- '. • ~ ,.'..;...t','" ..r~ .

•
.,,'V".>.*1i.EXPEIÜMENTAL INVESTIGA'f.ION
~

OF ANNULAR AIR CURTAIN DOMES

by

B. Kamen and A. A. Haasz

&. 3 JUN' 1~5

TECHNISCHE HOGES HOOl OELFT
LUCHTVAART- EN RUI TEVAARTIECHN'EJ(
BmUOTHEEK
Kluyverweg 1 - DELFT

•
UTIAS Report No. 288
January 1985 CN ISSN 0082-5255
 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
OF ANNULAR AIR CURTAIN DOMES

by

B. Kamen and A. A. Haasz

Submitted August 1984

UTIAS Report No. 288

January 1985 CN ISSN 0082-5255
•
 Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support provided by Air Roofs
Canada for the construction of the 6m diameter facility, and the University
of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies for providing the site for the
facil ity. The research program was performed with the help of an NSERC
grant.

'<'

- ii -
 Abstract
The performance of annular air-curtains as protective barriers against
precipitation was investigated experimentally using a 60 cm diameter
laboratory model and a 6 m diameter outdoor test facility. Precipitation
was sirnul ated by small si ze gl ass beads and water dropl ets. The scal i ng
requirements for the particle-air jet interaction dynamics were reviewed and
modified to explicitly include the effects of the simulation material • The
effects of Reynolds number, however, are only implicitly included. Based on
the results of this study a set of criteria for future tests that could lead
to reliable projections for larger scale installations is presented in the
form of dimensionless parameters.

- iii -
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowl edgement ii
Abstract ... iii

Table of Contents iv
Li st of Symbo 1s v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 ANNULAR JET STRUCTURE • 1

3.0 SCALI NG LAWS • • • • 2

4.0 FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 6m MODEL 5

4.1 Initial Cireumferential Veloeity Profile. 5

4.2 Model Modifieations • • • • • • • • • • 6
4.3 Format i on of the Ai r-curtai n Dome 6
4.4 Radial Veloeity Profiles • • • • • • • • • 7
4.5 Ve 1ocity Measurement Teehni ques ••• 8

5.0 PRECIPITATION EXPERIMENTS WITH THE 6m MODEL 8

5.1 Sealing Requirements • • • • • • • • • • • • • 8

5.2 Production and Charaeteristies of Water Drops 9
5.3 Determination of Critical Jet Veloeity •••• 11

6.0 PRECIPITATION EXPERIMENTS WITH THE 60 cm MODEL • • • • • • 12

6.1 Water Drop Experiments • • • • • • • • 12
6.2 Glass Bead Experiments • • • • • • • • • 14

7.0 COMPARISON OF PRESENT AND PREVIOUS RESULTS 14

8.0 CONCLUSIONS • 16
9.0 REFERENCES 17
FIGURES
TABLES
APPENDIX A: ANALYSIS OF DROP SIZE RANGE PRODUCED BY WATER NOZZLES

- iv -
 LIST UF SYMBOLS

d drop or particle diameter

9 gravitational acceleration
h height of annular nozzle
k1 constant in the CD-Re function
m drop or particle mass
n power in the CD-Re function
t thickness of the annular nozzle
-"
t dimensionless time
A ... '\
u,v,w non-dimensional components of drop or particle velocity
û' ,v',w' non-dimensional components of jet velocity
CD drag coefficient
D annulus diameter
Fr Froude number
Re Reynolds number
Re. Reynolds number based on jet velocity Vj and thickness t
J
Rep Reynolds number based on actual particle velocity in jet Vp and
particle di ameter d
Re t Reynolds number based on particle terminal velocity Vt and
partiele diameter d
SG specific gravity
Vc critical jet exit velocity
Vj jet exit velocity
Vp drop or particle velocity in the jet
Vt drop or particle terminal velocity
w wind velocity

- v -
~ fluid viscosity
V .; (û- ai F + (V - Vi )2 + (w -w i )2

n 1 ,n 2 ,n 3 dimensionless parameters
p density of air
P
p density of drop or partiele

Subscripts:
fs full scal e
m model

- vi -
 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The basic air-curtain principle is the utilization of rapidly moving
air jets to separate two potentially different environments. Possible
applications of this concept include protection against rain and snow for
mall s, sports stadia and construction sites. Our research program at the
Uni versi ty of Toronto over the 1ast decade 1-13 has concentrated on the
development of both theoretical and experimental models for the dynamics of
the precipitating particles as they interact with the complex flows of the
air-curtain jets. Extensive work on both of these fronts has been performed
for the horizontal air-curtain jet configuration. 7 - 9 Research on annular
jet air-curtains, on the other hand, has only involved small-scale
experimentation. Theoretical treatment of particle dynamics in annular jets
is comparatively more difficult due to the complexity of the annular jet
flow field.
The major objective of our research with air-curtains is to establish
the scaling laws for particle-jet interactions and to determine the
feasibility of using air-jets for full-scale applications. The emphasis in
this report is on the annular jet configuration. Previous studies with such
a system were performed with models ranging in size from about 15 cm - 86 cm
diameter. 10 - 13 The simulation of rain was performed with either water
drops l0,12 or glass beads. ll The present investigation with the use of a
6m diameter outdoor model provides a very important extension of physical
size for studying the scaling laws.
Another important aspect of the present work is the rev i sion of the
scaling laws, which was made necessary in order to achieve consistency among
previous and present results. Proper scaling is extremely important for tlle
projection of small-scale results to full-scale installations.
2.0 ANNULAR JET STRUCTURE
As previously mentioned, an air-curtain is just a jet of air formed and
oriented for a special purpose. In the case of the annular jet
configuration, air is discharged straight up through an annular nozzle to
form a hemispherically shaped enclosure - hence the name "air-curtain domen.
The protection against rain and snow within the enclosure is achieved via
the interaction of the jet curtain and the precipitating particles. Falling
rain and snow encountering the upward moving jet is slowed down, stopped and
eventually accelerated up and away from the covered area.
The annular jet has been studied for its uses in air cushion
vehicles l4 ,15 and in oil burners and combustion facilities. 16 ,17 Conse-
quently, much is known about what happens and why when ai ris directed
through an annular nozzle. There are four basic regions associated with an
annular air-curtain dome: (l) the exiting primary annular jet, (2) the
entrainment regions, (3) the recirculation zone within the dome, and (4) the
combined jet. The processes involved in creating these regions are
excellently described by Chigier and BeE!r 16 and are paraphrased in the
following paragraph for completeness.
"As the jet exits the annular nozzle, a potential core (first region)
with essentially constant velocity is established in the center, with

1
 mixing zones forming (second region) on the inner and outer edges due
to the shearing action of the jet and the stagnant air. On the outside
of the annular nozzle there is an endless supply of air for the
entrainment but on the inner side of the jet there is only a limited,
fixed amount of air to meet the entrainment requirements of the jet.
This results in an internal vortex being set up (third region) which is
toroidal in shape. The vortex creates a low pres su re region and the
resulti ng pressure gradient across the annul ar jet causes the jet to
bend towards the axis of the jet. As the converging streaml ines
approach the axis, a stagnation region is set up and the resulting high
pressure redirects the flow away from the axis until the combined jet
expands in the same manner as a single jet (fourth region)." (See
Fi gure 1.)

Chaplin,15 by making several assumptions about the flow pattern and the
entrainment, as well as using the limiting case of infinitely thin nozzles,
derives an equation for the height of the stagnation point above the floor.
Adapted to the rnodels studied at UTIAS,lO the result yields a stagnation
point occurring at a height equal to the radius of the annulus. However,
this height (which also represents the length of the internal vortex) is a
function of the nozzle thickness-to-annulus diameter ratio (t/D) as well as
the exit speed of the jet. 16 ,17 For a constant t/D, as the exit speed of
the jet increases, the internal circulation increases causing a greater
pressure gradient across the jet which would tend to force it towards the
axis sooner. However, the increased inertia of the faster jet resists the
increased force and the height of the stagnation point remains essentially a
constant.

