Numerical characterization of pressure drop through a
low speed wind tunnel: Some design aspects
IvanTorranoa, Manex Martinez-Agirrea
a IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science,
Mechanical and Manufacturing Department,
Mondragon University
20500, Mondragon, Spain
itorrano@mondragon.edu
Abstract—The present study is an attempt to computationally
analyze major and minor energy losses in a low speed wind
tunnel (LSWT) with special emphasis on pressure drop
characterization together with a co-relating theoretical analysis.
This study produces preliminary results for analysis and design
of an open-circuit LSWT which is to be constructed at Center of
Fluid Mechanics at Mondragon University (MU) for analyzing
low speed wind flow application(s) with reduced form pressures
losses for flow past bluff bodies. Various losses at different
sections in the wind tunnel are calculated and total pressure drop
across the wind tunnel are estimated using computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) and theoretical methods.
Keywords-component; low-speed wind tunnel; pressure drop;
CFD; design
I. INTRODUCTION
Low speed wind tunnels are useful for solving aerodynamic
problems as they provide experimental information for
different flow tests. They are usually employed in different
engineering industries for aerodynamic testing of model
geometries of aircrafts, automobiles, keels, submarines, sails,
trains, bicycles, etc. With this respect, the constructional aim of
the open-circuit LSWT at the MU is to produce experimental
aerodynamic performance testing of different vehicle
components for automobile and bicycle manufacturers in order
to validate the performed CFD models.
LSWT can be designed for operations at very low Mach
number, Ma with speeds in the test section up to 400 km/h (~
100 m/s, Ma = 0.3) on the assumption of incompressible
(ρ=constant) and inviscid air flow. Wattenford [1] considers
that the losses through the wind tunnel (WT) can be obtained
by splitting the tunnel into different sections and analyzing the
losses of each component in succession. According to its
instructions, the section loss parameter in a section can be
represented or identified by the dimensionless ratio of the
pressure loss in the section to the dynamic pressure at the
entrance. This concept is then extended and applied to
constant-area sections, where primary losses have the major
influence in the pressure drop. Concerning geometry changes
in closed conduits and/or WT sections, the secondary also take
relevance. These and other guidelines are also suggested by
NASA, Eckert [2].
978-1-4673-6374-7/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
Mustafa Tutara,b,*
b
48011,Bilbao, Spain
*
mtutar@mondragon.edu
One of the most challenging steps when developing a wind
tunnel is to accurately dimension and design the contraction
section [3]. Many authors have performed intensive research
concerning this issue. Morel [3] implements several analytical
expressions to correctly design the contraction. As a design
criterion for the wall contour curvature radius, he proposes a
combination of two matched cubics as the basic shape of 2-D
axisymmetric contractions [4]. With respect to this study, Fang
[5] also provides an experimental study of the evolution of
flow in a square-to-square wind tunnel contraction.
Numerical models and methodologies have been also
developed in the context computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
approach for analysis and design of wind tunnel systems within
last decade. Sargison [6] makes a calibration of the wind tunnel
after construction and validate the design through CFD
predictions.
Also comparative analysis between theoretical and CFD
results of a Low-speed Wind Tunnel designed for Renewable
Energy applications are developed. Zehrung [7] provides in his
study a feasible design for a cost effective mid-sized wind
tunnel used for the purpose of teaching undergraduate students
and the testing of green energy wind turbines.
The design of the contraction zone will lead to several
comments which will be detailed in this study from both
theoretical and numerical methods. First, an original model will
be presented and the pressure drop computations through it will
be discussed with both theoretical and numerical methods.
After this, a design modification concerning the curvature wall
radius of the contraction section will be computed by CFD.
II. INITIAL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
In the present study, the initial design specifications are
based on the wind tunnel dimensioning principals given in
details in the book entitled “Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing”,
Barlow [8]. As stated in this reference work, the first step when
designing a wind tunnel is to determine the size and shape of
the test section. This dimension is given by the blockage ratio
(the relation between the area of the drag item and the test
section area). Once test section dimensions are determined, the
rest of the wind tunnel sections can be also defined in terms of
below referenced dimensioning criteria:
 • Settling chamber: It is situated just after the criteria, and the second approach includes also secondary
honeycomb and its function is to straighten the flow. losses at contraction zone.
Thus, its length needs to be sufficient to let the flow
A. First approach
straighten. In fact, the length of the settling chamber
Lsc needs to be half of the inlet diameter Dinlet (Lsc = 0,5 According to the indicated expressions stated by Barlow
Dinlet) [8], the losses at each section are determined based on the
following expressions where:
• Contraction section: Contraction cone or nozzle takes
the flow from the settling chamber to the test section K: Section loss parameter
while increasing the average speed. Typical value for f: Friction factor
the contraction ratio CR (area between inlet and outlet
of the contraction) is between 7-12. (CR=9) f = [2log10 �Re�f� - 0.8]
• Test section: It is the zone where the drag item is L: Length of the section
situated. It is defined by the Blockage ratio BR (ratio
between the drag item frontal area and the test section D: Hydraulic diameter of the section
cross-sectional area). Its length Lts must be sufficient to • Settling chamber: It is considered as a constant-area
let the flow be fully developed after the drag item. (BR section, and its pressure drop can be estimated based
< 6%; Length-to-hydraulic-diameter ratio >2) only on frictional or major losses.
• Diffuser: The diffuser extends from the downstream Ksc = f·L/D (1)
end of the test section to the fan section. The primary
parameters are the length Ld and the equivalent conical • Contraction section: According to Barlow’s criteria, it
expansion angle θ and the Area ratio AR (Ld = 3-4 · Lts ; is noteworthy here that the energy loss in the
θ = 2-3.5º) contraction section is mainly due to friction only, in
spite of being a gradual contraction which could
Based on above criteria, the sections of the wind tunnel are present secondary losses.
defined. Fig. 1 shows the general assembly together with the
dimensions of each section for the proposed LSWT model in Kcs = 0.32f·L/D (2)
this study. • Test section: As the case of the settling chamber, this is
a constant-area section, and its loss can be determined
by (1).
• Diffuser: Note that the diffuser section is composed of
two different section loss parameters. The first one (Kf)
is due to the frictional loss, also called primary or
major loss parameter. The second one (Kex), on the
other hand, is due to gradual or sudden change in the
section area and it is referred to secondary or minor
loss parameter.
Kd= Kf + Kex (3)
Figure 1. General assembly and dimensions for the LSWT geometry model. 1 f
Kf = �1- 2 �
AR 8sinθ
More information and computational details in relation to 2
both theoretical and numerical computations performed here AR -1
Kex =Ke (θ) � �
can be found in the subsequent two sections. It is also AR

