt
b. M = 0.7, REY = 3E6
1.010
0.990
"c
0-970
! A Data
i SST
| Data
SST
0.
0.950
0.930
0.940
0.950
(Sta 3.0)
(Sta 3.0) i
(Sta 8.0)
(Sta 8.0)
0.960
0.970
R/Rt
0.980
c. M = 0.31, REY = 5.75E6

1.000
- 0.920
| 0.840
CL
0.760
- Data (Sta 3.0) i

_ | SST (Sta 3.0);
Data (Sta 8.0)
SST (Sta 8.0)
0.680
0.940
0.950
0.960
0.970
R/Rt
0.980
d. M = 0.7. R E Y - 5 . 7 5 E 6
1.000
*- 0.920
c
The bellmouth validation also addressed the

core flow region, where viscosity no longer dominated the flow characteristics. Figures 10a and b
illustrate the nature of the comparisons at the forward and aft stations, respectively. Because of the
inviscid nature of the core flow, only one intermediate
Reynolds number is shown. Each plot includes
static pressure normalized by freestream or core
0.840
0.760
0.680
0.940
Data (Sta 3.6)

SST (Sta 3.0)
Data (Sta 8.0)
SST (Sta 8.0)
0.950
0.960
0.970
R/Rt
0.980
e. M = 0.7, R E Y - 2 E 6
Fig. 9. Comparison of Measured and Computed

Boundary-Layer Total Pressure Profiles
13
0.940
0.938
Total
* EXPER
-
CFD
1I Uncertainty
-*
I 0.936
^ 0.934'
^ 0.934
Q.
0.932
Q.
0.932
n aon
0.938
0.936
Total
Uncertainty
Band
0.940
0.930
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
R/Rt
a. Station 8 at M = 0.31
b. Station 3 at M = 0.31
Fig. 10. Comparison of Computed and Measured Core Flow Static Pressure Profiles
total pressure as the ordinate, and probe radius
ratio as the abscissa. Unlike the boundary-layer presentation, the core flow traverses included positions
from the bellmouth centerline (R/Rt = 0) to a point
near the edge of the boundary layer (R/Rt = 0.95).
coefficient (between CFD and experiment) that

would result from the deviations observed in the
flow-field profiles would be answered in the later
steps addressed in subsequent sections.
CFD Flow Coefficients
Figure 10 illustrates the important fact that at the

aft stations, near station 8, the static pressure
remained nearly constant across the bellmouth
core. Both the computed and the measured static
pressure profiles displayed this characteristic. At
station 3, closer to the start of the bellmouth straight
section, both the computed and the measured profiles assumed a parabolic shape, reflecting streamline curvature effects. The flattening of the profile at
the aft stations demonstrated the motivation for
adopting an aft position for the measurement station. The limiting case of a perfectly flat profile
would eliminate the need to account for streamline
curvature effects in the flow coefficient, thereby
reducing airflow measurement uncertainty.
The validation of the CFD through the detailed
flow-field comparisons demonstrated above provided the confidence needed to proceed to the subsequent steps of the development process. The
obvious question regarding the deviations in flow
0.994 r
Following validation of the NXAIR computations,

the work entered the next step, which was centered
on developing arrays of flow coefficients for use in
the data reduction algorithm. Computations executed using NXAIR applied to the conditions in the
computational matrix provided flow coefficients at
predominately turbulent boundary-layer conditions.
This section illustrates the trends in the computed
bellmouth flow coefficient with the parameters of
Reynolds number, Mach number, and bellmouth
measurement station.
Computed bellmouth flow coefficients displayed
as a function of Reynolds number appear in Fig. 11.
Figure 11a provides the coefficients computed at
station 2, i.e., 2 in. downstream of the start of the
straight section (X/Rt = 0.25). The plot of Cd versus
REY includes Mach numbers of 0.2, 0.31, 0.4, 0.5,
0.6, and 0.7. Each Mach number curve displayed
0.994
0.993
0.992
0.992
0.990
0.991
Cd 0.990
Cd 0.988
0.989
0.986
0.988
M = 0.20 -- M = 0.31 -*- M = 0.40
M = 0.50 -*- M = 0.60 M = 0.70
0.984
M = 0.20 M = 0.31 * M = 0.40

