Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics

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

Comparative assessment of transitional turbulence models for airfoil

aerodynamics in the low Reynolds number range
Yue Liu a , Peifeng Li b , Kaiyong Jiang a ,∗
a Fujian Key Laboratory of Special Energy Manufacturing, Huaqiao University, Fujian, China
b
James Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: A comparative assessment of the prediction capability of transitional turbulence models was carried out in the
Transitional turbulence models chord Reynolds number range 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2.3 × 104 − 2 × 105 with the NACA 0012 and NACA 4415 airfoils. Four
Airfoil aerodynamics transition models based on the 𝑘 − 𝜔 framework, i.e., the low-Reynolds number correction, 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾, 𝛾 and
Computational fluid dynamics
𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 were chosen to simulate the flow and aerodynamic characteristics. It is found that the prediction
Angle of attack
capability of a model is related to the nature of the flow structure and affected by the 𝑅𝑒𝑐 and angle of attack
Small wind turbines
(𝐴𝑂𝐴). Among all the models, the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 model has the best prediction capability and is recommended for
low 𝑅𝑒𝑐 applications such as small wind turbines. The 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model has the secondary capability for some
𝑅𝑒𝑐 and low 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠. The 𝛾 model has a similar frame to the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 model but cannot reliably predict the flow
at larger 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 and lower 𝑅𝑒𝑐 . The low-Reynolds number correction model is not recommended for the low
𝑅𝑒𝑐 range.

1. Introduction
Pollution caused by traditional energy supplying systems brings
urgent needs to develop green energy. Among the renewable energy
schemes, wind turbine farms have had rapid growth for the past
decades. But the potential impact of wind turbine farms on climate
conditions leads to the risk of global warming. An alternative scheme
to meet increasing power demand without substantial side effects is
to employ decentralized small wind turbines (Tummala et al., 2016;
Baidya Roy, 2011).
Compared to large wind turbines, the small-scale characteristic of
small wind turbines degrades their service performance, as they work
under a low chord Reynolds number condition (1 × 104 < 𝑅𝑒𝑐 <
5×105 ). The 𝑅𝑒𝑐 can be classified into ultra-low, low, moderate and high
regimes in terms of the dependence of maximum lift coefficient, 𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,
on 𝑅𝑒𝑐 (Wang et al., 2014). Under low 𝑅𝑒𝑐 conditions, complex scenery
including laminar separation, transition, reattachment and turbulent
separation can occur in the boundary layer (Gad-el Hak, 1990), and
long laminar separation bubbles frequently form on airfoil surfaces.
These complex phenomena subsequently deteriorate the aerodynamics
of small wind turbines.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a promising and reliable tool
to study the aerodynamics of small wind turbines. But the difficulty
arises when it models the transition in the low Reynolds number range.
The transition process can generally be solved by direct numerical
simulation (DNS) or large eddy simulation (LES). But the relatively
high computational cost restricts their extensive industrial applications.
A semi-empirical transition modeling approach based on the linear
stability theory — the eN method can rapidly predict the airfoil per-
formance in transition (Ingen, 2008). But the semi-empirical model
only predicts the onset of transition and is difficult to implement in
a general-purpose CFD code. The Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
(RANS) method coupled with transition models can be an effective tool
to predict large-scale flow structures where averaged turbulent param-
eters are important. This method has thus been actively developed for
engineering aerodynamics. Di Pasquale et al. (2009) reviewed eight
different methods to model transition and pointed out that transition
models can be implemented into a general RANS environment with
sufficient engineering accuracy.
A number of previous works focused on transition models based on
the framework of 𝑘−𝜔 two-equation turbulence model and investigated
their capability to predict low Reynolds number airfoil flows (Langtry
et al., 2006; Wolgemuth and Walters, 2007; Walters and Cokljat, 2008;
Langtry and Menter, 2009; Fürst et al., 2013; Khayatzadeh and Nadara-
jah, 2014; Menter et al., 2015; Choudhry et al., 2015; Lin and Sarlak,
2016; Xia and Chen, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017; Sanei and Razaghi,
2018; Wauters et al., 2019; Lopes et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020). These
airfoils included the classic NACA 0012, the relatively thick NACA

