Design of ITA’s Research Wind Tunnel Contraction Using CFD Tools
Bento Mattos
Embraer – São José dos Campos – Brazil
Nide G. C. R. Fico Jr. and Roberto M. Girardi
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica – São José dos Campos – Brazil -12228-900
Abstract
The present work describes the conceptual
design of the contraction for the new
subsonic research wind tunnel being
constructed at the Technological Institute of
Aeronautics (ITA), located in São José dos
Campos, Brazil. The contraction was
conceived to yield an excellent flow quality
at the test section. The method described by
Morel was used to design a set of
reasonable initial geometries, which were
labeled and organized in some groups. The
fully unstructured CFD code FLUENT was
then employed to analyze the flow inside of
some selected wind-tunnel configurations.
The CFD results clearly revealed the most
suited configuration regarding the required
characteristics at the test section. The study
is part of a project of technological
innovation being supported by FAPESP in
which ITA and Embraer are involved. The
final objective of this endeavor is to create a
methodology for extrapolation of
experimental 2-D results to three-
dimensional configurations.
Introduction.
Contraction is a most important element of
a wind tunnel. As the fluid passes through
the contractions, the flow accelerates and,
consequently, an uniformization of velocity
profile and a decrease in the turbulence
level occurs. Real contractions have finite
length and, as a consequence, it is observed
that: (i) an adverse pressure gradient exists
near both ends of the contraction, (ii) the
Copyright 2003 by the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights
reserved.
speed along the centerline is larger than the
speed close to the wall near the contraction
entrance and (iii) at its exit the flow velocity
near the wall, but outside the boundary
layer, is larger than the velocity at the center
line (Tulapurkara and Bhalla, 1988). Thus,
to provide the desired high quality flow at
the test section, the contraction should have
a geometry that minimizes the adverse
pressure gradients at its extremities, in order
to avoid boundary layer separation. Besides,
it is necessary to have in mind that at the
contraction exit plane the boundary layer
thickness should be small and the velocity
profile uniform.
There exist in literature countless
methods for designing contractions. Klein et
al (1973), Chmielewski (1974) and Morel
(1975) supply good bibliographical revision
on the subject. Most of the proposed
methods solve the equations considering the
flow incompressible and potential. The flow
solution supplies, among other information,
the streamlines. The segment of a
streamline that results in a monotonic
velocity distribution, with the desired
contraction ratio, is chosen to mold the
contraction contour. Thwaites (1946) and
Bossel (1969) make a different approach.
They admit that the entrance and the exit
planes of the contraction are equipotent
planes. Through a technique of separation
of variables, they obtained an expression, in
series form, for the velocity potential. From
that result, the streamlines are calculated.
The series coefficients are such that a
monotonic velocity distribution along the
contraction wall is guaranteed.
The contraction of ITA’s Research
Wind Tunnel (Fig. 1-3) was designed
through the method proposed by Morel
(1975). The project begins with the choice
of the contraction’s geometry, that is, its
length and contraction ratio. Then a numeric
solution for the flow inside the contraction
and ducts of constant cross section at each
one of the contraction’s extremities are
obtained. The contraction is considered of
finite length, resulting in adverse pressure Fig. 2 – Inlet nozzle.
gradients and non-uniformity of the velocity
profile close to both ends. The Stratford
Criterion (1959), to prevent boundary layer
separation, is used to avoid the occurrence
of this highly undesirable phenomenon,
especially in the contraction of a wind
tunnel of which an excellent flow quality at
the test section is required. Tulapurkara and
Bhalla (1988) made an experimental
investigation of two nozzles; one had a
contraction ratio of 3.464 while for the other
this parameter was equal 12. Both were
designed through Morel’s method. They Fig. 3 – test section.
observed that: (i) in both cases there was no
The design and construction of a
flow separation (ii) the nonuniformity in the
wind tunnel with low turbulence level at the
velocity profile, at the contraction exit was
test section (TI = 0,05%) is part of the
1% instead of the 2% expected (iii) the
Project of Technological Innovation
velocity profile is practically uniform at a
financed by the Fundação de Amparo à
distance equal to 0.1 D1 where D1 is the
Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
diameter at the contraction inlet section.
(FAPESP), in which both ITA and Embraer
Thus, it can be affirmed that the easy to use
are involved. The objective is to develop
Morel’s method is capable of supplying a
methods for extrapolation of experimental
good contraction.
results obtained in 2-D bodies for 3-D
configurations. ITA’s Research Tunnel, a
fundamental tool in such an effort, will have
a test section of 1.0x1.2 m. The maximum
Reynolds number is 106, based on a model
whose characteristic length is 0.30 cm. The
last generation instrumentation includes
equipment such as Particle Image
Velocimetry (PIV) and Laser Doppler
Velocimetry (LDV). Both, with capacity for
3-D measurements, will be of paramount
Fig. 1 – Cutaway of the wind-tunnel importance in the present and future
installation.
experimental investigations undertaken at
the Division of Aeronautical Engineering of
ITA.
 Brief Explanation of Morel’s Method
The contraction’s contour is obtained
through cubic curves that join at a point
denoted by xm. Results for the potential flow
inside nozzles with contraction ratio varying
