J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.

120 (2013) 29–36

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia

Numerical analysis of flow field around NREL Phase II

wind turbine by a hybrid CFD/BEM method
V. Esfahanian a, A. Salavati Pour a,n, I. Harsini b, A. Haghani c, R. Pasandeh a, A. Shahbazi a,
G. Ahmadi d
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 14395-1335, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran
c
Renewable Energy Organization of Iran, Tehran, Iran
d
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Clarkson University, Postdam, NY, USA

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, a mixed CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) and BEM (Blade Element Momentum
Received 20 September 2012 Method) analysis is implemented for simulating the flow field around a wind turbine rotor to predict the
Received in revised form aerodynamic performance such as the Power Curve diagram and the forces and moments imposed on
26 April 2013
the rotor blades that are essential in structure and/or aeroelastic design. The present approach requires
Accepted 16 June 2013
Available online 22 July 2013
considerable less computational time and memory than three-dimensional simulation of a wind turbine
rotor by merely CFD methods, while retains the desirable accuracy. This work consists of two parts:
Keywords: 1—calculating 2D aerodynamic coefficients of several spanwise sections of the blades by CFD methods,
Wind turbine using Fluent commercial software. 2—Simulating 3D-flow field through the wind turbine rotor using the
BEM
BEM technique. To validate the current approach, the Combined Experiment Phase II Horizontal Axis
CFD
Wind Turbine known as NREL Phase II Rotor is used. The comparison indicates that the combination of
Turbulence
CFD and BEM methods is much faster than merely CFD approaches while accurate enough to be used for
engineering purposes.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction methods such as Blade Element Momentum method (BEM) for

At present, many countries are increasingly investing in green
energy, while wind is one of the most important sources of the
free and clean energies. The kinetic energy of the wind can be
absorbed and turned into electrical energy by use of the wind
turbines. There are many types of wind turbines but they can be
categorized into two general kinds: Horizontal and Vertical Axis
Wind Turbines (HAWT and VAWT). However because of the lower
efficiency and structural problems, the VAWTs are rarely used for
power generation.
For designing a wind turbine, it is of high importance to
accurately predict the imposed aerodynamic forces and moments
on the structure. These forces are used in aeroelastic simulation
and structural design and also in predicting the power curve of the
wind turbine.
One of the most common ways for predicting these forces is
simulating the whole flow field around the turbine by Computa-
tional Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Such a CFD simulation is very costly
and requires rather a long time. Also there are some engineering
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 912 8106847.
E-mail address: ASLVTPR@gmail.com (A. Salavati Pour).
simulating a rotor that are much faster than CFD methods. But on
the other hand, some accuracy is lost due to inviscid approxima-
tion used in these methods.
Due to large time requirement and computational cost of simu-
lating a 3D wind turbine by merely CFD methods, a mixed BEM/CFD
method is investigated for simulating the flow field around HAWTs.
This approach uses CFD for constructing the table of aerodynamic
coefficients at different angles of attack and Reynolds numbers. Then
by use of the tabulated coefficients, the three-dimensional flow field
is modeled via BEM method. Thereafter, the imposed torque and
forces on turbine blades can be calculated.
To validate the implemented method, the NREL Phase II Rotor is
chosen for this analysis. This rotor has become a benchmark in
wind industry for validation of different engineering methods. The
experimental data came from measurements taken on field
installed wind turbine. The joint effort undertaken by several
European Union research labs and the United States National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has documented and made
available experimental field data for several wind turbines
(Shepers et al., 1997). Numerical analysts have access to this data,
known as IEA Annex XIV by either extracting it from written report
or by downloading the electronic version of the report from the
internet (Duque et al., 2000).

