You are on page 1of 10

Three-Dimensional Corrections of Airfoil

Characteristics Based on Pressure Distributions


Christian Bak, Jeppe Johansen, Peter B. Andersen1
Ris National Laboratory
DK-4000, Roskilde, Denmark
Phone: +45 4677 5091, Fax: +45 4677 5960
e-mail: christian.bak@risoe.dk

Abstract
This paper describes a new model for 3D correction of airfoil characteristics from 2D wind tunnel measurements.
Based on an analysis of the NREL/NASA Ames test, a model is proposed, which uses the difference between the
pressure on the blade with 3D flow effects and the pressure from the 2D wind tunnel test. Application of the new
model on three different rotors showed, that the agreement between the new model and measurements were good
concerning the thrust and the agreement was fair concerning the power. Compared to existing 3D correction
models the correspondence between power and thrust was better predicted using the new model. This indicates that
using the new model results in a more correct load distribution on the rotor.

Nomenclature
a
a
c
cd
cd,2D
cd,2D-MIN
cl
cl,2D
cl,3D
cl,lin
cm
cm, 2D
cm,lin
cn,2D
cn,3D
ct,2D
ct,3D
Cx
Cy
F=F()
r
R
Re
Vvind
Vrad

f=0
f=1

Axial velocity induction [-]


Tangential velocity induction [-]
Airfoil chord length [m]
Drag coefficient [-]
Drag coefficient from 2D wind tunnel measurements [-]
Minimum drag for cd,2D [-]
Lift coefficient [-]
Lift coefficient from 2D wind tunnel measurements [-]
Lift coefficient corrected for 3D effects [-]
=dcl,2D/da(a-a0) [-]
Moment coefficient [-]
Moment coefficient from 2D wind tunnel measurements [-]
Moment coefficient corresponding to cl,lin[-]
Normal force coefficient from 2D wind tunnel measurements [-]
Normal force coefficient with 3D correction [-]
Chordwise force coefficient from 2D wind tunnel measurements [-]
Chordwise force coefficient with 3D correction [-]
Driving force coefficient in annular element in rotor plane [-]
Axial force coefficient in annular element in rotor plane-]
Prandtls tip loss correction [-]
Local blade radius from rotor centre [m]
Rotor radius [m]
Reynolds number based on the chord length and relative flow speed [-]
Wind speed [m/s]
Velocity in radial direction on blade [m/s]
Angle of attack of flow on airfoil []
Angle of attack where separation occurs from the leading edge []
Angle of attack where separation starts from the trailing edge []
Inflow angle on rotor plane []
Air density [kg/m3]
Solidity of rotor in annular element [-]
Combined blade twist and tip pitch []
Rotational speed for rotor [rad/s]

Introduction
Calculation of power and loads for wind turbines is mainly carried out using aeroelastic codes, where the rotor
aerodynamics essentially are modeled by the Blade Element Momentum (BEM) theory, because this model is fast
and robust. Using this model the operational conditions, the blade geometry and the airfoil characteristics are

Presented at the European Wind Energy Conference & Exhibition (EWEC), 27. Feb. 2. Mar. 2006, Athens, Greece

Page 1 of 10

required to describe the forces on the blade in terms of lift and drag coefficients as a function of angle of attack.
Airfoil characteristics used in BEM calculations are typically based on 2D wind tunnel tests on airfoils. However,
a direct application of the 2D characteristics shows bad agreement between measured and calculated loads and
power. Therefore, there is a need for correction of the airfoil characteristics to include the 3D flow effects.
In this paper existing 3D correction models are described. Then an analysis is shown of the pressure measurements
carried out in the NREL/NASA Ames test. Based on this analysis a new model for 3D correction is presented
based on the difference between the 3D pressure distribution on the blades and the 2D pressure distribution from
2D wind tunnel measurements. Also, the model is tested on three different stall regulated rotors, where the model
is compared to measurements.