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jiangky@hqu.edu.cn (K. Jiang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2021.104726
Received 11 January 2021; Received in revised form 15 July 2021; Accepted 15 July 2021
Available online 2 August 2021
0167-6105/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Liu et al.
Fig. 1. (a) The 2D computational domain with boundary conditions, and details of the grids (b) in the computational domain, (c) around the airfoil surface, (d, e) around the
leading and trailing edges.
0018, NACA 0021, S809, S862, and DU91-W2-250 for medium and
large wind turbines, and the low Reynolds number airfoils E387 and
SD7003. The 𝑅𝑒𝑐 of these airfoils ranged from 6 × 104 − 3 × 106 , mainly
in the order of 105 –106 . Their results demonstrate that the transition
models are able to predict the transition and the formation of laminar
separation bubbles on airfoil surfaces at certain 𝑅𝑒𝑐 numbers. For larger
𝑅𝑒𝑐 (106 ), the predicted time-averaged pressure (𝐶𝑝 ) distribution on
airfoil surface coincides with the experimental data. However, for small
wind turbines, the interested 𝑅𝑒𝑐 range is relatively low in the order of
104 –105 , and the used airfoil such as NACA 4415, NACA 4412, E387,
SG6040, SH3055 and S822 is relatively thin to gain more lift. These
conditions have not been broadly investigated in the previous studies
to the authors’ knowledge.
Transition models commonly implemented into the RANS method
include low-Reynolds number damping models (low-Reynolds number
correction, LowRe), correlation-based models with intermittency (𝑅𝑒𝜃 −
𝛾 and 𝛾) and physics-based models (𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔). It has been reported
that compared to the original full turbulence model, a correlation-based
transition model is more reliable especially in small angles of attack
(𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠) due to its capability to predict separation bubbles (Wolgemuth
and Walters, 2007; Sanei and Razaghi, 2018). But according to the
results of Wauters et al. (2019), the low-Reynolds number damping
model fails to predict laminar separation bubbles while the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾,
𝛾 and 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 models well simulate the flow in lower 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠. In
particular, the flow after turbulence separation can be better predicted
by the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 and 𝛾 models. It was also reported that 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔
can better predict laminar separation bubbles than 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 (Choudhry
et al., 2015; Lin and Sarlak, 2016). Lopes et al. (2020) pointed out that
the correlation-based (𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 and 𝛾) and physics-based (𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔)
models are sensitive to inlet boundary conditions, but the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔
model cannot accurately simulate the flow in 𝑅𝑒𝑐 < 105 . However, these
comparative works except that by Lopes et al. (2020) did not consider
2
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726
the low 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 104 − 105 . The influence of inflow conditions on the flow
in this Reynolds number range was not well documented. Moreover,
there is still a lack of studies regarding the prediction capability of these
models for different 𝑅𝑒𝑐 and 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠.
In this paper, the RANS method was coupled with four frequently
used transition models in the 𝑘 − 𝜔 SST (shear stress transport) turbu-
lence framework. The inflow conditions and the related decay behavior
of the models were first discussed. The prediction capability of the
four models was then compared and evaluated based on the results
of the time-averaged pressure distribution on the airfoil surfaces, the
separation, transition and reattachment locations, the instantaneous
vorticity and the time-averaged streamlines.
2. Problem definition and transition models
2.1. Flow configuration
The NACA 4415 and NACA 0012 airfoils were selected for the
simulations, as the NACA 4415 airfoil is commonly used in small
wind turbines and the NACA 0012 airfoil has plenty of experimental
and simulation data to verify the simulations. The simulations were
carried out in 2D to reduce the computational cost. The RANS method
averages out the 3D effect especially in small 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 as reported by
other researchers (Wauters et al., 2019; Lopes et al., 2020). The same
flow domain, boundary conditions and grid topology were applied
to both airfoils as illustrated in Fig. 1. The velocity inlet boundary
condition is applied to the front, top and bottom boundaries as it
can give a reasonable result with less computational efforts, and the
flow is considered to be incompressible at low Reynolds numbers. The
simulations using different transition models were compared with the
available data in the literature (Table 1) to evaluate their prediction
capability.
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726

Table 1
Experimental and numerical data to verify the transition models.
Case Airfoil 𝑅𝑒𝑐 (×105 ) 𝐴𝑂𝐴 (◦ ) 𝑇 𝑢∞ (%) Method
(Saliveros, 1988) NACA 4415 0.5, 0.75, 1, 2 0, 4, 8, 12 0.4 Experimental
(Jones et al., 2018) NACA 4415 0.5 0 – DNS
(Kim et al., 2009) NACA 0012 0.23, 0.48 6 (5.5) <0.4 Experimental
(Jones et al., 2008) NACA 0012 0.5 5 – DNS

