Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ANG1/P158
ABSTRACT wind tunnel fan, the corner guide vanes and the upstream walls
The development of a calculation scheme that will serve are the main sources of the test section turbulence.
as a flow quality predictor for various combinations of A more than seventy years experience in wind tunnel
screens–contraction ratio and moreover it can be used for the design and testing proves that the settling chamber and
correlation of experimental data with available theories, is contraction combination helps to accomplish the uniform low
discussed. The proposed calculation depends on application turbulence field in the test section. The degree of achievement
and it may be direct or inverse. The direct calculation refers to of the required flow quality depends on the various flow
the prediction of the flow quality in the test section having manipulators (i.e. honeycomb, screens) installed in the settling
defined the number and the mesh size of screens as well as the chamber as well as on the area ratio and the shape of the
contraction ratio. The inverse calculation provides the contraction. Based on certain assumptions, various theories
optimum settling chamber configuration, i.e. number and and empirical formulas have been proposed for computing the
porosity of screens, which in combination to the requested effect of flow manipulators and contraction on the intensity
contraction ratio will insure the requested flow quality. The and uniformity of turbulent flow. Theoretical and experimental
predictions are correlated with published measurements. investigations regarding the effect both of screens and the
contraction on the characteristics of the turbulent flow have
KEYWORDS been carried out from the decade of 30’s. The most
Wind tunnel, Settling chamber, Screens, Contraction. representative studies regarding the effect of screens are those
by Prandtl [1], Dryden and Schubauer [2], and Taylor and
INTRODUCTION Batchelor [3]. The effect of contraction on turbulence was
Despite of the rapid expansion in the area of the theoretically studied, by Prandtl [1], Taylor [4], Ribner and
computational fluid dynamics, the wind tunnel remains an Tucker [5], and Batchelor and Proudman [6]. According to the
essential tool in engineering, both for model tests and basic reported studies, the quenching action of the screen on the
research. The main aim when designing any wind tunnel is the turbulence velocity fluctuations is related to the magnitude of
production of a steady flow with spatial uniformity in the test the screen resistance coefficient that depends on its porosity
section over a range of Reynolds number. This requirement and the Reynolds number. In the case of few screens followed
can never be perfectly attained since there are always present by a contraction with a medium area ratio, the comparison of
small eddies of varying size and intensity which are measurements and calculations indicate a reasonable
collectively described as the turbulence of the air stream. The agreement. However, for several screens in series in
1
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
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
0,0 0 CONTRACTION
0,0 0,1 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
Figure 2: Porosity functions for screens. 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
Effect of the screens in reducing flow irregularities velocity at a given cross section. The most important single
In Ref. 1, Prandtl states that screens can be used to obtain parameter in determining these effects is the contraction ratio.
a more uniform velocity distribution across the duct section The theoretical studies by Prandtl [1], Taylor [4] and
and that a moderate velocity difference is approximately Batchelor and Proudman [6] imply that the contraction does
lowered by the factor 1/(1+ks). This factor has been extended exert a selective effect on the rms components of the
to apply to turbulence reduction across a screen. Collar [10] fluctuating velocity, i.e. the longitudinal component is reduced
using Bernoulli’s equation and assuming that the turbulent while the lateral components are increased. On the assumption
velocities are small compared to the mean velocity, shows that of isotropic turbulence and neglecting the decay of turbulence,
the reduction factor for rms u-component becomes equal to (2- Prandtl and Batchelor recommend the following λ-factors for
ks)/(2+ks). Taylor and Batchelor [11] utilizing the test data the increase of the turbulence intensity
presented in Ref. 12, shows that the lateral turbulence
reduction factor is approximately equal to deflection
3
ASME - GREEK SECTION, First Nat. Conf. on Recent Advances in Mech. Eng., September 17-20, 2001, Patras, Greece
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 %
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 aim of this preliminary investigation is the development
the reference length Lref=0,1A1/2 which is used along with the and validation of a calculation tool that will be served as a
working section speed (U) for the definition of the Reynolds flow quality predictor for various combinations of screens–
number. The predicted values of the turbulence level in the test contractions and moreover it can be used for the correlation of
section in direct comparison with measurements are shown in experimental data with available theories. The results of the
Figs. 3 and 4. In both cases no honeycomb is present in the considered test cases indicate:
settling chamber. Figure 3, presents plots of the turbulence a) For a combination of maximum three screens and a
level for one, two and three screens of the same mesh size. The contraction with an area ratio less than 10, the contribution of
reduction of the turbulence level due to the contraction effect the last screen in the turbulence intensity may be omitted. The
is expressed through the Prandtl theory. Figure 4, shows plots acceleration of the flow through the contraction affects the
of the turbulence level for single screens with various mesh turbulence intensity variation that may be calculated applying
sizes as well as for a tandem arrangement of six screens. In the Prandtl’s theory.