Typical streamlines and pressure distributions for an annular jet are

shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively (taken from Chigier and Beér).16

The height of the stagnation point and the internal recirculation are
of prime importance when applications of the annular jet are considered. In
all previous studies the nozzles were positioned at what would be field
level in a full-scale stadium case. However, in the case of a baseball or
football stadium the nozzle would be mounted above the stands in some manner
and the resulti ng vortex and rec i rcul ati on may be consi derab ly different.
Future research must be directed to studying, and if necessary, reducing the
effects of the internal recirculation on the activities and people shielded
by the dome.

3.0 SCAlING lAWS

If the air dome is to be used to protect large areas - typically lOOm
diameter - then the concept must be demonstrated with the use of small-scale
1 aboratory and outdoor model s. In order to confidently compare model s of
various sizes and predict performance for full-scale facilities, the cases
in question must all be dynamically similar. Formal dimensional analyses
have been done10,11 which led to the dimensionless parameters that must be
matched from case to case for dynamic similarity.

The first approach is based on a formal dimensional analysis involving

the nine physical variables associated with particle-jet interactions: 10

vj ' t, D, W, d, Pp' p, !-l, g.

2
These variables are th us reduced to the foll owi ng six non-dimensi onal
parameters:
p V·J V·tp V.2
t d
-, W' '0' '0'
-J- , _J_.
Pp \. L Dg

The fact that it is impossible to simulate all of these parameters

simultaneously in air is clearly demonstrated if we consider the following
three: t/O, Vjtp/\..L and Vj 2/0g • As model size 0 increases, in order to
keep t/O and Vj 2/0g constant, it is obvi ous that both tand Vj must
increase; however, this conflicts with the requirement for Vjtp/\..L to be
constant. This argument then leads to the conclusion that total dynamic
simi 1arity for the compl ete set of parameters consi dered is essenti a lly
impossible to achieve.

An al ternati ve approach suggested by Lake and Etki n I 0 emphasi zes the

particle dynamics as the particle encounters an arbitrary flow field. This
approach yields the following non-dimensional equations of motion:

dl = - '!t 1 (û - Û v
dû 1 ) (la)

dv = ("
-'!tl v-v"I)"v (lb)
df
dQ = -'!tI(Q-Q')~-'!t2 (Ic)
dt
where
(2 )

and
(3 )

To reduce the complexity of the '!tI parameter, previous analyses

involved the use of a simplifying assumption, namely that the particle was
falling in still air at its terminal velocity. This resulted in '!tI being
simpl ified to

'!tI = gO/V t 2 (4 )

So that the third equation of motion (Ic) became

d~ = -'!tl f(w-W1)V + ( Vt )2 ] (5)

dt ~ Vj
Two seemingly important facts follow from such an analysis: (1) terminal
velocity is scaled with jet exit velocity (i.e., Vt/Vj is a constant);
and (2) '!tI has the form of a Froude number and hence is an important scaling
parameter. It must be stressed that thi sis not a true Froude number, but
nevertheless in this report it shall be referred to as a Fraude number.

3
 This Froude number allowed for the determination of the precipitation
material and drop/paraticle size for any model based on a full-scale
rainfall. lake and Etkin originallylO used water from a shower head to
simulate rain. This was done mainly for convenience \'lÎth the implications
of the decision being made af ter the tests. In their later tests,ll they
used glass beads as the simul ation material in order to achieve proper
dynami c scal i ng of the Froude number. Proper Froude number scal i ng was
thought to be more important than other factors such as particle Reynolds
number scaling and raindrop deformation and breakup (which cannot be
obtained using solid particles). However, later work by Raimondo and
Haasz 7 on numerical simulations of particle dynamics in linear jet
air-curtains showed a significant Reynolds number dependence. In
particular, they found that under the influence of the jet a particle may
experience a relative velocity much greater than its terminal velocity and
therefore the drag must be eval uated for the Reynol ds number based on
particl e velocity. Consequently, the drag and resulting trajectories are
different from those expected fr om the simplified equations (4) and (5).
Hence, the method of scaling and the selection of the simulation
materi al requi res further consi derati on, whi ch has been undertaken in the
present study. Goi ng back to the compl ete non-dimensi ona 1 equati ons of
motion, the two dimensionless parameters 'Ttl. and 'Tt 2 need to be conserved for
dynamic similarity. For a spherical particIe, 'Ttl can be written as

'Tt 1 = -3CD -
p D
- (6)
4 Pp d

Clearly the problem of maintaining 'Tt I constant for different scal es wi 11

arise through the drag coefficient. There is no one analytic function
expressing CD that wil 1 simplify the analysis. However, since most of the
important previous experiments as wel 1 as the present tests involve low
Reynolds numbers, we shall consider CD = CD (Re) in such a flow regime.
For Re < 1,000 the CD curve can be expressed as a series of piecewise
functions of the form

CD = kl/Ren (7)

For example, for Stoke~ flow (Re<l), k l = 24 and n = 1, so

CD = 24/Re (8)

Of course the particle in the presence of a jet will experience a changing

relative velocity, Vp ' and hence a changing Reynolds number which wil 1
alter the drag coefficient over time. The Reynolds number for substitution
into equation (7) is therefore
(9 )

Thus 'Ttl becomes

(10)

4
The Vt/V j term was i ntroduced here to al 1ow for di rect compari sons wi th
the simplif;ed analysis (equat;ons 4 and 5). Equation (10) can be rewritten
as:

(11 )

or

nl = n 3 F(Re p ' Ret' Rej' 0, t, d} (12 )

where = Vj P (13)
n3 - V Pp
t
The new dimensionless parameter n 3 is important because it contains the
relationship generated from the simplified analysis with an additional term
which can account for different material s used to s;mul ate ra;n. Al so
important to note is that the funct;on F impl icitly contains the jet
Reynolds number as well as the particle Reynolds numbers based on actual
particle velocity and terminal velocity.
Thus the non-d;mens;onal parameter nl obtained fr om the equation of
mot;on has been expressed in terms of the new parameter n3 ~nd the function
F. The present study is aimed at investigating the benaviour of n3 for
different experimental scaling conditions.
4.0 FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 6m MODEL
4.1 Initial Circumferential Velocity Profile
The 6m model was des; gned so that the ai r for the annul ar jet could be
provided by the exhaust ai r flow of the open ci rcuit UTIAS anechoic w; nd
tunnel. The tunnel fan is driven by a 100 MW (150 HP) motor and has a
throughput capacity of about 50 m3 /s ( ....100,000 cfm). Flow variation is
achieved by adjusting the pitch angles on the variable pitch fan blades.
The model consists of several stages (see Figs. 4 and 5). Attached to
the exhaust port of the fan is a diffuser, followed by a circul ar-to-square
cross section transiti on pi ece, an angul ar transiti on pi ece, a sl opi ng
diffuser section, the plenum chamber and the annular nozzle. The latter two
elements are the important ones in achieving a stable jet.
Since only one fan was available to drive the system, the plenum had to
be constructed to efficiently manoeuvre the flow so that the air leaving the
annul ar nozzl e was ci rcumferenti a lly uniform. Although an enclosed and
protected area can be achieved without such uniformity, it is desirable in
order to ensure symmetry and a final vertical single jet. The premise for
this initial plenum design (see Fig. 6) was that the air leaving the fan
would spil 1 into the lower level, then be forced out up through the center
port and evenly spread rad;ally outwards toward the nozzle.

5
 This design resulted in the circumferential velocity profiles that are
shown in Figure 7. These profiles, taken with the fan blades in positions 1
and 2, show that the exiti ng ai r had the hi ghest velocity at the stati ons
opposite to the entry point of the flow. Obviously, a significant amount of
the fiow was simply travelling straight through from the lower level to the
upper 1evel •

4.2 Model Modifications

In order to overcome the non-uniformity problem, the plenum was

modifi ed by i nserti ng baffl es in the lower 1evel at the centermost
structural supports, to redirect the flow. Figure 8 shows in detail an
isometric view of the first baffle configuration while Figure 9
(configuration 1) shows the same when laid out flat. The resulting velocity
distribution is shown in Figure IOa. As can be seen the profile is now the
opposite of the original in that the faster flow was exiting at the stations
directly above where the air entered the lower plenum. This must have been
caused by the baffi es defl ecti ng the incomi ng ai r to the downstream end of
the plenum and subsequently forcing it back and up resulting in a similar
straight through condition but this time in the reverse direction.

