ASME - GREEK SECTION, First Nat. Conf. on Recent Advances in Mech. Eng.
, September 17-20, 2001, Patras, Greece
Proceedings of First Nat. Conf. on Recent Advances in Mech. Eng.
DIRECT AND INVERSE DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR A SETTLING CHAMBER
AND CONTRACTION ARRANGEMENT
Andronicos E. Filios
University of Patras, Department of Mechanical and
Aeronautical Engineering, Fluid Mechanics Lab.,
26500 Patras, Hellas.
Tel. & Fax: 061 997202, e-mail: afilio@tee.gr
Dimitrios G. Papanikas
University of Patras, Department of Mechanical and
Aeronautical Engineering, Fluid Mechanics Lab.,
26500 Patras, Hellas.
Tel. & Fax: 061 997201, e-mail: papanika@mech.upatras.gr
ABSTRACT
The development of a calculation scheme that will serve
as a flow quality predictor for various combinations of
screens–contraction ratio and moreover it can be used for the
correlation of experimental data with available theories, is
discussed. The proposed calculation depends on application
and it may be direct or inverse. The direct calculation refers to
the prediction of the flow quality in the test section having
defined the number and the mesh size of screens as well as the
contraction ratio. The inverse calculation provides the
optimum settling chamber configuration, i.e. number and
porosity of screens, which in combination to the requested
contraction ratio will insure the requested flow quality. The
predictions are correlated with published measurements.
KEYWORDS
Wind tunnel, Settling chamber, Screens, Contraction.
INTRODUCTION
Despite of the rapid expansion in the area of the
computational fluid dynamics, the wind tunnel remains an
essential tool in engineering, both for model tests and basic
research. The main aim when designing any wind tunnel is the
production of a steady flow with spatial uniformity in the test
section over a range of Reynolds number. This requirement
can never be perfectly attained since there are always present
small eddies of varying size and intensity which are
collectively described as the turbulence of the air stream. The
1
September 17-20, 2001, Patras, Greece
ANG1/P158
Dionisios P. Margaris
University of Patras, Department of Mechanical and
Aeronautical Engineering, Fluid Mechanics Lab.,
26500 Patras, Hellas.
Tel. & Fax: 061 997202, e-mail: margaris@mech.upatras.gr
Michalis Gr. Vrachopoulos
TEI Chalkidos, Department of Mechanical Engin.,
Nirvana 29, 111 45 Patisia, Athens, Hellas.
Tel. & Fax: 01 8324020, e-mail: mvrachop@central.ntua.gr
wind tunnel fan, the corner guide vanes and the upstream walls
are the main sources of the test section turbulence.
A more than seventy years experience in wind tunnel
design and testing proves that the settling chamber and
contraction combination helps to accomplish the uniform low
turbulence field in the test section. The degree of achievement
of the required flow quality depends on the various flow
manipulators (i.e. honeycomb, screens) installed in the settling
chamber as well as on the area ratio and the shape of the
contraction. Based on certain assumptions, various theories
and empirical formulas have been proposed for computing the
effect of flow manipulators and contraction on the intensity
and uniformity of turbulent flow. Theoretical and experimental
investigations regarding the effect both of screens and the
contraction on the characteristics of the turbulent flow have
been carried out from the decade of 30’s. The most
representative studies regarding the effect of screens are those
by Prandtl [1], Dryden and Schubauer [2], and Taylor and
Batchelor [3]. The effect of contraction on turbulence was
theoretically studied, by Prandtl [1], Taylor [4], Ribner and
Tucker [5], and Batchelor and Proudman [6]. According to the
reported studies, the quenching action of the screen on the
turbulence velocity fluctuations is related to the magnitude of
the screen resistance coefficient that depends on its porosity
and the Reynolds number. In the case of few screens followed
by a contraction with a medium area ratio, the comparison of
measurements and calculations indicate a reasonable
agreement. However, for several screens in series in
 ASME - GREEK SECTION, First Nat. Conf. on Recent Advances in Mech. Eng., September 17-20, 2001, Patras, Greece