2.2. Transition models in the 𝑘 − 𝜔 SST turbulence framework Table 2

The transition models extensively used in general-purpose indus-
trial CFD simulations are based on the RANS 𝑘 − 𝜔 SST turbulence
framework. The RANS equations are derived based on Reynolds de-
composition. An instantaneous turbulent quantity 𝑢𝑖 is decomposed
into a time-averaged part 𝑢̄𝑖 and a fluctuating part 𝑢′𝑖 . The additional
Reynolds stress terms −𝑢′𝑖 𝑢′𝑗 derived in the RANS equations would
close with the linear eddy viscosity model (Boussinesq hypothesis). The
𝑘 − 𝜔 SST turbulence model is a modified 𝑘 − 𝜔 based eddy viscos-
ity model. The model introduces an improved definition of the eddy
viscosity (Menter, 1994), considers the transport of turbulence shear
stresses for applications with flow separation, and therefore avoids
overpredicting the eddy viscosity. This model is mainly appropriate for
fully turbulent flows but not for transitional flows (Rumsey and Spalart,
2009). Therefore, transition models should be coupled into the 𝑘 − 𝜔
SST model to predict the transition effect under low-Reynolds numbers.
The four transition models used in this paper are briefly described as
follows.
The low-Reynolds number correction model (LowRe) was first intro-
duced by Wilcox (1994). The turbulent viscosity 𝜈𝑡 , typically defined
as 𝜈𝑡 = 𝑘∕𝜔, is artificially damped with a coefficient 𝛼 ∗ to simulate
low-Reynolds number phenomena. In this framework, a laminar flow
is described as the eddy viscosity ratio 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 ≪ 1, the onset of transition
is approximated as 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 ≈ 1, and the turbulent flow is fully developed
as 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 ≫ 1.
The correlation-based transition SST model (𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾) (Langtry and
Menter, 2009) has been developed to sufficiently capture the ma-
jor effects of transition triggered by different mechanisms (natural,
bypass and separation induced). The concept of a local variable (vor-
ticity Reynolds number) relates the non-local transition onset Reynolds
number and the local boundary-layer quantities, both of which deter-
mine the flow status together. This overcomes the shortcoming of the
non-local formulation of other correlation-based models.
The intermittency model (𝛾) was formulated by Menter et al. (2015).
The 𝛾 model is similar to the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 model. But In the 𝛾 model,
the transition source term 𝑝𝛾 is slightly simplified. Moreover, instead
of using a transport equation, a critical Reynolds number 𝑅𝑒𝜃𝑐 is
calculated algebraically to avoid the use of the streamwise velocity 𝑈
which causes the Galilean invariance problem in the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 model.
The critical 𝑅𝑒𝜃𝑐 is the momentum-thickness Reynolds number where
the intermittency first starts to increase in the boundary layer.
The 𝑘−𝑘𝑙 −𝜔 model is based on the phenomenon that pre-transition
laminar fluctuations can lead to turbulence breakdown. The concept of
laminar kinetic energy (Mayle and Schulz, 1996) has been implemented
in the 𝑘 − 𝜔 framework to predict the transition region (Walters and
Cokljat, 2008). In the 𝑘−𝑘𝑙 −𝜔 model, Reynolds stresses are determined
by both the turbulent and laminar fluctuations. Although the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔
model is based on the 𝑘−𝜔 model, most terms in the transport equations
are modified. The lack of consideration of separation-induced transition
in the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model may cause the incapability of prediction in some
situations.
2.3. Numerical details
The simulations were performed in the Ansys Fluent solver, a gen-
eral CFD code based on the finite volume method. The transition
Predicted drag and lift coefficients with three different grid densities.
Case Number of cells Ns Nr 𝐶𝑑 𝐶𝑙
Fine 462747 1370 290 0.0305 1.3178
Medium 230907 1010 200 0.0315 1.3177
Coarse 114212 690 145 0.0321 1.3333
(Saliveros, 1988) – – – 0.03 1.3
models described above were implemented in the solver. The discretiza-
tion accuracy was second order for all terms. The non-dimensional time
step 𝛥𝑡 = 𝛿𝑡𝑈∞ ∕𝑐 was set as 0.0005 for the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 and 𝛾 models, and
reduced to 0.0001 for the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 and LowRe models to meet the
convergence criteria. The residual for all parameters was 10−5 as it can
give sufficient accuracy in reasonable computational time.
The grid density dependency was studied for the NACA 4415 airfoil
using the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model with the highest 𝑅𝑒𝑐 number, 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2 × 105 ,
and medium 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 10◦ . The adjacent grid density (Table 2) was
doubled by the total number of cells, and controlled by the number of
nodes along the airfoil surface (Ns) and the number of nodes along the
radial direction away from the airfoil (Nr). The predicted time-averaged
drag (𝐶𝑑 ) and lift (𝐶𝑙 ) coefficients are compared with the experimental
data by Saliveros (1988). Moreover, Fig. 2 compares the time-averaged
pressure coefficient (𝐶𝑝 ) and wall shear stress (𝜏𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙−𝑥 ) predicted using
the three grids. Both the fine and medium grid densities produce nearly
identical simulation results. According to the previous study on the
chordal node number (Wauters et al., 2019), the Ns > 200 could give
a relatively similar prediction of 𝐶𝑑 for all the transition models. The
predicted difference in 𝐶𝑑 between the models using fine and coarse
grids is 16 drag counts (1 drag count is equal to a 𝐶𝑑 = 0.0001), which
can be considered acceptable as it is less than 20 counts according
to Wauters et al. (2019). The medium grid was thus chosen for the
simulations.
The first layer of the grid to the wall was set to 𝛿𝑦 = 10−4 𝑐 and
4×10−5 𝑐 (𝑐 is the airfoil chord) to study the sensitivity of dimensionless
wall distance 𝑦+ (calculated with local wall friction velocity). A wall-
normal grid expansion ratio of 1.1 was utilized in both cases. Fig. 3
shows the 𝑦+ and time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 distribution along the airfoil surface
with the two different 𝛿𝑦. As the simulation was done with the highest
Reynolds number and medium 𝐴𝑂𝐴, the 𝑦+ value is less than 1.0 in
most simulation cases. The similar results of time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 suggest
that 𝑦+ < 2 can give an accurate result, and 𝛿𝑦 = 10−4 𝑐 was finally
chosen for the simulations.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Inflow conditions and decay behavior
In the low-Reynolds number range, the free-stream turbulence char-
acteristics can significantly affect the flow field, so the boundary con-
ditions should be properly set. The turbulence intensity (𝑇 𝑢) and eddy
viscosity ratio (𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈) were chosen to represent the free-stream turbu-
lence characteristic in this paper. In the simulation of the external
airfoil flow, the domain around the airfoil should be large enough
to obtain the free-stream condition at the outer boundaries, and thus
eliminate the boundary influence on simulation results. The turbulence
intensity set at the inlet boundary would decay rapidly as the flow
approaches the airfoil leading edge due to the destruction term in

