Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Effect of leading-edge protrusion shapes for passive flow control measure

on wind turbine blades
Sujit Roy a, Biplab Das a, b, Agnimitra Biswas a, *
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Silchar, Silchar, Assam, 788010, India
b
School of the Built Environment, Centre for Sustainable Technologies, Ulster University, N Ireland, BT37 0QB, UK

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

Handling Editor: Prof. A.I. Incecik In the present study, protrusions in the leading edge of the NACA 4415 airfoil were incorporated as a passive flow
control measure on the wind turbine blades. Three airfoil models: unmodified leading-edge (ULE), spherical
Keywords: leading-edge protrusion (SLEP), and triangular leading-edge protrusion (TLEP), were investigated experimen­
NACA4415 airfoil tally. Thereafter, CFD investigations were carried out using ANSYS 14.0 simulation tool to observe the flow
Flow separation
characteristics around the airfoils. Further, LEP-based passive design was applied on a horizontal axis wind
Leading-edge protrusion
turbine (HAWT) to investigate its performance. An amplitude (A) of 1% of the chord length (C) was considered as
Lift coefficient
Subsonic wind tunnel the height of protrusion, while a distance of 0.25C was maintained between the protrusions to fabricate the
CFD experimental models. The study was performed at a low Reynolds number (Re) of 1.5 × 105 for a wide angle of
attack (α) of 0◦ –20◦ . The experimental results demonstrate that the SLEP model has a higher lift coefficient at α
≥ 18◦ , whereas the TLEP model performs poorly when compared with the ULE model. The instantaneous lift
coefficient plot indicates that the SLEP model generates a more stable force at a higher angle of attack. The
computational analysis reveals that a larger primary circulation (extended till 0.2C) is observed in the ULE model
at a post-stall angle of attack (α = 18◦ ), indicating early flow separation. Whereas, in the SLEP and TLEP models,
it is extended to 0.70C and 0.54C, respectively, indicating the best flow controlling measures achieved by using
the SLEP model. The investigations of HAWT rotors with LEP revealed that SLEP HAWT exhibit 8.2% more power
coefficient than ULE HAWT.

1. Introduction
The formation of separation bubbles and flow separation in the
suction surface of the airfoil at low Reynolds number (Re) flow de­
teriorates the aerodynamic performance of the wind turbine airfoil
blade (Gopinathan and Rose, 2021). The occurrence of flow separation
leads the airfoil to an early stall (lift coefficient starts decreasing from
this point onwards), affecting the overall lift generation. Researchers are
focusing on flow-control approaches to dodge or prolong the flow sep­
aration in the airfoil’s suction surface as a part of a new research trend.
The separated flow causes a loss of lift and an increase in pressure drag
(Zhou et al., 2017). Koca et al. (2018) examined the flow separation
process, the development of laminar separation bubbles (LSBs), vortex
shedding, and other fluid flow phenomena in a plain NACA 4412 airfoil
operating at low Re. The protrusions on the leading edge of the hump­
back whale flippers had avoided the flow separation over the flippers,
leading to their agile motion and higher lift generation (Weihs, 1981;
Fish and Battle, 1995). Therefore, researchers started to investigate the
flow characteristics around the protrusions. Leading-edge protrusions
(LEPs) have helped prevent early flow separation by re-energizing the
boundary layer and improving the turbulence intensity. LEPs generate
counter-rotating vortices, but how they interact with airflow over an
airfoil is remained unknown, especially for low-Re flows. Miklosovic
et al. (2004) postulated that an increase in the momentum of a boundary
layer, resulting in stall delay, may be achieved by using LEPs.
The researchers have tried to implement the LEPs in different airfoils
to investigate their effect on the airfoil’s aerodynamic behaviors. Han­
sen et al. (2011) noticed that a leading-edge sinusoidal protrusion
(LESSP) had enhanced the post-stall aerodynamic efficiency of the
airfoil and had given a smoother stall than an unmodified airfoil.
Miklosovic et al. (2004) replaced a NACA 0020 wind turbine blade’s
leading-edge with a LESSP. They discovered that, except 9◦ –13◦ , the
modified blade outperformed the ordinary blade. The maximum lift
coefficient was increased by 6%, and the stall angle (angle of attack at

