Conceptual Design of A Low Speed Wind Tunnel

THE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF KENYA
Faculty of Engineering Sciences and Technology

School of Mechanical and Process Engineering
Bachelor of Engineering
In
Aeronautical Engineering
Department of Aerospace and Aviation Engineering
GROUP A DESIGN PROJECT- EEAQ 5125
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A LOW SPEED WIND TUNNEL
1. Denis Ngene - 112/00519

2. Jack Ombuoro - 112/00504
3. George Namachanja - 112/00502
4. Paul Wasike - 112/00510
5. Clinton Okong’o - 112/00511
6. Naomi Mong’are - 112/00518
7. Stephen Kariuki - 112/00513
8. Samson Wambugu - 112/00516
SUPERVISOR: Ms. ADAH TOLE
©The Technical University of Kenya Exam Office 2016

Conceptual Design of a Low Speed Wind tunnel
DECLARATION
We, Group ‘A ’Team, do declare that this report is our original work and to the best of our
knowledge it had not been submitted for any degree award in any Institution. All work associated
with this project has been done by us in The Technical University of Kenya.
NAME SIGNED DATE
GEORGE NAMACHANJA ……………………………... …………………………

DENIS NGENE ……………………………... …………………………
STEPHEN KARIUKI ……………………………... …………………………
JACK OMBUORO ……………………………... …………………………
NAOMI MONG’ARE ……………………………… ………………………….
PAUL WASIKE ……………………………… …………………………..
SAMSON WAMBUGU ……………………………… …………………………..
CLINTON OKONG’O ……………………………… …………………………..
CERTIFICATION
I have read the report and approve it for examination and awarding.
Signed ………………………………… Date …………………………………………
Ms. Adah Tole (Project Supervisor)
I have read the report and approved it for examination and awarding.
Signed ………………………………… Date …………………………………………
Prof. Faustine Alloise Ondore (Departmental chair)
2
PREAMBLE
Reaching briefly back at history, it is interesting to see how wind tunnels have evolved. What is
amazing is the fact that this history goes all the way to 400 years ago when Leonardo da Vinci
stated the cardinal operating principle used in wind tunnel operations that,
“For since the action of the medium upon the body is the same whether the body moves in a
quiescent medium, or whether the particles of the medium impinge with the same velocity upon
the quiescent body; let us consider the body as if it were quiescent and see with that force it would
be impelled by the moving medium”
3
ABSTRACT
Aerodynamics research and model testing are mostly done on large wind tunnels for industrial
research. This is associated with complexities and large expenses. For simple aerodynamic
experiments for demonstration purpose it would be uneconomical to buy or lease such wind
tunnels. A wind tunnel operates on the principle of artificially producing airflow past a stationary
body to simulate the actual conditions acting on the model. This helps in obtaining the aerodynamic
forces and pressure distribution measurements as well as investigate the fluid flow behavior.
A few years ago, only a few institutions of learning were in possession of funds adequate to
construct and operate viable tunnels capable of being utilized in learning activities. Fortunate
enough, it is during this period that recorded exponential increase in the computing capabilities
and growth of programming languages necessary to program foundational mathematics. On the
other hand, as this trend increased, the cost of developing such systems decreased equally fast with
each development. With the continuation of these trends it became economical to study fluid flow,
bringing forth the advent of computational fluid dynamics. Continued advancement in computing
has resulted in equally advanced and accurate evaluation of flow regimes using CFD software.
Nonetheless, even with modern day computers a wind tunnel is a vital engineering research tool.
Therefore, Group A Team designed a simple wind tunnel that could be used by students, and their
instructors, of the Technical University of Kenya to do experimental demonstrations at a much
lower cost both considering its construction and desired operations. The design was made
convenient for learners and the institution in terms of ease of use, operating cost and model setting
for experiments.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to extend our appreciation to the chairman of the Aerospace and Aviation
Engineering department, Prof. Faustine Ondore, C.Eng who has been our course tutor in fluid
dynamics, wind tunnel techniques and Computational Fluid Mechanics and who guided us on how
to come up with an engineering project.
We also wish to thank our supervisor Ms. Adah Tole for providing us with relevant research
materials and information sources and for mentoring us through the entire project.
We also wish to thank Mr. Paul Ng’ethe, Mr. Joshua Muli, Ms. Jacqueline Munene, Col. Enos
Ndoli, Mr. Dickson Wambaa, Mr. William Olpengs, Mr. Ochiel, Mr. Kimaru, Mr. Makalliwa, and
the entire team of lecturers in the Department of Aerospace and Aviation Engineering for their
continued unwavering guidance and for your valuable counsel in the timely execution and
completion of this project.
We acknowledge the efforts of all the group members whose combined contribution made the
project a success.
Finally, thanks to the Almighty God for giving us the life and will to do the study and the project.
5
DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to all those willing to center their study and have enthusiasm in the
fields of aerodynamics, fluid flow and wind energy.
6
Table of Contents
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................ 2
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 5
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ 6
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... 10
TABLE OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. 11
NOMENCLATURE ..................................................................................................................... 13
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................ 17
1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 17
1.2. Background Information ................................................................................................ 20
1.3. Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 21
1.4. Research Objectives ....................................................................................................... 22
1.4.1. General Objectives .................................................................................................. 22
1.4.2. Specific Objectives ................................................................................................. 22
1.5. Scope and Limitation of Study ....................................................................................... 22
1.6. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis...................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................ 24
2.1. Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 24
2.2. Wind Tunnel Definition ................................................................................................. 25
2.2.1. Contraction Section ................................................................................................. 25
2.2.2. Test Section ............................................................................................................. 27
2.2.3. Diffuser ................................................................................................................... 28
7
2.2.4. Power plant ............................................................................................................. 31
2.3. Current State of Wind Tunnel Testing ........................................................................... 34
2.4. CFD Analysis ................................................................................................................. 36
2.5. DAQ Devices ................................................................................................................. 38
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................ 39
3.1. The Design Process ............................................................................................................ 39
3.1. Contraction Cone............................................................................................................ 41
3.1.1. Settling Chamber .................................................................................................... 47
3.1.2. Honeycomb ............................................................................................................. 47
3.1.3. Screens .................................................................................................................... 50
3.2 . Test Section ................................................................................................................. 51
3.2.1 The Design Approach ............................................................................................. 52
3.2.2. Construction ............................................................................................................ 53
3.2.3. Model Mounts ......................................................................................................... 54
3.2.4. Pressure Drops and Boundary Layer Growth ......................................................... 58
3.3. Diffuser........................................................................................................................... 58
3.3.1. Diffuser Geometry Design and Optimization ......................................................... 61
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................ 65
4.1. Analysis and Discussions ............................................................................................... 65
4.2. Loss Calculations ........................................................................................................... 67
4.3. Pressure Loss Coefficients ............................................................................................. 68
4.3.1. Test Section ............................................................................................................. 68
4.3.2. Contraction Cone ................................................................................................... 70
4.3.3. Diffuser .................................................................................................................. 71
4.4. Pressure Losses Calculations ........................................................................................ 72
8
4.5. CFD Simulations. .......................................................................................................... 74
4.5.1. Phase 1 ......................................................................................................................... 74
4.5.1.1. SolidWorks FloXpress Report .................................................................................. 75
4.5.2. Phase 2............................................................................................................................. 78
4.5.2.1. RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 83
4.5.3. Phase 3............................................................................................................................. 87
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................ 94
5.1. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 95
5.2. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 96
5.3. Future Works ...................................................................................................................... 97
Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................ 99
Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................................. 100
References ............................................................................................................................... 105
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Range of achievable contraction lengths ....................................................................... 43

Table 2: Range of achievable lengths of the Settling Chamber.................................................... 47
Table 3:Dimensions of the honeycombs ....................................................................................... 50
Table 4: Comparison between TUK 2017 wind tunnel with similar existing tunnels .................. 94
Table 5: Specifications of the TUK 2017 wind tunnel .................................................................. 94
10
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Boundary layer growth separation on a subsonic diffuser due to adverse (positive)
pressure gradient. At some point upstream of the flow, the boundary layer has grown to critical
and detaches completely from the walls followed by flow reversal. Source: White (1991) ____ 28
Figure 2: A simple demonstration of an open circuit wind tunnel courtesy of NASA. _______ 31
Figure 3: Demonstration of a closed circuit wind tunnel courtesy of NASA _______________ 33
Figure 4: The design process ___________________________________________________ 40
Figure 5:Blow down wind tunnel design from solid works ____________________________ 41
Figure 6: Polynomial plot of the contraction cone contour design drawn using MATLAB ___ 46
Figure 7: Contraction section cut out from Solid works ______________________________ 46
Figure 8: Honeycomb cross sectional areas and their corresponding pressure loss coefficient.
Source: Rafiuddin (2008) ______________________________________________________ 48
Figure 9: Screen cross section at the inlet of the contraction cone ______________________ 51
Figure 10: Test section as drawn in solid works ____________________________________ 52
Figure 11: Test Section with removable sides for placement of models __________________ 54
Figure 12: External model mounting. ____________________________________________ 55
Figure 13: Model mount. Source NASA ___________________________________________ 56
Figure 14: Jet flow showing eddies formation. Source: Blevins (1984) __________________ 60
Figure 15: Appreciable stall. Source: Blevins (1984) ________________________________ 61
Figure 16: Fully developed stall. Source: Blevins (1984) _____________________________ 61
Figure 17: Snap shot from Solid Works design of the diffuser layout.____________________ 62
Figure 18: Graph of optimal pressure recoveries for the diffuser geometry design experiments.
Source: Blevins (1984) ________________________________________________________ 63
Figure 19: Solid works snap shot of the diffuser section. _____________________________ 64
Figure 20:Snapshot from SolidWorks design showing the main sections of the wind tunnel as
well as the flow direction ______________________________________________________ 76
Figure 21: Snap shot from Solid Works indicating the Fluid flow velocities in the Y and Z
directions___________________________________________________________________ 76
Figure 22: Snap shot from Solid Works simulation showing the fluid flow in the X, Y and Z
direction in the designed wind tunnel model _______________________________________ 77
11
Figure 23:Snap shot from Solid Works simulation indicating flow regime at the test section _ 78
Figure 24: Meshed wind tunnel CAD model after meshing in Ansys Fluent _______________ 79
Figure 25: Scaled Residuals from Ansys Fluent ____________________________________ 82
Figure 26: Contours of static pressure from Ansys Fluent ____________________________ 83
Figure 27: Contours of Turbulent Kinetic Energy (k). from Ansys Fluent ________________ 84
Figure 28: Contours of Turbulent Intensity from Ansys Fluent _________________________ 85
Figure 29: Contours of Axial Velocity from Ansys Fluent _____________________________ 86
Figure 30: Meshing of the Airfoil from Ansys Fluent ________________________________ 88
Figure 31: Z - velocity variation in the test section __________________________________ 89
Figure 32: Pressure magnitudes on the test airfoil surface from Ansys Fluent _____________ 90
Figure 33: Typical pressure distribution field around an airfoil: Source: Anderson (1992) __ 91
Figure 34: Pressure distribution field around the test airfoil from Ansys Fluent ___________ 91
Figure 35: Turbulence around the test airfoil from Ansys Fluent _______________________ 92
Figure 36: Velocity variation along the airfoil _____________________________________ 93
12
NOMENCLATURE
SYMBOLS
𝜁 − pressure loss coefficient
𝜆 – coefficient
𝑅𝑒 – Reynolds number
Ma – Mach number
𝐷𝐻 – hydraulic diameter
𝑓 – friction factor
𝜀 – surface roughness
𝜇 – dynamic viscosity
𝜈 – kinematic viscosity
𝜃 – cone angle of the nozzle
𝜋 − pi
𝛽𝐻 − porosity
𝑢
⃗ – local axial velocity
𝑛̂ − normal unit vector
𝛼 − kinetic energy flux profile factor
𝜌 – mass density of flow
13
SUBSCRIPTS
𝑓𝑡𝑠 – friction factor at test section
𝐷𝑡𝑠 – hydraulic diameter at test section
𝐿𝑡𝑠 – length of test section
𝐾𝑡𝑠 – pressure loss at test section
𝐾𝑐𝑐 – pressure loss coefficient at the contraction cone
𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑔 – average friction factor
𝐶𝑝 – pressure recovery coefficient
𝐿𝑐𝑐 – length of the contraction cone
𝑓𝑐𝑐 – friction factor at the contraction cone
𝐾𝑑 − total pressure loss at the diffuser
𝐾𝑓 – pressure loss at the diffuser due to friction
𝐾𝑒𝑥 − pressure loss at the diffuser due to expansion
∆𝑃 – pressure loss
∆𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 – total pressure loss
𝑊1 – Height of diffuser at inlet
DH – Hydraulic diameter
LH – Length
U1 – axial velocity at the inlet of nozzle
U2 – axial velocity at the test section
U4 – diffuser exit axial velocity
𝑊2 – Height of diffuser at exit
14
A1 – nozzle inlet cross sectional area
A2 – Test Section inlet cross sectional area
A4 – Diffuser exit cross sectional area
15
ABBREVIATIONS
NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
CFD- Computational Fluid Dynamics
DAQ- Data Acquisition device
LSWT- Low Speed Wind Tunnel
NFAC – National Full-Scale Aerodynamic Complex
NASCAR – National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing
MDF – Medium Density Fiber wood
HC- Honeycomb
BLG – Boundary Layer Growth
2D – Two Dimensional
L.S.F – Linear Scale Factor
A.S.F – Area Scale Factor
VFR – Volume Flow Rate
HLOSS – Head loss
CR – Contraction Ratio
AR – Area Ratio
V – Average flow velocity
Q – Volumetric flow
V – Desired operating speed
16
CHAPTER 1
1.1. Introduction
The earliest actual wind tunnel in recorded in history dates back to over 100 years ago when
Francis Wenham designed and built a 10-ft-long, 18 inches per side square cross section wooden
box at Greenwich, England in 1871. Air was blown from the front through the duct using a steam
driven fan. However, due to the absence of contours along the tunnel, it lacked aerodynamic
control and thus flow enhancement could also not be achieved either. His activities were
nonetheless noted by the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain
A wind tunnel is defined as a device that is used to simulate flow of air in the desired velocity
ranges over a test surface. The surface is often a model that is a representation of the desired object
that needs to be designed. The model is thus built to scale so that the flow parameters derived from
it are an exact replica of what the real design feature would encounter in operation. There are
however full scale wind tunnels that can accommodate the actual vehicles or components that need
to be tested. The test section of these wind tunnels can accommodate full scale aircrafts or space
vehicles. For instance, NASA Ames Research Centre, located in Moffet Field, California, has the
largest wind tunnel ever built. This wind tunnel can accommodate any known aircraft type. Wind
tunnels are so significant to the aviation industry that each and every aircraft manufacturer,
including Boeing, Airbus and Northrop Grumman have resorted to them for aerodynamic studies.
In 1884, another Englishman Horatio F. Phillips is accredited with building the second wind tunnel
recorded in history. Like his countryman, his tunnel lacked contours as the flow duct was also a
box, however Horatio made improvements by using high speed steam ejectors downstream of the
working section to suck air through. He later went ahead and conducted some pioneering tests
using airfoils in this wind tunnel.
One of the earliest landmark uses of the wind tunnel in aviation goes all the way back to the Wright
Brothers, who are credited for making the first aircraft. As a matter of fact, it can be plausibly
stated that aircraft flight as we know it today would not have been possible without the wind tunnel.
Over a century has gone by, demarcated by gradual but indispensable milestones in wind tunnel
technology. The first wind tunnel ever built was basically an assemblage of simple equipment that
served their purpose during those times. These included an induction motor, a controllable pitch
17
The war planes of the Second World War were built basing on the data supplied by these simple
wind tunnels. The wind tunnels, operating for more than eighteen hours a day, were so vital in
their time that they were secured using tall fences. Fast forward to the present, the advent of new
technologies has taken the capabilities of the wind tunnels a notch higher. With the incorporation
of the relevant sensors, wind tunnels are now able to measure minute flow parameters such as
humidity, pressure, velocity, drag, lift and temperature. There has also been a fast rise in the
population of wind tunnels across the world. The device’s significance has seen it applied in
virtually any design and construction sector.
The theoretical techniques used in the data analysis of flow characteristics are not as practical and
empirical as the use of wind tunnel techniques. This is especially because theoretical techniques
often make use of assumptions at the expense of the accuracy of the test results. On the contrary,
wind tunnels simulate actual flow conditions and thus the data obtained is what would be obtained
when the aircraft finally sets to flight. This makes the data from a wind tunnel more reliable
compared to the data from theoretical analyses.
A possible substitute to wind tunnel techniques would be computational methods such as

