058_062tun0712 Systemair:T&T 25/6/12 11:58 Page 58

TECHNICAL | FAN DEVELOPMENT

An improved
R
jet fan
oad tunnels are often ventilated
by inductive systems with
booster fans, also known as jet
fans, installed near the tunnel
ceiling. A brief summary of physical data is
necessary to better understand the scope
of this paper.
The theoretical impulse force for a jet fan,
thrust, can be calculated as follows:

(1)
In practice a jet fan experiences losses
and so will not develop the full theoretical
thrust force.
The actual thrust can only be found by
measurement. Action and reaction are
equal and opposite so the thrust provided
to the air can be evaluated by measuring
the reactive force on the fan, as specified in
ISO 13350. The difference between
theoretical and real thrust ranges from 0.85
to 1.05 (values greater than one happen in
some cases where a high hub ratio
generates a remarkable annulus velocity,
Below: Testing a Mojet fan
This paper presented by Harald Rudelgass and Carlo Barbetta of
Systemair explores the results of converging nozzles on loss of
impulse, a history of the research and the latest solutionive
affecting outlet velocity). The authors warn Manipulating this formula
the user on calculating the thrust with the
above formula. It is recommended to (multiplying by )
measure the thrust and then calculate the
Veff (effective velocity) from the appropriate and solving the equation for
formula [1]. we have:
Since the flow rate in the tunnel will not
be zero, formula (1) must be rewritten in the (3)
following way :
In order to free as much of the tunnel for
(2) traffic as possible, booster fans are often

58 Tunnels & Tunnelling International JULY 2012 www.tunnelsandtunnelling.com

058_062tun0712 Systemair:T&T 25/6/12 11:59
Notation
= force, thrust
= fluid density
= flow rate
= velocity
= Kempf factor
= angle between jet stream and longitudinal tunnel axis
= distance between fan axis and tunnel roof
Subscript notation
= effective
= fan
= tunnel
installed close to the ceiling. This results in
the exhaust jet stream not being able to
fully develop. So a portion of jet energy is
lost to wall friction. Consequently, formula
(3) has to be rewritten as follows:
(4)
The effectiveness number k, called the
‘Kempf factor’, indicates what portion of
the impulse force or momentum is actually
provided by the fan and not lost.
Generally we should assume:
= 30m/s
= 5m/s
And we immediately have a factor of
Studies, presented later in this paper,
demonstrate that k can range between 0.65
to 0.78, resulting in a correction factor on
the provided thrust of 0.54 to 0.64. This
means a loss in thrust of 36 to 46 per cent.
This is a remarkable amount of energy loss,
and needs an appropriate focus.
History
During the mid 1960s a Swiss engineer, I
Kempf, started to study the influence and
effect of walls on jet streams [2] in a corner
of rectangular tunnel section model. That
was the first approach trying to determine
the effects in an engineered way. Later in
1979 E. Rohne [3] resumed the previous
work and began an analytical investigation
of a simple jet on a plain plate. In 1982
Rohne [4] also studied the simple jet in a
niche. And again in 1985 [5] and 1988 [6]
Rohne studied the effect of two and four
simple jets on a plain plate.
All Rohne experiments were purely a
www.tunnelsandtunnelling.com
Page 59
(N)
(kg/m3)
(m3/s)
(m/s)
(-)
(°)
(m)
pipe or pipes positioned in the vicinity of a
plain plate or plain niche, and not taking
into account the shape of the tunnel at all.
This research showed the great influence of
losses generated through interaction
between jet plumes and fixed surfaces.
In 1991 [7] the prolific Rohne presented
research that in some ways reproduced,
the circular shape of a tunnel: a half
cylinder in small scale (maximum radius of
400mm and length 2,000mm), with one
pipe positioned in the middle at various
distances from vault.
The research carried out to this point had
two technical limitations:
Pipes do not correctly represent a jet fan
outlet, which has a swirl.
Plain plates or semicircular sections do
not create boundary surface existing in a
tunnel.
Also in 1991, N. Costeris [8] resumed the
Kempf research for a rectangular tunnel
presenting the dimensionless effectiveness
of jets. Again the first technical limitation
(above) was an issue.
For the first time graphs showing the k
factors were of easy use and directly
applicable to formula four (above, left).
The author suggested how to improve
the results by using deflectors on air
outlets, correcting the final thrust by the
cosine of the angle between the jet stream
centreline and the longitudinal tunnel axis.
Costeris’s comments on use of
deflectors are very clear, that the adoption
of jet stream deflectors is only considered
an improvement if the advantages outweigh
the drawbacks caused by the additional
losses through the jet fan, and
consequently the increase of power
consumption.
During the 1990s there was a big jump
JULY 2012 Tunnels & Tunnelling International
FAN DEVELOPMENT | TECHNICAL
ahead in the research. The Department of
Mechanical Engineering of the University of
Padua in Italy and the Centre for Tunnel
Aerodynamics Research at the South Bank
University in London, UK worked together
in a joint research program and improved
the analysis of k factor.
The major improvements were:
Creation of a scale model of a real tunnel
cross section (ANAS 505, Italian Road
Authority) at a scale of 1:10.
Creation of a jet fan scale model 1:10
including the typical swirl angles, with
and without silencers.
Both single and pair jet fan scale models
at various distances between the vault
and fan centres. And also analysing
effect of distance between jets or pairs.
Benefit analysis of inclining the jet.
The work done was presented in 1994
[9], 1997 [10] [11], 2000 [12] and today
represents the more updated Kempf factor
determination.
Technical solution
From formula (4) it is clear that the Kempf
factor is an extremely important influence
on the number of jet fans to be used and
consequently installation and running costs.
The data in [9], [10], [11] and [12]
confirms that it could vary between 0.65 to
0.78 so any improvement achieved will give
benefits as described above.
Jet fan inclination
Fully reversible booster fans in a
bidirectional traffic tunnel, or in a
unidirectional tunnel that, during
maintenance allows two way traffic and
does not allow the adoption of inclination
that will only benefit one direction. In some
cases the inclination is not achievable due
to tunnel clearance demands.
From [10] [11] it was found that from 5°
to 10° there is an optimisation of the
installation efficiency. This method has no
remarkable application as far as the authors
are aware.
Deflectors
As far as the authors know Kempf [2]
studied the effect of deflection vanes on a
pipe installed in a corner of a rectangular
section in 1965.
The research was limited to establishing
the effectiveness of an installation that uses
deflectors. Effectiveness was surely
increased due to the directing of the flow
away from the wall. However from a fan
point of view, the installation of deflectors
on the outlet side or, even worse (in the
case of a fully reversible jet fan), on both
59
058_062tun0712 Systemair:T&T 25/6/12 12:00 Page 60

