See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/268562393

Evaluation of a Potential Flow Model for Wind Turbine Design

Conference Paper · June 2012

DOI: 10.2514/6.2012-2782

CITATIONS READS
2 1,183

2 authors, including:

Joseph Katz
San Diego State University
88 PUBLICATIONS   4,392 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mostly UAVs View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph Katz on 03 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AIAA 2012-2782

Evaluation of a Potential Flow Model for Wind Turbine

Design

Bhavin A. Patel# and Joseph Katz*

Department of Aerospace Engineering and engineering Mechanics
SDSU, San Diego, CA 92119

The aerodynamic performance of a two-bladed wind turbine was studied using a three-
dimensional, potential-flow based, unsteady, numerical method. Such methods, from the
computational point of view are significantly faster and simpler, and allow the modeling of
vortex wakes without any numerical dissipation. Based on the hypothesis that for an efficient
wind turbine design, flow separation on the rotating blades must be avoided, realistic
engineering results can be generated. Consequently, for the attached flow case, such inviscid-
flow methods are capable of calculating the surface pressure distributions, aerodynamic
loads, and the resulting performance parameters. This was demonstrated by comparing
computational results for the torque, axial force, and efficiency with data published by
NREL (National Research Energy Laboratory) on a two-bladed wind turbine. In addition,
detailed surface pressures on the rotating blade were calculated for various advance ratios,
information which is necessary for proper airfoil selection or design. Computed results and a
comparison with a baseline wind turbine data indicate that improvements in both power and
efficiency are possible in spite of the highly developed baseline design. Therefore, it is
concluded that by using this tool a more detailed redesign of the turbine-blade shape, its
twist and airfoil sections is possible leading to significant performance gains. Furthermore,
this method can be easily extended to study and design other horizontal axis wind turbines
having two, three, or any number of blades, or even to study the interaction of two such
wind turbines.

Nomenclature

Bjk = panel influence coefficient (see Eq. 3)

c = rotor local chord
Cjk = panel influence coefficient (see Eq. 3)
CL = local lift coefficient
CP = wind turbine power coefficient
Cpk = panel k pressure coefficient
CT = axial force coefficient
D = rotor diameter
Fk = force on panel k
J = advance ratio (see Eq. 11)
L = airfoil lift
l,m,n = local panel coordinates
M = total number of surface panels
N = revolutions per second
n = unit vector normal to surface

#
Graduate Student, Member AIAA
*
Professor, Associate Fellow AIAA
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 P = power generated by rotor
p = pressure
q = (ql,qm,qn) local velocity vector
R = rotor radius
r = radial distance along blade
Sk = area of panel k
T = rotor axial force
t = time
Tq = rotor torque
Uref = local velocity (see Eq. 6)
U∞ = free-stream velocity
x,y,z = Cartesian coordinate system
η = wind turbine (ideal) efficiency
β1 , β 2 = blade angles (see Fig. 5)
µ = panel doublet strength
ρ = air density
σ = panel source strength
Φ = velocity potential
Ω = rotor rotations (radians/sec)