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sujitme12@gmail.com (S. Roy), bpd@mech.nits.ac.in, b.das@ulster.ac.uk (B. Das), agnibis@yahoo.co.in (A. Biswas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.113688
Received 2 October 2022; Received in revised form 31 December 2022; Accepted 10 January 2023
Available online 19 January 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Roy et al.
which stall phenomenon starts) was delayed by 40%. Johari et al. (2007)
redesigned the NACA 634–021 airfoil and observed lift coefficient in­
crease up to 50% in the post-stall zone. They also discovered that the
amplitude variation of a sinusoidal profile had a greater impact on
aerodynamic performance than the wavelength change. An airfoil with a
LESSP was changed by Zhang and Wu (2012) to study the effect of wind
velocity on the airfoil’s performance. With a redesigned airfoil and
higher inflow wind speed (15 m/s), they saw a maximum increase of
24.8% in shaft torque while seeing no improvement in shaft torque at
lower wind speeds (10 m/s). At a low-Re of 5 × 104, Zhang et al. (2013)
tested the NACA 634–021 airfoil with and without LESSP. They found
that the redesigned airfoil had a lift coefficient 25% higher and a
lift-to-drag ratio of 39.2% higher in the post-stall zone. According to
Huang et al. (2015), the modification of the SD 8000 wind turbine airfoil
blade with a small wavelength and large amplitude delayed the stall and
increased the post-stall lift to drag ratio at the cost of the maximum lift
coefficient. A study by Bai et al. (2016) indicated that at a low wind
speed of 6 m/s, a modified blade with the shortest wavelength and the
smallest amplitude produced a 17.5% higher power coefficient than a
plain blade. Their findings showed that a shorter wavelength functioned
better at high tip speed ratios than a larger wavelength. Two
leading-edge adjustments, tested by Abate and Mavris (2018) on NREL
wind turbine blades with LESSP, resulted in enhanced annual energy
production (sinusoidal span 62% and 95% of total span). In addition, at
a higher wind speed of 20 m/s, the overall shaft torque was greater with
the redesigned blade. Aerodynamic performance was improved as a
result of the leading-edge modification’s lower suction surface pressure.
Abate et al. (2019) also reported the same findings. A LESSP airfoil
boosted wind turbine power production at a greater wind velocity of 20
m/s. When the wind speed dropped to 10 m/s, however, an entirely
other pattern emerged. Using three different wavelengths and ampli­
tudes, Arunvinthan et al. (2020) altered the leading edge of a 634–021
airfoil at Re = 2 × 105. They found that the pre-stall lift coefficient was
higher for the modification with the largest amplitude (0.5C) and
longest wavelength (0.12C) than the plain airfoil. The modified airfoil’s
lift-to-drag ratio was lower than the unmodified airfoil near the stall
angle due to the modified airfoil’s higher drag coefficient. The lift co­
efficient of the smallest modification was also found to rise when tur­
bulence intensity was decreased in the pre-stall zone. Sreejith and
Sathyabhama (2020) performed a computational and experimental
investigation of E216 airfoil using 2–8 mm LESSP and found a maximum
enhancement in lift coefficient of 4.51% with the highest amplitude at α
= 6◦ . Gopinathan et al. (2020) investigated the flow physics over a swept
blade (NACA 0015 and NACA 4415) with LESSP of 0.05C and 0.12C
amplitude and observed that the flow separation occurred early behind
the trough section, whereas flow remained attached for a longer chord
length behind peak section. The counter-rotating vortex generated along
the centerline of the trough section has improved the aerodynamic
performance of modified blades.
Airfoils with and without the LESSP of the NACA 4412 were studied
by Butt et al. (2021). Only in the post-stall region could they observed a
better aerodynamic performance due to leading-edge alteration. Yi-Nan
et al. (2021) substituted the source term in the momentum equation by
adding an extra force generated by the LESSP to develop a novel
modeling method. This method helped to reduce the computational cost
for complex meshing near the LESSPs and eased the design. Their
modeled airfoil (without any LESSPs) predicted the aerodynamic per­
formance and fluid flow characteristics similar to that of an airfoil with
LESSPs at different angles of attack. Yan et al. (2021) numerically
studied the effect of LESSP on the stationary and rotating H-Darrieus
turbine models considering NACA 0018 as the base airfoil. They
observed that the LESSP of smaller amplitude (A = 0.01C) provided the
best aerodynamic performance in the studied range. In contrast, the
wavelength variation was insignificant in delaying the stall or causing
aerodynamic performance improvement. They also noticed that the
incorporation of LESSP in the static model resulted a change in stall
2
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
occurrence from the leading-edge stall to the trailing-edge stall. In the
case of the rotating turbine model, LESSP resulted in an enhanced dy­
namic lift of 16.3% at the azimuth angle of 78–110◦ and was able to
suppress the dynamic stall at the azimuth angle of 90–150◦ , operating at
a tip speed ratio of 2. Zhang et al. (2021) suggested using LESSP of
smaller amplitude, as larger amplitude and smaller wavelength could
deteriorate the maximum lift coefficient. A constant wavelength of
0.25C was used by Johari et al. (2007) and Kim et al. (2012) in their
studies to observe the LESSP amplitude effect on aerodynamic perfor­
mance. They had identified the positive impact of LESSP as it increased
stall angle. They observed that the smaller amplitude (A = 0.018C)
produced as much as a 9.6% enhanced lift to drag ratio. Mishra and De
(2021) modified the NACA 0021 airfoil with LESSP of 0.01428C and
0.05714C amplitude and observed that the modification could delay the
separation point, and the blade with the smallest amplitude produced
higher lift at the post-stall region. Joseph and Sathyabhama (2022) have
noticed that incorporating LESSP reduced the maximum lift coefficient
by as much as 30% compared to the unmodified blade, at Re = 2.5 ×
105. They also observed that LSB is completely removed in the modified
blade. Fan et al. (2022) altered the leading edge of the airfoil model with
sinusoidal tubercles of two different amplitudes and observed a higher
lift generation with a smaller amplitude. Although, lift to drag ratio
decreased but the modified airfoils received a smoother stall occurrence.
Few researchers tried to modify the airfoil’s leading edge using
spherical shape LEPs. Adding a spherical leading-edge protrusion (SLEP)
of 0.05C amplitude to the NACA 0012 improved the pressure coefficient
distribution around the airfoil, according to Gawad (2013). They found
that stalling did not occur in the redesigned airfoil for a wide range of
angles of attack (0◦ –25◦ ). NACA 4415 airfoil leading-edge modifications
were studied in detail by Aftab and Ahmad (2017), with a range of
amplitude from 0.015C to 0.0375C. A greater performance was found
for airfoils with smaller amplitudes for LESSP and SLEP models. Addi­
tionally, after a 10◦ angle of attack, they found that the airfoil with SLEP
had a higher lift to drag than the airfoil with an unmodified leading-edge
(ULE). Zadorozhna et al. (2021) suggested the use of SLEP in small wind
turbines. They performed a computational study varying the spherical
protuberance amplitude in the range of 0.005C–0.03C. They found that
the overall aerodynamic performance of smaller amplitude (A) is better
than all the studied airfoils. However, the largest amplitude showed the
highest lift to drag enhancement of 12.86% at α = 0◦ . They also observed
that the skin friction drag reduced till α = 8◦ , as the favorable pressure
distribution was achieved with the modified airfoils. The highest drag
reduction with A = 0.005C and 0.03C was observed to be 5.84% and
8.46% at α = 0◦ , respectively. Roy et al. (2022a) computationally
analyzed the effect of SLEP amplitude on the lift and drag coefficient of
NACA 4415 airfoil and found that the smallest protrusion gave the
highest lift enhancement. However, a positive effect was observed in the
post-stall region at α ≥ 18◦ . Moreover, it was also noticed that the SLEP
model could able to delay the occurrence of flow separation.
1.1. Inferences drawn and contribution of the present study
Most studies have applied LESSP to enhance aerodynamic perfor­
mance and found a degraded aerodynamic performance in the pre-stall
region and enhanced performance in the post-stall region. The para­
metric variation of the amplitude of spherical protrusion was mostly
investigated as wavelength variation has a negligible impact on the
airfoil performance improvement (Johari et al., 2007). The literature
also revealed that the LEPs with smaller amplitudes performed better
than larger ones (Roy et al., 2022a). Although few researchers investi­
gated the SLEP model’s effect numerically, no experimental in­
vestigations have been performed so far to obtain the aerodynamic
performance insights with leading-edge spherical shape protrusions as
well as with another protrusion shape. Further, the effects of flow con­
trol measures by using different protrusion shapes were not investigated
at low-Re flow conditions. Further, the stability of the performance of
S. Roy et al.
the airfoil blades with changing the angle of attack due to the dynamism
in the operation of the wind turbine blades is still not investigated for
low-Re flow conditions. In addition, how different protrusion shapes
impact the laminar to the turbulent transition of flow on the blades at
low-Re flow is still unanswered. The influence of SLEP on performance
of HAWT has also not been investigated so far.
In the present study, an LEP with an amplitude of 0.01C and wave­
length of 0.25C was considered to investigate the aerodynamic behav­
iors. Two different shapes of LEPs, i.e., SLEP and triangular leading-edge
protrusion (TLEP), were considered in the present work to modify the
leading edge of the NACA 4415 airfoil. The results of the modified
models (SLEP and TLEP) were compared with the NACA 4415 model
with an unmodified leading-edge (ULE). Further, CFD investigations
were carried out to visualize the fluid flow characteristics around the
airfoils to obtain insights into the flow control features with leading-
edge protrusions in low-Re flow. The comparative study was per­
formed at a constant chord-based low-Re of 1.5 × 105 for a wide range of
angles of attack (0◦ –20◦ ). It is revealed from the literature that the stall
angle of the unmodified NACA 4415 airfoil at Re = 1.5 × 105 is 12◦
(Saliveros, 1988). Therefore, the flow characteristics were compared at
three different conditions of airfoils: (i) at α = 4◦ (pre-stall), (ii) at α =
12◦ (stall), and (iii) at α = 18◦ (post-stall). The pressure, velocity,
streamline, and turbulent kinetic energy contours were analyzed prop­
erly to understand the flow characteristic around airfoil models with the
considered protrusion shapes. Additionally, the SLEP passive control
method was applied to the HAWT blade, and peformance of turbine
model at different pitch angles and wind velocities was investigated
experimentally. To discourse on the novelty of the present investigation,
the following points are specified.
(i) Although the sinusoidal and spherical LEPs were compared
computationally, no investigation was reported so far on the
comparative analysis of different LEPs experimentally. Therefore,
an experimental campaign was conducted in the present study to
discourse the aerodynamic performance insights of a wind tur­
bine airfoil blade with different protrusion shapes under low-Re
flow conditions.
(ii) As the local angle of attack in the wind turbine blade changes
continuously with the wind velocity, a hysteresis study was
conducted to find out the best model among the ULE, SLEP, and
TLEP in the dynamic angle of attack situations for low-Re number
flow condition.
(iii) A detailed experimental and computational investigation at a
wide range of angles of attack in pre-stall, stall, and post-stall
regions was carried out for the airfoil models. These types of
combined studies on airfoil models with spherical and triangular
LEPs were not performed so far.
(iv) The application of spherical LEPs in the horizontal axis wind
turbine (HAWT) rotor model was not investigated so far. There­
fore, the present study compared the performance of a three-
bladed HAWT rotor with ULE and SLEP blades at low-velocity
conditions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Airfoil fabrication
The airfoils were fabricated using balsa wood, as it has a better
strength-to-weight ratio (Sengupta et al., 2022). NACA 4415 airfoil of
100 mm chord length (C) was selected as the base airfoil to fabricate the
models. The span of the model was considered as 150 mm to maintain a
gap from the test-section wall. The base profile was attached to both
sides of a rectangular wooden block and chiseled to the desired shape.
Sandpaper of different grades was used to make the surface of the
models smoother. A spherical protrusion (SLEP) and triangular protru­
sion (TLEP) of the amplitude of 1% of chord length (A = 0.01C) were
3
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
fixed at the airfoil’s leading edge to modify the airfoil (see Fig. 1). The
gap between the LEPs (wavelength) was 0.25C, as the wavelength
variation has an insignificant effect on the aerodynamic performance
improvement (Johari et al., 2007). The amplitude of the protrusion is
chosen based on the authors’ previous study on optimization of pro­
trusion size for better aerodynamic performance (Roy et al., 2022a).
Whereas the wavelength is selected based on the studies reported by
Johari et al. (2007), Sudhakar and Karthikeyan (2013), Zhang et al.
(2014), Wei et al. (2015), and Aftab and Ahmad (2017). The holes were
created with the help of a 2 mm drill-bit in the leading edge to fix the
protrusions, and then with the use of fine-grade sandpaper, the spherical
and triangular shapes were created. Two holes were provided at both
ends of the models (at the center of pressure) to hold it in the supporting
stand inside the wind tunnel test section.
2.2. Experimental set-up and procedure
The experiments were conducted in a suction-type subsonic open-
circuit wind tunnel installed at the Fluid Machinery Laboratory, Na­
tional Institute of Technology, India, as shown in Fig. 2(a). The tunnel
has a 140 × 140 cm square entrance to suck air from the atmosphere,
followed by a 20 cm settling chamber. A shorter convergent section and
a longer divergent section were maintained to avoid flow separation
inside the wind tunnel. A test section of 30 × 30 cm cross-section and
100 cm length was kept to perform the experiments. A hexagonal hon­
eycomb aluminum mesh of 15 cm thickness was placed after the settling
chamber to keep the flow streamlined in the test section. A small
opening at the top of the test section was present to insert the pitot tube
(which can travel only in the y-direction) to measure the wind velocity
at a given position. A metallic supporting stand was fabricated to sup­
port the airfoil models (Fig. 2(b)). A three-axis load cell of ±0.1 N ac­
curacy was installed at the bottom of the test section to measure the lift
and drag force, as shown in Fig. 2(c). The models were placed at
different angles of attack from 0 to 20◦ with the help of a 360◦ protractor
arrangement. A hot-wire anemometer of accuracy ±0.1 m/s was used to
measure the turbulence intensity (TI) and flow uniformity inside the test
section. The turbulence intensity as well as flow non-uniformity in the
test section were found to be ≤ 1%, which is within the acceptable limit
(Bhuyan and Biswas, 2014; Sengupta et al., 2016). The experiments
were carried out at a chord-based low-Re of 1.5 × 105 (TI = 0.44%),
corresponding to the 21.9 m/s inflow wind velocity. As the wind tunnel
blockage ratio (ratio of the structural blockage to flow and the tunnel
cross-sectional area) is below 10%, the blockage correction is not
considered in the current investigation (Chen and Liou, 2011; Schreck
et al., 2007).
Further, to observe the application of SLEP in the wind turbine blade,
two small-scale horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT) models (one with
ULE blade and another with SLEP blade) were fabricated and tested at a
low wind velocity (4 m/s - 7 m/s) condition. The velocity of the testing is
limited by the range of velocity available at the exit of the wind tunnel.
The Reynolds numbers at these tested velocities fall in the range of 0.25
× 105–0.5 × 105, which also fall under the low-Re condition. Un-tapered
and untwisted blades were constructed using wood to fabricate 3-bladed
small-scale HAWT models due to its ease of construction (Siram and
Sahoo, 2022). Un-tapered and untwisted HAWT models were also
investigated by Butterfield et al. (1992), Corbus et al. (2006), Freere
et al. (2010), Hsiao et al. (2013). A fixed chord of 75 mm was maintained
from root to tip of the turbine blade with a blade span of 150 mm and
rotor diameter of 400 mm. The span of the blade was restricted by the
exit dimension (60 × 60 cm) of the wind tunnel, whereas the chord
length was chosen to maintain a similar chord-to-span ratio of 0.5, as
used by Siram and Sahoo (2022). The amplitude of protrusion was kept
as 0.01C with a wavelength of 0.25C. The rope brake dynamometer
arrangement was used to measure the torque generated by the HAWT
model, as shown in Fig. 2(d). The power coefficients of HAWT models
were calculated using Eqs. (1)–(4), following the procedure mentioned
S. Roy et al. Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688