0167-6105/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2013.06.006
30 V. Esfahanian et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 120 (2013) 29–36
The presented article consists of two parts: In the first part, the
domain construction, grid generation and numerical approach for
calculating two-dimensional aerodynamic coefficients are described.
Then the aerodynamic coefficients are calculated via CFD methods
using Fluent commercial software, and the 2D results are compared
with experimental wind tunnel data. The second part includes the
3D simulation (based on the tabulated two-dimensional aerody-
namic coefficients obtained in the first part) of a benchmark wind
turbine using a modified BEM technique. Finally the 3D results are
discussed and the numerically acquired power curve of the turbine is
compared with the experimental data provided by wind tunnel test
of the full scale turbine in NASA Ames research center.
2. Experimental test case
The experimental data used for comparison, is obtained from the
NREL Combined Experiments Phase II (Butterfield et al., 1992a, b).
This turbine is a fixed pitch, 3 bladed Horizontal Axis Wind
Turbine (HAWT) that has a rated electrical power of 19.8 kW. The
downwind rotor has a diameter of 10.06 m, hub height of 17.03 m,
cut-in wind speed of 6 m/s, zero tilt angle and rotates at constant
rotational speed of 71.63 rpm. Blades are untwisted with constant
chord length of 0.4572 m and uses S809 airfoil as the cross section
along the spanwise direction with some modifications towards the
root to blend with the hub spar. Blade set angle (pitch angle) was
12 deg according to settings of NREL Phase II Rotor experiments.
The present test case is a highly instrumented benchmark. Each
blade has flush mounted pressure taps in several radial locations;
also the total pressure is recorded by pressure probes at four radial
stations. The rotor bending loads, torque and angle of attack are
also measured in several spanwise stations.
For non-yawed rotor and steady (time averaged) conditions,
NREL provides the power curve of the turbine as shown in Fig. 1.
3. Calculating 2D aerodynamic coefficients
Several wind tunnel tests were carried out for S809 airfoil at
the Delft University of Technology (DUT), Colorado State University
(CSU) and Ohio State University (OSU). However, there are some
level of discrepancy and difference between the three wind tunnel
Fig. 1. NREL Phase II Rotor power curve (Shepers et al., 1997).
results (Tangler, 2002), especially in post-stall region. Such a
discrepancy motivated us to derive the aerodynamic coefficients
of the airfoil by CFD simulation.
3.1. Grid generation
The construction of the computational domain and grid gen-
eration are performed by the use of Gambit commercial software.
It is far obvious that uncertainty in geometrical accuracy may
lead to inconsistent CFD results. According to Gatski's study
(Gatski, 1996), the details of the airfoil shape are important factors
in evaluating whether a given turbulence model can predict a key
aerodynamic characteristic of the airfoil or not. Also it was noticed
by Guilmineau et al. (1997) that interpolation errors may result in
pressure oscillation on the leeside of the airfoil. Therefore, the
airfoil shape is constructed by fitting a NURB function throughout
the 67 points given in Ref. Somers (1997).
By choosing a density based solver and its appropriate far-field
boundary condition, enables us to use smaller computational
domain without losing numerical accuracy.
As it is illustrated in Fig. 2, outer boundary of the computa-
tional domain is in the form of a cut conical shape in order to
construct a C-type mesh for better simulating the wake region
after the separation of the flow over the airfoil. The outer
boundary is 5 airfoil chord lengths (5c) far from the airfoil leading
edge. The base of the conic is 10c long which is expanded equally
at each side of the trailing edge of the airfoil.
After a careful study resulting into the final grid with 195 cells
along the perimeter of the airfoil, and 75 cells normal to the airfoil
surface including 20 layers of cells close to the wall, in a boundary
layer type of mesh with a growth factor equal to 1.1 (the boundary
layer mesh is visible in Fig. 3). The normal spacing at the wall is
stretched to give y+≤3 (the first grid node spacing from the wall is
0.4 mm and the total boundary layer mesh depth is 22.9 mm), a
range that is appropriate for turbulence modeling with Enhanced
Wall Treatment (EWT).
Two-dimensional computational mesh is a structured multi-
blocks C-type grid (Figs. 2 and 3), that contained totally 23,625
cells. Attempts are made to have minimum aspect ratio changes in
grid spacing in the boundary layer region. Of course due to low
Fig. 2. Computational grid (“c” represents the airfoil chord length).
 V. Esfahanian et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 120 (2013) 29–36 31

Fig. 4. Transition location at the lower side of the airfoil determined by DUT
experiments (Somers, 1997).

Fig. 3. Close-up view of the grid around airfoil and its trailing edge.