combination with a medium or high area ratio contraction the Screens have three main effects on the flow passing
comparison indicates often a poor agreement and sometimes through them: i) reduction of mean velocity variation-leading
significant divergence. The choice of the optimum to prevention of, or delay in, boundary layer separation; ii)
combination of screens with a required contraction ratio that is reduction of turbulent fluctuations and iii) refraction of
related to the tunnel energy ratio is a well-known problem to inclined flow – towards the local normal to the screen. The
the subsonic wind tunnel designers. action of the screen is described in terms of two parameters: ks,
the screen pressure-loss or drag coefficient and α, the
NOMENCLATURE deflection coefficient. The ks-coefficient is defined as the
c : Contraction ratio pressure loss across the screen divided by the dynamic
d : Screen’s wire diameter pressure of the mean flow through the screen. The α-
ft : Turbulence reduction factor due to screen coefficient is defined as the ratio of the flow angle normal to
ks : Screen’s pressure-loss coefficient the screen downstream to the flow angle normal to the screen
λ : Width of square mesh screen upstream.
A : Test section cross sectional area
G1, G2 : Reduced resistance factors Determination of ks and α
Red : Reynolds number based on wire diameter Over the years, several expressions have been derived
T : Turbulence level giving the pressure loss coefficient of a screen in terms of β,
α : Screen’s deflection coefficient the porosity or open-area ratio of the screen and Red, the
β : Porosity or open area of the screen Reynolds number based on wire diameter. In the case of
λ : Factor for the increase of turbulence screens made of round wires, forming a square-mesh the
intensity in a contraction porosity is (1 − d / λ)2 , where d is the wire diameter and λthe
width of the square mesh. For the calculation of the pressure-
loss coefficient of a screen, Wieghardt [8] suggests the
SETTLING CHAMBER
empirical formulae
Screens have been used to improve flow quality in wind
k s = C (1 − β)β −5 / 3 Re d −
1/ 3
tunnels since 1930s. Firstly, Prandtl [1] gave a simple theory (1)
regarding the contribution of screens in improving the velocity
distribution. Dryden and Schubauer [2] gave a physical The value of C-coefficient depends on Reynolds number and
explanation for the flow-manipulator role of the screen and for a typical wind tunnel design, i.e. flow velocity in the
they derived a simple theory for the reduction of turbulence settling chamber less than 10m/s and 60 < Red /β< 600, the
intensity based on the assumption that the effect of a screen is value of C is 6. De Vahl [9] shows that for the lower Reynolds
partly to absorb the kinetic energy of turbulence. Taylor and numbers the pressure-loss coefficient is equal to
Batchelor [3] produced a detailed analysis of the effect of 2
55,2  1 − 0,95β  55,2
screens on small disturbance. Their theory is linearized on the ks = ko + =  + (2)
assumption that there is negligible natural decay of turbulence Re d  0,95β  Re d
while the field is translated through the ‘region of influences’. Equations (1) and (2) may be written as follows
Batcelor [7], on the assumption of isotropic turbulence far
upstream, showed that the equations for the factors of ks ks 1
G1 = = = (3)
reduction of turbulence intensity become relatively easy to C (1 − β )β −5 / 3 g 1 (β) Re d 1 / 3
compute.
The suppression of turbulence can also be achieved by 55,2
G 2 = k s − g 2 (β) = (4)
using honeycomb, which is more effective for removing swirl Re d
and lateral mean velocity variations. Its effect is demonstrated
experimentally for lack of theoretical prediction. The where G1 and G2 the reduced resistance factors depending only
maximum benefit from a honeycomb requires straight and on Reynolds number as it is shown in Fig. 1. The functions
uniform cells with optimum cell length to diameter ratio 7–10, g1(β) and g2(β) depends on screen characteristics as it is shown
without any critical dependence on their cross sectional shape. in Fig. 2.
The use of the honeycomb is suggested for flow yaw angles By definition, the deflection coefficient α can vary
less than 10o since greater yaw angles cause the ‘stall’ of the between 0 and 1. Extensive measurements and correlations on
honeycomb cells resulting to a reduction of their effectiveness plane screens placed vertical to the airstream leads to the
besides increasing the pressure losses. In the past, the following semi-empirical relation [3]
honeycomb was used as a common flow manipulator upstream 1,1
α= (5)
of the screens while in the modern wind tunnels rarely is in use 1 + ks
and it is located downstream of a wide angle diffuser or a bell-
mouth inlet.

2
 ASME - GREEK SECTION, First Nat. Conf. on Recent Advances in Mech. Eng., September 17-20, 2001, Patras, Greece

0,6 coefficient α. Moreover, using potential flow theory and

accounting for the boundary conditions on both sides of the
screen they show that the axial turbulence reduction factor
0,5
becomes (1+α-αks)/(1+α+ks). In Ref. 2, the energy change
Reduced resistance factors G 1 and G2

across the screen is equated to the difference between the

0,4 upstream turbulent energy and the downstream turbulent
energy. Since the turbulent velocity is proportional to the
square root of the turbulent energy, the turbulent reduction
0,3
factor becomes 1/(1+ks)0,5. A direct comparison of the
turbulence reduction factors proposed by the above theories
G1
0,2 and the correlation with measurements is provided in Ref. 13.
The experimental data presented in Refs. 2 and 12 seem to
0,1
verify the theoretical decay law of Dryden and Schubauer. The
installation of several screens in series results to a reduction of
G2/10 the incoming turbulence in each one by its turbulence factor.
0,0 Therefore, the total turbulence reduction factor for a series of
10 100 1000 N-screens, each one having a pressure-loss coefficient ksi, is
Red equal to the product of the individual reduction factors, i.e.
N
1
Figure 1: Reduced resistance factors for screens.
ft = ∏
i =1 1 + k si
(6)