Existing 3D correction models


The need for 3D correction of airfoil characteristics has resulted in several models where the lift coefficient and for
some models also the drag coefficient are corrected in case of separation on the airfoil sections. Models are
developed by Snel et al. [1], Du and Selig [2], Chaviaropoulos and Hansen [3] and Lindenburg [4]. Using these
models 2D airfoil characteristics are corrected with a limited input. All the models are expressed as shown in eq.
( 1):
( 1)

cl ,3 D = cl ,2 D + f (c / r ,...) cl
cd ,3 D = cd ,2 D + f (c / r ,...)cd

where 2D refers to measurements from 2D wind tunnels, c/r is the ratio between the blade chord length and the
radius at the actual blade radius position, f(c/r,) means that all models are a function of c/r, but also that they can
be a function of other parameters. cl and cd are the difference between the cl and cd that would exist if the flow
did not separate and the cl and cd which is measured in a 2D wind tunnel. The function f(c/r,) varies from model
to model and can shortly be described as:
Snel et al. [1]:

c
fcl = 3( ) 2
r
Lindenburg [4]:

f cl = 3.1(

c
)2 ( )2
Vrel r

Du and Selig[2]:
d R

1 1.6(c / r ) a (c / r ) r

f cl =

1
d R

2 0.1267
b + (c / r ) r

d R

1 1.6(c / r ) a (c / r ) 2 r

f cd =

1
d R

2 0.1267
b + (c / r ) 2 r

= R / V 2vind + ( r )2
where a=b=d=1
Chaviaropoulos and Hansen [3]:

c
fcl ,cd = a( ) h cos n ( ) , where a=2.2, h=1 and n=4
r
The model by Snel et al. and Lindenburg contain solely a correction for cl and not for cd. Furthermore, Lindenburg
[4] has also proposed a model which is based on cn, which is the force coefficient orthogonal to the chord
direction. Some of the models described above will be applied and compared to the new correction model.

Analysis of NREL/NASA Ames measurements


The NREL/NASA Ames experiment is analyzed to gain insight into the basic mechanisms for the 3D effects for a
wind turbine blade separating in normal operation [5]. In this experiment a two-bladed wind turbine with a rotor
diameter of 10.058m and a rotational speed of 72RPM has been tested in the worlds largest wind tunnel, which
has a test section of height 24.4m and width 36.6m. On the blades the pressure distributions at five radial positions

Page 2 of 10

are measured and the turbine experiences wind speeds from 5m/s to 25m/s. More turbines have been tested in wind
tunnels, but the results from this experiment are the most reliable and comprehensive. Compared to large and
modern wind turbines this turbine is uncommon, because it has only two blades and the design tip speed ratio is
only =6.3 compared to modern rotors which have around 8 or more. Despite this fact it is believed that the
physical mechanisms in general represent the conditions on rotating blades.
Measuring the pressure on the blades the forces can be integrated on the blade airfoils. This way the airfoil
characteristics can be determined. The corresponding angles of attack are, however, not measured directly and the
question about determination of angles of attack is frequently discussed because they are not trivial to measure.
Since the objective of the analysis of the experiment was to propose a model for correction of airfoil characteristics
for the BEM model the angles of attack were determined by inverse use of the BEM model as shown in eq. ( 2).
a=

a' =

1
F ( )4 sin 2
+1
Cy
1
F ( )4sin cos
1
Cx

= a tan(

( 2)

(1 a )V
)
(1 + a ')r

=
Here a and a are the axial and tangential induction factor, respectively, is the flow angle to the rotor plane, is
the rotor solidity, Cx and Cy are force coefficients in tangential and axial direction, respectively, F() is the
Prandtls tip loss correction, V is the wind speed, r is the rotor speed in the radius r and is the combined twist
and tip pitch of the blade. All entities in the above equation ( 2) are known apart from a, a and , so therefore the
angle of attack can be computed directly. This resulted in the 3D airfoil characteristics as shown in Figure 1 and
are furthermore compared to 2D wind tunnel measurements from Ohio State University [6]. Comparing to tests of
the S809 airfoil section in other wind tunnels it is necessary to subtract 0.53 from the actual angle of attack in the
2D wind tunnel test [7].
2.2

