849847

research-article2019
WIE0010.1177/0309524X19849847Wind EngineeringKhalil et al.

Research Article

Wind Engineering

Improvement of aerodynamic 1­–12

© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
performance of a small wind turbine sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0309524X19849847
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309524X19849847
journals.sagepub.com/home/wie

Yassine Khalil1,2, Lhoussaine Tenghiri1,2, Farid Abdi1

and Anas Bentamy2

Abstract
The aerodynamic performance of horizontal-axis wind turbines is strongly dependent on many parameters, among which the airfoil
type and the blade geometry (mainly defined by the chord and the twist distributions) are considered the most critical ones. In
this article, an approach giving the appropriate airfoil for a small wind turbine design was conducted by performing an aerodynamic
improvement of the blade’s airfoil. First, a preliminary design of the rotor blades of a small wind turbine (11 kW) was conducted using
the small wind turbine rotor design code. This preliminary approach was done for different airfoils, and it resulted in a maximum
power coefficient of 0.40. Then, the aerodynamic efficiency of the wind turbine was improved by modifying the geometry of the
airfoils. This technique targets the optimization of the lift-to-drag ratio (Cl/Cd) of the airfoil within a range of angles of attack. Also,
a non-uniform rational B-spline approximation of the airfoil was adopted in order to reduce the number of the design variables of
the optimization. This methodology determined the best airfoil for the design of a small wind turbine, and it gave an improved power
coefficient of 0.42.

Keywords
Small wind turbine, aerodynamic optimization, NURBS, airfoil, SWRDC, XFOIL

Introduction
Small wind turbines are defined by an output power less than 50 kW (Wood, 2011). They usually operate at low wind
speed and low Reynolds numbers. The rotor blades are considered the most important components, as their aerodynamic
efficiency affects the overall performance of the turbine system. The blade design is determined by different parameters,
and the airfoil, which defines the cross-sectional shape of the blade, is the most important one (Chen et al., 2013; Ram
et al., 2008; Song and Lubitz, 2014). For small wind turbines, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)
airfoils are not suitable, as they are not designed for low Reynolds numbers (Ram et al., 2008). For this reason, several
airfoils have been specifically designed for use in the small wind energy industry (Giguère and Selig, 1998; Oluseyi et al.,
2015). In designing a wind turbine blade, the selection of the airfoil as well as the determination of an optimal distribution
of the chord and the twist angle must be done in such a way that the aerodynamic efficiency of the rotor blade is as high as
possible. Usually, the blade optimization is limited to the determination of an optimal chord length and twist angle along
the blade span. However, the geometry of the airfoil can also be optimized. This can be done using Bezier curve (Chen
et al., 2014; Ram et al., 2008; Vesel, 2009) and non-uniform rational B-spline (NURBS) method (Dahl and Fuglsang,
1998; Lépine and Guibault, 1999; Mauclère, 2009), which determine the upper and the lower surface of the airfoil. In this
case, the control points are used as design variables to optimize the lift-to-drag ratio (Cl/Cd). The latter can be evaluated
using the airfoil analysis code XFOIL (Drela, 1989). The optimal values of the design variables of every aerodynamic
optimization are determined either by the heuristic methods or the gradient methods. Heuristic methods include genetic
algorithm (Vesel, 2009), particle swarm optimization (PSO), artificial bee colony (ABC; Eminoglu and Ayasun, 2014),
and quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm (Neto et al., 2012). These methods provide a global solution, but they are

1Laboratory of Signals, Systems and Components, Faculty of Sciences and Techniques, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco
2School of Science and Engineering, Al Akhawayn University, Ifrane, Morocco

Corresponding author:
Yassine Khalil, School of Science and Engineering, Al Akhawayn University, Ifrane 53000, Morocco.
Email: yassine.khalil89@gmail.com
2 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Table 1.  Fundamental design parameters for the small wind turbine design.