1,0 50
g1(β); C=6,5 As seen from the above formulae, installing a sufficiently large
0,9 g1(β); C=6,0 number of screens can attain a low level of turbulence in the
g1(β); C=5,5 settling chamber. However, it must be kept in mind that beyond
0,8 40
the screen, in addition to the turbulence passing through, there
0,7 β
is also the turbulence created by the screen itself, the screen
Functions g 1 and g 2
Screen porosity, β

0,6 30 turbulence. The turbulence generated by the last screen

determines the minimum attainable turbulence in the entrance
0,5
of the wind tunnel contraction. With Red<60, screen turbulence
0,4 20 is negligible and the largest contribution to the total turbulence
is the acoustic turbulence. With Red>90, the contribution of the
0,3
last screen in the turbulence intensity may be computed with
0,2 10 acceptable accuracy from the formula proposed by Batchelor
g2(β)
0,1
and Townsend [14].

0,0
0,0 0,1
Figure 2: Porosity functions for screens.
Effect of the screens in reducing flow irregularities
In Ref. 1, Prandtl states that screens can be used to obtain
a more uniform velocity distribution across the duct section
and that a moderate velocity difference is approximately
lowered by the factor 1/(1+ks). This factor has been extended
to apply to turbulence reduction across a screen. Collar [10]
using Bernoulli’s equation and assuming that the turbulent
velocities are small compared to the mean velocity, shows that
the reduction factor for rms u-component becomes equal to (2-
ks)/(2+ks). Taylor and Batchelor [11] utilizing the test data
presented in Ref. 12, shows that the lateral turbulence
reduction factor is approximately equal to deflection
0 CONTRACTION
0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 The contracting nozzle is placed upstream of the test
d/ l
section for two main reasons: a) It increases the flow mean
velocity allowing the honeycomb and screens to be placed in
the lower speed regions, thus reducing the pressure losses and
the tunnel power factor. b) Both mean and fluctuating velocity
variations are reduced to a smaller fraction of the average
velocity at a given cross section. The most important single
parameter in determining these effects is the contraction ratio.
The theoretical studies by Prandtl [1], Taylor [4] and
Batchelor and Proudman [6] imply that the contraction does
exert a selective effect on the rms components of the
fluctuating velocity, i.e. the longitudinal component is reduced
while the lateral components are increased. On the assumption
of isotropic turbulence and neglecting the decay of turbulence,
Prandtl and Batchelor recommend the following λ-factors for
the increase of the turbulence intensity

3
 ASME - GREEK SECTION, First Nat. Conf. on Recent Advances in Mech. Eng., September 17-20, 2001, Patras, Greece

code development, the existing alternatives are a) the method

1 2c ln(4c 3 − 1) c
λP = + or λ B = + (7) of Boerger [18] and b) the method of Cohen and Ritchie [19].
3c 2 3 4c 2 2
where c is the contraction ratio and subscripts ‘P’ and ‘B’ 0,20
1 x Μ18D
denote Prandtl’s and Batchelor’s theory respectively. Both 0,18
equations show that the acceleration of the flow amplifies the
turbulence intensity but the turbulence level is decreased due 0,16 2 x Μ18D
to the increase of the mean speed. The investigation carried out 0,14