3D, r/R=63%
3D, r/R=80%

1.8

3D, r/R=95%
2D

1.6
1.4

2.0

3D, r/R=30%
3D, r/R=63%

1.8

3D, r/R=80%

1.6

3D, r/R=95%
2D

1.4

1.2

CD

CL

2.2

3D, r/R=30%

2.0

1.0

1.2
1.0

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2
0.0

0.0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

10

15

20

25

30

35

AOA

AOA

Figure 1 3D airfoil characteristics from the NREL/NASA Ames test based on angles of attack computed from
BEM. Furthermore, airfoil characteristics from 2D wind tunnel tests are shown at Re=750,000 from Ohio State
University, USA.
Because the blades are designed with airfoil S809 on the entire blade the deviation from the 2D data is primarily
3D effects. Effects from the Reynolds number varying from Re=500,000 to Re=900,000 are less important. Large
changes of the airfoil characteristics are observed on the inner part of the blade, r/R=30% and r/R=63%. For
r/R=80% the airfoil characteristics are close to 2D. The airfoil characteristics at r/R=95% deviates from 2D
because of tip effects. The size and the shape of these changes are as well observed on other rotors, Madsen and
Rasmussen [8] and Bak [9].
Most of the existing 3D correction models are based on the force coefficients for an airfoil. Since it is desirable to
propose a 3D correction model, which in more detail can determine the corrections, the pressure distributions on
the blade are analyzed to gain more insight into the 3D mechanisms. Especially the difference between the
pressure on the rotating blade and the pressure from a 2D wind tunnel test has been investigated. This difference is
obtained as shown in eq. ( 3):

Page 3 of 10

( 3)

C p = (C p ,3 D , suction _ side C p ,3 D , pressure _ side ) (C p ,2 D , suction _ side C p ,2 D , pressure _ side )


The procedure is illustrated in Figure 2. If Cp is zero at all positions along the chord the flow is said to be 2D.
3

30%

2.5

63%
80%

2.5

95%
2D

2
1.5

-Cp

delta Cp

1.5

0.5

30%
63%
80%
95%

0.5
0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-1.5

0.5

-1.5

x/c

x/c

Figure 2 To the left: The pressure coefficient, Cp, for the S809 airfoil from a 2D wind tunnel test and from the
different radial positions at the blade. To the right: The difference between Cp for the blade at different radial
positions and Cp from a 2D wind tunnel test, Cp. Both plots are for =20.
Figure 3 shows a series of plots of Cp, to give an impression of how the pressure difference changes with changes
of the radius but also with changes in .
30%
63%
80%
95%

-1

0.5

=16
ox/c

-0.5
-1
-1.5

0.5

-0.5

=20
o

30%
63%
80%
95%

0.5

0
0

3
2.5

1.5

0.5

30%
63%
80%
95%

1.5

0.5

-1.5

3
2.5

Cp

0.5

-0.5

30%
63%
80%
95%

1.5
Cp

Cp

1.5

3
2.5

Cp

3
2.5

-1
-1.5

x/c

0.5

=24
o

x/c

-0.5
-1
-1.5

0.5

=28
o

x/c

Figure 3 Cp at different radii at =16, 20, 24 and 28.

The new 3D correction model


Based on the analysis of the NREL/NASA Ames tests a model is proposed, which can correct airfoil
characteristics from 2D wind tunnel tests to 3D. With the proposed model it is the hypothesis that the 3D
corrections should be carried out based on the pressure and that it is the difference between the pressure in 3D and
2D, which should be modeled. Thus, the proposed model is to a greater extend based on the physics and the
mechanisms in the flow and furthermore the model allows the moment coefficient to be corrected in contrast to
several existing correction models. The starting point is to propose a model in the following form, eq. ( 4):

c r
x
Cp = Amplification( , , , ,....) Shape( , ,....)
r R
c

( 4)

Thus, the changes in pressure are described by the product between a shape function and an amplification function
of the pressure differences.
The amplification of the changes in pressure is estimated by analyzing Navier-Stokes equations for a rotating
blade. Especially the centrifugal force and the Coriolis force have shown to be important in connection to 3D
separated flow on a blade. It is assumed that the flow speed in chordwise direction is zero, when the flow
separates. These two kinds of forces are compared to the pressure forces on the blade. The three types of forces on
the blade are shown in eq. ( 5).