3
Y. Liu et al.
Fig. 2. Predicted time-averaged values of (a) pressure coefficient 𝐶𝑝 and (b) wall shear stress 𝜏𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙−𝑥 with three different grid densities.
Fig. 3. Sensitivity study of (a) 𝑦+ distribution and (b) time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 to first layer distance 𝛿𝑦 along the airfoil surface.
the transport equations. To avoid this inconsistency, the boundary
conditions set at the inlet should be adjusted to meet the experimental
or atmospheric conditions. The decay of 𝑇 𝑢 level based on the 𝑘 − 𝜔
framework can be calculated (Spalart and Rumsey, 2007):
[ ( ) ]−𝛽 ∗ ∕𝛽 ⎞0.5
⎛ 1.5𝑋𝛽𝑅𝑒𝑐 𝑇 𝑢2𝑖𝑛
𝑇 𝑢(𝑋) = ⎜𝑇 𝑢2𝑖𝑛 1 + ( ) ⎟ (1)
⎜ 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 𝑖𝑛 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
with 𝛽 ∗ = 0.0828, 𝛽 = 0.09 and 𝑋 = 𝑥∕𝑐 is the non-dimensional distance
from the inlet to the airfoil leading edge. According to Eq. (1), the decay
rate increases with 𝑅𝑒𝑐 . Higher turbulence intensity 𝑇 𝑢𝑖𝑛 and lower
eddy viscosity ratio 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 lead to rapid decay.
Fig. 4 illustrates the influence of other parameters on the decay. The
comparison is demonstrated by the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 and 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 models. The
other two models (LowRe and 𝛾) have the same destruction term as the
𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 model and they are expected to have the same decay behavior.
Fig. 4(a) shows that the decay behavior is not influenced by angles of
attack. Nearly identical decay rates are observed for both models. As
the total kinetic energy is determined by the laminar (𝑘𝑙 ) and turbulent
(𝑘𝑡 ) kinetic energies in the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model, the 𝑘𝑙 value (8 × 10−6 )
set at the inlet causes an increase on 𝑇 𝑢. The 𝑇 𝑢 suddenly increases
near the leading edge in the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model as this model includes
additional near-wall anisotropic dissipation terms. Fig. 4(b) indicates
that the flow time does not influence the decay behavior while the
decay rate increases with 𝑇 𝑢𝑖𝑛 . The laminar kinetic energy does not
decay as there is no destruction term in the laminar transport equation
(Fig. 4(c)).
4
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726
Table 3
The setting of inflow turbulence intensity.
𝑇 𝑢𝑖𝑛 (%) 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 𝑇 𝑢(𝑋) (%)
1 5 0.5890
0.1 5 0.0990
0.01 5 0.0100
3.1.1. Effect of free-stream turbulence intensity
Breuer (2018) utilized LES to study the effect of inflow turbulence
intensity (0% ≤ 𝑇 𝑢∞ ≤ 11.2%) on the flow around the SD7003 airfoil
at 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 6 × 104 and 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 4◦ . The results indicate that the transition
region in the flow field could be very different especially under 𝑇 𝑢∞ ≤
1%. The 𝑇 𝑢∞ is physically the velocity fluctuations in the free-stream.
But in the√ RANS, the velocity fluctuation is not directly solved and the
𝑇 𝑢∞ = 2𝑘∕3 is converted to the kinetic energy 𝑘 to represent the
turbulence characteristic. The influence of 𝑇 𝑢∞ is distinct among the
results of LES, DNS and RANS, especially when the transition occurs.
Different 𝑇 𝑢𝑖𝑛 values were set with a fixed viscosity ratio 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 = 5
(Table 3) to compare the model sensitivity to the free-stream turbulence
intensity and to help specify their values at the inlets for the RANS
transition turbulence models. The inlet laminar kinetic energy 𝑘𝑙 was
set to be zero in the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model to ensure the identical 𝑇 𝑢 at
the boundaries. Table 3 also lists the corresponding 𝑇 𝑢 at the leading
edge of the airfoil calculated by Eq. (1). The NACA 0012 airfoil at
𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 5 × 104 and 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 5◦ was chosen to study the effect of 𝑇 𝑢∞ and
𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 as it gives nearly identical results of time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 distribution
when 𝑇 𝑢𝑖𝑛 = 0.1% for all models.
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726

Fig. 4. (a) Decay behavior of different 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 predicted by the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 and 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 models. (b) Decay behavior of different flow time 𝑇 and 𝑇 𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡 predicted by the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔
model. (c) The turbulent kinetic energy and laminar kinetic energy in the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model under 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2 × 105 .

Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) shows the sensitivity to inflow turbulence inten-
sity in the four models. The 𝐶𝑝 distribution is almost identical for all
models under lower 𝑇 𝑢 (0.01–0.1%). For the high 𝑇 𝑢 level(> 0.5%), the
low Re and 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 models predict more distinct transition in the flow
field compared to the low 𝑇 𝑢 level (Fig. 5(b)). This suggests that the
𝑇 𝑢𝑖𝑛 should be carefully set in the LowRe and 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 models. Both
the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 and 𝛾 models seem insensitive to the inflow turbulence
intensity.
3.1.2. Effect of eddy viscosity ratio
The eddy viscosity ratio at boundaries triggers turbulence in RANS
as 𝜈𝑡 determines the Reynolds shear stress. Generally, a proper eddy
viscosity ratio should be defined to obtain realistic results. Spalart and
Rumsey (2007) recommended the 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 ≈ 2 × 10−7 × 𝑅𝑒𝑐 for a full
turbulence model at a Reynolds number in the order of 106 − 107 . If
this recommendation is applied to the lower 𝑅𝑒𝑐 range (104 − 105 ),
the resultant small 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 (10−3 − 10−2 ) can cause a very rapid decay,
especially with a relatively higher 𝑇 𝑢. The 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 recommended by Ansys
Fluent is 1 − 10 and has been used in many simulations of low Reynolds
number airfoil flow (Walters and Cokljat, 2008; Langtry and Menter,
2009; Fürst et al., 2013; Khayatzadeh and Nadarajah, 2014; Lopes
et al., 2020). To evaluate the eddy viscosity ratio effect, different 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈
values were set with a fixed 𝑇 𝑢(𝑋) = 0.5890% at the leading edge
of the airfoil (Table 4). The relatively high 𝑇 𝑢 level was set as the
environmental turbulence intensity can be high in the application of
wind turbines (Devinant et al., 2002). Table 4 also illustrates that to
Table 4
The setting of eddy viscosity ratio.
𝑇 𝑢𝑖𝑛 (%) 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 𝑇 𝑢(𝑋) (%)
0.724 10 0.5890
1 5 0.5890
1171.2 1 0.5890
obtain a high 𝑇 𝑢(𝑋), a small eddy viscosity ratio (𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 = 1) can lead to
an unrealistic high 𝑇 𝑢𝑖𝑛 due to the rapid decay.
Fig. 5(c) shows the influence of the eddy viscosity ratio on the 𝐶𝑝
distribution in the transition region. Both the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 and 𝛾 models are
insensitive to the eddy viscosity ratio. However, very different results in
the transition were predicted by the LowRe model using different 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈.
The results of the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model are only slightly different between
𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 = 5 and 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 = 10. Although the LowRe and 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 models show
some sensitivity to 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈, the influence of 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 on the predicted results
is less than the effect of the 𝑇 𝑢𝑖𝑛 level. The value of 5 < 𝜈𝑡 ∕𝜈 < 10 could
give reasonable simulation results in the low-Reynolds number range.
3.2. Prediction capability at different Reynolds numbers and angles of
attack
3.2.1. Case of 1 × 104 < 𝑅𝑒𝑐 < 5 × 104
At the Reynolds number between 1 × 104 and 5 × 104 , the airfoil
aerodynamic performance is poor due to the large separation of the
boundary layer (without reattachment or with reattachment to form a

