Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia

The effect of the integral length scale of turbulence on a wind

turbine aerofoil
Giulio Vita a, b, *, Hassan Hemida b, Thomas Andrianne c, Charalampos Baniotopoulos b
a
Department of Industrial Engineering – DIEF, School of Engineering, University of Florence, Italy
b
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Birmingham, UK
c
Wind Tunnel Lab, Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Li
ege Belgium

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The effect of free stream turbulence on a DU96w180 wind turbine aerofoil is investigated through wind tunnel
Wind turbine aerofoil experiments. Wind turbine blades experience large scale, high intensity turbulent inflow during their service life.
Integral length scale of turbulence However, the effect of turbulence is normally neglected in the assessment of their aerodynamic performance. This
Atmospheric turbulence
is normally justified based on common assumptions on the effect of the integral length scale of turbulence, which
Aerodynamics
Wind tunnel
supposedly only acts in the low-frequency range of the energy spectrum, hence affecting the angle of attack
Passive grid instead of the aerodynamic behaviour. In this study, an experimental setup implementing passive grids is
developed to vary independently turbulence intensity and integral length scale in wind tunnel testing, with a
range spanning I~5–15% and Le8
33 cm respectively. Results show that turbulence effects are not negligible
even at the largest integral length scales, provided that a critical value for the turbulence intensity is achieved.
Turbulence is found to increase mean and fluctuating Lift and delay separation in stalled conditions.

1. Introduction
Two decades since the first applications, urban wind energy remains a
bizarre niche of wind energy, with a poor track record and too much
room for improvement (Micallef and van Bussel, 2018; Stathopoulos
et al., 2018). The small wind turbine technology is largely borrowed from
large wind farms. As a result not much results are available on the urban
wind resource, or the response of devices to the turbulence conditions
found therein (Balduzzi et al., 2012; Ishugah et al., 2014; Battisti et al.,
2018). If some progress has been made in the understanding of the wind

resource (Emeis, 2014; Sarki c Glumac, Hemida and H€ offer, 2018), the
positioning of a wind turbines in a built environment (Balduzzi et al.,
2012; Toja-Silva et al., 2016), or the design optimisation of small wind
turbines (Rezaeiha et al., 2018), the aerodynamic interaction between a
rotor and ambient turbulence is a lack in the knowledge that prevents the
accurate assessment of the performance (Arnfield, 2003; Bak, 2007; van
Kuik et al., 2016).
Although much research has been devoted to wind turbine perfor-
mance in turbulence, a clear understanding and consensus on the phys-
ical mechanism affecting the aerodynamic interaction is yet to be
achieved. Studies on the structural loading (Frandsen, 2007; Kelly et al.,
2014), the development of aeroelastic instabilities (Hansen, 2007), and
the fatigue limit state (Mouzakis et al., 1999; Lindeboom, 2010; Mücke
et al., 2011; Toft et al., 2016) all agree that turbulence has a major in-
fluence on performance, bringing the IEC standard on small wind tur-
bines (IEC 61400-2:2013 Wind turbines - Part 2: Small wind turbines,
2013) to specifically forbid the installation of a small wind turbine in
locations where the turbulence intensity exceeds Iu > 15%. The appro-
priateness of such a limitation is debated (Tabrizi et al., 2015; Evans
et al., 2017; KC, Whale and Urmee, 2019), as more research on the tur-
bulence characteristics found at installation sites is necessary to advance
knowledge (Ishugah et al., 2014; Micallef and van Bussel, 2018; Sta-
thopoulos et al., 2018). As regards the power output of small wind tur-
bines, most studies suggest that ambient turbulence improves
performance at low wind speed while impairing it at high wind speed
(Milan et al., 2013; St Martin et al., 2016; Carbo Molina, Bartoli and De
Troyer, 2017; Tang et al., 2019). While the vast majority of works rely on
turbulent flow conditions recreated in wind tunnel or numerical testing
to reach these conclusions (Walker, 2011; Al-Abadi et al., 2016), large
scale experimental evidence of improved power performance seems to
confirm the beneficial effect of turbulence at low speed is present in in-
dustrial scale wind farms (Albers et al., 2007; Wagner, 2010). The limi-
tation in the scope of results published so far might explain the different
trend observed in a recent study, which found that turbulence has a

* Corresponding author. Department of Industrial Engineering – DIEF, School of Engineering, University of Florence, Italy.
E-mail address: g.vita@bham.ac.uk (G. Vita).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104235
Received 31 January 2020; Received in revised form 8 May 2020; Accepted 8 May 2020
Available online 31 July 2020
0167-6105/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Vita et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235

Fig. 1. Normalised power curve of a HAWT as measured frome the sea and city
sectors, predicted using the method described in Sunderland et al. (2013), and
the design power curve (after data published in Pagnini et al., 2015).
blade span-wise flow and utilising 2D aerofoil data (Hau, 2013). These
are obtained in controlled laminar flow conditions (Tangler, 2002;
Sørensen, 2011). BEM theory accounts for ambient turbulence as an
unsteady fluctuation of the angle of attack (Hansen et al., 2006). The
justification for this approach resides on the fact that the integral length
scale of atmospheric flows is normally much larger than the aerofoil
chord (Miley, 1982; Hand et al., 2001; Buresti, 2012). However, this
assertion is based on knowledge on atmospheric turbulence borrowed
from large scale wind farms, hence not representative of conditions found
in urban winds. In fact, there is no facility specifically designed to
reproduce urban wind inflow, i.e. having large integral length scales
Lu ≫ c in conjunction with high turbulence intensity Iu e15 % (Vita et al.,
2018). First investigations on the aerodynamic performance of an aero-
foil in ambient turbulence were undertaken to improve wind tunnel
testing accuracy, i.e. measuring the effect of low turbulence intensities
1–2% at small angles of attack (Mueller et al., 1983; Hoffmann, 1991;
Huang and Lee, 1999). These early studies found turbulence to enhance
the performance of aerofoils, causing a delay in stall, and increasing
maximum lift and aerodynamic performance (or lift-to-drag ratio). The
physical mechanism is analogous to that found in bluff bodies, with two

detrimental effect on power output regardless of the wind speed (Pagnini

et al., 2015). Fig. 1 shows the power curve of a horizontal axis wind
turbine (HAWT) installed in an urban seafront location alongside a ver-
tical axis wind turbine (VAWT). Power measurements were conditionally
split depending on the wind direction, i.e. undisturbed conditions from
the sea or turbulence from the city. The higher turbulence intensity
(20–40%) from the city sector was linked with a drop in performance of
e80 %. While some other technical issues might contribute to the drop in
power output (although observed for two different wind turbine, in
absence of any damage), this work clearly shows a correlation between a
lower power performance and enhanced turbulence in the installation
site (Pagnini et al., 2018).
The aerodynamic forces experienced by a wind turbine are calculated
using the blade element momentum (BEM) theory, i.e. neglecting the Fig. 3. The DU 96w180 aerofoil and the position of the pressure taps.

