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

net/publication/304348316

On the role of surface roughness in the aerodynamic performance and energy

conversion of horizontal wind turbine blades: A review

Article  in  International Journal of Energy Research · May 2016

DOI: 10.1002/er.3580

CITATIONS READS

28 2,193

5 authors, including:

Iham Zidane Khalid M. Saqr

Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport Tohoku University
8 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS    123 PUBLICATIONS   1,181 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Greg Swadener Xianghong Ma

Aston University Aston University
72 PUBLICATIONS   2,965 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   645 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Small-scale testing of irradiated materials View project

Automation of renewable energy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Fahmy Shehadeh on 06 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/er.3580

REVIEW PAPER

On the role of surface roughness in the aerodynamic

performance and energy conversion of horizontal wind
turbine blades: a review
Iham F. Zidane1,2,*,†, Khalid M. Saqr2,*,†, Greg Swadener1, Xianghong Ma1 and
Mohamed F. Shehadeh3
1
School of Engineering and Applied Science, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering and Technology, Arab Academy of Science, Technology and Maritime
Transport, AASTMT, 1029 Abu Kir, Alexandria, Egypt
3
Marine Engineering Department, College of Engineering and Technology, Arab Academy of Science, Technology and Maritime
Transport, 1029 Abu Kir, AlexandriA, Egypt

SUMMARY
Renewable energy is one of the main pillars of sustainable development, especially in developing economies. Increasing
energy demand and the limitation of fossil fuel reserves make the use of renewable energy essential for sustainable devel-
opment. Wind energy is considered to be one of the most important resources of renewable energy. In North African coun-
tries, such as Egypt, wind energy has an enormous potential; however, it faces quite a number of technical challenges
related to the performance of wind turbines in the Saharan environment. Seasonal sand storms affect the performance of
wind turbines in many ways, one of which is increasing the wind turbine aerodynamic resistance through the increase of
blade surface roughness. The power loss because of blade surface deterioration is significant in wind turbines. The surface
roughness of wind turbine blades deteriorates because of several environmental conditions such as ice or sand. This paper is
the first review on the topic of surface roughness effects on the performance of horizontal-axis wind turbines. The review
covers the numerical simulation and experimental studies as well as discussing the present research trends to develop a
roadmap for better understanding and improvement of wind turbine performance in deleterious environments. Copyright
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS
wind turbine; blade aerodynamics; blade erosion; surface roughness

Correspondence
*Iham F. Zidane, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
*Khalid M. Saqr, Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Engineering and Technology, Arab Academy of Science, Technology
and Maritime Transport, AASTMT, 1029 Abu Kir, Alexandria, Egypt.
†
E-mail: zidanifh@aston.ac.uk; k.saqr@aast.edu

Received 8 February 2016; Revised 22 May 2016; Accepted 22 May 2016

1. INTRODUCTION
Wind energy is one of the main renewable energy resources
that have experienced fast growth in recent years. In 2014,
the installed capacity was extended to 51 473 MW globally
[1]. At the end of 2015, the global wind power industry
installed capacity was 63 467 MW, representing a cumula-
tive market growth of more than 17% [2]. For example,
Egypt is one of the countries where wind energy is currently
focused. The first 400-kW wind farm was developed in Ras
Ghareb on the red sea coast in 1988. The second 5.4-MW
wind farm was developed in Hurghada city between 1993
and 1996. In cooperation with Germany, Denmark, Spain
and Japan, a series of wind farms were built since 2001.
Egypt is planning to increase its wind energy capacity to
7200 MW by 2020[3]. Figure 1 shows the increase in the
cumulative installed capacity in Egypt.
Another example is India, which has seen a large
amount of recent development in the wind power industry.
According to the Indian Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy report in 2015, wind power in India accounted
for about 66.69% out of the total installed generation ca-
pacity of renewable power. The largest four wind farms
in India are Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and
Karnataka with power capacities of 35 071 MW, 14 497 MW,
14 152 MW and 13 593 MW respectively. Figure 2 shows

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

I. F. Zidane et al. Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance

Figure 1. Shows the increase of the cumulative installed capacity in Egypt.

Figure 2. Shows the development of the cumulative installed capacity during the previous years in India.

the development of the cumulative installed capacity in
India [4].
As the size of the wind turbine increases, the operation
and maintenance costs increase, since acquiring an early
indication of structural or mechanical problems [5]. For
example, the maintenance cost of 750 kW onshore wind
turbines might account for 75–90% of the total lifetime
costs. While, wind turbine blade cost could be 15–20%
of the total wind turbine primary cost [5]. There are several
reasons for wind turbine blade failure. Leading or trailing
edge separation because of long term fatigue stress caused
by wind speed varying, as a result, cracks happen within
the structure of the wind blade which called bond
separation [6]. Lightning strike leads to damage at the
tip. However, this problem was solved by introducing
lightning protection systems. Receptor pucks are fixed on
the surface of the blade and connected to the grounding
source through metal conductors [7]. Alternatively, erosion
forms at the leading edge of the wind turbine blade because
of sand, ice particles or insect debris. Erosion of wind tur-
bine blade causes small pit formation. Further erosion
causes accumulation and extension of these pits to form
gouges as shown in Figure 3 [8]. Consequently, erosion in-
creases the surface degradation of the blade, leading to the
change of the aerodynamic properties of the blade airfoil
(i.e. drag and lift coefficients). The drag coefficient of the