5
Y. Liu et al.
Fig. 5. Predicted time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 distribution on the NACA 0012 airfoil surface at 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 5 × 104 and 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 5◦ using different inflow parameters: (a) overview and (b)(c) details
near the transition range. Turbulence intensity 𝑇 𝑢 in (c) is different from those in (a) and (b).
long laminar separation bubble). The flow is sensitive to environmental
disturbances and a variation of 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠. Fig. 6 shows the mean pressure
coefficient distribution predicted by the four models and compared to
the experimental and/or DNS data in this 𝑅𝑒𝑐 range.
Under the condition shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b), the boundary
layer separates from the airfoil surface without reattachment. Similar
results are predicted by the LowRe and 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 models. The 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾
and 𝛾 models give similar results but with a difference in the region
close to the trailing edge. The 𝛾 model tends to predict higher negative
time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 close to the trailing edge. It may be hard to tell which
model has better predictions under this condition. For the NACA 4415
airfoil (Fig. 6(a)), the scatter in experimental data makes it difficult to
compare the four models. The 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 and 𝛾 models agree qualitatively
better with the experiments. The 𝛾 model gives a better prediction
compared to the DNS data (Jones et al., 2018). For the NACA 0012
airfoil, the LowRe and 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 models seem to perform better
(Fig. 6(b)).
Under the condition of 𝑅𝑒𝑐 ≈ 5 × 104 and 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = (5, 5.5)◦ for
the NACA 0012 airfoil (Figs. 6(c) and 6(d)), the laminar boundary
layer separates near the leading edge and reattaches to form a long
laminar separation bubble. The simulation results are compared to the
experimental and DNS results. The prediction capability improves com-
pared to the condition without reattachment. But all the models tend
to underestimate the negative time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 over the long laminar
separation bubble. The 𝑘−𝑘𝑙 −𝜔 model predicts a similar behavior to the
2d-DNS (Fig. 6(d)). In the low Reynold number range, some anisotropic
behavior may occur especially in the separation region (over the long
laminar separation bubble). The isotropic assumption in the RANS may
fail to predict such behavior.
6
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726
3.2.2. Case of 5 × 104 < 𝑅𝑒𝑐 < 5 × 105
The four models were rerun for the NACA 4415 airfoil with 𝑅𝑒𝑐 =
0.75×, 1.0×, 2.0 × 105 and 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 0◦ , 4◦ , 8◦ , 12◦ . The predicted
time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 distribution on the airfoil surface is compared to
the experimental results of Saliveros (1988) (Fig. 7). Fig. 8 illustrates
the predicted instantaneous vorticity at the non-dimensional time 𝑇 =
40 (𝑇 = 𝑡𝑈∞ ∕𝑐) and time-averaged streamlines (averaged between
T=20–40) at 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 0◦ under different 𝑅𝑒𝑐 .
With 𝑅𝑒𝑐 ≤ 1 × 105 (Figs. 7(a) and 7(b)), the results predicted by
four models are similar at lower 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠(0 − 4◦ ). Slight difference occurs
near the trailing edge on the suction surface. The 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model
predicts higher negative time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 near the trailing edge than
other models. As the angle of attack increases, the predicted results of
each model deviate more from each other and all models fail to predict
at the large 𝐴𝑂𝐴 (≥ 12◦ ). The results predicted by the LowRe and 𝛾
models are similar but different from the experimental data in all the
cases. The 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model performs better than the LowRe and 𝛾
models. The 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 model has the best prediction results among the
four models.
At the Reynolds number 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2 × 105 (Fig. 7(c)), the prediction
capability of all four models enhances significantly compared to the
𝑅𝑒𝑐 ≤ 1 × 105 conditions. Almost identical results are predicted by the
𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾, 𝛾 and 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model at small 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠. But the LowRe model
fails to predict the transition at all 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠. At 𝐴𝑂𝐴 ≥ 12◦ , the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔
model deviates from the experimental data as the turbulence separation
appears.
The prediction of the four models can be further compared by the
boundary layer characteristic shown in Fig. 8. At 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 0.75 × 105
and 1 × 105 (Figs. 8(a) and 8(b)), the LowRe and 𝛾 models tend to
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726

Fig. 6. Time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 distribution with four models on (a) the NACA 4415 airfoil surface at 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 5 × 104 , 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 0◦ and the NACA 0012 airfoil surface at (b)
𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2.3 × 104 , 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 5.5◦ , (c) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 4.8 × 104 , 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 5.5◦ , (d) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 5 × 104 , 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 5◦ .