Page 4 of 10

r
1
Fpres ~ (( r ) 2 + Vwind 2 )c
2
r
Fcentrifugal ~ 2 rc 2
r
FCoriolis ~ 2 Vrad c 2

( 5)

The order-of-magnitude consideration between the centrifugal forces and Coriolis forces and the pressure forces
on the blades is shown in eq. ( 6)

r
Fcentrifugal
2
c
~
r
2
+

1
tan
(
)
r
Fpres
r
FCoriolis 2V
2
c
~ rad
r
2
+
+
r
(1
tan
(
))
r

Fpres

( 6)

Computations of the flow around the NREL rotor using 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) shows a value
of the radial velocity relative to the rotational speed of an airfoil section of around Vrad=1.6(r) at r/R=0.3 and
Vrad=0.6(r) at r/R=0.9 which approximately corresponds to Vrad=R/2. Thus, the relation between Coriolis and
pressure forces can be written as shown in eq. ( 7):

2Vrad R
~
r
r
r
FCoriolis R
2
c
~
r
r (1 + tan 2 ( + )) r
Fpres

( 7)

Even though the centrifugal forces have the direction from the root towards the tip and the Coriolis forces have the
direction from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the blade, it is assumed that it is the sum of the forces which
creates an acceleration of the flow and thereby a decrease in the pressure on the suction side. The resulting forces
are computed as a vector sum and are shown in eq. ( 8).
Amplification =

r
r
Fcentrifugal + FCoriolis
R
2
c
~ 1 + ( )2
r
r (1 + tan 2 ( + )) r
Fpres

( 8)

Analyzing the shape of Cp from the measurements at r/R=30% a simple empirical modeling of the shape was
proposed, eq. ( 9).

Shape =

f =1 2
5
x
(1 ) 2 (
)
2
c f = 0 f =1

( 9)

5
max( Shape) = ,
2
where x/c is the normalized chordwise position, is the actual angle of attack and f=1 and f=0 are the angles of
attack, where the flow around the airfoil is just about to separate (f=1) and just fully separated (f=0). This model of
the shape predicts qualitatively the shape of Cp for all radii, but for the NREL rotor it compares best to the
measurements on the inner part of the rotor.
The resulting model including both the shape function, eq. ( 9), and the amplification function, eq. ( 8), is shown in
eq. ( 10).

Cp =

2
f =1 2
5
x
R c
(1 ) 2 (
) 1 + ( ) /(1 + tan 2 ( + ))
2
c f = 0 f =1
r r

max (Cp ) =

5
R c
1 + ( ) /(1 + tan 2 ( + ))
2
r r

A comparison of the modeled Cp with the measured at =26 is seen in Figure 4.

Page 5 of 10

( 10)

AOA=26deg
Model, r/R=63%
Model, r/R=30%
Model, r/R=80%
Test, r/R=63%
Test, r/R=30%
Test, r/R=80%

3
2.5
2

Cp

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-1
x/c

Figure 4 Cp for the NREL/NASA Ames blade at 26 angles of attack at three radial positions: r/R=30%, 63% and
80%. In the plot measurements and model, eq.( 10), are shown.
Good agreement between the model and the measurements is observed for r/R=30% and 80%. However, the
agreement is not so good at r/R=63%. Figure 4 shows that even though the NREL/NASA Ames test was used as
the background for the model, the model cannot predict all the results from the test. This is due to the fact that the
flow around the rotor locally is dominated by vortex structures (especially around r/R=47%), which influences the
pressure on the blades. These structures and this influence are not assumed to be representative for all rotors.
Therefore, the model only includes the main mechanisms, which is assumed to dominate rotors in general.
The model should be used for the airfoils on the actual rotor, so that cn, ct and cm, which refers to -chord
position, are determined by integrating Cp along the different blade sections specific airfoil shapes as shown in
eq. ( 11).
x / c =1

cn =

x
Cpd ( )
c
x / c=0

y / c = y / c ( trailing _ edge )

ct =

y
Cpd ( )
c
y / c = y / c ( leading _ edge )
x / c =1

cm =

( 11)

y / c = y / c (trailing _ edge )

x
x
y
y
Cp ( 0.25)d ( )
Cp ( )d ( )

c
c
c
c
x / c=0
y / c = y / c ( leading _ edge )