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance
Figure 3. Shows the leading edge erosion effect (a) pits, (b) pits and gouges and (c) leading edge.
airfoil increases, while the lift coefficient decreases espe-
cially at higher angles of attack causing severe losses in en-
ergy production [8–10]. Therefore, surface roughness is
one of the most critical problems for wind turbine perfor-
mance. Accordingly, theoretical models that describe the
effect of this parameter would be highly desirable.
This paper provides a review of the surface roughness
contamination problems on the performance of the hori-
zontal wind turbine blade efficiency, because horizontal
wind turbines are the most common type used. For In-
stance, in Egypt Khamasin sandstorm usually occurs be-
tween March and May, carrying great quantities of sand
and dust from the south into the north Africa, with a speed
up to 140 km per hour, and a 20 °C rise in temperatures
within 2 h [11]. As a result this study is very important
for wind farms are located in deserts or arid regions. In ad-
dition to North Africa, this would include large regions in
the Middle East, India, China, Australia and the South-
western US. However, the main objective of this paper is
to review the qualitative and quantitative changes of the
aerodynamic properties brought about by the accumulation
and damage on the surface of the blade’s leading edge.
Thus, the wind turbine designers have the ability to predict
loads and energy losses for wind turbines operating under
conditions that cause deterioration in surface roughness
of wind turbine blades and performance. Also, this paper
provides a review of the previous research studies and
solutions concerning the surface roughness problems on
the horizontal wind turbine airfoils. The previous research
methodology consists of two parts. The first part is the nu-
merical analysis and simulation of a horizontal wind tur-
bine blade. The second part is to study the horizontal
wind turbine blade performance experimentally by adding
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
I. F. Zidane et al.
contamination accumulation models on the wind turbine
blade.
2. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS ON THE
EFFECT OF WIND TURBINE BLADE
SURFACE ROUGHNESS
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is one of the most
common methods used in the design, analysis and perfor-
mance evaluation of wind turbines. CFD provides an
effective and reliable simulation framework for parametric
study cases. However, one of the most challenging as-
pects of CFD studies of wind turbine aerodynamics is tur-
bulence modeling. The Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes
(RANS) approach is practical for engineering applications
and problems because it saves time for simulation and anal-
ysis. For instance, Darbandi et al. [12] used CFD to simu-
late the aerodynamic performance of a rough wind turbine
airfoil after validating the CFD model with the experimen-
tal data in the clean condition. Their validation showed that
this CFD model could give reasonable results. Therefore,
they simulated and compared the aerodynamic properties
of rough and clean airfoils. It was concluded that the
maximum lift coefficient decreased because of surface
roughness.
There are several types of RANS turbulence models
provided by different CFD software packages. The most
common turbulence models used in the previous published
studies were k–є model, RNG k–є model, fully turbulent
SST model, SST k–ω model and Discrete Phase Model.
One of the good examples which compared between the
turbulence models and analyzed their results’ accuracy is
I. F. Zidane et al.
Yao et al. [13]. They used four different 2D turbulent
models for an airfoil design NACA 0018 at different
angles of attack. These models were standard k–є model,
RNG k–є model, Transition SST model and Reynolds
stress model. The Reynolds number was 5 × 105. After val-
idating the turbulent models results with the experimental
data, they reached that the lift coefficient had a better cal-
culation results than the drag coefficient. Reynolds stress
model showed the best prediction of the aerodynamic coef-
ficients. Also, the lift force of the airfoil resulted at the
front edge of the airfoil. Finally, there was no flow separa-
tion around the airfoil at this Reynolds number.
In addition, Yuhong and Congming [14] reached that the
2D transition model is more efficient to predict the aerody-
namics coefficients of the airfoil S814 when compared to
fully turbulence SST model. Results were verified by Na-
tional Renewable Energy Laboratory. The transition model
reduces 10% error over the full turbulence model. Also,
there is a nearly 40% average error improvement in the drag
coefficient calculation for Transition model. However, the
2D transition model’s computational time is much longer.
2.1. Turbulence models
The turbulent models available in modern CFD software
could be solved in two different simulation states. The first
state is the steady state which means that the time domain
is not taken into consideration in solving Navier’s Stoke
equations. The second state is the transient state which
means that time domain is involved in the CFD calcula-
tions. It was found that transient simulation gives better re-
sults than steady because it contains more flow details [14].
Nianxin[15], Deshun et al. [16] and Salem et al. [17]
studied the effect of surface roughness on the aerodynamic
performance of the wind turbine blade using a 2D
Figure 4. Shows the variation of the drag and lift coefficients with roughness height for both, Nianxin (2009) and Deshun et al. (2010).
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance
incompressible SST k–ω turbulence model. Nianxin [11]
used NACA 63-430 airfoil design in a dusty environment
which contains hot dry sand particles. As for Deshun
et al. [16], they used a DU 95-W-180 airfoil design, but,
Salem et al. [17] used NACA 63-215. The simulation
model was validated by Nianxin [15] and Deshun et al.
[16] using the wind tunnel experimental data under a clean
environment conditions. However, Salem et al. [17] vali-
dated the numerical results obtained by Nianxin [15] and
compared it with Khalfallah and Koliubb [18]. Reynolds
number that was used is 1.6 × 106, 3 × 106 and 1 × 106 re-
spectively. Nianxin [15] and Deshun et al. [16] concluded
that the surface roughness causes turbulence and flow sep-
aration. Also, the lift and drag coefficients are affected by
small roughness height. The critical roughness length of
Nianxin [15] and Deshun et al. [16] airfoils is 0.3 mm
and 0.5 mm. respectively. Figure 4 shows the variation of
the drag and lift coefficients with roughness height for
both, Nianxin [15] and Deshun et al.[16] studies. On the
other hand, Salem et al. [17] concluded that accumulation
of dust on the wind turbine blade is one of the main reasons
for power losses. Figures 5 and 6 show the lift coefficient
increase and drag coefficient decrease for both Nianxin
and Salem et al. respectively.
Ferrer and Munduate [19] used CFD and Xfoil to simu-
late the aerodynamic performance of a 2D S814 airfoil
design. The aerodynamic properties of the airfoil were cal-
culated with three cases. These cases were clean transition,
clean fully turbulent flow and finally fully turbulent flow
with surface roughness at the airfoil leading edge. The sim-
ulated surface roughness represented the airfoil contamina-
tion by bugs, dirt or debris. The numerical results were
validated by experimental measurements of NREL S814.
They reached that CFD could provide a good prediction
for the surface roughness phenomenon. However, Xfoil
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance I. F. Zidane et al.

Figure 5. Shows the lift coefficient decrease for both Nianxin (2009) and Salem et al. (2013).

Figure 6. Shows the drag coefficient increase for both Nianxin (2009) and Salem et al. (2013).

failed to estimate the roughness effect in the case of fully
turbulent flow. Finally, it was concluded that surface
roughness has negative effect on the aerodynamic perfor-
mance of the airfoil. Figure 7 shows the variation of lift co-
efficient with angle of attack using CFD, Xfoil and the
experimental data.
In addition, Mendez et al. [20] used a CFD simulation
code called Wind Multi Block (WMB) to study the perfor-
mance of both S809 and NACA 0012 airfoils in both clean
and rough conditions. The implemented models used in
WMB to simulate the surface roughness were Hellsten
and Laine model and Knopp et al. model. First, S809
WMB simulation was validated with OSU wind tunnel ex-
perimental results in case of rough condition at Reynolds
number 1 × 106. Second, the aerodynamic performance of
S809 was estimated by changing the rough element size
and distribution. Finally, the code was used to predict the
performance of NACA 0012 in both clean and rough con-
ditions at Reynolds number up to 9 × 106. Results showed
that the maximum lift coefficient decreased and the mini-
mum drag coefficient increased because of surface rough-
ness. However, as Reynolds number increased in both
clean and rough conditions, the maximum lift coefficient
increased and the drag coefficient decreased. Figure 8

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
I. F. Zidane et al. Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance

Figure 7. Shows the variation of lift coefficient with angle of attack using CFD, Xfoil and the experimental data.

Figure 8. Shows the performance of both S809 and NACA 0012 airfoils with the change of angle of attack in rough condition.

shows the performance of both S809 and NACA 0012
airfoils with the change of angle of attack in the rough
condition at Reynolds number of 1 × 106 and 3 × 106
respectively.
Moreover, Bai et al. [21] have simulated the effect of
different surface roughness on turbine blades using the fully
turbulent SST model and the ϒ –Θ transition model. They
concluded that roughness could weaken the separation
bubble at low Reynolds number so the aerodynamic loss
decreases, while at high Reynolds number the aerodynamic
loss increases because of transient progress. Therefore, the
surface roughness effect increases significantly at high
Reynolds number. The total pressure loss could reach up
to 129% because of roughness at high Reynolds number.
2.2. Effect of environmental conditions
The erosion effect on the wind turbine blade airfoil proper-
ties is still incomplete and needs further exploration. One
of the research studies of this rarely discussed problem