In order to achi eve a reasonabl e ci rcumferenti al velocity profil e,

vari ous baffl e confi gurati ons were tried (see Fi gure 9) with correspondi ng
velocity profiles in Figures IOa-h.

The important modification in baffle configuration 9 is the addition of

baffles in the upper level across stations 6-7 and 26-27 to eliminate
velocity peaks. Although this resulted in velocity valleys, see Figure IOh,
i t was fel t that the uniformity was now suffi cient for the purposes of the
experiment. Thus, baffl e confi gurati on 9, shown in Fi gure 9, was used for
all subsequent work.

The sixteen flow fins and sixteen structural supports, shown in Figure
5, allowed the annular nozzle to be constructed of thrity-two straight
sections. Thus the nozzle is not circular, but a 32-gon, which is a very
good approximation of a circle over the I8.85m circumference.

The original nozzle waS simply made from sheet metal strips that were
30cm wide and about 60cm long. The sheet metal was bent up from the
hor.izontal by about 72° along a length of I2.5cm from the edge. These
d imensi ons were chosen to yi el d a nozzl e thi ckness-to-nozzl e hei ght (t/h)
rati 0 of about uni ty. A nozzl e thi ckness-to-annul us di ameter rati 0 of 3%
was selected in order to be similar to earlier work;12,13 this resulted
in a nominal jet nozzle exit thickness of I8cm.

4.3 Formation of the Air-curtain Dome

The integrity of the annular jet was investigated in the following

ways. Fi rst, sawdust was thrown into the jet at various 1ocati ons and the
particle trajectories were observed. In all cases the sawdust was entrained
by the jet, carried upwards and curved towards the axi s, just as woul d be
expected from the pattern of Fi gures 1 and 2. The second method invol ved
flow visualization with the use of wool tufts attached to wires strung
across the dome at various heights in a pl ane through the center and

6
perpendi cul ar to the fl oor. It was cl early evident that when the jet was
turned on the tufts above the nozzle exit were pointing straight up, and
started to bend inwards with increasing height, providing visual evidence of
the formation and expected behaviour of the dome.

A further study was done by measuring the jet speed at several

locations in the curtain jet using a pitot tube. The pitot tube was placed
at the approximate center-l ine of the inwardly curving jet by noting the
tuft deflections and then oriented to record the maximum pressure difference
on the manometer so that the direction of the maximum speed of the jet could
be determined. A plot consisting of four points is shown in Figure 11.

4.4 Radial Velocity Profiles

Idea11y the desired radial velocity profile across the nozzle is that
of a plane two-dimensional jet, schematica11y shown in Figure 12a. The
expected exit velocity of such a two-dimensional jet is uniform in speed and
direction. Ra1i!1 velocity profiles measured in a parallel study by Diamant
and MacKenzie on a 60cm mini-model of the 6m outdoor model were found to
have the shape shown in Figure 12b, which is similar to the expected shape
in Figure 12a. Radial profiles taken for the 6m model, however, were found
to be completely different as shown by three representative profiles in
Figure 13. These results give rise to two questions: what is the cause of
such a velocity profile and what is the effect, if any, of such a profile on
the overall performance of the air curtain jet?

The answer to the first question is simple. The flow to the nozzle is
essenti a 11y hori zonta 1 and must qui ckl y turn through 90° to èxit. The
hori zontal momentum carries the flow so that most of it fo" ows the outer
edge of the nozzle (Figure 14). There is also flow separation at the base
of the inner nozzle which creates losses.

The answer to the second question is more difficult. Baines and

Wong 12 had radial velocity profiles similar to that se en in Figure 13a, yet
they were able to provide protection from precipitation. In terms of
protecti on then, i t does not seem to matter very much. But thi s deviati on
from the ideal profile does change the effective t/D ratio, which affects
the energy requirements of the system. 12 For a given model size and
preci pitati on, the criti cal velocity necessary to stop that preci pita ti on
depends on t/D, and thus, one can expect a negat i ve effect on the system
pe r fo rmance. .

To improve the radial velocity profiles, two modifications were

conceived. The first involved extending the height of the nozzle to give
the flow a chance to become more fully devel oped. It was arbitrari ly
decided to make t/h = 1/3. The second modification involved placing 16-mesh
screen i ng over the ci rcul ar annul us before the thi rty-two nozzl e secti ons
were repositi oned. It was hoped that the screeni ng woul d reduce the
separation at the inner edge. Unfortunately, all the screens did was load
the fan to an over heat condition causing a circuit breaker to be tripped and
hence stop running after about twenty minutes time. Thus the added nozzle
height was to be the only usable modification. The resulting profiles for
four stations are shown in Figure 15; no improvement was noted as aresul t
of the modification.

7
 A quick check showed that the circumferential velocity profile with
this new nozzle configurtion was not significantly different from the
previous case. The system was now ready for the preci pi tati on/protecti on
s tudy.
4.5 Velocity Measurement Techniques
The velocity measurements of the jet on this scale were both difficult
and tedious. The original circumferential velocity profiles were made with
a hand held anemometer. Due to the highly turbulent nature of the jet there
was no way to determine a reading error for this device as the reading was
constantly changing by as much as ±3m/s. The advantage was that readi ngs
could be taken quickly to give an indication of speeds and problem areas.
Also, since the same instrument was used for the entire set of results,
consistency was maintained and relative improvements could easily be
observed, which was all that was needed at the initial stage of the
investigation.
To record the radial velocity profiles across a nozzle section, a hot
wire was used at discrete interval s. The turbulence caused the voltage
readings to fl uctuate rapidly and the val ues were visually averaged over a
short period of time. The advantage of the hot wire was the confidence
level of the absolute velocities recorded as this was becoming more
important to the investigation. A disadvantage though was the tediousness
of the dismantling of the traverse machanism from station to station.
Finally, the last set of radial profiles was measured with a pitot
tube. Si nce the flow was coming strai ght up, the positi oni ng of the tube
was not difficult. The advantage over the hot wire was the slower response
time of the Betz manometer used to record the pressure difference. The
manometer did not record the fluctuations due to the turbulence, so it was
easier to determine an average exit speed.
The velocity measurements in the curved portion of the jet above the
exit plane (Figure 11) were very difficult for two reasons. The
determination of the direction of the jet at heights well above the nozzle
was difficult just by the awkwardness of manipulating the pitot tube through
manyangles. Also, any side wind interaction would cause the jet to bend
with a corresponding change in manometer reading. Nevertheless, with great
care the results were found to be repeatable in still air conditions which
assures the accuracy and reliability of the results. In order to obtain
highly accurate and precise readings on large outdoor model s, it will be
necessary to devise some new method of velocity sensing.
5.0 PRECIPITATION EXPERIMENTS WITH THE 6m MODEL
5.1 Sealing Requirements
In the first instance we must determine the type of rainfall (as
rainfall rate control s the water drop size distribution) to be simulated
and then the model characteristics and requirements. It was shown in
section 3 that among various non-dimensional groups of parameters associated
with air jet-water drop interactions, the most important ones appear to be:

8
 t/D
1t 2 = Dg/V j 2

1tl = 1tl(Rep,Ret, Rej' D, t, d)

where 1t3 = (Vj/Vt).( p/Pp'). Since one of the objectives of this
investigation is to assess the effect of the function F on the air dome, we
shall, for the purposes of sel ecti ng the simul ati on materi al assume F to be
a constant. This resul ts in 1t3 replacing 1tl as one of the three scal ing
parameters.

Maintaining t/D constant in the model and full-scale cases results in

s imil ar jet flow confi gurati ons for the two cases. The constancy of 1t2
establishes the relationship between linear and velocity sealing ratios.
For examlple, if a full-scale installation is 16 times the size of the
model, as is the case in this experiment (i.e., Dfs = 16Dm) , then the
jet velocity for the full-scale will be 4 times that for the model (i.e.,
Vj = 4V j ). The parameter 1t3 in turn establishes the relationship between
th~Sjet ve~ocity and the partiele terminal velocity. For model experiments
using water as the simulation material the requirement for 1t3 to be constant
s imply reduces to Vj/Vt bei ng a constant in both full-scal e and model
si tuati ons.