Turbulence level %
by klein and Ramjee [15] shows that the shape of the
contraction does not have significant influence on the 0,12
turbulence intensities at the exit of the contraction. The 0,10
3 x Μ18D
published theories defining the turbulence level reduction in
contractions are limited for axisymmetric configurations and 0,08
while they have been partially correlated with results from 2-D 0,06
and 3-D geometries they also be applied herein.
0,04
CALCULATIONS 0,02
In the course of prediction the managing the flow quality Measurements [2]
0,00
in the test section of a subsonic wind tunnel, a calculation code
is under development [16]. The code making use of published 1,0E+04 1,0E+05 1,0E+06
theories, empirical formulas and contraction design methods, Re/m
except of the available correlations and direct comparisons it
can be utilized as a tool in subsonic wind tunnel designers. The Figure 3: Measured and predicted turbulence level in the test
section of the NBS subsonic wind tunnel.
calculation may be direct or inverse. The direct mode of
calculation regards the prediction of turbulence level in the test
section having defined the screens into the settling chamber as 0,22
well as the contraction ratio. The inverse mode of calculation Measurements [2]
targets to the optimum selection of screens and contraction 0,20
1 x M24D
ratio that meet the required specification of the turbulence 0,18
level in the test section. The criterion of the optimum selection
is the attainment of the lowest power factor for the wind tunnel 0,16
1 x M20D
with the shortest length for the settling chamber-contraction 0,14
Turbulence level %

combination. For validation purposes, standard type of screens

0,12
has been initially selected, where by ‘standard’ the availability
of measurements is implied. An example of standard screens is 0,10 1 x M60D
shown in Table 1. The contraction wall shape depends on the
0,08
availability of the design methods. In the present phase of the
0,06 3 x M20D + 3 x M24D

Table 1: Standard type of damping screens. 0,04

Screen [17] Porosity Screen [2] Porosity 0,02
M07M 0,6026 M18D 0,6436
M08M 0,6023 M20D 0,4354 0,00
M09M 0,5596 M24D 0,6715 1,0E+04 1,0E+05 1,0E+06
M10M 0,5774 M60D 0,3355 Re/m
M12M 0,5416
Figure 4: Measured and predicted turbulence level in the test
M13M 0,5476
section of the NBS subsonic wind tunnel, for various screens
M14M 0,5183
and combinations of screens.
M16M 0,5070 Screen [13] Porosity
M18M 0,4963 M03S 0,8854
M20M 0,4955 M07S 0,1578 The direct mode of calculation is applied for the settling
M22M 0,4918 M19S 0,2009 chamber-contraction combination of the National Bureau of
M24M 0,4542 M27S 0,1458 Standards (NBS) subsonic wind tunnel due to the published
M26M 0,4591 M35S 0,1210 test data in considerable detail [Ref. 2]. The cross sectional
M28M 0,4260 M03S 0,8854 shape of the test section is octagonal with 4,5 ft width and the