I. Introduction

I. T search for clean-energy resources such as wind, solar, or wave energy gained momentum in recent years
HE resulting in increased research activity in these areas. Proper system engineering of such power generators
requires the integration of advanced research tools from disciplines such as computer, electrical, and aerospace
engineering. Wind energy, for example, is now widely used in areas blessed with high wind speeds over most
seasons of the year. Over the years several types of such turbines evolved and the most popular geometries are the
vertical and the horizontal (spinning) axes designs. A survey of several wind turbine configurations is provided in
Refs. 1, 2, 3, and in general, the horizontal axis turbines (resembling an airplane propeller) appear to be more
efficient. Overall performance of such a wind turbine depends on capturing the energy of the wind, then converting
it to (mostly electric) power and then transmitting it to the network or to any other utility. The focus of this study is
on the extraction of wind energy using a horizontal axis turbine design. It is widely accepted that the maximum
energy that can be extracted from the wind is given by the ‘Betz formula’4 showing a maximum efficiency of about
59%. Early designs did not focus on detailed analysis of the turbine blade shape because ‘any reasonable’ blade
shape can work and the overall efficiency of a land-based turbine was not as crucial as the propeller efficiency on a
flying airplane. Early analytical models of wind turbines date back to the work of Betz4 in the beginning of the 20th
century. More detailed fluid dynamic analysis began with a simple blade element theory5 resembling the lifting line
approach used for three-dimensional wing design. In such models, the conservation of momentum is successively
satisfied along the radius using a two-dimensional chordwise blade element (several such techniques are
documented by Ref 1, 5, and 6). After two decades, researcher developed newer methods to solve the three-
dimensional fluid flow problem. For example, a helical vortex wake model was added to the lifting line representing
the solid blade (Ref. 1, 5 and 6), which was shed from the blade tip. A logical extension of these models was in form
of the vortex lattice methods where the blade planform shape could have been simulated7 (but not the airfoil shape).
In recent years, with the dramatic increase in computational power, several numerical methods were used for wind
turbine design. For example, in the 1980’s there-dimensional panel methods were developed, capable of solving the
attached (potential) flow over complex wind-turbine geometries (Refs. 8-12). These methods used various
singularity distributions to construct a velocity potential for the flow field, which could be solved relatively fast, and
with the ability to predict wake deformations. Also, there have been fluid-flow models using the Navier Stokes (NS)
equations for the viscous flow near the wind turbine blades13 using less dense grid for the far-field wake region
where viscous effects were not considered. One of the major advantages of the previously mentioned panel methods
(apart from simplicity and computational speed) is that the vortex wake strength is preserved, contrary to first order
NS solvers with inherent numerical vortex decay. Another advantage of the present three-dimensional model (from
the computational point of view) is that the unknowns are distributed on the rotor surface and not in the whole
computational domain, as in finite difference or finite element methods. This reduction in the computational effort,
results in reduced computational times by several orders of magnitude.
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The approach of using panel methods to study the fluid mechanics of rotating machinery was validated for several
propeller cases such as marine turbines10, helicopter blade8 but the method of Ref. 9 was not validated for a wind
turbine design. Therefore, the first objective of this study is to validate this panel method for a wind turbine blade
design. A secondary objective is to attempt to provide guidelines to improve a well-documented wind turbine design
by simply changing the airfoil geometry. The baseline wind turbine model used for the validation is the NREL
(national renewable energy laboratory) design, which in the past was analyzed and tested extensively14-17.

II. Basic Features of the Numerical Model

The high Reynolds number inviscid and irrotaional flow assumptions when applied to attached-flows, results in
some important mathematical simplifications. First, the velocity field information is provided entirely by the
continuity equation, which is reduced to a scalar potential field. Consequently, instead of the unknown velocity
vector field (with three components) only the velocity potential value is sought, reducing the number of unknowns
(at an arbitrary point in the fluid) by three. Furthermore, the three momentum equations are reduced to the Bernoulli
equation, requiring only a simple algebraic operation. The method used here (called panel method) is based on
solving the Laplace (continuity) equation using the surface singularity distributions18 and as noted earlier, its
advantage compared to the finite difference (or finite volume) approach, is that the unknown elements are
distributed on the rotor surface and not in the whole fluid volume (thereby significantly reducing the computational
effort). In conclusion, these methods are very efficient numerically (requiring several orders of magnitude less
computations) but applicable only to inviscid, attached flows.

Normal
Rotation Unit n Collocation
Axis Vector Point

Surface
Panel
Wake n
Panels
Surface
Panels

Time
Step

Figure 1. Schematic description of the potential flow model (blade surface panels are shown in grey).