Table 1
Experiments on effect of turbulent inflow on WT blades. PG/AG Active/Passive grid, PT pressure taps.
Authors/year chord c [m] grid type t. int. TI [-] len. sc. L/c measures Notes

Present Study 0.125 PG 0.05–0.15 0.50–2.80 40 PT independently varied

Amandol
ese and Szechenyi (2004) 0.5 PG 0.075 – 25 PT oscillating aerofoil
Devinant et al. (2002) 0.3 PG 0.16 – 43 PT –
Kosasih and Saleh Hudin (2016) 0.15 PG 0.29* – power Rot. Blade *close to grid
Li et al. (2016) 0.14 PG 0.139 – 46 PT Low Re custom. blade
Seddighi and Soltani (2007) 0.25 PG 0.4* – 64 PT pt placed at 20 angle
(Sicot and Devinant, 2006) 0.3–0.07 PG 0.16 – 43 PT; PIV* *small blade for PIV
Sicot et al. (2008) 0.07 PG 0.12 0.88 26 PT Rotating blade
Swalwell and Sheridan (2001) 0.125 PG 0.07 0.56 28 PT thin aerofoil
Swalwell et al. (2004) 0.125 PG 0.13 1.30 28 PT thick aerofoil
Maldonado et al. (2015) 0.25 AG 0.061 0.60 32 PT Rough blade
Wang et al. (2014) 0.1 AG 0.06 0.25 LDA Low Re

Fig. 2. Experimental setup mounted in the test section of the wind tunnel.

2
G. Vita et al.
Table 2
Independently varied turbulence intensity cases 1, 2 and 3. Relevant grid number and axial distance are re-
ported together with the Power Spectral Density of velocity and calculated flow statistics Iu and Lu.
effects on the flow pattern (Bearman and Morel, 1983; Zdravkovich,
1997; Buresti, 2012):
1) The triggering of laminar-to-turbulent transition in boundary or shear
layers;
2) Enhanced mixing and entrainment, increasing the thickness of the
detached shear layer, and resulting in a delayed separation or early
reattachment.
Small scales are supposedly responsible for the mechanism 2), i.e.
those scales in the flow with a size comparable to the thickness δ of the
boundary or shear layer (Haan et al., 1998). Largest length scales around
the integral length scale affect the overall features of the flow pattern,
such as the wake recovery or the vortex shedding if present (Bearman and
Morel, 1983; Nakamura et al., 1988). Some works on bluff bodies argued
that large scales may also act as a constraint to the effect of turbulence,
preventing it (Ohya, 2004; Kistler and Vrebalovich, 2006). However,
authors agree that this is more a suggested tendency of results, rather
than proven knowledge (Bearman and Morel, 1983; Nakamura, 1993;
Nakamura and Ohya, 2006; Nakamura et al., 2012).
In more recent years, the renewed interest in wind energy in un-
conventional locations has prompted a surge of studies on wind turbine
aerofoils in ambient turbulence, i.e. with higher turbulence intensities
than previously investigated. Relevant works are given in Table 1, where
the main features of the experiments are briefly summarised. All works
3
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
have in common the generation technique for ambient turbulence, i.e. a
passive or active grid upstream to the aerofoil. Most of cited works do not
show or discuss the integral length scale obtained in the study. Of those
studies, the large majority reports Lu < c, which is clearly not represen-
tative of urban wind conditions. Furthermore, most of the studies listed
in Table 1 do not provide a detailed description of the flow field used in
the experiments, being turbulence intensity the parameter of reference in
all studies, with the integral length scale disregarded in most cases.
Therefore, consensus on the response of aerofoils under atmospheric
turbulence has not yet been achieved, and authors of mentioned studies
in Table 1 all auspicate further experiments.
Sicot, Aubrun, et al. (2006) and Amandol
ese and Szechenyi (2004)
show that turbulence affects the stall mechanism in a stronger way than
respectively rotation or oscillations. However, while the latter are
accounted for with a corrective factor to the angle of attack (Hansen
et al., 2006), the former is neglected in BEM calculations. Maldonado
et al. (2015) acknowledge the difficulty in studying the effect of turbu-
lence having a length scale larger than the chord length, while stressing
how indeed the performance of the rotor increases due to turbulence at
the expense of the increased demand to the blade structure due to an
increase in drag. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether these conclusions
hold in more realistic atmospheric turbulence. Swalwell, Sheridan and
Melbourne (2004) and Swalwell and Sheridan (2001) notice a monotonic
trend between the delay in stall and increase in performance with the
turbulence intensity, which is present for different thicknesses of
G. Vita et al.
Table 3
Independently varied integral length scale cases 4, 5 and 6. Relevant grid number and axial distance are re-
ported together with the Power Spectral Density of velocity and calculated flow statistics Iu and Lu.
aerofoils and Reynolds flow regimes. However, their experimental setup
was designed to control turbulence intensity exclusively, with a limited
applicability to atmospheric flow conditions. Other studies (Seddighi and
Soltani, 2007; Kosasih and Saleh Hudin, 2016) seem to implement pas-
sive grids so that a correspondence to the ABL in terms of normality,
isotropy, and turbulence cannot be verified, and therefore have limited
applicability to wind energy.
This work is designed to overcome the limitations of works listed in
Table 1, to understand the role of the integral length scale on the aero-
dynamics of a wind turbine aerofoil. The aim is to understand whether
turbulence effects are negligible based on the length scale utilising a
wind tunnel setup implementing passive grids designed to generate a
variety of turbulent inflows having turbulence intensities Iu and integral
length scales Lu , varied independently. The setup was optimised to obtain
a combination of high turbulence intensity Iu e15 % having a sufficiently
large length scale Lu e3c based on the chord of the aerofoil model (or
Lu e30 cm). The experiment also provides a variability of length scales,
namely Lu/c ~ [0.50, 2.80], which is normally difficult to reach and
control in wind tunnel testing with an acceptable range of turbulence
intensities Iu ~ [5%, 15%]. The quality of the grid generated turbulence
is extensively studied in Vita et al. (2018).
The obtained turbulence statistics are relevant to possible conditions

a small wind turbine in the built environment might experience (Sarki c
Glumac, Hemida and H€ offer, 2018). However, results in this work are
4
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
applicable in general to low Reynolds number aerofoils in pre- and post-
stalled conditions under a variety of isotropic and gaussian turbulent
inflows which resemble turbulent atmospheric flows. Results might also
be useful to industrial scale wind farms to understand the possible role of
turbulence from the wake of upstream turbines on the flow pattern of
downstream rotors (Vermeer et al., 2003). Nevertheless, this work re-
mains limited from the fact that the expected turbulence characteristics
to be found at a generic unconventional installation site are still largely
unknown.
This work also shares the limitations of the BEM theory as a static
aerofoil in turbulence is considered. Results by Sicot, Aubrun, et al.
(2006) seem to reassure on the negligibility of rotation effects on the
blade when in turbulence, but obviously their setup would need to be
extended to include a length scale compatible with the urban environ-
ment, which is yet to be constructed, and this study might prompt the
development of innovative experimental setups for the investigation of
turbulence effects on a more comprehensive setup involving a wind
turbine in operation.
Section 2 reports on the experimental setup and calculation strategy.
In Section 3, results are presented and discussed in terms of pressure
coefficients and related force coefficients. Conclusions are presented in
Section 4.
G. Vita et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235

Fig. 4. Stall Mechanism in terms of (left) Lift coefficient CL and (right) Drag coefficient CD, with comparison to experimental data from literature (Timmer and van
Rooij, 2003; Devenport et al., 2010; Lindeboom, 2010; Sareen et al., 2012; Suryadi and Herr, 2015; Matyushenko et al., 2017). Markers represent measurements under
turbulent (red) and laminar (grey and blue) inflow conditions, at various Reynolds regimes, listed in the table below the figure. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Fig. 5. Undisturbed case. (Top) Mean surface Pressure Coefficient for 3 Angles of attack used in this study, compared with results from (Timmer and van Rooij, 2003;
Timmer, 2010). (Bottom) Standard deviation of surface pressure coefficient.