noteworthy here that energy losses throughout the study are The expression Ke (θ) depends significantly on the cross-
represented in terms of pressure drop in the wind tunnel. sectional shape. The forms based on experimental data are
taken from Eckert [2].
III. THEORETICAL COMPUTATIONS
Once the dimension of each section is determined, the next Then the losses of each section are normalized with respect
step is to compute the pressure drop throughout each section. to the test section dynamic pressure.
The contraction section is a critical section when estimating the Klt = Kl · qi/qts (4)
total loss of the system as different expressions can be
observed in bibliography. According to Barlow [8], only Where:
frictional losses take relevance. However, other authors [9] Klt: Section loss referred to the dynamic pressure of
include also secondary losses for this gradual contraction zone the test section
due to its changing geometry. Thus, two different approaches
are used to theoretically obtain the pressure drop in the Kl : Section loss parameter
contraction section. The first one is based on the Barlow’s qi = ½·ρ·vi2: Dynamic pressure at the inlet of the
section
 ρ: Density The pressure loss in the rest of the WT sections are
calculated following the Barlow’s criteria, as it is computed for
vi: Velocity at the inlet of the section the first approach.
qts = ½·ρ·vts2: Dynamic pressure of the test section
IV. NUMERICAL COMPUTATIONS
vts: Velocity of the test section
Another method for estimating the pressure drop through
Then, total pressure drop is obtained by: the LSWT has been set up. A numerical simulation has been
developed using the software Ansys Fluent V.14.0.
∆H= ∑Klt·qts (5)
A. Geometry set-up
Where:
First, the geometry of the wind tunnel is constructed using a
∆H : Total pressure loss of the system in Pa CAD program. Fig. 3 shows the wind tunnel geometry layout
together with corresponding tunnel sections.
∑Klt: Sum of the normalized section losses
B. Second approach
As a second approach, it might be interesting to include the
secondary or minor losses in the contraction cone, due to the
geometric change. For this reason, another criteria is
introduced when analyzing the contractor losses, by only
taking into account the geometry parameters (inlet diameter D1,
outlet diameter D2 and cone angle θ) provided in Fig. 2 [9].

Figure 3. Geometry of the LSWT.

B. Computational domain
After importing the geometry to the Ansys environment, a
computational mesh is created to discretize the governing flow
equations for computationally model. The mesh presents over 4
million quadrilateral elements for the final mesh system and
the cut cell assembly method is employed for a faster
convergence and stability for flow simulations. The mesh is
also checked and revised for its skewness and aspect ratio
criteria. An image of the performed global mesh is shown in
Fig. 4. The local 2D sample mesh which is comprised of T-cell
is also provided to Fig. 5 for critical sections.