M = 0.50 -*- M = 0.60 -*- M = 0.70
0.987
0.986
0.982
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
10
20
REY, millions
30
40
REY, millions
a. Station 2
b. Station 8
Fig. 11. Computed Flow Coefficient Versus Reynolds Number
14
50
60
70
the same general trend of increasing with Reynolds

number. The trends likely reflected the thinning of
the boundary layer with increasing Reynolds number. The rate of increase, however, decreased with
increasing Reynolds number to yield the characteristics shown. Figure 11 b provides similar computations for station 8, i.e., 8 in. downstream of the start
of the straight section (X/Rt = 1), Although the station 8 trends were similar to those at station 2, the
various Mach number curves clustered closer
together. In some cases, the curves crossed as
shown.
Computed bellmouth flow coefficients displayed
as a function of Mach number appear in Fig. 12.
The coefficients computed at stations 2 and 8
appear in Figs. 12a and b, respectively. As
expected, the shape of the curves with respect to
Mach number differed considerably from the shape
REY = 2
REY = 5.75
REY = 40
- REY = 3 * REY = 3.9

- REY = 10 -* REY = 20
- REY = 60
0.994
with respect to Reynolds number. At station 2, the

trends displayed a substantial increase with Mach
number, on the order of 0.6 percent. The rate of
increase also increased with Mach number. At station 8, the curves displayed a much flatter trend,
particularly at the higher Reynolds numbers. When
Reynolds numbers were at or below 5.75 x 106, the
curves displayed a clear minimum in the vicinity of
M = 0.3 to 0.4, with increases at lower or higher
Mach numbers.
The flow coefficients also displayed a general
trend with respect to bellmouth station. The trend
was characterized by a maximum in the vicinity of
station 5. The trend spanned the entire Mach number range with the maximum becoming more pronounced as Mach number increased. This characteristic reflected streamline curvature effects near
the bellmouth contraction section, viscous effects
along the wall, and forward-feeding effects from the
bellmouth exit. A representative example for the
intermediate Mach number of 0.5 appears in Fig.
13.
0.992
0.990
8 0.988
0.986
0.984
0.982
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Mach
0.6
0.7
0.8
a. Station 2
-+V
i
The flow coefficient function displayed in Figs.

11 through 13 (i.e., the functions of Mach number,
Reynolds number, and measurement station) provided the basis for characterizing flow coefficient in
the bellmouth data reduction algorithm. The flow
coefficient may, in fact, be a function of other variables such as bellmouth wall contour or plenum-tothroat area ratio. Such considerations were
deferred for future work.
REY = 2
*
REY = 3
*~ REY = 3.9
REY = 5.75 * REY = 10 REY = 20
REY = 40 REY = 60
0.994
0.993
0.992
0.991
^^^___^ -
-c^^H.....--..--4.
*-^_ imi~
*X
g 0.990
...v""
---'*
-""""
0.989
0.988
0.987
0.986
01
^^rzXiS^^-^
0.2
i
0.3
i
0.4
i
0.5
0.6
0.7
-*-Re = 6E6
0.8
Mac^n
b. Station 8
Fig. 12. Computed Flow Coefficient Versus Mach
Number
Re = 3E6 ~T&T~ Re = 4E6

v Re = 10E6 -*-Re = 20E6
Re = 60E6
0.9800 ''''''
0.250 0.375 0.500 0.625 0.750 0.875 1.00
X/Rt
Fig. 13. Computed Flow Coefficient Versus Station

at M = 0.5
15
Data Reduction Algorithm

The data reduction algorithm uses a series of
subroutines to perform the following conversion
from primitive measurements to airflow rate:
W = (Cd)(Widea,) = (Cd)(p)(At)(V)
where At, Ptinf, Tt, and P are-primary test measurements.