5
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 6. Mean pressure coefficient cp for the three angles of attack and Cases 1 to 3.
2. Methodology
2.1. Experimental setup: the DU96w180 aerofoil model
The tests have been carried out in the Wind Tunnel Lab of the Uni-
versity of Li

ege (Belgium) at the same time with the grid turbulence tests
reported in Vita et al. (2018). The wind turbine aerofoil of choice for the
test is the DU 96w180, designed at the Delft University of Technology
(Timmer and van Rooij, 2003), shown in Fig. 2 along with the position of
the pressure taps. This aerofoil has been specifically designed to have a
smooth stall mechanism and optimised against noise, being suitable for
small wind turbines which are normally stall-regulated. A sufficient
structural stiffness is guaranteed bdue to its thickness of 0.18c. Wind
turbine blades might be fitted with trip strips to impose
laminar-to-turbulent transition (Lyon et al., 1997; Traub, 2011), a ne-
cessity which was not deemed necessary in this study. The model is fitted
with 40 pressure taps (PT) having a diameter of 0.6 mm. In order to
minimise the chord length c, while retaining a sufficiently high resolu-
tion, the PTs have been embedded in the 3D printing of the mid-span
section. Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) was chosen for the mid-span
section of the aerofoil, while the rest of the 1.25 m total span consisted
of mountable sections printed with the Fused Deposition Modelling
6
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
(FDM). Fig. 2 shows the model in position in the wind tunnel. The model
was fitted with a steel bar to hold it together, and fixed to an aluminium
frame screwed to the wind tunnel floor.
The monolithic centrepiece hosted the PTs and a ~2 cm section of the
tubing, which was then fitted with recesses to glue the 1 m long pressure
tubing in order to limit disturbance to the signal. The tubing was con-
nected to a Dynamic Pressure Measurement System (DPMS, from the
company Turbulent Flow Instrumentation Ltd.), able to measure up to
128 PTs in the range 0
2500 Pa at 500 Hz.
Fig. 3 shows the position of the PTs along the aerofoil. The upper
section of the aerofoil, called ‘suction’ side, presents 24 taps, while the
lower section is called ‘pressure’ side, with the remaining 16 taps at a
larger spacing. A pressure tap was placed in correspondence of the
leading edge, while the value of the pressure at the trailing edge,
necessary to calculate force coefficients, was estimated by extrapolating
from the closest taps, following the procedure implemented in Mary and
Sagaut (2002).
The chord of the model is c ¼ 0:125 m. This value has been chosen
in order to achieve a compromise between the possibility of fitting the
model with pressure taps and the ability to test large length scale tur-
bulence Lu/c~2. In literature, Lu~20–25 cm is considered a reachable
range of values using passive grid generated turbulence (Kurian and
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 7. Standard deviation for the three angles of attack and Cases 1 to 3.
Fransson, 2009). This chord length allows for Reynolds numbers up to
Re~1200 000 being reachable, which is consistent with a small wind
turbine operating in the urban environment. The main parameter to be
varied throughout the experiment is the angle of attack α. The angles are
chosen so they can be representative of the stall mechanism: pre-stalled
4 ; post-stalled 14 ; and full-stalled 24 . In the pre-stalled condition, the
flow is attached to the aerofoil and a partial limited separation can be
observed as α grows. 4 has been specifically chosen as the flow is fully
attached until the trailing edge (Timmer and van Rooij, 2003). As sep-
aration occurs, the lift coefficient cL increases up to a maximum value
cL;max , which occurs at αe10 . cL does not suddenly drop for this kind of
aerofoils, and a post-stall region can be defined 10 < α < 20 , where cL
slowly decays. For α > 20 , cL starts to increase again, following a flat
plate-like pattern.
2.2. Experimental setup: the inflow
The experimental setup was studied in order to vary Iu and Lu statistics
separately. The turbulence intensity Iu is calculated using the Reynolds
decomposition u ¼ uðtÞ – U, where uðtÞ is the velocity realisation as
7
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
measured, andU ¼ uðtÞ is the mean velocity. The standard deviation
pffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi
u2 , is used to calculate Iu ¼ u2 =U. The integral length scale Lu is
estimated from the autocorrelation coefficientρðτÞ ¼ Ruu ðτÞ=u2 , where
Ruu ðτÞ ¼ uðtÞuðt þ τÞ is the autocorrelation function, and τ is the time
lag. In this case Lu ¼ UTu where Tu is the integral time scale, obtained
from the area subtended by the ρðτÞ curve, which can be approximated
Z τ0
with Lu ¼ U ρðτÞdτ, where ρðτ0 Þ ¼ 0. In this work, Tu is estimated
0
using a simplified relation, where ρðTu Þ ¼ 1=e (Conan, 2012).
Table 2 and Table 3 show the passive grid configurations and relevant
turbulence statistics respectively for setups where turbulence intensity
was kept constant to assess the effect of varying the integral length scale
(cases 1 to 3), and vice versa where the integral length scale of turbulence
is kept constant to quantify turbulence intensity effects (cases 4 to 6).
Tables 2 and 3 also report the power spectral density for the turbulent
inflows. Cases 1 to 3 see the low-frequency ends of the spectra over-
lapping, while cases 4 to 6 have the maximum occurring at the same
frequency, consistent with the target turbulence statistics. More details
are given in (Vita et al., 2018), where a slightly different grouping of
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 8. 99th percentile of cp for the three angles of attack and Cases 1 to 3.
statistics is performed.
Tests have been conducted setting a wind speed for the wind tunnel
rotor of Ur ¼ 15 m/s. However, due to the presence of the grids and the
conformation of the wind tunnel, the actual wind speed as measured
using a Pitot Tube, varies. More details can be found in the following and
in Vita et al. (2018).
3. Reynolds effects and stall mechanism
One of the turbulent setups (using grid #3 at distance 4 m, with Iu ¼
8:50 %) has been adapted to assess the presence of possible Reynolds
effects. As mentioned, the mean wind speed downstream of grids varies
depending on the solidity of the grid, the distance to it, and the confor-
mation of the wind tunnel, as the one in Liege has an expansion which
was useful to obtain a varied range of statistics, as specified in Vita et al.
(2018).
Fig. 4 shows the mean Lift and Drag coefficients against the angle of
attack, for a variety of configurations as specified in the legend, calcu-
lated from the surface pressure. The Reynolds number varies from 21,000
to 120,000. Such range might resemble Reynolds regimes of small wind
8
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
turbines in full scale and therefore relevant to urban wind energy
(Rezaeiha et al., 2018; Toja-Silva et al., 2018). Fig. 4 compares the pre-
sent dataset with results available from literature, only published for
higher Reynolds ranges varying from 1 to 3  106 (Timmer and van
Rooij, 2003; Devenport et al., 2010; Lindeboom, 2010; Sareen et al.,
2012; Suryadi and Herr, 2015; Matyushenko et al., 2017). A strong
Reynolds effect is noticeable in the absence of turbulence when α < 20 .
However, when Ree1  105 , such an effect disappears as cL is analogous
to the experimental data from literature (Freudenreich et al., 2004).
However, in turbulence, Reynolds effects are negligible, as the data
aligns to undisturbed configuration at the highest wind speed. Therefore,
it seems sensible not to adjust the mean wind speed to match exactly the
whole dataset: turbulence characteristics are insensitive to the mean
wind speed (Kurian and Fransson, 2009).
The Lift coefficient is linear for α < 10 , then it gently drops to then
increase again at α > 26 following a flat-plate-like behaviour. The Drag
coefficient increases quickly until αe18 , and then continues to grow
linearly for higher angles of attack, analogously to flat-plates.
Fig. 4 might lead to think that in turbulence, an aerofoil behaves
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 9. Mean pressure coefficient on the aerofoil. Compared with undisturbed case and results from Timmer.
similarly to a bluff body with respect to Reynolds effects even in the
attached flow region. This means that under FST the aerodynamic per-
formance could be investigated regardless of Reynolds effects. Unfortu-
nately, this study has not been designed to shed light on Reynolds effects