With the entities computed from eq. ( 11) the 3D normal, tangential and moment coefficients are computed as
shown in eq. ( 12).

cn ,3 D = cn ,2 D + cn
( 12)

ct ,3 D = ct ,2 D + ct
cm ,3 D = cm ,2 D + cm

The 2D data used from, e.g. wind tunnel tests, can be rather uncertain for angles of attack above maximum lift.
This is due to the increased drag from the separated flow, which increase the blocking in the wind tunnel, so that
the pressure on the 2D airfoil is different from an airfoil subject to free flow. From the analysis of the
NREL/NASA Ames test it is observed that the pressure distributions are rather similar for high angles of attatck,
when the flow is fully separated. Thus, it is assumed that the 2D pressure distributions are unchanged for angles of
attack, where full separation is obtained. Therefore, cn,2D, ct,2D and cm,2D should be assumed constant for angles of
attack greater than f=0, i.e. where the airfoil obtains fully separated flow.
Because airfoil characteristics for aerodynamic computations using BEM typically require lift and drag in the
input, these can be determined from eq. ( 13).

cl ,3 D = cn ,3 D cos( ) + ct ,3 D sin( )

( 13)

cd ,3 D = cn ,3 D sin( ) ct ,3 D cos( )

Results
The new 3D correction model is applied to three different rotors:
1. the NREL rotor tested in the NASA Ames wind tunnel,
2. the Tellus rotor at Ris National Laboratory and
3. a modern active stall regulated rotor

Page 6 of 10

Computations with the 3D correction model are compared to measurements and to some of the described existing
3D correction models. All computations are carried out using an aerodynamic BEM code. The 3D correction
model is available and is implemented into a computer code with a graphical user interface.

NREL/NASA Ames rotor


Data for this rotor is shown in Table 1. The rotor is uncommon compared to large modern rotors, which typically
have three blades, a rotor diameter which is ten times bigger and a design tip-speed-ratio around 8.
Table 1 Data for the NREL/NASA Ames rotor.
Number of blades
Rotor diameter [m]
Rotational speed [RPM]
Design tip-speed-ratio, [-]
Tip speed [m/s]
Airfoil series
Power control

2
10.058
72.0
6.3
37.9
S809
Stall

In Figure 5 to Figure 7 the airfoil characteristics for the rotor at three radial sections are seen. Apart from 2D wind
tunnel data, the data extracted from the NREL/NASA Ames test and the new model, also three other 3D correction
models are shown: Snel et al. [1], Chaviaropoulos and Hansen [3] and Lindenburg [4]. It is seen that the Snel et al.
model and the new model predicts the airfoil characteristics quite well. However, it should be noted that the model
by Snel et al. does not include 3D correction of the drag.
NREL ph. VI, radius = 80 %
3

NREL ph. VI, radius = 80 %


1

Snel et al.
Lindenburg
Chav. + Hansen
Bak
2D
3D measurements

2.5
2

Chav. + Hansen
Bak
2D
measurements

0.8
0.6

Cl

Cd

1.5
1

0.4

0.5

0.2

-0.5
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 5 3D corrected airfoil characteristics for r/R=80% compared to 2D measurements, other 3D correction
models and measured 3D data.
NREL ph. VI, radius = 63 %
3
2.5
2

NREL ph. VI, radius = 63 %


1

Snel et al.
Lindenburg
Chav. + Hansen
Bak
2D
3D measurements

0.8

Chav. + Hansen
Bak
2D
measurements

0.6

Cl

Cd

1.5
1

0.4

0.5

0.2

0
-0.5
-10

0
-5

10

15

20

25

30

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 6 3D corrected airfoil characteristics for r/R=63% compared to 2D measurements, other 3D correction
models and measured 3D data.