TECHNICAL | FAN DEVELOPMENT

Impeller Motor Mounting foot Terminal box

Fan casing Tapered duct piece Tapered silencer

Impeller Motor Mounting foot Terminal box

Fan casing Silencer

Above, top: Figure 1, arrangement with
slanted silencer jet fans
Above, bottom: Figure 2, arrangement
with standard jet fan
the inlet and outlet, generates a negative
effect on the fan performances through an
increased drop, and especially on the inlet
side, with a non uniform fluidodynamic load
on the axial impeller.
Lotsberg [13] investigated the effect of
deflectors on large, 1,500mm jet fans in a
6.6km long tunnel so the loss was limited.
The test was only done in one direction
and they found a high energy loss inside
the fan.
On a fully reversible fan this approach
does not give any real benefit. Should the
deflection vanes be attached at some
distance from the fan ends, the pressure
drop could be reasonably reduced but only
a proportion of the spreading plume would
be captured and turned, so again the
benefit is reduced.
The use of the deflectors has been
limited and discontinued. No further
the conclusion was not a consistent result
due to the large tolerance span.
In a second in situ measurement of the
Collembey Tunnel in Switzerland, Mart et al
[15] improved the measurement technique
reducing the uncertainty down to ± 12 per
cent. Here the jet fans were installed in the
corner of a rectangular tunnel section. It
was concluded that the thrust of the slatted
silencer jet fan was between 11 per cent to
21 per cent higher than the one of
conventional straight jet fans.
The above installation was possible since
the slanted silencers didn’t interfere with
Below: Figure 3, axial fan performance curves
Stall line
Fan
characteristic
Pressure
tunnel clearance. If this is the case, then the
two possible installation arrangements are
feasible (see Figures 1 and 2, above).
These two solutions have the same k
factor so there is no real need to install the
slanted silencer jetfan type. Silencer
slanting of 10° or more (normally it is
between five and 25 per cent) means that
the plume of the jet fan will be further from
the vault of the tunnel, increasing the k
factor, but at the same time it will hit the
ground of the tunnel, generating a loss.
During a fire scenario, if the jet attaches
itself to the tunnel floor and moves forward
Resistance
line with
nozzle
New operating

research has been undertaken. point (with nozzle)

Resistance
line without
Slanted Silencers nozzle
It is clear that the use of silencers has a
beneficial effect on the k factor [9]. A further
improvement is to slant the silencer down
or away from the wall in the case of a niche Constant
power line
positioned jet fan. This technical solution
surely increases the k factor. Original operating
point
In situ measurements on the Balmenrain
and Uznaberg tunnels in Switzerland were
carried out by Pospisil et al [14] but flow
V’1 V2 V1 Volumetric flowrate
measurement error was ± 19 per cent so