M = f(Ptinf, P, Tt), subroutine
REY = f(Ptinf, P, Tt), subroutine
Cd = f(PSTA, M, REY), subroutine
w
ideai = f(At> ptinf p> Tt> Cd)> subroutine
These primary subroutines invoke other subroutines as necessary to calculate such parameters as
the gas properties and change in At caused by thermal growth.
Algorithm Evaluation
The evaluation of the algorithm followed the procedure established at the outset of the investigation. The algorithm was inserted into the overall
data reduction program and used to process data

from two separate test periods. Each test period
furnished sixteen data points covering all combinations of the Mach number points (0.31, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7)
and the Reynolds number points (2 x 106, 3 x 106,
3.9 x 106, and 5.75 x 106). The use of two test periods provided an indication of the repeatability inclusive of not only the measurement system, but of all
test procedures enlisted to shutdown one test and
start another test on a different day. These include
such things as instrument calibrations, post-op procedures, and pre-op procedures. The algorithm
evaluation used the venturi measurements for the
first time in the investigation. Prior to this point, the
venturi was ignored to maintain the integrity of the
algorithm test. The results presented in this section
provide comparisons between the venturi and the
bellmouth airflow expressed both in terms of absolute flow coefficient and the percent difference
between the two airflow rates.
arose from the observation of the uniform sectional

static pressure. Figure 14 provides comparisons
between the computed and measured flow coefficients at station 8. The measured flow coefficient in
this case was derived through comparison with the
reference venturi. The figure includes a pair of
plots, each corresponding to a particular Mach
number. Each plot displays the flow coefficient, Cd,
as a function of Reynolds number. The flow coefficient comparison at a Mach number of 0.31
appears in Fig. 14a. Both the computed and measured flow coefficients showed a flow coefficient
increasing slightly with Reynolds number. Differences between the measured and computed flow
coefficients remained on the order of 0.1 percent.
The comparisons at the maximum tested Mach
number, 0.7, appear in Fig. 14b. With the exception
of the REY = 2 x 106 point, the absolute difference
between the measured and computed flow coefficients remained nearly constant at approximately
0.2 percent. However, the low Reynolds number
comparison yielded a larger difference of approximately 0.3 percent. The reasons for the shift are
under investigation and are focusing on such
issues as boundary-layer transition as well as the
static pressure measurements.
0.990 r
0.988
0.986
Cd
0.984 VENEXPCd
COMPCd
0.982
0.980
15
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
REY, millions
a. M = 0.31
0.995
0.993 -
0.991
VEN EXP Cd
COMPCd
Cd
0.989
^~~-^-----~~~~*
0.987
0.985
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
REY, millions
As anticipated, station 8, the recommended bellmouth measurement station, provided the most
accurate airflow measurements. The expectation
b. M = 0.7
Fig. 14. Comparison of Computed and Measured

Bellmouth Flow Coefficient at Station 8
16
Comparisons of the bellmouth and venturi airflows at station 8 appear in Fig. 15. The plot
expresses the comparison in terms of percent difference between the two airflow rates. With the
exception of points at M = 0.5 with REY = 2 x 106,
the bellmouth and venturi airflow rates agreed to
within 0.3 percent. A significant number of the comparisons agreed to within 0.2 percent, as shown.
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
S.
0.2
0.1
T38, M = 0.40
T38, M = 0.70
T39, M = 0.40
T39, M = 0.70
T38, M = 0.31
T38, M = 0.50
T39, M = 0.31
T39, M = 0.50
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5 4.0
4.5
5.0 5.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
REY, millions
Fig. 16. Average Difference Between Bellmouth

and Venturi Airflow Measurements at
Three Measurement Stations
Together, these effects produce steep gradients in

flow coefficient at the upstream station.
6.0
REY, millions
Fig. 15. Comparison of Bellmouth and Venturi Airflow Measurements Using Station 8
Uncertainty Assessment
The uncertainty assessment included two
approaches. The first addressed the experimentally
determined bellmouth flow coefficients. By defining
error bands on the data, the evaluation helped in
interpreting the comparisons between the experimentally determined bellmouth flow coefficient and
the computed flow coefficients. The second
approach was based on the comparisons between
the reference venturi and the bellmouth airflow presented at the conclusion of the preceding section.
These comparisons provided a measure of the
overall accuracy furnished by the bellmouth methodology when the computed flow coefficients were
used.
Similar comparisons using measurements from