Simulation of a medium rainfall rate (~lnm/hour) with a characteristic

water drop diameter of about 2nm (corresponding to Vt = 6.5m/s), and using
a linear sealing ratio of Dfs/Dm = 16, requires a Vt of about 1.6m/s
for the simulating water drops. The corresponding characteristic water drop
diameter required for model testing is about 400~. The production of this
drop size was achieved with the use of a SPRACO full cone cluster nozzle
(15151014). Analysis of the drop size distribution yielded an average
diameter of ~380!lffi with a standard deviation of 140!lffi, see Appendix A. The
corresponding mean Vt is about 1.5m/s.

5.2 Production and Characteristics of Water Drops

The choice of water drops to simulate rainfall seemed appropriate for

two reasons: 1) it is the same substance and 2) there are a variety of
atomizing nozzles which are commercially available to produce almost any
des i red si ze range of drops. However, the choi ce of water drops does
introduce some difficulties as well. Full-scale raindrops of the order of
1-3nm diameter, deform and may experience breakup in the presence of an air
jet. Such events are not only difficul t to model experimentally but al so
present difficulties in the anlaysis of the full-scale case. The 380~
drops used in this investigation do deform, albeit less than full-size
drops, but they do not break up. The breakup of large raindrops into
smaller drops ' with smaller terminal veloeities reduces the workload of the
lower portion of the jet, leading to the requirement of a reduced jet exit
velocity. On the other hand, with no drop breakup in the case of the model,
the jet must handle the simulated large drops requiring higher veloeities

1trade name

9
than would be necessary in the presence of proper simulation of drop
breakup.

For modelling purposes in order to produce a fine spray of the desired

small size, a pressurized water line is needed as the degree of atomization
is, in part, a function of the pressure. The finer the mist, the higher the
pressure and hence a greater water flow for a given nozzle. This means that
the simul ated rainfall rate from a parti cul ar nozzl e increases wi th
decreasing size of drops produced, which is exactly the opposite of what
happens in nature. The steady, all day, low rate type of rain is associated
wi th smal 1 drops whi 1e the heavy downpours wi th 1arge rates are compri sed
of large drops. This affects the drop concentration per unit volume of air
which could result in different drop interaction effects. The quantitative
effects associ ated with the full-scal e and the model concentrati ons are
extremely complex and require statistical information which is not currently
obtainable for the experimental models. Hence, the effects of different and
changing concentrations are not explicitly known.

Now we consi der the source of the drops used in thi sexperiment. By
observation it could be se en that the exit speeds of the drops at the water
nozzle were greater than their terminal velocities due to the water line
pressure. Thus the air jet velocity required to stop the penetration of
these "faster" drops is bound to be "too high", leading to somewhat
conservative results.

Another effect that could lead to conservative results is associated

with the fact that the water drops in the model tests were introduced at a
height of only 6m above the floor. Since the jet rises well above this
point, a portion of the jet is not utilized for the slowing down process of
the drops as would be the case in a full-scale facility.

In order to achieve a wide spray pattern for the tests, three nozzles
were empl oyed. They were positi oned along a di ameter of the annul us such
that one nozzl e was directlyon the axis of the annul ar jet and one on
either side at a di stance of 1.8 meters from the axis. The height of the
nozzles above the floor was about 6m.

Water was suppl ied to the nozzl es through ordinary hal f-inch diameter
garden hoses which were hooked up to a standard water 1 ine with nominal
pressure of about 550 kPa (80 psi). The corresponding flow through the
nozzl es was about 3.4 1 i tres per minute.

The normal method of testing involved the determination of the quantity

of water reaching the floor in a given time with the jet off and then with
the jet on to see how much protection was achieved. With the outdoor
facil ity this was not an easy task. First of all, side winds were a
problem. Since the terminal velocity of the 380f..1m drops is of the order of
1.5 mis, a side wind of that magnitude (3.5 mph = 3 knots) is enough to
cause the spray from the nozzl e to fall at a 45° angl e so that most of the
spray does not even land within the area bounded by the annulus. The second
problem was the efficient collection of the spray that did reach the floor.

10
 At a water flow rate of 3.4 litres/minute, assuming a uniform coverage
of the area bounded by the nozzle (~25m2), the expected depth of water af ter
one minute is only about 150~. Consequently, for measurable quantities of
water on the floor long collection times are needed. In addition to the
difficulty of rnaintaining stable experimental conditions for long times,
long collection times also pose an evaporation problem, especially for small
drops. This problem is worse with the jet turned on since drops which reach
the floor are subj ect to a greater rate of evaporati on caused by the
recirculation flow.

Another problem, caused by the presence of side winds, is the wind

interaction with the annular jet itself, causing the jet to bend in the
direction of the wind. As has been shown by Lake and Etkin,ll this bending
of the jet results in a significant 10ss in the ability to stop
precipitation, and if the wind is strong enough, the annular jet can
compl etely coll apse. Both of these cases were at one time or another
observed for our 6m model. As the maximum exit velocity of the jet was only
11 mis, the presence of steady side winds and the inevitable gusts made it
nearly impossible to study fully quantitatively the performance of this air
roof. Fortunately there is a daily period when one can expect little or no
side winds. This occurs in the early morning, so all tests were therefore
carried out during the period from just before sunrise until about an hour
and a half af ter.

5.3 Determination of Critical Jet Velocity

Even though the tests were performed in the near absence of winds when
the water drops from the spray nozzle were falling nearly straight down,
quantitative measurements were still not possible. Instead a "qua litatively
quantitati veil estimate was made in the fo" owing manner. Wi th the jet off,
an observer coul d "determine" the quanti ty of water fall ing on an exposed
arm and eye gl asses over abri ef peri od of time. Thi s was then repeated
with the jet on so that comparisons could be made.

Photography was also used to document the protection. Many photographs

from different vantage points were taken. Good photographs were obtained by
standing on either side of the annular nozzle and 100king straight up; the
pictures show the . upward moving spray. The best photographs were the
sequence shots, taken with a 2.5 frames per second motor drive, showing the
spray first coming down with the jet off, then being blown upward when the
jet is turned on. Figure 16 shows such a typical sequence for the case when
the jet exit velocity was 7.5 mis (the time between photos is 5 s).

The exit speed of the jet was varied by changing the pitch angle of the
nine fan blades. Tests were performed with the blades in positions -1,0,1
and 3. The corresponding average jet exit velocities were 3.5, 5.5, 7.5 and
11 mIs, respectively.
At the 10west speed setting (blade position -1, Vj = 3.5 mis) with
the presence of even the smallest of wind speeds, there was at least 50%
penetration. On one brief occasion when there was absolutely no side wind
present, almost 100% protection efficiency was achieved. This confirmed
Lake and Etkin's results l l regarding the possible catastrophic effects of a
relatively high side wind. At the next blade angle setting (position 0,

11
V· = 5.5 mis) the no-wind case yielded a protection efficiency of about
90-95%. With slight side winds, the upstream area was completely protected
but the downstream end suffered 20-30% penetration.

For the two remaining cases, i .e., jet exit velocities of 7.5 and 11
mis, there was very 1ittl e di fference. The only time that penetrati on was
noticed coincided with a gust of side wind. Complete no-wind protection was
achieved and only minimal penetration occurred (5-10%) in the presence of
slight side winds. The only real difference of course was that for the
higher speed setting the side winds had to be somewhat stronger to cause the
same amount of performance deterioration as observed at the lower speed
case.

Regarding the effect of side winds, it is important to no te that the

wi nds were due to real full-scal e atmospheric air movements , whi 1e the
annul ar model jet velocities were scaled down by a factor of foue (the
velocity scale factor). Thus, for full-scale installations, where the jet
velocities will be considerably higher than in the model, the effect of side
winds is expected to be less significant.