Fig. 1. Different fabricated airfoil model (a) unmodified airfoil (Model-1) (b) airfoil with spherical leading-edge protrusion (Model-2) (c) airfoil with triangular
leading-edge protrusion (Model-3).

by Sengupta et al. (2022). As the dimension of the test section is smaller 2012).
in size, the HAWT models were placed at the exit of the wind tunnel, as
R = x1a1 . xa22 . x3a3 . ....... xann (6)
shown in Fig. 2(e). The model was kept at a distance of 1.5 m from the
wind tunnel exit to avoid the structural blockage effect. The blades were [( )2 ( ) ( ) ( ) ]1/2
fixed to the turbine hub with the help of nut and screw, so that different ωR ω1 ω2 2 ω3 2 ωn 2
= a1 + a2 + a3 + .......... + an (7)
pitch angles (angle between chord line and rotor plane) could be ob­ R x1 x2 x3 xn
tained. An anemometer was used to measure the wind velocity
approaching the HAWT model, and a digital contactless tachometer was where, a1 , a2 , a3 , …, an are the degree of the measure variables x1 , x2 ,
used to count the rotational speed of HAWT model. x3 , …, xn
( ) The fractional uncertainty for the lift coefficient (function of lift
Mechanical torqueT = (W − S) rshaft + 2rs g (1) force, L and inflow wind velocity, u) and drag coefficient (function of
drag force, D and inflow wind velocity, u) is found to be ±2.24%,
2T
Torque coefficientCt = (2) calculated using Eqs. (8) and (9). The uncertainties of the lift force and
ρAu2mean R
drag force are calculated from the accuracy of the three-axis load cell
(10 N ± 0.1 N), and the uncertainty of the inflow wind velocity is
Power coefficientCp = λ × Ct (3)
calculated from the accuracy of the pitot tube (30 m/s ± 1%).
ΩR [( ) ]
where, Tip speed ratio (TSR)λ = (4) ω CL ω L 2 ( ω u )2 1/2
u = + 2 (8)
CL L u
where, W is dead weight (kg), S is spring balance load (kg), rshaft is shaft [( ) ( ω )2 ]1/2
radius (m), rs is nylon string radius (m), Ω is angular velocity (rad/s), ρ is ω CD
=
ω 2 D
+ 2
u
(9)
air density (kg/m3), u is incoming average wind velocity (m/s), A is CD D u
rotor area (m2), and R is rotor radius. The uncertainties in calculating TSR and power coefficient were
calculated using Eq. (10) and Eq. (11) and found to be ±1.52% and
2.3. Uncertainty calculation ±1.717%, respectively. Uncertainty in torque measurement (ωT ) is
calculated from the least count of the spring balance (ωS = 1 kg/cm2)
There is always an unavoidable error in the experimental work due and expressed as Eq. (12) (Singh et al., 2015). The instrumental uncer­
to the instruments’ accuracy. An uncertainty analysis was carried out to tainty combining the uncertainties of anemometer and tachometer is
find the expected instrumental error in the lift and drag coefficient, calculated using Eq. (13) (Singh et al., 2015) and found to be ±1.414%.
using Eq. (5) (Kline and McClintock, 1953)
[( ) ( ω )2 ]1/2
[( )2 ]1/2 ωTSR ω 2
(10)
)2 ( )2 ( )2 ( Ω u
= + 2
∂R ∂R ∂R ∂R TSR Ω u
ωR = ω1 + ω2 + ω3 + ................ + ωn
∂x1 ∂x2 ∂x3 ∂xn
[( )2 (ω )2 ( ω )2 ]1/2
(5) ω Cp
=
ω TSR
+
T
+ 2
u
(11)
Cp TSR T u
where, ωR is the total uncertainty of the derived quantity, R (function of
(ω ) (ω )
x1 , x2 , x3 , …, xn ) and ω1 , ω2 , ω3 , … … …, ωn are the individual un­ T
=
S
(12)
certainty of the measured variables x1 , x2 , x3 , …, xn . T S
If the measured variables are related to the derived quantity in a [ ]1/2
product form, as shown in Eq. (6), the uncertainty can be expressed as ω Instrument = (ω anemometer )2 + (ω tachometer )2 (13)
fractional uncertainty, and Eq. (5) can be rewritten as Eq. (7) (Holman,

4
S. Roy et al. Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688

Fig. 2. Experimental set up (a) subsonic wind tunnel with different major components (b) hexagonal mesh used at inlet (c) airfoil arrangement inside the test section
(d) Components and torque measuring arrangement of HAWT model (e) HAWT model placed at wind tunnel exit.

2.4. Computational procedure
A comparative computational analysis was performed to capture the
flow physics around the airfoils. The steps followed to perform the
present computational study are shown in Fig. 3. The base airfoil was
selected as NACA 4415 with a chord length (C) of 100 mm, identical to
the chord length of the experimental model. The models were simulated
at a Re of 1.5 × 105 to match the experimental operating condition. As

5
S. Roy et al.
Fig. 3. Flow chart of the present computational study.
the stall angle of unmodified NACA 4415 was found to be 12◦ (Saliveros,
1988), a wide range of angles of attack from 0◦ to 20◦ were covered to
properly investigate the impact of leading-edge modification in the
pre-stall (α = 4◦ ), stall (α = 12◦ ) and post-stall (α = 18◦ ) regions. The
LEP’s amplitudes in both the modified models (SLEP and TLEP) were
chosen as 0.01C, similar to the fabricated models (Fig. 4).
2.5. Computational domain and boundary conditions
An undersized computational domain may include errors due to
boundary effect, whereas an oversized computational domain will
encompass higher computational cost. Therefore, the selection of a
proper computational domain is necessary to obtain a viable solution.
The distances from the boundary walls were selected as per the sug­
gestions of various researchers (Roy et al. (2022a); Asli et al. (2015);
Skillen et al. (2015)). A 3D computational domain was initially
considered to simulate the present airfoil blades. Fig. 5(a–d) showed the
airfoil blade with spherical leading-edge protrusion (SLEP). A
Fig. 4. Types of leading-edge of NACA 4415 airfoil (a) unmodified leading edge (ULE) (b) spherical leading-edge protrusion (SLEP) (c) triangular leading-edge
protrusion (TLEP).
6
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
cross-section along the chord at mid-span (cut-plane is shown in Fig. 5
(c)) of the airfoil blade is shown in Fig. 5 (d). The airfoil profile at the
cross-section (shown in Fig. 5(d)) was considered to perform the 2D
computational analysis to lessen the computation time and cost. Fig. 5
(e) displayed the study domain and the boundary conditions to formu­
late the present study to an equivalent 2D computational study. The
upstream computational domain was considered semi-circular in shape
to replicate the physical phenomenon of inlet air accurately, and the
velocity inlet boundary condition was assigned. A rectangular down­
stream computational domain was maintained to capture the wake
generated behind the trailing edge, and a pressure outlet boundary
condition was assigned at the exit. The top and bottom walls were
assigned as a symmetry boundary condition. To diminish the boundary
effect, 15C and 6C spaces were kept from the airfoil leading-edge to
assign the outlet and inlet boundaries, respectively. At the solid-fluid
interface, zero relative movement was specified.
S. Roy et al.
Fig. 5. (a) 3D computational domain (b) 3D airfoil model with spherical protrusion (c) cut-plane at half-span of SLEP model (d) cross-section of SLEP model (e) 2D
computational domain and boundary conditions.
2.6. Mesh generation and grid independency study
Structured rectangular mesh near the airfoil boundary, fine un­
structured triangular mesh in the inner circle of 2C, and coarser un­
structured triangular mesh in the rest of the computational domain were
the three parts of discretization, as shown in Fig. 6(a). The element sizes
of the meshed computational domain varied within a range of 0.4 mm
(minimum element size) and 10 mm (maximum element size). The first
layer was kept to a thickness of 0.01 mm near the airfoil boundary and
inflated with 12 layers at a growth rate of 1.5. The inflation zone is
visible in Fig. 6(c–f), where the leading edge of ULE (Fig. 6(c)), SLEP
(Fig. 6(d)), and TLEP (Fig. 6(e)) models were shown. The measurement
of non-dimensional Y+ confirms the stability of the generated mesh at
the airfoil boundary, and it was found to be substantially below the
expected limit (Y+≤ 1) by using the SST (Shear-Stress Transport) k-ω
turbulence model. Fig. 6(b) demonstrates the variation of Y+ in all the
three models along the chord length and found to be maximum in the
SLEP model with a value of 0.7, which is below the desired Y+ value as
recommended in Versteeg and Malalasekera (2007).
Using the grid-independency test, one can determine the optimal
mesh element size for discretizing a computation’s domain of interest.
Using relatively coarser mesh results in erroneous findings, whilst using
finer mesh results in high processing costs. Table 1 shows the results of a
grid-independency test for the current computational model at Re = 1.5
× 105. The comparison included five distinct grids, each with a different
minimum and maximum element sizes. When the grid size increased
from Grid-1 to Grid-2, a significant increase in lift and drag coefficients
7
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
was noticed. Until Grid-4, there was a noticeable improvement in the
coefficients. However, further mesh refining to Grid-5 resulted in a
0.74% improvement in the lift coefficient. It is also clear from Fig. 7 that
the slope of the coefficients decreased drastically after Grid-4, which
indicated no significant improvement with further reduction in the
element size. However, an additional computational cost was incurred
due to an increase in the number of elements. Thus, a grid with a min­
imum and maximum element size of 0.4 and 10 mm (i.e., Grid-4) was
selected as the best grid size for further computational investigations.
2.7. Governing equation and model validation
The equations that governed the present simulation were (Eqs.(14)–
(21)): two-dimensional incompressible Reynolds-Averaged Navier-
Stokes (RANS) equations and 4-equation Shear-Stress Transport (SST) k-
ω transition turbulent model (Menter et al., 2006). The SST k-ω turbu­
lence model combines the benefits of the k-ε (used for free shear flow in
the far field) and k-ω models (applied near the wall because it is sus­
ceptible to the turbulence intensity). The SST k-ω transition model
combined with two additional equations: one for intermittency (γ) and
another for transition onset momentum thickness Reynolds number
(Rẽθt), to describe the laminar-turbulent transition process. The inter­
mittency term is employed to activate the production term of the tur­
bulent kinetic energy (TKE) downstream of the transition point in the
boundary layer, and the transition onset momentum-thickness Reynolds
number term captures the non-local effect of the turbulence intensity.
Chishty et al. (2011) used the Transitional SST Model to study the effect
S. Roy et al. Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688

Fig. 6. Generated mesh (a) computational domain (b) Y+ values near the airfoil boundary (c) unmodified leading edge (d) spherical leading-edge protrusion (e)
triangular leading-edge protrusion (f) trailing edge of the airfoil.