the forward stations showed that agreement
between the bellmouth and venturi airflow measurements decreased relative to station 8. To illustrate the change in fidelity with measurement station, the comparisons obtained at stations 3 and 5
will now be presented in conjunction with the station
8 results.
A composite presentation of the percentage difference between the bellmouth and venturi airflow
measurements appears in Fig. 16. Figure 16 contains a plot of average percent difference, for each
measurement station, versus Reynolds number.
Each average included the various Mach numbers
The measurement uncertainty analysis process
and Reynolds numbers obtained at stations 3, 5.4,
consisted of propagating estimated bias and preciand 8 (X/Rt = 0.38, 0.68, and 1) during the two test
sion errors considering four conditions from the
periods. The plot clearly shows the reduction in
experiments. The evaluation yielded the following
accuracy that occurred as the bellmouth measureestimates for uncertainties in the measured paramment station was moved upstream. Presumably,
eters:
the reduction in fidelity at the forward station
Prec.()
Uncert. ()
REY
Parameter M
Bias()
resulted from a combination of factors.
0.00016
0.00056
Ps/Ptinf
2x10 6
0.00046
0.31
These included migration into a region where
6
0.00037
0.00032
0.000095
Ps/Ptinf
0.31
5.75 x10
streamline curvature effects produced a less
0.0010
0.00029
2x10 6
0.00081
Ps/Ptinf
0.7
uniform cross-sectional static pressure distri0.00057
0.00017
0.00066
Ps/Ptinf
0.7
5.75 x106
bution, as well as a region closer to the
6
0.0012
0.00096
0.00035
2x10
Pt/Ptinf
0.31
boundary-layer transition point. The bound0.00067
0.00078
0.00020
5.75 x106
Pt/Ptinf
0.31
ary-layer total pressure distribution at the for6
0.0022
0.0018
0.00065
0.7
2x10
ward station would be expected to be more Pt/Ptinf
6
0.0015
0.0013
0.00038
0.7
5.75 x10
sensitive to transition than at the aft stations. Pt/Ptinf
17
The estimated uncertainty in the experimentally

determined bellmouth flow coefficients, based on
comparison to the reference venturi, considered
two overall items. First was the uncertainty in the
venturi airflow measurements that served as the
reference. Second was the bellmouth airflow calculation (with Cd = 1) to be divided into the venturi airflow measurements to obtain the-experimental bellmouth flow coefficient. The total pressure, total
temperature, and cross-sectional area uncertainties entered into both items. Together, they yielded
the following uncertainty estimates for the experimentally determined bellmouth Cd:
0.31
Uncertainty in Experimentally
Determined Bellmouth Cd
REY
2x10 6
6
0.31
5.75 x10
0.7
2x10 6
0.7
5.75 x10 6
0.55 percent
0.47 percent
0.38 percent
0.36 percent
The comparisons between the reference venturi

and the bellmouth airflow measurements, which
used the computed bellmouth flow coefficients, provided a measure of the bellmouth airflow measurement accuracy. In this case, the analysis involved
combining the reference venturi experimental
errors with the differences between the bellmouth
airflow measurements and the reference venturi
airflow measurements. These differences are
depicted in Figs. 15 and 16. Figure 15 illustrates the
scatter in the differences at station 8 representing
the precision. Figure 16 illustrates the average differences at each station representing the biases.
The results obtained at each static pressure measurement station are summarized as follows:
P Measurement
Location (X/Rt)
1.00
0.68
0.38
Uncertainty in Bellmouth Airflow

Based on Comparison to Venturi
0.4 percent
0.5 percent
0.7 percent
Bellmouth Method Implementation