gradient flow properties in the inviscid region, high aspect ratio

changes can be used without losing numerical accuracy.
Many numerical analyses have been conducted on S809 airfoil
with different numerical approach and different turbulence mod-
eling (Wolfe and Ochs, 1997; Zhang et al., 2001; Bertagnolio et al.,
2001). The most important point that can be found in these
analyses is the failure or partial failure of the simulations that
neglected the phenomenon of transition, in prediction of aero-
dynamic coefficients (specially the drag coefficient). Therefore, the
most essential point in 2D-aerodynamic simulation of each sec-
tions of the blade is the determination of the location of transition
for each side of blade section.
At different Reynolds numbers, the chordwise location of
transition has been determined as a function of angle of attack
by the experiments performed in Delft University of Technology
(Somers, 1997)
As it is illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5, the transition on lower side
of the airfoil happens in about 52% of the chord length from the
leading edge in a wide range of angles of attack. Similarly on the
upper surface, for AOA (Angle Of Attack)≤5 deg, the natural
transition occurs in 56% of the chord length from the leading
edge. But as the AOA increases and the separated region on the Fig. 5. Transition location at the upper side of the airfoil determined by DUT
experiments (Somers, 1997).
upper side expands, the transition occurs with separation and
moves towards the leading edge of the airfoil, where it asympto-
tically approaches to averagely 4% of the chord length after the Method (FVM) in CFD calculations. A density based, time depen-
leading edge. dent (unsteady) solver with implicit formulation in both time and
In order to model the laminar zone before the transition and space, Green-Gauss cell based gradient approximation and Roe-
the turbulent zones after that, the computational domain is FDS type of flux calculation is chosen.
decomposed into three regions by three normal lines to the airfoil The SST k–ω turbulence of Menter is used in turbulent zones
surface according to the locations where transition occurs in each due to good prediction in separated flow simulation. The model
side of the blade section. These lines are set as interior lines in uses the standard k–ω model near the wall, but switches to a k–ε
Gambit. The three separated zones are illustrated in Fig. 6. In the model away from the wall (Menter, 1994).
upper side of the airfoil, it is assumed that the laminar/turbulent Second-order upwind discretization is chosen for momen-
zone is laminar when AOA≤7 deg, then it becomes turbulent in tum equations and turbulence equations including specific
higher angles of attack. dissipation rate and turbulent kinetic energy equations are
discretized using first-order upwind scheme. For time integra-
3.2. Two-dimensional numerical approach tion, the first order implicit formulation is used. The time step
intervals are set according to maximum free stream velocity and
Two-dimensional numerical simulations are performed by use are chosen small enough (0.005 s) in order to prevent any loss of
of Fluent (v 6.3) commercial software that uses Finite Volume the unsteady physics of the flow field. The simulation at each
32 V. Esfahanian et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 120 (2013) 29–36

Fig. 6. Decomposed zones for different laminar–turbulent treatments. Fig. 7. Numerical drag curves for S809 airfoil.

case is performed for a time period of 10 s (equal to 2000 time

steps).
Number of iterations at each time step (inner loops) is set to
500 and the convergence criteria at each time step is defined for
all the residuals to a predefined tolerance value of 1
10−5 and
acquiring a constant trend in drag coefficient with time. The latter
condition is imposed because the drag is the last aerodynamic
coefficient that converges and its convergence guarantees the
convergence of other parameters.
Due to expansion of the wake region and increase in vortex
shedding as the angle of attack increases, time dependency and
unsteadiness of the numerical solution also tend to increase. This
phenomenon causes the aerodynamic coefficients to oscillate in
time. Therefore, when the solution converges and the trend of
oscillations in aerodynamic coefficients become constant, the time
average of the oscillating quantities is determined using the last
5 cycles, in order to obtain the lift and drag coefficients for given
Reynolds number and angle of attack. It must be noted that the
amplitude of these oscillations after the convergence is less than
2% of the absolute value of their corresponding aerodynamic
coefficients.
Fig. 8. Numerical lift curves for S809 airfoil.