Table 1
Grid independency study of NACA 4415 airfoil at α = 12◦ and Re = 1.5 × 105.
Grid Minimum element size (mm) Maximum element size (mm) Number of elements Lift Coefficient % increment Drag Coefficient % increment

Grid - 1 10.0 60 1015786 1.04 – 0.031 –

Grid - 2 4.0 40 1085799 1.16 11.54 0.038 22.58
Grid - 3 1.0 20 1127451 1.21 4.31 0.045 18.42
Grid - 4 0.4 10 1196084 1.243 2.71 0.0503 11.78
Grid - 5 0.3 5 1265297 1.252 0.74 0.0509 1.19

4-equations SST k-omega transition turbulence model in predicting

aerodynamic coefficients and flow separation process is also discussed
by Ge et al. (2019). A detailed investigation for selecting a suitable
turbulence model was reported in Roy et al. (2022b). The present
computational study was done with the help of ANSYS Fluent 14.0,
which is based on the finite volume method (FVM). The SIMPLE scheme
was used to link pressure and velocity terms in the momentum equation.
The second-order upwind scheme was used to separate the convective
terms. A small enough time step (Δt = 10− 4) was used to meet the CFL
criterion (Roy et al., 2022a). The governing equations are mentioned
below (Sreejith and Sathyabhama, 2020; Shah et al., 2015; ANSYS
Fluent 14.0, 2011):
∂ui
=0 (14)
∂xi
( ) ( )
∂(ρ ui ) ∂ ρ ui uj ∂p ∂ ∂ui
+ =− + μ − ρ u′ i u′ j (15)
∂t ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj
Fig. 7. Grid independency study.
The symbols u andu stand for the fluctuating velocity and the mean
′

of dimples on low pressure turbine cascade blades and effectively pre­
dicted the detachment and reattachment locations. Using the Transi­
tional SST Model, Shah et al. (2015) numerically simulated and
investigated the process of the laminar separation bubble and the
laminar-turbulent transition over the airfoil UBD5494. As a result, the
same model is employed in the current work. The suitability of
velocity, respectively. t, ρ, μ, prefer to time, density, dynamic viscosity,
and pressure, respectively, whereas i and j were used to refer cartesian
coordinates. The SST k- ω turbulent equations listed below were used to
model the Reynolds stress term (ρ u′ i u′ j ) in the momentum equation:
k (turbulent kinetic energy) equation:

8
S. Roy et al. Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688

( )
∂(ρk) ∂(ρ k ui ) ∂ ∂k [ [( ) ] ]
+ = Γk + Gk − Yk (16) Rev
∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj γ sep = 2 max − 1, 0 Freattach , 2 Fθt (20)
3.235Reθc
ω (specific dissipation rate) equation:
RT 4

∂(ρω) ∂(ρ ω ui ) ∂
(
∂ω
) where, Freattach = e− ( 20 ) and γeff = max(γ, γ sep )
+ = Γω + Gω − Yω + Dω (17) The transition model interacts with the SST turbulence model as
∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj
below:
where, Gk, Gω, Yk, and Yω referred to the generation and dissipation of k ( )
∂(ρk) ∂(ρ k ui ) ∂ ∂k
and ω due to the mean velocity and turbulence, respectively. The + = Γk + G∗k − Yk∗ (21)
∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj
respective effective diffusivity terms were denoted by Γk and Γω,
whereas, Dω represents the cross-diffusive term.
where, Yk∗ = min(max(γeff , 0.1) , 1.0) Yk and G∗k = γeff Gk
The intermittency term, γ is calculated solving transport equation:
The computational results of the unmodified NACA 4415 airfoil (ULE
( ) [( ) ]
∂(ργ) ∂ ρ uj γ ∂ μ ∂γ model) using the SST k-ω transition turbulence model were validated
+ = Pγ1 − Eγ1 + Pγ2 − Eγ2 + μ+ t (18) with the experimental results of Saliveros (1988) at Re = 1.5 × 105, as
∂t ∂xi ∂xj σγ ∂xj
shown in Fig. 8(a). The percentage inaccuracy was found to be within
where, P γ1, and E γ1 are the transition source terms. the acceptable range (less than 10%). A maximum 7.54% inaccuracy in
The local transition onset momentum thickness Reynolds number, lift coefficient was estimated in the computational result. It is possible to
Rẽθt, is determined by solving the following transport equation: acquire multiple angles of attack by varying the wind direction in
( ) computational analysis, but this cannot be achieved in an experimental
analysis since the wind direction is fixed in the experimental analysis.
∼ [ ]
∂ ρReθt ( ) ∼
∂ ρuj γ ∂ ∂Reθt
+ = Pθt + (μ + μt ) (19) Further, the surface roughness is also different in computational and
∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj experimental studies. The discrepancy between experimental and
computational results might be due to these reasons. It can also be
where, Pθt is the blending function used to turn off the source term in the observed that the computational model has predicted less than the
boundary layer. experimental results at all the angles of attack, whereas it has projected a
The model without the correction predicts the turbulent reattach­ higher drag coefficient than the mentioned experimental drag coeffi­
ment location far downstream compared to experimental results (Men­ cient. The velocity contour of airfoil profile at the cut-plane (cut-plane
ter et al., 2006). This is because the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), k, in shown in Fig. 5 (c)) of 3D airfoil blade is shown in Fig. 8(b), whereas,
the separating shear layer is smaller at lower free stream turbulence velocity contour of 2D SLEP model is shown in Fig. 8(c). Both figures (8
intensities. As a result, it takes longer for the TKE to grow to large (b) and 8(c)) are compared to establish the reliability of 2D model
enough values that would cause the boundary layer to reattach. To predicting flow analysis around the airfoil with leading-edge protrusions
correct this deficiency, a modification to the transition model is intro­ instead of 3D model. Although there is a small variation between the 2D
duced that allows the TKE to grow rapidly once the laminar boundary and 3D velocity distribution due to the 3D flow effect, the 2D airfoil can
layer separates. Separation-induced transition can be rewritten as, predict the aerodynamic performance and flow physics similar to
cross-section of 3D airfoil blade. Ge et al. (2019) also performed a 2D
simulation to study the airfoil withg leading-edge defects, and predicted

Fig. 8. (a) Validation of the computational model (b) velocity contour at cut-plane of 3D airofil blade (c) velocity contour of 2D SLEP model.

