Advertisement

MAPAN

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 345–355 | Cite as

Comparison of MCM and GUM Method for Evaluating Measurement Uncertainty of Wind Speed by Pitot Tube

  • Mingming WeiEmail author
  • Yang Zeng
  • Chunhua Wen
  • Xiaogang Liu
  • Changchun Li
  • Shan Xu
Original Paper

Abstract

“The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement” (GUM) method has many disadvantages when evaluating the uncertainty of wind speed measured by pitot tube, and the “Monte Carlo method” (MCM) is put forward to evaluate the uncertainty of wind speed. The measured quantity value of wind speed by the S-shaped pitot tube is the research object, and the uncertainty is evaluated by GUM and MCM, respectively, and the simulation test is carried out. GUM has errors due to its adoption of approximate linear model. MCM adopts real simulation strategy and has higher credibility than the GUM method, so the GUM method can be validated by the MCM method. When the partial input quantity is changed into triangular distribution, uniform distribution and arcsine distribution, the GUM method is found to be inapplicable. In the evaluation of MCM method, the complex calculation of sensitivity coefficient is avoided, and some uncertainty with small influencing quantity is not needed to be discarded. The evaluation result is more complete. Through comparing the uncertainty evaluation results of MCM before and after the water vapor correction term is discarded, the influence of the water vapor correction term is quantified. Therefore, compared with the GUM method, the MCM method has more advantages when wind speed is measured by pitot tube.

Keywords

Metrology Uncertainty Wind speed MCM GUM 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by Meteorological Science and Technology key project of Jiangxi Province (No. 2018127).

Author Contributions

MW analyzed the data and wrote the paper. JM contributed to the literature review and helped to perform data analysis. CL analyzed the experiments and compiled the program. CW and XL reviewed and edited the manuscript. SX supervised the research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    ISO/IEC Guide 98-3: 2008, Uncertainty of Measurement—Part 3: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) (2008).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    GUIDE 98-3/SUPP.1, Uncertainty of Measurement—Part 3/Supplement 1: Propagation of Distributions Using a Monte Carlo Method. ISO/IEC (2008).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.A. Cooper, S.M. Spuler, M. Spowart, D.H. Lenschow and R.B. Friesen, Calibrating airborne measurements of airspeed, pressure and temperature using a Doppler laser air-motion sensor, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7(9) (2014) 3215–3231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.L. Fravolini, G. del Core, U. Papa, P. Valigi and M.R. Napolitano, Data-driven schemes for robust fault detection of air data system sensors, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 99 (2017) 1–15.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. Yin and R. Zivanovic, An application of probabilistic collocation method in wind farms modelling and power system simulation, Innovative Smart Grid Technologies-Asia (ISGT-Asia). IEEE (2016), pp. 681–686.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Amiri, B. Bagen and A.M. Gole, Probabilistic analysis of the effect of wind speed variations on power quality of power systems, International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS). IEEE (2016), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Bryant, O. Sanni, E. Moore, M. Bundy, and A. Johnson, An uncertainty analysis of mean flow velocity measurements used to quantify emissions from stationary sources, J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 64(6) (2014) 679–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Szulikowski and P. Kateusz, Directional sensitivity of differential pressure sensors of gas velocity used in manual gravimetric measurements of dust emissions from stationary sources, Arch. Environ. Prot. 41(3) (2015) 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Vinuesa and H.M. Nagib, Enhancing the accuracy of measurement techniques in high Reynolds number turbulent boundary layers for more representative comparison to their canonical representations, Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 55 (2016) 300–312.ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Park and C.G. Park, Robust filter based wind velocity estimation method for unpowered air vehicle without air speed sensor, J. Korean Soc. Aeronaut. Space Sci. 47 (2019) 107–113.ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Jun and Z. Ping, Sensor fault detection algorithm of flight control system under modeling uncertainty and noise disturbance, Navigation and Control Conference. IEEE (2014), pp. 1851–1855.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Federspiel, Using the torque characteristics of dampers to measure airflow, part II: analysis and testing, HVAC&R Res. 10(1) (2004) 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Pochwała and J. Pospolita, Analysis of applicability of flow averaging pitot tubes in the areas of flow disturbance, Metrol. Meas. Syst. 23(1) (2016) 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Kang, N.D. Trang, S.H. Lee, H.M. Choi, J.S. Shim, H.S. Jang and Y.M. Choi, Experimental and numerical investigations of the factors affecting the S-type pitot tube coefficients, Flow Meas. Instrum. 44 (2015) 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Reis, M.S. Souza and M.C.C. Araújo, Analysis of the airflow in the TA-2 subsonic wind tunnel, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1044(1) (2018) 012011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Sediva, M. Uher and M. Havlikova, Application of the Monte Carlo method to estimate the uncertainty of air flow measurement, International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC). IEEE (2015), pp. 465–469.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S.C.C. Bailey, M. Hultmark, J.P. Monty, P.H. Alfredsson, M.S. Chong, R.D. Duncan, J.H.M. Fransson, N. Hutchins, I. Marusic, B.J. McKeon and H.M. Nagib, Obtaining accurate mean velocity measurements in high Reynolds number turbulent boundary layers using pitot tubes, J. Fluid Mech. 715 (2013) 642–670.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Rezaeiravesh, R. Vinuesa, M. Liefvendahl and P. Schlatter, Assessment of uncertainties in hot-wire anemometry and oil-film interferometry measurements for wall-bounded turbulent flows, Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 72 (2018) 57–73.ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Klopfenstein, Air velocity and flow measurement using a pitot tube, ISA Trans. 37(4) (1998) 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO23966, Measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits: Velocity 2 area method using pitot static tubes. International Organization for Standardization (1977), pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B.J. McKeon, J. Li, W. Jiang, J.F. Morrison and A.J. Smits, Pitot probe corrections in fully developed turbulent pipe flow, Meas. Sci. Technol. 14(8) (2003) 1449.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Metrology Society of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mingming Wei
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yang Zeng
    • 1
  • Chunhua Wen
    • 1
  • Xiaogang Liu
    • 1
  • Changchun Li
    • 1
  • Shan Xu
    • 2
  1. 1.Atmospheric Observation Technology CenterJiangxi Meteorological BureauNanchangChina
  2. 2.Nanchang Meteorological BureauNanchangChina

Personalised recommendations