computational fluid mechanics. This makes use of computer programs to simulate conditions of
the airflow and calculate the various flow parameters. As much as these methods have proved to
be time saving and accurate to some degree, they still lack the accuracy and practicality that a wind
tunnel offers. One of the reasons for this is that the computational methods are basically based-off
the theoretical techniques. The computer programs are created using equations from the theoretical
techniques that have been subjected to a number of assumptions. The wind tunnel is therefore
irreplaceable as far as the study of flow characteristics over a surface is concerned.
There are various applications of the wind tunnel in today’s modern industries. For instance, wind
tunnels are used to create flow visualizations around surfaces over which the airflow is directed.
This can be achieved using smoke. The patterns observed from these flow visualizations are critical
in the design of the aerodynamic parameters of an aircraft. For example, the formation of wing tip
vortices can be clearly observed in the test section if the coloration effect is employed. This will
then lead to the design of winglets of correct size so that the vortices are formed away from the
wing’s trailing edge. Flow visualization also comes in handy in determining the exact physical
point where separation of boundary layers in the flow occurs on the airfoil.
18
Wind tunnels are used in the study of the pressure distribution over an airfoil. Basic flight
physiology states that flight takes place when the pressure under an airfoil is greater than the
pressure above it. Had this been all the knowledge that it takes for an aircraft to take to flight, then
there would probably be twice as many aircrafts as there are today. However, the gist of the matter
is in the knowledge of the exact pressure distribution at each point on the aircraft. This is because
all these local pressure distributions ultimately have an impact on the overall flight performance
of the aircraft. With the wind tunnel, the pressure distribution over an aircraft’s fuselage or wing
can be accurately measured if pressure sensors are installed at the points of interest. This is also
true for the lift and drag forces and any other forces that have a bearing on the flight characteristics
of the aircraft.
Wind tunnels provide a practical means of determining an aircraft’s flight envelope. The first
incidence of stall caught the flight crew unawares. It was an unusual phenomenon that could not
be entirely grasped till a simulation was done in a wind tunnel. Ever since, it has been possible to
accurately demarcate the flight envelope of each aircraft in terms of the maximum and minimum
angle of attack, cruise speed, landing speed, take-off speed etc. All these parameters are determined
in a wind tunnel before the aircraft takes to flight. Without the wind tunnel, there would still be
many accidents resulting from stall when the aircrafts are operated beyond their respective flight
envelopes; incidences that would evade the comprehension of aeronautical and aerospace
engineers.
Wind tunnels are mostly classified according to the flow speed. There are four categories of wind
tunnels under this classification. These are:
i. Subsonic or low speed wind tunnels - 0 ≤ Ma ≤ 0.8

ii. Transonic wind tunnels - 0.8 ≤ Ma ≤ 1.2
iii. Supersonic wind tunnels - 1.2 ≤ Ma ≤ 5.0
iv. Hypersonic wind tunnels - Ma > 5.0
The subsonic wind tunnel is the most prevalent type of wind tunnel. However, the most popularly
used in the civil aviation industry are the transonic wind tunnels. This is because most civil aviation
aircrafts operate within this range. Supersonic wind tunnels are common in the design and
construction of military aircrafts especially in the testing of jet engines. Hypersonic wind tunnels
are majorly deployed in the design and construction space vehicles and rockets.
19
Subsonic wind tunnels can further be classified as either open circuit or closed-circuit wind
tunnels. Closed circuit wind tunnels are those that recirculate the air thus needing less power to
attain a certain airflow speed. On the contrary, open circuit wind channels are basically an open
channel with no corners and no air recirculation. Because of this, a lot of power is needed to
achieve a certain flow speed for an open circuit wind tunnel than for a closed-circuit wind tunnel.
Closed circuit wind tunnels also have a higher capability of controlling the flow conditions inside
the test section compared to the open circuit wind tunnel.
Apart from the four types of wind tunnels classified in accordance with speed, there are also
vertical wind tunnels used mostly for skydiving. A vertical wind tunnel moves air up in a vertical
column. Unlike standard wind tunnels which have test sections that are oriented horizontally, as
experienced in level flight, a vertical wind tunnel enables gravity to be countered by drag instead
of lift, as experienced in an aircraft spin or by a skydiver at terminal velocity. Although vertical
wind tunnels have been built for aerodynamic research, the most high-profile are those used as
recreational wind tunnels, also known as body flight, which have also become a popular training
tool for skydivers.
1.2. Background Information
A wind tunnel goes a long way in bringing real flight experience to the classroom. It’s almost
entirely impossible to fully comprehend certain airflow characteristics without the aid of a wind
tunnel. This has been the predicament of Aeronautical Engineering Students at The Technical
University of Kenya. The bulk of aerodynamic studies at the institution has been largely dealt with
at a theoretical level. The once in a while access that the students have had to the wind tunnel at
The University of Nairobi has been futile especially because the said wind tunnel has outlived its
generation. There was therefore need for a wind tunnel within the institution so that aerodynamic
studies are now dealt with using both theoretical and practical approaches. This is what stirred up
the idea of the design and simulation of the open circuit low subsonic wind tunnel by the fifth year
Aeronautical Engineering students. This undertaking is in fulfillment for their degree requirement
for the Bachelor of Engineering in Aeronautical Engineering.
20
1.3. Problem Statement
This project seeks to come up with a conceptual low cost, low subsonic open circuit wind tunnel
for aerodynamic studies at the Technical University of Kenya. The wind tunnel should also be able
to provide basic flow conditions for test purposes such as airfoil tests, wing sections and vehicle
models. In addition to that, the ultimate stage of the project is to simulate the operational wind
tunnel with a typical model and take the aforementioned measurements.
21
1.4. Research Objectives
1.4.1. General Objectives
I. To design and simulate a wind tunnel that can be used for aerodynamic studies at The
Technical University of Kenya.
II. To design and simulate a wind tunnel that can easily fit in the available physical space
at the institution.
III. To design and simulate a low-cost wind tunnel that will still have the capabilities of a
similar wind tunnel manufactured by professional designers.
IV. To set the pace for other Aeronautical Engineering Students in the Department of
Aerospace and Aviation Engineering at The Technical University of Kenya.
1.4.2. Specific Objectives
i. To design and simulate an open circuit wind tunnel with speeds of up to 30 m/s.
ii. To design and simulate a portable wind tunnel that can be easily moved from one lab
to another as meets convenience.
iii. To design a nozzle that best minimizes flow separation in the test section while
delivering unseparated flow to the diffuser
iv. To design a test section that has steady uniform flow
v. To minimize flow separation and unsteadiness in the diffuser
1.5. Scope and Limitation of Study
This project did not explain the operation of sensors and data acquisition devices. the integration
of these devices was left for future work to be done on the wind tunnel by subsequent groups of
students. The connection between the sensors and the computer for data analysis was also not been
covered for the same reason.
The level of complexity of the wind tunnel was limited by the time allocated for the entire project,
however we still did manage to go to detail in regards to the conceptual design and testing.
Successful completion of the project within the stipulated time limits was attained albeit with a
daily overwhelming workload on the team members.
22
1.6. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis
Research about this project was majorly done online. The team researched on similar projects
undertaken by various institutions in order to get a rough idea of the expected project. This was
especially useful in determining the scope of the study.
Case Study: During the early stages of the projects, the students visited The University of Nairobi
to study the wind tunnel located there. This helped in formulating the initial design concepts of the
wind tunnel in this project.
Interviews: interviews in form of consultations were carried out by the team members. They
consulted lecturers in their respective areas of expertise to help where they could.
Class work and relevant reading material: the design team also consulted all the relevant subjects
that promised to be helpful in the decision making and tackling of some of the challenges that they
faced. This included almost the entire work of fluid mechanics throughout the five years of study
and many other written materials by different authors.
23
CHAPTER 2
2.1. Literature Review
Since there are no specific sets of design rules regarding wind tunnels, a detailed literature review
of wind tunnel design is challenging. Wind tunnel design and construction is mostly governed by
the test section design which accommodates and tests the desired test pieces. The information
presented in this chapter provides a nutshell of the analysis of successful designs by other
researchers. These successful researchers formed the basis of design and construction of wind
tunnels. Mehta and Bradshaw (1978) stipulated guidelines for construction of wind tunnels. The
authors write that it’s unwise to lay down specific design requirements for wind tunnels as they
vary in requirement and hence in design (p.443). Additionally, this review contains information
on computational fluid dynamics, CFD, analyses and data acquisition, (DAQ) devices.
Wind tunnels have been deployed in various fields for several decades and gained importance in
the aeronautical field. According to Rae and Pope (1984), the intense obsession to fly among
humanity has been a great motivator towards the development of the wind tunnel.
In earliest attempts of flying, observation of birds created a great source of inspiration. Therefore,
most of the designs used flapping wings powered through various mechanisms. These flight
vehicles were known as ornithopters and turned out to be aviation failures.
In the 15th century, renowned artist Leonardo da Vinci’s creativity in artwork left 500 sketches
explaining the problems in flight. By the 18th and 19th centuries, the idea of aerodynamics was
minuscule. This led to the building of facilities to measure aerodynamics interactions of forces and
moments with objects.
The first attempts to test aerodynamics utilized an arm support onto which an airfoil was attached.
These attempts were effective and are still in use for demonstration purposes. Nevertheless, this
yielded incorrect results as well as artificial lift conditions. The erroneous results were due to wake
disturbance in which the wing would pass through. The need to have a high accuracy of results
and little or no room for error led to the design and development of better refined equipment and
apparatus (Rae and Pope, 1984). In 1947, Rae and Pope described a number of methods to obtain
24
necessary aerodynamic information from aerodynamic testing. The various methods were wind
tunnels and water tunnels among others.
2.2. Wind Tunnel Definition
A wind tunnel as defined in the introduction of the previous chapter is a device enabling analysts
to study fluid flow over various objects of interests such as models. Since the very first days, wind
tunnels have been used to substantiate aerodynamics theory as well as to facilitate the design of
aircrafts whose purpose still holds to date. In addition to the fact that wind tunnel utility aids in the
design of aircrafts, its usefulness also has a great impact in the design of wind turbines as well as
other designs that involve interactions with flow.
The four sections in a wind tunnel have a significant role in achieving the main purpose of the
tunnel in testing the flow behavior over objects of interest. Therefore, a brief discussion of these
sections of a wind tunnel and each component definitions has been included in this chapter. The
length, contraction ratio and shape characteristics define the design of the contraction section
which is crucial for accomplishing desired flow quality. The contour definition is critical for
uniformity in the flow profile and prevents flow separation near the walls of contraction cone. To
completely design a wind tunnel, the measurement equipment and their calibration need to be
defined with great concern of the aerodynamic forces and moments measuring devices. The choice
of the model balance is essential in gathering credible and precise measurement. This also applies
to the balance of the wind tunnel structure. An internally placed model support system offers
mobility since it is temporal. However, an externally installed model support has better accuracy
and reliability since it is fixed at the Test Section.
2.2.1. Contraction Section
The contraction nozzle forms a significant part of all wind tunnels designed for flow study. It is
traditionally installed on the upside of test section with two primary aims. First, a contraction raises
the free stream flow velocity as required by the law of mass conservation. Hence there arises the
need to place a honeycomb and/or screen in the lower speed region. These prevent loss of pressure
and hence the power factor. Secondly, since the total pressure does not change as the fluid passes
25
through the contraction section, the mean and changing velocity variations are minimized to a
smaller fraction of the average velocity at a specific sectional area therefore reducing the pressure
loses greatly.
The reduction of mean velocity variation is effectively explained using the Bernoulli’s principle
to a non-uniform flow through the contraction (Wood and West, 1987). The principal states that
the total pressure head of a fluid remains constant. Therefore, the reduction in static pressure is
compensated by an increase in dynamic pressure
The unsteadiness originating from separation of boundary layer or the fan takes the form of a low
frequency oscillation which is attributed to the measured stream wise variations.
The choice of contraction ratio is dependent on the constraints of costs as well as space. In most
cases, the ratio ranges from 6 to 9 for small low speed wind tunnels; a low speed tunnel has a cross
sectional area of 0.5m2 and a velocity that is not more than 40 ms-1. Besides the contraction ratio,
the other variable that has to be selected is the cross sectional shape. The corner flow in a
contraction is often subject to boundary layer separation as a result of the low velocities
encountered in this part of the cone. Additionally, the secondary and crossflows tend to occur in
the corners. In order to prevent these unwanted happening, the ideal cross-sectional area for the
contraction cone is made circular. Apparently, many of the earlier designs were either circular or
octagonal, the latter being an attempt to compromise between rectangular and circular. However,
more recent investigations indicate that in rectangular or square cross-sections, in absence of
separation, the corners remain localized (Mehta, 1978). They do not migrate to affect the test
section wall flow over most of the span and so the cross-section shape may be chosen to match the
other tunnel components in particular the test section. The main parameters left to select then are
the contraction wall shape and length.
The main aim of designing a contraction cone of a specified cross-section and area ratio is to
produce a uniform and steady stream downstream the contraction section to avoid flow separation
within it. Another desirable flow quality is limited boundary layer thickness at the contraction exit
which results from skin friction. A long contraction cone not only increases the cost and space
considerations of the wind tunnel but also results in an increase in the boundary layer growth.
Therefore, in order to hinder growth of the boundary layer, the length of the contraction section
should be maintained at the minimal size. Contraction cones of shorter length are also required
26
for saving in space and cost. Nonetheless, the likelihood of boundary layer separation coming into
question is high as the contraction length reduces. The risks arise because of the pressure regions
of adverse pressure gradient on the walls near each end of the contraction which become stronger
as the contraction length is decreased.
Bradshaw (1973) analyzed the boundary layer effect with respect to shape of the contraction cone.
He noted that boundary layers become much more unstable when the fluid flow is passing over
concave surfaces such as the contraction inlet, than when over convex surfaces such as near a
contraction exit. Most analytical approaches on the design of a contraction cone have been based
on Stokes Stream Function for the steady axisymmetric flow of an incompressible inviscid fluid
(Bradshaw 1973).
2.2.2. Test Section
The size and speeds in the test chamber limit the size of the models as well as the Reynolds number
that can be accommodated and achieved. The chamber must be defined in harmony with the major
wind tunnel specifications inclusive of the desired flow quality and optimum speeds. Maskell
(1964) unfolds that the application of square cross-section test section is best suited for civil
application. Nevertheless, a rectangular cross-section is applicable in the aeronautical field in the
cases of 3D tests width a width to height ratio of 4:3. A ratio of 2:5 is used for two-dimensional
tests in order to reduce the boundary layer thickness in the test chamber. Inside the test chamber,
provision for model support and instrument mount should be included.
The pressure loss coefficient in the test section which is related to the dynamic pressure in the test
chamber is taken as the datum dynamic pressure for all numerical calculations. This pressure loss
coefficient is expressed as:
𝜁 = 𝜆 . 𝐿⁄𝐷 (2.1)
𝐻
Where L is the length of the test chamber, DH is the hydraulic diameter and λ is a coefficient given
by:
𝜆 = 1⁄(1.8. log 𝑅𝑒 − 1.64)2 (2.2)
Where Re is the Reynolds number
27
2.2.3. Diffuser
The primary function of a diffuser is to recover static pressure with the aim of raising the efficiency
of the wind tunnel. Therefore, a diffuser acts as an expanding duct with the primary purpose of
recovering static pressure from a fluid while at the same time limiting the flow velocity past the
test section. The reduction of fluid flow velocity facilitates the conversion of kinetic energy to
potential energy of pressure. The description above helps obtain the efficiency of a diffuser such
that an efficient diffuser is one which converts the maximum amount of kinetic energy into static
pressure within a given length limit or a given expansion ratio.
Figure 1: Boundary layer growth separation on a subsonic diffuser due to adverse (positive) pressure
gradient. At some point upstream of the flow, the boundary layer has grown to critical and detaches
completely from the walls followed by flow reversal. Source: White (1991)
Since pressure head of the air increases as it moves away from the test section, there exists an
adverse pressure gradient in the downstream direction as seen in the figure above. If not controlled,
the boundary layer in a diffuser thickens rapidly and may result in boundary layer separation from
the diffuser walls and stalling which results in formation of eddies that block the flow. Flow
separation from the walls poses the threat of reversing the flow direction back into the lower
pressure test section causing flow retardation, disturbances and instabilities. A stall condition thus
reduces the efficiency of a diffuser section hence limiting its performance. The practicality of this
is that the fan will have to increase its power so as to overcome these instabilities and prevent
separation making the operation costlier. To avoid diffuser stall which is caused by flow
detachment, the maximum diffuser half angle of expansion should be well designed.
28
The governing equations of fluid mechanics for diffuser flows are written as follows;
For incompressible flow in a diffuser with mass being conserved, the equation of continuity is
stated as
U1 A1  U 2 A2 ……………………………………………... equation (2.3)
Where 𝐴 is the cross sectional area of a section of the diffuser and U is the average axial velocity
over a given cross section of the diffuser defined as
1
A A
U UdA ……………………………………………... equation (2.4)
If the static pressure P is constant over each cross section of area A and considering the axial
direction, then the energy equation can be stated as
p1  udA  
2  u 3dA  p2  udA  
2  u 3dA …………………………….. equation (2.5)
A1 A1 A2 A2
The pressure recovery of a diffuser is analyzed by a dimensionless pressure recovery coefficient