9
S. Roy et al.
the flow separation and aerodynamic performance quite well. Moreover,
the complex blade-fluid interaction, blade loading, wake distribution,
and vortices transportation phenomenon are not in the objectives of the
present study. Therefore, the rest of the studies were carried out
considering 2D computational domain to minimize the computational
time and expenses.
3. Results and discussion
An experimental comparative study is performed for three different
types of leading-edge of the airfoil, viz. unmodified leading-edge (ULE),
leading-edge with spherical protrusion (SLEP), and leading-edge with
triangular protrusion (TLEP). The lift and drag coefficients are calcu­
lated to compare their aerodynamic performances. In order to under­
stand the changes that occurred in the flow physics around the airfoil
due to the modification of the leading edge, a 2D CFD analysis is carried
out with identical models to the experimental models. The contours for
pressure, velocity, streamlines, and turbulence kinetic energy around
the airfoil are discussed at three different angles of attack, i.e., α = 4◦
(pre-stall), α = 12◦ (stall), and α = 18◦ (post-stall). Following formulae
(Eqs. (22) and (23)) are used to calculate non-dimensional aerodynamic
coefficients (Roy et al., 2022a).
L, D
Lift, Drag coefficient, CL,D = 1 (22)
ρAu2
2 separated flow at the higher angle of attack cannot amend, leading to a
P − P∞
Pressure coefficient, CP = 1
(23)
ρAu2
2 observed that similar to the lift coefficient hysteresis loop, the spans of
3.1. Study of hysteresis effect
Hysteresis is a low-Re phenomenon generally visible near the stall
region that could affect the airfoil model’s performance (Biber and
Zumwalt, 1993). A continuous increment and decrement in the local
angle of attack experienced by the wind turbine airfoils make the study
Fig. 9. Effect of hysteresis on the tested models (a) ULE (Model-1) (b) SLEP (Model-2) (c) TLEP (Model-3).
10
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
of hysteresis important for any experimental investigation. The differ­
ence in the prediction of airfoil’s aerodynamic forces during increasing
and decreasing angles of attack leads to the introduction of the hyster­
esis effect. Hysteresis occurred in the experimental process due to stor­
ing earlier measured values while measuring the next value. Fig. 9
depicts the occurrence of hysteresis in the tested airfoil models. The
angle of attack initially increases from 0◦ to 20◦ , then decreases back to
0◦ at a small interval. The hysteresis loops have appeared clockwise in
the lift coefficient for all the studied models.
The formation of the hysteresis loop generally depends on the flow
separation pattern. Due to early flow separation, the hysteresis loop in
the ULE model spread over the angle of attack (10–18)◦ , whereas the
leading-edge modification helps to reduce the size of the hysteresis loop,
i.e., (16–20)◦ in lift coefficient of SLEP model and (14–20)◦ in lift co­
efficient of TLEP model. A reduction in maximum lift coefficient is
observed in decreasing the angle of attack. For example, the maximum
lift coefficients in ULE, SLEP, and TLEP are 1.21, 1.11, and 0.78 when
the angle of attack is increasing, whereas lift coefficients declined by
12.7%, 8.8%, and 13.2% at the respective angles of attack. Thus the
SLEP modification is able to lessen the hysteresis losses in the aero­
dynamic coefficient, which increases the stability of the dynamic char­
acteristics of the airfoil (Zhang et al., 2020). As the angle of attack
increases, the flow gets separated by bursting the laminar separation
bubble after the stall angle. While reducing the angle of attack, the
negative lift prediction. In contrast, the hysteresis loops have occurred
anti-clockwise direction, predicting the drag coefficient. It can be
the drag coefficient hysteresis loop are also decreased with the modified
leading-edge airfoil model.
3.2. Variation of aerodynamic coefficients
The experimentally obtained lift and drag forces are presented in
terms of two non-dimensional coefficients: lift coefficient and drag
S. Roy et al.
coefficient. The instantaneous lift coefficients are measured at different
angles of attack with the help of a three-axis load cell of 1000 sample
frequency. The fluctuations in the measured lift coefficient in the ULE,
SLEP, and TLEP at different angles of attack are shown in Fig. 10. The lift
fluctuation in the ULE model is least at the pre-stall angle of attack, but it
increases with the increase in the angle of attack. This type of fluctuating
force is undesirable in the case of rotating power-generating devices like
wind turbines. In the SLEP model, this fluctuation is observed to be less
than in the ULE and TLEP models at the post-stall angle of attack,
indicating the positive use of SLEP at higher angle of attack. A similar
phenomenon was observed by Zhang et al. (2019). Thus the SLEP
modification has ameliorated the fluctuating characteristics of the airfoil
at a post-stall angle of attack by reducing the fluctuation intensity.
Each experiment is conducted five times at a particular angle of
attack to check the repeatability of the trials, and an average lift coef­
ficient is calculated. A relative standard deviation (RSD) of the data set is
calculated using Eq. (20) to observe the variation of the dataset from the
average value. Fig. 11(a–d) reveals the variation of lift coefficients and
RSD with the angle of attack. The maximum lift coefficients are observed
to be 1.21, 1.11, and 0.78 with ULE, SLEP, and TLEP models, respec­
tively. The ULE model experiences a stall at α = 12◦ (stall angle),
whereas the SLEP and TLEP models are stalled at 18◦ and 16◦ , respec­
tively. Thus, the stall occurrence is delayed at the expense of the
maximum lift coefficient. It can be noticed that the ULE model has
outperformed the modified airfoils and remained higher till α = 16◦ . But
the SLEP model overcame the lift generation of the ULE model and
showed the highest lift coefficient among the studied airfoils at α ≥ 18◦ .
The TLEP model has remained the worst one among the studied models
at all angles of attack. TLEP model also offered the highest RSD, and a
maximum value of 2.83% can be observed at α = 20◦ (Fig. 11(d)). It can
be noticed that initially, the RSD is least in the ULE model but became
higher than the SLEP model in the post-stall region (α ≥ 14◦ ). By using
the 2D CFD analysis of ULE, SLEP, and TLEP airfoils, identical to the
experimental models, the computationally obtained lift coefficients are
compared with the experimental ones Fig. 11(e)). It is observed that
computational models have predicted higher lift coefficients with a
maximum absolute deviations of 9.66%, 13.76%, and 13.25% for ULE,
SLEP, and TLEP models, respectively (Fig. 11(f)).
It is observed from Fig. 12 that the drag coefficient increases with an
increase in the angle of attack, and the ULE model has the least drag
coefficient among the studied models. This is due to the increase of
pressure drag as the angle of attack increases. The roughness induced in
the SLEP and TLEP models exerts more friction, resulting in the rise of
friction drag. Therefore, both the modified models have a higher drag
coefficient than the ULE model. The maximum drag coefficients are
observed to be 0.12, 0.135, and 0.16 at α = 20◦ in the ULE, SLEP, and
TLEP models. The maximum RSD of 3.2% is observed in the TLEP model,
Fig. 10. Instantaneous fluctuations of lift coefficient at different angles of attack.
11
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
indicating more fluctuation in the generated force. The computationally
predicted drag coefficients are compared with the experimental results
and found that less drag coefficient is generated computationally. A
maximum absolute deviation of 10.07%, 8.39% and 9.25% were noticed
in ULE, SLEP and TLEP model, respectively. As the experimental models
are prepared using wood, the different surface roughness of the exper­
imental and computational models contributed to the errors. The error
present in the measuring instruments also increases the percentage error
in the measured lift and drag coefficients. Moreover, the present
computational analysis is performed in 2D, which adds more error to the
predicted forces than that obtained in the 3D investigation (Basumatary
et al., 2018; Sengupta et al., 2021). In comparison to Saliveros (1988),
present wind tunnel experiment was able to predict the lift coefficient
and drag coefficient with a maximum absolute deviation of 15.2% and
21.6%, (see Figs. 11(e) and Fig. 12(e)). The difference in the prediction
may be: firstly, due to the error present in the measuring instruments,
which is addressed in uncertainty calculation and secondly, error
incurred in wind tunnel construction.
Standard deviation (SD)
Relative standard deviation (RSD) = × 100
Average (Cmean )
(20a)
∑n √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅2
(Ci − Cmean )
where, Standard deviation (SD) = i=1
n− 1 , and
∑n
C
Average (Cmean ) = n i=1 i
where, n is the times of experiment repeated at each angle of attack.
3.3. Variation of pressure distribution
The pressure distributions around the airfoils are investigated by
studying the pressure contour (qualitative) and pressure coefficient
(quantitative) plots. Fig. 13 represents the static pressure field distri­
bution around the studied airfoils. The generation of the lift force is
positively influenced by the negative suction pressure and the larger
pressure differential between the airfoil’s sides. It can be noticed that the
point near the leading edge experiences the highest local pressure. This
point of maximum pressure is gradually shifted towards the bottom
surface of the airfoil as the incoming air strikes downwards with the
increase in the angle of attack. The least local pressure also reduced as
the angle of attack increased, which gave a rise in the overall lift coef­
ficient till the stall angle. As the lift force obtained by integrating this
pressure difference from the leading edge to the trailing edge, there is a
reduced lift generation in the ULE model, which has gone below the lift
generation in the SLEP model at α = 18◦ . Among the modified airfoils,
the SLEP model shows a lower negative pressure (− 277.8 Pa at α = 4◦ ,
− 415.9 Pa at α = 12◦ , and − 724.9 Pa α = 18◦ ), compare to the values of
TLEP model (− 266.4 Pa at α = 4◦ , − 409.2 Pa at α = 12◦ , and − 790 Pa α
S. Roy et al.
Fig. 11. Variation of lift coefficient at different angle of attack (a) ULE (Model-1) (b) SLEP (Model-2) (c) TLEP (Model-3) (d) relative standard deviation (e)
comparison of computational and experimental data (f) percentage error.
= 18◦ ) at all the angles of attack, making it preferable modification over
the TLEP model. The plots of the pressure coefficient will give better
insight into the pressure distribution.
The pressure coefficients on the plain and modified airfoils are
shown in Fig. 14. The curve is plotted with a reverse Y-axis to make the
plot analogous to the airfoil surfaces (the suction side on the top and the
pressure side on the bottom). A maximum pressure coefficient of 1 is
generated at the point of stagnation in the case of all the studied airfoils.
There is a disturbance observed in the pressure coefficient curve near the
leading edge of the TLEP and SLEP model due to the small stagnation
zone created at the edges of the protrusions, although it is insignificant
at the lower angle of attack (α = 4◦ ). The maximum pressure coefficient
cannot exceed this value as the maximum possible pressure in the flow
can be stagnation pressure. The value of the minimum pressure coeffi­
cient increases with the increase in the angle of attack, but at a higher
angle of attack, the occurrence of a separation point at a different chord
length negatively impacts the total lift generation. Among the airfoils,
the pressure coefficient is minimum in the ULE at all angles of attack.
The minimum pressure coefficient in ULE, SLEP, and TLEP models are
observed to be − 3.84, − 2.79, and − 1.58, respectively, at α = 18◦ . The
pressure coefficient curve of the suction side became a horizontal flat
line as the flow separation occurred. The presence of LSBs can be
identified by the plateau in the pressure coefficient line (Russell, 1979).
The length of the LSBs in studied airfoils were marked in Fig. 14. It can
be noticed that the flow gets separated in the ULE model near 60%C and
20%C at α = 12◦ and 18◦ , respectively. In comparison, flow separation
has occurred at the SLEP and TLEP model at much later chord lengths, i.
12
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
e., 70%C and 54%C, respectively, at α = 18◦ . The area under the pres­
sure coefficient curve in the TLEP model has remained the least at all the
chord lengths and angles of attack, which has produced the worst
aerodynamics performance of TLEP. Thus, in general, including LEP has
helped in preventing early flow separation. The separation phenomenon
can be discussed better with the help of velocity field distribution.
3.4. Variation of velocity distribution
The velocity contours at α = 4◦ (pre-stall), 12◦ (stall), and 18◦ (post-
stall) for the ULE model and modified airfoils are shown in Fig. 15. A
zone of stagnation fluid is noticed near the leading edge, shifting to­
wards the pressure side of the airfoil as the angle of attack increases. A
zero-velocity zone is created near the trailing edge, which is prominent
at the higher angles of attack (α ≥ 12◦ ). The size of the zero-velocity
zone in the ULE model is much larger than the zones created in the
SLEP and TLEP models. This is created due to the generation of the
primary circulation zone after the flow separation point. The flow sep­
aration has occurred due to the excessive adverse pressure gradient at
some different chord lengths in the studied airfoil models. The circula­
tion zone, created at different chord lengths starting from the trailing
edge, is named as the primary circulation zone. The extra circulation
zone is created due to the transition from laminar to turbulent near the
edges of LEPs, and after the trailing edge, is named as secondary cir­
culation zone. These circulation zones can be observed in the plots of
streamline distribution (Figs. 16–18). At the initial angle of attack, α =
4◦ , the spreads of the primary circulation zones are almost identical for
S. Roy et al. Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688

Fig. 12. Variation of drag coefficient at different angle of attack (a) ULE (Model-1) (b) SLEP (Model-2) (c) TLEP (Model-3) (d) relative standard deviation (e)
comparison of computational and experimental data (f) percentage error.