One of the goals of this experiment was to find the critical jet
velocity needed to "stop" precipitation from penetrating the air-curtain
dome. For the purpose of this study, we have defined the critical velocity,
Vc ' to be the j et velocity that results in 95% protecti on effi ciency
(i.e., 95% of the precipitation is prevented from penetrating the air dome).
A discussion of the present results and comparisons with previous
experiments will follow.

6.0 PRECIPITATION EXPERIMENTS WITH THE 60cm MODEL

6.1 Water Drop Experiments

The 60cm model studied was the one previously used by Baines and Wong 12
and Diamant and MacKenzie 13 (Fig.l7). This model was originally built to
study the pressure losses in the system in order to determine how well the
6m outdoor model would perform. Once the 60cm model gave acceptable
pressure loss resul ts, the des; gn of the 6m model was fi nal i zed. Thus,
originally the 60cm and 6m models were identical except that the larger
model contained more structural supports in the plenum.

Once testing began on the performance of the 60cm model to determine

lts abil ities to provide protection as an air roof, a number of
modifications sirnilar to those needed on the larger model (§4.2) were
required. The evolution of the changes through two separate investigations
are documented 12 ,13 and the result was that the two models were no longer
identical. Each had its own baffle configuration to provide the desired
flow. Nevertheless the two models were similar enough so that the only
essential difference was the factor of ten size difference.

The size of the water drops needed to simulate full-scale rain was
determined by following the procedure discussed in section 5.1. That is, in
order to keep 1t 3 , and in the case of water drops, Vj/V t constant, the
reduction of model size, Dm, by a factor of ten implies a corresponding

12
decrease in Vt by a factor of 110 = 3.16. Thus, the required water drop
terminal veloclty for the 60cm model was about 0.5m/s, corresponding to a
characteristic drop diameter of about 150~m.

In order to achieve this small size, a water nozzle such as employed on

the 6m model could not be used. Instead a pneumatic nozzle using air to
atomize the water was required. SPRACO nozzle number 3804456 was obtained
to supply these smal 1 drops. Unfortunately, the average drop diameter
produced was about 40~m (Vt = 0.05 mis).

Nevertheless it was decided to test the 60cm model air curtain using
these smal 1 water drops. The water nozzl e was mounted about 3.5m above the
fl oor of the model and poi nted strai ght down. A 95% protecti on effi ciency
was achieved with an average circumferential exit velocity of 7.5 mis (i.e.,
Vc = 7.5 mis). Thi s was totaly unexpected as it was inconsi stent with the
6m case which required the same jet exit velocity for similar protection.

There were two major causes for this anomaly. First of all, the air
leaving the pneumatic nozzle was supersonic which resulted in water drop
vel oci ti es bei ng greater than Vt. Consequently, the drops requi red some
time and distance to decelerate to Vt before interacting with the jet.
Without an initial condition for the water drop velocity, the required time
and distance to reach Vt could not be calculated. Visual observations,
however, indicated that a height of more than 3.5m was needed. Secondly,
the spray was of a very high concentration in terms of droplets per unit
volume which could have resulted in drop interaction due to wake effects,
causing drops to fall in groups instead of individually. The terminal
velocity of such groups is larger than that associated with single droplets,
requiring higher Vc •

An attempt to simul taneously overcome both of these probl ems was made
by pointing the nozzle upwards from its 3.5m height. By arcing the spray up
and over, the droplets would disperse more and fall individually at their
proper termi nal vel oc iti es. Unfortunately, the spray only di spersed and
never made it back down to the model, making testing impossible.

A single fullcone water-only nozzle (SPRACO 11062004) was available

that produced droplets of the order of 250~m (Vt = 1m/s). This was tried
ih the "up and over" mode. At the top jet speed available, 7.5 mis, the
average protection efficiency over the enti re floor was only 70%. The
center of the floor had about 55% penetration while the edges had only about
10%, see discussion below. Once again, the critical velocity for the 60cm
model turned out to be greater than that for the 1arger 6m model. The
anomaly in this case could again be attributed to particle interaction
effects. With a high density of drops the possibility of coalescence exists
when upwardly deflected drops collide with those still on their way down.
The resulting larger drops wil 1 have a higher terminal velocity which would
require a faster jet speed to prevent penetration through the dome.

Thus the conventional methods for producing the required small droplets
could not achieve the necessary conditions for successful simulation.

13
 Finallya few words are in order to exp1ain the varying penetration
rates over the f100r area. Hi gher penetrati on was observed in the center
with decreasing penetration occurring as one moved radia11y outward. There
are two mai n reasons for thi s. Fi rst 1y, any drop penetrati ng the enc10sure
wou1d encounter the recircu1ation region where it cou1d easi1y be entrained
to be deposited in the center by the local downward velocity of the vortex.
The second reason has to do with the jet velocity flow field encountered by
the drop during its stay in the jet. The relative1y high jet veloeities in
the vicinity of the nozzle will tend to move the drops upward a10ng the
curved jet envelope either toward the outside or inside jet boundary. Thus,
drops which are not ejected outward from the jet wil1 like1y enter the dome
in the centre region, away from the nozzle. Similar behaviour was observed
for glass beads, see disucssion bel ow.
6.2 Glass Bead Exeriments
In order to obtain useful small-sca1e results either of two things must
be done: find a method of producing very fine water drops without the above
mentioned problems or abandon water drop simu1ation in favour of glass beads
whi ch were extensi vely used in previous ai r-curtai n experiments. Although
glass beads were found to have 1imitations for particle trajectory
simulations associated with 1inear jets 7 their app1icability for annu1ar jet
simu1ations has not been ru1ed out so faro Therefore, glass bead tests were
undertaken with the following three objectives: (1) to test the
reproducibi1ity of earl ier experiments 11 with glass beads, (2) to show
whether or not partieles with a terminal velocity of about 0.5m/s (the
desired va1ue based on Vj/Vt being constant) cou1d be stopped by a 60cm
annular air-curtain whose highest jet exit speed was 7.5 mis, and (3) most
important1y, since the parameter 1t3 contains a term to account for the
density of the simu1ation material , this test cou1d provide usefu1
information regarding the val idity of 1t3 as a sca1 ing parameter. We have
proposed in section 3 that 1t3 should replace the Vj/V t parameter widely
used in previous annu1ar air-curtain studies. The glass beads, from
Microbeads Division of Cataphote Corp., Toledo, Ohio, were in the size range
74-105~m and had a specific gravity of 2.39 (sample 1420, class 4B). A feed
system was improvised that neither ensured that the beads wou1d slow down to
terminal velocity before encountering the jet nor that the beads were
adequate1y separated to prevent wake interaction. Thus any resu1ts wou1d be
conservative. The experiments performed with these beads, at a jet exit
velocity of 7.5 mis, yielded an averape penetration of on1y about 2% which
was consi stent with previous results • 1 Thus, the fi rst two objectives of
the test were met with positi ve results • The fi na1 matter of checki ng the
va1idity of 1t3 as the relevant sealing parameter will be discussed below.
7.0 COMPARISON OF PRESENT AND PREVIOUS RESULTS
This chapter summarizes all the important resu1ts from the present and
previous experiments in order that comparisons and conc1 usions may be made
based on the new general sealing 1aws. Tab1e 1 1ists the important
parameters and resu1ts from Lake and Etkin's water droplO and glass
bead ll experiments, Baines and Wong's water drop tests 12 and the current
work for both water and gl ass beads. For ease of compari son all resu1 ts
have been converted t~ SI units. The numbers from the previ ous works, i f

14
not directly stated anywhere in the respective reports, were either inferred
from graphs or calculated from parameters that were explicitly stated.
The drop or particle Reynolds number in Table 1 is based on the
terminal velocity Vt • This Ret was calculated in order to determine the
Reynolds number for the drop as it fi rst encounters the jet. Thus, Ret
was computed as

Re (17)
t
where
p = 1. 225 kg/m 3
and ~ = 1.789 x 10- 5 kg/(m s).
The quantity 1t3 was defi ned in secti on 3 as:

1t 3 = (V C) (L)
Vt Pp

Si nce pis essenti a lly a constant for simul ati on in ai rand Pp can be
expressed as a particle specific gravity (SG) times the density of water, 1t3
can be rewritten as:

1t = (VC ) -.l (18)

3 V SG
t
This 1t 3. is plotted as a function of the particle Reylnolds number in Figure
18. Neglecting the Lake and Etkin lO water tests because of the high
Reynolds numbers, a horizontal straight line may be drawn through the data
indicating that 1t3 is essentially independent of Reynolds number based on
parti cl e termi nal velocity. Thi s has the very important impl i cati on that
the function F(Re , Ret' Re·, 0, t, d) in equation (13) has remained
essenti a lly constanE for the J various simul ati ons. Thi s confi rms the
significance of 1t3 as the controlling scaling parameter, replacing 1tl.
Fi gure 19 shows 1t3 as a function of annul us diameter and again it
appears that 1t3 i s i ndependent of model si ze, at 1east for the si ze range
tested so far (i.e. Dm<6m). This can be tied in with the Reynolds number
independence. The model si zes used so far have necessarily demanded small
water drops and hence low Reynolds numbers. This leads to a plot of Re as a
function of annulus diameter shown in Fig. 20. Intuitively it is clear that
a larger diameter model would require a larger jet velocity to maintain
dynamic simil arity, and in fact from the equati ons of moti on arose the
parameter 1t 2 = Dg/V·2 which dictates how jet speed varies with model size.
This greater jet ve10city would then be able to deflect larger drops which
have greater Reynolds numbers. Hence, the Re-D curve should start near the
origin and rise up and to the right, asymptotically approaching the real
rain's Reynolds numbers as model size increases. Figure 20 shows that this
has not occurred, whi ch means that the individual tests simul ate di fferent
rain drop sizes. In fact Lake and Etkin's water testslO used drops of the
size of real rain but on a very small model.

15
 Therefore, one must exercise caution in interpreting such a mixed
variety of resul ts. These resul ts from all sources not only have not
simul ated the same rainfall, but al so have not had dynamically simil ar
annul ar jets due to various t/D ratios. However, the trends noted in
Fi gures 18 and 19 indicate that the performance (namely, the 1t needed to
achieve 95% protection efficiency) of the air-curtain dome is not seriously
affected by the disparities among the various simulations.

8.0 CONCLUS IONS

The major objective of the present investigation was to verify the

validity of the air-curtain sealing laws by extending previous small-scale
laboratory simulations to the testing of a 6m diameter outdoor air-curtain
dome facility. In addition to the successful testing of the 6m model with
the use of water drops, tests were performed with a 60cm diameter
small-scale version of the 6m model.

Analysis of the current experimental results as well as all previous

air-curtain dome results led to the identification of a new sealing
parameter, 1t3 = Vc/(Vt SG), which plays an important role in determining
the critical jet velocity needed to provide a certain level of protection
effi c iency. Thus 1t3 together wi tht t/D and 1t 2 = Dg/V j 2 are the parameters
that need to be kept constant in model and full-scale sltuations. The ratio
t/D assures kinematic similarity for the jets, 1t 2 establishes the
relationship between linear and velocity scaling, and 1t3 determines
protection efficiency.

Di reet compari sons of our resul ts for the 6m model usi ng water drops
and the 60cm model using glass beads yielded excellent agreement for 1t3.
Further compari sons wi th previously publ i shed resul ts al so yielded good
agreement for 1t3 even though case-to-case variations of t/D, partiele Re,
etc., were present. This implies that, at least for the particle Reynolds
number and annulus diameter ranges considered, the effect of such variations .
does not significantly affect air-curtain performance.

With a major assumption that the validity of the three sealing

parameters (t/D, 1tZ and 1t 3 ) could be extended to full-scale air curtain
installations, we shall now attempt to make certain projections for a lOOm
diameter air dome. Maintaining t/D = 3%, as was the case in the present
experiments, 1eads to a jet thi ckness of 3m. For our 6m model experiments
with water (SG = 1) Vc ' Vt and 1t3 were 7.5 mis, 1.5 mis and 5.0,
respectively. Assuming a characteristic raindrop diameter of about 2mm with
Vt = 6.5 mis (this corresponds to a medium rainfall rate of about
1mm/hour), we obtain a critical jet velocity of about 33 mis. The
corresponding air flow (Q) and power (P) requirements are 31,000 m3 /s (66
Mcfm) and 10,000 kW (113,000 HP), respectively. Similar calculations for a
heavy rainfall, with drops of about 3mm diameter, yield the following
projections: Vt = 8 mis, Vc = 40 mis, Q = 38,000 m3 /s (80 Mcfm), and
P = 36,000 kW (48,000 HP).

16
9.0 ~EFERENCES

1. B. Etkin and P. L. E. Goering, Air-curtain walls and roofs - dynamic

structures, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, A269 (1971) 527-543.
2. B. Etkin, Interaction of precipitation with complex flows, Proc. 3rd
Int. Conf. on Wind Effects on Structures, Tokyo, Japan, Aug. 1971.
3. G. A. S. Allen, Experimental investigation of an air-curtain for
protection of an outdoor power installation from salt spray, UTIAS
Technical Note No. 171, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1971.
4. G. A. S. Allen and R. T. Lake, Trajectories of raindrops in a jet
issuing into anormal crosswind, UTIAS Technical Note No. 165,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1971.
5. A. A. Haasz, B. Etkin, R. T. Lake and P. L. E. Goering, Laboratory
simulation of an air-curtain roof for the Ontario Science Centre, UTIAS
Technical Note No. 192, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1975.
6. A. A. Haasz and P. L. E. Goering, Intermittent enclosures - air-curtain
walls and roofs, Proc. IASS World Congress on Space Enclosures, July
1976, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, WCOSE-76, 1 (1976) 151-163.
7. S. Raimondo and A. A. Haasz, Single and dual air-curtain jets used as
protection against precipitation, UTIAS Rep. No. 227, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1978.
8. A. A. Haasz and S. Raimondo, Effectiveness of an air-curtain canopy
against precipitation, J. Wind Eng. and Ind. Aerodynamics, 6 (1980)
273-290.
9. A. A. Haasz and S. Raimondo, Performance of adjacent dual-jet
air-curtain roofs, J. Wind Eng. and Ind. Aerodynamics, 10 (1982)
79-87.
10. R. T. Lake and B. Etkin, The penetration of rain through an annular
air-curtain dome, UTIAS Rep. No. 163, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada, 1971.
11. R. T. Lake and B. Etkin, Experimental simulation of the interaction of
wind-driven precipitation with an annular air-curtain dome, UTIAS
Technical Note No. 182, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1973.
12. A. Parker and J. Wong, The penetration of rain through a one-meter
diameter annular air-curtain dome, AER304S Report, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1981. Also, P. Baines and J. Wong, Annular
ai r curtai n study, AER408F Report, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada, 1981.
13. J. Diamant and C. MacKenzie, Investigation of velocity profiles of an
annul ar ai r-curta in, AER304S Report, Universi ty of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada, 1982.

17
14. Gabriel D. Boehler, Aerodynamic theory of the annular jet, lnstitute of
the Aeronautical Sciences, New Vork, N. V., lAS Report No. 59-77, 1959.
15. H. R. Chaplin, Effect of jet mixing on the annular jet, Navy Department
David W. Taylor Model Basin Jlerodynamics Labortory, Washington, O.C.,
Aero Report 953, 1959.

16. N. A. Chigier and J. M. Beér, The flow region near the nozzle in double
concentric jets, Transactions of the ASME, Journalof Basic
Engineering, Dec. 1964.

17. T. W. Davies and J. M. Beér, The turbulence chëlracteristics of annular

wake flow, 1969.

18
 \ I
\ I
jet boundary--J If. I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
\ I
/ \
\
I
I ~
entrainment I I entrainment
region , I ,
region

/ I
I . . . . ___ +~ __
I ,/' stagn.ation
--!Otnt
I
I
~
I ~ jet boundary ~ 1
I //~ I ~', I
/' / \1'" \
/' II ,I~\ torbidat
vortex
I
, \ '\ ~
/ (~ ~ ! ~ floor

jet no-zz-te-~- ,I I I +K; jet nozzle

Vj Vj

Fig. 1 Cross -sectional view of an annular jet.