60 Tunnels & Tunnelling International JULY 2012 www.tunnelsandtunnelling.com

058_062tun0712 Systemair:T&T 25/6/12 12:00 Page 61

FAN DEVELOPMENT | TECHNICAL

Left, top: Figure 4, tapered silencer jet

fan arrangment Table 1: Mojet benefits based on 1.5km tunnel
Left, bottom: Figure 5, non-tapered
Standard Jetfan Mojet
silencer jet fan arrangment
Design thrust needed in the 22,803N
as a ‘wall jet’, the air velocity above the jet tunnel including the effect of
may be less than the critical velocity for air velocity inside the tunnel
smoke control, possibly leading to localised as per formula three
smoke back-layering. k factor Kempf 0.73 0.95
This problem has been analysed by
Betta et al [16] and the conclusion was in Static thrust needed from 31,237N 24,003N
terms of energetic operating costs jetfans as per formula four
reduction:
Optimal pitch angle 6° for a free tunnel.
Optimal pitch angle between 2° to 4° for Table 2: Comparison of jet fan performance
a tunnel with a traffic jam (e.g. congested
Standard Jetfan Mojet
traffic or fire scenario).
Jetfan diameter 710mm
This issue may need to be addressed
Jetfan thrust 822N 758N
during the design stage of the project,
possibly resulting in a higher number of jet Resulting Jetfan quantity 38 32
fans in a fire scenario.
Jetfan absorbed power 328kW 28.6kW
Due to the high silencer deflection angle
the thrust developed along the longitudinal Total power 1,246.4kW 915.2kW
tunnel axis has to be corrected by the
Running hours per year 1000h
cosine of the angle.
kWh per year 1,246,400 915,200
The latest technical solution Electricity cost EUR 0.11/kWh

Mojet
So far we have seen various technical
efforts in order to maximise the momentum
exchange between booster fans and the
fresh air flow induced into the tunnel.
If we again consider formula one, we can
appreciate that:
= we have no control since it is a
physical property of the air inside the tunnel
, = they are linked together in a
directly proportional way. But should qv be
kept constant, and in some ways Vf
increased, the result is an increase in the
fan-developed thrust.
In more technical detail, Tarada [17] [18]
describes the concept of the ‘Momemtum
Jet’ (Mojet) with converging silencers
outlets (nozzles) on one or both side of the
fans depending on whether unidirectional
or reversible jet fans are needed. So a
significantly greater aerodynamic thrust can
be obtained, with this converging nozzle
arrangement, by accelerating the discharge
air into a smaller outlet area.
Naturally there are losses generated by
nozzles varying with a square law and
power demand with a cubic law.
Axial fans have a steep performance
curve, so the additional pressure drop
moves up the working point of the fan while
the volume flow reduction is not so
remarkable, or it is possible to operate at
Total energy cost per year EUR 137,104
Table 3: Financial implications of jet fan choice
Standard Jetfan
Formula (4) 31,237N
Quantity of jetfans 38
Total power 1,246.4kW
Total cost per year EUR 137,104
lower blade pitch angle and higher pressure
drops, while still delivering the required
aerodynamic thrust.
The latter seems to cancel all the
benefits but, it is not so, since moving
upwards in the fan characteristic curve, the
fan efficiency gets remarkably higher hence
there is a benefit.
Another benefit comes from the
inclination of the nozzles, not by as much
as slanted silencers (around 5°) but enough
to notably improve the k installation factor.
It is important to note that the silencer
downward inclination can be asymmetric,
keeping the lowest silencer side at the
same level, thus not increasing the fan
envelope and keeping the same clearance
as a standard jet fan.
We can summarise the variables:
Asymmetric converging silencers.
Inclination (about 5°).
EUR 100,672
Mojet Savings
24,003N -23%
32 -16%
915.2kW -27%
EUR 100,672 -27%
Blade pitch angle.
Area restriction ratio, of around 1:6.
Playing with all these possibilities we
have to optimise the combination, including
the Kempf factor, to get the maximum
performances out of the installed jet fan
configuration.
A work example based on a 1.5km long
tunnel can give a clear picture of the final
benefits (see Table 1).
From the above Table 2 we can now
highlight the advantages.
The above example has been developed
with a number of CFD calculations and it
has been optimised the many variables.
In this particular case, due to a small fan
diameter, the thrust provided by the Mojet
is lower than the one provided by a
standard jet fan but the k factor and the
absorbed power are better.