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance
was well presented by Gharali and Johnson [22]. Three
erosion cases of an airfoil design S809 were modeled
based on real operating scenarios. They specified the ero-
sion thickness and length for each erosion scenario. They
selected SST k–ω model to simulate the 2D airfoil design
at different Reynolds numbers 104, 105 and106. This model
results were compared to previous experimental studies.
Their results showed that the lift coefficient is affected by
the erosion thickness because it increases the surface
roughness.
On the other hand, the ice accumulation problem took
the majority of discussion in the surface roughness re-
search studies. Yan et al. [23] studied the ice accumulation
on the blade airfoil design NACA 0015 at three angles of
attack 0°, 45° and 180°. They used a 2D incompressible
steady flow simulation model. The average diameter for
the ice particles was 0.09. They found that the ice accumu-
lation could increase the lift coefficient of the airfoil. In ad-
dition, the ice accretion was at the front part of the wind
blade. Moreover, the ice accumulation thickness depends
on the stability of wind speed.
Although Yan et al. [23] argued that the ice particles
might improve the performance of the airfoil design of the
wind blade; Homola et al. [24] claimed that the ice accre-
tion reduces the amount of the lift coefficient. Homola
et al. [24] implemented their simulation on an airfoil design
NACA 64618 using TURBICE and a 2D k–є turbulence
model. They identified two types of icing shapes rime and
glaze at different angles of attack ranging from 10° to
20°. Results were verified by both icing wind tunnel exper-
iments of aircraft wing sections and natural wind turbine
icing. They also concluded that the glaze icing causes more
reduction of lift coefficient than the rime icing. Also,
Etemaddar et al. [25] simulated the ice accumulation effect
on the outer half of the airfoil blade. They neglected the
Figure 9. Shows the variation of lift coefficient with angle of attack.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
I. F. Zidane et al.
inner half and only the ice profiles on five sections from
44.5 m to the tip were considered. A 2D k–є turbulent
model was used to analyze the aerodynamic properties of
NACA 64618 airfoil. Results were validated with the ex-
perimental data of the same airfoil design. Simulation was
performed in both clean and icing conditions. The Reynolds
number was 2 × 106, while, the angle of attack range was
between 24° and 24°. In general, results showed that the
drag forced increased in the icing condition. However, the
lift coefficient decreased. In addition, the gap between
the aerodynamic coefficients of both clean and iced airfoils
increased with the increase of the angle of attacks.
Besides studies on the effects of ice accumulation,
Douvi and Margaris [26] shed a light on the effect of the
rain droplets on the airfoil performance of wind turbine.
Douvi and Margaris [26] discussed the performance of
the airfoil design NACA 0012 in both dry and wet condi-
tions. They used two phase Discrete Phase model to simu-
late the water droplets of the rain. The Reynolds numbers
used were 1 × 106 and 3 × 106, while the angle of attacks
range were between 5° and 20°. First, the CFD simula-
tion results of both wet and dry conditions were validated
using experiment results. Second, they compared the lift
and drag forces in both wet and dry conditions. They con-
cluded that rain could cause a great drop in the aerody-
namic performance of the airfoil especially at the higher
angles of attack. This is because of the decrease in the lift
force and the increase of the drag force. Consequently, re-
sults showed that there was 37% decrease in the lift force at
20° angle of attack. The loss of power is much greater at
higher Reynolds numbers and higher angles of attack. A
small layer was formed by very fine droplets in front of
the leading edge because of the impact process.
Figures 9 and 10 represent a comparison between the
aerodynamic properties of the different airfoils used in
I. F. Zidane et al.
Figure 10. Shows the variation of drag coefficient with angle of attack.
the previous numerical studies which were explained
above. These two figures show the variation of both lift
and drag coefficients with the angle of attack in the rough
conditions. Table I summarizes the data of each published
numerical study with their results.
3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON
THE EFFECT OF WIND TURBINE
BLADE SURFACE ROUGHNESS
All the previous studies were analyzed numerically. To
take the research to another level, experimental work must
be investigated to validate these numerical results. For ex-
ample, the experimental results of Khalfallah and Koliubb
[18] were used to validate the CFD numerical analysis of
Salem et al. [17] as mentioned previously and presented in
Figure 11. Khalfallah and Koliubb [18] studied the effect
of the dust size and the dust blade areas on the wind power
losses at different wind speeds. They used a 300-kW wind
turbine in Hurghada. They observed that the dust accumu-
lation was collected at the leading edge of the wind turbine
blade. Also, the drag force increased, while the lift force
decreased with the growing dust on the blade surface
leading to power reduction. However, they concluded that
power losses depend mainly on the surface roughness of
the blade, the angle of attack and the blade airfoil design.
Second, a comparison between the experimental results
and computational roughness model was presented by
Langel et al. [27]. They used a NACA 633-418 airfoil
model to study the effect of different roughness patterns
on its aerodynamic performance. The roughness configura-
tions used in the experimental study had different surface
height and densities. The experimental study was held at
Reynolds numbers of 0.8 × 106, 1.6 × 106, 2.4 × 106,
3.2 × 106, 4 × 106 and 4.4 × 106. The angles of attack used
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance
were between 4° and 16°. The computational study
showed a good agreement with the experimental results.
Third, an experimental test was presented by Hummel
et al. [28] to evaluate the aerodynamic performance of a
rough blade surface. Four different heights of surface
roughness were added for a Reynolds number range from
60 × 104 to 120 × 104. They found that the pressure loss in-
creases as the Reynolds number increases. This pressure
loss could reach up to 40% compared to the smooth surface.
3.1. Contamination simulation models
A contamination accumulation on a blade airfoil could be
simulated using several models such as zigzag tape,
carborundum 60 roughness and strip insertion during the
experimental studies. It was found that zigzag tape is the
most commonly used surface roughness model. Many
researchers used the zigzag tape model with different
angles in their experimental studies such as, Timmer and
Schaffarczyk [29], Selig and McGranahan [30], Soltani
and Birjandi [31], White et al. [32] and Soltani et al.
[33]. The zigzag model has been used with different
surface roughness heights. However, these experimental
studies used other types of contamination accumulation
models, so that they could study the surface roughness
contamination with different configurations. These con-
tamination accumulation models were carborundum
roughness, strip tape, sandblasting aluminum and rapid
prototyping roughness. Further studies of, Timmer [34],
Zhang, Igarashi and Hu [35] and Marzabadi and Soltani
[36] used different accumulation roughness models which
are wrap around, aligned and staggered roughnesses and
standard commercial grid.
All the researchers were satisfied with their experimen-
tal results provided by their contamination accumulation
simulation models except for Soltani et al. (2011) [33].
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
 Table I. A summary of the explained published numerical studies with their results.

