ASME  GREEK SECTION, First Nat. Conf. on Recent Advances in Mech. Eng., September 1720, 2001, Patras, Greece3
Figure 1: Reduced resistance factors for screens.Figure 2: Porosity functions for screens.
0,00,10,20,30,40,50,6101001000
Re
d
R e d u c e d r e s i s t a n c e f a c t o r s G
1
a n d G
2
G
1
G
2
/10
0,00,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,91,00,00,10,20,30,40,5d/
l
S c r e e n p o r o s i t y ,
β
01020304050
F u n c t i o n s g
1
a n d g
2
β
g
2
(
β
)g
1
(
β
); C=6,5g
1
(
β
); C=6,0g
1
(
β
); C=5,5
Effect of the screens in reducing flow irregularities
In Ref. 1, Prandtl states that screens can be used to obtaina more uniform velocity distribution across the duct sectionand that a moderate velocity difference is approximatelylowered by the factor 1/(1+k
s
). This factor has been extendedto apply to turbulence reduction across a screen. Collar [10]using Bernoulli’s equation and assuming that the turbulentvelocities are small compared to the mean velocity, shows thatthe reduction factor for rms ucomponent becomes equal to (2k
s
)/(2+k
s
). Taylor and Batchelor [11] utilizing the test data presented in Ref. 12, shows that the lateral turbulencereduction factor is approximately equal to deflectioncoefficient
α
. Moreover, using potential flow theory andaccounting for the boundary conditions on both sides of thescreen they show that the axial turbulence reduction factor becomes (1+
α

α
k
s
)/(1+
α
+k
s
). In Ref. 2, the energy changeacross the screen is equated to the difference between theupstream turbulent energy and the downstream turbulentenergy. Since the turbulent velocity is proportional to thesquare root of the turbulent energy, the turbulent reductionfactor becomes 1/(1+k
s
)
0,5
. A direct comparison of theturbulence reduction factors proposed by the above theoriesand the correlation with measurements is provided in Ref. 13.The experimental data presented in Refs. 2 and 12 seem toverify the theoretical decay law of Dryden and Schubauer. Theinstallation of several screens in series results to a reduction of the incoming turbulence in each one by its turbulence factor.Therefore, the total turbulence reduction factor for a series of Nscreens, each one having a pressureloss coefficient k
si
, isequal to the product of the individual reduction factors, i.e.
∏
=
+=
N1isit
k 11f(6)As seen from the above formulae, installing a sufficiently largenumber of screens can attain a low level of turbulence in thesettling chamber. However, it must be kept in mind that beyondthe screen, in addition to the turbulence passing through, thereis also the turbulence created by the screen itself, the screenturbulence. The turbulence generated by the last screendetermines the minimum attainable turbulence in the entranceof the wind tunnel contraction. With Re
d
<60, screen turbulenceis negligible and the largest contribution to the total turbulenceis the acoustic turbulence. With Re
d
>90, the contribution of thelast screen in the turbulence intensity may be computed withacceptable accuracy from the formula proposed by Batchelor and Townsend [14].
CONTRACTION
The contracting nozzle is placed upstream of the testsection for two main reasons: a) It increases the flow meanvelocity allowing the honeycomb and screens to be placed inthe lower speed regions, thus reducing the pressure losses andthe tunnel power factor. b) Both mean and fluctuating velocityvariations are reduced to a smaller fraction of the averagevelocity 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] andBatchelor and Proudman [6] imply that the contraction doesexert a selective effect on the rms components of thefluctuating velocity, i.e. the longitudinal component is reducedwhile the lateral components are increased. On the assumptionof isotropic turbulence and neglecting the decay of turbulence,Prandtl and Batchelor recommend the following
λ
factors for the increase of the turbulence intensity