Design parameters Value Unit

Wind turbine generator rated power 11 kW
Design wind speed (rated wind speed) 10.5 m/s
Number of blades 3 −
Design tip speed ratio 6 −
Air density 1.225 Kg/m3
Rotor radius 3.5 m
Design rotational speed 172 r/min
Design Reynolds number 600,000 −

known for their long computational time. However, gradient methods are relatively fast, but they might only provide a
local solution (Cencelli, 2006; Press et al., 1987). This article presents the improvement of the aerodynamic performance
of a small wind turbine of 11 kW by following three main steps. First, a preliminary design of the wind turbine was per-
formed by defining the rotor design parameters. Then, the blade geometry (the chord and the twist angle distributions) as
well as the rotor power coefficient was determined using small wind turbine rotor design code (SWRDC; Sessarego and
Wood, 2015). SWRDC code relies on the blade element momentum (BEM) theory to evaluate the rotor power coefficient.
Second, the airfoil was approximated by the NURBS method. With this approach, the displacement of the control points
influences only a local modification of the curve, which is not the case for Bezier curves (Bentamy et al., 2002). Finally,
the ordinates of the control points were introduced as design variables in order to improve the lift-to-drag ratio of the
selected airfoils.

Preliminary design
The small wind turbine targeted in this study has a rated output power of 11 kW. The Reynolds number of the design is
600,000 and the tip speed ratio (TSR) is 6. The diameter of the rotor was calculated using equation (1), which gives a
value of 7 m (Table 1)

1
P= CP ρπR 2 V3 (1)
2

where V is the design wind speed, taken as 10.5 m/s; ρ is the air density, taken as 1.225 kg/m3; and Cp is the optimal value of
the power coefficient (including the aerodynamic, the electrical, and the mechanical efficiencies), taken as 0.4 (Wood, 2011).
The airfoil selection should be done by respecting two criteria. To obtain high aerodynamic performances, the airfoil
should have a high lift-to-drag ratio. Besides, in order to make the blade able to withstand the structural loads and to
provide good performance for the manufacture, the airfoils should have high thicknesses (Song, 2012). However, increas-
ing the thickness leads to a decrease in the lift-to-drag ratio (Giguère and Selig, 1997). In the literature, there are several
airfoils used for the design of small wind turbines, and they work well at low Reynolds numbers, such as the FX63-137,
SD2030, E387 (Selig and McGranahan, 2004), and SG6043 (Selig et al., 1995). In addition, there are some thick airfoils
with high aerodynamic performance, such as the DU93W210 airfoil, which are used for the design of small wind turbine
blades (Wang et al., 2012). These five airfoils were adopted to build the blade geometry and to compare the performance
of the wind turbine obtained for each airfoil. Figure 1 shows the shapes of these airfoils. The characteristics of the selected
airfoils are summarized in Table 2.
To define the whole geometry (the chord and twist angle distributions) of the blade, a SWRDC code was adopted. The
SWRDC (Sessarego, 2013) code was developed at the University of Calgary. It is an optimization code whose design vari-
ables are the chord and the twist distributions, and the objective function is a combination of the power coefficient, noise,
mass, and starting time (Wood, 2011). In this study, the power coefficient was the only parameter that was considered for the
aerodynamic optimization. The input of the code consists of the Reynolds number, the coordinate of the airfoils, and their
aerodynamic characteristic data (Cl and Cd at different angles of attack). The values of the lift and the drag coefficients were
extracted by XFOIL and extrapolated to a range of 360° using Viterna method (which is introduced in Q-Blade; Liu et al.,
2013; Marten and Wendler, 2013; Viterna and Corrigan, 1981). Figure 2 shows a screenshot of the SWRDC interface.
The results generated by the code are the chord and the twist angle distributions as well as the power coefficient. Figure
3 shows the distributions of the chord and the twist angle obtained. The chord and the twist distributions are approximately
Khalil et al. 3

Figure 1.  Shapes of the selected airfoils.

Table 2.  Characteristics of the airfoils used in this study.

Airfoils Lift–drag ratio Thickness (%) Angle of attack (degrees)

SG6043 114.84 10 2.5
SD2030 71.3 8.56 3.5
E387 99 9.07 2.5
FX63-137 114.5 13.66 2.5
DU93W210 93.97 21 5

Figure 2.  Graphical user interface (GUI) of the SWRDC program.