www.tunnelsandtunnelling.com JULY 2012 Tunnels & Tunnelling International 61

058_062tun0712 Systemair:T&T 25/6/12 12:01 Page 62

TECHNICAL | FAN DEVELOPMENT

For larger jet fan diameters of 1,000 to

1,250mm, the benefits can be achieved by
increasing the thrust and the restriction area
ratio. So for every fan diameter we should
evaluate all the possible variables to find
the best compromise:
Blade pitch angle and hence volume
flow
Area ratio restriction and hence velocity Jet fan blades
hence thrust
Power
k factor out. Concurrently, various fan engineering giving the possibility to increase the
technical solutions to achieve this have also longitudinal ventilation performances,
Additional benefits been developed. especially on energy consumption. This is a
This technical solution has other correlated The latest, though surely not the final key figure to be considered for present and
positive effects. By reducing the number of one, shows the best technical achievement, future design.
booster fans we can reduce the installation
costs. The cost of original equipment is
Bibliography
also positively affected.
The electrical cable cost represents [1] ISO 13350, Conversion Rules, Appendix C
about 50 to 60 per cent of the total cost in a
[2] “Einfluss der Wandeffekte aut die Treibstrahlwirkung eines Strahlgebläses“ I.Kempf -
longitudinal ventilation system.
Schweizerische Bauzeitung, 1965
Having fewer booster fans and less
power we can save in cable length and [3] “The friction losses on wall caused by jet flows of booster fans“ E. Rohne – BHRA, Sheffield,
diameter. In Italy, the Italian Road Authority U.K., 1979
(ANAS) prescribes that the jet fans and [4] “Jet flow momentum losses of a booster fan when installed in a tunnel niche” E. Rohne – BHRA,
correlated equipments have to withstand New York, U.K., 1982
400°C for two hours, hence the saving in
this part of the installation is remarkable. [5] “The influence of axis distance of two parallel jet flows on the friction losses on walls” E. Rohne –
The last but not the least important point BHRA, Lille, FR, 1985
is that maintenance costs are not normally [6] “The friction losses on walls caused by a row of four parallel jet flows” I,Rohne – BHRA, Durham,
given much thought at the preliminary U.K.,
contract stage of a jet fan order. A reduction
in the number of booster fans means less [7] “Friction losses of a single jet due to its contact with a vaulted ceiling” I.Rohne – BHRA, Brighton,
time inside the tunnel for inspection and U.K., 1991
maintenance purposes. [8] “Impulse fans” N. Costeris – BHRA, Brighton, U.K., 1991
The flexibility of inclined converging
[9] “An experimental study on the longitudinal ventilation system” A.D. Martegani, G. Pavesi, C.
nozzles can be done at any direction. On a
Barbetta – BHRA, Liverpool, U.K., 1994
horizontal plane, on a vertical plane, or a
combination of the two. This feasibility [10] ”The influence of separation,inclination and swirl on single and coupled jet fans installation
allows the use of such technology in round, efficiency” A.D. Martegani, G. Pavesi, C. Barbetta – BHRGroup, Aosta Valley, IT, 1997
rectangular or any shaped tunnel section,
[11] “The effect of jet plume configuration on the installation efficiency of jet fans” R.D. Matthews, M.
even in niches.
Tabarra, B. Kenrick – BHRGroup, Aosta Valley, IT, 1997

Future steps
The Mojet has been demonstrated to have
a sound physical basis, and the CFD
analysis has supported this. However, true
confirmation can only come with a real
installation, or in a test carried out at a 1:1
scale. It is even better if the test is
performed by a notified body that has no
interest at all to manipulate the relevant
measurements.
A 1:1 scale test was arranged for 2011 in
a 600m long tunnel in Spain. This was
changed to a test that will be carried out in
Italy in 2012.
Conclusions
From the mid 1960s until the present day, a
lot of dedicated research to establish the k
factor more accurately has been carried
[12] “Experimental investigation of interaction of plain jet fans mounted in series” A.D. Martegani, G.
Pavesi, C. Barbetta – BHRGroup, Boston, USA, 2000
[13] “Investigation of wall-friction, pressure distribution and the effectiveness of big jet fans with
deflection blades in the Fodnes tunnel in Norway” G. Lotsberg – BHRGroup, Aosta Valley, IT, 1997
[14] “Messungen an der Tunnellufftungsanlage der Tunnels Balmenrain und Uznaberg, Hauptstrasse
T8/A8” P. Pospisil, M. Mart, M. Brandt - HBI report 87 – 95 – 10 , CH, 2003
[15] “Strömungsmessung, Tunnel de Collembey” M. Mart, M. Brandt – HBI report 03 – 100 – 02 ,
CH, 2004
[16] “Numerical study of the optimization of the pitch angle of an alternative jet fan in a longitudinal
tunnel ventilation system” V. Betta, F. Cascetta, M. Musto, G. Rotondo – Tunnel and Underground
Technology, pages 164 – 172 , 2009
[17] “Impulse ventilation for tunnels – a state of the art review” F. Tarada , R. Brandt – BHRGroup,
New Bruswick, USA , 2009
[18] “Design, testing and application of an energy-efficient longitudinal ventilation system” F. Tarada –
BHRGroup, Dundee, U.K., 2011

62 Tunnels & Tunnelling International JULY 2012 www.tunnelsandtunnelling.com