from 2 up to 25 are supplied by Morel
(1975). The parameters L/D1 and X= xm /L
(see Fig 1) were varied from 0.75 up to 1.27
and from 0.12 up to 0.8, respectively. Once
the pressure distribution along the wall was
calculated, it was possible to get the
pressure coefficients at the inlet and outlet
of the contraction, Cpi and Cpe,
respectively. Thus,
where Vi and Ve are, respectively, the
2 2
é V ù é U 2 ,¥ ù
C pi = 1 - ê1 - i ú C pe = 1 - ê1 - ú handling both internal and external flows
êë U i ,¥ úû ë Ve û
minimum and the maximum velocity close
to the entrance and to the exit of the
contraction, while U1,¥ and U2,¥ are the
undisturbed velocities upstream and
downstream of the nozzle. Graphics of Cpi
and Cpe as function of L/D1 and X= xm /L
for several contractions were obtained by
Morel (1975). With the aid of such results,
L/D1 and X= xm /L are obtained for the
wanted contraction ratio and for the chosen
values of Cpi and Cpe. Once the values of
L/D1 and X, the inflection point, are known
the geometry of the wall contour is given
by:
D-D 3 engineering
2 = 1 - 1 æç x ö÷ for x £ X
D -D X 2 èLø L
1 2
D-D 1 æ xö
3
x way, to eliminate such small scales and high
2 = 1- - ³X
2 ç ÷ for
1 frequencies. The resulting system of
D -D
1 2 (1 - X ) è L ø L equations, the so-called Reynolds Averaged
where D is the diameter at a distance x from
the contraction inlet and D2 it is the
diameter at its exit.
Fig. 4 – Sketch of a contraction made up of
two cubic curves.
Description of the Computational
Method
The commercial fully unstructured code
FLUENT was used in the simulations
considered in the present work. FLUENT is
a well-known CFD package, developed in
the context of unstructured grids that uses a
finite-volume formulation and is capable of
around complex geometries. The equations,
after being discretized, can be
simultaneously (coupled method) or
sequentially (segregated method) solved. In
the present work, the segregated method
was adopted. A point-implicit Gauss Seidel
scheme in conjunction with a method of
algebraic multigrid (AMG) is used to solve
the scalar system of equations for each
dependent variable at a cell.
Turbulent flows are characterized by
fluctuations. Considering that among these
fluctuations there are very small scales and
very high frequencies, it becomes unfeasible
to directly simulate such flows in practical
calculations. Thus, the
instantaneous governing equations can be
averaged in time or, in any other suitable
Navier-Stokes Equations (RANS), requires
far less computational resorts to be solved
(Table I). RANS equations require closure
for Reynods stresses in order to develop
turbulence models. Turbulence modeling is
one of the pillars of CFD; the other two are
mesh generation and development of
algorithms. Unlike the other two, progress
in turbulence modeling has been slow and
the models are not, by any means, universal.
This should not come as a surprise due to
the great complexity of the physical
phenomenon (Wilcox, 1998). In this
context, FLUENT has several turbulence
models, leaving the user the best choice for
the problem at hand. In this work, three
turbulence models were used: Sparlat-
Allmaras, standard k-e, nd a Reynolds
Stress Model (RSM). For two-equation
models, turbulence viscosity is correlated
with turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) and the
dissipation rate of TKE. The k-ε turbulence
model is the most widely used in the
industry. Therefore, its strength and
weaknesses are well documented. The k-
equation is derived by subtracting the
instantaneous mechanical energy from its
time-averaged value, and the ε-equation is
formed from physical reasoning. This model
is only valid in fully turbulent flows. In
order to overcome the intrinsic drawbacks
of the Standard k-ε model, some derivatives
were developed such as the Realizable k-ε
and the RNG k-ε.
Table I– Solving the Navier-Stokes equations.
The one-equation model of Sparlat
and Allmaras solves a transport equation for
the turbulent kinetic viscosity. This model
was especially developed for aeronautical
applications involving internal flows and it
has been supplying good results for
boundary layers subjected to adverse
pressure gradients. In FLUENT, the original
model of Sparlat and Allmaras was
modified to use wall functions whenever the
mesh is not refined enough for low
Reynolds computations. An important point
is that the gradients of the transported
variables close to the wall are smaller than
those of the k-e model. Consequently, the
Sparlat and Allmaras model is less sensitive
to near-wall grid quality.
The Reynolds stress model is the
most sophisticated one available in the
FLUENT arsenal of turbulence models.
Abandoning the hypothesis of isotropic
turbulence, RSM addresses the resolution of
the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
equations by solving transport equations for
the Reynolds stresses, together with an
equation for the dissipation rate. This means
that four additional equations are requested
for 2-D simulations flows while seven are
needed for 3-D floes. The complexity of the
RSM gives it a larger potentiality to cope
with complex flow fields than models based
upon the Boussinesq hypothesis. However,
the accuracy of the RSM predictions is still
limited by the assumptions related to several
terms in the transport equations. The
modeling of terms such as turbulence
dissipation rate and pressure are particularly
challenging and often considered
responsible for degrading the accuracy of
numerical simulations using RSM. Table II
compares the weaknesses and strengths of
some turbulence models10.
Table II – Strong and weak points of some
turbulence models.
Most k-ε and RSM turbulence
models will not predict correct near-wall
behavior if integrated down to the wall.
Thus, special near-treatment is required.
Concerning the near-wall treatment, Table
III presents the usual techniques and
provides a good comparison between
them10.