3.3. Two-dimensional results and discussions

Two-dimensional numerical simulations are performed at
4 different Reynolds number (Re¼0.25
106, 0.5
106, 1.0
106
and 1.5
106) in a wide range of angles of attack (−51≤AOA≤401) in
steps of one degree. However in a density based solver with far-
field boundary conditions, the Mach number must be defined
at the boundaries instead of Re number, so considering the
standard condition for the thermophysical properties of the air
(ρ ¼ 1:225 kg=m3 ; μ ¼ 1:7894
10−5 kg=m sec and the sound speed¼
343 m=sec), the Mach number is determined for each of the mentioned
Reynold's numbers (M ∞ ¼ 0:0106; 0:0213; 0:0426 and 0:0639). These
simulations are used to construct the lift and drag curves for S809
airfoil that are illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8.
In addition, 4 other numerical simulations are investigated at
Reynolds number of 2
106 and M ∞ ¼ 0:0852, for four angles of
attack: −0.011, 1.021, 5.131 and 9.221, in order to validate the
calculated pressure distribution around the airfoil with DUT low-
speed wind tunnel experiments (Somers, 1997) (Figs. 13–16).
All the two-dimensional aerodynamic coefficients are non-
dimensionalized with respect to 12 ρV 2∞ c, where c is chord length
of the airfoil, V ∞ is the free stream velocity seen by blade section
(V rel ) and ρ is the density
of the air. Hence
the lift  and drag
coefficients become C l ¼ L= 12 ρV 2∞ c ; C d ¼ D= 12 ρV 2∞ c . The pres-
sure drag
coefficient  is also defined as mentioned and becomes
C dp ¼ Dp = 12 ρV 2∞ c , where Dp is the drag force due to the difference
in pressure distribution around the airfoil.
The local pressure
coefficient is also defined as C P ¼ PðxÞ= 12 ρV 2∞ where PðxÞ is the
local gauge pressure with reference to P ∞ .
As illustrated in Figs. 9–12, the numerically calculated aero-
dynamic coefficients stand in good agreement with experimental
wind tunnel results. Although as shown in Figs. 9 and 10, the OSU
and DUT experiments are inconsistent especially in AOA≥151. The
numerical lift and drag at Re¼ 1.0
106 closely matches the DUT
experiments (less than 5% error between numerical and experi-
mental results) when AOA o 171, but as the AOA further increases,
the DUT results (especially drag coefficient) lose their accuracy and
 V. Esfahanian et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 120 (2013) 29–36
Fig. 9. Numerical lift curve in comparison with DUT and OSU (Gregorek et al., 1991)
wind tunnel tests at Re¼ 1.0
106.
Fig. 10. Numerical drag curve in comparison with DUT and OSU (Gregorek et al.,
1991) wind tunnel tests at Re¼ 1.0
106.
OSU results (lift and pressure drag) become more reasonable
(Figs. 9 and 10). As shown in Figs. 11 and 12, CSU experiments at
Re¼0.5
106 confirm the numerical results (an average error of
6%). The numerically calculated pressure coefficients also show
great accordance (less than 1% error) with DUT experiments both
in laminar and turbulent regions (Figs. 13–16).
4. Three-dimensional simulation
A numerical code is developed for converting the 2D calculated
and tabulated aerodynamic coefficients into three-dimensional
results, in order to simulate the flow field through the rotor. This
code uses the classical Blade Element Momentum (BEM) method
with several corrections and modifications.
33
Fig. 11. Numerical lift curve in comparison with CSU wind tunnel tests at
Re¼ 0.5
106.
Fig. 12. Numerical pressure drag curve in comparison with CSU wind tunnel tests
at Re¼0.5
106.
4.1. Classical BEM method
BEM method couples the one-dimensional momentum analysis
for an ideal wind turbine with the geometrical and aerodynamic
parameters of the blades. The ideal wind turbine is assumed to
have a permeable disk instead of rotor that is frictionless and
implies no rotational velocity component in the wake (Hansen,
2008). These assumptions are then corrected with some modifica-
tions to this theory.
In the BEM method, the blade is divided into some radial
stations, and then all the computations are carried at each section
separately (BEM method is described by detail in Ref. Hansen
(2008) for further study). In this study, in order to increase the
number of sections toward the tip and root of the blade where the
most variations occur in flow parameters, each blade is decom-
posed to 39 radial sections by the following cosine distribution
34 V. Esfahanian et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 120 (2013) 29–36

Fig. 13. Pressure distribution around S809 airfoil at AOA ¼ −0.011, Re¼2
106. Fig. 15. Pressure distribution around S809 airfoil at AOA ¼ 5.131, Re¼ 2
106.

Fig. 14. Pressure distribution around S809 airfoil at AOA ¼ 1.021, Re¼2
106. Fig. 16. Pressure distribution around S809 airfoil at AOA ¼ 9.221, Re¼ 2
106.

(Kuethe and Chow, 1986):

attack as follows:
R
r i ¼ ð1 þ cos γ i Þ ð1Þ ð1−aÞV 0
2 tan ðϕÞ ¼ ð2Þ
ð1 þ a′Þrω
In the last expression, as shown in Fig. 17, γ i varies from 01 α ¼ ϕ−θ ð3Þ
(tip of the blade) to 1521 (15% of the blade inboard where it
connects to its shaft) in steps of 4 deg, R is the total length of the In Eq. (2), a and a' are axial and tangential induction factors that
blade and ri is the distance of each section from the root of are considered equal to zero at first. V0 is the free stream wind
the blade. velocity and ω is the rotational speed of the blade. Also in Eq. (3)
The geometric information at each section including pitch θ is the twist angle of the corresponding section of the blade.
angle, twist, chord length and … are known or interpolated from Then the normal and tangential force coefficients (normalized
the data presented in Refs. Shepers et al. (1997) and Duque et al. with respect to 12 ρV 2rel c) are found by projecting the lift and drag
(2000). into the normal and parallel directions to the rotor plane
According to the BEM theory the angle between the plane of C N ¼ C l cos ϕ þ C d sin ϕ ð4Þ
rotation and the relative velocity (the ϕ angle in Fig. 18) at each
section is computed in order to find the local effective angle of C T ¼ C l sin ϕ−C d cos ϕ ð5Þ
 V. Esfahanian et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 120 (2013) 29–36 35