Figure 2. Main geometry parameters of the contraction zone

Given the dimensions of the contraction section proposed in

the LSWT model (Fig. 1), the diameter ratio (D1/D2=3) and the
cone angle (θ=15-40°) are determined.
According to a chart available in [9], the resistance
coefficient or section loss parameter is obtained (K=0.05).
Then, the loss through the nozzle is obtained by:
∆Hcs=K ½·ρ·v22
Where:
∆Hcs : Total pressure loss of the contraction section Figure 4. 3D mesh of the LSWT.

K : Section loss parameter An inflation of 10 layers with a size ratio of 20 is adopted

ρ: Density in the boundary layer to capture the near-wall effects on the
velocity profile. This parameter provides different first layer
v2: Velocity at the outlet of the nozzle thickness depending on the face sizing employed in each
section which is set up depending on the velocity through that
section. This way, similar wall y plus values are obtained
across the whole wind tunnel surface.
 TABLE I. COMPARISON BETWEEN THEORETICAL AND NUMERICAL
SECTION LOSSES AT 56,5 M/S OF TEST SECTION VELOCITY

Pressure drop (Pa)

Sections Theoretical Theoretical
Numerical
(Approach 1) (Approach 2)
Settling Chamber 0,14 0,14 0,20
Contraction cone 0,16 97,76 65,89
Test Section 41,41 41,41 64,66
Diffuser 119,09 119,09 112,36
Total Pressure Loss 160,08 258,40 243,11

As can be seen from the above table, all sections reproduce

Figure 5. 2D local mesh of the contraction section.
C. Computational procedure
Pressure inlet and outlet boundary conditions are used to
define the atmospheric pressure at the inlet and outlet sections.
The velocity input is given by fan boundary condition by
introducing the operating curve of the selected fan, which
correlates the pressure jump through the fan ΔPfan with the v
velocity through the fan. As can be observed in the following
expressions, four different operating curves are introduced
depending on the rotational speeds (n1, n2, n3, n4) of the fan.
Then, four different simulations are arranged, one per each
rotation speed;
ΔPfan (n1) = -12,791·v2 + 170,09·v + 1,1845
ΔPfan (n2) = -7,9944·v2 + 170,09·v + 1,8951
2
ΔPfan (n3) = -6,3955·v + 170,09·v + 2,3689
ΔPfan (n4) = -5,1164·v2 + 170,09·v + 2,9611
similar pressure drop values except the contraction one. The
reason for this is due to different theoretical approaches
adopted for computing the pressure drop. In Theoretical
Approach 1, which basically follows the Barlow criteria, only
primary losses due to the wall friction at the wall are
considered, and the calculated pressure drop is found to be a
very low value of 0,16 Pa. On the other hand, the second
approach takes into account the minor loss caused by the
gradual enlargement and leads to a very high value of the
pressure drop (97,76 Pa) across the nozzle.
The dissimilarity of the results in the computation of
pressure drop leads to determination of different system
characteristic curves, which correlates the pressure drop as a
function of the test section velocity. Figure 6 shows a graphic
representation of characteristic curves obtained from two
(6)
theoretical approaches and the numerical method utilized.
(7)
System characterictics curves
(8) 400
(9) 350
300
Pressure drop (Pa)