Once the applicability of the potential flow model is accepted the solution procedure, using a ‘panel method’ is
described schematically in Fig. 1. In this case the solid surface of the moving body is subdivided to surface panel
elements, as shown (grey panels). The velocity field in the fluid surrounding the rotor is obtained by solving the
incompressible continuity equation:
∇2Φ = 0 (1)
where Φ is a scalar velocity potential in a stationary inertial frame of reference. This way the surrounding air
appears stationary and the turbine rotates and advances forward, and the flow appears to be rotation free. The

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
boundary conditions require that the normal component of velocity on the solid boundaries of the body must be zero

(see the unit normal vector n shown in Fig. 1). Of course this condition must be met at all the surface nodes called
collocation points (placed at the centroid of each panel). Also, note that the time dependent effects are accounted for
by this (no normal flow) boundary condition. Because the gradient of the velocity potential normal to a solid surface
is zero, the potential enclosed by the body must be constant. Therefore, an alternate form of this boundary condition,
called the Dirichlet condition, requires that the potential inside a closed body be constant. By setting the constant to
zero this boundary condition becomes
Φi = 0 (2)
The present method is based on this simpler boundary condition and in principle; this condition is met at all
collocation points, below (or inside) the solid surface. Solution of Eq. 2 provides the value of the unknown element
strength at each panel. The velocity field through the whole fluid domain is then a result of this surface distribution
(as explained later). The pressures, and corresponding fluid dynamic loads are then calculated separately by using
the Bernoulli equation (recall that the continuity and momentum equations are not coupled for ideal flows).

The numerical solution begins with a surface grid of M elements (called panels), as shown in Fig. 1 and for each
panel a constant strength singularity distribution (of sources and doublets) is assumed (this method is usually called
a first order method). Next, for each collocation point the potential due to all elements must add to zero inside the
body (recall that the collocation point is assumed to be on the inner surface of the body). Consequently, when Eq. 2
is specified at one collocation point, it represents the added influence of all j panel elements (including the wake –
which is modeled by thin doublet surfaces):
M

∑B jk
σ k + C jk µ k = 0 (3)
k =1
The strengths of the vortex wake panels (modeled by doublets which are equal to vortex rings) are known because
the computation starts with no wake and those vortex (or doublet) elements are shed as the spiral wake develops
behind the rotor. Equation (3) basically states that the potential at the collocation point of panel k is the sum of the
incremental potentials of all the surface panels (and the source strength σ k is known from the kinematic velocity of
the blade – see Ref. 6). This equation is then applied to all M collocation points with the M unknowns doublets µ k ,
thus reducing Eq. 2 into a set of linear algebraic equations (matrix of order M). By solving the M equations the
unknown doublets for each panel are calculated and therefore the potential Φ is known everywhere.

Figure 2. The surface panel model of wind turbine, and the spiral wake, after two rotations.

In the current mode, a time stepping solution is used where a new row of wake panels is shed from the blades
trailing edges at each time step (see Fig.1 and Fig. 2). The strength of the ‘older’ wake elements is conserved and
Fig. 2 shows the rigid wake option after two revolutions (it is possible to allow the wake to roll up due to the local
induced velocity). Once Eq. 3 is solved (at each time step) the unknown singularity values µ k are obtained and the

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
local velocity components can be evaluated at each panel in terms of the panel local tangential coordinates (l, m, n)
and l and m are parallel to the surface panel:
,
∂µ ∂µ
ql = − , qm = − (4)
∂l ∂m
Note that the normal velocity (in the n direction) is automatically zero. Once the velocity is calculated (and the rotor
kinematic velocity is added) the surface pressure and resulting forces can be calculated, using the Bernoulli
equation. In terms of the pressure coefficient this equation has the following form:

q2 2 ∂Φ
C pk = 1 − + 2 (5)
U ref U ref ∂t
2

This is a time dependent formulation but at the present time the second (time dependent) term decays after the wake
is fully developed. The reference velocity, in this case, U ref is the kinematic velocity at each panel (at a distance r
from the rotation axis):
U ref = U ∞ + rΩ (6)
Note that this is a vector relation and U ∞ is the horizontal wind velocity and Ω is the rotation about the horizontal
axis. Here we assume that the wind speed is constant and does not vary along the blade (no boundary layer near the
ground). The force on a panel of area Sk is then
Fk = −C pk (0.5 ρU ref
2
)Sk nk (7)
and the direction is given by the vector nk . Adding up the loads of all panels in the horizontal direction is the axial
force T, and in the tangential direction (multiplied by r) yields the torque Tq. The power P is then simply the torque
times the rotation speed (N = revolutions per second)
P = Tq ⋅ Ω = Tq ⋅ 2π N (8)
The axial force CT , and power CP coefficients are defined as
T
CT = (9)
ρN 2 D4
P
CP = (10)
ρN 3D5
and D is the rotor diameter. It is convenient to define a rotor tip velocity ratio J as:
U∞
J= (11)
π ND
The efficiency η is the work of the rotor divided by Pavail , the available wind energy
1 1
Pavail =  ∞2 = ρU ∞3 S
mU
2 2 (12)
2
and here S is the rotor swept area (πD /4)
P
η= (13)
1 / 2 ⋅ ρU ∞3 S