Ref Surface roughness status CFD code Re. no. Airfoil Turbulence model Results
5
[13] Clean surface Fluent 5 × 10 NACA 0018 k–ϵ model

DOI: 10.1002/er
• Reynolds stress model showed best prediction when compared
RNG k–ϵ model to experimental.
Transition SST model • Better than drag coefficient calculations
Reynolds stress model • The lift force of the airfoil resulted at the front edge of the airfoil
6
[14] Clean simulation Fluent 1 × 10 S814 Fully turbulence SST • Transition model is more efficient to predict the aerodynamics
model coefficients of the airfoil.
Transition model • The transition model reduces 10% error over the full turbulence
model.
• There is a nearly 40% average error improvement in the drag
coefficient calculation for Transition model.
6
[15] Clean and dusty simulation Fluent 1.6 × 10 NACA 63-430 SST k–ω model • Good prediction of the aerodynamic performance when compared
with the experimental data in clean conditions.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• The lift coefficient decreased up to 50% in 20 months, while the
drag coefficient increased because of dust contamination.
• 0.6 in 20 months, 0.7 in 12.5 months and 0.8 in 5 months
• 0.1 in 20 months, 0.12 in 12.5 months and 0.075 in 5 months
• 0.3 mm is the critical roughness height for required lift coefficient
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance

values
6
[16] Clean and dusty simulation Fluent 3 × 10 DU 95-W-180 SST k–ω model • Good prediction when compared with the experimental data in
clean conditions.
• 0.5 mm is the critical roughness height for the lift coefficient values.
6
[17] Clean and dusty simulation Fluent 1 × 10 NACA 63-215 SST k–ω model • Validated the numerical results obtained by Nianxin and Jinping
(2009) and compared with Khalfallah and Koliubb (2007).
• For a clean profile, lift coefficient is 0.596.
• For a clean profile, drag coefficient is 0.0131.
• Almost same results of Nianxin and Jinping (2009).
[19] Clean transition Fluent S814 SST k–ω model • Compared with the numerical results obtained by Xfoil.
Clean fully turbulent flow • The numerical results were validated by experimental measurements
Rough fully turbulent flow of NREL S814.
• CFD could provide a good prediction for the surface roughness
phenomenon.
• Xfoil failed to estimate the roughness effect in the case of fully
turbulent flow.
• Max lift coefficient for CFD prediction is almost 1.1, while the
experimental is 1.
• Drag coefficient at the max lift coefficient for CFD prediction is
almost 0.029, while the experimental is 0.03.
(Continues)
I. F. Zidane et al.

Ref Surface roughness status
[20] Clean and rough simulation
[22] Clean and rough simulation
because of erosion
[23] Clean and rough simulation
because of ice accumulation
[24] Clean and rough simulation
because of ice accumulation
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Table I. (Continued)
CFD code Re. no. Airfoil Turbulence model Results
• The max lift coefficient decreased because of surface roughness.
6
I. F. Zidane et al.
Wind Multi 1 × 10 S809 Hellsten model • WMB simulation was validated with OSU wind tunnel experimental
Block (WMB) results in case of rough condition.
• Max lift coefficient for CFD prediction is almost 0.9, while the
experimental is 0.9.
• Drag coefficient at the max lift coefficient for CFD prediction is
almost 0.061, while the experimental is almost 0.06.
• The aerodynamic performance of S809 was estimated by changing
the rough elements size and distribution.
• The max lift coefficient decreases up to 28% referring to the clean
case when increasing roughness size.
6
9 × 10 NACA 0012 • The WMB code was used to predict the performance of NACA
0012 in both clean and rough conditions.
• As Reynolds number increased in both clean and rough conditions,
the maximum lift coefficient increased and the drag coefficient
decreased.
4 5 6
Fluent 10 , 10 and 10 S809 SST k–ω model • This model results were compared to previous experimental studies.
Erosion A 14% • Results showed that the lift coefficient is affected by the erosion
length thickness because it increases the surface roughness.
Erosion B 4% length • The max values of the lift coefficient decreases are 48%, 51% and
Erosion C 4% length 76% for erosion A, B and C, respectively
NACA 0015 Discrete Phase • The thickness of ice accretion got smaller at the trailing edge of the
Model (DPM) blade aerofoil.
• Also, the ice accretion in the leading edge was much smoother than
what in the trailing edge.
• This is because the wind separate from the blade aerofoil after it
reached where the max thickness in the aerofoil, and caused
vortex in the tail.
• Results showed the ice accumulation could increase the lift
coefficient of the airfoil.
Fluent NACA 64618 k–ϵ turbulence model • Results were verified by both icing wind tunnel experiments of
aircraft wing sections and natural wind turbine icing.
• The max lift coefficient for the clean airfoil was almost 1.35.
3
• The max lift coefficient for the ice droplet sizes 12 × 10 mm,
3 3
17 × 10 mm and 30 × 10 mm were nearly 1.2, 1.1 and 1.05
respectively.
(Continues)
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance
DOI: 10.1002/er
Ref Surface roughness status
[25] Clean and rough simulation
because of ice accumulation
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[26] Dry and wet simulation
Table I. (Continued)
CFD code Re. no. Airfoil Turbulence model Results
6
Fluent 2 × 10 NACA 64618 k–ϵ turbulent model • Results were validated with the experimental data of the same airfoil
design.
• They neglected the inner half and only the ice profiles on five
sections from 44.5 m to the tip were considered.
• The drag forced increased in the icing condition, however, the lift
coefficient decreased.
• The max lift coefficient for the clean airfoil was almost 1.5. However,
the max lift coefficients for the five chosen sections were
between 1.3 and 1.4.
• The gap between the aerodynamic coefficients of both clean and
iced airfoils increased with the increase of the angle of attacks.
6 6
Fluent 1 × 10 3 × 10 NACA 0012 Realizable k–ϵ turbulent
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance
• The CFD simulation results of both wet and dry conditions were
6
model validated using experiment results at Reynolds number 3 × 10 .
• Rain could cause a great drop in the aerodynamic performance of
the airfoil especially at the higher angles of attack.
6
• For Reynolds number 1 × 10 , the max lift coefficients for the dry
and wet airfoils were almost 1.35 and 1.25 respectively.
6
• For Reynolds number 3 × 10 , the max lift coefficients for the dry
and wet airfoils were nearly 1.4 and 1.1 respectively.
• The loss of power is much greater at higher Reynolds numbers and
at higher angles of attack.
I. F. Zidane et al.
I. F. Zidane et al. Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance

Figure 11. Shows the validation results of Salem et al. (2013) simulation with Khalfallah and Koliubb (2007) experimental data.

They claimed that these models did not give the exact ef-
fect results. Simulation of the real contamination accumu-
lation must be distributed through the blade surface with
higher concentration at the blade’s leading edge. Also,
the real contamination accumulation should be based on
field data and measurements. Figure 12 shows the lift coef-
ficient variation with the angle of attack between the air-
foils studied by Selig and McGranahan after adding the
zigzag F model. From Figure 12, SH3055 had the highest
lift coefficient values. Also, Figure 13 shows the effect of
the three different types of roughness models used by
Soltani and Birjandi. Almost the three roughness models
used which are zigzag 60, zigzag 90 and strip tape had
the same effect on the airfoil as shown in the figure.
Figure 14 shows the configuration of both zigzag 90 and
zigzag 60. Figure 15 shows the variation of the lift

Figure 12. Shows the variation of the lift coefficient with the angle of attack after studying the accumulation surface roughness for
Selig and McGranahan.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance I. F. Zidane et al.

Figure 13. Shows the variation of the lift coefficient with the angle of attack after studying the accumulation surface roughness
models for Soltani and Birjandi.

coefficient with the angle of attack after studying the accu-

Figure 14. Shows Zigzag tape with angles 60° and 90°.
mulation surface roughness models for Soltani and
Birjandi, White et al. and Soltani, Birjandi and Moorani.
NACA64-218 had the highest maximum lift coefficient
which is almost 1.2. Moreover, Table II shows the contam-
ination accumulation surface roughness models used in
each experimental study with their airfoil designs and re-
sults. According to Figures 12, 13, 15 and Table II, the air-
foil design SH 3055 had the best performance during the
experimental study of the zigzag tape model at Reynolds

Figure 15. Shows the variation of the lift coefficient with the angle of attack after studying the accumulation surface roughness
models.