 À=<D
8

...--....
E 6~
u
Q)
u
c:
/
.
/
------------
Qu,ef Bouo da r'l

C
V·J ., .-
+-
(/)

e
c
.-
"C
C
a:: 2

o ~'--------'- J I ~
o 2 4 6 8 10 12
c
Axial Distance (cm)

Fig. 2 Streamlines of flow in an annular jet

(from Chigier and Beér [16J).
 Outer
BoUndar Y }

-- ---- --
------------
Vj . Vortex Centre

Stagnation
Point
V'J Vortex Centre
------- ----- --- ......................
Annular
Jet

o 4 8
Axial Distance (cm)

Fig. 3 Isobars showing positions of vortex centres and stagnation point

for the annular jet (from Chigier and Beér [16J).
Fig. 4a Side view of 6m diameter annualar air-curtain test facility.
(1) Circular-square transition piece, (2) Angular transition
piece, (3) Diffuser section, (4) Plenum, (5) Annular nozzle.
Fig. 4b Top view of 6m diameter annular air-curtain test facilty.
(1) Circular-square transition piece, (2) Angular transition
piece, (3) Diffuser section, (4) Plenum, (5) Annular nozzle.
 air flow from fan

flow fins {16} supports {16}

air jet nozzle

(jet direction is out of paper)

Fig 5 Floor plan of protected area. This figure illustrates the station
reference numbers, the location of the flow fins and the structural
supports under the floor in the upper level of the plenum.
 •
~-=-e--:'--:::~~~=~b=~---Y-IC-c.-'~~~~~'-::::--I
a
~~
oI
1m
I

Fig. 6 Cross-sectional view of initial plenum design: (a) lower plenum

level, (b) upper level, (c) edge of flow fin between two stations,
(d) support posts for baffle attachment, (e) annular jet exit.
 (a )

...---..
en
'-.,., 10
E
'--"

~
+0-

U
0
Q)
5
>
Blode Setting 1

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1
Station

(b )

...---..
en
'-.,.,

E 10
"'--'"

~
+-
u
0
Q) 5
>
~Io de Sett i ng 2

5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1
Station

Fig. 7 Circumferential velocity profile.

 18 17 16 15

32 1

Fig. 8 Isometrie view of baffle design 1.

 Baffle Design

CD [ I I d I I
® tf I I I I ~ I I
@ H t I I I d I
@)
I t I I I d I I
® I t I I I d I I
® I I ti I m I
(j)
I I K I d I I I

® t±d I I
I I I I I I 1 I I

rn -T-t -I -J-T-1
I 1 . 1,-,-,1 1111
® 1
~- t-t
I I L...!......J I
I I
I
I
1 1 I
I
1
upper level
Finol Configurotion lower level

Station: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13141516

Fig. 9 Two-dimensional view of baffle configuration.

 (a )

.--...
20
, Cf)

E
-----
~
~
15
0
0
Cl)

>
Blade Setting 3
10 Baffle Design 1

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1
Station

(b)

.--...
20
, Cf)

E
...........

~
~

0
15
0
Cl)

>
Blade Setti ng 3
10 Baffle Design 2

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1
Station
Fig. 10 Circumferential velocity profile: (a) and (b).
 (C)

fJ)
..........
E 15

u
o
~ 10
Blode Setting 3
Boffle Design 3

5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1
Station

(d)

20
.--.
fJ)
..........
E
--- 15
>.
+0-

u
0
Q)

>
10 Blode Setting 3
Boffle Design 5

o~~--~--~--~--~--~--~~
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1
Station
Fig. 10 Continued: Circumferential velocity profile: (c) and (d).
 (e )

20
(/)
..........
E

~ 15
u
o
Cl)
>
Blode Setting 3
10 Boffle Design 6

o~~~~--~--~--~--~--~~
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1
Station

(f )

..---...
20
Cl)
..........
E
"'--'

~
,-u
+- 15
0
Cl)
>
Blode Setti ng 3
10 Boffle Design 7

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1
Station
Fig. 10 Continued: Circumferential velocity profile: (e) and (f).
 (g )

20

--
Cf)
'-...
E
"'---'
15
~
+-
u
0
Q)
> Blode Setting 3
10 Boffle Design 8

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1
Station

(h)

--
Cf)

"""E
"'---'
15
~
+-
u
-0
~
10 Blode Setting 3
Boffle Design 9

5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1
Station

Fig. 10 Continued: Circumferential velocity profile: (g) and (h).

 ,.

.--
E
'--""

Q)
/"" ( 5.9,30°)
N
N
0
C
~
0
1
a.
.....
0
Q)
>
0
..c
?jI (7.4,50°)
(9.1,55°)

c
.....
..c I
(10.0,90°)
Ol I
Q) I

1:,3~---t----7---L l

~ 1 i
Radial Position (m)

Fig. 11 Speed and direction of the 6m annular jet for t/h = 1/3 and
Blade Setting 3. The ordered pair at the tip of each arrow
represents the velocity in mis and the angle relative to the
horizontal. Veloeities were measured with pitot tubes.
 (a ) ( b)

V·J
-
0
0
>.
-
>.
0
0
~ Q)

-
)(
w
-
>
)(

-
Q)
J 0 -
w

~O

Nozzle Inner Nozzle Outer

Edge Edge
Fig. 12 (a) Expected and (b) measured (Diamant and MacKenzie L13J) radial
velocity profiles at the jet nozzle exit for the 60 cm diameter
annul ar jet model.

(a) Station 3 ( b) Station 17 ( c) Station 24

30 30 30
•
-f /)
.........
f/)
......... f/)
.........
E E E

->.
0
0
Q)
20
->.
0
0
Q)
->.
0
0
Q)
20

> > >

Or---~--~--~~
Nozzle -- 0 10
Radial Distance (cm) Radial Distance (cm) Radial Distance (cm)

Fig. 13 Radial velocity profile at jet nozzle exit for the 6m facility for
t/h = 1 and Blade Setting 3. Veloeities were measured by hot wire
anemometry. Inside edge of nozzle was at radial distance 0, and jet
nozzle exit thickness was 18 cm.
~

N
N
o
C
.f-l
.,...,
CV

lil
CV
c
~

E
tO
CV
L
.f-l
lil
 (a) Station 1 ( b) Station 9

..--.. 15 ..--..
en en
.......... ..........
E E

- -
~

~ >-
u u
0 10 0
Q) Q)

> >

Nozzle ........-J 10
Radial Distance (cm) Radial Distance (cm)

(c) Station 17 (d) Station 25

15

..--.. 15
en cn
..........
..........
E E

-g 10
- u
o
Q) Q)

> >

10 10
Radial Distance (cm) Radial Distance (cm)

Fig. 15 Final-configuration radial velocity profile at jet nozzle exit for

the 6m facility for t/h = 1/3 and Blade Setting 3. Velocities were
measured with pitot probes. Inside edge of nozzle was at radial
di stance o.
Fig. 16 Sequence of photographs showing water drop
trajectories af ter turn - on of air jet with the
6 m air - curtain test facility. Vj = 75 mis
Time between photographs : 5 seconds.
or-
u..
 81 dJ
0

(!)
Cf)
•
>- 6~ +
+
-6.-
0
'-..
4
->
11 Weter Drops
{O Lake and Etkin
0 Beines end Wong
0

~ 2l GI ess Bee d5
6. Kernen end Heesz

{+ Leke end Etkin

00

• Kernen end Heesz

I
0
10- 1 10° 101 10 2 10 3
Partiele Reynolds Number ( Ret )

Fig_ 18 Non-dimensional parameter n 3 versus partiele Reynolds number Ret-

 8. 0 0
0
(!)
en
•
>--.
..........
6~: 0
b.