Cp defined as
p2  p1
Cp  ……………………………………….……………….. equation (2.6)
2 U 1
1 2
The Cp is a function of the following parameters
a. Diffuser geometry
b. Inlet boundary layer profile
c. Inlet Reynolds number
d. Exit conditions which in this case is a reservoir of still air
The Cp has to be verified experimentally or using accurate modelling and simulation. The actual
recovery can then be compared to the ideal recovery of a uniform lossless flow diffuser and with
zero inlet boundary layer thickness whose pressure recovery is given by a uniform flow profile
equation.
29
Actual Cp
Efficiency,    ……… …….………………….. equation (2.7)
 
2
Ideal 1  A1
A2
Generally, η<1 due to losses in the diffuser from viscosity and velocity peaking in the outlet. There
is also further loss of kinetic energy in a diffuser which discharges into a still reservoir such as still
air because the exit air has to work against the still air. A total pressure loss coefficient, K is
therefore introduced such that
Cp  K  1 ………..…..………………….. equation (2.8)
For a perfect diffuser, K = 0 and Cp = 1. The higher the value of K, the less efficient the diffuser
is and the more the power required to compensate for the losses which arise from two principal
reasons; frictional losses and losses due to expansion.
A smooth flow in the wind tunnel depends majorly on the design of this section. Even so, the air
cannot recover the pressure head with 100% efficiency. Flows past diffusers will always include
dissipative losses through friction, rotational effects/vortices in the boundary layer because of
frictional losses, momentum transfer between slower and faster adjacent layers and in extreme
cases, reverse flows. In the nozzle, the boundary layer is not a very serious problem and losses can
be reduced by geometry design alone. However, in the test section and diffuser, the boundary layer
is a real problem and geometry design alone will not maximize efficiency. Designers only try to
reduce these losses through optimization. This limits the current drawn by the motor or,
alternatively, allows a higher speed to be achieved for a given motor/fan size.
Reneau et al (1967) also related diffuser performance with:
a. The inlet Reynolds number.

b. The speeds.
c. Diffuser geometry.
d. Diffuser inlet conditions.
e. Diffuser exit conditions.
30
2.2.4. Power plant
The essence of a power plant is to maintain flow through the wind tunnel at a constant preset speed
to compensate for all the losses. The power plant is specified by a number of parameters:
i. The power, P.
ii. The pressure increments
iii. Desired operating speed, V.
iv. Volumetric flow, Q.
The fan efficiency as well as air density affects both electronic motor efficiencies as well as
aerodynamic.
Pankhurst and Holder define a wind tunnel as a device for producing a moving airstream for
experimental purposes (1952). Pankhurst tunnels produced uniform and controlled air flows into
which a model could be secured and mounted to measure the reactions.
Wind tunnels are classified into two major groups namely open or return circuit tunnels. Whilst
the test sections are grouped into two, open or closed. An open circuit wind tunnel is as shown in
Figure 2.2.4 below.
Figure 2: A simple demonstration of an open circuit wind tunnel courtesy of NASA.
An open circuit tunnel draws air from the surrounding room and exhaust it to the same surrounding.
Rae and Pope (1984), named such wind tunnels Eiffel type (because they resemble the Eiffel
tower). These have the following attributes over other types of wind tunnels:
31
Advantages
i. Less cost of construction
ii. If both inlet and outlet are open to the surrounding, the problem of purging is eliminated.
Disadvantages
i. Requires extensive screening at the settling chamber to get better flow qualities
ii. Requires more energy to run
iii. The tunnel is noisy hence an environmental nuisance
The closed circuit wind tunnel has a continuous flow of air from the diffuser section back to the
contraction section. Closed circuit wind tunnels incorporate return paths for air flow. A combined
application of both closed and open loop tunnel is used by NASA. This configuration has a closed
loop tunnel integrated with open loop tunnel having its exhaust as the inlet into the closed loop.
Such configurations of wind tunnel were called Gottingen-type tunnels.
Merits of a Closed Return Wind Tunnel
i. Higher quality air flow can be easily achieved using corner turning vanes
ii. Operates with less noise emission.
iii. Requires less energy to operate at relatively higher speeds
Limitations
i. Corner vanes and return ducts are expensive therefore it has a high cost of installation
ii. Requires method of cooling during long operational periods. This is because continuous
recirculated air has an increment in amount of heat dissipated with each cycle.
Figure 3 is an illustration of a closed wind tunnel showing all the major components
32
Figure 3: Demonstration of a closed circuit wind tunnel courtesy of NASA
Roberts (1961) described both closed jet and open test section; an open-jet circuit is where the jet
of the test chamber is bounded by still air of the room in which the wind tunnel is situated. A
closed-jet test chamber is bounded by walls of a section between the exit of the contraction cone
and the inlet of the diffuser. Roberts explained that an open-jet test section is used when a large
amount of freedom of the test section is required but due to the large energy losses because of the
non-continuous walls, a more powerful fan should be used to cater for the losses (1961). With this
set in place, the contraction cone and diffuser section design must be such that airflow is free from
turbulence caused by boundary losses.
During World War II, demand for aircrafts and war-crafts were high hence aircraft design,
development and production of prototypes was high. Each aircraft design had to be rendered valid
by engineers by testing and obtaining the relevant information on forces and moments these
aircrafts would experience in flight. Such experiments were necessary in determining
controllability, stability and maneuverability. To greatly reduce the cost of design and prototyping,
engineers began with design scale models which were to be tested in the wind tunnels to observe
and analyze the effects of airflow on and around the model. This was possible through the concept
of relative motion first established by Sir Isaac Newton and also described by Pankhurst and
Holder (1952); the flow pattern around a body is a subject of relative motion and is same whether
33
the body is moving through the fluid or held stationary in a moving stream of fluid. This concept
of relative motion provided the basis for wind tunnel aerodynamic testing since the model didn’t
have to be moved through the air. Rather the air can be moved through the model. Since almost
every aspect of testing could be controlled using a wind tunnel, test engineers could augment the
transition of the design to simulate yaw, climb and diving conditions (Pankhurst and Holder, 1952).
Designing and creation of more advanced fighters with greater maneuverability during World War
II led to air supremacy between the Axis and the Allies. This competition led to more efficient and
specialized wind tunnels. During this era, the need for faster aircrafts with new times created the
need to have wind tunnels that could produce and simulate faster air velocities which led to
advances in speeds of up to Mach 1.0. This enabled the aircraft to fly at speeds equivalent to the
speed of sound under given conditions.
Pankhurst and Holder (1952) explained Mach as the ratio of velocities of the fluid to the local
speed of sound. With such speeds, more aerodynamic problems emerged such as extreme
instability and linearly unpredictable flight conditions as explained by Lan and Roskam (1981). If
the test velocities exceed the speed of sound, strong waves called shock waves would pile up which
in turn affect the flow properties consequently inducing a drag force on aircraft resulting to
instability of the aircraft. The design for more advanced and better aircrafts which would exceed
the speed of sound led to newer generation of wind tunnels which were able to reach hypersonic
velocities.
2.3. Current State of Wind Tunnel Testing
Today, wind tunnel utilization has expanded to automotive industry, architecture, environment,
and education. Larger wind tunnels are in use to simulate nearly any condition in a flight set up.
Roberts noted that these large wind tunnels were becoming expensive to maintain and stated that
smaller wind tunnels were expected to play an essential role in relieving load on larger wind
tunnels and aid in low priority investigations and demonstration purposes (1961). Many large
tunnels have been forced to shut down due to high cost of operation and maintenance. Often, full-
scale operation has been eliminated and replaced with computer testing and design. Commercial
and military aircraft research and design activities are now based on computer aided design and
34
testing. Mecham (2003) highlights the closure of four wind tunnels by NASA and the transfer of
the operation of another to a university due to cost constraints.
As described by Mecham (2003), the first two tunnels were located at NASA’s Ames Research
Facility and formed the National Full-scale Aerodynamic Complex, NFAC. On cost analysis, over
twelve million dollars a year had to be channeled to the operation of these tunnels. An 80 x 100 x
20 ft. tunnel was used most recently to test the military’s F-18 and commercial B-737. The 40 x
80 ft. tunnel was built in 1944 and primarily used for testing World War II aircrafts. According to
Mecham (2003), these tunnels have the largest wind tunnel test section in the world. The third
largest wind tunnel was a twelve-foot pressure tunnel that was shut down at the Ames Research
Facility. The twelve-foot pressure tunnel could produce Reynolds numbers of up to 12 x 10^6 per
ft. This made it ideal for simulating take-off and landing of aircraft models.
Langley’s sixteen-foot transonic wind tunnel was shut down for repair, which cost a million
dollars. This was due to an incident when a portion of the engine broke free and damaged the
tunnel. The Langley’s sixteen-foot transonic tunnel was used in testing Bell X-1 and Apollo
spacecraft. Langley’s thirty foot by sixty-foot tunnel still is in operation but transferred to Old
Dominion University custodian. This tunnel is in use for automotive research and testing of models
for the National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing, NASCAR. The unfortunate incidents
forced NASA to shut down wind tunnel facilities for evaluation of tunnel stabilities (2001).
Mid-sized and small-sized wind tunnels are now replacing the larger wind tunnels due to low
operating costs for a given work load. Many universities with insufficient funds to operate larger
tunnels like Old Dominion, have started or already constructed wind tunnels of their own for
demonstration, to perform experiments as well as performing test on scale models.
Roberts (1961) was keen with the requirements of universities and their research needs. Roberts
noted that there was a great and increasing need for small economic wind tunnels which would
lighten the load on existing wind tunnels and facilitate the beginning of pure research and
educational programs. However, due to negligence, these programs had been given low priority.
But with increased number of colleges and universities offering aerodynamic curriculum, Roberts
noted there would be a need for small economic wind tunnels to facilitate demonstrations and
research for such courses. Robert’s documentation and outcry that universities were indifferent to
testing facilities holds true to today (1961).
35
Kubesh and Allie (2009) fabricated a mid-sized wind tunnel with a test section approximately 4.5
cubic feet (0.1274 m3) for their undergraduate meteorological laboratory which cost less than 2500
dollars (about 250,000 Kenyan Shillings). Kubesh and Allie had a goal to create an operable wind
tunnel under limited space and monetary allocation for undergraduate education. Due to their
monetary restriction, they were not able to purchase a commercial wind tunnel. Kubesh and Allie
preferred a tunnel built by a heating and ventilation company to constructing their tunnel from
common supplies and found a fan designed for barn ventilation.
As clearly stated above, full-scale large wind tunnel testing has been considerably replaced with
the use of mid-sized wind tunnels. In addition to that, CFD has greatly and positively affected wind
tunnels and aerodynamics testing and analysis.
2.4. CFD Analysis
Computational Fluid Dynamics simulate real world fluid dynamics and predict the interactions of
test models and fluid flow. Many firms that have ventured into research and design regard CFD as
an important tool to predict the efficiencies in their designs. CFD analysis is performed using
computer programs and it provides a virtual wind tunnel interface from which the user can conduct
their study. With this set up, CFD analyses have been overtaking wind tunnel testing as the primary
means of determining model reactions as explained above. Studt (2004) notes that the CFD
simulation tools were first developed for commercial purpose in the late 1960s. With proper
amount of time allocation and adequate funds for CFD equipment, CFD testing proves to be an
important and useful tool.
Studt also states that CFD performance particularly in the area of computationally complex
turbulent flow regimes has advanced to the extent it can now be used as a primary design tools in
the flow-related designs, substituting the demand for wind tunnel. CFD analysis allows its users
to analyze situations which would be otherwise difficult to simulate and test in a wind tunnel.
Example of such scenario is a space shuttle re-entry where speeds may reach or be in excess of
Mach 25. The wide spread growth of CFD application in manufacturing industries has influenced
the growth of Computational Fluid Dynamics. The application of CFD in the industries has
shortened the design cycles and improved performance of the design process as noted by Laurentiu
36
(2004). Sometimes, CFD problems are complex and time. This may be mitigated by
interconnection of different computers to share problem solving using CFD, as stated by
Ludwiczak (2010).
To effectively use CFD tools under speculated time, proper analytical methods for the model such
as accurate meshing should be used. Meshing can be done in two different ways; over the surface
of the model or around the model to determine the reaction of the fluid when it encounters the
model. In context of this project, the walls of the wind tunnel, the model, forms the outer bounds
of the fluid. The time needed to perform a CFD analysis is determinate on the quality of the desired
results which is also determinate on mesh sizes.
The points of the meshed grid stand for an element that will be affected by the pressure and flow
changes. Meshed points are used to obtain an approximation of the Navier-Stokes equations. With
greater number of grid points, time required to analyze the velocity and other parameter changes
of flow along this meshed grid increases.
Anderson (1995) explains that the three fundamental principles govern the fluid. The principles
include conservation of energy, Newton’s Second law and conservation of mass. Anderson states
“… a mathematical model has to be discretized and represented as a set of numerical procedures