Table 5
Summary of flow structures and the recommended model under different conditions (𝑅𝑒𝑐 , 𝐴𝑂𝐴 and airfoil shape)..
𝑅𝑒𝑐 (×105 ) 𝐴𝑂𝐴 (◦ ) Airfoil Flow structureb Recommended model
0.23 5.5 NACA 0012 Separation without reattachment 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔a , LowRea
0.5 0 NACA 4415 Separation without reattachment 𝛾
0.48/0.5 5.5/5 NACA 0012 LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 a
0.75 0 NACA 4415 TE LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 a , 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔a
4 TE LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾
8 MC LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 a
12 LE LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 a
1 0 NACA 4415 TE LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 a
4 TE LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾
8 MC LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾
12 LE LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 a , 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔a
2 0 NACA 4415 TE LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾, 𝛾, 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔
4 MC LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾, 𝛾, 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔
8 MC LoLSB 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾, 𝛾, 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔
12 LE LSB, TS 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 a , 𝛾 a
a
The model predicts the flow quantitatively with some inconsistency about the time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 value or separation/reattachment point.
b TE,MC and LE mean bubbles form near the trailing-edge, middle-chord and leading-edge, respectively. TS means the turbulence separation.
LSB and LoLSB mean laminar separation bubbles and long laminar separation bubbles, respectively.

predict larger separation near the trailing edge. The 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model
is very sensitive to the 𝑅𝑒𝑐 as different boundary layer characteristics
are predicted at the two 𝑅𝑒𝑐 . This may be because these 𝑅𝑒𝑐 values are
around the critical Reynolds number where the flow would reattach to
the airfoil surface at the trailing edge for the NACA 4415 airfoil. At the
𝑅𝑒𝑐 value 2 × 105 (Fig. 8(c)), the separation bubble forms on the middle
suction surface, and the bubble length is reduced. The models except
the LowRe model predict similar flow structures.
3.3. Prediction capability for different airfoil shapes
As discussed in Section 3.2, the prediction capability of the four
transition models varies with the 𝑅𝑒𝑐 number and 𝐴𝑂𝐴. More accurate
results are predicted at larger 𝑅𝑒𝑐 and smaller 𝐴𝑂𝐴 due to reduced
flow separation on the suction surface of an airfoil. Hence, the model
prediction capability is inherently related to the boundary layer char-
acteristic. If a flow tends to separate and become complex, it is difficult
for a model to predict the flow accurately. The geometrical features of

7
Y. Liu et al.
Fig. 7. Time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 distribution on the NACA 4415 airfoil surface with four
models at different 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠, (a) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 7.5 × 104 , (b) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 1 × 105 and (c) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2 × 105 .
an airfoil such as thickness and camber affect the separation behavior
of the boundary layer and consequently the prediction capability by
various models.
Fig. 9 shows the instantaneous vorticity and time-averaged stream-
lines of the NACA 4415 and NACA 0012 airfoils at 𝑅𝑒𝑐 ≈ 5 × 104 . In
NACA 4415, the large-scale separation occurs even at small 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 0◦
around the trailing edge and significantly influences the wake flow.
Moreover, no reattachment occurs at this Reynolds number. But in
NACA 0012, the separation is small. As the angle of attack increases, the
laminar separation occurs near the leading edge and reattaches on the
8
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726
middle suction surface with no further separation. The flow structures
and the 𝐶𝑝 distribution on the airfoil surface (Fig. 6) predicted by the
four transition models for NACA 0012 are more consistent than NACA
4415.
As the airfoil thickness and camber increase (e.g., from NACA 0012
to NACA 4415), the separation tends to occur, and the laminar separa-
tion point tends to remain around the trailing edge. Better prediction
can thus be obtained by the transition models in a thinner and less
cambered airfoil (e.g., NACA 0012) under low Reynolds numbers.
3.4. Prediction capability of separation, transition and reattachment loca-
tions
The laminar separation, transition and reattachment locations were
obtained from the distribution of predicted time-averaged wall shear
stress in the flow direction (𝜏𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙−𝑥 ) along the airfoil upper surface. The
separation and reattachment points occur where the wall shear stress
changes its direction (i.e., positive or negative). The transition point is
located at the minimum 𝜏𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑙−𝑥 with a sudden rise of the wall shear
stress after laminar separation. The deviation coefficients are defined
to measure the difference between the predicted and experimental
location results as follows:
𝐿𝑠𝑝 − 𝐿𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝜖𝑙𝑚 = (2)
𝐿𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝑃 𝑡𝑟 − 𝑃 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝜖𝑡𝑟 = (3)
𝑃 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝑃 𝑟𝑎 − 𝑃 𝑟𝑎𝑒𝑥𝑝
𝜖𝑟𝑎 = (4)
𝑃 𝑟𝑎𝑒𝑥𝑝
where 𝐿𝑠𝑝, 𝑃 𝑡𝑟 and 𝑃 𝑟𝑎 are the laminar separation point, transition
point and reattachment point predicted by the simulation, respectively.
𝐿𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑥𝑝 , 𝑃 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑥𝑝 , 𝑃 𝑟𝑎𝑒𝑥𝑝 are the respective experimental data. The pre-
dicted laminar separation point (Fig. 10), transition point (Fig. 11) and
reattachment point (Fig. 12) are compared to the available experimen-
tal data in a range of 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 and 𝑅𝑒𝑐 . Failure to predict the location is
not shown in these figures.
The predicted laminar separation point (Fig. 10) well agrees with
the experimental data at small 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 especially with higher 𝑅𝑒𝑐 =
2×105 . But at large 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠, all models tend to predict a forward laminar
separation location (negative deviation coefficient 𝜖𝐿𝐴𝑀 ). It is hard to
tell which model can better predict the laminar separation point in the
𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 and 𝑅𝑒𝑐 range.
There is a lack of experimental data of transition point at 𝑅𝑒𝑐 =
2 × 105 (Fig. 11). The 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 model can better predict transition points
in the 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 and 𝑅𝑒𝑐 . But the LowRe and 𝛾 models fail to simulate the
sudden rise of the wall shear stress and could be incapable of reliably
predicting transition in this Reynolds number range.
As the 𝑅𝑒𝑐 number reaches a threshold (𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2×105 ), all the models
can predict the reattachment point (Fig. 12). In particular, the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾
model seems to have the best prediction capability under all conditions.
3.5. Selection of transitional turbulence models at low Reynolds numbers
The simulation results were analyzed to give some guidance on
selecting transitional turbulence models in the low 𝑅𝑒𝑐 range (1 × 104 −
5 × 105 ) for the small wind turbine application. Table 5 summarizes
the predicted flow characteristic under different conditions of chord
Reynolds numbers (𝑅𝑒𝑐 ), angles of attack (𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠) and airfoil shapes.
The optimum models for each condition are specified based on their
capability of predicting both the time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 value and separa-
tion/reattachment locations. The formation of long laminar separation
bubbles (LoLSB, length> 20%𝑐) causes prediction uncertainty in this
Reynolds number range. The prediction capability of various transition
models is enhanced as the 𝑅𝑒𝑐 increases or the 𝐴𝑂𝐴 decreases.
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726