The results illustrated the well-known fact that
accurate airflow measurements based on the bellmouth technique require extreme care. Therefore,
to implement the method, a number of steps
should be taken to ensure that the inputs to the
algorithm are accurate. The critical inputs include
the bellmouth cross-sectional area at the measurement station, the static pressure at the measurement station, the total pressure, and the total temperature.
During the present investigation, the AEDC
inspection lab provided all venturi and bellmouth
area measurements. In the case of the Venturis,
the measurements included the wall contour from a
point approximately 0.5 in. upstream of the throat
to a point the same distance downstream of the
throat. Such contours were measured in 10-deg
increments around the circumference of the cross
section. The results provided the means to identify
the true throat station and to determine the throat
area. In this method, the throat radius consisted of
an average of 36 individual radius measurements.
In a similar fashion, bellmouth radius was measured at 36 positions (10-deg increments) around
the cross-section circumference along the entire
straight section. Such detailed measurements
reduced the area uncertainty from a substantial to
a relatively insignificant contribution. During implementation of the bellmouth method, it is imperative
that similar procedures be adopted to fully define
the geometry of the device.
Another input, and probably the most challenging to acquire, is the static pressure at the bellmouth measurement station. Unlike the choked
venturi, the bellmouth relies on static pressure
measurements to furnish the Mach number determinations needed in the mass flow calculation. The
uncertainty analysis showed the airflow measurement to be extremely sensitive to the static pressure. Furthermore, the sensitivity increased as the
Mach number decreased. The static pressure measurements are, in turn, extremely sensitive to pressure orifice installation effects. References 4
through 7 are among the sources available in the
literature that attest to this sensitivity. Orifice installation effects may be attributable the presence of
such imperfections as burrs, orifice lip bluntness,
pressure tap inclination angle, and orifice shape.
Parameters such as orifice diameter and cavity
length-to-diameter ratio have also been shown to
have a profound effect.
To contend with the accumulation of errors

associated with the static pressure measurements
18
located at least one bellmouth straight section

radius aft of the start of the straight section.
a number of steps should be implemented. First,

the bellmouth measurement station should be
instrumented with an adequate number of orifices.
The uncertainty analysis suggested that at least
eight should be used and that twelve or more
would be preferred. Second, the orifice installation
should adopt procedures that will ensure perpendicularity, orifice shape, and sharp orifice lips. Reference 7 describes a method that served the particular investigation well. The procedure involves
drilling the orifice in a brass cylinder that is installed
in the test article surface. Following drilling, a
tapered brass plug is inserted into the working side
of the orifice. With the plug in place, the exposed
surface of the cylinder was ground and polished to
the required finish. In the final step, the tapered
plug is pulled out from the back side of the cylinder.
This final step reamed the holes and left a sharp,
burr-free lip on the orifice.
Summary and Recommendations
AEDC has developed a bellmouth airflow measurement method that offers a lower cost alternative to the venturi for turbine engine ground test
applications that do not demand the full critical flow
venturi accuracy capabilities. The method features
bellmouth flow coefficients derived using CFD. The
development of the method used experiments in
conjunction with CFD to validate the computations,
as well as the final product. Comparisons between
the computed and measured boundary-layer total
pressure profiles and core flow static pressure profiles validated the CFD tools. Comparisons
between the airflow rate determined using the bellmouth, and airflow rate determined using a reference critical flow venturi, validated the final methodology. The comparisons also provided a measure of the accuracy provided by the bellmouth
method.
The third step in ensuring high-quality static

pressure measurements should be to use static
pressure probes to, in essence, calibrate the wall
static pressure orifices. The static pressure probe,
potentially subject to its own orifice and tip interference errors, should be calibrated and carefully preserved to maintain its integrity. In a temporary
installation at the start of each new bellmouth application, the probe would provide referee measurements to identify any wall static pressure measurement biases and ensure that the carefully installed
wall static orifices have not been damaged.
Recommendations for future work include the

following:
1. Develop methods of improving the bellmouth
airflow rate measurement accuracy at low Reynolds number conditions, where a significant
portion of the bellmouth contraction section
boundary layer remains laminar.
2. Improve the bellmouth airflow measurement
accuracy when stations upstream of the recommended station (X/R = 1) are selected.
The final step in the pressure measurement

process involves the selection of the pressure
transducers. Pressure transducer range should be
tailored to match the particular measurement levels. Furthermore, properly ranged differential pressure measurements should be used to directly
measure the difference between the bellmouth wall
static pressure and the total pressure.
3. Investigate the use of the bellmouth at very low