Table III - Comparison of near wall
treatments.
Results
In terms of fluid dynamics the accurate
modeling the internal wind-tunnel flow
requires the adequate computation of both
flow field and boundary-layer development.
This section presents results in order to raise
important issues concerning the application.
The choice of FLUENT was the CFD tools
is based on previous successful experience
by de Mattos et all [11– 13] in the
application of FLUENT to usual practical
problems, typical of the aerospace industry,
in both aerodynamics and thermal analysis.
ITA’s Research Wind Tunnel has been
designed aiming outstanding flow
characteristics to be achieved in the test
section. One of the indicators of such flow
quality is the turbulence level attained by
the overall configuration. In the present
case, the goal is to keep turbulence level
under 0.05% in the test section. An
adequate design of the contraction section is
a way to obtain low turbulence levels.
Efficient contractions are characterized by a
uniform and steady velocity profile at the
exit cross section. An additional important
consideration is a small boundary-layer
thickness at the nozzle outlet with the
smallest length. A contraction that satisfies
these requirements will certainly present
boundary-layer profiles that are close to the
separation point. Further, the non-
uniformity of the exit-velocity profile is
equal to the tolerated maximum, typically
±1/2% outside the boundary layer. It is
always possible to avoid boundary-layer
separation by increasing the nozzle length,
which in turn, softens the adverse pressure
gradient. The pressure loss in the screens
placed at the stilling chamber is
proportional to the inverse of the square of
the contraction ratio. High contraction ratios
are, therefore, desirable. On the other hand,
the larger the contraction, the more
expensive is its construction with increased
risk of boundary-layer separation. Thus, a
compromise for small wind tunnels is a
contraction ratio between 6 and 9 (Metha
and Bradshaw, 1979). ITA’s wind tunnel
was designed with a contraction ratio equal
to 10 in an effort to get low turbulence level
at the test section.
Morel (1975), based on Stratford’s
approach (1959), suggests maximum values
of Cpi and Cpe to keep the boundary layer
attached. Contractions with small L/D1 and
X= xm /L (see Fig. 4) yield Cpi>0.5 and, in
such a case, boundary-layer separation close
to the nozzle entrance, is a real danger.
Design criteria related with the nozzle exit
flow conditions indicate, according to Morel
(1975), values of Cpe£0.06. Table IV
shows the main parameters for the
geometries studied.
Table IV: Parameter of the analyzed
contractions.
The flow for all configurations
presented in Table IV was numerically
simulated. It is important to point out that
the calculation domain covers the
contraction and the whole length of the test
section in order to estimate the boundary
layer growth along it.
All simulations were performed
using the Fluent’s segregated method.
Typical computational meshes were made
up of 1.6 million hexahedral elements (Figs.
5, 6). An important detail of the grid
construction is the rounding of the corners
of both the contraction and the test section.
This rounding is convenient for the
mounting of “corner fillets” used to make
the fine adjustment in the compensation for
the boundary layer growth during tunnel
calibration phase. All computational meshes
were generated using the pre-processor code
Gambit, which is also developed and
marketed by FLUENT Inc., New
Hampshire. The baseline meshes possessed
about 1,600,000 hexahedra but after grid
adaptation to ensure enough points inside
the viscous sub layer, this number raised to
about two million.
Figure 5 - Computational mesh for
configuration #1. Notice the round corners.
Figure 6 – Another view of the superficial
mesh for configuration #1.
Boundary conditions were such that
the mass flow rat, at the inlet of the
computational domain, and the static
pressure, at the exit plane, were fixed. The
mass flow was prescribed in order to obtain
the desired speed at the test section. The
outlet pressure corresponds to the local
atmospheric pressure.
Fig. 7 compares the boundary-layer
thickness at the end of the test section that
were obtained by calculations employing
three different turbulence models. All
simulations were performed with 52.2 m/s
maximum speed at the test section. It can be
easily observed that there is a significant
difference between the results obtained with
the standard k-e model and the other two
closure schemes. The good agreement of the
Sparlat-Allmaras model with the RSM
approach gave the authors confidence in the
results obtained by the former.
Fig. 7 – Boundary-layer thickness at the end
of the test section obtained with several
turbulence models. Configuration #1.
Fig. 8 exhibits the static pressure
contours along the tunnel walls for
configuration #1. A very smooth pressure
distribution is observed along the
contraction and the test section.
Configuration #1 is, in fact among all
others, the one presenting the smoother
static pressure variation along the tunnel’s
centerline. Thus, although it is the longest
one, configuration #1 is a good candidate to
equip ITA’s Research Wind Tunnel.
Fig. 8 - Static pressure contours along the
wall of configuration #1.
The static pressure contours along
the walls of configuration # 7 are shown in
Fig 9. This contraction is considerably
shorter than configuration #1 and its
inflection point, X, is located at x=L/2 (see