In the present study, the Pressure-Implicit with Splitting of

250 Theoretical
Operators (PISO) pressure velocity coupling scheme based on Approach 1
the high degree of approximate relation between pressure and 200
Theoretical
velocity is used for the present numerical solver. In addition to 150
Approach 2
this, a standard k-ε turbulence model is tested for vortex 100 Numerical
shedding flow. A standard wall function is employed for 50
boundary layer resolution in the close vicinity of the wall 0
surfaces. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Test section velocity (m/s)
The solver iterates until a good convergence and stability
for the mass flow rate is reached. Therefore, the extended
Bernoulli equation must be satisfied; Figure 6. Comparison between theoretically and numerically
obtained system characteristics
Pt𝑜t_𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 − Δ𝐻 + ΔP𝑓𝑎𝑛 = P𝑡𝑜𝑡_𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡 (10)
Having emphasized on the uncertainty of theoretical
Where: computation of the pressure drop, it can be said that the
Pt𝑜t_𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡,: Total pressure at inlet and outlet in Pa theoretical expressions of the loss at the contraction section
cannot predict the pressure drop with a high accuracy. They do
P𝑡𝑜𝑡_𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡: Total pressure at inlet and outlet in Pa not take into account the effect of the curvature radius at the
ΔH : Total pressure loss of the system in Pa inlet and outlet section, which may be an important parameter
as it will be shown later.
ΔPfan : Pressure jump through the fan in Pa
While theoretical computations are performed to determine
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION energy losses in the wind tunnel and hence to reproduce system
The pressure drop across each section of the LSWT and the characteristic as a function of flow velocity, the numerical
total pressure drop have been estimated using theoretical and computations are conducted for two different design models,
numerical methods as it is resumed in Table 1. namely Model 1 (original model) and Model 2 (modified
model), to demonstrate the effect of geometry change of
construction section on energy losses. This section plays an
important role when predicting the flux within the test section,
as will be discussed next.
Figure 7. Radius analysed for Model 1 and Model 2.
On the subsequent figures (Figs. 8 to 10) qualitative results
are presented in terms of velocity profile and wall shear stress.
Figure 8. Velocity contour fields for Model 1 (upper) and Model 2 (lower).
Figure 9. Velocity vector fields in the curvature of the contraction section for
Model 1 (left) and Model 2(right).
Figure 10. Wall shear stress fields for Model 1 (upper) and Model 2 (lower).
Observing the velocity contours it can be said that with a
greater radius at the inlet of the contraction section we reduce
the low velocity zone (the blue one), so it is more difficult to
have reverse flow in this zone. This effect can be better
observed in Fig. 9 of velocity vector fields at the entrance
section.
By looking at the wall shear stress contours it can be
concluded that a larger radius at the entrance of the test section
reprocess less friction, so the pressure drop is reduced in the
contraction and test sections, even if the contraction length is
greater. This data can be observed in Table 2.
TABLE II. Numerical comparison between modified and
original geometry model
Pressure drop (Pa)
Sections
Model 1 Model 2
Settling Chamber 0,20 0,21
Contraction cone 65,89 54,06
Test Section 64,66 55,37
Diffuser 112,36 114,73
Total Pressure Loss 243,11 224,36
CFD becomes a very useful tool as it accounts for both
effects of minor and major losses, and is able to predict the
effect of geometry modifications, for example, the effect of the
curvature radius. In addition to this, the radius of the
contraction plays a significant role of reducing pressure drop,
and of enhancing uniformity of the velocity profile in the test.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Several conclusions can be drawn from the present study as
follows:
• A geometry change of contraction section has a
significant effect on the wind tunnel pressure drop
computation. A higher curvature radius of contraction
section of the wind tunnel reproduces less pressure
drop values due to a better control of change of
velocity vector field in the contraction zone.
• The present results show that secondary losses cannot
be well estimated through theoretical computations for
certain cases as in the contraction section of the wind
tunnel. At this stage, CFD becomes a powerful tool to
accurately predict the pressure drop. CFD calculations
account for all minor losses (due to cross sectional
change) and major losses (due to wall and internal
friction) together for a design purpose.
• CFD is also suitable when selecting an appropriate fan
as it can directly compute its characteristic curve.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] F.L. Wattenford, “Factors Influencing the Enertgy Ratio of Return Flow
Wind Tunnels,” paper presented at the fifth International Congress for
Applied Mechanics, Cambridge, Sept. 12-16, 1938, p. 52.
[2] W.T. Eckert, W.M. Kenneth and J. Pope, “Aerodynamic design
guidelines and computer program for estimation of subsonic wind tunnel
performance”, NASA Technical Note TN D-8243, October 1976
[3] T. Morel, “Comprehensive design of axisymmetric wind tunnel
contractions”, ASME J. Fluids Eng. 97, 225–233, 1975
[4] T. Morel, “Design of two-dimensional wind tunnel contractions”, ASME
J. Fluids Eng. 99, 371–378, 1977
[5] F. Fang, “Experimental and analytical evaluation of flow in a square-to- [8] J. B. Barlow, H. R. William JR., Alan Pope, “Low-Speed Wind Tunnel
square wind tunnel contraction”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Testing”, Handbook, Third Edition, 1999.
Industrial Aerodynamics 89, 247–262, 2001 [9] H.W. King, and E.F. Breater, “Handbook of Hydraulics”, 5th ed. New
[6] J.E. Sargison, “Design and calibration of a wind tunnel with a two York: McGraw-Hill. 1963
dimensional contraction”, 15th Australasian Fluid Mechanics
Conference, 2004
[7] C. A. Zehrung, “Comparative Analysis of a Low-Speed Wind Tunnel
Designed for Renewable Energy Applications”, Thesis submitted to
Purdue University, 2011