Mach numbers such as would be experienced
at engine idle conditions.
References
The measurement of total pressure and total

temperature should continue to follow current practices of averaging multiple measurements to help
reduce the measurement uncertainty.
1. Beale, D. K., "Experimental Measurement of

Venturi Discharge Coefficient Including Sensitivity
to Geometric and Flow Quality Variables," AIAA
Paper No. 99-0304, 37th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, January 11-14,
1999.
The results clearly show the need to properly

select the measurement station. To achieve the
best accuracy, the measurement station should be
19
2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers,

Supplement to Power Test Codes Chapter 4: "Flow
Measurement, Part 5 - Measurement of Quantity
of Materials," ASME PTC 19.5, April, 1959.
5. Rayle, R. E. "Influence of Orifice Geometry

on Static Pressure Measurements," ASME Paper
59-A-234.
6. Rainbird, W. J., "Errors in Measurement of

Mean Static Pressure of a Moving Fluid Due to
Pressure Holes," Q. Bull. Mech. Eng. Nat. Res.
Council, Canada, Rept. DME/NAE(3), 1967.
3. Smith, R. E., Jr. and Matz, R. J., "A Theoretical Method of Determining Discharge Coefficients
for Venturis Operating at Critical How Conditions,"
Transactions of the ASME, December 1962.
7. Franklin, R. E. and Wallace, J. M. "Absolute

Measurements of Static-Hole Error Using Flush
Transducers," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 42,
4. Shaw, R., 'The Influence of Hole Dimensions

on Static Pressure Measurements," Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 7, July 1929, pp. 550-564.
Parti, 1970, pp. 33-48.
20

Development of A Bellmouth Airflow Measurement Technique For Turbine Engine Ground Test Facilities

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Development of A Bellmouth Airflow Measurement Technique For Turbine Engine Ground Test Facilities

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

Development of a Bellmouth Airflow

Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit

Development of a Bellmouth Airflow Measurement Technique

Area in bellmouth straight section at

Flow coefficient (discharge coefficient)

Diameter of venturi at throat or diameter

Axial location of core flow measurements in bellmouth measured from start

Axial location of boundary-layer measurements in bellmouth measured from

Length of bellmouth straight section, in.

M, MACH Mach number in bellmouth straight section

Wall static pressure in bellmouth

Angular position around circumference

Stream static pressure, psia

Axial location of bellmouth airflow measurement station expressed in units of

Local total pressure, psia

Total pressure measured in plenum

Total pressure measured in plenum

Freestream total pressure in bellmouth

Radial position in bellmouth or venturi

Reynolds number of bellmouth or venturi based on local throat flow conditions

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Radius of venturi cross section at throat

Total temperature measured in plenum

Designations fortests 38 and 39,

Actual mass flow, Ibm/sec

Ideal mass flow, Ibm/sec

Axial station in bellmouth or venturi, in.

Venturi or bellmouth boundary-layer

In a general sense, turbine engine ground tests

ity tests, or durability tests. Performance testing

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

the venturi be removed. The installation and

The first overall objective of the AEDC airflow

Although capable of providing accurate airflow

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

The research test cell originated as a 15-percent

Fig. 2. Bellmouth Airflow Development Process

In the present configuration, the

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

nated plenum A, and a 36-in.-diam downstream

formities or turbulence. Plenum A uses a series of

Each plenum chamber contains a series of flow

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

design also specifies a straight section equal in

a. 16-in.-diam Bellmouth Model

The development of secondary flows in the form

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

boundary-layer total pressure distributions. The

Typ Static Orifice

Typ Probe Tip

Probe Immersions, in.

The two venturi models matched the geometry

Static Pressure Orifice

c. Station B Traversing Static Pressure Probe

The apparatus provided for a number of parametric

The experiments encompassed acquisition of

During the execution of the test procedures, the

mouth conditions were defined at station 8. Figure

research test facilities are

Fig. 6. Test Matrix

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics