Small-Scale Wind Turbine

Testing in Wind Tunnels Under

Kenneth W. Van Treuren
Mem. ASME
Low Reynolds Number
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Baylor University, Conditions

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021

One Bear Place #97356,
Waco, TX 76798-7356
e-mail: Kenneth_Van_Treuren@baylor.edu
Much of the aerodynamic design of wind turbines is accomplished using computational
tools such as XFOIL. These codes are not robust enough for predicting performance
under the low Reynolds numbers found with small-scale wind turbines. Wind tunnels can
experimentally test wind turbine airfoils to determine lift and drag data over typical oper-
ating Reynolds numbers. They can also test complete small wind turbine systems to deter-
mine overall performance. For small-scale wind turbines, quality experimental airfoil
data at the appropriate Reynolds numbers are necessary for accurate design and predic-
tion of power production. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4030617]

Introduction section. Added to this limitation are the difficulties that result
from both geometric scaling and Reynolds number matching. In
Small-scale wind turbines are a fast growing market in wind
fact, Serpa states that wind tunnels have been of limited value in
energy generation. According to the American Wind Energy
wind turbine rotor development except for the gathering airfoil lift
Association (AWEA), 54 small wind turbine models are offered
and drag data [5]. Challenges in scaling make testing in a small
commercially in the U.S. and are used on homes, schools, and
wind tunnel difficult; however, much can still be learned from
commercial and industrial facilities to name a few applications
testing small-scale wind turbine systems. For the small- and
[1]. By the end of 2012, AWEA projected that more than 150,000
microwind turbines, there exists the possibility of scaling both the
small wind turbines would be installed in the U.S. These wind tur-
geometry and the Reynolds number in wind tunnel testing.
bines are generally horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWTs) with
One of the important features to capture when designing small
fixed pitch blades and a direct drive DC generator. Domestically,
wind turbines is that of flow separation and its influence on airfoil
small wind turbines are defined as wind turbines with a capacity
performance data. This can occur at high speeds on a stall-
of 100 kW and lower. Along with this growth in small wind tur-
controlled turbine and on wind turbines operating at low Reynolds
bine installations is the growing trend toward distributed energy
numbers (usually 100,000 and below), especially near the hub.
generation. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, small
Generally speaking, the lack of accuracy of the airfoil data has the
wind turbines accounted for approximately 10.5% of all distrib-
potential to be the largest source of error in design, especially for
uted wind energy or 18.4-MW in 2012 [2]. The year 2013 was
the lower Reynolds number ranges.
expected to be even higher. In the UK, the small wind turbine cat-
For higher Reynolds numbers, usually taken to be greater than
egory is further divided into microwind (0–1.5 kW), small wind
500,000, often airfoil data are generated using computational 2D
(1.5–50 kW), and medium wind (50–500 kW). The UK experi-
models such as XFOIL, a shareware code developed by Drela [6],
enced a 21% increase in the number of installed medium and
and PROFIL, a commercial design code developed by Eppler [7].
small wind turbines in 2012 when compared with 2013 [3] with
At these speeds, the simulations are generally adequate as flow
the most significant increase in the small wind category. World-
will stay attached to the airfoil. For Reynolds numbers below
wide, at the end of 2012, there were 806,000 registered small
100,000, as experienced on small- and microwind turbines, flow
wind turbines, which is a 10% increase over the previous year [4].
separation will occur especially near the blade hub where the rota-
The growth is predominantly in China, the United States, and the
tional speed is lower. Figure 1 shows how airfoil performance,
UK, with China having 70% of the market total. HAWTs account
both lift and drag coefficients, can drastically change with
for the majority of the new wind turbines installed. For the focus
decreasing Reynolds numbers. There is a lack of appropriate
of wind tunnel testing in the context of this paper, only wind
experimental data to use in wind turbine design under these condi-
turbines of the residential size, 1–10 kW with fixed pitch (stall
tions, which is evident in the modeling codes [9]. Predictions of
controlled) and a direct DC generator, will be considered.
performance from existing models can range from 25% to 175%
of the measured values primarily due to the different approaches
to using the 2D airfoil data in the modeling codes, such as blade
Importance of Wind Tunnel Testing. It is important for the
element momentum theory (BEMT) [10]. This variation in per-
future of wind energy that new wind turbine designs be as effi-
formance is dependent on the quality of the 2D airfoil data avail-
cient as possible, to capture as much energy as feasible given the
able from either wind tunnel testing or computational design
constraints of the design. To achieve this efficiency, it is necessary
codes such as XFOIL. The National Renewable Energy Labora-
to involve wind tunnel testing. This testing should include airfoil
tory (NREL) tested their 10 m wind turbine rotor in the NASA
testing for basic lift and drag data as well as the testing of the
Ames wind tunnel and acquired data on 1700 different test condi-
wind turbine system (blades and generator) to optimize efficiency.
tions [10]. This data were used to validate the predictive capabil-
Full wind turbine systems are not usually tested in wind tunnels
ities of various codes available to wind turbine blade designers.
due to their large size when compared to the wind tunnel test
After conducting a “blind comparison” of codes with their data,
they concluded that the results were not favorable with wide var-
Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December
iations between various code predictions. The conditions of the
11, 2014; final manuscript received May 6, 2015; published online June 1, 2015. flow were such that the models were expected to accurately
Assoc. Editor: Ryo Amano. capture the flow characteristics. This implies that more accurate

Journal of Energy Resources Technology Copyright V

C 2015 by ASME SEPTEMBER 2015, Vol. 137 / 051208-1

Fig. 1 Lift and drag curves over a range of Reynolds numbers [8]
experimental data are necessary to further the predictive nature of
the wind turbine models and to improve the design process, partic-
ularly for low Reynolds number cases.
Overview of Wind Tunnel Testing. Wind turbine testing of
actual systems in a wind tunnel is not usually possible because the
large rotor diameters are not physically able to fit into a wind tun-
nel or, if it does fit, the rotor disk could cause an unacceptably
large blockage. It is possible to test fixed, full-scale wind turbine
systems outside a wind tunnel at locations such as the NREL’s
National Wind Technology Center in Golden, CO [11], but this is
costly. Blanch tested a 3 -m diameter wind turbine mounted to a
trailer by towing the trailer along an airport runway [9]. He
noticed some variability in the data due to differing environmental
conditions. In a wind tunnel, both the wind speed and quality are
carefully controlled, eliminating the variability. The largest wind
turbine testing tunnel in the literature is the NASA Ames
Research Center’s 24.4 m (80 ft)  36.6 m (120 ft) wind tunnel
[10]. This tunnel enabled testing of a 10 -m diameter wind turbine
system (NREL Phase VI test) keeping the blockage to an accepta-
ble level so that corrections were not necessary (<10%). Some
large wind tunnels do have dimensions of 10 m  10 m but even
this is not large enough for most wind turbine systems [12]. A
trend in the literature shows the emergence of open test sections
for wind tunnels being applied to wind turbine testing [13–15].
The majority of wind tunnels available for testing are smaller and,
if the blockage constraint of less than 10% is satisfied, this limits
the size of the turbine that can be tested. The measurements and
experiments in controlled conditions (MEXICO) tests were done
in the DNW facility with a 4.5 -m diameter turbine in a
9.5 m  9.5 m wind tunnel test section with no corrections [16].
Sicot et al. tested a 1.3 -m diameter turbine in a 4 m  4 m test sec-
tion with no blockage corrections [17]. Smaller wind tunnels of
the sort more common in research universities are also useful for
wind turbine system testing. Burdett and Van Treuren have suc-
cessfully tested systems in a wind tunnel with dimensions of
0.61 m  0.61 m and wind turbine diameters of 0.5 -m [18,19].
Other testing has been done on small-scale models in wind tunnels
of 1 m  1 m or less [20–26]. Blockage is always a consideration
under these small-scale conditions. Traditionally, tunnel block-
ages of 6–7.5% or even up to 10% have been acceptable with no
corrections needed, according to Howell et al. [24]. Scaling down
rotating machinery typically leads to losses in efficiency which
must be understood [27].
Results and Discussion: Wind Tunnel Testing
Airfoil Characteristics. Much of the literature concerning
wind tunnel testing of wind turbines involves experiments to
determine the lift and drag coefficients of airfoil cross sections
051208-2 / Vol. 137, SEPTEMBER 2015
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021
that will be used in wind turbine blade design. Experimental test-
ing by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)
in the 1930 s resulted in the family of airfoils, typically used in the
design of aircraft [28,29]. Early wind turbines began using these
NACA airfoil sections which were considered appropriate because
of their laminar flow characteristics. For BEMT design, operating
at or near the maximum L/D ratio (minimum drag for the lift pro-
duced) is desirable. From a plot of CL versus CD, generated either
from wind tunnel data or theoretically determined, it is possible to
locate the maximum L/D ratio directly and, with this value, find the
appropriate angle of attack for the wind turbine blade design. The
surface finish of the experimentally tested airfoils must be very
smooth as an increase in surface roughness and/or freestream turbu-
lence in the experiments can cause differences in the data collected
when compared with the actual wind turbine performance. Addi-
tionally, the blockage corrections applied to the data and the mea-
surement methods used in wind tunnel tests can affect the data [9].
More attention is being given to designing airfoils that are
appropriate for wind turbines. Figure 2 shows data for a laminar
flow LS-1 airfoil [30] designed for wind turbines. Because the
local Reynolds number over the blade is a function of the blade
radius, experimental airfoil data must be collected for the entire
range of Reynolds numbers expected. NREL has supported
research in this area of airfoil design [31]. Other researchers are
developing alternative families of airfoils and also testing NREL
airfoils for wind turbine use [32–38]. Future work with wind tur-
bine airfoils will include modification of existing airfoils for better
performance [30,39].
Several studies have attempted to gather experimental airfoil
data for low Reynolds numbers and compare these data to simula-
tions. McGhee et al. [40] studied the Eppler 387 (E387) airfoil at
Reynolds numbers from 60,000 to 460,000 and presented both
experimental and simulation data using PROFIL. A good compar-
ison was found between the theoretical and experimental results
for the higher Reynolds numbers, but at lower Reynolds numbers
PROFIL was unable to accurately predict the increase in drag
resulting from a laminar separation bubble. The laminar separa-
tion on low Reynolds numbers airfoils was studied by Hu and
Yang [41]. They document the behavior of this separation bubble
for a Reynolds number of 70,000 using both particle image veloc-
imetry and surface pressure measurements. They also found that
the separation bubble moves forward as the angle of attack is
increased. Being able to predict this separation bubble and its
movement is critical to predicting airfoil performance for small-
scale wind turbines. A number of studies have been done on air-
foils for small-scale wind application [17,42–48]. A wide range of
Reynolds numbers have been tested and/or simulated with these
studies. For Reynolds numbers above 200,000, agreement
between experimental data and PROFIL was generally good.
However at 100,000 and below, where laminar separation can
dominate the flow over an airfoil, the agreement was considered
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 2 LS-1 laminar flow wind turbine airfoil [30]
fair [33]. Selig and McGranahan [47] have shown that drag behav-
ior is highly dependent on Reynolds number, especially under low
Reynolds number conditions. Thus, there is a need for additional
airfoil analysis, both experimental and simulated, at the low
operational Reynolds numbers for small-scale wind turbines to
further refine blade design.
Two notable sources of airfoils designed for the low Reynolds
numbers that small-scale wind turbines experience are the NREL
and the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). NREL
has developed two families of airfoils for turbines under 10 -m in
diameter with each family addressing a specific diameter wind
turbine. The S833–S835 have been designed for 1–3 m turbines
[37] and the S822–S823 have been designed for 3–10 m turbines
[38]. These airfoils have been designed theoretically using PRO-
FIL in the Reynolds numbers range of 150,000–800,000. Among
other design criteria, these airfoils were designed to minimize the
effect of leading-edge roughness by simulating the flow transition
that occurs under those conditions.
Additional airfoils have been designed by Selig et al. and these
as well as other low Reynolds numbers airfoils have been tested
experimentally over Reynolds numbers range of 30,000–50,000
[47,49–51]. In Refs. [49] and [50], airfoils were tested with both
normal flow conditions and tripped flow conditions (to simulate
leading-edge roughness). For most airfoil testing, however, data
were only taken at Reynolds numbers as low as 100,000. Addi-
tionally, the data were never taken poststall, which is necessary
for the design of stall-regulated wind turbines.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021
If low Reynolds number or poststall data are desired, experi-
mental testing must be performed because neither PROFIL nor
XFOIL can accurately predict aerodynamic performance due to
the flow separation that can be experienced over large portions of
the airfoil surface under these low flow conditions. While compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD) could be an alternative to experi-
mental testing, it must first be validated experimentally before the
theoretical model can be extrapolated to conditions not currently
predicted. CFD does not presently model transition from laminar
to turbulent flow well, which is a critical phenomenon with a sepa-
ration bubble. Since an accurate, dependable model does not exist,
experimental testing is still required.
Airfoil Testing in a Wind Tunnel. While airfoil testing has
become relatively standardized, many differences exist in wind
tunnel sizes that have been used to measure airfoil data. Large
tunnels, such as the tunnel at the University of Illinois Urbana-
Champaign, have test sections as large as 0.914 m  1.22 m
(3 ft  4 ft). These types of tunnels employ several different tech-
niques to measure the forces on the airfoil. A common method
used is the force balance, or sting, which measures lift and drag
directly. Some tunnels do measure lift and drag using a side mount
system which allows the flow to be more two-dimensional (2D)
than using a sting. Other experiments measure drag downstream
of the model by characterizing the wake and using the momentum
deficit approach. What is evident is that experimental data
SEPTEMBER 2015, Vol. 137 / 051208-3
gathered are highly dependent on the wind tunnel and the method
used to measure the forces. Experiments do not usually report the
turbulence intensity of the flow, which also can have a large
impact on the separation characteristics of the airfoil when flow
separates and/or a separation bubble is present.
A typical small laboratory wind tunnel, such as seen in Fig. 3,
is an open circuit tunnel with a 0.61 m  0.61 m  1.22 m (24
in.  24 in.  48 in.) test section. The Model 406 Wind Tunnel
was manufactured by the Engineering Laboratory Design (ELD),
Inc. and has a 29.8-kW (40-hp) electric motor that drives a con-
stant pitch fan. Varying the RPM gives a low velocity of 0.1 -m/s
to an upper tunnel velocity greater than 50 -m/s. Tunnel velocity
variation over the test section is less than 6 1%. The contraction
ratio from the inlet is 6.25:1. The contraction ratio, a precision
honeycomb inlet, and three graduated, high-porosity screens pro-
vide a clean inlet turbulence intensity of approximately 0.2%.
Access to the tunnel test section is provided through a removable
floor and ceiling.
An S823 airfoil is shown in Fig. 4 and is typical of airfoils
tested in this wind tunnel. The test article is 0.61 -m (24-in.) in
span with a 0.153 -m (6-in.) chord and is manufactured out of
Aerospace Composite Products (ACP) Spyderfoam. A hole was
cut through the center of the airfoil, spanning the airfoil at the
quarter-chord for a 0.00476 -m (3/16-in.) stiffener rod. The groove
on the top of the airfoil remains from cutting the hole for the stiff-
ener rod and was shown not to affect the airfoil performance;
however, later airfoils were subsequently finished in epoxy to
smooth the surface. The airfoil also has a groove cut chordwise on
the airfoil centerline on both the top and bottom surfaces to allow
the mounting system to be flush with the airfoil (Fig. 5) and
mounts directly onto the ELD force balance (Fig. 6). The airfoil
spans the test section to minimize 3D flow effects.
The lift and drag were measured directly using an ELD dyna-
mometer. Its DC voltage output was connected to a National
Instruments BNC 2110 and recorded using LABVIEW. The dynamic
pressure was measured using a pitot-static tube upstream of the
airfoil. The angle of attack was measured using a digital torpedo
level, accurate to 0.1-deg. Typical values for lift and drag coeffi-
cient are show in Fig. 7.
Wind Turbine Systems Testing in a Wind Tunnel. Full wind
turbine systems tests can occur in many size wind tunnels. The
purpose of each of these tests is to gather experimental data under
reasonable conditions that can be compared to CFD or be scaled
up (or down) to appropriate size turbines. Small-scale wind tur-
bine tests using wind tunnels of the size depicted in Fig. 3 are of
value in determining wind turbine system characteristics. Burdett
and Van Treuren have successfully used this size wind tunnel to
compare blade element theory (BET) and BEMT design methods
Fig. 3 Typical small-scale wind tunnel [18]
051208-4 / Vol. 137, SEPTEMBER 2015
as well as demonstrate geometric and Reynolds number scaling
[18,19]. Other tests can be conducted on tip speed ratio (TSR),
number of blades, optimization of twist, effects of roughness, etc.,
such as was studied by Gregg et al. [54,55]. A typical setup for
the wind turbine system in a wind tunnel is shown in Fig. 8.
Blades for these tests were designed in Solidworks and printed on
an OBJET 30 3D printer and can be seen in Fig. 9.
The results of these experimental tests provide valuable infor-
mation. Figures 10, 11, and 12 illustrate a comparison between
tested parameters where CP,S is the wind turbine system electrical
power output normalized by the power available in the air. From
these tests it is easy to compare the effects of TSR, number of
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021
blades, and roughness on power output for a wind turbine rotor/
generator combination.
Figure 13 shows the rotor power coefficient when applying geo-
metric and Reynolds number scaling of the three different diame-
ter wind turbine blades in Fig. 9. Obviously, wind tunnel testing
of wind turbine systems provides insight into the design of wind
turbine rotors.
Scaling Wind Turbines for Wind Tunnel Testing
Airfoil sections are commonly tested in the wind tunnel; how-
ever, challenges in scale cause testing in a small wind tunnel to be
difficult. Much can still be learned from testing full systems in a
small-scale wind tunnel. Geometric scaling has been a topic
largely ignored, resulting a relatively little literature on the sub-
ject, especially as it applies to wind turbines [56]. The topic of
scaling is briefly covered in most wind energy textbooks mainly
for changing the geometric size of the turbine and, more specifi-
cally, scaling up the turbine to produce more power. Reynolds
number matching is largely ignored [57]. For scaling relations,
Manwell et al. [58] presented the relationships of interest for wind
turbines in Table 1 based on rotor diameter as the scaling factor.
Using these guidelines, if the rotational speed is halved then the
radius is doubled, keeping the TSR constant. If the TSR is con-
stant then the power, thrust, and momentum coefficient will
remain constant as these are functions of tip speed. A constant tip
speed also preserves the angle of attack for the wind turbine blade
resulting in the same lift and drag coefficient.
Reynolds numbers less than 200,000 result in testing problems
for small wind turbines (D < 5 -m in general) or wind tunnel test-
ing [57]. These relationships are also only true if the blades are
Fig. 4 ACP Spyderfoam airfoil with epoxy finish [52]
Transactions of the ASME
 Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021
Fig. 5 Mounting system [52]

scaled up or down exactly in proportion to the change in radius. the radius, as seen in Table 1 for rotational speed. As can be seen
Petersen [59] stated that small variations in the radius, such as in Table 2, the freestream velocity must increase by the geometric
extensions of the blade supports at the hub, cause the scaling pro- scaling factor, and the rotational velocity must increase by the
jections to be inaccurate. Associated with the scaling would be the square of the scaling factor. Because of the relationships derived
increased weight of the blades and the loads generated on the from Reynolds number matching, scaling down for wind tunnel
blades themselves. This does not always follow the same geomet- testing in this manner can lead to impractical freestream and rota-
ric similarity. Moe states, for example, that increasing the size by tional velocities.
20% would increase the power production by 50% while increas- The result is that, to test the full-scale Reynolds number on a
ing the weight by 73% [57]. Increasing the size of the wind tur- smaller scale, it is necessary to test at tip speeds above the
bine using geometric scaling will usually find that costs do not
scale in the same proportion and will become an increasingly
larger part of the overall energy production costs [57]. It is sug-
gested that scaling a wind turbine up past a certain size will even-
tually not be possible and will result in a constant response level,
regardless of size [57]. Manwell et al. [58] state that “geometric
similarity is maintained to the extent possible,” recognizing there
may be cases where geometric similarity is not achievable.
Reynolds number matching is a test condition that is desired in
wind turbine testing. Without Reynolds number matching, the aer-
odynamic conditions between the two turbines are not truly identi-
cal. However, for Reynolds numbers greater than 500,000, airfoil
performance does not change considerably with Reynolds num-
ber, so Reynolds number matching is less significant. Most
medium to large turbines ( > 20 -m) operate at higher Reynolds
numbers and this effect does not need to be taken into account [5].
At Reynolds numbers below 500,000, however, “extreme and un-
usual behavior is caused by anomalous transition, separation, and
bubble formation phenomena” [5]. Burdett and Van Treuren have
investigated the case for scaling when Reynolds number matching
is included [18]. Table 2 shows that values, such as the rotational
velocity, scale as one over the radius squared instead of one over

Fig. 7 Eppler 387 airfoil coefficient of (a) lift and (b) drag at a
Fig. 6 Airfoil and test section with force balance [52] Reynolds number of 100,000 [53]

Journal of Energy Resources Technology SEPTEMBER 2015, Vol. 137 / 051208-5


Fig. 8 Dimensions of turbine and wind tunnel test section [19,54]
Fig. 9 Printed wind turbine blades used in scaling tests with
dovetail hub and showing different angles of twist for BET and
BEMT blades [18,19]
Fig. 10 S818 two blade tests with a variable TSR [54]
full-scale value. Wainauski [60] tested a 1/30 scale model of a
3.5-MW wind turbine and did match Reynolds numbers. The
result was test tip speeds of 183 -m/s (600-ft/s). This led to the rec-
ommendation by Wainauski to keep the tip speeds below the drag
rise Mach numbers of the blade airfoils to avoid compressibility
losses. Gao and Hu [61] recognized that dynamic similarity
(Reynolds number matching) is hard to achieve with wind tur-
bines of different sizes. They show that the power coefficient of
two wind turbines is different if the Reynolds numbers are differ-
ent. If the sizes of wind turbines are different, such as is usually
the case with testing a scaled wind turbine in a wind tunnel as
051208-6 / Vol. 137, SEPTEMBER 2015
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021
Fig. 11 S818 performance for different blade sets at a constant
TSR of 3 [54]
Fig. 12 S818 data comparing a three-blade ridged configura-
tion with a four-blade smooth configuration at a TSR of 3 [54]
opposed to an actual wind turbine, the Reynolds number cannot
be satisfied and wind tunnel data cannot be directly applied to the
original wind turbine. An important impact of Reynolds number is
its effect on the 2D airfoil data used in the design of the wind tur-
bine. Gao and Hu [61] have found that the lift and drag coeffi-
cients changed little in the Reynolds number range of
200,000–2,500,000. Burdett et al. [62] have also shown an effect
of Reynolds number on design considerations for wind turbines
using 2D airfoil data for lower Reynolds numbers. They show that
at lower Reynolds numbers the angle of attack for maximum CL/
CD changes and that this must be considered when using BET and
BEMT. Even more important is the onset of flow separation at
Reynolds numbers below 100,000, which must be addressed by
active or passive flow control devices if a reasonable power pro-
duction with the wind turbine is desired.
Wind tunnel tests can be used to develop and validate aerody-
namic modeling tools such as the Unsteady Aerodynamics
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 13 Power coefficient versus TSR at U 5 5.5 m/s [18]
Table 1 Wind turbine scaling laws without Reynolds number
matching [58]
Quantity Symbol Relation Scale dependence
Power P P1/P2 ¼ (R1/R2)2 R2
Torque Q Q1/Q2 ¼ (R1/R2)3 R3
Thrust T T1/T2 ¼ (R1/R2)2 R2
Rotational speed X X1/X2 ¼ (R1/R2)1 R1
Weight W W1/W2 ¼ (R1/R2)3 R3
Aerodynamic moments MA MA,1/MA,2 ¼ (R1/R2)3 R3
Centrifugal forces FC Fc,1/Fc,2 ¼ (R1/R2)2 R2
Note: R: radius.
Experiment and the MEXICO wind tunnel tests [16]. Other tests
of this nature have been performed by Ronsten [63] and Snel et al.
[64] to better model the stall delay phenomena.
A few other considerations exist for scaling. An obvious param-
eter for scaling is mass, which is difficult to scale. For steady-state
wind turbine tests in smaller wind tunnels, however, not scaling
the mass will not change the measured values. Additionally, the
starting torque for the full-scale generator is very difficult to scale.
For this reason, cut-in speed (the wind speed at which the turbine
begins to spin) cannot be scaled very easily. Peterson [59] noted
that small variations in turbine geometry, such as radius, may
cause the scaling projections to be inaccurate.
Aerodynamic Data Corrections for Wind Tunnel
Testing
With experimental testing of airfoils, the flow conditions in the
wind tunnel are not identical to the ideal 2D flow that an airfoil
shape would experience in an open system. Because of this, multi-
ple wind tunnel corrections have been published to account for the
confinement of the flow in the wind tunnel. Barlow et al. [8] pro-
vided a fairly thorough summary of wind tunnel corrections for
2D models. In the testing of six low Reynolds number airfoils,
Selig and McGranahan used similar correction factors but applied
them in the final correction differently [47]. In the analysis pre-
sented, both corrections are used and compared to determine the
effect of the different methods.
2D Airfoil Flow Considerations. In all branches of aerody-
namics that use airfoils, accurate performance lift, drag, and
moment coefficient data are absolutely necessary for quality
design and correct analysis for predictive models. For higher
velocities and subsequently higher chord-based Reynolds num-
bers, numerical simulations like XFOIL and PROFIL are adequate
for use in design. However, for low Reynolds numbers (roughly
100,000 and below—the limit is different for every airfoil) and
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Table 2 Wind turbine scaling laws with Reynolds number
matching [18]
Parameter Symbol Relation
Radius R R1/R2 ¼ sc
Chord c c1/c2 ¼ sc
Kinematic viscosity  1 =2 ¼ 1
Freestream velocity U U1/U2 ¼ 1/sc
Rotational velocity X X1/X2 ¼ 1/sc2
Rotor power PRotor PRotor1 =PRotor2 ¼ 1=sc
Torque s s1 =s2 ¼ sc
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021
poststall conditions, better predictive tools are necessary. Neither
PROFIL nor XFOIL can accurately predict performance if there is
flow separation and subsequent turbulent flow over the airfoil for
low Reynolds number conditions. Figure 1 shows how airfoil per-
formance can drastically change with decreasing Reynolds num-
bers. In this figure, both the lift and drag coefficients are plotted
versus angle of attack. While numerous low Reynolds numbers
airfoils have been designed, only a fraction of those have been
developed for small-scale wind turbines. Airfoils for small-scale
wind turbines have unique design requirements. Some of the nota-
ble ones are structural requirements for airfoil shapes to be used at
the root of the blade and the leading-edge roughness insensitivity
necessary to minimize the loss of performance with deposition
from bugs and other particulates [37].
PROFIL does not accurately predict the drag curve for low
Reynolds numbers because it does not account for the added drag
due to the separation bubble as shown by McGhee and Beasley
[30]. As a result, the simulated drag curve may be lower than
what is experimentally measured. Additionally, the inaccurate
drag curve can lead to an inaccurate prediction of the angle at
which the maximum L/D occurs. XFOIL, on the other hand, was
developed to better account for separation bubble losses and low
Reynolds number flow, as shown by Drela, for the E387 airfoil
[65]. Nonetheless, this code is not always accurate for other air-
foils analyzed at low Reynolds numbers. In particular, it does not
always predict the location of turbulent separation accurately as
shown by McGranahan and Selig [66], which can result in signifi-
cant discrepancies in drag prediction. Additionally, neither of
these codes predicts poststall performance accurately, which is
extremely important for stall-controlled blades. Because of the
limitations of the current predictive codes, taking experimental
data for low Reynolds numbers is necessary to ensure that accu-
rate data are obtained for blade design.
2D Airfoil Wind Tunnel Corrections. Multiple corrections
were applied to the airfoil data presented in Fig. 14 to account for
the increased drag due to the airfoil mount as well as the flow con-
ditions altered by the airfoil and wind tunnel walls. Perhaps, one
of the first corrections that should be considered when collecting
airfoil data is the drag tare associated with the force balance. This
must be accomplished with the model off the support or sting.
With the model off, the wind tunnel needs to be run at the operat-
ing conditions and angles of attack to be tested, which depend on
the type of force balance.
With the current series of experiments, to account for the
increased drag due to the airfoil mount, the bottom bracket of the
mount (detached from the airfoil) was installed in the wind tunnel
on the force balance and secured at an angle of 0.0 deg. Subse-
quently, the wind tunnel was run at the test Reynolds numbers and
the measured drag was converted to a coefficient. This value was
then subtracted off the measured values for drag at the corre-
sponding Reynolds numbers. Thus, measurements of drag should
be made at the operating conditions and a table or graph for cor-
rection made. With such a table, these values can then be sub-
tracted from the total drag recorded to get the actual measured
SEPTEMBER 2015, Vol. 137 / 051208-7
  
c
ewb ¼ Cdu (2)
2hts

The second category of corrections caused by the wind tunnel

walls is streamline curvature. This correction occurs because the
physical boundaries of the walls interfere with the natural curva-
ture of the free air over the model, effectively increasing the air-
foil effective camber and a subsequent increase in lift, moment,
and angle of attack. However, the drag is not affected by this phe-
nomenon. Equation (3) documents the streamline correction
factor

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021

 
p2 c 2
r¼ (3)
48 hts

Buoyancy, or boundary layer growth, is the third notable cate-

gory of effects from the wind tunnel walls. As the air moves
through the wind tunnel, the boundary layer will grow increas-
ingly large and the static pressure will decrease. Since the free-
stream velocity is measured upstream of the model, the actual
freestream velocity at the model is higher. This correction factor
must be determined experimentally for each unique wind tunnel.
Equation (4) shows the form of the correction factor, and Eq. (5)
shows the correction factor equation used by Selig et al. [48].
While this correction is insignificant for Reynolds numbers above
400,000, the correction factor increases significantly as Reynolds
number decreases, demonstrating that this phenomena are more
significant for low Reynolds number testing and should be used to
Fig. 14 Lift and drag curves for an S823 airfoil at Re 5 200,000 correct the data
[52]
Kvel ¼ f ðVu Þ (4)
drag of the model. More ways to estimate drag added by the tare pffiffiffiffiffi 0:1296
Kvel ¼ 1:015755  0:0002391Vu þ 0:00001712 Vu þ pffiffiffiffiffi
can be found in Barlow et al. [8]. Vu
The wind tunnel walls affect the 2D flow so that it is not the (5)
same as an airfoil performing in the open air. The effects of the
wind tunnel walls can be divided into three categories: blockage, Multiple methods of combining correction factors have been
streamline curvature, and buoyancy (as described by Barlow et al. published, two of which will be presented and used for compari-
[8]). son purposes. The first is from Barlow et al. [8], which can be
The first category is blockage with two types of blockage being seen in Eqs. (6)–(10).
considered. Solid blockage, esb, is caused by the presence of a
model within the wind tunnel test section. This decreases the V ¼ Vu ð1 þ eb Þ (6)
effective area that the air is flowing through. Applying Bernoulli’s !
equation shows that the air velocity must increase when it flows 1 c2 1
through the decreased area, effectively increasing all aerodynamic a ¼ au þ þ r Clu (7)
8p h2 þ ðc=4Þ2 2p
forces and moments for that angle of attack. As seen in Eq. (1),
the solid blockage correction factor is merely a function of model Cl ¼ Clu ð1  r  2eb Þ (8)
volume, Mv and wind tunnel cross-sectional area, Ats. In calculat-
ing this equation, a value of 0.74 was used for K1 as per the rec- Cd ¼ Cdu ð1  3esb  2ewb Þ (9)
ommendation by Barlow et al. for a wing spanning the tunnel. In eb ¼ esb þ ewb (10)
calculating Ats, the simple cross-sectional area was used since the
displacement thickness at the location of the model is not cur- A second method, documented by Selig et al. [49], can be seen
rently known. Notably, accounting for only the model volume in Eqs. (11)–(14)
does not account for the change that occurs with airfoil orienta-
tion. However, since the airfoil will be operating over a relatively V ¼ Vu Kvel ð1 þ eb Þ (11)
small range of angles, this correction factor is sufficient
57:3r
K1 Mv a ¼ au þ ðClu þ 4Cmu Þ (12)
esb ¼ 3=2
(1) 2p
Ats
ð1  rÞ
Cl ¼ Clu (13)
The other type of blockage considered is wake blockage, ewb, ð1 þ eb Þ2
which is caused by a decreased velocity in the airfoil wake.
ð1  esb Þ
According to the continuity equation for closed test sections, the Cd ¼ Cdu (14)
freestream velocity must increase. The effect of the blockage is ð1 þ eb Þ2
proportional to the size of the wake, thus, it is proportional to the
measured value for drag. The constant of proportionality only Typical data are shown in Fig. 14 with the Baylor data being
depends on the chord of the airfoil and the height of the test sec- corrected [52]. A Reynolds number of 200,000 is presented as it is
tion, hts, as seen in Eq. (2) where Cdu is the uncorrected drag in the region where drag is not sensitive to Reynolds number and
coefficient flow separation is not an issue. The Baylor data are compared

051208-8 / Vol. 137, SEPTEMBER 2015 Transactions of the ASME

with published PROFIL data, XFOIL data, and general airfoil
theory. The published experimental data were taken at UIUC. As
shown, the lift curve matches PROFIL, XFOIL, and published
experimental data very well, as well as a theoretical airfoil slope
of 2p per radian or 0.1 per degree. Both XFOIL and UIUC experi-
mental data predict stall at approximately 10 deg, but PROFIL
data does not include a stall angle of attack. Noticeably, the UIUC
drag data matched the predictions from XFOIL and PROFIL rea-
sonably well, although the Baylor experimental data have a
slightly higher drag coefficient. The Baylor experimental drag
curve follows the form of the prediction and UIUC data.
Figure 15 shows the Baylor University uncorrected, tarred, and
corrected data using the methods espoused by both Selig et al.
[49] and Barlow et al. [8]. When applying the corrections to the
drag data, the drag tare was applied before the wind tunnel wall
corrections were applied. This data does not include any correc-
tions due to moment coefficient as seen in Eq. (12). After analyz-
ing the corrections for the data, the drag tare was the most
significant correction, reducing the drag coefficient by at least
0.006 and nearly 0.01 for lower Reynolds numbers. The wind tun-
nel wall corrections, however, proved insignificant for low values
of lift and drag. With a large wake due to large amounts of separa-
tion over the airfoil surface and a subsequent increase in drag, the
wind tunnel wall corrections became a greater percentage of the
actual value for lift and drag coefficients. These corrections were
only noticeable at higher Reynolds numbers. By applying all these
corrections, the lift coefficient curve matched reasonably well for
all the data and the drag curve shifted closer to the comparison
data. However, the drag coefficient curve remained noticeably
higher than the predictions and UIUC data.
Two corrections are not recommended in future studies. First,
the correction for angle of attack, which never reached an order
higher than the order of the fixed uncertainty of the angle mea-
surement using both methods, is not recommended unless the
angle measurement method is improved. Second, the correction
for velocity has not been applied in this study because the Reyn-
olds numbers presented are nominal and the change due to the
correction is not significant enough to warrant using the corrected
value. However, preliminary calculations suggest that for lower
Fig. 15 Corrections to S823 airfoil data at Re 5 200,000 [52]
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Reynolds numbers than tested in the current study, the correction
may be significant and should be performed.
Comparing the two methods for wind tunnel wall corrections to
each other, the method presented by Barlow et al. [8] is generally
0.5–1.0% greater than that presented by Selig et al. [52].
Blockage Corrections for Wind Turbine Rotors. The chal-
lenge of testing wind turbine blades in a small wind tunnel was
explored by Van Treuren and Gregg [67]. Testing of small-scale
models in wind tunnels, some with test sections of 1 m  1 m or
less, has been accomplished in the past [21–26,41,68,69]. Block-
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021
age can be a significant factor in wind tunnel testing; however,
Howell et al. [24] suggest that fixed tunnel blockage up to 10%
does not significantly affect results. Blockage due to rotating wind
turbine blades has not been extensively studied but still needs to
be considered. Chen and Liou [20] have documented the correc-
tion factor necessary to account for tunnel blockage due to the
rotating blades, as seen in Eq. (15). The correction factor, BF, is
the ratio of the freestream velocity with the turbine installed, UM,
to the freestream velocity without the turbine installed while the
wind tunnel fan is operating under the same conditions, U.
UM
BF ¼ (15)
U
This blockage factor (BF) is used whenever a velocity is
involved in calculation of a figure of merit, such as the TSR.
TSRM, shown in Eq. (16), compares the TSR of the model based
on the velocity of the tunnel with the wind turbine mounted in
wind tunnel test section to the wind tunnel fan operating at the
speed that was found for the operation of the wind tunnel at the
freestream velocity without the wind turbine present in the test
section. Using the BF, Eq. (17) calculates the corrected TSR for
the wind turbine power system
XR
TSRM ¼ (16)
UM
XR
TSRM ¼ TSRM BF ¼ (17)
U
This BF is applied to the coefficient of power based on the UM
(CP,M, Eq. (18)) and used to calculate the corrected power coeffi-
cient, CP, as seen in Eq. (19). For all the power coefficients, P is
the rotor power from the wind turbine (a function of the angular
velocity X), q is the air density, and A ¼ pR2 is the area swept by
the rotating wind turbine blades
PRotor sX
CP;M ¼ ¼ (18)
PFreestream;M 1
qpR2 UM
3
2
PRotor sX
CP ¼ ¼ CP;M BF3 ¼ (19)
PFreestream;M 1
qpR2 U3
2
Figure 13 illustrates the application of these corrections to wind
tunnel system testing. These wind tunnel blades, as seen in Fig.
9(a), having diameters of 0.5 -m, 0.4 -m, and 0.3 -m were tested in
the wind tunnel test section described in Figs. 3 and 8. Wind tun-
nel blockages for these diameters are 52.8%, 33.8%, and 19.0%,
respectively. This is well past the upper limit of 10% that most
tests seek to be below, as lower than 10% typically neglects any
blockage corrections. Good experimental agreement was found
between data for the three different diameters as is seen in Fig. 13.
Conclusions
Small-scale wind turbines are being installed at an ever increas-
ing rate and it is important to have good experimental data upon
SEPTEMBER 2015, Vol. 137 / 051208-9
which to build for future designs. Airfoil testing is becoming y¼ vertical distance
more important as new designs are being created. A new design is a¼ angle of attack
only as good as the data used in the design. Thus, actual experi- au ¼ uncorrected angle of attack
mental testing for lift and drag data, especially at low Reynolds eb ¼ blockage correction factor
numbers, is necessary. When possible, it is suggested to use both esb ¼ solid blockage correction factor
geometric similarity and Reynolds number matching to test the ewb ¼ wake blockage correction factor
wind turbine system in the wind tunnel. Knowing the system per- q¼ density
formance from the wind tunnel tests will enable the designer to r¼ streamline curvature correction factor
more accurately scale the results to a larger wind turbine with con- u ¼ translation velocity, kinematic viscosity
fidence. Finally, tunnel corrections, to include BF, are necessary X¼ blade rotational speed
for accurate experimental data.

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021

References
Acknowledgment [1] American Wind Energy Association, 2014, “Small Wind,” Accessed Apr. 20,
2015, http://www.awea.org/Issues/Content.aspx?ItemNumber¼4592&navItem
The author would like to acknowledge Baylor University for Number¼723
the support of this research. [2] U.S. Department of Energy, 2012, “Market Report on Wind Technologies in
Distributed Applications,” Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,
WA, Report No. DE-AC05-76RL01830.
Nomenclature [3] RenewableUK, 2013, Small and Medium Wind UK Market Report 2013.
[4] World Wind Energy Association, 2014, “Small Wind World Report 2014
A ¼ area swept by rotating wind turbine blades Update.”
ACP ¼ Aerospace Composite Products [5] Spera, D. A., ed., 2009, Wind Turbine Technology: Fundamentals Concepts in
Ats ¼ wind tunnel test section area minus the displace- Wind Turbine Engineering, 2nd ed., ASME Press, New York.
ment thickness around the perimeter [6] Drela, M., “XFOIL Design Code,” Accessed Apr. 20, 2015, http://web.mit.edu/
drela/Public/web/xfoil/
BEMT ¼ blade element momentum theory [7] Eppler, R., “PROFIL Eppler Airfoil Design and Analysis Code,” Accessed Apr.
BET ¼ blade element theory 20, 2015, http://www.airfoils.com/eppler.htm
BF ¼ blockage factor [8] Barlow, J. B., Rae, W. H., Jr., and Pope, A., 1999, Low-Speed Wind Tunnel
C, c ¼ chord Testing, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, pp. 349–362, 673–674.
[9] Blanch, M. J., 1997, “Reynolds Number Effects on the Stall of a Small Hori-
CD, cd ¼ drag coefficient zontal Axis Wind Turbine,” Proceedings of the 18th British Wind Energy Asso-
Cdu ¼ uncorrected drag coefficient ciation Conference, Wind Energy Conversion 1996, Mechanical Engineering
CL, cl ¼ lift coefficient Publications Limited, London, UK, pp. 315–321.
Clu ¼ uncorrected lift coefficient [10] Simms, D., Schreck, S., Hand, M., and Fingersh, L. J., 2001, “NREL Unsteady
Aerodynamics Experiment in the NASA-Ames Wind Tunnel: A Comparison of
CM, cm ¼ moment coefficient Predictions to Measurements,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Cm u ¼ uncorrected moment coefficient Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/TP-500-29494.
CP ¼ rotor power coefficient [11] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Leading Clean Energy Innovation”
CP,M ¼ rotor power coefficient with wind turbine in the Accessed Apr. 20, 2015, http://www.nrel.gov/wind/
[12] Hau, E., 2006, Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies, Applications, Eco-
tunnel (blockage) nomics, 2nd ed., Springer, Berlin, Germany.
CP,S ¼ system power coefficient [13] Monteiro, J. P., Silvestre, M. R., Piggott, H., and Andre, J. C., 2013, “Wind
D ¼ drag Tunnel Testing of a Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Rotor and Comparison With
E387 ¼ Eppler 387 airfoil Simulations From Two Blade Element Momentum Codes,” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn., 123, pp. 99–106.
Fc ¼ centrifugal forces [14] Lewis, R. I., 1990, “Theoretical Simulation of Open Jet Wind Tunnels for Test-
HAWT ¼ horizontal axis wind turbine ing Wind Generator Blade Profiles,” Wind Eng., 14(2), pp. 98–121.
h; hts ¼ wind tunnel test section height [15] Sedaghat, A., Liu, X., Whitty, J., and Tang, X., 2012, “Wind Power of Small
Kvel ¼ velocity correction factor Wind Turbines in Turbulent Open Jets,” Sci. Iran., 19(2), pp. 272–281.
[16] Snel, H., Schepers, J., and Montgomerie, B., 2007, “The MEXICO Project
K1 ¼ constant in solid blockage equation (Model Experiments in Controlled Conditions): The Database and First Results
L ¼ lift of Data Processing and Interpretation,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 75(1), p. 012014.
MEXICO ¼ model experiments in controlled conditions [17] Sicot, C., Devianant, P., Loyer, S., and Hureau, J., 2008, “Rotational and Turbu-
MA ¼ aerodynamic moment lence Effects on a Wind Turbine Blade: Investigation of the Stall Mechanisms,”
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 96(8–9), pp. 1320–1331.
Mv ¼ airfoil model volume [18] Burdett, T. A., and Van Treuren, K. W., 2012, “Scaling Small-Scale Wind Tur-
NACA ¼ National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics bines for Wind Tunnel Testing,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68359.
P, PRotor ¼ freestream power available [19] Burdett, T. A., and Van Treuren, K. W., 2012, “A Theoretical and Experimental
PFreestream ¼ freestream power available Comparison of Optimized BET and BEMT Blade Designs,” ASME Paper No.
GT2012-68350.
PFreestream,M ¼ freestream power available (blockage) [20] Chen, T. Y., and Liou, L. R., 2011, “Blockage Corrections in Wind Tunnel
Q, s ¼ torque Tests of Small Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 35(3),
R, r ¼ radius pp. 365–569.
Re, RN ¼ Reynolds number based on chord [21] Gregg, J. R., Merchant, J. S., Van Treuren, K. W., and Gravagne, I. A., 2009,
“Experimental Analysis of a Counter-Rotating Wind Turbine,” ASME Paper
RPM ¼ revolutions per minute No. IMECE2009–11355.
sc ¼ scaling parameter [22] Rector, M. C., and Visser, K. D., 2007, “Aerodynamic Design of a Small
T ¼ thrust Contra-Rotating HAWT,” AIAA Paper No. 2007-1371.
TSR, k ¼ tip speed ratio [23] Ushiyama, I., Shimota, T., and Miura, Y., 1996, “An Experimental Study of the
Two-Staged Wind Turbines,” World Renewable Energy Conference 1996, Den-
TSRM ¼ tip speed ratio with wind turbine in the tunnel ver, CO, pp. 909–912.
(blockage) [24] Howell, R., Qin, N., Edwards, J., and Durrani, N., 2010, “Wind Tunnel and
U ¼ freestream velocity Numerical Study of a Small Vertical Axis Wind Turbine,” Renewable Energy,
UAE ¼ unsteady aerodynamics experiment 35(2), pp. 421–422.
[25] Pawsey, N. C. K., and Barratt, A. J., 1999, “Evaluation of a Variable-Pitch Ver-
UIUC ¼ University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign tical Axis Wind Turbine,” Wind Eng., 23(1), pp. 23–30.
UK ¼ United Kingdom [26] Georgescu, A., Georgescu, S., and Degeratu, M., 2008, “Experimental Setup
UM ¼ wind tunnel velocity with the wind turbine in the Designed for Testing a Cross-Flow Water Turbine in a Wind Tunnel,” Proceed-
tunnel (blockage) ings of the 5th National Conference of Romanian Hydropower Engineers, Dorin
Pavel, Bucharest, Romania, May 22–23 [UPB Sci. Bull., Ser. D, 70(4), pp.
Vu ¼ uncorrected freestream velocity 191–200].
W ¼ weight [27] Deam, R. T., 2008, “On Scaling Down Turbines to Millimeter Size,” ASME J.
X ¼ chordwise distance Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 130(3), p. 52301.

051208-10 / Vol. 137, SEPTEMBER 2015 Transactions of the ASME

[28] Jacobs, N., Ward, K. E., and Pinkerton, R. M., 1993, “The Characteristics of 78
Related Airfoil Sections From Tests in the Variable-Density Wind Tunnel,”
Report No. NACA-TR-460.
[29] Abbott, I. H., Von Doenhoff, A. E., and Stivers, L., 1945, “Summary of Airfoil
Data,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, Report
No. NACA-TR-824.
[30] McGhee, R. J., and Beasley, W. D., 1981, “Wind-Tunnel Results for a Modified
17-Percent-Thick Low-Speed Airfoil Section,” Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA, Report No. NASA-TP-1919.
[31] NREL Wind Research, “Leading Clean Energy Innovation” Accessed Apr. 20,
2015, http://www.nrel.gov/wind/
[32] Tangler, J. L., and Sommers, D. M., 1995, “NREL Airfoil Families for
HAWTs,” American Wind Energy Association Wind Power’ 95 Conference,
Washington, DC, Mar 26–30, pp. 117–128.
[33] Giguere, P., and Selig, M. S., 1997, “Low Reynolds Number Airfoils for Small
Horizontal Wind Turbines,” Wind Eng., 21(6), pp. 367–380.
[34] Fuglsang, P., Bak, C., Gaunaa, M., and Antoniou, I., 2004, “Design and Verifi-
cation of the Ris0-B1 Airfoil Family for Wind Turbines,” ASME J. Sol. Energy
Eng., 126(4), pp. 1002–1010.
[35] Sommers, D. M., 2004, “The S816, S817, and S818 Airfoils,” National Renew-
able Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/SR-500-36333.
[36] Sommers, D. M., 2005, “The S827, and S828 Airfoils,” National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/SR-500-36343.
[37] Sommers, D. M., 2005, “The S833, S834, and S835 Airfoils,” National Renew-
able Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/SR-500-36340.
[38] Sommers, D. M., 2005, “The S822 and S823 Airfoils,” National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, Report No. NREL/SR-500-36333.
[39] Bak, C., and Fuglsang, P., 2002,” Modification of the NACA 632-415 Leading
Edge for Better Aerodynamic Performance,” J. Sol. Eng., 124(4), pp. 327–334.
[40] McGhee, R., Walker, B., and Millard, B., 1988, “Experimental Results for the
Eppler 387 Airfoil at Low Reynolds Number in the Langley Low-Turbulence
Pressure Tunnel,” NASA Technical Memorandum 4062, Langley Research
Center, Hampton, VA.
[41] Hu, H., and Yang, Z., 2008, “An Experimental Study of the Laminar Flow
Separation on a Low-Reynolds-Number Airfoil,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 130(5),
p. 051101.
[42] Hirahara, H., Hossain, M., Kawahashi, M., and Nonomura, Y., 2005, “Testing
Basic Performance of a Very Small Wind Turbine Designed for Multi-
Purposes,” Renewable Energy, 30(8), pp. 1279–1297.
[43] Gross, A., Fasel, H. F., Freiderich, T., and Kloker, M. J., 2010, “Numerical
Investigation of S822 Wind Turbine Airfoil,” AIAA Paper No. 2010-4478.
[44] Selig, M., 2003, Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Design Lecture Notes (Applied
Vehicle Technology Panel), VKI Lecture Series, NATO Research and Technol-
ogy Organization, Emerging UAV Technology, November 24–28.
[45] Watanabe, Y., Iwashita, H., and Ito, M., 2007, “Shape Optimum Design of Hor-
izontal Axis Wind Turbine in Low Reynolds Number Range,” European Wind
Energy Conference, Milan, Italy.
[46] Greco, L., Testa, C., and Salvatore, F., 2007, “Design Oriented Aerodynamic
Modelling of Wind Turbine Performance,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 75, pp. 1–12.
[47] Selig, M. S., and McGranahan, B. D., 2004, “Wind Tunnel Aerodynamic Tests
of Six Airfoils for Use on Small Wind Turbines,” ASME J. Sol. Energy Eng.,
126(4), pp. 986–1001.
[48] Selig, M. S., Deters, R. W., and Williamson, G. A., “Wind Tunnel Testing Air-
foils at Low Reynolds Numbers,” AIAA Paper No. 2011-875.
[49] Selig, M. S., Guglielmo, J. J., Broeren, A. P., and Giguère, P., 1995, Summary
of Low-Speed Airfoil Data, Vol. 1, SoarTech Publications, Virginia Beach, VA.
[50] Selig, M. S., Lyon, C. A., Giguère, P., Ninham, C. N., and Guglielmo, J. J.,
1996, Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data, Vol. 2, SoarTech Publications,
Virginia Beach, VA.
Journal of Energy Resources Technology
[51] Lyon, C. A., Broeren, A. P., Giguère, P., Gopalarathnam, A., and Selig, M. S.,
1998, Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data, Vol. 3, SoarTech Publications, Vir-
ginia Beach, VA.
[52] Burdett, T., 2011, “Applying Wind Tunnel Corrections to S823 Airfoil Data,”
Paper Written for Experimental Methods for Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow
Class, Baylor University, pp. 1–10.
[53] Burdett, T. A., 2012, “Aerodynamic Design Considerations for Small-Scale,
Fixed-Pitch, Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines Operating in Class 2 Winds” M.S.
thesis, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
[54] Gregg, J. R., Burdett, T. A., Van Treuren, K. W., and McClain, S. T., 2011,
“Design Considerations, Performance Enhancing Techniques, and Wind Tunnel
Testing for Small-Scale, Low Reynolds Number Wind Turbines,” ASME Paper
No. IMECE2011-65351.
[55] Gregg, J. R., and Van Treuren, K. W., 2010, “Experimental Testing of Periodic
Roughness Elements on a Small-Scale Wind Turbine Blade,” ASME Paper No.
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/energyresources/article-pdf/137/5/051208/6146451/jert_137_05_051208.pdf by Heriot-Watt University user on 23 September 2021
IMECE2010-38863.
[56] Srikanth, N., and Funk, J. L., 2011, “Geometric Scaling and Long-Run Reduc-
tions in Cost: The Case of Wind Turbines,” IEEE International Technology
Management Conference (ITMC), San Jose, CA, June 27–30, pp. 691–696.
[57] Moe, G., 2007, “What is the Optimum Size for a Wind Turbine?,” ASME Paper
No. OMAE2007-29035.
[58] Manwell, J. F., McGowan, J. G., and Rogers, A. L., 2009, Wind Energy
Explained: Theory, Design and Application, 2nd ed., Wiley, West Sussex, UK.
[59] Petersen, H., 1984, “The Scaling Laws Applied to Wind Turbine Design,”
Wind Eng., 8(2), pp. 99–108.
[60] Wainauski, H. S., 1979, “Wind Tunnel Tests of a 1/30 Scale Model of a 3.5
Megawatt Wind Turbine,” 14th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering
Conference, Boston, MA, Aug. 5–10, pp. 2050–2058.
[61] Gao, X., and Hu, J., 2009, “Numerical Research of Reynolds Number Impact
on Scale Model of Wind Turbine,” IEEE World Non-Grid-Connected Wind
Power and Energy Conference, Nanjing, China, pp. 1–4.
[62] Burdett, T., Gregg, J., and Van Treuren, K. W., 2011, “An Examination of the
Effect of Reynolds Number on Airfoil Performance,” ASME Paper No. ESFuel-
Cell2011-54720.
[63] Ronsten, G., 1992, “Static Pressure Measurements in a Rotating and Non-
Rotating 2.375 m Wind Turbine Blade. Comparison With 2D Calculations,” J.
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 39(1–3), pp. 105–118.
[64] Snel, H., Houwindk, R., Bosschers, R., Piers, W. J., Van Bussel, G. J. W., and
Bruining, A., 1993, “Sectional Prediction of 3-D Effects for Stalled Flow on
Rotating Blades and Comparison With Measurements,” European Community
Wind Energy Conference, L€ ubeck-Travem€ unde, Germany, Mar. 8–12, pp.
395–399.
[65] Drela, M., 1989, “XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for Low Reynolds
Number Airfoils,” Conference on Low Reynolds Number Airfoil Aerodynam-
ics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, June 5–7, pp. 1–12.
[66] McGranahan, B. D., and Selig, M. S., 2003, “Surface Oil Flow
Measurements on Several Airfoils at Low Reynolds Numbers,” AIAA Paper
No. 2003-4067.
[67] Van Treuren, K. W., and Gregg, J. R., 2010, “Testing Rotating Horizontal Axis
Wind Turbine Blade Designs in a Laboratory Wind Tunnel,” ASME Paper No.
GT2010-23575.
[68] Baansal, A., Howey, D., and Holmes, A., 2009, “CM-Scale Air Turbine and
Generator for Energy Harvesting From Low-Speed Flows,” Solid-State Sensors,
Actuators and Microsystems Conference, TRANSDUCERS 2009, Denver, CO,
pp. 529–532.
[69] Predescu, M., Bejinariu, A., Nedelcu, A., Mitroi, O., Nae, C., Pricop, M., and
Craciunescu, A., 2008, “Wind Tunnel Assessment of Small Direct Drive Wind
Turbines With Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator,” ICREPQ 2008,
Santander, Spain, pp. 1–6.
SEPTEMBER 2015, Vol. 137 / 051208-11