Fig. 8. Distribution of instantaneous vorticity and time-averaged streamlines over the NACA 4415 airfoil predicted by four models at 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 0◦ , (a) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 7.5 × 104 , (b) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 1 × 105
and (c) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2 × 105 .

Fig. 13 recommends the transitional turbulence models in the dif-
ferent ranges of 𝑅𝑒𝑐 and 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠. For 𝑅𝑒𝑐 < 0.5 × 105 or 0.5 × 105 <
𝑅𝑒𝑐 < 2 × 105 at a large 𝐴𝑂𝐴 > 8◦ , the four transitional models cannot
predict the flow accurately, and so the RANS method is not appropriate.
Instead, LES or DNS can be used. For 0.5 × 105 < 𝑅𝑒𝑐 < 2 × 105
at a low 𝐴𝑂𝐴 < 8◦ , the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 model is capable to give a reliable
prediction. At the 𝑅𝑒𝑐 ≥ 2 × 105 , the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾, 𝛾, 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 models are all
reliable at 𝐴𝑂𝐴 < 12◦ without turbulence separation. If the turbulence
boundary separates from the trailing edge at higher 𝐴𝑂𝐴, the 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔

9
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726

Fig. 9. Distribution of instantaneous vorticity and time-averaged streamlines predicted by four models over (a) the NACA 4415 airfoil at 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 5 × 104 and 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 0◦ , (b) the
NACA 0012 airfoil at 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 4.8 × 104 , 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 0◦ , and (c) the NACA 0012 airfoil at 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 4.8 × 104 , 𝐴𝑂𝐴 = 5.5◦ .

model overestimates the minimum negative time-averaged 𝐶𝑝 value,
and therefore the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 −𝛾, 𝛾 models are recommended for this situation.
4. Conclusions
This paper evaluated the prediction capability of four frequently
used transitional turbulence models (LowRe, 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾, 𝛾, 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔) in
the RANS framework in the low Reynolds number range in which small
wind turbines usually work. The NACA 0012 and NACA 4415 airfoils
were chosen for the simulations under the 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = (0.5 − 2) × 105 and
𝐴𝑂𝐴 = (0 − 12)◦ conditions. The conclusions are drawn as follows.
In the low Reynolds number range, the simulation results by the
RANS method are more sensitive to the inlet turbulent intensity than
the viscosity ratio set at the boundaries. The inlet turbulent intensity
should be carefully set to meet the simulation situation. The eddy
viscosity ratio between 5–10 is recommended.

10
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726

Fig. 10. Deviation of predicted laminar separation point from experimental data on the NACA 4415 airfoil surface with four models at different 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 (a) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 7.5 × 104 , (b)
𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 1 × 105 and (c) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2 × 105 .

Fig. 11. Deviation of predicted transition point from experimental data on the NACA 4415 airfoil surface with four models at different 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 (a) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 7.5×104 and (b) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 1×105 .

As the 𝑅𝑒𝑐 number increases, the prediction capability of all models
improves due to the reduced size of laminar separation bubbles. At
lower 𝑅𝑒𝑐 , the large-scale separation makes it difficult for a model
to predict the flow accurately. Better prediction can be obtained in a
thinner and less cambered airfoil at higher 𝑅𝑒𝑐 and small 𝐴𝑂𝐴.
The 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 model has the most promising prediction capability
among all the models as it considers different kinds of transition paths
in the transition model formulation. The 𝑘 − 𝑘𝑙 − 𝜔 model based on
the pre-transition laminar fluctuation phenomenon gives a secondary
satisfaction in a certain 𝑅𝑒𝑐 range and at low 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 without turbulence
separation. Although the 𝛾 model is derived directly from the 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾
model, it cannot reliably predict the flow field at the relatively large
𝐴𝑂𝐴 and relatively low 𝑅𝑒𝑐 . The prediction capability of the LowRe
model is questionable among all the models.
The 𝑅𝑒𝜃 − 𝛾 and 𝛾 models may be further modified with empirical
correlations to improve prediction capability in different applications.
The physics-based 𝑘−𝑘𝑙 −𝜔 model can be improved to meet the general
use of transition predictions.

11
Y. Liu et al. Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726

Fig. 12. Deviation of predicted reattachment point from experimental data on the NACA 4415 airfoil surface with four models at different 𝐴𝑂𝐴𝑠 (a) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 7.5×104 , (b) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 1×105
and (c) 𝑅𝑒𝑐 = 2 × 105 .

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-

cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge the financial support of the National

Natural Science Foundation of China (51475174).