The maximum efficiency predicted by the Betz formula4 is then:

P 16
ηmax = =
Pavail 27 (14)

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 III. Aerodynamics of a two-bladed wind turbine

For the validation, a two bladed wind turbine was selected. Many of the large scale wind turbines have three blades,
mainly for improved side wind performance. The current wind turbine is modeled after a two-bladed design which
was tested at the NASA 80 by 120 full scale wind tunnel, and details on this test are provided in Ref. 15. It is
designed for about 20kW maximum output with a blade radius of 5.029m. This design is well documented in Refs.
14, and 15 where additional details on the geometry and performance are provided. The top view of a single blade,
with some general dimensions (metric) are depicted in Fig. 3. Total twist of the blade is 22.5 deg and most of this
twist is between the rotation axis and the radial position r/R = 0.4. From this position onward to the blade tip, twist
was less than 2 deg.

1.257 0.737

0.356
Rotation
Axis

5.029

Figure 3. Top view of the turbine blade used for the present model (dimensions are in meters).

Along the blade a single, 21% thick, NREL S809 airfoil was used. This particular airfoil, shown in Fig. 4, was
specifically designed for wind turbine application and the high thickness is due to the large bending moments on
such long blades. Airfoil thickness ratio did not chane with the radial position along the rotor, and at each section the
airfoil shape was, as shown in Fig. 4. Note the small leading edge radius, compared to typical NACA airfoils used
for airplanes.

0.15
0.10
0.05
z/c 0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
x/c
Figure 4. Geometry of the NREL S809 21% thick airfoil used for the present model.

Many wind turbines operate at a fixed RPM and their power output simply increases with the available wind speed.
Wind speed for the case modeled here (after Refs. 14 and 15) was 6m/s and rotor rotation was set at 72 RPM and
the collective pitch was zero.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
One of the main advantages of the present method (compared to blade element, or thin lifting surface methods) is
that the pressure distribution over the airfoil sections can be computed (at various radial positions). This pressure
distribution includes the three dimensional (finite wing type) tip-effect and the downwash induced by the spiral
wake. The influence of the wake stabilizes after several rotations, depending on the tip velocity ratio (and in this
case, more than 5 rotations). Such information is essential for airfoil design and also to detect possible local stall (in
case of too high suction peaks). The local pressure coefficient is defined in Eq. (5), which in terms of the pressures
has the following form:
p− p
C pk = ∞
1
ρU ref
2
2 (15)

and here Uref is the velocity ahead of the airfoil section at a particular radial position (see Eq. 6). This definition is
clarified again in Fig. 5. At the left hand side the rotor and its wake are shown schematically. Clearly the velocity
component due to rotation, rΩ, increases with increasing radius, changing the magnitude and the direction of the
flow ahead of the airfoil section. For a fixed wind-speed condition, the angle β1 will increase with the radius,
dictating the changes in pitch. Therefore, the local pressure coefficient must be normalized by the local ‘free-stream’
Uref. Note that because this velocity increases with r/R, more lift is generated by the airfoil section towards the rotor
tip.

Uref
rΩ β
1

U∞

w2
β2

Figure 5. Velocity components for a rotating wind turbine rotor.