calculation referring to the six screens combination, the b) When the number of the installed screens is greater
Batchelor theory - regarding the turbulence level reduction due than three, the contribution of the last screen in the turbulence
to the contraction - is applied. The incoming turbulence level intensity may be considered applying Batchelor-Townsend’s
at the entrance of the settling chamber is predicted by the proposal. In that case and for a contraction ratio even greater
polynomial Tin=a0+a1X+a2X2, where X is the Reynolds number than 10 the contraction contribution in the decrease of the
per unit reference length and the ai-coefficients are determined turbulence level may be calculated applying Batchelor’s
through a correlation with available measurements. theory.
c) The upstream flow structure can influence the
Table 2: Summary of the inverse calculation. performance of screens. Consequently the published
Screens Contraction Predicted Predicted dependence of the reduction factors on the pressure loss
ratio Total ks T (%) coefficient is not universal and may lead, for example, to
3 x M20D unconservative estimates of the number of screens needed for
6,6 10,6958 0,0407 given design.
+ 3 x M24D
2 x M20D The present findings enlarge somewhat on the previous
+ 3 x M14D 6,6 9,6035 0,0429 state of knowledge, primarily by focusing on the region
+ 1 x M24D immediately downstream of the screens and contraction. The
1 x M08M information available on the effect of the wall shapes of a
+ 5 x M07M 6,5 7,9706 0,0429 three-dimensional contraction is not sufficient to permit the
+ 2 x M24D exact computation of the turbulence levels to be expected in
4 x M08M wind tunnels.
+ 1x M07M 7,0 7,5169 0,0430
+ 3 x M24D REFERENCES
[1] Prandtl, L., 1933, "Attaining a steady air stream in wind
The inverse design calculation is also applied in the tunnels", NACA T.M. No 726.
previous considered settling chamber-contraction combination [2] Dryden, H. L., and Schubauer, G. B., 1947, "The use of
for validation purposes. Having as a requirement the damping screens for the reduction of wind tunnel turbulence",
turbulence level in the test section of the wind tunnel that is J. Aeron. Science, Vol. 14.
0,04%, the calculation targets to the selection of the number [3] Taylor, G.I., and Batchelor, G.K., 1949, "The effect of
along with the mesh size of the screens and the contraction wire gauge on small disturbances in a uniform stream", Quart.
ratio that is limited in the range 6 to 7. The predicted results Journal of Mech. and Applied Mathematics, Vol. II, pp. 1-29.
for this exercise test case are summarized in Table 2. The first [4] Taylor, G.I., 1935, "Turbulence in a contracting stream",
proposal corresponds to the considered arrangement while the Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik,
last one may be considered the optimum alternative design. Vol.15, pp. 91-96.
[5] Ribner, H.S., and Tucker M., 1953, "Sprecturum of turbu-
lence in a contracting stream", NACA TR 1113.
CONCLUSION
[6] Batchelor, G.K., and Proudman, I., 1954, "The effect of
Predictions of the flow quality in the test section of a
rapid distortion of a fluid in turbulent motion", Quart. Journal
subsonic wind tunnel have been conducted. Some design
of Applied Mathematics, Vol.7, pp. 83-103.
calculations were performed to study the effectiveness of
[7] Batchelor, G.K., 1970, "The theory of homogenous turbu-
screens in combination to the contraction for the turbulence
lence", Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 55-75.
management in the test section of a subsonic wind tunnel.
[8] Wieghardt, K.E.G., 1953, "On the resistance of screens",
Theories from the previous state of knowledge and suitable for
Aeron. Quarterly, Vol. 4.
design calculations are the background of the present work.
5
ASME - GREEK SECTION, First Nat. Conf. on Recent Advances in Mech. Eng., September 17-20, 2001, Patras, Greece