in turbulence, and an interesting question opens whether turbulence
might sometimes even benefit wind energy (and not harm it, as
commonly thought).
4. Undisturbed case
Fig. 5 shows the effect of the angle of attack for the DU96w180
aerofoil in undisturbed flow conditions. The present experimental data-
set is compared with pressure coefficient distributions as available in
literature for Ree3  106 in undisturbed flow conditions in static wind
tunnel tests (Timmer and van Rooij, 2003; Timmer, 2010). The mean
pressure cp is shown together with its standard deviation cp ’. Results in
the present dataset compare quite well to results in literature obtained for
slightly different angles of attack (Timmer and van Rooij, 2003). For α ¼
4 , the cp shows a monotonic trend which indicates the absence of
9
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
separation. The local maximum at x/c~0.55 might occur due to a sepa-
ration bubble which spans the distance between the two local maxima of
c’p , i.e. 0.4 < x/c < 0.6. The formation of separation bubbles might occur
at low angles of attack, if the boundary layer is not tripped as in this case,
and this pattern might explain the slight deviation of the stall mechanism
at low angles of attack shown in Fig. 4. When α ¼ 14 , a more pro-
nounced local maximum can be observed at x/c~0.35. As α increases, the
possible separation bubble which might occur moves upstream as the
adverse pressure gradients of the flow become more pronounced. This is
the condition when the maximum lift is reached. For x/c > 0.5, cp shows a
plateau which might indicate a region of separated flow. Such a plateau
runs throughout the chord length in the case of α ¼ 24 , with no local
maxima for c’p , indicating the post-stall behaviour. A peak in the pressure
coefficient can be observed at x/c~0.02 for 14 and 24 , close to the
stagnation point. Also c’p shows a peak for all cases, but at the next
pressure tap at x/c~0.05. This is due to the fluctuating flow downstream
of the stagnation region.
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 10. Standard deviation of pressure coefficient.
4.1. Effect of turbulence in absence of adverse pressure gradients
In literature, aerofoils are considered immune from turbulence effects
as they are designed to work mostly in attached flow conditions. When
the flow is attached turbulence is more likely to trigger early transition,
rather than enhance mixing with the boundary/shear layer. This holds
especially when an adverse pressure gradient is absent, i.e. at α ¼ 4 .
Fig. 6 and Fig. 9 both show the chord-wise mean pressure coefficient
distribution in turbulence. In fact, the ‘pressure’ side of the aerofoil does
not suggest that turbulence is affecting the pressure distribution in any of
the angles of attack or configurations. As for α ¼ 4 Figs. 6 and 9 also
show that at the ‘suction’ side of the aerofoil the variability of the pres-
sure coefficient is limited, with only a mismatch of ~20% when L/c~1
and I > 7.5%. This matches results from literature for aerofoils in
attached flow conditions (Hoffmann, 1991; Amandol
ese and Szechenyi,
2004; Maldonado et al., 2015). Results about the ‘pressure’ side of the
aerofoil are omitted in the following, although they are used to calculate
the force coefficients.
10
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
5. Effect of turbulence intensity
This Section reports on statistical moments for the pressure time
histories for the cases 1 to 3, where the integral length scale Lu is kept
constant to study the effect of turbulence intensity Iu (Table 2). As
mentioned earlier, reference is only made to the ‘suction’ side, with re-
sults on the ‘pressure’ side only included for the mean pressure coeffi-
cient cp . Fig. 10 shows the standard deviation c’p , while Fig. 11 shows the
99th percentile of the instantaneous cp . It is found that the behaviour is
strongly influenced by on the ratio Lu/c, in particular if Lu/c < 0.9, 0.9 <
Lu/c < 1.5, and Lu/c > 2.5. Each case refers to the relevant row of Figs. 6,
Figs. 7 and 8, to ease the consultation of data. Each column refers instead
to the angle of attack.
5.1. Case 1 - Small length scale Lu/c < 0.9
In literature, there is agreement upon the fact that a flow with a small
integral length scale is more likely to enhance mixing and be entrained
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 11. 99th percentile of cp for the three angles of attack and Cases 4 to 6.
into the boundary or shear layer of a bluff body (Zdravkovich, 1997). In
fact, this does not seem the case for the present dataset. Fig. 6 shows no
evident effect of turbulence for cp at 4 and 14 angle. As Lu/c~0.9 cp
increases in the attached flow region, however the overall behaviour is
not modified, as also the ‘pressure’ side cp are higher in magnitude. At
α ¼ 24 , stall delay takes place and an increased peak in cp is noticeable
close to the leading edge for Iu~15%. As for the standard deviation c’p ,
the effect is more evident. Turbulence increases fluctuations deopending
on Iu. However, a smaller length scale damps this effect as fluctuations
are reduced for all angles of attack. The only exception are Lu/c~0.9, that
sees a strong increase in c’p , and Iu~15%, where the smaller Lu/c~0.64
limits c’p . However, the different separation pattern is only present for
Iu~15%, highlighting that stall delay is governed by turbulence intensity,
provided than the integral length scale is not smaller than a critical value,
which in this case seems Lcr/c~0.7.
Fig. 8 leads to analogous conclusions as for Fig. 7, where the role of
Lu/c as a trigger to the effect of turbulence is evident. When Lu/c < 0.9
and Iu < 5% turbulence actually damps fluctuations, with lower values
than the undisturbed case.
11
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
5.2. Case 2 - Length scale close to chord length 0.9<Lu/c < 1.5
As Lu ~ c a fairly clearer pattern on the effect of Iu is noticeable.
Turbulence significantly delays separation, as cp shows an increased peak
at the leading edge at all angles of attack. The amplitude of this peak is
directly correlated with Iu. For Iu < 5%, the effect of turbulence seems
negligible, as no significant peak close to the leading edge is noticeable in
th
cp , c’p , or c99
p . A critical turbulence intensity Icr might be defined under
which any effect of turbulence is negligible, regardless of α or Lu/c. A
significant effect is instead noticeable for Iu > 5%, and a direct coinci-
th
dence between turbulence intensity and c’p and c99 p can be stipulated.
For x/c > 0.5 all values tend to collapse on the same curve, regardless of
the actual value of Iu. At α ¼ 24 stall delay takes place for Iu > Icr. As Lu/
c~1.4, fluctuations seem to be slightly reduced regardless of Iu. This is
consistent with the definition of a critical range for Lu/c around unity.
5.3. Case 3 - Large length scale Lu/c > 2.5
Contrary to indications in literature, the effect of turbulence is still
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 12. Effect of turbulence on Separation Point xS for 14 (top row) and 24 (bottom row). Results are marked per the integral length scale of the inflow, as specified.
present for Lu/c~3. In fact, such a ‘large’ length scale has not been
achieved in previous studies, and the possible role of Lu/c might have
been misinterpreted. Fig. 6 shows two distinct behaviours depending on
Iu at 24 , while for other α the effect seems negligible. For Iu~7% no
significant deviation is noticeable, suggesting that the interaction with
turbulence occurs at the shear layer, while for Iu~15% separation is still
th
delayed, with enhanced c’p and c99 p . In the presence of a strong adverse
pressure gradient, these results might indicate that Lu affects the critical
intensity Icr under which effects of turbulence become negligible. From
the probability density functions (PDF) of pressure coefficients (not
plotted for the sake of brevity), it might be argued that the entrainment of
the flow in the boundary layer is less efficient for large Lu. In fact, tur-
bulence normalises the PDF distributions and the match increases for Lu/
c~1.
6. Effect of integral length scale of turbulence
This Section reports on statistical moments for the pressure time
histories for the cases 4 to 6, where Iu is kept constant to study the effect
th
of Lu/c (Table 3). Fig. 9 shows cp , Fig. 10 shows c’p , and Fig. 11 c99
p , as in
the previous section.
6.1. Case 4 - Low turbulence intensity Iu<5%
Fig. 9 confirms that at Iu < 5% no appreciable difference with the
th
undisturbed case is noticeable in cp , c’p or c99
p at all angles of attack. Lu/c