As an example, the calculated pressure distributions for the rotating wind turbine with the NREL S809 airfoil
sections are shown in the next figure. The first (upper) pressure coefficient (Cpk) plot is near the hub, the second is
near the mid radial position and the third is near the tip. It appears that the airfoil develops a large suction peak near
the leading edge along most of the rotor blade. This suction peak is reduced only near the tip, where the local airfoil
lift is also reduced. These figures may be misleading somewhat because most of the torque is created near the tip,
due to the larger radial distance and the faster local velocity Uref. However, if the flow is attached, then these
pressure distributions indicate that the airfoil shape must be chaged (adding more leading edge droop to reduce the
leading edge suction peak closer to the hub, at the smaller radial sections). Simple calculations depending on the

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
local blade element cannot account for the wake effect and therefore cannot provide relieabe information in this
regard (e.g., the actual pressure distribution on the airfoil section). The present calculations, however, are three
dimensional and inherently include the effect of the trailing vortex wake. In conclusion, this airfoil is not the best
choice for this condition, and the suction peak disappears only near the blade tip.

-4.5
-3.5 r = 0.227
R
-2.5
Cpk-1.5
-0.5
0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1.0 x/c
-4.0
-3.5
r = 0.573
-2.5 R
-1.5
Cpk
-0.5
0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1.0 x/c
-4.0
-3.5 r = 0.904
R
-2.5
Cpk-1.5
-0.5
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0.5 x/c
1.0

Figure 6. Calculated pressure distributions for three radial positions along the rotor blade (J = 0.16).

The actual radial loading along the rotor blade is calculated by using the local Uref clearly showing the increase with
the radial distance. This loading is important for both the blade’s structural design and for efficient power
generation. The radial loading in terms of the local lift coefficient CL is shown in Fig. 7 for a tip velocity ratio of 0.7
and it compares well with the results published in Ref. 15.
L
CL = (15)
0.5 ρU ∞2 c
Results of the present ideal flow calculations are higher than the experiment based data, as expected when friction is
neglected. In order to demonstarte the actual local lift a uniform velocity (of the incoming free stream, U∞) was
used, which explains the large numerical values. Clearly at higher windspeeds (higher J) the loading and the
resulting power will increase (at fixed RPM), as shown in the figure. The loading near the tip drops to zero since no
pressure difference can be maintained there (as in the case of an airplane’s wing tip). Because the radial increase in
the local velocity Uref (see Fig. 5), both the local torque and local axial force follow the same trend, as in Fig 7.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 2.5

Present calculations
2.0 Ref. 15

1.5 J = 0.7

CL
1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
r/R

Figure 7. Radial lift distribution along the turbine blade. Collective pitch = 0.

Based on Figs. 6 and 7, it is clear that this baseline design had larger airfoil incidences (relative to Uref ) near the hub
(r/R < 0.5), resulting in the higher suction peaks near the airfoil’s leading edge. To improve the current design, as
noted earlier, more camber (droop) near the leading edge is required. However, most of the torque is generated near
the tip, and an improvement should focus on generating more loads in the range of 0.50 < r/R < 0.85. This can be
achieved by increasing pitch or airfoil camber and can result in improved performance without increasing the root
bending moment (for the structural considerations).

IV. Wind Turbine Performance Calculations

As noted earlier, most wind turbines are designed to operate at a constant RPM and therefore their power will
increase with increased wind speed. The calculated performance of the present wind turbine for such variable wind
conditions is shown in Fig. 8. The power, in general, varies with the cube of the velocity (as expected from Eq. 12),
however near the maximum loading the blade is pitched back to avoid structural overload. This is the reason for the
horizontal line in Fig. 8, for wind speeds above 17m/s.

The computed results for the power in this figure compare well with the data of Ref. 15. As expected, the ideal flow
calculations are a bit higher than the actual power, and the deviation increases with wind speed (although the trend is
well predicted). This increase at the higher wind speeds could be also a result of some minor trailing edge separation
on the blades.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 25

Present Calculations
20 Ref. 15

Wind 15
Turbine
Power
(Kwatt) 10

0
0 5 10 15 20

Wind Speed (m/sec)

Figure 8. Windturbine power versus wind speed at constant RPM = 72.