Page 7 of 10

NREL ph. VI, radius = 30 %


3
2.5
2

NREL ph. VI, radius = 30 %


1

Snel et al.
Lindenburg
Chav. + Hansen
Bak
2D
3D measurements

0.8

Chav. + Hansen
Bak
2D
measurements

0.6

Cl

Cd

1.5
1

0.4

0.5

0.2

-0.5
-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

30

Figure 7 3D corrected airfoil characteristics for r/R=30% compared to 2D measurements, other 3D correction
models and measured 3D data.
In Figure 8 the mechanical power and the thrust are seen. Again the model by Snel et al. and the new model make
a rather good prediction of the rotor loads. It is seen that the models by Chaviaropoulos and Hansen over predicts
and the model by Lindenburg under predicts both power and thrust. However, the new proposed model and the
model by Snel et al. predict both the power and thrust fairly well. At wind speeds above 13m/s all models show a
significant drop in power.
NREL Ph. VI

NREL ph. VI
14

SNEL et al.
Lindenburg
Chav. + Hansen
Bak
Measurements

10

2500
Thrust force [N]

12

Mech. Power [kW]

3000

8
6

Snel et al.
Lindenburg
Chav. + Hansen
Bak
measurements

2000
1500

1000
2

500

0
0

10

12

14

16

Wind speed [m/s]

10
12
Wind speed [m/s]

14

16

18

Figure 8 Measured and computed mechanical power and thrust for the NREL rotor. Computations are shown for
the new proposed model, but also three other existing models are shown.

Tellus rotor
The Tellus rotor is situated at Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark. On this turbine there have been
several measurement campaigns, where e.g. the tip aerodynamics has been investigated [10]. The characteristics of
the rotor are shown in Table 2. As was the case for the NREL rotor, the Tellus rotor is uncommon compared to the
large modern rotors, which have a rotor diameter five times bigger and a tip-speed-ratio around 8.
Table 2 Data for Tellus rotor.
Number of blades
Rotor diameter [m]
Rotational speed [RPM]
Design tip speed ratio, [-]
Tip speed [m/s]
Airfoil series
Power control

3
19.0
47.5
6.8
47.3
NACA 63-2xx
Stall

In Figure 9 is seen the power and thrust curve computed with airfoil characteristics corrected using the same
models as described for the NREL rotor. Only the computed power is compared to measurements, because thrust
measurements were not available. As it was the case for the NREL rotor the power is over predicted by the model
by Chaviaropoulos and Hansen and under predicted by the model by Lindenburg. The model by Snel et al. and the
new model predict the power well.

Page 8 of 10

Tellus

Mech. Power [kW]

120
100

Tellus
18

Snel et al.
Lindenburg
Chav. + Hansen
Bak
2D
Measurements

16
14
Thrust force [kN]

140

80
60
40

Snel et al.
Lindenburg
Chav. + Hansen
Bak
2D

12
10
8
6

20

2
4

10
12
14
Wind speed [m/s]

16

18

20

10
12
14
Wind speed [m/s]

16

18

20

Figure 9 Measured and computed mechanical power and thrust for the Tellus rotor. Computations are shown for
the new proposed model, but also three other existing models are shown.

Active stall regulated rotor


The active stall regulated rotor is a modern megawatt turbine. It is a commercial turbine and therefore detailed
information is confidential. The characteristics for the rotor are shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Data for the active stall regulated rotor
Number of blades
Design tip speed ratio, [-]
Tip speed [m/s]
Airfoil series
Power control