Fig 4). It can be noticed, that is this case,
the pressure distribution no longer presents
a variation as smooth as the one in Fig 7.
The flow seems to accelerate more abruptly
and low-pressure areas near the
contraction’s end (beginning of the test
section) become visible, especially at the
corners.
Fig. 9 - Static pressure contours along the
wall of configuration #7.
Fig. 10 shows the same type of
result presented in Figs. 8 and 9, now for
configuration #5. This configuration is even
shorter than number 7. The inflection point
is located around 65% of its total length,
which is closer to its end than others
presented so far. Comparing Fig. 10 with
Figs. 8 and 9, all drawn to the same scale, it
a significant smoothness loss on the
pressure distribution can be noticed. The
flow accelerates even more abruptly than in
configuration #7 and the areas of low
pressure close to the exit plane, became
much more pronounced.
In Fig. 11 is shown the pressure
distribution along the centerline for
configurations 1,2, and 5. The
computational domain includes both the
contraction and the test section.
Configurations 1 and 2 have the same
length, 4.97m, and L/D1= 1.27. The
difference between them lies in the
inflection point, which for configuration #1
is closer to the inlet plane. Configuration #5
is shorter with 3.40 m in length and L/D1=
0.87. By comparing the curves referring to
configurations 1 and 2 it is possible to
verify the influence of the inflection point
position upon the pressure distribution
along the contraction’s centerline. The
results seem to indicate that the closer the
inflection point is to the contraction’s inlet
the smoother is the pressure distribution.
Finally, it is observed that a linear pressure
gradient exists along the test section and,
therefore, the tunnel walls need to be
diverged accordingly.
Fig. 10 - Static pressure contours along the
wall of configuration #5.
Fig. 11 – Static pressure distribution along the
centerline of configurations #1, #2, and #5.
Systematic analysis of the
configurations shown in Table IV indicates
that configuration #1 is the more suited one
to equip ITA’s Research Low Speed Wind
Tunnel. In order to further illustrate the flow
characteristics related to contraction #1
some velocity plots for a cross-section plane
at the test section are shown. Fig. 12
exhibits the velocity profile at a given X-
station in the vertical plane of symmetry for
the calculation performed with the Standard
k-ε turbulence model. The calculated
velocity profile is seen to be uniform, as it
should be. In order to verify flow angularity
Figs. 13, 14, and 15 show the velocity-
component profiles. One can observe that
the velocity components in the Y and Z
directions are two orders of magnitude
smaller than the component in the X-
direction, along the tunnel axis. In other
words, the flow is parallel to the tunnel
centerline.
Fig. 12 – Velocity magnitude profile
along the Y-axis for configuration #1.
Fig. 13 - Profile of the X-velocity along
the y-axis for configuration #1.
Fig. 14 – Profile of Y-velocity along the Y-axis
at the test section for configuration #1.
Fig. 15 – Profile of the Z- velocity along the
Y-axis at the test section for configuration #1.
Fig. 16 shows the total pressure
variation at the symmetry plane xz. The
head loss is only 87.2 Pa, which
corresponds to about 0.10% of the total
pressure at the contraction inlet plane. The
boundary layer is thin at the test section
entrance and remains that way along it.
Results indicated a half-degree divergence
of the test section walls.
Fig. 16 – Total pressure contours for
configuration # 1 using Reynolds Stress
Turbulence model.
Concluding remarks
A successful design of a contraction to
equip ITA’s Research Low Speed Wind
Tunnel was achieved with the aid of CFD
tools. Several geometries, obtained through
the method introduced by Morel (1975),
were studied. The numerical simulations of
the turbulent, three-dimensional flow, inside
each configuration, were accomplished
using Fluent. Among the studied
contractions, configuration 1 was the one
that presented smoother pressure
distribution along the axial direction as well
as greater flow uniformity at the test
section. In spite of its largest length, it was
verified that boundary-layer growth along it
is not prohibitive. Further, the probability of
boundary-layer separation is practically
zero. Therefore, configuration #1 was
chosen to equip the tunnel. Another very
important result of this work was
quantifying the boundary-layer growth
along the test section. Because of this result,
the top and bottom walls were designed to
diverge by half degree. The tunnel
construction ended in December 2002.
Calibration is schedule to take place during
February 2003.
Wind Tunnel Contractions,” ASME Journal of Fluid
Engineering, Vol 110, pp. 45-47.
7. Stratford, B. S., 1959, “The Prediction of
Separation of the Turbulent Boundary Layer,”
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 5, Part 1, pp. 1-16.
8. Thwaites, B., 1946, “On the Design of
Contractions for Wind Tunnels,” Aeronautical
Research Council, Londres, R&M 2278.
9. Wilcox, D. C., 1998, Turbulence Model in
CFD, DCW Industries, La Cañada, CA, EUA.
10. FLUENT 5.3 User’s Guide, Vols. 1-4.
FLUENT Incorporated, Lebanon, New Hampshire,
USA, 1996.
11. de Mattos, B. S., Ferarri, M. A. S. and
Leahy-Dios, F, “Transonic Euler Flow Calculation
around a Transport Configuration with Powered-
Engine Effects,” 37th AIAA Aerospace Sciences and
Exhibit, AIAA Paper # 99-0529, January 1999,
Reno, NV, USA.