The resulting axial force on the turbine (for the two blades) is shown in Fig. 9. Again the calculated forces are larger
than the actual axial force because of the higher local lift coeffcient values obtained by the ideal flow model. As
expected, the axial force increases with the square of the wind speed (see Eq. (15)).

14

Present Calculations
12
Ref. 15

10

Axial 8
Force
(KN) 6

0
0 5 10 15 20
Wind Speed (m/sec)

Figure 9. Axial force versus wind speed at constant RPM = 72.

It is interesting to plot the axial force versus the wind turbine power (Fig. 10). The comparison between the
calculated and reported quantities shows that the present model predicts larger axial forces. This is a result of the
higher lift to drag ratio obtained with the ideal flow model.
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 10. Axial force versus wind turbine power at constant RPM = 72.

Although wind turbines are driven by ‘free’ wind energy, their efficiency is important, too. Calculated efficiencies
versus the published values are shown in Fig. 11. The trend is quite well predicted by the model, as shown in the
figure (and predicted efficiencies with the present friction-free model are slightly larger than the values reported in
Ref. 15). For some insight, regarding the shape of the curves, one must return to Fig. 5 which shows that for
increased wind speed, at constant RPM and pitch, the section angle of attack (relative to the local inflow) increases.
Therefore, more power is generated, resulting in increased efficiency. As the maxium load is obtained (near 17 m/s)
the pitch is changed to protect the turbine from the high wind loads and the efficiency drops, as expected.

60
Present
Calculations
50
Ref. 15
40

η (%) 30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Wind Speed (m/sec)

Figure 11. Wind turbine efficiency versus windspeed, at a constant RPM = 72.

The previous performance data was presented with actual dimensions for this particular wind turbine. However, a
nondimensional representations can extend the applicability of this data to similar designs, with different

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
dimensions. For this reason, the nondimensional power and efficiency curves were plotted versus the tip velocity
ratio as defined by Eq. 11. The nondimensional power peaks much earlier than the maximum power in Fig. 8, for
this particular pitch conditions. Usually, if flow separation is avoided, a change in the blade pitch can translate this
diagram laterally (e.g., to higher wind speeds). Again more power is predicted by the ideal flow model, but the
trend is similar to the actual data of Ref 15.

60
Present Calculations
50 Ref. 15

40
Coeffiecient
of Power 30
(Cp)
20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Tip Speed Ratio (J)

Figure 12. Wind turbine power coefficient versus tip speed ratio (J) at a constant RPM = 72.

The efficiency versus tip speed ratio is shown in Fig. 13, and it is similar to Fig. 11. This is because the rotation
speed was fixed and only the wind speed was varied. Consequently, the only difference between these two figures is
that the numbers on the abscissa were divided by the rotor tip speed. However, this nondimensional representation
of the performance can be extended to different sizes of the same wind turbine design. The shape of the diagram is
dictated by the airfoil’s performance (see Fig. 5). At low wind speed (fixed rotation) the airfoil angle of attack is low
and it will increase with the wind speed. This is the reason for the efficiency increase at the left hand side of the
diagram. Maximum efficiency is achieved when the airfoil lift to drag ratio is the best (in terms of the average along
the blade). Past the maximum efficiency the lift still increases but the drag increases faster, hence the efficiency
drops. The sharp drop in efficiency above J = 0.22 (or for wind speeds significantly above the design speed) is a
result of intentionally changing the pitch. This action sharply reduces the turbine power (and its efficiency) in order
to protect it for the high wind loads.

V. Concluding Remarks

An existing panel code was modified to allow the study of rotating wind turbine flows. The validation conducted
clearly indicates that the calculated chorwise pressure distribution can identify areas for possible flow separation,
leading to more efficient (attached flow) designs. The method is much faster than other CFD tools and accounts for
wake effects without vortex decay. Based on the approach presented here, better airfoil shapes, and more customized
twist and blade shape can be developed.

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 60 Present
Calculations
50 Ref. 15

40

η (%) 30

20

10

0
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Tip Speed Ratio (J)

Figure 13. Wind turbine efficiency versus tip speed ratio (J) at a constant RPM = 72.