4 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Figure 3.  Chord and twist distributions along the blade.

Figure 4.  Variation of the power coefficient as a function of the tip speed ratio λ.

linear (Liu et al., 2013; Manwell and McGowan, 2009). Figure 4 shows the power coefficient curves of the wind turbine
for the selected airfoils. The results show that the power coefficient obtained for the FX63-137 airfoil gives the best aero-
dynamic performance of the wind turbine. Table 3 shows the results obtained for the other airfoils.
As Table 3 shows, the FX63-137 airfoil gives the best aerodynamic performance of the wind turbine as the power
coefficient reached a value of 0.4 at the design TSR (λ = 6). Generally, the power coefficient of a wind turbine can attain
a maximum value of 0.45. In order to improve the aerodynamic efficiency of the wind turbine of the preliminary design,
a geometric optimization is added to the SWRDC optimization algorithm, which keeps the geometry constant and has the
chord length and twist distribution as design variables. The objective is to enhance the lift-to-drag ratio as the geometry
is altered through an aerodynamic optimization, with the airfoil coordinates as design variables. Usually, the geometry
of the airfoils is defined by a number of points around 100 (Mukesh et al., 2014). Any optimization necessitates a long
computational time. To accelerate the optimization, the number of points which represent the airfoil should be reduced by
conducting a geometric optimization.

Geometric optimization
The improvement of the aerodynamic performance of the selected airfoils requires the implementation of these coordi-
nates as design variables, which will necessitate a long computational time. To speed up the optimization, the number of
the design variables defining the airfoil shape should be reduced. Among the methods used for the representation of the
curves, the method of NURBS is widely used to define the geometry of the airfoils (Lépine and Trépanier, 2000). This
method is a parametric representation of the curves, which is expressed by equations (2) and (3)
Khalil et al. 5

Table 3.  Power coefficient given by the airfoils.

Airfoils SG6043 SD2030 E387 FX63-137 DU93W210

Cp (λ = 6) 0.36 0.27 0.30 0.40 0.35

n
C(u) = ∑R
i=0
i,p ( u ) Pi (2)

Ni, p ( u ) ωi
R i,p ( u ) = n
(3)
∑N
j= 0
j, p ( u ) ωi

In this formula, the positive integers (n + 1) and (p) are the number of control points Pi and the degree of the parametric
NURBS curve C(u) , respectively. The rational function R i, p (u ) is expressed by the non-rational B-spline basis functions.
Ni, p (u ) is defined on the knot vector U (equation 6) and the real numbers (ωi ) . The non-rational B-spline basis function
Ni, p (u ) is assumed to be normalized, and its sum over a knot span equals one. The weight (ωi ) equals unity for B-spline
curves. (Ni, p ) represents the basis functions which are expressed by the recurrence defined in equations (4) and (5)

 1 u ≤ u < u i +1
Ni,0 ( u ) =  i (4)
0 else

u − ui u i + p +1 − u
Ni,p ( u ) = Ni, p −1 ( u ) + Ni +1, p −1 ( u ) (5)
ui+p − ui u i + p +1 − u i +1