Fig. 13. Variation of pressure contours at different angles of attack.

13
S. Roy et al. Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688

Fig. 14. Variation of pressure coefficients at different angles of attack.

Fig. 15. Variation of velocity contours at different angle of attack.

all the airfoils, and with the rise in the angle of attack, it has progressed
towards the leading edge. The SLEP and TLEP models have a secondary
circulation zone near the LEPs edges. However, this effect is insignificant
at the initial angle of attack, as observed in Fig. 16(b and c). It can be
noticed that the size of the primary circulation zone in SLEP is weaker
than that of TLEP at α = 12◦ (Fig. 17(b and c)) and α = 18◦ (Fig. 18(b and
c)). Due to this leading-edge circulation, the modified airfoils produced
a lesser minimum pressure coefficient at the leading edge, negatively
impacting the lift generation, as observed in the previous section.
The zone generated within flow separation point (S) and reattach­
ment point (R) is known as laminar separation bubble (LSB) and the
nature of LSBs at the suction surface of all the airfoil models were
studied and shown in Figs. 16–18. The SLEP model experienced smaller
LSBs, whereas, relatively larger LSBs were present in ULE and TLEP
models. The LSBs were observed to be progressed towards the leading
edge as the angle of attack increased. At higher angle of attack, the LSBs
busted to form larger flow separation zone in ULE and TLEP models,
which didn’t occur in the SLEP model. The spread of LSBs in different

14
S. Roy et al.
Fig. 16. Streamline distribution around airfoil with (a) unmodified leading-
edge (b) spherical leading-edge protrusion (c) triangular leading-edge protru­
sion at α = 4◦ .
Fig. 17. Streamline distribution around airfoil with (a) unmodified leading-
edge (b) spherical leading-edge protrusion (c) triangular leading-edge protru­
sion at α = 12◦ .
airfoil models at varied angle of attack is shown in Table 2. At α = 18◦ ,
the ULE model produced a secondary circulation zone after the trailing
edge in addition to a primary circulation zone (up to 0.2C), as shown in
Fig. 18(a). The SLEP model has a comparatively shorter primary circu­
lation zone (up to 0.70C). The generation of the secondary circulation
zone near the leading edge in the SLEP model degrades the lift genera­
tion for most of the angles of attack, although flow remains attached for
more distance of the chord length. Only at α ≥ 18◦ , the SLEP model can
overcome this negative effect and show a higher lift coefficient than the
ULE model. On the other hand, the TLEP model cannot overcome the
initial loss in pressure coefficient near the leading edge due to the larger
secondary circulation zone, making it the worst performed one.
3.5. Variation of skin friction coefficient
The flow is forced to become disassociated from the suction surface
of the airfoils as a result of the low-velocity and circulation zone crea­
tion. According to the reports in the published research, the leading-
edge alteration contributes to delaying the flow separation. The inves­
tigation of the skin friction coefficient along the suction line of the airfoil
15
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
Fig. 18. Streamline distribution around airfoil with (a) unmodified leading-
edge (b) spherical leading-edge protrusion (c) triangular leading-edge protru­
sion at α = 18◦ .
Table 2
Spread of the laminar separation bubble (LSB) along chord length.
α = 4◦ α = 12◦ α = 18◦
ULE model 0.45C–0.55C 0.25C–0.45C LSB brust
SLEP model 0.55C–0.7C 0.4C–0.55C 0.2C–0.35C
TLEP model 0.52C–0.72C 0.35C–0.55C LSB brust
gives an insight of the progression of the trailing-edge circulation zone
(primary circulation zone) and leading-edge circulation zone (secondary
circulation zone) in a clearway in addition to the velocity streamline
plots. The skin friction coefficient is investigated in this study along the
suction surface of the airfoils in order to get information about the
separation point. At the point where the skin friction coefficient is equal
to zero, the wall shear stress is also equal to zero, and as a result, the
velocity gradient is also equal to zero. The span of LSBs also can be
identified from the skin friction coefficient. The skin friction coefficient
remained zero at the point of separation and reattachment. Fig. 19
displays the skin friction coefficients of the tested airfoils at various
angles of attack before and after the stall. At an angle of attack of 4◦
(Fig. 19(a)), it has been found that the effect of LEPs is negligible and
flow stays connected for a similar chord length (around 88%C) in all the
models (see inset view near to trailing edge). The secondary circulation
zones at the corner of LEPs also have an insignificant effect at α = 4◦ and
flow remained unseparated at the leading edge (see inset view near the
leading edge). With the increase in the angle of attack, the primary
circulation zone progresses towards the leading edge and creates a larger
trailing edge separation bubble. Whereas the secondary circulation in­
creases in size and creates a leading-edge separation in SLEP and TLEP
models. In ULE and TLEP model, the flow didn’t reattached once sepa­
rated from the suction surface at higher angle of attack (see Fig. 19(c)),
which deteriorated the aerodynamic performance.
At α = 12◦ (Fig. 19(b)), it is noticed that the flow separation occurred
earlier in the ULE model (60%C) compared to SLEP (80%C) and TLEP
(75%C) models. The flow is on the verge of separtion at the corner of
LEPs due to the presence of a secondary circulation zone in SLEP and
TLEP models (see inset view near the leading edge). As the angle of
attack is set to 18◦ (Fig. 19(c)), the primary circulation zone reaches
more closer to the leading edge. Due to the secondary circulation zone
near the trailing edge, the ULE model experienced a larger trailing-edge
S. Roy et al.
Fig. 19. Skin-friction coefficient along the suction line of the airfoil at (a) α =
4◦ (b) α = 12◦ (c) α = 18◦ .
separation bubble expanded up to 20%C and observed a reduced aero­
dynamic performance than the SLEP model. On the other hand, the flow
remained attached to the suction surface in the SLEP and TLEP models
until 70%C and 54%C, respectively, even though these models were
operating at a higher angle of attack. The secondary circulation zone
present in the SLEP and TLEP models moves towards the trailing edge
with an increase in angle of attack and creates a larger leading-edge
separation bubble. The leading-edge separation bubble expands to
0.8%C in the TLEP model and experiences a complete flow separation.
Whereas it expands up to 0.4%C in the SLEP model, but flow does not get
separated completely (see inset view near the leading edge in Fig. 19(c)).
16
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
Thus the SLEP model provides better aerodynamic performances than
the TLEP model. The re-energized boundary layer by LEPs helped flow to
remain connected for a greater chord-length, which boosts the perfor­
mance of the SLEP model at higher angles of attack.
3.6. Variation of turbulence kinetic energy distribution
Turbulent flows carry parcels with extremely transitory properties
known as eddies, which are part of the flow structure. The total amount
of energy contained in eddies in turbulent flows is known as turbulence
kinetic energy (TKE). The presence of high TKE values indicates the
presence of high turbulent energy extraction rates from mean flow. The
generation of turbulent kinetic energies in ULE, SLEP, and TLEP at
different angles of attack are shown in Fig. 20. The LEPs induced by the
flow become a cause of turbulence production, which is then transported
downstream and generates eddies of various sizes. Large eddies occurred
in the low-pressure zone, able to extract more kinetic energy from the
mean flow. It can be noticed that the ULE model has larger eddies with
more turbulent kinetic energy. The early transition at 20%C can be
observed in the ULE model, which indicates the early occurrence of flow
separation at a higher angle of attack (α = 18◦ ). However, it is almost
identical for all the airfoils at the initial angle of attack (α = 4◦ ). High
TKE indicates a transition at the edges of the LEPs, which can be seen in
TKE contours for the SLEP and TLEP models at α = 18◦ . But the flow gets
connected after the edges of LEPs and separated again at a chord length
later than the ULE model.
3.7. Application of LEP on small wind turbine model
The relative velocity component at the leading edge of the turbine
blade changes from root to tip, which alters the local angle of attack.
Moreover, the changes in incoming wind velocity also change the local
angle of attack at the turbine blade’s leading edge. As discussed in the
above sections, the SLEP model shows better aerodynamic performances
than the ULE model at higher angle of attack; it can work satisfactorily
over a wide range of angles of attack, delaying the stall occurrence.
Therefore, HAWT models were constructed using ULE and SLEP airfoil
models. The performance of HAWT model is discussed in terms of power
coefficient for different operating conditions. Power coefficient in­
dicates the turbine’s ability to convert the available power in the
incoming wind to the output power. As the blades used in the experi­
mental investigations are un-tapered and untwisted and not optimized,
there is a need to study the effect of pitch angle (β) on the turbine per­
formance to find the optimum pitch angle for the studied design and
operating conditions. As the current blades with β = 0◦ provide more
drag due to the larger frontal area, it is unable to rotate at low wind
velocity. Therefore, four different pitch angles in the range of (5◦ –20◦ )
were considered in the present investigation to place the turbine blade at
different orientations. The incoming wind velocity towards the HAWT
model varied in a low-velocity range available at built-in environmental
conditions; from 4 m/s to 7 m/s. The wind turbine rotor is placed after a
distance of 3m (1.5m inside the tunnel + 1.5m after the tunnel exit) from
the fan. Therefore, the swirl induced by the fan will be weakened before
it reaches the turbine rotor. Similar methodology was followed by
Sengupta et al. (2022) and Mazarbhuiya et al. (2020) in their experi­
mental investigations. To define the wind flow field, wind velocities are
measured at different location across the height and width of the wind
turbine rotor. The wind velocity field at the upstream of the wind tur­
bine rotor is shown in Fig. 21 to verify the flow uniformity. The root
mean square (RMS) velocities at each velocity are represented by
straight lines against each velocity.
Fig. 22 shows the effect of pitch angle and wind velocity on the
power coefficient for both the HAWT models. The power coefficient in
all the cases followed a similar trend, as it increased up to a certain tip
speed ratio and then decreased. It can be observed that with the increase
in pitch angle, the maximum power coefficient shifted towards the lower
S. Roy et al. Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688

Fig. 20. Distribution of turbulence kinetic energy at different angles of attack.