where each part of the mesh represents a small quantum of the fluid defined by two variables:
velocity and pressure” (Anderson, 1995).
These three laws are iteratively computed for the whole mesh by simulating the fluid in the next
period of time (t+ ∆t).
Edwards and Durrani (2010) determined boundary layer formation using 2D-CFD programs but
had difficulty in predicting actual similar conditions in a wind tunnel. Howell et al (2010) notes
that CFD limitations fall onto the simulation of various mechanical parameters of model design
such as variable pitch blade angles and drag present in components such as electric motors. As
quoted earlier, CFD computing equipment are expensive hindering the purchase of such equipment
for use in the universities. Therefore, a wind tunnel provides a cheaper and easier-to-use testing
equipment.
37
2.5. DAQ Devices
To operate a wind tunnel for demonstration and research purposes calls for the need to incorporate
a data acquisition system to obtain and record the data during the run of the wind tunnel. To get
accurate and true data from an apparatus, an efficient and reliable data acquisition system is
required as observed by Smith (2002). With the new generation of high speed computers with a
plug-and-play mode of data acquisition and transfer, there is a notable improvement in data
retrieval efficiency, reliability and overall testing in a wind tunnel set up.
38
CHAPTER 3
This chapter focuses on the methodologies that we used to meet objectives stated in chapter 1. It
mainly focuses on the choices the team made in the design process of all the components of the
wind tunnel. it focuses attention to all choices made for the dimensions and the process of design
are backed up by relevant equations, tables and arguments.
3.1. The Design Process
When we talk about design, we don’t limit ourselves to the actual layout but rather we also include
the analytical processes that are used in determination of what it is that is to be designed and how
modifications are to be made in a bid to meet the requirements. The design process involves
rigorous iterative effort that are directed towards new concepts and technologies. (see figure 4)
During Preliminary design, the item being designed is analyzed in portions and testing begins in
earnest. The main objective of this design stage is being as a precursor to full scale development,
otherwise termed as detailed design stage. Hence, the last phase of the preliminary design is usually
a proposal on the full-scale development, which includes time and cost estimates for the whole
process.
Detailed design follows after a favorable decision to proceed with full-scale development. It starts
with designing the actual parts that are to be used in fabrication. Production design is the second
step under detailed design, where specialists determine how fabrication will take place starting
from the simplest and smallest sub-assemblies upwards.
The data from the detailed design and conceptual design is merged under design communication
then construction and manufacturing ensures that a fabricated product results as the end product.
39
There are various stages in the design process, however our focus will be on the conceptual design
of a wind tunnel. The weight, size arrangement, configuration and performance are the key areas
that are dealt with in conceptual design stage.
Client Problem Definition

Statement
Conceptual Design
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Construction &
Manufacturing
End Product Design
Communication
Figure 4: The design process
Initially we had to choose between two design configurations, a suck down or a blow down
configuration. The wind tunnel chosen for the initial design phase is a blow down configuration
that operating with a centrifugal fluid fan. Figure 5 indicates the blow down configuration. The
design of each of the components is detailed in the subsequent sections.
40
Figure 5:Blow down wind tunnel design from solid works
3.1. Contraction Cone
Contraction cone as described in the chapter 2, succeeds the settling chamber and precedes the test
section. In designing the contraction cone, focus is mainly on production of a steady and uniform
stream at its outlet and minimizing separation of flow within. Also ensure is that there is minimum
boundary layer thickness at the exit of the contraction especially in laminar conditions. Therefore,
the length of the contraction should be kept at a minimum so as to ensure minimal growth of the
boundary layer. This is desirable as it also leads to cost and space savings. These were our primary
objectives in designing this section.
However, as the length of the contraction cone reduces, there is increased risk of separation of the
boundary layer which results to unsteadiness and non-uniformity of flow at the exit. This is
especially at the walls close to each end whereby the pressure gradient is adverse due to decreased
length of the contraction. Excessive and unnecessary wall curvature is also not desired at the exit
where the flow has to pass along the convex walls as it enters the test section. This is mainly
because a convex surface stabilizes the boundary layer more than a flat surface hence increasing
the adverse pressure gradient upstream and poor flow into the test section.
At the same time, the contraction area ratio should be as large as possible to reduce the total
pressure loss through the screens mounted between the settling chamber and the contraction cone.
With the above guideline on the area ratio, as indicated by Bradshaw, an equivalent contraction
ratio of 5-10 can be used. Bradshaw noted that:
41
- A low contraction ratio of between (5-6) leads to high pressure loss through the screens
- A high contraction between (8-10) results to into high & prohibitive inlet dimensions
Downstream the contraction, outlet cross-sectional area, corresponds to that of the Test Section.
Therefore;
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.5𝑚 ∗ 0.7𝑚 = 0.35𝑚2
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒. 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝐿. 𝑆. 𝐹 2 = 7
𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = √7 = 2.646
The corresponding cross-sectional area of the contraction cone are
𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ = 0.7𝑚 ∗ 2.646 = 1.85𝑚
ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = 0.5𝑚 ∗ 2.646 = 1.32𝑚
R. Pankhurst notes that the contraction cone length varies from (0.15- 1) times the inlet radius.
Therefore, we needed to calculate the inlet radius.
To obtain the inlet radius, we used the hydraulic area. This hydraulic area is the equivalent to the
cross-sectional inlet area of a circular contraction cone. Therefore,
ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎, 𝐴 = 1.32𝑚 𝑥 1.85𝑚
𝐴 = 2.442𝑚2
But, 𝐴 = 𝜋𝑟 2 ….……………………. equation (3.1)
2.442 = 𝜋𝑟 2
2.442
Therefore, 𝑟 = √( ) = 0.882𝑚
𝜋
With the inlet radius determined, we tabulated a range of the lengths that will satisfy the design as
given by Pankhurst. Table 1 gives the possible lengths of contraction for our inlet radius from
which a length of 0.79m was selected for design.
42
Table 1: Range of achievable contraction lengths
Factor Inlet Radius of the Resultant corresponding lengths

contraction (m) of the contraction (m)
0.15 0.88 0.88 x 0.15= 0.13
0.30 0.88 0.88 x 0.30= 0.26
0.50 0.88 0.88 x 0.50= 0.44
0.70 0.88 0.88 x 0.70= 0.62
0.90 0.88 0.88 x 0.90= 0.79
1.00 0.88 0.88 x 1.00= 0.88
The law of conservation of mass explains the expected higher velocities in the test section than in
the contraction cone. This is because the contraction cone brings the lower velocity flow to a higher
velocity profile.
Therefore, it is desirable to minimize the length of the contraction section due to the following.
i. Additional length of the contraction section in a LSWT increases the boundary layer
growth as explained using Navier-Stokes equations.
ii. If a higher CR is used over a too short of a distance, flow separation will occur, notes
Pankhurst.
P. Bradshaw notes that the ideal contraction ratio to minimize boundary layer growth and
maximize velocity profiles range from 6-9, to obtain the desired flow parameters in a LSWT. This
is based on a trial and error due to the limited theoretical research published on Contraction shapes
and sizes.
Bradshaw went on to provide guidelines in limiting boundary layer growth and separation as
follows
i. Smoothness is more important than exact shapes of the contraction.

ii. Curvature should be less at the contraction outlet than at its inlet.
iii. Both ends should be parallel or very near parallel to the test section they are connecting to.
43
A contraction ratio of 7 is desirable because of the minimal contraction length requirements and
power constrains posed by the wind tunnel fan.
The contraction cone chosen was based on the maximum contraction inlet area allowed of 2.44
square meters, as shown below
𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 2.44𝑚2
𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 0.35𝑚2
2.44
𝐶𝑅 = = 6.97
0.35
Contraction Ratio (CR) is a dimensionless figure since it is a ratio.
The contraction cone contour was based on the fifth order polynomial in equation 3.2 as
recommended by Bell & Mehta (1988).
𝑌(𝑥) = 𝐻𝑖 − (𝐻𝑖 − 𝐻𝑒 )[6(𝑥 ′ )5 − 15(𝑥 ′ )4 + 10(𝑥 ′ )3 ] …………... equation (3.2)
Where
𝐻𝑖 = inlet height.
𝐻𝑒 = exit height.
𝑋
𝑋′ = - non-dimensional quotient of streamwise distance and spanwise direction.
𝐿
𝐿 = length of contraction cone.
To obtain contraction cone design from which optimization of the wind tunnel size and shape
would begin, the dimensions of the contraction cone were halved. This was because only one half
of each face was designed and later mirrored on a line of symmetry to form a full face. Therefore,
the input dimensions were as follows:
𝐼𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = 0.66𝑚
𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑡 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = 0.25𝑚
𝐿 = 0.79𝑚
44
Using MATLAB, the polynomial equation designed to give the contour shape of the contraction
was plotted and proven by design.
The MATLAB code used in the plot;
% hi and he are half the height of the contraction cone at inlet

%and outlet respectively. Therefore 0.25 forms the datum
hi=0.66;
he=0.25;
% the length of the contraction cone x was given an increment of

0.05 from
% 0 for precision and accuracy as well as high image quality, the
total
% length of the CC being l.
x=0:0.05:0.79;
l=0.79;
z = x/l;
% z integer was a substitute of x'%

y= hi-((hi-he) *((6*z. ^5) -(15*z. ^4) + (10*z. b^3)));
Plot (x, y)
Substituting the specific input dimensions into equation 3.2 yields equation 3.4
𝑥 5 𝑥 4 𝑥 3
𝑌(𝑥) = 0.66 − (0.66 − 0.25) [6 (0.79) − 15 (0.79) + 10 (0.79) ] …... equation (3.4)
As it can be seen in Figure 6, the equation 3.4 yields a desirable wall boundary. It reduces the
curvature and straightens the inlet and exits of the nozzle making it a perfect boundary equation.
With the boundary conditions, the equation was then used in solid works to model the contraction
cone with the exact design dimensions. The contraction cone model by solid works is as shown in
figure 7.
45
Figure 6: Polynomial plot of the contraction cone contour design drawn using MATLAB
Figure 7: Contraction section cut out from Solid works
46
3.1.1. Settling Chamber
The settling chamber precedes the contraction cone. It houses screens and honeycomb for flow
streamlining. Besides flow streamlining, the settling chamber also increases the static pressure of
the flow by reducing the velocity of the flow. It also reduces the fluctuating components of the
velocity and minimizes turbulence of incoming air
The length of the settling chamber varies from (1.5 – 0.5) times the exit radius of the cross-
sectional area of the test section as described by Bradshaw. Therefore, we tabulated the possible
test section lengths that could fit our design constraints as seen in table 2. The exit radius was
calculated as the hydraulic radius as given in equation 3.5
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
Hydraulic radius = √( ) …………………………………... equation (3.5)
𝜋
0.35
= √( ) = 0.334𝑚
𝜋
Table 2: Range of achievable lengths of the Settling Chamber
Factor Exit radius of the Resultant corresponding lengths

Contraction (m) Of the Settling Chamber (m)
0.500 0.334 0.334x0.500= 0.167
0.700 0.334 0.334x0.700= 0.234
0.900 0.334 0.334x0.900= 0.300
1.100 0.334 0.334x1.100= 0.367
1.300 0.334 0.334x1.300= 0.434
1.500 0.334 0.334x1.500= 0.501
Based on table 2, the preferred length for the settling chamber was 0.367m
3.1.2. Honeycomb
The honeycomb cells aligned with the flow direction reduce the fluctuating variations in transverse
velocity. Pressure drop through the honeycomb is negligible therefore the honeycomb is effective
in streamlining and reduction in cross-stream components.
47
Key design factors.
1. Length (LH)
2. Hydraulic diameter (DH)
3. Porosity (βH)
Porosity is the ratio of actual flow cross section area over the total cross-sectional area
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝛽𝐻 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ……………………………………………... equation (3.6)
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
Criteria verified in Wind Tunnel honeycomb
𝐿
1. 6 ≤ 𝐷𝐻 ≤ 8 ……………………………………………... equation (3.7)
𝐻
2. 𝛽𝐻 ≥ 0.8 ……………………………………………... equation (3.8)
The honeycomb is designed to reduce large scale turbulence in the flow and remove twist from
incoming air. Hexagonal honeycomb incurs lowest pressure loss hence most efficient for
turbulence reduction.
Figure 8: Honeycomb cross sectional areas and their corresponding pressure loss coefficient. Source:
Rafiuddin (2008)
Bradshaw design rules for small Wind Tunnels:
a. Minimum number of cells proportional to inlet diameter of the wind tunnel is to be used
48
b. Minimum number of recommended cells per inlet diameter are 150 cells, corresponding to
25,000 total cells
The length of each cell should be 6-8 times the cell diameter. The length of the Honey comb acts
as settling distance where small turbulence dissipates into heat.
Notes:
- Too long honeycombs encourage development of boundary layer hence pressure losses
and consequently reducing maximum velocity.
- Shorter lengths are better because they induce smaller pressure loss to the system and
generates less turbulence.
Using the minimum number of cells,
𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝑁𝑜. 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 = ……………………………………………... equation (3.9)
𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
1.0499384
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = = 4.19975 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2
25,000
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 4.19975 ∗ 10−5 𝑚2
The corresponding hydraulic diameter
𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝐷𝐻 = 2 ∗ [√ ]
𝜋
(4.19975∗10−5 )
𝐷𝐻 = 2 ∗ [√ ]
𝜋
𝐷𝐻 = 7.3125 ∗ 10−3 𝑚
From the design criteria (1) of the honeycomb (Figure 8), the corresponding lengths of the
honeycomb is governed by equation (3.7). Using the limits given by the equation, we tabulated a
range of the lengths of the honeycomb that we could use for the design. Table 3 shows these
dimensions from which we selected our desired length with the limits of equation 3.7:
𝐿𝐻
6≤ ≤8
𝐷𝐻
49
Table 3:Dimensions of the honeycombs
Factor 𝑫𝑯 (m) 𝑳𝑯 (m)
6 7.312510−3 ∗ 6 0.04387
7 7.312510−3 ∗ 7 0.05119
8 7.312510−3 ∗ 8 0.05850
From the calculations demonstrated in the previous page, the corresponding dimensions of the
honeycomb obtained were;
𝐿𝐻 = 0.04387𝑚
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 0.00648𝑚 𝑏𝑦 0.00648𝑚
From the design criteria in equation (3.8) for the honeycomb, the porosity was governed by;
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝛽𝐻 = (𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 ) ≥ 0.8
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
25,000∗4.1997536∗10−5
= 1.05
= 0.999
The two design criteria for Honeycomb were met with the chosen parameters
3.1.3. Screens
The screens incorporated into this wind tunnel, shall be positioned before the honeycomb structure.
Steel screens are preferred due to cost constrains and their corrosive resistance.
The screens are expected to achieve the following:
i. Flow streamlining to ensure a laminar flow delivered to the test section to avoid losses
associated with a turbulent flow.
ii. To straighten the air before entering the settling chamber.
iii. To filter the air and allow clean air to enter the test section. This is essential to avoid any
foreign object from damaging the walls of the Test Section as well as the test piece. Foreign
50
objects might be minute e.g. small rocks but are capable of disrupting flow in the test
section.
The dimensions of the screens are 1.32m by 1.85 m. The cell diameter, 0.006858m having a
thickness of 0.00127m.
The screens shall be designed to have frames to allow their removal and allow the operator to
access the inside of the wind tunnel (the contraction cone) where need be.
Figure 9: Screen cross section at the inlet of the contraction cone
3.2 . Test Section
The Test section is the intermediate section between contraction cone and diffuser. It is also called
the working area. A constant area test section is used so as to maintain uniform fluid velocity. The
size of this section is defined based on the tunnel’s main specifications, that is, its operating
velocities and the desired flow. The size of the working area as well as the operating speeds must
be considered when determining the sizes of the models to be put under test as well as the
maximum achievable Reynold’s number.
51
3.2.1 The Design Approach
The design of the test section is usually dependent on each and every individual experiment. There
are various test section designs, from quasi two dimensional to special featured test section i.e.
those with say flexible roofs, slotted walls etc. The test section forms the basic requirement from
which the other sections are designed from. In designing the TUK 2017 wind tunnel, the size of
the test section was governed by the expected sizes and shape of possible test pieces. With design
allowances of lengths, widths and height of the models to be tested considered, the dimensions of
the test section agreed upon were;
• Length = 1.3m
• Width = 0.7m
• Height = 0.5m
Figure 10: Test section as drawn in solid works
A smaller cross section at the test section is preferred to enable maximum velocity and therefore
cavitation numbers of a wider range. Therefore, considerations were made on three options:
• Filleted rectangle – to reduce cross flows in the corners.
52
• Fillets diminishing longitudinally – so as to compensate boundary layer growth effects and