U = {0
,…
, 0 , u p +1 ,… , u n +1 ,1
,… ,1} (6)
p +1 p +1

where (u i ) represents the elements of the knot vector (see equation (6)) which is constructed by n + p + 1 elements. More
definitions of the NURBS method are found in the literature (Piegl and Tiller, 1996). Figure 5 shows an example of a
NURBS curve constructed by seven control points.
The NURBS method was adopted to construct the approximation curves for the selected airfoils. First, the parameters
and the knot vector were evaluated by the chord length and the averaging methods (Piegl and Tiller, 1996). The first
method gives a good parametrization of the curve based on its length. This method is adopted since it is the most widely
used. The second method evaluates the elements of the knot vector, and it is recommended to be combined with the chord
length method. Second, since the coordinates of the airfoil were defined, a cubic interpolation was performed to extract
the values of the control points (de Maturit and Guillod, 2008; Sobester and Keane, 1964). Finally, an approximation of
the airfoil was performed by a reduced number of control points.
To have an accepted approximation of an airfoil in the aerodynamic context, the maximum error between the airfoil
and its approximation should respect the criteria of the manufacture (<2 × 10−4) and the aerodynamic (<8 × 10−5). Figure
6 shows an airfoil with its approximation. The distances (di) represent the errors between both curves. These errors are
evaluated by projecting the coordinates of the initial airfoil on its approximation.
In this study, the approximation of the selected airfoils was performed by a number of control points between 15 and
22. The FX63-137 airfoil, which gave the best aerodynamic performance, was represented by 15 control points, and the
maximum distance between the airfoil and its approximation was 0.0011. Figure 7 represents the curves of the FX63-137
airfoil, its approximation, and the 15 control points. The results of the other airfoils are presented in Table 4.
Because the maximum distance obtained between the airfoil and its approximation was higher than the aerodynamic
tolerance, a geometric optimization was conducted. In this optimization, the objective function was a combination of the
average and the maximum distances between the airfoil and its approximation (equation 7; Lépine and Guibault, 1999). The
design variables were the abscissa, the ordinates, and the weights of the control points. The first and the last control points
were kept constant during the optimization. The initial guess was constructed by the control points of the initial approxi-
mation. To solve this nonlinear problem, a gradient-based optimization algorithm (Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno
6 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Figure 5.  NURBS curve of seven control points (Piegl and Tiller, 1996).

Figure 6.  Evaluation of the distance between two airfoils.

Figure 7.  Initial approximation of the FX63-137 airfoil.

embedded in Fmincon in MATLAB) was used (Saxén and Bernander, 2014). Figure 8 represents the algorithm of this
geometric optimization.

( 3*AVERAGE + MAXIMUM ) (7)

F=
2

This optimization aims to minimize the maximum distance between the airfoils and their approximations in order to
comply with the aerodynamic tolerance. The results obtained by this optimization are shown in Table 4. For instance, the
maximum distance between the FX63-137 airfoil and its approximation is 5.5 × 10−5. Figure 9 shows the variation of the
objective function along with the iterations, and Figure 10 shows the distribution of the control points and the optimal
approximation of the airfoil. As Figure 9 shows, the final objective function value is about 6.44 × 10−5. It represents a
combination of the average (2.44 × 10−5) and the maximum (5.55 × 10−5) distances.
As shown in Table 4, the approximations obtained for the airfoils comply with the aerodynamic criterion (maximum
distance < 8 × 10−5) and with the criterion of the manufacture (maximum distance < 2 × 10−4). One can observe that the
sole approximation E387 failed to satisfy the aerodynamic criteria.
Khalil et al. 7

Figure 8.  Geometric optimization algorithm.

Table 4.  Results before and after geometric optimization of the airfoils.

Airfoils Control points Maximum error before Maximum error after

optimization optimization
FX63-137 15 0.0011 5.5 × 10−5
SD2030 22 1.92 × 10−4 7.48 × 10−5
E387 20 3.93 × 10−4 9.02 × 10−5
SG6043 21 5.89 × 10−4 7.15 × 10−5
DU93W210 20 6.16 × 10−4 7.8 × 10−5

Figure 9.  Objective function in function of the iterations for FX63-137 airfoil.

To make sure that the airfoils and their approximations have the same aerodynamic performance, a comparison between
the pressure curves of the airfoils and their approximations was performed. Figure 11 shows the pressure curves of the
FX63-137 airfoil and its approximation for a Reynolds number of 600,000. The pressure curves obtained coincided, so the
aerodynamic performances of both airfoils are similar.
8 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Figure 10.  Optimal approximation of the FX63-137 airfoil.

Figure 11.  Pressure curves of the FX63-137 airfoil and its approximation.

As a result, the airfoils were approximated by NURBS curves defined by a number of control points between 15 and
22. In addition, the maximum distances between the airfoils and their approximations were lower than the aerodynamic
tolerance, and their pressure curves coincided. Therefore, these approximations can be used as initial guesses in the aero-
dynamic optimization in order to improve the efficiency of the wind turbine.