Fig. 17. Distribution of 2D sections along the span via a cosine function.

Fig. 18. Velocity components at the rotor plane (Hansen, 2008).

Fig. 19. Simple procedure of the non-modified BEM method.

By use of the computed coefficients, the axial and tangential

induction factors can be found as follows:
1
a¼ 2
ð6Þ
4 sin ϕ=ðsC N Þ þ 1 Eqs. (6) and (7) as follows:

1 1
a′ ¼ ð7Þ a¼ 2
ð9Þ
4 sin ϕ cos ϕ=ðsC T Þ−1 4F sin ϕ=ðsC N Þ þ 1

where, s is the solidity which is defined as the fraction of the 1

a′ ¼ ð10Þ
annular area in the control volume that is covered by blades in the 4F sin ϕ cos ϕ=ðsC T Þ−1
following equation:
where, F is defined in the following form:
cðrÞN 2
s¼ ð8Þ F¼ arc cosðef Þ ð11Þ
2πr π
In Eq. (8), r is the distance between each section to the root of
N R−r
the blade, c(r) is the chord length at each section and N is the f¼ : ð12Þ
2 r sin ϕ
number of blades.
Again the effective angle of attack can be computed by these
induction factors using Eqs. (2) and (3), then the induction 2 The second modification is the Spera's correction for large
factors are corrected again via Eqs. (4)–(7) and the procedure values of axial induction factors (Spera, 1994), where the
follows this iterative trend until reaching a certain limit of simple momentum theory breaks down. Spera presented
numerical error. This procedure is illustrated in a flow chart the following formulation for calculating the thrust coeffi-
given in Fig. 19. cient:
(
4að1−aÞF a≤ac
CT ¼ ð13Þ
4.2. Modifications to BEM method 4Fða2c þ að1−2ac ÞÞ a 4 ac