Acknowledgements 12. de Mattos, B. S. and Oliveira, G. L., “

Three-dimensional Thermal Coupled Analysis of a
Wing Slice Slat with a Piccolo Tube,” 18th AIAA
The present work is inserted in the Project
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA Paper #
of Technological Innovation PITE 2000-3921, August 2000, Denver, CO, USA.
supported by FAPESP (www.fapesp.br)
under grant 00/13769-0. 13. Fernandes, F. C., and de Mattos, B. S.,
“Aerothermodynamic Flow Simulation Inside an
Aircraft Cabin with Consoles and Screens,”
Bibliography European Congress on Computational in Applied
Sciences and Engineering, ECCOMAS 2001
1. Bossel, H. H., 1969, Computations of Conference, September 2001, Swansea, UK.
Axisymmetric Contractions,” AIAA journal, Vol. 7,
No. 10, pp. 2017-2020.

2. Chmielewski, G. E., 1974, “Boundary Layer

Considerations in the Design of Aerodynamic
Contractions,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 11, No. 8,
pp. 435-438.

3. Klin, A., Ramjee, V., e Venkataramani, K.

S., 1973, “An Experimental Study of the Subsonic
Flow in Axisymmetric Contractions, ” ZFW, Vol.
21, No.9, pp 312-320.

4. Mehta, R. D. e Bradshaw, P, 1979, “Design

Rules For Small Low Speed Wind Tunnels,”
Aeronautical Journal, Paper No. 718, pp. 443-449.

5. Morel, T, 1975, “Comprehensive Design of

Axisymmetric Wind Tunnel Contractions,” ASME
Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 97, No. 2 pp.
225-233

6. Tulapurkara, E. G. e Bhalla, V. V. K., 1988,

“Experimental Investigation of Morel’s Method for