4
~
11 0
Water Drops
{O
0
Leke end Elkin
Baines and Wong
t:::~
2l 00

0
Glass 8eads
b.

{+
Kamen and Haasz

Lake and Etkin

• Kamen and Haasz
I
0
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6
Annulus Diameter (m)

Fig. 19 Non-dimensional parameter n3 versus annulus diameter D•

.,
 o Lake and Etkin
+ Water Drops {0 Baines and Wong
À Kamen

+ Lake and Etkin

Glass Beads { * Kamen and Haasz

10-1~____~____~______~____~____~~

0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

Annulus Diameter (m)

Fig. 20 Partiele Ret versus annulus diameter D.

C'
~' -

TABLE 1: Summary of Present Results and Previous Results for Annular Air-Curtains

Vc/V
v
=_c~ R _pVtd
D t t/D Vc d V
t t
1t
3 V SG et---
t ~
(m) (mm) (%) (mis) (mm) (mis)

Lake and Etkin: 1O 0.300 5.1 1.7 24.4 2.6 7.62 3.2 3.2 1356.
water drops 0.297 7.7 2.6 21.3 2.6 7.62 2.8 2.8 1356.
0.294 10.6 3.6 21.0 2.6 7.62 2.8 2.8 1356.
0.291 14.3 4.6 15.2 2.6 7.62 2.0 2.0 1356.
Lake and Etkin: 11 0.150 6.9 4.6 6.10 0.098 0.515 11.8 4.9 3.46
glass beads 0.150 6.9 4.6 2.74 0.050 0.207 13.2 5.5 0.71
Baines and Wong: 12 0.600 18.0 3.0 22.7 0.728 2.95 7.7 7.7 147.1
water drops 0.860 17.2 2.0 22.7 0.728 2.95 7.7 7.7 147.1
0.860 25.8 3.0 21.5 0.728 2.95 7.3 7.3 147.1
0.860 34.4 4.0 13.3 0.728 2.95 4.5 4.5 147.1
Kamen and Haasz 6.000 180.0 3.0 7.5 0.380 1.5 5.0 5.0 39.3
water drops
Kamen and Haasz 0.600 18.0 3.0 7.5 0.098 0.515 14.6 6.1 3.46
glass beads
•
 APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OF DROP SIZE RANGE PRODUCED BY WATER NOZZLES

The water nozz1e was positioned at a height of 6m above the f100r a10ng
the axi s of the annu1 ar jet. The water was turned on and all owed to fa"
free1y to the f100r area where it was co11 ected in a set of 30 petrie
dishes, each fi11ed with a thin film of vacuum pump oil. These dishes were
exposed to the water spray for a brief period of time by opening and c10sing
a set of 10uvers positioned above the dishes. This ensured that individua1
droplets wou1d be iso1ated as they come into contact with the oi1. Vacuum
pump oi1 was used for the following two reasons: (1) the water drops do
not sp1atter upon contact and (2) the surface tensions invo1ved keep the
drop1 ets a1most spherica1.
The petri di shes were then p1 aced under a microscope so the drop1 ets
cou1d be photographed. The photographs were then ana1yzed to yie1d a drop
size distribution and an average drop diameter which cou1d then be used to
produce a terminal velocity distribution, see Tab1e Al.
One point to note is that the smallest drops cou1d be se en to evaporate
under the light of the microscope. Thus, there wou1d be a shift in the
distribution to 1arger diameters. However, this is not considered to be a
major concern, since these drops wou1d be easi1y stopped by the air
curtain.

Tab1e Al: Average drop diameter and standard deviation of water drops
produced by water nozz1es.
Nozz1e type a( ~m) C1( ~m)

Full Cone Si ng1 e 265 120

SPRACO 11062004
Fu11 Cone Cluster 380 140
SPRACO 15151014
Pneumat ie 40 20
SPRACO 38043456
 <.
,.,

UTIAS Report No. 288 UTIAS Report No. 288

~ ~
Un iversi ty of Toronto, Inst i tute for Aerospace Studi es (UTlAS) University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTlAS)
4925 Dufferin Street, Downsview , Ontario, Canada, M3H 5T6 4925 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, M3H 5T6

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIDN OF ANNULAR AIR CURTAIN DOMES EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF ANNULAR AIR CURTAIN DOMES

Kamen, B., Haasz, A. A. Kamen, B., Haasl, A. A.

1. Ai r-curtain jet 2. Ai r-dane 3. Annul ar jet 4. Precipitation 1. Ai r-curtain jet 2. Air-dame 3. Annular jet 4. Precipitation
5. Water-drops 6. G1 ass-beads 5. Water-drops 6. Gl ass-beads

I. Kamen. B. t Haasz. A. A. 11. UTIAS Report No. 288 I. Kamen, 8. I Haa sz, A. A. I I. UTIAS Report No. 288

The performance of annu1ar air-curtains as protective barriers a9ainst precipitat i on was invest i 9ated
experimentally using a 60 cm diameter laboratory model and a 6m diameter outdoor test faci1 ity.
Precipitation was simu1ated by small size glass beads and water droplets. The sealing requirements for the
partic1e-air jet i nteractio n dynamics were reviewed and mod1fied to explicitly include the effects of the
simulation material. The effects of Reynolds number, however, are only implicitly included. Based on the
results of this study a set of criteria for future tests that could lead to reliable projections for larger
scale installations is presented in the form of dimensionless parameters.
The performance of annu1ar air-curtains as protective barriers against precipitation was investigated
experimenta1ly using a 60 cm diameter laboratory model and a 6m diameter outdoor test faci1ity.
Precipitation was simulated by small size glass beads and water droplets. The sealing requirements for the
part ic le-air jet interaction dynamics were reviewed and modified to explicitly include the effects of the
simulation material . · The effects of Reynolds number, however, are only implicitly included. Based on the
results of this study a set of criteria for future tests that could lead to reliable projections for larger
scale installations is presented in the form of dimensionless parameters.

Available copies of this report are limited. Return this card to UTIAS, if you require a copy. Available co pies of this report are limited. Return this card to UTIAS, if you require a copy.

UTIAS Report No. 288 UT lAS Report No. 288

~ ~
University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTIAS) University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies (UTlAS)
4925 Dufferin St reet , Downsview, Ontario, Canada, M3H 5T6 4925 Dufferin Street, Downsview, Ontario, Canada, M3H 5T6

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF ANNULAR AIR CURTAIN DOMES EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF ANNULAR AIR CURTAIN DOMES

Kamen. 8., Haasz, A. A. Kamen, B., Haasz, A. A.

1. Air-curtain jet 2. Air-dane 3. Annular jet 4. Precipitation 1. ' Air-curtain jet 2. Ai r-dome 3. Annu1 ar jet 4. Precipitation
5. Water-drops 6. G1 ass-beads 5. Water-drops 6. G1 ass-beads

I. Kamen, B., Haasz, A. A. II. UTIAS Report No. 288 I. Kamen, B., Haasz, A. A. 11. UTIAS Report No. 288

The performance of annul ar ai r-curta ins as protecti ve barriers agai nst pree i pi tat i on was i nv est i gated
experimentally using a 60 cm diameter laboratory model and a 6m diameter outdoor test facil i ty.
Precipi tation was simulated by small size glass beads and water droplets. The sealing requ i rements for the
particle-air jet interaction dynamics were reviewed and modified to expl icitly include the effects of the
simulation material. The effects of Reynolds number, however, are only implicitly included. Based on the
results of this study a set of criteri a for fut ure tests that could lead to reliable projections for larger
sca1 e insta 11 ati ons is presented in the form of dimensi on I ess parameters.
The performance of annular air-curtains as protective barriers against precipitation was investigated
experimentally using a 60 cm diameter laboratory model and a 6m diameter outdoor test facility.
Precipitation was simulated by small size glass beads and water droplets. The sealing requirements for the
particle-a i r jet interaction dynamics were reviewed and mod1fied to explicitly include the effects of the
simulation material. The effects of Reynolds number, however, are only implicitly included. Based on the
results of this study a set of criteria for future tests that could lead to reliable projections for larger
scale installations i s presented in the form of dimensionless parameters.

Available copies of this report are limited: Return this card to UTIAS, if you require a copy. Available copies of this report are limited. Return this card to UTIAS, if you require a copy.