3
7.3
65.2
NACA 63-4xx/ FFA-W3-xxx
Active stall

Figure 10 shows the power and thrust curve computed with airfoil characteristics, which were 3D corrected the
same way as described for the NREL rotor. The models by Snel et al. and Lindenburg under predict both power
and thrust for this rotor, where the maximal thrust is under predicted with 15% with the model by Snel et al.
However, the model by Chaviaropoulos and Hansen and the new model predict the power fairly well up to wind
speeds around 14 to 15m/s. Above this wind speed the power is either over predicted (Chaviaropoulos and
Hansen) or under predicted (the new model). Concerning the thrust the new model predicts the thrust very well,
while the model by Chaviaropoulos and Hansen over predicts the thrust slightly.
Active stall turbine

Snel et al.
Lindenburg
Chav. + Hansen
Bak
2D
Measurements

normalized Thrust force [-]

Mech. Power/rated power

Active stall turbine


1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

10
12
Wind speed [m/s]

14

16

1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

18

Snel et al.
Lindenburg
Chav. + Hansen
Bak
2D
Measurements

10

12

14

16

18

Wind speed [m/s]

Figure 10 Power and thrust curve for the active stall regulated rotor. Measurements and predictions using
different 3D correction models are shown.

Conclusion
The NREL NASA Ames measurements were analyzed, where especially the pressure distributions on the blades
were compared to 2D wind tunnel tests. The difference between the 3D and 2D pressure distributions were
determined and this difference was analyzed and used as the basis for the proposal of a new 3D correction model
based on the pressure conditions on the blade.
Application of the new model on three different rotors showed, that the agreement between the new model and
measurements were good concerning the thrust and the agreement was fair concerning the power. Compared to
existing 3D correction models the correspondence between power and thrust was better predicted using the new
model. This indicates that using the new model results in a more correct load distribution on the rotor.

Page 9 of 10

Acknowledgements
The work is funded by the Danish Energy Authorities in the project Program for Research in Applied
Aeroelasticity, EFP2004. Also, Scott Schreck and NREL, Colorado, USA are acknowledged for kindly giving
access and helps using the NREL/NASA Ames wind tunnel measurements.

References
1. Snel, H.; Houwink, R.; van Bussel, G.J.W.; Bruining, A., Sectional Prediction of 3D Effects for Stalled Flow
on Rotating Blades and Comparison with Measurements, Proc. European Community Wind Energy
Conference, Lbeck-Travemnde, Germany, 8-12 March, 1993, pp. 395-399, H.S. Stephens & Associates
2. Du, Z.; Selig, M.S., A 3-D Stall-Delay Model for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Performance Prediction,
AIAA-98-0021, 36th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1998 ASME Wind Energy Symposium,
Reno, NV, USA, January 12-15, 1998
3. Chaviaropoulos, P.K.; Hansen, M.O.L., Investigating Three-Dimensional and Rotational Effects on Wind
Turbine Blades by Means of a Quasi-3D Navier Stokes Solver, J. Fluids Engineering, vol. 122, June 2000, pp.
330-336.
4. Lindenburg, C., Modelling of Rotational Augmentation Based on Engineering Considerations and
Measurements, European Wind Energy Conference, London, 22-25 November 2004
5. Hand, M.M.; Simms, D.A.; Fingersh, L.J.; Jager, D.W.; Cotrell, J.R.; Schreck, S.; Larwood, S.M., Unsteady
Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI: Wind Tunnel Test Configurations and Available Data Campaigns,
NREL/TP-500-29955, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA, December 2001.
6. Reuss Ramsay, R., M. Hoffman, and G. Gregorek, (1995), Effects of Grit Roughness and Pitch Oscillations on
the S809 Airfoil, NREL/TP 442-7817, Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
7. E-mail communication with Nando Timmer, Technical University of Delft, Holland.
8. Madsen, H.A., Rasmussen, F., Derivation og Three-Dimensional Airfoil Data on the Basis of Experiment and
Theory, AWEA 1988
9. Bak, C., Udledning af profildata (in Danish), in Ris-R-1434(DA), Research in aeroelasticity, ed. C.Bak,
Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, 2004
10. Aagaard Madsen, H., Aerodynamics of a Horizonthal-Axis Wind Turbine in Natural Conditions, Ris-M2903, Ris National Laboratory, 1991

Page 10 of 10