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
 Table II. The contamination accumulation surface roughness models used in each experimental study with their airfoil designs and results.

Ref Re no Airfoil Surface roughness status Paper data summary and results
6 6
[29] 1 × 10 to 10 × 10 Modified DU 97-W-300 Clean • A modified DU 97-W-300 airfoil because of manufacturing purposes was
I. F. Zidane et al.

Zigzag tape studied in the cryogenic wind tunnel.

Carborundum 60 roughness • Experimental results were compared to RFOIL calculations. RFOIL is an
airfoil analysis and design code based on XFOIL code.
• The airfoil performance was more sensitive to the zigzag tape model
rather than the carborundum 60 roughness model.
• The airfoil roughness sensitivity decrease with the increase of Reynolds
number.
3 3
[30] 100 × 10 to 500 × 10 E387 Zigzag trip type F • First, the E387 airfoil design measurements were validated in the case of
clean operating condition.
FX 63-137 • Second, the drag polar, and the lift and drag characteristics of each airfoil
S822 design were measured in both clean and rough conditions.
S834
SD2030 • Zigzag trip was fixed on the upper and lower surfaces near to the leading
SH3055 edge.
• Finally, the clean and rough conditions measurements were compared
together at different Reynolds numbers.
• FX 63-137 had the best performance among the airfoil chosen.
6
[31] 0.43 × 10 Not mentioned zigzag tape with angle 60° • The airfoil model was tested under clean conditions.
6
0.65 × 10 zigzag tape with angle 90° • They concluded that the maximum lift coefficient and the stall angle
6
0.85 × 10 decreased with the increase of the Reynolds number value
6
1.15 × 10 Strip tape contamination • Also, the effect of the surface roughness on the airfoil performance
roughness model decreases at higher Reynolds number values.
• Finally, contamination roughness model had the greatest negative effect
on the aerodynamic performance of the airfoil model.
6
[32] 1.6 × 10 NACA 633-418 Sandblasting aluminum • First, the smooth leading edge performance results were compared with a
6
3 × 10 precious experimental data.
Rapid prototyping roughness • Second, zig-zag trip tape was added to the smooth leading edge to compare
the results with the usual wind tunnel practices.
Zig-zag trip tape • They concluded that as the surface roughness increases, the maximum lift
coefficient decreases and the minimum drag coefficient increases.
6
[33] 0.43 × 10 Airfoil near to NACA Zigzag tape with angle 60° • The pressure distribution through the upper and lower surfaces of the blade
6
0.65 × 10 6-series was measured by 143PC01D Honeywell pressure transducers.
6
0.85 × 10 Zigzag tape with angle 90° • These measured data were used to find the drag and lift forces of the airfoil
6
1.15 × 10 Strip insertion contamination chosen in the cases of clean and contamination accumulation.
roughness model • They observed that the airfoil chosen was easily affected by the roughness.

(Continues)
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
 Table II. The contamination accumulation surface roughness models used in each experimental study with their airfoil designs and results.

Ref Re no Airfoil Surface roughness status Paper data summary and results

DOI: 10.1002/er
• They reached that these models did not give the exact effect results.
• Also, the lift force decreased by 35% in the case of real contamination
accumulation simulation.
• Finally, the stall phenomenon was postponed when roughness increased.
6
[34] 6 × 10 NACA 64-018 Wrap around roughness • First, 2D NACA 63 and 64 series airfoils were tested in Langley low turbulence
NACA 64-218 pressure tunnel.
NACA 64-418 • These tests were used to verify the RFOIL simulation results at Reynolds
6 6
numbers of 3 × 106, 6 × 10 and 9 × 10 .
• It was found that RFOIL could predict the maximum lift coefficient correctly at
6
Reynolds number of 3 × 10 .
• However, RFOIL failed to predict the maximum lift coefficient at Reynolds
numbers of 6 × 106 and 9 × 106 with difference of 3.5% and 6.5%

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
respectively.
• Second, the wrap around roughness was added to the upper and lower
surface of NACA 64 series.
NACA 64-618 • Timmer (2009) observed that the maximum lift coefficient of these airfoils
decreased by 18% to 20%.
3
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance

[35] 78 × 10 GA (W)-1 Aligned, roughness height • These plastic strips had different height and distribution patterns.
3
169 × 10
3
260 × 10 Staggered, roughness height • PIV and surface pressure measurements were investigated to study the
effect of the different distributed leading edge roughness on the suction
surface of the airfoil.
• Results showed that small roughness postponed the stalling angle; however,
large roughness caused an early stall at smaller angle of attack.
• Also, higher surface roughness reduced the aerodynamic performance.
• Finally, maximum lift reduction increased with the increase of the Reynolds
number.
5
[36] 4.2 × 10 Not mentioned Standard commercial grit • The experiment was carried out in both static and plunging oscillation using a
subsonic wind tunnel.
• Results showed that as the angle of attack increased, the transition locations
were moved towards the leading edge.
• In addition, the transition point was moved towards the airfoil leading edge
because of surface roughness.
• They concluded that an early trailing turbulent separation is caused by the
surface roughness in the static case scenario. This will lead to airfoil
performance reduction.
• In the plunging case scenario, there is not turbulent boundary layer separation
from the surface because of the boundary layer oscillating energy.
I. F. Zidane et al.
I. F. Zidane et al.
number 1 × 106. The maximum lift coefficient reached
almost 1.75. However, the worst performance was pre-
sented by NACA 6-series at Reynolds number 43 × 104
using a real contamination modeling. Also, the clean and
rough conditions measurements were compared together
in the most of studies at different Reynolds numbers.
3.2. Erosion effects
As stated earlier, the erosion studies are limited and still
need more exploration. Sareen, Sapre and Selig [8] and
Gaudern [37] examined erosion problems experimentally
by changing the type and severity of the leading edge ero-
sion and measuring airfoil performance. Sareen, Sapre
and Selig [8] used erosion pits, gouges and leading edge
delamination with different concentrations and distribu-
tions in their tests. In addition, bugs were added at the
wind blade leading edge to simulate accumulation from
insect impact. While Gaudern [37] simulated five differ-
ent leading edge erosion stages with different depth, fea-
ture diameter and percentage chord coverage on two
commercial airfoil design models: Vestas and Risø. In ad-
dition, a zig-zag strip was used in both airfoils models to
study the effect of the surface roughness increase and
compare it with the erosion stages. Both studies con-
cluded that leading edge erosion causes a severe loss in
the airfoil performance. According to the analysis carried
out by Sareen, Sapre and Selig [8] using the wind turbine
design code PROPID, the estimated annual production
loss could reach to 25% because of the increase of the
drag force by 400–500% coupled by the decrease of the
lift force.
Figure 16. Shows the variation of the lift coefficient with the angle of attack after studying the three different ice accumulation shapes
for Calay et al.
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance
3.3. Icing effects
The uncertainty regarding wind turbine performance in icing
conditions, especially in Europe, has been investigated
through several experimental studies. Different leading edge
ice accretion shapes and sizes were investigated and
discussed through their experimental studies. For example,
Seifert and Richert [38] used a 2D NACA 4415 airfoil to
simulate different ice accumulation profiles at the leading
edge. Also, Calay et al. [39] studied three different ice shapes
which are step shape triangle, flate shape triangle and ramp
shape. Figure 16 presents the effect of the three different
ice shapes on the airfoil used by Calay et al. Step shape trian-
gle had the least effect on the lift coefficient values. Jasinski
et al. [40] and Hochart et al. [41] have studied the rime shape.
The glaze shape was introduced by Hochart et al. [41]. The
experimental results showed that rime accretion has lower
density than glaze accretion because of the air bubbles
trapped in the ice [41]. The aerodynamic data was measured
for both clean and iced airfoil. Then, this data was used to cal-
culate the power curve for the wind turbine, leading to an es-
timate of the loss of energy production for this wind turbine.
According to Papadakis et al. [42] and Broeren and
Bragg [43], there was a dramatic degradation in the airfoil
performance because of the simulated surface roughnesses.
Ice accretion causes a severe lift reduction up to 76%,
while, the drag coefficient up to 13 times that of the clean
airfoil [42]. Table III presents the ice accumulation surface
roughness used in each experimental study with their airfoil
designs and primary results. While, Figure 17 shows the
variation of the lift coefficient with the angle of attack after
studying the ice accretion for Seifert and Richert [38],
Jasinski et al.[40], Papadakis et al. [42] and Broeren and
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
 Table III. The ice accumulation surface roughness used in each experimental study with their airfoil designs and results.