decrease the center line variation velocity.
• Uniform rectangle – to provide best access for measurements optically especially close to
the wall.
Usually for models mounted inside, size is determined by the urge to reduce interference for the
specific model size.
Rectangles of a ratio of √2 to 1 are usually preferred and for the case of whole aircraft models,
large span wise dimensions are preferred to improve the ability and access to measure the forces.
The airflow from the contraction takes a length of about 0.5 of the diameter to have the non-
uniformity reduced to an acceptable level. It takes about 10 -15 mesh lengths to obtain homogenous
flow in the case where a turbulence grid is installed.
3.2.2. Construction
Common practice has it that most test sections are made of timber frames and plywood as the
enclosing material.
Construction is according to design and it is, made in a way that there are three views that is both
sides and the top. Thus, the side panels are removable and are therefore mounted on pinned hinges
to make their removal easier and reduce the chances of damage. Acrylic sheet is bolted on the sides
of the test section frame, while plywood is bolted at the bottom. Acrylic is transparent.
The sides are removable so as to ensure placement and removal of test models into and out of the
tunnel as shown in figure 11
53
Figure 11: Test Section with removable sides for placement of models
3.2.3. Model Mounts
During experimental tests, the model is placed in the working section and then air is made to pass
through it and the various types of tests are conducted.
Aerodynamic moments and forces are measured directly using Force Balances, and these is used
to get lift, drag and side together with the three moments i.e. yaw, roll and pitch.
A number of mounting methods exist and the choice to use is dependent on the balance types used.
Usually there are two major categories to choose from;
▪ Internal mounting and

▪ External mountings
In the case of external mountings, the mounting devices are situated to the exterior of the tunnel
and the test model. Thus, the aerodynamic loads are transmitted by the external mount to the
external balance from the model. The mount also securely holds the model at the intended yaw
angle and angle of attack.
54
Figure 12: External model mounting.
While for the internal mounting, measuring devices are situated inside of the model and the internal
mounting doesn’t need to act as a force transmitter but rather acts as an information path whereby
it carries the data from the model to data recording instruments. Pressure measurement tubes from
strain gauges are passed via the mount and to the control room, therefore the type of balance chosen
and the mount type does affect the model data reduction.
In figure 13, the fighter models are mounted, and for all them, the struts are protected from the
moving air so as not to include the strut drag with that of the entire aircraft drag
55
Figure 13: Model mount. Source NASA
3.2.3 Testing of a Model
The test section is used in aerodynamic research to perform analysis and to study the effects of air
moving past solid objects. By use of a powerful fan, air is made to move past an object mounted
in the middle. This test object commonly referred to as a model is instrumented with appropriate
sensors that are used in the measurement of pressure distribution, aerodynamic forces and other
aerodynamic characteristics of the mounted model. This low subsonic wind tunnel is used to study
low Reynolds number flows which are used for numerous applications key among them: wind
turbines, natural flyers, subscale testing of full scale systems etc.
Therefore, obtaining accurate measurements is vital to understanding and bettering systems of

flows that use low Reynolds numbers
During tests, air is flown past the model and a variety of instrumentation techniques are used to
determine the forces that act on it. Basically, here are four main types of tests that can be done on
a model in test section
56
➢ Direct measurement of forces and moments
The model is mounted on a force balance (a specialized machine) that measures the forces and
moments from which lift and drag is derived. However, this balance has to be calibrated against
the known force value before and sometimes during the test. These measurements of forces
necessitate post-test processing or data reduction so as to account for the effects of Mach
number or the Reynolds number during the test. The reference value used in the data reduction
has to be specified always.
➢ Direct pressure measurement and derive the performance from that
This is achieved by using pressure taps as instruments to obtain the data on the pressures. In
theory, integrating pressure times an increment in area about the entire surface model we can
obtain the aerodynamic forces acting on the model. In practice however, integration of the
pressure is not used as it requires very many pressure taps so as to obtain accurate variations
in pressure. Additionally, integrating the deficit of the total pressure in the wake that is
generated by the wing model we can obtain the airfoil drag
➢ Direct velocity of pressure measurement for diagnostic reasons
Total pressure rakes, hot-wire velocity probes, total pressure rakes and static pressure taps are
all part of the diagnostic instrumentation. These do not provide for the whole aircraft
performance but rather they aid in understanding of flow around the model. Performance of
aircraft is improved by use of a number of flow control devices. Thus, an engineer employs
their experience and skill when choosing the diagnostic instrumentation to use as these are
dependent on whether the flow is steady state, unsteady of time-varying and on the place to
place them either in the flow gradient regions or flow separation regions
➢ Visualization of the flow
Diagnostic information is provided through flow visualization techniques in some tests. These
techniques include laser sheet, free stream smoke or the surface oil flow. It is usually assumed
that the movement of the medium is exactly as the flow under investigation.
57
In the case of low speed flows, surface oil or tufts can be used to show the flow direction about
the model surface.
3.2.4. Pressure Drops and Boundary Layer Growth
A test section longer than 3 hydraulic diameters may lead to excess formation and growth of
boundary layer that may lead to separation at the exit and into the diffuser. This growth of the
boundary layer leads to a drastic axial drop in static pressure. Hence attempts to reduce these
effects by increasing the cross-section area is best achieved by making the walls tapered or if
corner fillets are installed, by tapering the corner fillets.
The pressure losses are analyzed in detail in the chapter 4. Based on average fluid velocity, density
of fluid and the loss coefficient.
3.3. Diffuser
The two main problems most encountered in expansion diffuser engineering design are
optimization of the design and prediction of overall flow regime. The former will be addressed in
this section and the latter will be addressed in the CFD analysis. All the information about diffusers
is empirical and usually depends on the type of the diffuser and the reliability and accuracy
expected. For a student project, the general analysis of a simple diffuser is as documented here.
For incompressible flow in a diffuser with mass being conserved, the equation of continuity is
stated as
𝑈1 𝐴1 = 𝑈2 𝐴2 ……………………………………………... equation (2.3)
The average axial velocities over a given cross section of the diffuser will be given by
1
A A
U UdA ……………………………………………... equation (2.4)
The conservation of energy of a diffuser with adiabatic flow (heat and work terms set to zero) and
internal energy changes neglected is
u  𝑛̂𝑑𝐴 =  A    2 u  𝑛̂𝑑𝐴
2

p u
 p
  u2
2
………………………………………... equation (3.10)
A1 2
58
Where 𝑢
⃗ the local velocity is vector with magnitude u and 𝑛̂ is the unit outward normal vector
from the section. If the static pressure P is assumed to remain uniform over each cross section of
area A, then if we consider the axial direction,
p1  udA  
2  u 3dA  p2  udA  
2  u 3dA …………………………………………... equation (3.11)
A1 A1 A2 A2
The axial flow velocity varies from the walls to maximum/peak at the centerline of the diffuser.
The distribution of this energy is characterized by the kinetic energy flux profile factor, α, is
    dA ……………………………………………... equation (3.12)

1 u 3
A A U
where u is the local axial velocity and U is the velocity of undisturbed stream (free stream velocity).
α varies along the axis of the diffuser and it is a ratio of the fluid kinetic energy going through a
given cross section of the diffuser to the least possible kinetic energy attainable at the same mass
flow. Its minimum value is 1 when u=U. α increases as the flow peaks. For uniform flow α=1.
We can see that peaking of the exit flow, 𝛼𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 minimizes the kinetic energy in the exit flow thus
maximizing the pressure recovery. Therefore, it is evident that a uniform exit flow offers the best
pressure recovery and efficiency in a diffuser.
The non-dimensional rise in static pressure is predicted by the area ration with 𝐴𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 >𝐴𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 , and
α. The, Pressure recovery is also strongly influenced by the flow profile at entrance and exit
through the parameter α. Increasing 𝛼𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 (peak of inlet) and minimizing 𝛼𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 (makes it uniform
at the exit) maximizes pressure recovery as shown in equation 3.13 for an ideal non-uniform flow.
p2  p1
 1   2  
A1 2
……………………………………………... equation (3.13)
2 U 1
1 2 A2
Since A2>A1 the pressure rises through the diffuser as velocity falls. Viscous losses will however
reduce the predicted pressure rise, peak the exit profile and increase 𝛼𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 over 𝛼𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 .
For uniform flow u=U and α is a constant 1. The equation 3.14 shows the pressure recovery for a
uniform flow profile
p2  p1
1
U 2
 1  
A1 2
A2 ……………………………………………... equation (3.14)
2 1
59
An extreme example of uniform flow is a jet with uniform velocity over area A (figure 13). If the
flow separates from the walls near the entrance and maintains a uniform narrow jet throughout the
diffuser length, then
𝐴2 2
𝛼𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 = 𝛼𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 = ( ) = 1 ……………………………………………... equation (3.15)
𝐴1
Figure 14: Jet flow showing eddies formation. Source: Blevins (1984)
Thus, from equation 3.15, 𝑃1 = 𝑃2 and there is no pressure recovery. Jet flow therefore reduces
diffuser efficiency to zero.
It is clear that efficiency of a diffuser depends on the degree to which the flow conforms to the
walls. Separation of flow reduces the efficiency of the diffuser because it tends to peak the exit
flow over the inlet. This efficiency therefore depends directly on both the geometrical design and
flow separation prevention.
By definition, the geometry is purely the angle of expansion and the length of the diffuser. These
are a design compromise in that a very sharp angle (above a total of 10°) reduces the degree of the
flow conformity to the walls. This leads to abrupt pressure increments and eventual flow separation
from the walls or stalling with unsteady flows. This angle also dictates the length required. A
shallow angle requires a greater diffuser length to achieve a given pressure recovery. However,
more losses are experienced at greater lengths than shorter lengths due to boundary layer growth
which again causes separation. A compromised combination of angle and length can therefore be
determined for optimal performance and length of a diffuser. A 3o half angle offers the best flow
steadiness and wall conformity though with a penalty of a longer diffuser (Figure 15). It also
60
requires less power to compensate for losses because they are few. A 5o half angle offers the best
pressure recovery with a shorter length but with diffuser stalling and unsteadiness (Figure 16)
Figure 15: Appreciable stall. Source: Blevins (1984)
Figure 16: Fully developed stall. Source: Blevins (1984)
3.3.1. Diffuser Geometry Design and Optimization
The purpose of this section is to obtain the optimal combination for geometry optimization of the
length, expansion ration and expansion angle of the diffuser. The pressure recovery coefficient 𝐶𝑝
is a function of the following parameters.
i. Diffuser geometry
ii. Inlet boundary layer profile
iii. Inlet Reynolds number
iv. Exit conditions which for our case is a reservoir of still air
For laminar flow, the performance decreases with increasing boundary layer thickness which
corresponds to decreasing Reynolds numbers. This reduction in performance is nonetheless less
important as compared to the case of the geometry.
61
The geometry of a diffuser is defined by the non-dimensional length L/𝑊1 where L is the length
of the diffuser axially and 𝑊1 is the height of the inlet and either an expansion angle or expansion
ratio. The constraints here are the length L and the area ratio. Figure 17 shows the basic layout of
a diffuser with all the geometry defining dimensions. From this illustration;
𝑊2 −𝑊1 𝑊1 𝑊2 𝑊1 𝐴2
tan 𝜃= = ( − 1) = (𝐴 − 1) ……………………………... equation (3.16)
2𝐿 2𝐿 𝑊 1 2𝐿 1
Where 𝑊2 is the exit height of diffuser and 𝑊1 is the inlet height. L is the required length of the
diffuser. Introducing logarithms
Figure 17: Snap shot from Solid Works design of the diffuser layout.
𝐴
log10 (2 tan 𝜃) = − log10 𝑊𝐿1 + log10 (𝐴2 − 1) ………………………………... equation (3.17)
1
The negative term of equation 3.17 is a constant making this a straight-line equation. Since the
area ratio is an unknown related to the expansion angle, this equation can be plotted at fixed
expansion angles and inlet Reynolds numbers (figure 18). The lines appear as straight parallel
diagonals. The dotted diagonal line here shows the optimal geometry design parameters. It is equal
to almost a 3.5o half expansion angle and nearly independent of the inlet boundary layer thickness
according to Reneau et al. Also important is that it lies in the region of appreciable stall. The
contours show the loci of points with the same pressure recovery coefficient for different
geometrical designs of a diffuser that discharges into a still reservoir.
62
Figure 18: Graph of optimal pressure recoveries for the diffuser geometry design experiments. Source:
Blevins (1984)
From this we can deduce the other geometrical parameters of the diffuser. The expansion ratio is
about 1.8 from the graph and has a corresponding non-dimensional length of about 6 with the
dotted line. Given that 𝑊1 is 0.5, then L=3m for this design. An expansion ratio of 2 with a similar
expansion angle is optimized by a 4m diffuser which seemed a bit too long for us. However, the
expansion ratio of 2 has a slightly superior pressure recovery coefficient of approximately 0.65
compared to 0.6 for a ratio of 1.8.
Using figure 18, we finally settled for a diffuser with the following parameters
▪ Desired length = 3m
▪ Inlet height = 0.5m
▪ Inlet area = 0.35𝑚2
▪ Expansion ratio = 1.8
63
▪ Exit height = 0.9m

▪ Exit area = 0.63𝑚2
▪ Total expansion angle = 7o
After the design, the diffuser was modelled in solid works as shown in figure 19
Figure 19: Solid works snap shot of the diffuser section.
64
CHAPTER 4
The purpose of this chapter is to firstly evaluate the flow assuming a steady 2D, incompressible
and inviscid flow where the frictional forces are negligible. Secondly is to analyze the pressure
losses and factor them in to the design of the wind tunnel. This will aid in determining the
parameters of the pump to deliver the expected work.
The maximum flow velocity in the test section is predetermined to be 30m/s. Therefore, the volume
flow rates at the test section inlet and exit are known. The test section shares the coincident surfaces
with the contraction cone and diffuser hence a need for an assumption that the fluid parameters
remains constant as it proceeds through the working section.
4.1. Analysis and Discussions
Since the cross-sectional areas of the contraction cone and diffuser had been predefined in the
design phase, the unknown velocities at the contraction nozzle and at the exit of the diffuser nozzle
can be solved based on the continuity equation.
𝑈1 = 𝑈2 = fluid Velocity at inlet of contraction cone
𝑈3 = fluid velocity at inlet of test section
𝑈4 = fluid velocity at exit of diffuser
From continuity equation,
𝑈1 𝐴1 = 𝑈2 𝐴2 = 𝑈3 𝐴3 = 𝑈4 𝐴4 ……………………………………………... equation (4.1)
𝑈3 𝐴3
𝑈2 = 𝐴2
30∗0.35
𝑈2 = = 4.3 𝑚/𝑠
2.442
𝑈3 𝐴3
𝑈4 = 𝑈4
30∗0.35
𝑈4 = =10m/s
1.05
These velocities are now used to predict the pressure at the respective sections.
65
With the stated assumptions that the flow is steady, incompressible, inviscid and that the frictional
forces are negligible, Bernoulli’s equation is valid. The wind tunnel designed is an open circuit
therefor the total pressure will be assumed to be ambient pressure.
𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 + 𝑃𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 ……………………………………………... equation (4.2)
1
𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 + 𝜌𝑉 2
2
𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑃𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 101,325 𝑃𝑎
𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 1 = 𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 2 = 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 & 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑃3 = 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑃4 = 𝑠𝑡𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟
Inlet of the Contraction Cone,