4
 ASME - GREEK SECTION, First Nat. Conf. on Recent Advances in Mech. Eng., September 17-20, 2001, Patras, Greece
contraction ratio is 6,6. The cross sectional area (A) defines
the reference length Lref=0,1A1/2 which is used along with the
working section speed (U) for the definition of the Reynolds
number. The predicted values of the turbulence level in the test
section in direct comparison with measurements are shown in
Figs. 3 and 4. In both cases no honeycomb is present in the
settling chamber. Figure 3, presents plots of the turbulence
level for one, two and three screens of the same mesh size. The
reduction of the turbulence level due to the contraction effect
is expressed through the Prandtl theory. Figure 4, shows plots
of the turbulence level for single screens with various mesh
sizes as well as for a tandem arrangement of six screens. In the
calculation referring to the six screens combination, the
Batchelor theory - regarding the turbulence level reduction due
to the contraction - is applied. The incoming turbulence level
at the entrance of the settling chamber is predicted by the
polynomial Tin=a0+a1X+a2X2, where X is the Reynolds number
per unit reference length and the ai-coefficients are determined
through a correlation with available measurements.
Table 2: Summary of the inverse calculation.
Screens Contraction Predicted Predicted
ratio Total ks T (%)
3 x M20D
6,6 10,6958 0,0407
+ 3 x M24D
2 x M20D
+ 3 x M14D 6,6 9,6035 0,0429
+ 1 x M24D
1 x M08M
+ 5 x M07M 6,5 7,9706 0,0429
+ 2 x M24D
4 x M08M
+ 1x M07M 7,0 7,5169 0,0430
+ 3 x M24D
The inverse design calculation is also applied in the
previous considered settling chamber-contraction combination
for validation purposes. Having as a requirement the
turbulence level in the test section of the wind tunnel that is
0,04%, the calculation targets to the selection of the number
along with the mesh size of the screens and the contraction
ratio that is limited in the range 6 to 7. The predicted results
for this exercise test case are summarized in Table 2. The first
proposal corresponds to the considered arrangement while the
last one may be considered the optimum alternative design.
CONCLUSION
Predictions of the flow quality in the test section of a
subsonic wind tunnel have been conducted. Some design
calculations were performed to study the effectiveness of
screens in combination to the contraction for the turbulence
management in the test section of a subsonic wind tunnel.
Theories from the previous state of knowledge and suitable for
design calculations are the background of the present work.
5
The aim of this preliminary investigation is the development
and validation of a calculation tool that will be served as a
flow quality predictor for various combinations of screens–
contractions and moreover it can be used for the correlation of
experimental data with available theories. The results of the
considered test cases indicate:
a) For a combination of maximum three screens and a
contraction with an area ratio less than 10, the contribution of
the last screen in the turbulence intensity may be omitted. The
acceleration of the flow through the contraction affects the
turbulence intensity variation that may be calculated applying
Prandtl’s theory.
b) When the number of the installed screens is greater
than three, the contribution of the last screen in the turbulence
intensity may be considered applying Batchelor-Townsend’s
proposal. In that case and for a contraction ratio even greater
than 10 the contraction contribution in the decrease of the
turbulence level may be calculated applying Batchelor’s
theory.
c) The upstream flow structure can influence the
performance of screens. Consequently the published
dependence of the reduction factors on the pressure loss
coefficient is not universal and may lead, for example, to
unconservative estimates of the number of screens needed for
given design.
The present findings enlarge somewhat on the previous
state of knowledge, primarily by focusing on the region
immediately downstream of the screens and contraction. The
information available on the effect of the wall shapes of a
three-dimensional contraction is not sufficient to permit the
exact computation of the turbulence levels to be expected in
wind tunnels.
REFERENCES
[1] Prandtl, L., 1933, "Attaining a steady air stream in wind
tunnels", NACA T.M. No 726.
[2] Dryden, H. L., and Schubauer, G. B., 1947, "The use of
damping screens for the reduction of wind tunnel turbulence",
J. Aeron. Science, Vol. 14.
[3] Taylor, G.I., and Batchelor, G.K., 1949, "The effect of
wire gauge on small disturbances in a uniform stream", Quart.
Journal of Mech. and Applied Mathematics, Vol. II, pp. 1-29.
[4] Taylor, G.I., 1935, "Turbulence in a contracting stream",
Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik,
Vol.15, pp. 91-96.
[5] Ribner, H.S., and Tucker M., 1953, "Sprecturum of turbu-
lence in a contracting stream", NACA TR 1113.
[6] Batchelor, G.K., and Proudman, I., 1954, "The effect of
rapid distortion of a fluid in turbulent motion", Quart. Journal
of Applied Mathematics, Vol.7, pp. 83-103.
[7] Batchelor, G.K., 1970, "The theory of homogenous turbu-
lence", Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 55-75.
[8] Wieghardt, K.E.G., 1953, "On the resistance of screens",
Aeron. Quarterly, Vol. 4.
 ASME - GREEK SECTION, First Nat. Conf. on Recent Advances in Mech. Eng., September 17-20, 2001, Patras, Greece

[9] De Vahl, D.G., 1964, "The flow of air through wire

screens", Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics, Pergamon Press,
pp. 191-212.
[10] Collar, A.R., 1939, "The effects of a gauge on the veloc-
ity distribution in a uniform duct", A.R.C. R&M No. 1867.
[11] Taylor, G.I., and Batchelor, G.K., 1949, "The effect of
wire gauge on small disturbances in a uniform stream", Quart.
Journal of Mech. and Applied Mathematics, Vol. II, pp. 1-29.
[12] Schubauer, G. B., Spandenberg, W. G., and Klebanoff, P.
S., 1950, "Aerodynamic characteristics of damping screens",
NACA TM 2001.
[13] Scheiman, J., and Brooks, J.D., 1981, "Comparison of
experimental and theoretical turbulence reduction from
screens, honeycomb, and honeycomb-screen combinations", J.
Aircraft, Vol.18, No.8.
[14] Kintse, I.O, 1963, "Turbulence", Moscow, Fizmatgiz.
[15] Klein, A., and Ramjee, V., 1973, "Effect of contraction
geometry on non-isotropic free stream turbulence", The Aero-
nautical Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 34-38.
[16] Filios A.E., and Margaris D.P., 2000, "Floqua-code for
the design of a settling chamber-contraction combination", In-
ternal Report, Fluid Mech. Lab., University of Patras.
[17] Mehta R. D., 1977, "The aerodynamic design of blower
tunnels with wide-angle diffusers" Prog. Aerospace Sci., Vol.
18, pp 58-120.
[18] Boerger, G.G., 1973, "Optimierung von windkanaldusen
fur den unterschall bereich", Ruhr-Universitat, Bohum.
[19] Cohen, M.J., and Ritchie, N.J.B., 1962, "Low speed three
dimensional contraction design", J. Roy. Aero. Soc., 66, 231.