Ref Re no Airfoil Surface roughness status Paper data and results

5
[38] 6.3 × 10 NACA 4415 Five different types of ice accumulation

DOI: 10.1002/er
• The aerodynamic data was used to calculate the power curve for 300 kW wind
A02, B03, B06, B22 and C44 turbine for stall and pitch controlled modes.
• Also, the loss of energy production of this wind turbine was estimated
6
[39] 1.25 × 10 NACA 0012 Step shape triangle (ss) • The ice shapes made of solid aluminum bar attached to the upper surface of the
Flate shape triangle (SF) airfoil at three different chord positions.
• The chord positions were 5%, 15% and 25% from the airfoil leading edge.
Ramp shape (SR) • Results showed that the largest lift coefficient loss was introduced by the step
shape triangle.
• Also, for all ice shape configurations lift coefficient loss between 5% and 15%
was much larger than lift coefficient loss between 15% and 25%.
• Finally, the increase of the angle of attack at 5% caused a dramatic increase in the
drag coefficient when compared to the drag coefficient increase at 15% and 25%.
6

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[40] 1 × 10 S809 Rime ice • Four different rime ice profiles were simulated on the airfoil using low-turbulence
6
2 × 10 subsonic wind tunnel.
• Rime ice is a white granular deposit of ice formed at the blade leading edge.
• The experimental data determined by the wind tunnel were then used in strip
theory code PROPID.
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance

• This code was used to estimate the ice accumulation effect on a 450-kW rated-
power, 28.7-m diameter turbine performance in both stall regulated and variable
speed/variable pitch modes.
5
[41] Between 2.65 × 10 NACA 63 415 Glaze ice • Studies showed that rime accretion has lower density than glaze accretion
5
and 7.33 × 10 Rime ice because of the air bubbles trapped in the ice.
• In addition, the accumulation mass for both types increased towards the leading
edge of the airfoil.
• The total glaze and rime accumulation masses were 11% and 6.7% of the blade
initial mass respectively.
• Moreover, the aerodynamic properties of the blade were more affected towards
the leading edge.
• The lift reduction at the leading edge was 40%, while the drag enlargement was
365% for glaze accretion and 250% for the rime accretion.
6
[43] 1.86 × 10 NACA 0011 Glaze ice • The effect of a leading edge glaze ice accumulation was presented with different
height, angle and location.
• The experiments were investigated using low speed wind tunnel.
• Results showed that the simulated ice accretion resulted a severe lift reduction up
to 76%, while, the drag coefficient was up to 13 times that of the clean airfoil.
6
[43] 1.8 × 10 NACA 23012 Ice accumulation • The airfoils were studied under different leading edge ice accumulation conditions.

(Continues)
I. F. Zidane et al.
I. F. Zidane et al. Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance

• Also, sandpaper roughness effect on the airfoil models using 80 and 150 grit sizes
Bragg [43]. As seen in this figure, airfoil S809 had the worst

• They concluded that there was a dramatic degradation in the airfoil performance
• Results obtained from ice accumulation and sandpaper roughness simulations
performance; however, NACA4415 had the best perfor-

• In addition, the performance of the airfoil models was more affected by ice
mance with maximum lift coefficient value of almost 1.17.

• Finally, NACA 23012 airfoil design had the worst performance in the ice
were validated with a previous experimental study for NACA 23012.
4. LITERATURE SURVEY
DISCUSSION
Wind turbines are sometimes exposed to severe environ-

accumulation and sandpaper roughness simulations.

Paper data and results

mental operating conditions. This might lead to contamina-

tion of the blade leading edge, hence increase the blade
because of the simulated surface roughnesses.

accumulation than the sandpaper roughness.

surface roughness. These types of contaminations are one
of the main reasons for the power output degradation. One
good example for the power loss was provided by
Khalfallah and Koliubb [18]. They reported that there was
a 50% mean power loss because of the dust accumulation
on the horizontal wind turbine airfoils during nine months
of operation. Figure 18 shows the effect of various blade
roughness and dust particle size on the power curve of the
wind turbine used in the Khalfallah and Koliubb study
was simulated.

[18]. They concluded that the power curve variability in-

creases when the blade surface roughness increases, espe-
cially in the sandy wind farm sites that have a high
roughness index and high values of the annual wind speed.
They suggested cleaning the dust from the blade surface
during short intervals to decrease the high reduction of out-
Table III. (Continued)

put. Also, the blade surface finish is very important in de-

creasing the wind turbine power curve variability because
of the dust effect.
In addition, Sareen et al. [8] predicted that even a small
Surface roughness status

amount of leading edge erosion can result in an annual en-

ergy loss of approximately 3–5%. The annual energy
losses for the heavy erosion cases with pits, gouges and de-
Grit sandpaper

lamination can reach up to 25%. On the other hand, Langel

et al. [27] predicted the power loss because of insect accu-
mulation is roughly 5%.
Seifert and Richert [38] and Jasinski et al. [40] have
predicted the power variation because of different types
of ice accumulation, which is presented in Figures 19 and
20, respectively. It is concluded that the blade ice accumu-
lation area greatly affects the wind turbine power output,
and it is important to take into consideration the shape of
NACA 3415

the blade leading edge especially for turbines working in

NLF 0414

very ice sites. The big flat leading edge may collect more
Airfoil

ice particles on blade surface, and as a result, the power

curve variability increases, and the wind turbine ability to
produce energy in icy conditions will be greatly reduced.
Finally, a blade element momentum (BEM) theory has
been used by Darbandi et al. [12] to calculate the expected
power produced from the wind turbine blades. BEM calcu-
lations showed that the expected power produced by the
Re no

wind turbine blades with rough conditions is less than that

for its equivalent clean blades. There was almost 25% drop
in the annual energy production because of roughness in
the power generation process.
Researchers have extensively concentrated on ice accu-
mulation and its effect on the aerodynamic properties of
Ref

the airfoils rather than sand accumulation and erosion

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance I. F. Zidane et al.

Figure 17. Shows the variation of the lift coefficient with the angle of attack after studying the ice accretion.