References
1
Leishmann, J. Gordon. “Challenges in Modeling the Unsteady Aerodynamics of wind turbine.” 21st ASME Wind Energy
Symposium and the 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,2002, Reno NV: Paper 2002-0037.
2
Paraschivoiu, I., “Wind turbine design: with emphasis on Darrieus concept,” Politechnic international press, 2002, Montreal
Canada.
3
Hansen, O. L. M., “Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines,” second edition, Earthscan, London, UK 2008.
4
Betz, A., “Introduction to the Theory of Flow Machines,” (D. G. Randall, Trans.) Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, 1966. First
published in German as “Wind-Energie und ihre Ausnutzung durch Windmühlen,” Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, Göttingen,
Germany, 1926.
5
Tangler, J. L., “The Nebulous Art of Using Wind Tunnel Airfoil Data and Blade-Element Momentum Theory for Predicting
Rotor Performance,” Paper 2002-0040, 21st ASME Wind Energy Symposium and the 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
Reno, NV.
6
Vermeer, L. J., Sorensen J. N., and Crespo a., “Wind Turbine Wake Aerodynamics.” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, No.
39, pp. 467-510, 2003.
7
Blair J. Basom* and Mark D. Maughmer† “Inviscid Analysis of Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines Using Distributed Vorticity
Elements,” 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition 4 - 7 January
2011, Orlando, Florida AIAA 2011-539.
8
Katz J. and Maskew B. "Unsteady Low-Speed Aerodynamic Model for Complete Aircraft Configurations" J. Aircraft, Vol.
25, No. 4, 1988, pp. 302-310 (also AIAA Paper No. 86-2180, Aug. 1986).
9
Ashby, L. D., Dudley, M. D., Iguchi, S. K., Browne, L., and Katz, J., "Potential Flow Theory and Operation Guide for the
Panel Code PMARC," NASA TM 102851, March 1990.
10
Yon. S, Katz J, and Ashby D., "Unsteady Fluid Dynamic Model for Propeller Induced Flow Fields," AIAA Paper No. 91-
1664, June 1991.
11
Luca Greco1 , Claudio Testa , and Francesco Salvatore “Design Oriented Aerodynamic Modelling of Wind Turbine
Performance,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 75 (2007) 01, 2011.

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 12
Palmiter S. M., and Katz J., “Evaluation of a Potential Flow Model for Propeller and Wind Turbine Design,” AIAA Paper
2010-675 presented at the 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, Jan. 2010. Also, J. Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 5
(Sept-Oct 2010), pp. 1739-1746.
13
Chow, R, and van Dam C. P., “Inboard Stall and Separation Mitigation Techniques on Wind Turbine Rotors,” 49th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition 4 - 7 January 2011, Orlando, Florida
AIAA 2011-152.
14
Dayton A. Griffin. “NREL Advanced Research Turbine (ART) Aerodynamic Design of ART-2B Rotor Blades.” National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, August 2000, Kirkland, Washington, NREL/SR-500-28473.
15
M. M. Hand, D. A. Simms, L. J. Fingersh, D. W. Jager, J. R. Cotrell, S. Schreck and S. M. Larwood. “Unsteady
Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI : Wind Tunnel Test Configuration & Available Data Campaigns” National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL), December 2001. NREL/TP-500-29955.
16
Fingersh, L. J., Simms, D., Hand, M., Jager, D., Cotrell, J., Robinson, M., Schreck, S., and Larwood, S., “Wind Tunnel
Testing of NREL’s Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment,” AIAA Paper 2001-0035, 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno,
NV, Jan. 8–11, 2001.
17
Kathryn E. Johson. “Adaptive Torque Control of Variable Speed Wind Turbines.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
August 2004. NREL/TP-500-36265.
18
Katz J., and Plotkin A., “Low Speed Aerodynamics,” Cambridge University Press, 2001, NY.
19
Muljadi E. and C. P. Butterfield. “Pitch-Controlled Variable-Speed Wind Turbine Generation.”IEEE Industry Applications
Society Annual Meeting-1999. Phoenix, Arizona. October 3-7, 1999. February 2000. NREL/CP-500-27143.

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

View publication stats