acts as a damper to the fluctuations if Lu/c < 0.9 at 24 . Consistent to
findings shown in the previous section, Lu does affect higher moments,
12
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
and results are closer to the undisturbed case for larger length scales.
6.2. Case 5 - Medium turbulence intensity 7<Iu<10%
As Iu~7–8%, Lu/c does not seem to affect cp appreciably. In particular
for Lu/c < 0.9 and Lu/c > 2.5, turbulence intensity does not modify the
aerodynamic behaviour. This reassures on the possibility of defining a Icr
in dependence of Lu/c. When Lu/c~1, a mild effect on cp can be noticed,
with a peak close to the leading edge at 24 . c’p confirms the trend
observed for cp , with Lu/c~1 enhancing fluctuations.
6.3. Case 6 - High turbulence intensity Iu >14%
For Iu > 14% the effect of turbulence does not seem to depend on Lu/c,
as evident in Fig. 9 at 24 . However, cp seems to indicate that separation
is delayed most due to larger length scales. The observed effects of the
length scale holding for Iu~7–8% on c’p seems to be milder, with no
noticeable difference for Lu/c~1. However, for Lu/c < 0.6 the length
scale acts as a damper to the effect of turbulence, with reduced fluctua-
tions. At 4 and 14 , Lu/c~1 causes higher fluctuations in both c’p and
th
c99
p .
7. Position of the separation point
In absence of measurements about the boundary layer profile over the
aerofoil or its skin friction, as in the present case, it is not possible to give
an accurate estimate of the separation position xS. However, a necessary
and not sufficient condition for separation is the negligibility of the
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 13. Normalised mean (top row) and standard deviation (bottom row) of force coefficients for α ¼ 4 against the turbulence parameter I(L/c). Results are marked
per the integral length scale of the inflow, as specified.
chord-wise pressure derivative dcp =dxe0.
The Stratford separation criterion is based on dcp =dx and it imposes a
condition on the arrangement of the turbulent boundary layer around the
body at separation by comparing it to that of a flat plate (Stratford, 1959;
Cebeci et al., 1972). It states:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  
1=10
xS  cp x dcp dx 10
6 Rex e0:4
0:5 (1)
where Rex ¼ xU=ν, and 0.4-0.5 is a threshold based on the von-Karman
constant κ ¼ 0:41.
Fig. 12 shows the separation point as found with equation (1) at 14
and 24 . As the effect of turbulence might depend on a combined effect of
Lu and Iu, a turbulence parameter is introduced
Iu ðLu =cÞn (2)
where n is an exponent normally taken as unitary (Bearman and Morel,
1983).
At 14 separation varies monotonically from xS/c~0.7 to ~0.9 with
both Iu and Lu/c, with the effect triggered by the turbulence intensity and
enhanced or damped depending on the length scale., In fact, as Lu/c >
2.3, the effect seems to reach an asymptotic behaviour. When α ¼ 24 ,
separation is also delayed from ~0.35 up to ~0.6, however the effect
seems uncorrelated with the length scale, while it grows proportionally
to the turbulence intensity. The turbulence parameter Iu ðLu =cÞn shows
that for Lu/c > 2.3, stall delay might not be influenced strictly by tur-
bulence intensity, as other mechanisms might occur with a growing
adverse pressure gradient. From Fig. 12, a critical turbulence intensity
might be defined as
13
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
Icr e7 % (3)
when the effect of turbulence steadily delays separation, regardless of Lu/
c. If Iu < 7 %, the effect of turbulence is also affected by the length scale
and only present when Lu ~ c. At the largest length scales, stall delay is
reduced for Iu < Icr, while for Iu~15% the larger length scale does not
seem to affect the enhanced behaviour. Fig. 12 seems to point at an
asymptotic behaviour for Iu ðLu =cÞn e0:2, where the effect of turbulence
seems to persist for larger length scales. This behaviour is noticeable for
both α ¼ 14 and 24 . This seems to reassure on the role of the length
scale as an enhancement or a damper of the effects of turbulence, pro-
vided that a critical turbulence intensity is reached to trigger any effect.
8. Force coefficients
The force coefficients are calculated by integration over the aerofoil
surface of the pressure coefficient. The coefficient of Lift cL , Drag cD and
Moment cM are defined respectively perpendicular and parallel to the
incoming flow field, and the resultant around a pole taken at x ¼ c/4 as
customary in aeronautics. In this work, cD should be referred to as form
drag, as the skin friction coefficient is not included in its calculation.
Pressure time histories are integrated to obtain force time histories,
whose statistical moments are considered in the following with reference
to the stall mechanism.
8.1. Pre-stall α ¼ 4
Fig. 13 shows the force coefficients referred to the undisturbed inflow
ðunÞ ðunÞ
cL =cL and their standard deviation c’L =cL . Values are referred to the
undisturbed condition to stress the role of turbulence on the aerodynamic
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 14. Normalised force coefficients for α ¼ 14 against turbulence parameter I(L/c). Results are marked per the integral length scale of the inflow, as specified.
performance. At α ¼ 4 results seems to indicate a bifurcated behaviour,
with a part of the dataset not influenced by turbulence, and a part
strongly influenced despite the lack of separation for this angle of attack.
ðunÞ
The undisturbed force coefficients cL =cL ¼ 1 are plotted along turbu-
lent ones for comparison. Data points are coloured following the length
scale ranges indicated in each figure.
In general, as Lu/c~1 a strong effect of turbulence is present with an
increase in Lift and Moment coefficient, and a reduction of Drag. The
fluctuation of the force coefficients increases steadily, with data points
having Lu/c~1, deviating from this tendency, as discussed in the previ-
ous. Points with 1.2 < Lu/c < 2 show a dual behaviour, either behaving
similarly to Lu/c~1 and enhancing greatly the effect or damping it
depending on their turbulence intensity.
8.2. Post-stall α ¼ 14
Fig. 14 shows the variability of force coefficients against the turbu-
lence parameter for α ¼ 14 . As observed for α ¼ 4 , cL shows a clear
bifurcated behaviour. Depending on Lu/c, part of the data is not influ-
enced by turbulence for Iu ðLu =cÞn < 0:2. Within this range a part of the
data around Lu/c~1 shows an enhanced effect of turbulence. For
Iu ðLu =cÞn > 0:2 no effect of turbulence is noticeable. cD seems instead to
increase linearly with Iu ðLu =cÞn . In literature, turbulence is always asso-
ciated with an increase in Drag (Milan et al., 2013). However, the form
drag drops for Iu ðLu =cÞn < 0:2. cM shows a similar behaviour to cL , with a
dual response to turbulence enhanced if Lu ~ c. As at α ¼ 4 , the fluc-
tuation of the force coefficients monotonically increase with the turbu-
lence parameter, with an enhanced effect when Lu/c~1.
14
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
8.3. Full-stall α ¼ 24
Fig. 15 shows the force coefficients at α ¼ 24 . The bifurcated
behaviour is now even more evident, with a consistent monotonic in-
crease with the parameter Iu ðLu =cÞn , showing the beneficial effect of
turbulence in delaying stall. Part of the dataset at Iu ðLu =cÞn < 0:2 is more
insensitive to turbulence, depending on Lu/c. However, the behaviour
now suggests that turbulence is non-negligible in all configurations.
Unlike in Fig. 14, the effect of turbulence on Drag is similar to that on Lift,
with cD being weakly affected unless Lu/c~1. The same behaviour can be
observed for cM. As for the force coefficient fluctuations, turbulence
causes an increase in fluctuations similar to that found at α ¼ 4 , while at
α ¼ 14 the increase was milder. This might depend on the dual role of
turbulence in either triggering transition or enhancing mixing in the
boundary or shear layers.
8.4. Probability density function
Fig. 16 shows the PDFs of the zero-mean Lift coefficient cL =c’L nor-
malised by its standard deviation for α ¼ 24 . Colours of graphs in Fig. 16
are referred to respectively Table 2 for the upper row and Table 3 for the
lower row of plots. The undisturbed case shows a marked negative
skewed behaviour that improves with ambient turbulence consistently
with all configurations of Iu and Lu/c. For Iu~15% seems to show a shift
due to the large length scale from a negative skewness to a positive
skewness. This might depend on large-scale fluctuations, which affect the
angle of attack and are visible in the Lift coefficient. The strongly nega-
tively skewed undisturbed signal presents positive fat-tails, which