The BEM method that is used here is subjected to three

In the above expression, ac is approximately 0.2.
different corrections including
By equating the theoretical thrust coefficient with the
Spera's empirical formula, the axial induction factor for
1 Prandtl's tip loss factor that corrects the assumption of infinite
a 4 ac will be corrected as follows:
number of blades in a permeable disk and considers the
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
influence of the vortices shed from the blade tips into the K 1
a ¼ 1 þ ð1−2ac Þ− ½Kð1−2ac Þ þ 22 þ 4ðKa2c −1Þ ð14Þ
wake (Hansen, 2008). Prandtl introduced a correction factor to 2 2
36 V. Esfahanian et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 120 (2013) 29–36
Fig. 20. Numerical power curve in comparison with experimental data.
where
2
4F sin ϕ
K ¼ :
sC N
3 When the flow begins to separate on a rotating wing; the
Coriolis force in the spanwise direction becomes significant
and tends to postpone the stall occurrence. To take into account
the blade stall behavior, the numerical BEM code utilized the
Du-Selig stall delay model. Du and Selig (1998) developed
a stall delay model based on the 3D integral boundary-layer
analysis to determine the effects of rotation in boundary
layer separation. This model is described in Ref. Du and Selig
(1998).
4.3. Three-dimensional results and discussions
The power curve of the test turbine is obtained numerically
using the described method with and without the stall delay
model. These results as illustrated in Fig. 20 are compared against
the NREL phase II experimental power curve.
BEM results without the stall delay model show considerable
difference with experimental power curve as the rotor approaches
stall speeds. However, when the Du-Selig stall delay model is used,
the numerical power curve becomes very close to the experimen-
tal NREL power curve. The Du-Selig stall delay model slightly over
predicts the power of the rotor at wind speeds below 17 m/sec and
under predicts the power at higher free stream wind speeds. But
this deviation is less than 9% at worst condition. Also it must be
noted that the present method is highly dependent on the
tabulated 2D aerodynamic coefficients, but unlike the merely
CFD methods for simulating the flow field around a wind turbine
that may require hundreds of thousands of mesh cells and a
considerable computational time, once the accurate lift and drag
table is constructed, the 3D performance of the wind turbine rotor
could be simulated immediately. The presented method is espe-
cially fruitful when the wind turbine is needed to be simulated
with different pitch or set angles, the lift and drag curves are
constructed once, then the operator could perform several simula-
tions at different conditions with little time consumption.
5. Conclusion
In this paper a new approach is introduced for aerodynamic
simulation of a wind turbine rotor by mixing the usual CFD
approaches with a modified Blade Element Momentum (BEM)
method. The new approach consists of two parts: 1—constructing
a table of aerodynamic coefficients of several spanwise sections
of the blades as a function of angle of attack by CFD methods.
2—Converting the tabulated 2D coefficients to 3D flow field
around the rotor blades using the BEM technique.
The hybrid CFD/BEM method requires reasonably less compu-
tational resources and time in comparison with full three-
dimensional CFD modeling while presents great accuracy that is
far better than that of the inviscid BEM method. Because of the
sensitivity of the results at high angles of attack, the implementa-
tion of Du-Selig stall delay modification greatly enhances the BEM
results.
The accuracy of this method is highly dependent on the
accuracy of the constructed data bank of two-dimensional simula-
tions. According to the flow regime around a typical wind turbine's
rotor, transition from laminar to turbulent state, plays an impor-
tant role in the aerodynamic forces that are imposed on the blade.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Vehicle, Fuel and Environment
Research Institute (VFERI) of university of Tehran and Iranian
Organization of Renewable Energy (SUNA) for the support of the
present work.
References
Bertagnoliio, F., Sorensen, N., Johansen, J., Fuglsang, P., 2001. Wind Turbine Airfoil
Catalogue, RISO, RISOE-R-1280(EN).
Butterfield, C.P., Musial, W.P., Simms, D.A., 1992a. Combined Experiment Final
Report—Phase II, NREL TP-422-4807.
Butterfield, C.P., Musial, W.P., Simms, D.A., 1992b. Combined Experiment Phase I
Final Report, NREL TP-257-4655.
Du, Z., Selig, M., January 1998. Stall-Delay Model for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine
Performance Prediction, AIAA Paper, AIAA-98-0021.
Duque, E.P.N., Johnson, W., van Dam, C.P., Cortes, R., Yee, K., 2000. Numerical
Prediction of Wind Turbine Power and Aerodynamic Loads for the NREL Phase
II Combined Experiment Rotor, AIAA Paper, AIAA-2000-0038.
Gatski, T.B., 1996. Prediction of Airfoil Characteristics with Higher Order Turbulence
Models, NASA 96-TM-110246.
Gregorek G.M., Hoffmann M.J. and Mulh K.E., 3-D Wind Tunnel Tests of the S809
Airfoil Model, 1991, Aeronautical and Astronautical Research Laboratory, Ohio
State University.
Guilmineau, E., Piquet, J., Quentey, P., 1997. 2D Turbulent viscous flow simulation
past airfoil at fixed incidence. Computers and Fluids 26, 135–162.
Hansen, M.O.L., 2008. Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines, 2nd ed. Erthscan, London.
Kuethe, A.M., Chow, C., 1986. Foundations of Aerodynamics, 4th ed. John Wiley &
Sons, USA.
Menter, F.R., 1994. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications. AIAA Journal 32 (8), 1598–1605.
Shepers, J.G., Brand, A.J., Bruining, A., Graham, J.M.R., Hand, M.M., Infield, D.G.,
Madsen, H.A., Paynter, R.J.H., Simms, D.A., 1997. Final Report of IEA Annex XIV:
Field Rotor Aerodynamics. The Netherlands Energy Research Foundation
Publication ECN-C-97-027.
Somers, D.M., 1997. Design and Experimental Results for the S809 Airfoil, NREL/SR-
440-6918.
Spera, D.A., 1994. Wind Turbine Technology. ASME Press, New York.
Tangler, J.L., 2002. The Nebulous Art of Using Wind Tunnel Airfoil Data for
Predicting Rotor Performance, NREL CP-500-31243.
Wolfe, W.P., Ochs, S.S., 1997. CFD Calculations of S809 Aerodynamic Characteristics,
AIAA Paper, AIAA-97-0973.
Zhang, S., Yuan, X., Ye, D., 2001. Analysis of turbulent separated flows for the NREL
airfoil using anisotropic two-equation models at higher angles of attack. Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 25, 4153.