Figure 18. Shows the effect of various blade roughnesses because of the change of dust size on the power curve of the wind turbine
used in Khalfallah and Koliubb study.

cases. Consequently, further studies need to be carried out
for such problems. According to the literature review and
previous research studies, surface contamination studies
were divided into two criteria, computational and
experimental.
Several turbulent models can be used in CFD to predict
the lift and drag coefficients of an airfoil in the case of tur-
bulent flow. Most of papers used SST k–ω model because
of its simulation results accuracy and computational
efficiency. These models assume that the flow is fully tur-
bulent. A laminar to turbulent flow transition might happen
on the airfoil surface in some cases; as a result transition
models based on RANS have been developed, such as
the Transition SST model, which was used in Yao et al.
[13]. All the computational studies reviewed used two-
dimensional models and compared a change to the airfoil
geometry. On the other hand, the experimental studies con-
centrated on contamination accumulation models such as

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
I. F. Zidane et al. Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance

Figure 19. Shows the effect of various blade roughnesses because of the change of ice accumulation size on the power curve of the
wind turbine used in Seifert and Richert study.

Figure 20. Shows the effect of various blade roughnesses because of the change of ice accumulation size on the power curve of the
wind turbine used in Jasinski et al. study.

zigzag tape [29–33], 60 roughness carborundum [29] and
strip insertion [33] rather than the erosion and dust accu-
mulation. For most of the experimental paper studies, the
surface roughness height range was between 0.06% and
5% of the wind turbine blade chord.
Both the ice accumulation and the erosion studies cause
an effect on the airfoil performance (i.e. the drag and lift
coefficients) because of surface roughness. In the ice accu-
mulation studies, the surface roughness at the leading edge
of the airfoil is increased. Some differences were found de-
pending on the type and location of ice accretion. On the
other hand, material was removed at the blade leading edge
in the erosion studies. It was found that the more severe
erosion cases degraded the performance considerably more
than the accumulation cases [36].
The previous research studies evaluated the degradation
of the airfoil performance through several parameters and
conditions, such as roughness shape, accretion height,

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance I. F. Zidane et al.

Figure 21. Shows the percentage of each simulation study case.

Figure 22. Shows the percentage of each roughness condition used in the experimental studies.

accretion location and angle of attack. Most of studies sim-
ulated their results using angles of attack prior to the stall
phenomena. Also, each airfoil design has its own critical
location that surface roughness negatively affects the aero-
dynamic performance. The primary performance measures
studied were the surface lift and drag coefficients. The crit-
ical location for surface roughness is near the point of max-
imum adverse pressure gradient. Most simulation studies
were performed at Reynolds number range between
1 × 103 and 1 × 106. However, there was not a specified
trend for choosing the airfoil design of the wind turbine
blade. Several researches used blade airfoil design NACA
6 series [15,17,24,25,32–34,41], while, others used DU
97-W-300 [29], S822, S834 [30] or others.
Most of published data studied the surface roughness
contamination at the leading edge of the airfoil. However,
this does not give the exact results for contamination ef-
fects. Simulation of the real contamination accumulation
must be distributed through the blade surface with higher
concentration at the blade’s leading edge as shown in
Soltani et al. [33].
4.1. Comparison between potential
characterization methods for the airfoil
roughness
The presented literature survey was mainly classified into
numerical and experimental studies. About 40% of the

Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
I. F. Zidane et al.
research studies were numerical, while almost 60% were
experimental. This means that most of the previous re-
searches concerning the surface roughness on the airfoil
performance of wind turbine blades were dependent on
the experimental data. Figure 21 shows the percentage of
each simulation study case. Dust and ice accumulation simu-
lations account for a largest portion in the numerical research
study. Meanwhile, erosion and water droplet simulations’ ef-
fect accounts for the least portion. Figure 22 shows the per-
centage of each roughness condition used to evaluate its
effect on the airfoil performance in the experimental studies.
The experimental studies were concentrated mainly on the
accumulation model effect added on the airfoil, while the
dust effect studies have the least consideration.
The experimental studies could determine the accumula-
tion and erosion effects more accurately than the numerical
simulation models. Wind tunnel experimental studies have
the advantage of a more realistic laminar to turbulent flow
transition process in a free-transition test. Also, experimental
studies could control independent variables so that extrane-
ous and unwanted variables are removed. However, most
of the experimental models are built to scale, so the turbulent
flow detachment is usually not modeled correctly. Compared
to the numerical simulation models, which is the alternative
choice, the experimental approach is time consuming and
the cost of running the experimental tests is high.
Numerical simulation models are almost always built to full
size (1:1 scale). In a numerical simulation model, the Reynolds
number is often matched exactly, while in an experimental
study, the flow regime (i.e. laminar or turbulent) is matched
and corrections are needed to obtain results for the desired Reyn-
olds number. In contrast, numerical simulation model should
prove accurate for the full range of physical parameters and free
conditions consistent with its math model and geometry pack-
age. Numerical simulation requires a fairly high level of compu-
tational capacity especially for the complex simulation cases.
5. CONCLUSION
To date, a limited number of studies have introduced sys-
tem identification to predict the wind turbine blade perfor-
mance under different surface roughness conditions. All of
the reviewed studies have agreed that as the Reynolds
number increases, the sensitivity of the airfoil to surface
roughness decreases. On the other hand when the angle
of attack increases, the sensitivity of the airfoil to surface
roughness increases.
In the literature surveyed none of the previous studies
have suggested a solution for surface contamination prob-
lem or how to eliminate it; the research is still incomplete
and needs more exploration. Three-dimensional effects
have not been taken into account. Three-dimensional ef-
fects such as vortex shedding may be affected by damage
or accumulation, particularly near the tip of the blades. Fi-
nally, a multi-phase flow simulation for an airfoil design is
recommended to bring together the environmental effects
with the erosion effects. The multiphase flow simulation
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance
should study the airfoil performance with erosion. The col-
lected data from this simulation could be used to find the
non-linear relation between the erosion rate of the blade
and the output power. This non-linear relation could then
be used to predict the performance of the wind turbine
blade throughout its lifetime in the poor operating condi-
tions and determine when performance degraded to such
a point that replacement of the blades would be advisable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for Ms. Sariah Zidan for her assis-
tance in producing the graphical abstract artwork.
The first author acknowledges the financial support
from the Arab Academy for Science, Technology and
Maritime Transport.
REFERENCES
1. Liao Z. The evolution of wind energy policies in China
(1995–2014): an analysis based on policy instruments.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016;
56:464–472.
2. GlobalWindEnergyCouncil(GWEC).Globalwindstatistics.
(Available from: http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/up-
loads/vip/GWEC-Global-Wind-2015-Report_April-2016_
22_04.pdf.) Accessed on April 27, 2016.
3. Egypt wind energy forecast. Available from: http://
www.thewindpower.net/country_en_22_egypt.php.
Accessed on 20 July 2015.
4. Manna et al. Energy Statistics, 22nd edition, Central
Statistics Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, INDIA. Available from: http://mospi.
nic.in/Mospi_New/upload/Energy_stats_2015_26mar15.
pdf. Accessed on 18 November 2015.
5. Liu WY, Tang BP, Han JG, Lu XN, Hu NN, He ZZ. The
structure healthy condition monitoring and fault diagno-
sis methods in wind turbines: a review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015; 44:466–472.
6. Beattie, A and A Beattie. Acoustic emission monitoring of
a wind turbine blade during a fatigue test. AIAA Aero-
space Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 6–9 January 1997.
7. Zhang, S. Problems experienced with operating wind farms
in China. In Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Exhibition: Asia and Pacific, Dalian, China, 2005.
8. Sareen A, Sapre CA, Selig MS. Effects of leading edge
erosion on wind turbine blade performance. Wind
Energy 2014; 17:1531–1542.
9. Sagol E, Reggio M, Ilinca A. Issues concerning rough-
ness on wind turbine blades. Renewable and Sustain-
able Energy Reviews 2013; 23:514–525.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance
10. Qiao W, Lu D. A survey on wind turbine condition
monitoring and fault diagnosis. IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Electronics 2015; 62:1–1.
11. Egypt Weather and Climate 2011. Available from:
http://www.touregypt.net/climate.htm. Accessed on
11 October 2015.
12. Masoud Darbandi, AM, A Behrouzifar, R Jalali, GE
Schneider. Evaluating the effect of blade surface
roughness in megaawatt wind turbine performance
using analytical and numerical approaches. In 10th
International Conference on Heat Transfer, Fluid
Mechanics and Thermodynamics, Orlando, Florida,
14–26 July 2014.
13. Yao J, Yuan W, Wang J, Xie J, Zhou H, Peng M, Sun
Y. Numerical simulation of aerodynamic performance
for two dimensional wind turbine airfoils. Procedia
Engineering 2012; 31:80–86.
14. Li Yuhong, Lu Congming. A numerical simulation of
flow around a wind turbine airfoil based on transition
model. In World Non-Grid-Connected Wind Power
and Energy Conference, 2009.
15. Nianxin Ren JO. Numerical dust effect on the perfor-
mance of wind turbine airfoils. Electromagnetic Anal-
ysis and Applications 2009; 1:102–107.
16. Deshun Li, Rennian Li, Congxin Yang, Xiuyong
Wang. Effects of surface roughness on aerodynamic
performance of a wind turbine airfoil. In Power and
Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC), 2010.
17. Hassan Salem, AD, Zakaria G. CFD simulation and
analysis of performance degradation of wind turbine
blades in dusty environments. In Power and Energy
Engineering Conference (APPEEC), Madrid, Spain,
2013.
18. Khalfallah MG, Koliub AM. Effect of dust on the per-
formance of wind turbines. Desalination 2007;
209:209–220.
19. Esteban Ferrer, XM. CFD predictions of transition and
distributed roughness over a wind turbine airfoil. In
47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including
The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition,
Orlando, Florida, 2009.
20. B Mendez, X Munduate. Study of distributed roughness
effect over wind turbine airfoils performance using
CFD. In 33th Wind Energy Symposium, Kissimmee,
Florida, 2015.
21. Bai T et al. Effect of surface roughness on the aerody-
namic performance of turbine blade cascade. Propul-
sion and Power Research 2014; 3(2):82–89.
22. Kobra Gharali DAJ. Numerical modeling of an S809
airfoil under dynamic stall, erosion and high reduced
frequencies. Applied Energy 2012; 93:45–52.
23. Yan Li, Kotaro Tagawa, Lijun Wang, Shengmao Li.
Computer simulation on the icing accretions on a static
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er
I. F. Zidane et al.
straight blade used for the vertical axis wind turbine. In
International Conference On Computer Design And
Applications (ICCDA), 2010.
24. Homola MC, Virk MS, Wallenius T, Nicklasson PJ,
Sundsbø PA. Effect of atmospheric temperature and
droplet size variation on ice accretion of wind turbine
blades. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics 2010; 98(12):724–729.
25. Etemaddar M, Hansen MOL, Moan T. Wind turbine
aerodynamic response under atmospheric icing condi-
tions. Wind Energy 2014; 17(2):241–265.
26. Douvi EC, Margaris DP. Aerodynamic performance
investigation under the influence of heavy rain of a
NACA 0012 airfoil for wind turbine applications. In-
ternational Review of Mechanical Engineering 2012;
6(6):1228–1235.
27. CM Langel, R Chow, OF Hurley, CP Van Dam, RS
Ehrmann, EB White, DC Maniaci. Analysis of the im-
pact of leading edge surface degradation on wind tur-
bine performance. In 33rd Wind Energy Symposium,
Kissimmee, Florida, 2015.
28. Hummel F et al. Surface roughness effects on turbine
blade aerodynamics. Journal of Turbomachinery
2005; 127(3):453.
29. Timmer WA, Schaffarczyk AP. The effect of roughness at
high reynolds numbers on the performance of aerofoil DU
97-W-300Mod. Wind Energy 2004; 7:295–307.
30. McGranahan BD, Selig MS. Wind tunnel aerodynamic
tests of six airfoils for use on small wind turbines. Journal
of Solar Energy Engineering 2004; 126(4):986–1001.
31. MR Soltani, AH Birjandi. Effect of surface contamina-
tion on the performance of a section of a wind turbine
blade. In 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting In-
cluding The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Ex-
position, Reno, Nevada, 2007.
32. EB White, D Kutz, J Freels, JP Hidore, R Grife, Y
Sun, D Chao. Leading-edge roughness effects on
633-418 airfoil performance. In 49th AIAA Aero-
space Sciences Meeting Including The New Horizons
Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, Florida,
2011.
33. Soltani MR, Birjandi AH, Seddighi Moorani M.
Effect of surface contamination on the performance
of a section of a wind turbine blade. Scientia Iranica
2011; 18(3):349–357.
34. Timmer, WA. An overview of NACA 6-digit airfoil
series characteristics with reference to airfoils for
large wind turbine blades. In 47th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting Including The New Horizons
Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, Florida,
2009.
35. Y Zhang, T.I.a.H.H., CFD predictions of transition and
distributed roughness over a wind turbine airfoil. In
 I. F. Zidane et al.
47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including
The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition,
Orlando, Florida, 2011.
36. Rasi Marzabadi F, Soltani MR. Effect of leading-edge
roughness on boundary layer transition of an oscillat-
ing airfoil’. Scientia Iranica 2013; 20(3):508–515.
37. Audern N. A practical study of the aerodynamic im-
pact of wind turbine blade leading edge erosion. Jour-
nal of Physics: Conference Series 2014; 524(1):1–10.
38. Richert F, Seifert H. Aerodynamics of iced airfoils and their
influence on loads and power production. In the European
Wind Energy Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 1997.
39. Calay RK, Hold-oacute A, Mayman P, Lun I. Experi-
mental simulation of runback ice. Journal of Aircraft
1997; 34(2):206–212.
View publication stats
Effects of blade surface roughness on wind turbine performance
40. Jasinski WJ, Noe SC, Selig MS, Bragg MB. Wind tur-
bine performance under icing conditions. Journal
of Solar Energy Engineering 1998; 120(1):60–65.
41. Hochart C, Fortin G, Perron J, Ilinca A. Wind turbine
performance under icing conditions. Wind Energy
2008; 11(4):319–333.
42. M Papadakis, S Alansan, M Seltmann. Experimental
study of simulated ice shapes on a NACA 0011 airfoil.
In 37th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
Reno, NV, 1999.
43. Broeren AP, Bragg MB. Effect of airfoil geometry on
performance with simulated intercycle Ice accretions.
Journal of Aircraft 2005; 42(1):121–130.
Int. J. Energy Res. (2016) © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/er