1
𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 2 = 𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − (2 ∗ 1.225 ∗ 4.32 )
𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 1 = 101,325 − 11.325 = 101,313.67 𝑃𝑎
Test Section,
1
𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 3 = 𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − (2 ∗ 1.225 ∗ 302 )
𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 2 = 101,325 − 551.25 = 100,773.75 𝑃𝑎
Exit of the Diffuser,

1
𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 4 = 𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − (2 ∗ 1.225 ∗ 102 )
𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 4 = 101,325 − 61.25 = 1010263.75 𝑃𝑎
The fluid pump used as described earlier is a centrifugal fan placed before the entrance to the
Settling Chamber and is expected to deliver a certain amount of volume flow rate (VFR) required
by the wind tunnel to achieve the velocities at respective sections as calculated above.
The centrifugal fan is therefore expected to deliver a fluid velocity of 4.3 m/s at the inlet of the
wind tunnel.
66
𝑉𝐹𝑅 = 𝑈1 𝐴1
= 4.3𝑚𝑠 −1 ∗ 2.442𝑚2
= 10.5 𝐶𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑐 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑
Note this specification corresponds to an ideal flow where there is no pressure losses. These
specifications are corrected for pressure loss in the coming sections of discussions.
4.2. Loss Calculations
This section determines the pressure that needs to be compensated by the fan. To obtain the values
of pressure, the flow was evaluated as viscid to calculate the pressure losses at each section and
obtained the summation of the pressure loss.
The wind tunnel is made up of three main sections. Each section has different geometries and
different flow velocities. In this section of loss calculations, the pressure loss in each section was
calculated independently. The summation of these losses represented the total pressure loss.
The pressure loss is then subtracted from the pressure at the inlet of the wind tunnel (settling
chamber), thus enabling us to obtain the amount of pressure required to be supplied by the fan.
The head loss is given based on the following formulae:
𝑉2 ∆𝑃
𝐻𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾 2𝑔 = 𝜌𝑔 ……………………………………………... equation (4.2)
Hence the pressure loss ∆𝑃 may be calculated using:
𝑉2
∆𝑃 = 𝐾 𝜌 ……………………………………………... equation (4.3)
2
Where K is the loss coefficient, V is the average flow velocity, 𝜌 is the flow density.
The loss coefficient K is a function of friction factor and geometry of each section.
67
4.3. Pressure Loss Coefficients
4.3.1. Test Section
The loss coefficient of the Test Section was calculated as follows.
𝐿
𝐾𝑡𝑠 = 𝑓𝑡𝑠 𝐷𝑡𝑠 ……………………………………………... equation (4.4)
𝑡𝑠
Where 𝑓𝑡𝑠 , 𝐷𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐿𝑡𝑠 the friction factor, the hydraulic diameter and the length of the test section
respectively.
The friction factor was governed by the Colebrook equation:
1 𝜀 2.51
= −2𝑙𝑜𝑔10 [3.7𝐷 + 𝑅𝑒√𝑓] ……………………………………………... equation (4.5)
√𝑓
To obtain the friction factor, the approximation of the Colebrook-White equation is based on the
Lambert W- function.
The Brkic solution was used.
1 𝜀 2.18𝑆
= −2𝑙𝑜𝑔10 [3.71𝐷 + ] ……………………………………………... equation (4.6)
√𝑓𝑡𝑠 𝑅𝑒
𝑅𝑒
𝑆 = 𝐼𝑛 1.1𝑅𝑒 ……………………………………………... equation (4.7)
1.816 𝐼𝑛
𝐼𝑛(1+1.1𝑅𝑒)
Reynolds number was calculated at room temperature, 200C
𝜌𝑉𝐷
𝑅𝑒 = ……………………………………………... equation (4.8)
𝜇
𝜇 = 𝜈∗𝜌 ……………………………………………... equation (4.9)
Where:
μ is dynamic viscosity
68
ρ is the density and
v is the kinematic viscosity
𝑎𝑡 𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑚 𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒, 𝜈 = 15.11 ∗ 10−6 𝑚2 𝑠 −1
Therefore,
𝜇 = 15.11 ∗ 10−6 ∗ 1.225 = 1.850975 ∗ 10−5
1.225∗30∗0.66756
𝑅𝑒 = = 1325400.397
1.850975∗10−5
Surface roughness for an MDF wood,
𝜀 = 12.4 ∗ 10−6 𝑚
Using the Brkic’s solution;
1325400.397
𝑆 = 𝐼𝑛
1.1(1325400.397)
1.816𝐼𝑛
𝐼𝑛(1 + 1.1(1325400.397))
𝑆 = 11.054785
1 12.4 ∗ 10−6 2.18 ∗ 11.054785

= −2𝑙𝑜𝑔10 [ + ]
√𝑓𝑡𝑠 3.71 ∗ 0.66756 1325400.397
1
= 9.269416
√𝑓𝑡𝑠
𝑓𝑡𝑠 = 0.01164
Knowing the friction factor, the loss coefficient at the test section,𝐾𝑡𝑠 can be obtained
1.3
𝐾𝑡𝑠 = 0.01164 ∗
0.66756
𝐾𝑡𝑠 = 0.02267
69
4.3.2. Contraction Cone
The loss coefficient in the contraction cone can be estimated based on Wattendorf’s
approximation.
𝐿
𝐾𝑐𝑐 = 0.32𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑔 𝐷𝑐𝑐 ……………………………………………... equation (4.10)
𝑡𝑠
Where 𝐾𝑐𝑐 , 𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑔 , 𝐿𝑐𝑐 the Contraction Cone loss coefficient, average friction factor, the length of
the contraction cone.
The average friction factor 𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑔 is estimated based on the predetermined friction factor of the
working section 𝑓𝑡𝑠 and the friction factor at the entrance contraction cone 𝑓𝑐𝑐 ;
𝑓𝑡𝑠 +𝑓𝑐𝑐
𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑔 = ……………………………………………... equation (4.11)
2
The friction factor at the entrance of the contraction cone 𝑓𝑐𝑐 is determined by solving the
Colebrook-white equation using the Brkic’s formulae with an assumption of zero roughness
𝜀 = (0) in the interior of the contraction cone.
1 𝜀 2.18𝑆
= −2𝑙𝑜𝑔10 [3.71𝐷 + ] …………………………………………... equation (4.12)
√𝑓𝑐𝑐 𝑅𝑒
Reynolds number at the contraction cone entrance
1.225 ∗ 4.3 ∗ 1.763

𝑅𝑒 = = 501801.4135
1.850975 ∗ 10−5
501801.4135
𝑆 = 𝐼𝑛
(1.1 ∗ 501801.4135)
1.816𝐼𝑛
𝐼𝑛(1 + (1.1 ∗ 501801.4135)
𝑆 = 10.1648
1 2.18 ∗ 10.1648
= −2𝑙𝑜𝑔10 [ ]
√𝑓𝑐𝑐 501801.4135
1
= 8.70996
√𝑓𝑐𝑐
𝑓𝑐𝑐 = 0.01318
70
𝑓𝑡𝑠 + 𝑓𝑐𝑐 0.01318 + 0.02267

𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑔 = = = 0.01793
2 2
The pressure loss coefficient at the entrance of the contraction cone can be calculated;
0.79
𝐾𝑐𝑐 = 0.32 ∗ 0.01793 ∗ 0.66756
𝐾𝑐𝑐 = 0.00679
4.3.3. Diffuser
The loss coefficient in the diffuser is as a result of friction, due to the interior surface of the diffuser,
and expansion of the diffuser. Therefore, the diffuser has two loss coefficients defined. The loss
coefficient associated with friction has been made with an assumption of zero roughness (𝜀 = 0)
𝐾𝑑 = 𝐾𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝐾𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛
Where 𝐾𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐾𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 are given as:
1 𝑓𝑡𝑠
𝐾𝑓 = (1 − )
𝐴2𝑅 8𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃
𝐴𝑅 − 1 2
𝐾𝑒𝑥 = 𝐾𝑒 (𝜃) ( )
𝐴𝑅
Where 𝐴𝑅 , 𝜃 the area ratio and equivalent cone angle of the diffuser nozzle respectively.
1 𝑓𝑡𝑠
𝐾𝑓 = (1 − 2 ) 8𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃
𝐴𝑅
1 0.01164
𝐾𝑓 = (1 − )
1.82 8𝑠𝑖𝑛3.50
𝐾𝑓 = 0.01648
Since these variables had been predetermined from the design phase, the coefficient of loss due to
expansion can be obtained. For an expansion area ratio of 1.8 and an expansion angle of 3.5
degrees, the coefficient of loss may be estimated by
71
𝐾𝑒 (𝜃) = 0.1709 − 0.1170𝜃 + 0.03260𝜃 2 + 0.001078𝜃 3 − 0.0009076𝜃 4

− 0.00001331𝜃 5 + 0.00001345𝜃 6
𝐾𝑒 (𝜃) = 0.08845
1.8 − 1 2
𝐾𝑒𝑥 = 0.08845 ( )
1.8
𝐾𝑒𝑥 = 0.01747
Therefore, the total loss coefficient of the diffuser 𝐾𝑑
𝐾𝑑 = 0.01648 + 0.01747
𝐾𝑑 = 0.03395
4.4. Pressure Losses Calculations
Pressure losses at each section can be obtained through;
𝑉2
∆𝑃 = 𝐾 𝜌
2
Test section:
302
∆𝑃 = 0.02267 1.225
2
∆𝑃 = 12.497 𝑃𝑎
Contraction cone:
The contraction cone flow velocity used is the average velocity at the contraction section
17.152
∆𝑃 = 0.00679 1.225
2
∆𝑃 = 1.2232 𝑃𝑎
Diffuser:
72
The diffuser flow velocity used is the average velocity of the flow at the section
202
∆𝑃 = 0.03395 1.225
2
∆𝑃 = 8.31775 𝑃𝑎
Having calculated the estimated pressure loss at respective sections, the total pressure loss can be
estimated through the summation of the determined losses.
Total pressure loss:
∆𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 12.497 + 1.2232 + 8.31775
∆𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 22.03795𝑃𝑎
The above pressure loss indicates the pressure that the fan needs to recover to compensate for the
total pressure loss due to frictional forces. Therefore, the static pressure 𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 1 will have to be
decreased by the total pressure loss value. To attain this the fan must operate at a higher rpm to
achieve a flow velocity of the corresponding new dynamic pressure.
22.03795 𝑃𝑎 + 11.325 𝑃𝑎 = 33.36295 𝑃𝑎
1
33.36295 𝑃𝑎 = ∗ 𝑉 2 ∗ 1.225
2
𝑉 = √(2 ∗ 33.36295⁄1.225)
= 7.3804𝑚/𝑠
Therefore, the new static pressure at the inlet 𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑤(𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 1)
𝑃𝑛𝑒𝑤(𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 1) = 𝑃𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 33.36295 𝑃𝑎
= 101325 − 33.36295
= 101,291.6371 𝑃𝑎
These calculations and predictions are then incorporated into the subsequent CFD simulation
section as boundary conditions and input parameters.
73
4.5. CFD Simulations.
The purpose of this section as explained in section 2.4 is to evaluate the flow in the new wind
tunnel model, with CFD simulation. The CFD simulation is conducted before the wind tunnel is
fabricated so as to assess its efficiency and suitability. In case the simulation yields different from
the expected parameters then the wind tunnel will be poor and will necessitate redesigning.
Simulation before fabrication also enables the designers to know which zones or regions of the
wind tunnel they can improve before fabrication. This in turn saves both money and time.
The model design of the wind tunnel is built using Solid Works 2014. As shown in the figure 20,
the final assembly of the wind tunnel is made of four model parts: The Settling Chamber, The
Contraction Cone, The Working Section, and The Diffuser Section. The simulation was done in
three phases discussed in the subsequent sections
4.5.1. Phase 1
The initial fluid flow simulation is performed with SolidWorks 2014 and SolidWorks 2016.
SolidWorks FloXpress is a first pass qualitative flow analysis tool which gives insight into water
or air flow inside your SolidWorks model. To get more quantitative results like pressure drop, flow
rate and behavior, Flow Simulation tool must be used. The following are a few presets that have
to be made in the set up before the simulation starts:
i. The ambient pressure value at the entrance to the contraction nozzle has to be assigned
ii. The expected static pressure at the end of the diffuser nozzle must be assigned
iii. Wall roughness should be set to that of wood. (𝜀 = 12.4 ∗ 10−6 𝑚 )
iv. Fluid properties should be assigned. These include the volume or mass flow rates and the
flow temperature.
With these conditions set, FloXpress can animate the flow inside the wind tunnel to replicate the
flow behavior of the actual wind tunnel
74
4.5.1.1. SolidWorks FloXpress Report
Model- The assembled wind tunnel model
Fluid- Air
Environment Pressure 1
Type Environment Pressure
Faces Face<1>@cone lid-1
Value Environment Pressure: 101313.67 Pa
Temperature: 293.00 K
Outlet Volume Flow 1

Type Volume Flow Rate
Faces Face<2>@Diff lid-1
Value Volume Flow Rate: 10.5000 m^3/s
Results
Name Unit Value
Maximum Velocity m/s 33.518
75
Figure 20:Snapshot from SolidWorks design showing the main sections of the wind tunnel as well as the
flow direction
Figure 21: Snap shot from Solid Works indicating the Fluid flow velocities in the Y and Z directions
76
The results of flow simulation using Solid Works is as shown in the figure 21. It is noted that the
free stream velocity is at the range of 28-33 ms-1 which means that the wind tunnel can achieve
the desired speeds. From the simulation, the flow is observed to accelerate from a speed of 4 ms-1
at the inlet of the contraction cone converge and accelerate to maximum flow velocity at the test
section, the flow then decelerates to an exit average velocity of about 6 ms-1.
Figure 22: Snap shot from Solid Works simulation showing the fluid flow in the X, Y and Z direction in
the designed wind tunnel model
Figure 23 is a simulation that was conducted using Solid Works but with a different orientation
with an aim to capture flow regime at the test section.
77
Figure 23:Snap shot from Solid Works simulation indicating flow regime at the test section
4.5.2. Phase 2
We then perfomed a second phase of simulation for acquisition of a more detailed analysis and
improved accuracy and reliability of desired results. We decided to incorporate Ansys Fluent for
CFD into our design project. This was because an accurate simulation of the operation of the wind
tunnel was part of the stated objectives of this project. In addition to operations of the wind tunnel,
the design team also had to simulate a test model inside the wind tunnel. Ansys was chosen as the
software of choice because it was the closest simulation software in terms of availability to the
team as student version. This was coupled by the fact that Ansys is more familiar to the team than
any other available software of fluid simulation. We used Ansys version 16.2 and using Fluent the
following work was done.
1. Importing the CAD model.