Improvement of the airfoil performance

An aerodynamic optimization of the airfoils was performed to increase their lift-to-drag ratio in order to improve the
aerodynamic efficiency of the blade. The optimization was conducted by the PSO method (Press et al., 1987). The design
variables chosen were the y-ordinates of the control points of the NURBS approximation of each airfoil. The first and
the last control points as well as the weights and the abscissa were kept constant during the optimization to reduce the
computational time. The initial guess of the optimization was represented by the control points of the optimal approxima-
tion obtained in the previous section. The objective function was represented by the drag-to-lift ratio at different angles
of attack. To have a good performance of the blade, the design angle of attack of the airfoil should be chosen close to
the optimum angle where the maximum lift-to-drag is reached (Wood, 2011). The selected airfoils (FX63-137, SG6043,
SD2030, SD93W210, and E387) reached their maximum lift-to-drag at angles of attack between 2.5° and 5°. Therefore,
the formulation of the objective function was made by the average of the drag-to-lift ratio at the angles 0°, 1°, 2°, 3°, 4°,
and 5°. The lift and the drag coefficients were evaluated using XFOIL. Equation (8) presents the formulation of the objec-
tive function of this optimization. Figure 12 summarizes the process used for this airfoil optimization

1
4  Cd ( αi ) 
F=
6 ∑  Cl ( α )  (8)
i =0 i
Khalil et al. 9

Figure 12.  Airfoil optimization algorithm.

Table 5.  Results of the airfoils optimization.

Airfoils Lift–drag ratio Power coefficient (λ = 6) Maximum thickness (%)

FX63-137 optimized 141.4 0.42 13.60
SG6043 optimized 135 0.36 10.42
SD2030 optimized 86.8 0.27 8.58
E387 optimized 107.5 0.30 9.55
DU93W210 optimized 129.06 0.41 19.62

Figure 13.  Curves of the optimized airfoils.

This optimization targeted the improvement of the aerodynamic performance of the airfoil (lift-to-drag ratio). For
instance, the maximum lift-to-drag ratio of the FX63-137 increased from the value 114 to the value 141. The optimal
values of the other airfoils are presented in Table 5. Figure 13 shows the curves of the optimal airfoils obtained after
optimization. Also, it is shown in Figure 14 that the lift-to-drag ratio (for a Reynolds number of 600,000) of the FX63-
137 optimized airfoil keeps its maximum value for a range of angles of attack from 2.5° to 5°, which means that the wind
turbine has the priority to work efficiently with this airfoil.
The optimized airfoils were introduced in the SWRDC code to evaluate the aerodynamic efficiency of the wind turbine
(power coefficient). The chord and the twist distributions obtained were the same as the preliminary design. The results
obtained showed an improvement of the power coefficient for the FX63-137 optimized and the DU93W210 optimized
10 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Figure 14.  Lift–drag ratio for the FX63-137 airfoil and the optimal airfoil.

Figure 15.  Variation of the power coefficient as a function of the tip speed ratio λ.

airfoils as they reached the values 0.42 and 0.41, respectively. However, the power coefficient for the other airfoils stayed
constant at the same values obtained before optimization. Figure 15 presents the power curves for a design Reynolds
number of 600,000 of the rotor blades designed by introducing the optimized airfoils.

Results and discussion

The preliminary design provided power coefficients between 0.27 and 0.40. To improve the aerodynamic efficiency of the
design, an aerodynamic optimization of the airfoils was conducted. First, a NURBS approximation of the airfoils was per-
formed, and the results satisfied the aerodynamic requirements. The FX63-137, SD2030, E387, SG6043, and DU93W210
airfoils were approximated by 15, 22, 20, 21, and 20 control points, respectively. Second, the ordinates of these control points
were used as initial guess of design variables in order to optimize the airfoils by increasing their lift-to-drag ratio within a
range of angles of attack. As a result, this ratio improved for all the selected airfoils, and its variation was between 8.5% and
37%, which is better than similar work (6.61% and 14.9%; Li et al., 2010; Ram et al., 2008). The FX63-137 airfoil attained
Khalil et al. 11