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 15. Normalised mean and standard deviation of force coefficients against turbulence parameter I(L/c). Results are marked per the integral length scale of the
inflow, as specified.
disappear in turbulence. However, a mild effect of the integral length
scale of turbulence can be noticed. In case 1 where the turbulence in-
tensity is low, the signal is still negatively skewed, and it seems that a
trend is noticeable for the normalisation is larger at Lu/c~1. The con-
clusions made for α ¼ 24 also apply to other angles of attack.
9. Conclusions
In this work, novel results on the effect of the integral length scale of
turbulence on the aerodynamic behaviour of a wind turbine aerofoil are
presented in terms of surface pressure, separation length variation, and
force coefficients. In particular, the possibility of controlling the setup of
the turbulent inflow to vary statistics independently has allowed iden-
tifying mutual effects and interactions between Lu and Iu. Free stream
turbulence is found to modify the aerodynamic performance even if the
integral length scale is around three times larger than the chord of the
aerofoil, in full-stalled conditions. The definition of a turbulence
parameter Iu ðLu =cÞn is found to be representative of the complex inter-
action of Lu and Iu in defining the possible mechanism which activates.
The main finding of this work is that wind turbine aerofoils are not
insensitive to the integral length scale of turbulence as previously
thought. FST is able to modify the aerodynamic behaviour provided that
a critical turbulence intensity Icr is reached whose value depends on Lu ,
which can damp or enhance it depending on the ratio Lu/c.
This setup is interesting as most small wind turbine blades placed in
the built environment might experience a similar configuration for the
inflow, with Iu~15% and Lu/c~3–10 (Sarki  c Glumac, Hemida and
H€offer, 2018). Several conclusions can be drawn from the presented
results:
15
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
- Lu contributes together with Iu to the effect of turbulence, damping or
enhancing the effect, provided that a sufficiently high Icr is present;
- When Lu > c, the effect of turbulence is still present in full-stall at α ¼
24 , and it shows a proportionality to the parameter Iu (Lu/c)n, taken
with the exponent n ¼ 1;
- As Lu < c, the effect of turbulence is much weaker even at highest
turbulence intensities, seemingly refuting the generalised opinion
that a small length scale is more likely to influence the behaviour of
the boundary or shear layer;
- When Lu ~ c the effects of turbulence are magnified, triggering a
bifurcated behaviour for a critical value of the turbulence parameter
Iu ðLu =cÞncr < 0:2;
- The turbulence parameter Iu ðLu =cÞncr ¼ 0:2 defines a limit for the
bifurcated effect of turbulence. For Iu ðLu =cÞn < 0:2, the effects of
turbulence are either minimum if Lu/c < 1 or at the contrary maxi-
mised if Lu/c~1. For Iu ðLu =cÞn > 0:2, the effect of turbulence is either
absent or present consistently with the behaviour at small scale
depending on the angle of attack. The behaviour is analogous for all
force coefficients cL, cD and cM, and separation point xS/c.
- The Drag coefficient might be reduced due to turbulence effects if
Iu ðLu =cÞn < 0:2 and Lu/c < 1;
- Turbulence effects might be neglected when Iu < Icr ¼ 5% indepen-
dently of the Lu/c value, if cp or c’p are looked at;
- Turbulence has the effect of normalising statistics of pressure and
force coefficients independently from Iu or Lu, suggesting that tur-
bulence helps the stationarity of performance;
Further research might include aerofoils having different character-
istics (such as a different thickness) or boundary layer treatment such as
G. Vita et al.
Fig. 16. Probability Density Function of Lift coefficient for cases as in Tables 2 and 3.
tripping or leading edge roughness to understand how to limit or exploit
the effect of turbulence and improve aerodynamic performance. Never-
theless, higher Lu/c values need to be achieved in wind tunnel or nu-
merical testing to have a better comprehension of the behaviour and
understand in what proportion turbulence contributes to the unsteady
variability of the angle-of-attack or the interaction with the boundary or
shear layer.
Author contribution
The manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors.
The order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all
named authors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the European Commission’s
Framework Program “Horizon 2020”, through the Marie Skłodowska-
Curie Innovative Training Network (ITN) “AEOLUS4FUTURE – Efficient
harvesting of the wind energy” (H2020-MSCA-ITN-2014: Grant agree-
ment no. 643167) to the present research project. Also, the Cost Action
TU1804 WinerCost – “Wind Energy to enhance the concept of Smart
cities” is gratefully acknowledged, for providing the possibility of a Short
Term Scientific Mission, used to conduct this experiment. A special thank
goes to François Rigo for taking part in the construction of the setup and
16
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
the run of the experiment, and to Arnaud Fabbri for the realisation of the
aerofoil model through 3D printing.
References
Al-Abadi, A., et al., 2016. Turbulence impact on wind turbines: experimental
investigations on a wind turbine model. J. Phys.: Con Series. IOP Pub 753 (3).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/753/3/032046, 032046.
Albers, A., et al., 2007. Influence of meteorological variables on measured wind turbine
power curves. Milan, Italy. In: Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference
(EWEC). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229015286.
(Accessed 8 May 2020).
Amandol
ese, X., Szechenyi, E., 2004. Experimental study of the effect of turbulence on a
section model blade oscillating in stall. Wind Energy 7 (4), 267–282. https://doi.org/
10.1002/we.137.
Arnfield, a.J., 2003. Two decades of urban climate research: a review of turbulence,
exchanges of energy and water, and the urban heat island. Int. J. Climatol. 23 (1),
1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.859.
Bak, C., 2007. Sensitivity of key parameters in aerodynamic wind turbine rotor design on
power and energy performance. J. Phys. Conf.. IOP Publishing, 75 (1). https://
doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/75/1/012008, 012008.
Balduzzi, F., et al., 2012. Feasibility analysis of a Darrieus vertical-axis wind turbine
installation in the rooftop of a building. Appl. Energy 97, 921–929. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.12.008. Elsevier Ltd.
Battisti, L., et al., 2018. Small wind turbine effectiveness in the urban environment.
Renew. Energy 129, 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.05.062.
Elsevier Ltd.
Bearman, P.W., Morel, T., 1983. Effect of free stream turbulence on the flow around bluff
bodies. Prog. Aerospace Sci. Pergamon 20 (2–3), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0376-0421(83)90002-7.
Buresti, G., 2012. Elements of Fluid Dynamics. Imperial College Press, London. Available
at: https://books.google.com/books?id¼N6TNpwAACAAJ&amp;pgis¼1. (Accessed
27 January 2016).
Carbo Molina, A., Bartoli, G., De Troyer, T., 2017. Wind tunnel testing of small vertical-
Axis wind turbines in turbulent flows. In: Procedia Engineering, X International
Conference on Structural Dynamics, EURODYN 2017. Elsevier, Rome,
pp. 3176–3181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.518.
Cebeci, T., Mosinskis, G.J., Smith, A.M.O., 1972. Calculation of separation points in
incompressible turbulent flows. J. Aircraft 9 (9), 618–624. https://doi.org/10.2514/
3.59049.
G. Vita et al.
Conan, B., 2012. Wind resource accessment in complex terrain by wind tunnel modelling.
Orleans. Available at: http://www.theses.fr/2012ORLE2067. (Accessed 31 January
2018).
Devenport, W., et al., 2010. Aeroacoustic Testing of Wind Turbine Airfoils: February 20,
2004 - February 19, 2008. Blacksburg, Virginia. Available at: http://www.osti.gov/
bridge. (Accessed 5 April 2019).
Devinant, P., Laverne, T., Hureau, J., 2002. Experimental study of wind-turbine airfoil
aerodynamics in high turbulence. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 90 (6), 689–707. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00162-9.
Emeis, S., 2014. Current issues in wind energy meteorology. Meteorol. Appl. 21 (4),
803–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1472.
Evans, S.P., et al., 2017. The suitability of the IEC 61400-2 wind model for small wind