We confirmed that the dimensions used in solidworks, and every aspect of the designed
wind tunnel were preserved after importing the .IGES model. Faces are also named here.
2. After comfirmation of geometrical parameters, the next step was to come up with the most
suitable mesh for the model. This is one of the most important steps in any work of CFD
as described earlier in chapter 2. This step determines to a great extent the reliability of the
78
results that will be obtained. In our project, meshing of the solid model was as shown in
Figure 24. We opted for a relatively fine mesh so as to increase the accuracy of the results.
There was 85,309 nodes in the elements and 220,046 elements in the mesh assembly.
Figure 24: Meshed wind tunnel CAD model after meshing in Ansys Fluent
We settled for a uniformly distributed mesh on the contraction cone because the expected flow in
this zone is anticipated to be a uniform flow. There are very little changes in the flow parameters
in the contraction cone. For the test section, we opted for a finer uniformly distributed mesh as
well. This is because we also expect a steady and uniform flow in this region. However, the test
section is the most critical area of the wind tunnel because it is where the model will be mounted.
This means that the flow parameters of this section directly influence the credibility of the test
results. For that reason, the finer mesh was to allow us to be able to capture as much detail as
possible from this zone. The furthest zone, the diffuser is anticipated to have a non-uniform and
unsteady flow. In most cases, separation and back flows also tend to be present at some points.
Therefore, we chose to have an irregular mesh for this zone because irregular meshes are more
suitable for unsteady flows.
In addition to zonal meshing, we made the first twelve layers closest to the walls to have a
progressively increasing separation distance from the wall surfaces towards the axis of symmetry
79
of the wind tunnel. Beyond these twelve layers, the separation distance remained constant. This is
because for internal steady flows like our test section, closer to the walls, there is a higher rate of
change of flow velocity that gradually reduces to zero at some point away from the wall. For,
unsteady flows such as in the diffuser, it may reach negative velocities by reversing direction of
flow. This is called the flow profile and is dictated by the behavior of the boundary layer. This
choice of meshing was meant to capture more accurate data for the behavior of the boundary layer
and the flow profile throughout the wind tunnel.
3. After meshing comes the setup stage

The following assumptions are made to be representative of the normal operating
conditions of the wind tunnel
• Flow is inviscid and frictionless.
• Velocity at the inlet = 4.3 m/s,
• Density at operational altitude = 1.204 kg/m3
Therefore, the following are the parameters we used in the simulation
Flow
• Energy equation stays OFF because inviscid flows conserve energy according to
Bernoulli’s principle. Therefore, for incompressible flows, the energy equation is
not necessary as we have mass, x-momentum, y-momentum as a set of 3 equations
for the three unknowns, pressure, x-velocity and y- velocity Therefore, only the
momentum equation is applicable
Materials
• The moving fluid was set to be air

• The density of flow was set to 1.204 kg/m^3. Since the flow is incompressible,
we set the density to be constant too.
Boundary conditions
• Inlet
o Velocity magnitude = 4.3 m/s – We assumed this to remain constant
o Initial gauge pressure = 0 Pa – This is because we took the pressure at the
entrance to be equal to the local atmospheric pressure.
80
• Outlet
o Pressure outlet – this is because we were more interested in the pressure
recovered by the diffuser at the exit section than any other parameter.
o Gauge pressure = 0 Pa
Reference values
• Compute from inlet

• Temp = 288.16K
• Density = 1.204 kg/m^3
Solution
• Spatial Discretization
• Gradient – Least squares cell based
• Momentum – Second Order Upwind. This is usually for improved accuracy
and reliability in non-porous media and single-phase flows.
• Solutions controls – Default

• Monitors – Default
• Solution Initialization
• Initialization methods – Standard Initialization
• Compute from – inlet
• Reference frame – Relative to cell zone
• Initial Values
• Gauge Pressure – 0 Pa
• X velocity – 4.3 m/s
• Y velocity – 0 m/s
• Run calculations
• Number of iterations - 200 (Figure 25)
81
Convergence
Fluent discretizes the flow equations chosen into a set of finite difference relationships. Upon
running the solution, Fluent finds the flow solution iteratively. It makes successive updates to the
current “guess”, trying to make the new guess more closely satisfy the conservation laws.
The equations of conservation are solved iteratively until the solution converges. The solution is
said to converge when
• Negligible changes in solution variables result from one iteration to the other. This is
where we monitor the scaled residual plots (figure 25).
• The overall property conservation is reached.
• The quantities under watch reach steady values. For example, drag, lift. The points are
tracked
How accurate convergence of a solution reaches depends on mesh quality and resolution,
numerical errors and the accuracy of the models used.
Figure 25: Scaled Residuals from Ansys Fluent
82
4.5.2.1. RESULTS
This section focuses on the results of the simulations that we performed on the wind tunnel model.
Sample results of the CFD simulations are discussed in the subsequent sub sections
Contours of Static Pressure
The simulation predicted a maximum static pressure of +170.4498 Pa. This is the dominant
pressure magnitude at the entrance and contraction sections of the wind tunnel. A similar value of
static pressure is also seen to exist at the exit cross section of the diffuser. The minimum static
pressure magnitude that was predicted was –650.9457 Pa at the inlet cross section of the
contraction cone.
Figure 26: Contours of static pressure from Ansys Fluent
83
Contours of Turbulent Kinetic Energy
From the simulation, we were also able to generate the contours that show the different magnitudes
of turbulent kinetic energy at different regions within the wind tunnel. The minimum value was
0.00516039 J/kg. The simulation showed us that this was the prevailing magnitude in most parts
of the wind tunnel as shown in figure 27. The maximum value was 15.42699 J/kg at the edges of
the diffuser exit. This is typical of diffusers which vent air into a still reservoir. The lower section
of the diffuser exit has relatively higher turbulent kinetic energy due to back flows. We also noted
higher turbulent energy on the walls of the diffuser inlet and the test section exit. This is because
these are regions which are prone to flow separation and unsteadiness. The diffuser inlet is prone
to separation because of the increment in angle and the sudden increase in the upstream static
pressure. The test section exit is also prone to separation due to the growth of the boundary layer
as the length of the test section increases from the inlet to the exit.
Figure 27: Contours of Turbulent Kinetic Energy (k). from Ansys Fluent
84
Turbulence Intensity
Turbulence intensity was predicted to be lowest at the contraction section with a magnitude of
9.237352. This is because the flow in the contraction section has a favourable pressure gradient.
Turbulence is uniform and minimum at the middle of the working section where the model under
test is placed. This shows that the model will not be under influence of flow unsteadiness. This is
infact a desired quality in any wind tunnel design. Thus, this simulation showed us that the test
section length could not be increased any further. The length of the test secction that we designed
is thus validated and the best position to place the model is around the middle part and away from
the walls.
Figure 28: Contours of Turbulent Intensity from Ansys Fluent
At the same time, there are other regions that experience higher turbulence with the highest
intensity of 312.6041 at the exit cross section of the diffuser. The edges of the diffuser exit appear
to have the highest turbulence intensity of 312.6041. This is because of the turbulent mixing of the
tunnel air and atmospheric air. The turbulence is aggravated by the effects of gravity on the lower
section of the diffuser exit. A closer observation on the walls of the test section also reveals that
the turbulence intensity increases with increasing length of the test section. This is also explained
85
by the fact that the boundary layer grows with increasing length of the test section. The diffuser
walls especially at the inlet also have relatively higher magnitudes of turbulence intensity.
Contours of Axial Velocity
For the axial velocity, the simulattion predicted variances at different sections of the wind tunnel.
for the test section, the velocity was the highest in this region with a peak of 33.51239 m/s. This
was a satisfactory magnitude because it was our desired design target. It was also in range of the
previous solid works simulation and thus we can say that the results are fairly consistent. The
general magnitude of velocity gradually rises from the contraction section, peaks in the test section
and then starts to decelerate as expected in the diffuser. Velocity is also lower at the walls where
the no slip condition affects the nearby streamlines. However, it increases gradually towards the
axisymmetrical line of the windtunnel. The lowest velocity magnitude is -5.093141 at the lower
exit section of the diffuser. This negative velocity means that the flow at this point is in the opposite
direction to the flow in the other sections of the wind tunnel. Therefore, this is evidence that there
is a reverse flow at this section. The same is true for all the regions closest to the walls of the wind
tunnel.
Figure 29: Contours of Axial Velocity from Ansys Fluent
86
The Ansys simulation was critical as it enabled us to validate the design of the wind tunnel as to
an allowable extent. All the choices made during the simulation were limited by either computing
power, computing time and simulation expertise. For example, in order to obtain the best results,
the mesh size has to be as small as possible. However, very fine meshes subject the hardware to
many calculations and this lengthens the duration of simulations especially for computers with low
processing capabilities. Therefore, the mesh size is chosen such that it simultaneously allows the
best results to be obtained and the computing duration to be minimized. Thus, the results obtained
in this simulation are without doubt very reasonable since they matched the expected design
conditions and predictions.
4.5.3. Phase 3
Since the wind tunnel had met the required test section velocity magnitudes and most importantly
a uniform flow, we decided to perform a third phase of simulation. Being one of our design targets,
we decided to simulate the flow over a test model in the test section. The test model used in this
section was a NACA 43130 airfoil.
Choice of Test Airfoil
NACA airfoils can be broadly categorized into six family groups. These are the 4-digit, the 5-digit,
16 series, 6 series. 7 series and 8 series. Each group has unique characteristic features that make
them favorable for specific uses.
Though they have relative high amounts of drag and portray poor behavior during stall, the 5 digit
NACA airfoil series has advantages that make it superior for test models. These are,
• They value of pitching moment are low
• They achieve high maximum lift coefficient, Cl max
• They handle flow roughness better
More so, these airfoils have applications in commuter aircrafts, general aviation aircraft, piston
powered bombers, and business jets making them relatively common. This is why we settled on
the NACA 43013 for this particular case.
87
After, choosing our test model and using coordinate points, the airfoil is imported and plotted using
solid works, then given a span of 500mm and chord length of 1000 mm upon extrusion into a
three-dimensional solid. This is then taken merged with the solid wind tunnel model, Boolean
subtracted and meshed as shown in figure 30. The area of interest was given a higher mesh
concentration than the rest of cell zones. This is because we wanted to capture more data around
the airfoil than at any other region
Figure 30: Meshing of the Airfoil from Ansys Fluent
We simulated the airfoil with the test section conditions at zero angle of attack and sample results
were obtained. Some of these results were discussed as follows.
Velocity in Z-Direction
From figure 31 we can see that the flow delivered in the test section is uniform and free of cross
flows. Z- velocity fluctuations only begin to become visible after the flow interacts with the
model. This shows that the flow is of quality and therefore the results that shall be obtained will
contain a high level of integrity.
88
Figure 31: Z - velocity variation in the test section
Static Pressure
For the pressure distribution around the airfoil, the maximum pressure is at the leading edge where
the pressure has a magnitude of 10447.2 Pa. This is because the air temporarily stops as velocity
reduces to zero upon contact with the airfoil leading edge. The air then accelerates instantaneously
as it flows over the airfoil and its pressure reduces. Towards the trailing edge, there is an adverse
pressure gradient and the air decelerates as pressure starts to rise again. The minimum pressure
experienced by the wing section was 9222.58 Pa. As it can be seen from figure 32, the minimum
pressure is experienced at the cross sections of the wing section in the regions closest to the leading
edge. This is because there exists an instantaneous higher magnitude acceleration of the air from
the stagnation point on the leading edge as it leaks to the sides with lower pressures. The higher
acceleration causes higher reduction in pressures compared to the other zones of the wing section.
89
Figure 32: Pressure magnitudes on the test airfoil surface from Ansys Fluent
The pressure distribution around a typical airfoil section at zero angle of attack is as shown in
figure 33. For comparison with theoretical pressure distribution, figure 34 shows the resultant
pressure field around our test model obtained from the simulation. There exists a slight variation
from the theoretical prediction due to variations of airfoil curvatures. However, by closer analysis,
it is evident that the result is consistent with predictions and the wind tunnel delivers the required
flow conditions for test purposes.
90
Figure 33: Typical pressure distribution field around an airfoil: Source: Anderson (1992)
Figure 34: Pressure distribution field around the test airfoil from Ansys Fluent
91
Turbulence
For turbulent energy, the simulation showed that there was more turbulent kinetic energy at the
trailing edge region with a maximum of 8.62086 J/kg than at the rest of the wing section. The
minimum turbulent energy is 0.302266 J/kg at the leading edge. From here, turbulence gradually
increases as the Reynolds number increases and boundary layer grows with increasing length of
flow over the wing section. The pressure gradient gradually becomes adverse as the flow
approaches the trailing edge. The results are as shown in figure 35.
Figure 35: Turbulence around the test airfoil from Ansys Fluent
Velocity
The velocity contours (figure 36) illustrate how the velocity changes along the airfoil from the
leading edge to the trailing edge. The air is decelerated at the leading edge to about at 4.8 m/s and
then accelerates over the airfoil to a maximum of about 40m/s before it starts to decelerate again
as it leaves the airfoil surface.
92
Figure 36: Velocity variation along the airfoil
As we have explained, the simulations on turbulence, pressure and velocity variations are all in
agreement with expected theoretical predictions and therefore support the validity of the wind
tunnel. As a matter of fact, we obtained many other parameters which were within acceptable
limits of design and theory. Therefore, we concluded that the wind tunnel that we designed was a
success based on these CFD simulations. This section highlighted the prime importance of CFD
in any engineering work of Fluid Mechanics. Most importantly, this section proved that the
conceptual design of this wind tunnel is a successful engineering project.
It is also worth noting that these simulations are only accurate to a given degree. Though the
simulations give exact values of magnitudes of given parameters, we cannot say that if fabricated,
the wind tunnel will yield the same results. The main limitation in these CFD analysis was the
expertise of the team members in actual work of CFD. The choices we made during the course of
the analysis could be improved with more experience on fluid simulations. This would yield more
accurate results. Nonetheless, we remained confident of the trends and consistency in the results
of the analysis that the concept design was successful.
93
CHAPTER 5
The main purpose of this project work was to design and fabricate a low speed subsonic wind
tunnel to substantiate its effectiveness for aerodynamic demonstration and analysis applications as
well as to simulate the velocity profiles. The wind tunnel design was done based on a
predetermined value of a mean test velocity limit of 30m/s with all elements aimed at making it as
short as possible. This chapter will cover the conclusion of the project, the recommendations and
the future works that can be done on this design.
From chapter one, the objectives of this project were pivoted on length minimization, flow quality
maximization and validation of the design by means of successful simulations.
A comparison of major constructed low speed wind tunnels with the newly designed one is shown
in table 4.
Table 4: Comparison between TUK 2017 wind tunnel with similar existing tunnel
Parameters New Tunnel Stanford Tunnel NASA wind tunnel

Contraction ratio 7:1 8:1 7:1
Test Section 0.7 m * 0.5 m 0.9 m * 0.9 m 0.9 m * 0.9 m
Maximum flow velocity 32 m/s 28 m/s 25 m/s
Test Section length 1.3 m 1.35 m 3m
Overall length 5.457m 7.35 m 13 m
The length of our designed wind tunnel is approximately 6m and a mean velocity of approximately
30m/s at the test section. The full description of the designed low speed wind tunnel after
completion of the project is as illustrated in Table 5
Table 5: Specifications of the TUK 2017 wind tunnel
Parameters Value
Type Open circuit
Overall length 5.457m
Test section length 1.3 m
Test section cross section 0.7 m * 0.5 m
Mean air flow velocity 30 m/s
Contraction ratio 7
94
Settling chamber cross section 1.85 m * 1.32 m