Fig. 21. Wind velocity distribution at upstream of wind turbine model (a) across the height of the rotor (h = variable height) (b) across the width of the rotor (w =
variable width).

Fig. 22. Effect of pitch angle and wind velocity on the power coefficient of HAWT models.

17
S. Roy et al.
TSR. It indicates that blade with higher pitch angle provides better
performance at lower rotational speed of turbine. On the other hand, the
blade with lower pitch angle provides better performance at higher TSR.
Therefore, the performance characteristics can be divided into two
sections: (i) blade with higher pitch angle performs better at lower TSR
and (ii) blade with lower pitch angle performs better at higher TSR. For
all the cases the maximum power coefficient is achieved with β = 15◦ .
Similar observations found in SLEP model with higher magnitude of
power coefficient. The power coefficient for both the ULE and SLEP
HAWT model increases due to the increase in torque when the wind
velocity increases from 4 m/s to 5 m/s. But further increment in wind
velocity deteriorates the power coefficient for all the studied cases. At
higher wind velocity the blades rotate with higher rotational speed
makes it similar to a solid disk resulted in a reduced torque generation.
The maximum power coefficients achieved in ULE and SLEP are
compared in Fig. 23. It is observed that the SLEP HAWT model achieved
higher power coefficient than the ULE HAWT model under all the
operating conditions. The maximum power coefficient of 0.2257 is
achieved with SLEP HAWT model at TSR 1.98 under the operating
condition of pitch angle 15◦ and wind velocity 5 m/s. In comparison, the
ULE HAWT model shows the maximum power coefficient of 0.2072 at
TSR 1.92, which is 8.2% less than the SLEP HAWT model. Thus the
application of SLEP on the un-tapered and untwisted HAWT model
provides enhanced performance under the low wind velocity condition.
4. Conclusions
The effects of different LEPs (spherical and triangular) on the aero­
dynamic performance of the NACA 4415 airfoil were experimentally
investigated. A constant amplitude of 0.01C was maintained as the
height of both the LEPs. The study was carried out at a low-Re = 1.5 ×
105 in the angle of attack ranges 0◦ –20◦ . The computational study was
performed to visualize the flow characteristics around the airfoil models
to obtain the necessary aerodynamic performance insights. The flow
physics were compared at three different angles of attack: at α = 4◦ (pre-
stall), α = 12◦ (stall), and α = 18◦ (post-stall). The small-scale HAWT
with un-tapered and untwisted SLEP and ULE blades were experimen­
tally investigated for different pitch angles and wind velocities.
Following major concluding remarks were drawn from the detailed
experimental and computational analysis.
• The experimental study has revealed that the span of the hysteresis
loop was reduced by 50% in the SLEP model and 25% in the TLEP
model compared to the ULE model, which indicated the improved
dynamic stability of the SLEP model in low-Re flow.
• The time-dependent lift generation in the experimental trials indi­
cated that the SLEP model fluctuates less at a higher angle of attack
than the ULE model. This ensured the stable force generation in the
SLEP model at the higher angle of attack, which is a favorable con­
dition for power generation.
Fig. 23. Effect of pitch angle on the maximum power coefficient at different wind velocity.
18
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
• At α ≥ 18◦ , the SLEP model outperformed the ULE model. The
computational study revealed that due to a smaller primary circular
zone at the airfoil’s trailing edge, the redesigned airfoil with the SLEP
saw a 50% delay in stall onset. However, the drag coefficient of the
SLEP model was 8.5% greater than the ULE model at α = 20◦ due to
higher friction drag.
• The computational analysis explained that the ULE model provided
the lowest suction pressure coefficient (− 3.84 at α = 18◦ ), but the
total pressure differential between the airfoil surfaces decreased due
to flow separation at 20% of the chord length, resulting in a loss in
aerodynamic performance.
• The computational study shows that the span of the primary circu­
lation zone in the SLEP and TLEP models was reduced compared to
the ULE model. At α = 18◦ , the primary circulation zone in the ULE
model was up to 20%C, whereas the spans were upto 70%C and 54%
C in SLEP and TLEP models, respectively.
• The computational investigation identified that a larger secondary
circulation zone was created after the trailing edge of the ULE model
at α ≥ 18◦ , whereas the SLEP and TLEP model experienced a smaller
secondary circulation zone at the LEP’s edges. Further, the secondary
circulation zone was more prominent in the TLEP model compared to
SLEP model, which resulted in poor aerodynamic performance in
TLEP model.
• The experimental study on wind turbine rotor models revealed that
the turbine with higher blade pitch angle could perform better at
lower TSR, whereas lower blade pitch angle achieved higher per­
formance at higher TSR. The SLEP HAWT model achieved higher
power coefficient than the ULE HAWT model under all the studied
conditions. The maximum power coefficient of 0.2257 was achieved
by SLEP HAWT model at TSR 1.98 under the operating condition of
15◦ pitch angle and wind velocity of 5 m/s, which is 8.2% more than
that achieved by ULE HAWT model.
The pressure field around the airfoil was inspected computationally
in the present study due to the experimental set-up limitation. Pressure
ports on the airfoil can be installed in future investigations to get the
pressure field around the fabricated experimental airfoil models. The
position of the protrusion can be altered and placed on the airfoil’s
suction and pressure surface. The present wind turbine experimental
investigation was limited to the application of SLEP on the un-tapered
and untwisted blades due to ease in construction, which will be
extended with the tapered and twisted blades.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sujit Roy: Data curation, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Software, Writing – original draft. Biplab Das: Conceptualization,
Writing – review & editing. Agnimitra Biswas: Visualization, Meth­
odology, Writing – review & editing.
S. Roy et al. Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688

Declaration of competing interest Acknowledgment

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial The authors sincerely thank the Department of Mechanical Engi­
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence neering, NIT Silchar, India, for providing the computational and
the work reported in this paper. experimental facility.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Nomenclatures

A Area of airfoil blade, m2

C Chord length, m
CD Drag coefficient
CL Lift coefficient
Cmeans Average lift and drag coefficient
CP Pressure coefficient
Cp Power coefficient
Ct Torque coefficient
D Drag force, N
d Rotor diameter, m
k Turbulent kinetic energy, m2/s2
L Lift force, N
P Static pressure, Pa
P∞ Atmospheric pressure, Pa
Re Reynolds number
t time, s
u Inflow wind velocity, m/s
u Fluctuating velocity, m/s
′

u Mean velocity, m/s

Greek Letters
α Angle of attack, deg
Ω Angular velocity, rad/s
ρ Density, kg/m3
Γ Effective diffusivity, m2/s
ω Specific dissipation rate, J/kg.s
λ Tip speed ratio
μ Viscosity, Pa.s
τw Wall shear stress, Pa

Abbreviations
HAWT Horizontal axis wind turbine
LEP Leading-edge protrusion
LESSP Leading-edge sinusoidal protuberance
RSD Relative standard deviation
SD Standard deviation
SLEP Spherical leading-edge protrusion
TKE Turbulence kinetic energy
TLEP Triangular leading-edge protrusion
TSR Tip speed ratio
ULE Unmodified leading edge

References Arunvinthan, S., Pillai, S.N., Cao, S., 2020. Aerodynamic characteristics of variously
modified leading-edge protuberanced (LEP) wind turbine blades under various
turbulent intensities. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 202, 104188.
Abate, G., Mavris, D.N., 2018. Performance analysis of different positions of leading edge
Asli, M., Mashhadi Gholamali, B., Mesgarpour Tousi, A., 2015. Numerical analysis of
tubercles on a wind turbine blade. In: Wind Energy Symposium 2018. American
wind turbine airfoil aerodynamic performance with leading edge bump. Math. Probl
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc, AIAA.
Eng. 2015, 493253.
Abate, G., Mavris, D.N., Sankar, L.N., 2019. Performance effects of leading edge tubercles
Bai, C.J., Wang, W.C., Chen, P.W., 2016. The effects of sinusoidal leading edge of turbine
on the NREL phase VI wind turbine blade. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 141 (5),
blades on the power coefficient of horizontal-axis wind turbine (HAWT). Int. J.
051206.
Green Energy 13 (12), 1193–1200.
Aftab, S.M.A., Ahmad, K.A., 2017. CFD study on NACA 4415 airfoil implementing
spherical and sinusoidal Tubercle Leading Edge. PLoS One 12 (11), 0188792.