turbines operating in the built environment. Renew. Energy Environ. Sustain. 2, 31.
https://doi.org/10.1051/rees/2017022. D. Goodfield.
Frandsen, S.T., 2007. Turbulence and Turbulence-Generated Structural Loading in Wind
Turbine Clusters.
Freudenreich, K., et al., 2004. Reynolds number and roughness effects on thick airfoils for
wind turbines. Wind Eng. 28 (5), 529–546. https://doi.org/10.1260/
0309524043028109. SAGE PublicationsSage UK: London, England.
Haan, F.L., Kareem, A., Szewczyk, A.A., 1998. The effects of turbulence on the pressure
distribution around a rectangular prism. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 77 (78), 381–392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(98)00158-5.
Hand, M., Simms, D., Fingersh, L., 2001. Unsteady aerodynamics experiment phase VI:
wind tunnel test configurations and available data campaigns. Available at: https://
www.researchgate.net/profile/Scott_Larwood2/publication/255198729_Unsteady
_Aerodynamics_Experiment_Phase_VI_Wind_Tunnel_Test_Configurations_and_Availa
ble_Data_Campaigns/links/5457d2540cf26d5090ab52a1.pdf. (Accessed 30 May
2016).
Hansen, M.H., 2007. Aeroelastic instability problems for wind turbines. Wind Energy 10
(6), 551–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/we.242.
Hansen, M.O.L., et al., 2006. State of the art in wind turbine aerodynamics and
aeroelasticity. Prog. Aero. Sci. 42 (4), 285–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.paerosci.2006.10.002.
Hau, E., 2013. Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies, Application, Economics,
third ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29284-
5.
Hoffmann, J.A., 1991. Effects of freestream turbulence on the performance characteristics
of an airfoil. AIAA J. 29 (9), 1353–1354. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.10745.
Huang, R.F., Lee, H.W., 1999. Effects of freestream turbulence on wing-surface flow and
aerodynamic performance. J. Aircraft 36 (6), 965–972. https://doi.org/10.2514/
2.2537. AIAA.
IEC 61400-2:2013, 2013. Wind turbines - Part 2: small wind turbines. Available at:
https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/5433. (Accessed 18 November 2019).
Ishugah, T.F., et al., 2014. Advances in wind energy resource exploitation in urban
environment: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37, 613–626. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RSER.2014.05.053. Pergamon.
Kc, A., Whale, J., Urmee, T., 2019. Urban wind conditions and small wind turbines in the
built environment: a review. Renew. Energy 131, 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.RENENE.2018.07.050. Pergamon.
Kelly, M., et al., 2014. Probabilistic meteorological characterization for turbine loads.
J. Phys. Conf. 524 (1), 012076 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/524/1/012076.
IOP Publishing.
Kistler, A.L., Vrebalovich, T., 2006. Grid turbulence at large Reynolds numbers. J. Fluid
Mech.. Cambridge University Press 26 (01), 37. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022112066001071.
Kosasih, B., Saleh Hudin, H., 2016. Influence of inflow turbulence intensity on the
performance of bare and diffuser-augmented micro wind turbine model. Renew.
Energy 87, 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.10.013.
van Kuik, G.A.M., et al., 2016. ‘Long-term research challenges in wind energy – a research
agenda by the European Academy of Wind Energy’. Wind Energy Sci 1 (1), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-1-1-2016.
Kurian, T., Fransson, J.H.M., 2009. Grid-generated turbulence revisited. Fluid Dynam.
Res. 41 (2), 021403 https://doi.org/10.1088/0169-5983/41/2/021403. IOP
Publishing.
Li, Q., et al., 2016. Effect of turbulent inflows on airfoil performance for a Horizontal Axis
Wind Turbine at low Reynolds numbers (Part II: Dynamic pressure measurement).
Energy 112, 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.126.
Lindeboom, R.C.J., 2010. Determination of unsteady loads on a DU96W180 airfoil with
actuated flap using Particle Image Velocimetry. Available at: https://repository.tud
elft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:f3bb4ee0-0bd6-402a-858f-45160d5ef1dc?collectio
n¼education. (Accessed 5 April 2019).
Lyon, C.A., Selig, M.S., Broeren, A.P., 1997. Boundary layer trips on airfoils at low
Reynolds numbers. In: 35th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc, AIAA. https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.1997-511.
Maldonado, V., et al., 2015. The role of free stream turbulence with large integral scale on
the aerodynamic performance of an experimental low Reynolds number S809 wind
turbine blade. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 142, 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jweia.2015.03.010. Elsevier.
Mary, I., Sagaut, P., 2002. Large eddy simulation of flow around an airfoil near stall. AIAA
J. 40 (6), 1139–1145. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.1763.
Matyushenko, A.A., Kotov, E.V., Garbaruk, A.V., 2017. Calculations of flow around
airfoils using two-dimensional RANS: an analysis of the reduction in accuracy. St.
Petersburg Polytech. Univ. J: Phys. Mathemat 3 (1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.SPJPM.2017.03.004. No longer published by Elsevier.
17
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
Micallef, D., van Bussel, G., 2018. A review of urban wind energy research: aerodynamics
and other challenges. Energies 11 (9), 2204. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11092204.
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
Milan, P., W€achter, M., Peinke, J., 2013. ‘Turbulent character of wind energy.’, Physical
review letters. Am Phys Soc 110 (13), 138701. https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.110.138701.
Miley, S., 1982. A catalog of low Reynolds number airfoil data for wind turbine
applications. Available at: http://wind.nrel.gov/public/library/3387.pdf. (Accessed
8 June 2016).
Mouzakis, F., Morfiadakis, E., Dellaportas, P., 1999. Fatigue loading parameter
identification of a wind turbine operating in complex terrain. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerod. 82 (1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(98)00211-6.
Mücke, T., Kleinhans, D., Peinke, J., 2011. Atmospheric turbulence and its influence on
the alternating loads on wind turbines. Wind Energy 14 (2), 301–316. https://
doi.org/10.1002/We.422.
Mueller, T.J., et al., 1983. The influence of free-stream disturbances on low Reynolds
number airfoil experiments. Exp. Fluid 1, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00282261.
Nakamura, Y., 1993. Bluff-body aerodynamics and turbulence. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod.
49 (1–3), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(93)90006-A.
Nakamura, Y., Ohya, Y., 2006. The effects of turbulence on the mean flow past square
rods. J. Fluid Mech. 137 (1), 331. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112083002438.
Cambridge University Press.
Nakamura, Y., Ohya, Y., Ozono, S., 1988. The effects of turbulence on bluff-body mean
flow. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 28 (1), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-
6105(88)90121-3. Elsevier.
Nakamura, Y., Ohya, Y., Ozono, S., 2012. The effects of turbulence on bluff-body mean
flow. Adv. Wind. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl¼it&amp;lr¼&a
mp;id¼-Q6RfEiLKVAC&amp;oi¼fnd&amp;pg¼PA251&amp;ots¼bPGaZKAGK0&a
mp;sig¼PwxVCOlBloBI0EXkrWEpUrzQCeE. (Accessed 7 June 2016).
Ohya, Y., 2004. Drag of circular cylinders in the atmospheric turbulence. Fluid Dynam.
Res. 34 (2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluiddyn.2003.10.002.
Pagnini, L.C., Burlando, M., Repetto, M.P., 2015. Experimental power curve of small-size
wind turbines in turbulent urban environment. Appl. Energy 154, 112–121. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.117. Elsevier Ltd.
Pagnini, L., Piccardo, G., Repetto, M.P., 2018. Full scale behavior of a small size vertical
axis wind turbine. Renew. Energy 127, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2018.04.032. Elsevier Ltd.
Rezaeiha, A., Montazeri, H., Blocken, B., 2018. Towards optimal aerodynamic design of
vertical axis wind turbines: impact of solidity and number of blades. Energy 165,
1129–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.09.192. Pergamon.
Sareen, A., Sapre, C.A., Selig, M.S., 2012. Effects of leading-edge protection tape on wind
turbine blade performance. Wind Eng. 36 (5), 525–534. Available at: https://m-selig
.ae.illinois.edu/pubs/SareenSapreSelig-2012-WindEngineering-WPT.pdf. (Accessed
5 April 2019).