References

Fig. 13. Recommendation for the selection of transitional turbulence models in a range
of low Reynolds number and angle of attack.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yue Liu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation,
Formal analysis, Visualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft.
Peifeng Li: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources. Kaiy-
ong Jiang: Conceptualization, Supervision, Resources, Funding acqui-
sition.
Baidya Roy, S., 2011. Simulating impacts of wind farms on local hydrometeorology.
J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 99 (4), 491–498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.
2010.12.013.
Breuer, M., 2018. Effect of inflow turbulence on LES of an airfoil flow with laminar
separation bubble. Flow Turbul. Combust. 101, 433–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-030-04915-7_46.
Choudhry, A., Arjomandi, M., Kelso, R., 2015. A study of long separation bubble
on thick airfoils and its consequent effects. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 52, 84–96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2014.12.001.
Devinant, P., Laverne, T., Hureau, J., 2002. Experimental study of wind-turbine airfoil
aerodynamics in high turbulence. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (6), 689–707.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00162-9.
Di Pasquale, D., Rona, A., Garrett, S.J., 2009. A selective review of CFD transition
models. In: 39th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference. San Antonio, Texas.
Fürst, J., Příhoda, J., Straka, P., 2013. Numerical simulation of transitional flows.
Computing 95 (suppl. 1), S163–S182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00607-012-0266-
0.
Gad-el Hak, M., 1990. Control of low-speed airfoil aerodynamics. AIAA J. 28 (9),
1537–1552. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.25250.
Ingen, J.L.V., 2008. The eN method for transition prediction. Historical review of work
at TU Delft. In: 38th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit. Seattle, Washington.

12
Y. Liu et al.
Jones, L.E., Sandberg, R.D., Sandham, N.D., 2008. Direct numerical simulations of
forced and unforced separation bubbles on an airfoil at incidence. J. Fluid Mech.
602, 175–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022112008000864.
Jones, G., Santer, M., Papadakis, G., 2018. Control of low Reynolds number flow around
an airfoil using periodic surface morphing: A numerical study. J. Fluids Struct. 76,
95–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2017.09.009.
Khayatzadeh, P., Nadarajah, S., 2014. Laminar-turbulent flow simulation for wind
turbine profiles using the 𝛾 − 𝑅𝑒̃ 𝜃𝑡 transition model. Wind Energy 17, 901–918.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/we.
Kim, D.H., Yang, J.H., Chang, J.W., Chung, J., 2009. Boundary layer and near-wake
measurements of NACA 0012 airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. In: 47th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Orlando, Floridas, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2009-
1472.
Langtry, R., Gola, J., Menter, F., 2006. Predicting 2D airfoil and 3D wind turbine
rotor performance using a transition model for general CFD codes. In: 44th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, Nevada, http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/
6.2006-395.
Langtry, R.B., Menter, F.R., 2009. Correlation-based transition modeling for un-
structured parallelized computational fluid dynamics codes. AIAA J. 47 (12),
2894–2906. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/1.42362.
Lin, M., Sarlak, H., 2016. A comparative study on the flow over an airfoil using
transitional turbulence models. AIP Conf. Proc. 1738, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/
1.4951806.
Liu, Y., Li, P., He, W., Jiang, K., 2020. Numerical study of the effect of surface grooves
on the aerodynamic performance of a NACA 4415 airfoil for small wind turbines.
J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 206 (January), 104263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jweia.2020.104263.
Lopes, R., Eça, L., Vaz, G., 2020. On the numerical behavior of RANS-based transition
models. J. Fluids Eng. 142 (5), 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4045576.
Mayle, R.E., Schulz, A., 1996. The path to predicting bypass transition. In: International
Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress & Exhibition. Birmingham, UK, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1115/96-GT-199.
Menter, F.R., 1994. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications. AIAA J. 32 (8), 1598–1605. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.12149.
Menter, F.R., Smirnov, P.E., Liu, T., Avancha, R., 2015. A one-equation local correlation-
based transition model. Flow, Turbul. Combust. 95 (4), 583–619. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10494-015-9622-4.
13
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 217 (2021) 104726
Rumsey, C.L., Spalart, P.R., 2009. Turbulence model behavior in low Reynolds number
regions of aerodynamic flowfields. AIAA J. 47 (4), 982–993. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2514/1.39947.
Saliveros, E., 1988. The Aerodynamic Performance of the NACA-4415 Aerofoil Section
At Low Reynolds Numbers (Ph.D. thesis). University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Sanei, M., Razaghi, R., 2018. Numerical investigation of three turbulence simulation
models for S809 wind turbine airfoil. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. A 232 (8), 1037–1048.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957650918767301.
Spalart, P.R., Rumsey, C.L., 2007. Effective inflow conditions for turbulence models in
aerodynamic calculations. AIAA J. 45 (10), 2544–2553. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/
1.29373.
Tummala, A., Velamati, R.K., Sinha, D.K., Indraja, V., Krishna, V.H., 2016. A review
on small scale wind turbines. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 1351–1371. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.027.
Walters, D.K., Cokljat, D., 2008. A three-equation eddy-viscosity model for Reynolds-
averaged Navier–Stokes simulations of transitional flow. J. Fluids Eng. 130, 121401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2979230.
Wang, S., Zhou, Y., Alam, M.M., Yang, H., 2014. Turbulent intensity and Reynolds
number effects on an airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. Phys. Fluids 26, 115107.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4901969.
Wauters, J., Degroote, J., Vierendeels, J., 2019. Comparative study of transition models
for high-angle-of-attack behavior. AIAA J. 57 (6), 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/
1.J057249.
Wilcox, D.C., 1994. Simulation of transition with a two-equation turbulence model.
AIAA J. 32 (2), 247–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.59994.
Wolgemuth, N.M., Walters, D.K., 2007. CFD Prediction of boundary layer transition and
separation on an airfoil at varying angle of attack. In: Proceedings of FEDSM2007.
San Diego, California, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/fedsm2007-37111.
Xia, C., Chen, W., 2016. Boundary-layer transition prediction using a simplified
correlation-based model. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 29 (1), 66–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cja.2015.12.003.
Zhang, Y., Sun, Z., van Zuijlen, A., van Bussel, G., 2017. Numerical simulation of
transitional flow on a wind turbine airfoil with RANS-based transition model. J.
Turbul. 18 (9), 879–898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14685248.2017.1334908.