19
S. Roy et al.
Basumatary, M., Biswas, A., Misra, R.D., 2018. CFD analysis of an innovative combined
lift and drag (CLD) based modified Savonius water turbine. Energy Convers. Manag.
174, 72–87.
Bhuyan, S., Biswas, A., 2014. Investigations on self-starting and performance
characteristics of simple H and hybrid H-Savonius vertical axis wind rotors. Energy
Convers. Manag. 87, 859–867.
Biber, K., Zumwalt, G.W., 1993. Hysteresis effects on wind tunnel measurements of a
two-element airfoil. AIAA J. 31 (2), 326–330.
Butt, U., Hussain, S., Schacht, S., Ritschel, U., 2021. Experimental Investigations of Flow
over NACA Airfoils 0021 and 4412 of Wind Turbine Blades with and without
Tubercles. Wind Engineering, 0309524X211007178.
Butterfield, C.P., Scott, G., Musial, W., 1992. Comparison of wind tunnel airfoil
performance data with wind turbine blade data. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 114 (2),
119–124.
Chen, T.Y., Liou, L.R., 2011. Blockage corrections in wind tunnel tests of small
horizontal-axis wind turbines. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 35 (3), 565–569.
Chishty, M.A., Parvez, K., Ahmed, S., Hamdani, H.R., Mushtaq, A., 2011. Transition
prediction in low pressure turbine (LPT) using gamma theta model and passive
control of separation. ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition 54877, 193–200.
Corbus, D., Hansen, A.C., Minnema, J., 2006. Effect of blade torsion on modeling results
for the small wind research turbine (SWRT). J. Sol. Energy Eng. (4), 481–486.
Fan, M., Dong, X., Li, Z., Sun, Z., Feng, L., 2022. Numerical and experimental study on
flow separation control of airfoils with various leading-edge tubercles. Ocean Eng.
252, 111046.
Fish, F.E., Battle, J.M., 1995. Hydrodynamic design of the humpback whale flipper.
J. Morphol. 51–60.
Fluent, Ansys, 2011. Fluent 14.0 User’s Guide. ANSYS FLUENT Inc.
Freere, P., Sacher, M., Derricott, J., Hanson, B., 2010. A low cost wind turbine and blade
performance. Wind Eng. 34 (3), 289–302.
Gawad, A.A., 2013. Utilization of whale-inspired tubercles as a control technique to
improve airfoil performance. Transaction Series on Engineering Sciences and
Technologies 2 (5), 212–218.
Ge, M., Zhang, H., Wu, Y., Li, Y., 2019. Effects of leading edge defects on aerodynamic
performance of the S809 airfoil. Energy Convers. Manag. 195, 466–479.
Gopinathan, V.T., Rose, J.B.R., 2021. Aerodynamics with state-of-the-art bioinspired
technology: tubercles of humpback whale. Proc. IME G J. Aero. Eng. 235 (16),
2359–2377.
Gopinathan, V.T., Rose, J.B.R., Surya, M., 2020. Investigation on the effect of leading
edge tubercles of sweptback wing at low Reynolds number. Mechanics & Industry 21
(6), 621.
Hansen, K.L., Kelso, R.M., Dally, B.B., 2011. Performance variations of leading-edge
tubercles for distinct airfoil profiles. AIAA J. 49 (1), 185–194.
Holman, J.P., 2012. Experimental Methods for Engineers, Eight Ed. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Hsiao, F.B., Bai, C.J., Chong, W.T., 2013. The performance test of three different
horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT) blade shapes using experimental and
numerical methods. Energies 6 (6), 2784–2803.
Huang, G.Y., Shiah, Y.C., Bai, C.J., Chong, W.T., 2015. Experimental study of the
protuberance effect on the blade performance of a small horizontal axis wind
turbine. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 147, 202–211.
Johari, H., Henoch, C., Custodio, D., Levshin, A., 2007. Effects of leading-edge
protuberances on airfoil performance. AIAA J. 45 (11), 2634–2642.
Joseph, J., Sathyabhama, A., 2022. Leading edge tubercle on wind turbine blade to
mitigate problems of stall, hysteresis, and laminar separation bubble. Energy
Convers. Manag. 255, 115337.
Kim, M.J., Yoon, H.S., Jung, J.H., Chun, H.H., Park, D.W., 2012. Hydrodynamic
characteristics for flow around wavy wings with different wave lengths. Int. J. Nav.
Archit. Ocean Eng. 4, 447–459.
Kline, S.J., McClintock, F.A., 1953. Describing uncertainties in single-sample
experiments. Mech. Eng. 3.
Koca, K., Genc, M.S., Acikel, H.H., Cagdas, M., Bodur, T.M., 2018. Identification of flow
phenomena over NACA 4412 wind turbine airfoil at low Reynolds numbers and role
of laminar separation bubble on flow evolution. Energy 144, 750–764.
Mazarbhuiya, H.M.S.M., Biswas, A., Sharma, K.K., 2020. Effect of blade attachments on
the performance of an asymmetric blade H-Darrieus turbine at low wind speed.
Energy Sources, Part A Recovery, Util. Environ. Eff. 1–18.
Menter, F.R., Langtry, R., Völker, S., 2006. Transition modelling for general purpose CFD
codes. Flow, Turbul. Combust. 77 (1), 277–303.
Miklosovic, D.S., Murray, M.M., Howle, L.E., Fish, F.E., 2004. Leading-edge tubercles
delay stall on humpback whale (Megapteranovaeangliae) flippers. Phys. Fluids 16
(5), 39–42.
Mishra, A., De, A., 2021. Investigation of Passive Flow Control over an Airfoil Using
Leading Edge Tubercles arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.08854.
20
Ocean Engineering 269 (2023) 113688
Roy, S., Biswas, A., Das, B., Reddy, B.V., 2022a. Flow control of a wind-turbine airfoil
with a leading-edge spherical dimple. Int. J. Green Energy 1–19.
Roy, S., Das, B., Biswas, A., 2022b. A comprehensive review of the application of bio-
inspired tubercles on the horizontal axis wind turbine blade. Int. J. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 1–28.
Russell, J.M., 1979. Length and bursting of separation bubbles: a physical interpretation.
In: Science and Technology of Low Speed Motorless Flight, vol. 2085. NASA
Conference Publication.
Saliveros, E., 1988. The Aerodynamic Performance of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section at
Low Reynolds Numbers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Schreck, S.J., Sørensen, N.N., Robinson, M.C., 2007. Aerodynamic structures and
processes in rotationally augmented flow fields. Wind Energy: An International
Journal for Progress and Applications in Wind Power Conversion Technology 10 (2),
159–178.
Sengupta, A.R., Biswas, A., Gupta, R., 2016. Studies of some high solidity symmetrical
and unsymmetrical blade H-Darrieus rotors with respect to starting characteristics,
dynamic performances and flow physics in low wind streams. Renew. Energy 93,
536–547.
Sengupta, A.R., Biswas, A., Gupta, R., 2021. Aerodynamic analysis of cambered blade H-
Darrieus rotor in low wind velocity using CFD. Wind Struct. 33 (6), 471–480.
Sengupta, A.R., Kumar, Y., Biswas, A., Gupta, R., 2022. Performance investigation of
cavity shaped blade on H-Darrieus wind turbine in built environmental condition.
Energy Sources, Part A Recovery, Util. Environ. Eff. 1–17.
Shah, H., Mathew, S., Lim, C.M., 2015. Numerical simulation of flow over an airfoil for
small wind turbines using the γ-Reθ model. International Journal of Energy and
Environmental Engineering 6 (4), 419–429.
Singh, M., Biswas, A., Misra, R., 2015. Investigation of self-starting and high rotor
solidity on the performance ofa three S1210 blade H-type Darrieus rotor. Renew.
Energy 76, 381–387.
Siram, O., Sahoo, N., 2022. Performance assessment of straight and linearly tapered
rotors through wind tunnel investigation for off-grid applications. Wind Eng. 46 (4),
1291–1310.
Skillen, A., Revell, A., Pinelli, A., Piomelli, U., Favier, J., 2015. Flow over a wing with
leading-edge undulations. AIAA J. 53 (2), 464–472.
Sreejith, B.K., Sathyabhama, A., 2020. Experimental and numerical study of laminar
separation bubble formation on low Reynolds number airfoil with leading-edge
tubercles. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 42, 1–15.
Sudhakar, S., Karthikeyan, N., 2013. Effect of leading edge tubercles on flow field over
NACA-4415 airfoil at low Reynolds number. In: 14th Asian Congress of Fluid
Mechanics. Hanoi and Halong, Vietnam.
Versteeg, H.K., Malalasekera, W., 2007. An Introduction to Computational Fluid
Dynamics: the Finite Volume Method. Pearson Education.
Wei, Z., New, T.H., Cui, Y.D., 2015. An experimental study on flow separation control of
hydrofoils with leading-edge tubercles at low Reynolds number. Ocean Eng. 108,
336–349.
Weihs, D., 1981. Effects of swimming path curvature on the energetics of fish motion.
Fish. Bull. 79, 171–176.
Yan, Y., Avital, E., Williams, J., Cui, J., 2021. Aerodynamic performance improvements
of a vertical axis wind turbine by leading-edge protuberance. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerod. 211, 104535.
Yi-Nan, Z., Hui-Jing, C., Ming-Ming, Z., 2021. A calculation method for modeling the
flow characteristics of the wind turbine airfoil with leading-edge protuberances.
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod., 104613
Zadorozhna, D.B., Benavides, O., Grajeda, J.S., Ramirez, S.F., de la Cruz May, L., 2021.
A parametric study of the effect of leading edge spherical tubercle amplitudes on the
aerodynamic performance of a 2D wind turbine airfoil at low Reynolds numbers
using computational fluid dynamics. Energy Rep. 7, 4184–4196.
Zhang, R.K., Wu, V.D.J.Z., 2012. Aerodynamic characteristics of wind turbine blades
with a sinusoidal leading edge. Wind Energy 15 (3), 407–424.
Zhang, M.M., Wang, G.F., Xu, J.Z., 2013. Aerodynamic control of low-Reynolds-number
airfoil with leading-edge protuberances. AIAA J. 51 (8), 1960–1971.
Zhang, M.M., Wang, G.F., Xu, J.Z., 2014. Experimental study of flow separation control
on a low-Re airfoil using leading-edge protuberance method. Exp. Fluid 55, 1710.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, M., Cai, C., 2019. Flow control on wind turbine airfoil affected by the
surface roughness using leading-edge protuberance. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 11
(6), 063304.
Zhang, Y.N., Zhang, M.M., Cai, C., Xu, J.Z., 2020. Aerodynamic load control on a
dynamically pitching wind turbine airfoil using leading-edge protuberance method.
Acta Mech. Sin. 36 (2), 275–289.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Yi, L.I., Chang, M., Jiakuan, X.U., 2021. Aerodynamic performance
of a low-Reynolds UAV with leading-edge protuberances inspired by humpback
whale flippers. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 34 (5), 415–424.
Zhou, Y., Hou, L., Huang, D., 2017. The effects of Mach number on the flow separation
control of airfoil with a small plate near the leading edge. Comput. Fluid 156,
274–282.