Sarkic Glumac, A., Hemida, H., H€ offer, R., 2018. Wind energy potential above a high-rise
building influenced by neighboring buildings: an experimental investigation. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerod. 175, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JWEIA.2018.01.022.
Elsevier.
Seddighi, M., Soltani, M., 2007. The influence of free stream turbulence intensity on the
unsteady behavior of a wind turbine blade section. In: 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston,
Virigina. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-630.
Sicot, C., Devinant, P., et al., 2006. Experimental study of the effect of turbulence on
horizontal axis wind turbine aerodynamics. Wind Energy 9 (4), 361–370. https://
doi.org/10.1002/we.184. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sicot, C., Aubrun, S., et al., 2006. Unsteady characteristics of the static stall of an airfoil
subjected to freestream turbulence level up to 16%. Exp. Fluid 41 (4), 641–648.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-006-0187-9.
Sicot, C., et al., 2008. Rotational and turbulence effects on a wind turbine blade.
Investigation of the stall mechanisms. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 96 (8–9), 1320–1331.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2008.01.013.
Sørensen, J.N., 2011. Aerodynamic aspects of wind energy conversion. Annu. Rev. Fluid
Mech. 43, 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-122109-160801.
St Martin, C.M., et al., 2016. Wind Turbine Power Production and Annual Energy
Production Depend on Atmospheric Stability and Turbulence. https://doi.org/
10.5194/wes-2016-21.
Stathopoulos, T., et al., 2018. Urban wind energy: some views on potential and
challenges. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod.. Elsevier 179, 146–157. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.JWEIA.2018.05.018.
Stratford, B.S., 1959. The prediction of separation of the turbulent boundary layer.
J. Fluid Mech.. Cambridge University Press 5 (01), 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022112059000015.
Sunderland, K., et al., 2013. Small wind turbines in turbulent (urban) environments: a
consideration of normal and Weibull distributions for power prediction. J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerod. 121, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2013.08.001. Elsevier.
Suryadi, A., Herr, M., 2015. Wall pressure spectra on a DU96-W-180 profile from low to
pre-stall angles of attack. In: 21st AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, Virginia. https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.2015-2688.
Swalwell, K., Sheridan, J., 2001. The effect of turbulence intensity on stall of the NACA
0021 aerofoil. In: 14th Australasian. Available at: http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.
au/imarusic/proceedings/14/FM010235.PDF. (Accessed 7 October 2016).
Swalwell, K., Sheridan, J., Melbourne, W., 2004. The effect of turbulence intensity on
performance of a NACA 4421 airfoil section. In: 42nd AIAA Aerospace. Available at:
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2004-665. (Accessed 8 June 2016).
G. Vita et al.
Tabrizi, A.B., et al., 2015. Extent to which international wind turbine design standard,
IEC61400-2 is valid for a rooftop wind installation. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 139,
50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.01.006. Elsevier.
Tang, H., et al., 2019. ‘Wake effect of a horizontal Axis wind turbine on the performance
of a downstream turbine’, energies. MDPI AG 12 (12), 2395. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en12122395.
Tangler, J., 2002. The nebulous art of using wind-tunnel airfoil data for predicting rotor
performance. ASME 2002 Wind Energy. Available at: http://proceedings.as
medigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid¼1572110. (Accessed 30
May 2016).
Timmer, W.A., 2010. Aerodynamic characteristics of wind turbine blade airfoils at high
angles-of-attack. In: TORQUE 2010: the Science of Making Torque from Wind,
pp. 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857097286.2.210.
Timmer, W.A., van Rooij, R.P.J.O.M., 2003. ‘Summary of the Delft university wind
turbine dedicated airfoils’. In: ASME 2003 Wind Energy Symposium. ASME,
pp. 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1115/WIND2003-352.
Toft, H.S., et al., 2016. Uncertainty in wind climate parameters and their influence on
wind turbine fatigue loads, 90. Renewable Energy, pp. 352–361. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2016.01.010.
Toja-Silva, F., et al., 2016. An empirical-heuristic optimization of the building-roof
geometry for urban wind energy exploitation on high-rise buildings. Appl. Energy
164, 769–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.095. Elsevier Ltd.
18
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 204 (2020) 104235
Toja-Silva, F., et al., 2018. A review of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of
the wind flow around buildings for urban wind energy exploitation. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerod. 180, 66–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JWEIA.2018.07.010. Elsevier.
Traub, L.W., 2011. Experimental investigation of the effect of trip strips at low Reynolds
number. J. Aircraft 48 (5), 1776–1784. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031375.
Vermeer, L.J., Sørensen, J.N., Crespo, A., 2003. Wind turbine wake aerodynamics. Prog.
Aero. Sci. 39 (6–7), 467–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-0421(03)00078-2.
Vita, G., et al., 2018. Generating atmospheric turbulence using passive grids in an
expansion test section of a wind tunnel. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 178, 91–104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2018.02.007. Elsevier.
Wagner, R., 2010. Accounting for the Speed Shear in Wind Turbine Power Performance
Measurement. Risø National Laboratory.
Walker, S.L., 2011. ‘Building mounted wind turbines and their suitability for the urban
scale—a review of methods of estimating urban wind resource’. Energy Build. 43 (8),
1852–1862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.03.032.
Wang, S., et al., 2014. Turbulent intensity and Reynolds number effects on an airfoil at
low Reynolds numbers. Phys. Fluids 26 (11), 115107. https://doi.org/10.1063/
1.4901969. AIP Publishing.
Zdravkovich, M.M., 1997. Flow around circular cylinders, flow around circular cylinders.
Available at: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid¼2-s2.0-00307
44960&amp;partnerID¼tZOtx3y1.