Number of screens 2
Honeycomb cross section 0.00648 m * 0.00648 m
5.1. Conclusion
With, the length we obtained and the speeds that our simulations have achieved at the test section
(30-33 m/s), we can say that the conceptual design was a successful undertaking by the team. The
simulations also proved that flow separation was minimized in the wind tunnel and the test section
free stream where the model would sit was completely free of turbulence. All the test model
predictions were consistent with theory and this shows that the design was a success.
The fundamentals of fluid mechanics together with CFD simulations were utilized throughout this
project. Results from CFD simulations enabled validation of the design as uniform speeds and
dynamic pressures were obtained in the test section.
The performance of the wind tunnel from the experiment using an airfoil proves adequate based
on the results obtained. More so, valuable amounts of knowledge in aerodynamics, mechanics of
fluids, CFD simulation and engineering design principles were gained by the entire team.
This documentation, Conceptual Design of a Low Speed Wind Tunnel, is exclusive of the
fabrication phase of the designed Wind Tunnel. Fabrication process requires money to purchase
the required materials and time for construction process. There was no financial support from the
school therefore the project was restrained to the conceptual design stage. Time constraints and
schedules also imposed a major challenge on designing the power plant for the wind tunnel. This
was because the design of the fan and power plant would equally require significant amount of
attention. For that reason, we had to use a predetermined magnitude of inlet velocity obtained from
chapter 4 in all our calculations and simulations. This was made possible with the assumption that
the chosen power plant would be able to provide the energy required to meet this condition.
95
5.2. Recommendations
This section will culminate the very essence of this project work by recommending the most
suitable wind tunnel to be constructed and installed at The Technical University of Kenya. The
choice of the wind tunnel is based off the preceding discussions that have exhaustively laid bare
the considerations, simulations and analyses of the wind tunnel of choice. The recommended wind
tunnel is therefore a good choice after the said simulations and analyses have been successfully
done.
The open wind tunnel has the advantage of low cost of construction especially because it is not
made of many intricate parts as a closed type wind tunnel. The low cost of construction is a
desirable attribute at this stage because this project is the first of its kind. Furthermore, an open
wind tunnel hardly requires a cooling system even during long hours of operation. A closed wind
tunnel would require such a system because of the recirculation of the air whose temperature keeps
on rising. There is no air recirculation in an open type wind tunnel and thus the temperature rise is
kept at a minimum.
An open type wind tunnel is also recommended because it has no purging problem. This is because
both the inlet and outlet are open to the surrounding. The purging problem comes in where the air
drawn into the wind tunnel has to be propelled out of it using additional power. However, because
of the open nature of the open type wind tunnel, this will not be a problem since the air will just
flow through the wind tunnel from one end to the other without need for additional action.
Design of a wind tunnel is a lengthy process that requires extensive knowledge and experience in
theory and fabrication. As discussed in chapter 3 and illustrated in figure 4, the design process is
lengthy and requires more parties to be involved. In this initial design, there was little experience
in the team and this left room for a lot of work to be done on the design in future. There should be
more expertise in fluid mechanics, electronics and CFD in the future stages of refining and
perfecting this design. More beneficiaries of this wind tunnel such as mechanical engineering
students should also be included in the design and decision-making process.
The optimal contraction ration for the recommended wind tunnel is 6.97 as calculated above. This
contraction ration guarantees the following suitable characteristics. First, the chosen ratio
optimizes the length of the contraction section. A greater contraction ration than this one would
96
lead to a longer contraction section, which consequently increases boundary layer growth. A large
contraction ration will also result in excessive inlet dimensions. On the converse, a lesser
contraction ration would reduce the length of the contraction section. This also has its adverse
effects since it will cause flow separation. A low contraction ratio also leads to pressure loss within
the screens as stated earlier.
The recommended contraction ratio also makes it easy to achieve smoothness of the inward
surfaces of the wind tunnel. This is because the ratio ensures a very near parallel connection
between the contraction section and the test section. It also enables less curvature at the connection.
This reduces boundary layer growth and separation.
In the settling chamber, it’s recommended to use hexagonal honeycombs since they yield the least
pressure loss. The parameters of the diffusers are a length of 3m, an expansion ratio of 2 and half
expansion angle of 3.50. These are in keeping with the initial goals of achieving smoothness and
minimizing boundary layer growth and minimization flow separation while optimizing space
utilization. A sharper expansion angle, as stated earlier, would reduce the extent of the flow
conformity to the walls. Lesser flow conformity to the walls results in flow separation due to
unexpected pressure increments. A length of the diffuser that is greater than the recommended 3m
will lead to more boundary layer growth.
5.3. Future Works
The stated dimension parameters are the most appropriate recommended values for the wind tunnel
to be constructed and installed at The Technical University of Kenya. The wind tunnel will go a
long way in bringing the empirical experience of aerodynamic studies to the engineering student
at the institution. Of paramount significance is the fact that this project meets our objective of
setting the pace for other students for continuous advancement and development on the same
project. For example:
I. The power plant and fan design for this wind tunnel is a good area that can be picked up
by future groups of students as a potential project. The type of fan chosen for this design
97
was a centrifugal blower. However, its detailed analysis and design was not part of the
scope of this project.
II. The Data acquisition mechanisms can also be a subject of study or basis of another project
as well. For this wind tunnel, temperature sensors, velocity sensors, pitot static tubes, force
measuring devices and hot wire anemometry probes would form some of the means of data
acquisition. Electronic transducers and microprocessors may also be of great importance
in operation of a more reliable wind tunnel.
III. Design and installation of flow visualization techniques to enable view of flow
characteristics around the test model is equally a potential project idea. These include
among others methods such as smoke visualization, particle image velocimetry and laser
doppler anemometry.
IV. Expanding the design into a larger wind tunnel. This would allow more space to have all
the design elements in place to allow the construction of a wind tunnel that facilitates
research work. A comparison between larger wind tunnels and a space constrained wind
tunnel as described in this dissertation explains why some compromise of some features
were made at the cost of reduced flow quality and how they restrict it only for basic
purposes such as engineering principles demonstration.
Therefore, the group A members can say that upon completion of this project, the problem of the
statement was well tackled and all the objectives stated for this project were met. In addition, we
have proudly set the pace so that future students can expound on this project and make it a real
success
98
Appendix 1
% hi and he are half the height of the contraction cone at inlet
% and outlet
% respectively. Therefore 0.25 forms the datum%
hi=0.66;
he=0.25;
% the length of the contraction cone x was given an increment of
% 0.05 from
% 0 for precision and accuracy as well as high image quality, the
% total
% length of the CC being l.
x=0:0.05:0.79;
l=0.79;
z = x/l;
% z integer was a substitute of x'%
y= hi-((hi- he)*((6*z. ^5)-(15*z. ^4) + (10*z.b^3)));
Plot(x, y)
Figure 6: Polynomial plot of the contraction cone contour design. Source: MATLAB
The above MATLAB code was used in the design of contraction cone of the proposed wind tunnel
as indicated in chapter 3. MATLAB code aided in obtaining the contour design of the contraction
chamber of the wind tunnel with an expected contraction ratio of 6.97
99
Appendix 2
The test airfoil geometry design
Meshing of the test airfoil
100
Close up view of meshed airfoil
Velocity contours around the test airfoil. Maximum velocities on the upper section
101
Balls flowing around the test airfoil at the leading edge
Balls at the upper surface accelerate faster than those at the lower surface
102
A particle travelling closest to the lower surface of the airfoil is left behind.
Velocity streamlines around the test airfoil from the front view
103
Velocity variation in the x direction with respective to position due to presence of the test model
104
References
1. Borger, G. G. The optimization of wind tunnel contractions for the subsonic range, NASA
Technical Translation, NASA Washington, (1976).
2. Eckert, W. T, Mort, K. W, & Jope, J. Aerodynamic design guidelines and computer

program for estimation of subsonic wind tunnel performance, NASA technical note, NASA
Washington, (1976).
3. Mehta, R. D, & Bradshaw, P. Design Rules for Small Low-Speed Wind Tunnels, Aero.
Journal (Royal Aeronautical Society), (1979).
4. Scheiman, J. Considerations for the installation of honeycomb and screens to reduce wind-
tunnel turbulence, NASA Technical Memorandum, NASA Washington, (1981).
5. The Royal Aeronautical Society. Wind tunnels and wind tunnel test techniques, Royal
Aeronautical Society London, (1992).
6. Bell J. H., Mehta R. D., “Contraction Design for Small Low-Speed Wind Tunnels”,
NASACR- 182747, April 1988.
7. Prandtl L., “Attaining a Steady Stream in Wind Tunnel”, NACA TM 726, Oct. 1933.
8. Bradshaw, P. & Pankhurst, R. C., “The design of low-speed wind tunnels progress in
aeronautical sciences”, 1964.
9. M. N. Mikhail and W. J. Rainbird, “Optimum Design of Wind Tunnel Contractions”, Paper

78-819, AIAA 10th Aerodynamic Testing Conference, 1978.
10. Cattafesta, Louis, Chris Bahr, and Jose Mathew. "Fundamentals of wind‐tunnel
design." Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering (2010).
11. P. Bradshaw and R. D. Mehta, "Design Rules for Small Low Speed Wind Tunnels," The
Aeronautical Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, pp. 443-49, 1979.
12. Buice, C.U. and Eaton, J.K., “Experimental Investigation of Flow Through an Asymmetric
Plane Diffuser,” 1997
105
13. E.M. Sparrow and J.P. Abraham., Et al. “Flow separation in a diverging conical duct: Effect
of Reynolds number and divergence angle,” 2009.
14. Anderson Jr, J. D. "Governing equations of fluid dynamics." Computational fluid

dynamics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. 15-51.
15. Blevins, Robert D. "Applied fluid dynamics handbook." New York, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., 1984, 568 p. 1 (1984).
16. Schlichting, Hermann, et al. Boundary-layer theory. Vol. 7. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1960.
17. Anderson Jr, J. D. "Basic philosophy of CFD." Computational Fluid Dynamics. Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 1992. 3-14.
18. Kubesh, Rodney J., and Bret W. Allie. "A wind tunnel for an undergraduate
laboratory." International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 37.1 (2009): 21-
26.
19. Rae, W.H, and A. Pope. Low-speed Wind Tunnel Testing. Wiley, 1984.
20. Howell, Robert, et al. "Wind tunnel and numerical study of a small vertical axis wind
turbine." Renewable energy 35.2 (2010): 412-422.
21. Nastac, Laurentiu. "Modeling and simulating engineering processes with computational
fluid dynamics." JOM 56.3 (2004): 43.
22. Lan, Chuan-Tau E, and Jan Roskam. Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance.
RAEC, 1981.
23. Cockrell, D. J., and E. Markland. "A review of incompressible diffuser flow: a
reappraisal of an article by GN Patterson entitled ‘Modern Diffuser Design’which was
published in this journal twenty-five years ago." Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace
Technology 35.10 (1963): 286-292.
24. Kline, S J, et al. Optimum Design of Straight-Walled Diffusers. Dept. of Mechanical
Engineering, Stanford U, 1958.
106
25. Kibicho, Karanja, and A. T. Sayers. "Experimental measurements of the mean flow field
in wide-angled diffusers: a data bank contribution." International Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences 5 (2009): 8.
26. Błażewicz, Marek, et al. "High performance computing on new accelerated hardware
architectures." Computational Methods in Science and Technology Vol. spec. iss.(1)
(2010): 71-79.
27. Wood, David H., and Russell V. Westphal. "Measurements of the free‐stream
fluctuations above a turbulent boundary layer." The Physics of fluids 31.10 (1988): 2834-
2840.
28. Brandt, Steven A. Introduction to aeronautics: a design perspective. Aiaa, 2004.
29. Arifuzzaman, Md, and M. Mohammad. "Design construction and performance test of a
low cost subsonic wind tunnel." IOSR Journal of Engineering 2.10 (2012): 83-92.
30. Raymer, Daniel P. "Aircraft design: A conceptual approach, American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics." Inc., Reston, VA (1999): 21.
31. Peter John Arslanian and Payam Matin. "Undergraduate Research on Conceptual Design
of a Wind Tunnel for Instructional Purposes". 2012 ASEE Annual Conference &
Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June. ASEE Conferences, 2012.
https://peer.asee.org/22147 Internet. 06 Jun, 2017
32. White, Frank. Viscous fluid flow. McGraw-Hill series in mechanical engineering. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
107

Conceptual Design of A Low Speed Wind Tunnel

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Conceptual Design of A Low Speed Wind Tunnel

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

THE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF KENYA

Faculty of Engineering Sciences and Technology

Department of Aerospace and Aviation Engineering

GROUP A DESIGN PROJECT- EEAQ 5125

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF A LOW SPEED WIND TUNNEL

1. Denis Ngene - 112/00519

SUPERVISOR: Ms. ADAH TOLE

©The Technical University of Kenya Exam Office 2016

NAME SIGNED DATE

GEORGE NAMACHANJA ……………………………... …………………………

Signed ………………………………… Date …………………………………………

Ms. Adah Tole (Project Supervisor)

Signed ………………………………… Date …………………………………………

Prof. Faustine Alloise Ondore (Departmental chair)

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... 10

TABLE OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. 11

1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 17

1.2. Background Information ................................................................................................ 20

1.3. Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 21

1.4. Research Objectives ....................................................................................................... 22

1.4.1. General Objectives .................................................................................................. 22

1.4.2. Specific Objectives ................................................................................................. 22

1.5. Scope and Limitation of Study ....................................................................................... 22

1.6. Methods of Data Collection and Analysis...................................................................... 23

2.1. Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 24

2.2. Wind Tunnel Definition ................................................................................................. 25

2.2.1. Contraction Section ................................................................................................. 25

2.2.2. Test Section ............................................................................................................. 27

2.2.3. Diffuser ................................................................................................................... 28

2.2.4. Power plant ............................................................................................................. 31

2.3. Current State of Wind Tunnel Testing ........................................................................... 34

2.4. CFD Analysis ................................................................................................................. 36

2.5. DAQ Devices ................................................................................................................. 38

3.1. The Design Process ............................................................................................................ 39

3.1. Contraction Cone............................................................................................................ 41

3.1.1. Settling Chamber .................................................................................................... 47

3.1.2. Honeycomb ............................................................................................................. 47

3.1.3. Screens .................................................................................................................... 50

3.2 . Test Section ................................................................................................................. 51

3.2.1 The Design Approach ............................................................................................. 52

3.2.2. Construction ............................................................................................................ 53

3.2.3. Model Mounts ......................................................................................................... 54

3.2.4. Pressure Drops and Boundary Layer Growth ......................................................... 58

3.3.1. Diffuser Geometry Design and Optimization ......................................................... 61

4.1. Analysis and Discussions ............................................................................................... 65

4.2. Loss Calculations ........................................................................................................... 67

4.3. Pressure Loss Coefficients ............................................................................................. 68

4.3.1. Test Section ............................................................................................................. 68

4.3.2. Contraction Cone ................................................................................................... 70

4.3.3. Diffuser .................................................................................................................. 71

4.4. Pressure Losses Calculations ........................................................................................ 72

4.5. CFD Simulations. .......................................................................................................... 74

4.5.1. Phase 1 ......................................................................................................................... 74

4.5.1.1. SolidWorks FloXpress Report .................................................................................. 75

4.5.2. Phase 2............................................................................................................................. 78

4.5.2.1. RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 83

4.5.3. Phase 3............................................................................................................................. 87

5.2. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 96

5.3. Future Works ...................................................................................................................... 97

Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................................. 100

References ............................................................................................................................... 105

Table 1: Range of achievable contraction lengths ....................................................................... 43

𝜁 − pressure loss coefficient