the highest value as its lift-to-drag ratio increased from 114 to 145. Furthermore, the maximum variation of the thicknesses
of the airfoils did not exceed the value of 6.52% (<10%), which is required for the airfoil optimization (Ju and Zhang, 2012).
The design of the blades for the small wind turbine was done by the optimized airfoils. The results show an improvement of
the power coefficient of the wind turbine to a value of 0.42 obtained for the FX63-137 optimized airfoil.
Finally, by doing a comparison between the airfoils, the FX63-137 optimized airfoil gives the best results as it gives
an airfoil with acceptable thickness, best lift-to-drag ratio, and best power coefficient. In addition, this airfoil is designed
for low Reynolds number which is the case for small wind turbines. We deduce that the optimized airfoil obtained from
FX63-137 has the priority to be chosen for the design of this small wind turbine.

Conclusion
In this article, an approach of a small wind turbine blade design was performed. First, a preliminary design was conducted
using the SWRDC code to determine the optimal blade geometry and to evaluate the aerodynamic efficiency of the wind
turbine for different airfoils. Second, an enhancement of the aerodynamic performance of the selected airfoils was real-
ized by optimizing the lift-to-drag ratio within a range of angles of attack. To reduce the number of the design variables
in the latter optimization, the airfoil was approximated by the NURBS method, respecting the criteria of both the aerody-
namic and the manufacture tolerances. In addition, a comparison between the optimized airfoils was performed based on
their aerodynamic performances (lift-to-drag ratio), their thicknesses, and the power coefficient obtained for each airfoil.
Finally, the FX63-137 optimized airfoil, which reaches a power coefficient of 0.42, has the priority to be selected for the
design of a small wind turbine of 11 kW.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
work reported in this research article was funded by the Institute of Research in Solar Energy and New Energies (IRESEN).

ORCID iD
Anas Bentamy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7711-3183

References
Bentamy A, Trépanier J and Guibault F (2002) Wing shape optimization using a constrained NURBS surface geometrical representation.
In: Proceedings of the ICAS congress, pp. 1–11. Available at: http://icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2002/PAPERS/123.PDF
Cencelli NA (2006) Aerodynamic optimisation of a small-scale wind turbine blade for low windspeed conditions. Available at:
https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/353
Chen J, Wang Q, Pang X, et al. (2013) Improvement of airfoil design using smooth curvature technique. Renewable Energy 51:
426–435.
Chen X, Katz N and Peters D (2014) Optimization of wind turbine airfoils/blades and wind farm layouts. PhD Dissertation. Available
at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/1228/
Dahl KS and Fuglsang P (1998) Design of the wind turbine airfoil family RISØ-A-XX. Available at: http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/
orbit:87932/datastreams/file_7731729/content
de Maturit T and Guillod T (2008) Interpolations, courbes de B’ezier et B-splines. Available at: http://www.sens-neuchatel.ch/bulletin/
no34/art3-34.pdf
Drela M (1989) XFOIL: An analysis and design system for low Reynolds number airfoils. Available at: http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/
papers/xfoil_sv.pdf
Eminoglu U and Ayasun S (2014) Modeling and design optimization of variable-speed wind turbine systems. Energies 7(1): 402–419.
Giguère P and Selig MS (1997) Low Reynolds number airfoils for small horizontal axis wind turbines. Wind Engineering 21: 367–380.
Giguère P and Selig MS (1998) New airfoils for small horizontal axis wind turbines. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 120(2):
108–114.
Ju YP and Zhang CH (2012) Multi-point robust design optimization of wind turbine airfoil under geometric uncertainty. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 226(2): 245–261.
Lépine J and Guibault F (1999) Optimization of a curve approximation based on NURBS interpolation. In: Proceedings of the curve
and surface design, vol. 1, Saint-Malo, 1–7 July, pp. 213–220. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Lépine J and Trépanier J (2000) Wing aerodynamic design using an optimized NURBS geometrical representation. In: Proceedings of
the ICAS congress, pp. 1–9. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/12c0/cc5276564b72446d5a7b65782923f2575742.pdf
12 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Li J-Y, Li R, Gao Y, et al. (2010) Aerodynamic optimization of wind turbine airfoils using response surface techniques. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 224(6): 827–838.
Liu X, Wang L and Tang X (2013) Optimized linearization of chord and twist angle profiles for fixed-pitch fixed-speed wind turbine
blades. Renewable Energy 57: 111–119.
Manwell J and McGowan J (2009) Wind Energy Explained: Theory, Design and Application (2nd edn). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Marten D and Wendler J (2013) QBlade guidelines. Available at: http://q-blade.org/project_images/files/guidelines_v06.pdf
Mauclère X (2009) Automatic 2D airfoil generation, evaluation and optimisation using MATLAB and XFOIL. Mycotoxin Research
6(2): 100.
Mukesh R, Lingadurai K and Selvakumar U (2014) Airfoil shape optimization using non-traditional optimization technique and its
validation. Journal of King Saud University–Engineering Sciences 26(2): 191–197.
Neto JXV, Quadros RC, Coelho LDS, et al. (2012) Wind turbine blade aerodynamic design through quantum-inspired evolutionary
algorithm. In: Proceedings of the EWEA 2012—European wind energy conference & exhibition, Copenhagen, 16–19 April.
Oluseyi OA, Opeyemi O, Abiodun AS, et al. (2015) Novel airfoil design for small horizontal axis wind turbine: A preliminary result. In:
Proceedings of the third Southern African solar energy conference, pp. 181–186. Available at: http://eprints.covenantuniversity.
edu.ng/7388/1/Ajayi_Novel_2015%281%29.pdf
Piegl L and Tiller W (1996) The NURBS Book (Computer-aided design). New York: Springer.
Press W, Teukolsky S, Vetterling W, et al. (1987) Numerical recipes: The art of scientific computing. Technometrics 29: 501–502.
Ram KR, Lal S and Ahmed MR (2008) Airfoil optimization for small wind turbines using multi objective genetic algorithm. Test.
Available at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/192055/
Saxén A and Bernander KB (2014) Parallel global optimization of ABB’s metal process models using Matlab. Available at: http://
www.it.uu.se/edu/course/homepage/projektTDB/ht13/project02/Project-02-report.pdf
Selig MS and McGranahan BD (2004) Wind tunnel aerodynamic tests of six airfoils for use on small wind turbines. Journal of Solar
Energy Engineering 126: 986–1001.
Selig MS, Guglielmo JJ, Broeren AP, et al. (1995) Summary of Low-Speed Airfoil Data. Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical
Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Available at: https://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/uiuc_lsat/Low-Speed-
Airfoil-Data-V1.pdf
Sessarego M (2013) Small Wind-Turbine Rotor Design Code (SWRDC) User’s Guide. Calgary, AL, Canada. Department of
Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada. Available at: https://usermanual.wiki/Document/
UserGuide.2082986090.pdf
Sessarego M and Wood D (2015) Multi-dimensional optimization of small wind turbine blades. Renewables: Wind, Water, and Solar
2: 9.
Sobester A and Keane J (1964) Airfoil design via cubic splines: Ferguson’s curves revisited. Available at: https://eprints.soton.
ac.uk/50031/1/Sobe07.pdf
Song Q (2012) Design, fabrication, and testing of a new small wind turbine blade. Available at: https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/
handle/10214/3542
Song Q and Lubitz D (2014) Design and testing of a new small wind turbine blade. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 136(3): 34502.
Vesel RW (2009) Optimization of a wind turbine rotor with variable airfoil shape via a genetic algorithm. In: Population. pp. 1–91.
Available at: https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/44504/Richard-Vesel-thesis.pdf
Viterna LA and Corrigan RD (1981) Fixed pitch rotor performance of large horizontal axis wind turbines. In: Proceedings of DOE/NASA
workshop on large horizontal axis wind turbine. Available at: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19830010962.pdf
Wang L, Tang X and Liu X (2012) Blade design optimisation for fixed-pitch fixed-speed wind turbines. ISRN Renewable Energy 2012:
682859.
Wood D (2011) Small Wind Turbines: Analysis, Design, and Application (Green Energy and Technology Series, ed. H Machrafi).
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates: Bentham Science.