THEORETICAL & APPLIED MECHANICS LETTERS 2, 062001 (2012)

A brief review on wind turbine aerodynamics

Tongguang Wanga)
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing 210016, China
(Received 15 July 2012; accepted 25 September 2012; published online 10 November 2012)
Abstract This article briey reviews wind turbine aerodynamics, which follows an explanation of
the aerodynamic complexity. The aerodynamic models including blade momentum theory, vortex
wake model, dynamic stall and rotational eect, and their applications in wind turbine aerodynamic
performance prediction are discussed and documented. Recent progress in computational uid
dynamics for wind turbine is addressed. Wind turbine aerodynamic experimental studies are
also selectively introduced. 
c 2012 The Chinese Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics.
[doi:10.1063/2.1206201]
Keywords aerodynamics, wind turbines, computational uid dynamics, rotational argumentation,
dynamic stall

I. INTRODUCTION Due to the similarities in their owelds many aero-

Wind energy as a renewable and inexhaustible
source of energy is now the fastest growing energy tech-
nology worldwide. Only in China side, the total in-
stalled wind turbine capacity was more than 63 GW by
the end of 2011, which has brought China to the leading
position in wind application over the world since 2010.
There are, however, still many key issues to be
solved in the aerodynamics as the basis of wind turbine
design. The wind turbine aerodynamics is extremely
complicated. First, as both wind speed and wind direc-
tion can change frequently and very rapidly and wind
turbines always experience high turbulence and wind
shear, wind turbines operate in extremely unsteady cir-
cumstances. Second, unlike the case of ow over a xed
wing, which can often be analyzed by linear aerodynam-
ics, the ow past a wind turbine is never what aerody-
namicists consider to be linear. This presents signi-
cant problems in modeling since numerical simulations
need to be iterative in character and experimental ob-
servations of highly nonlinear phenomena are often dif-
cult to interpret because of their complexity. Third,
wind turbines may suer more severe interactions. For a
downwind turbine, the tower produces a dynamic wake
which the rotor blade passes through every revolution.
A wind turbine in a wind farm operates in complex
wakes produced by other turbines. Fourth, blade angle
of attack may be very high. In addition to dynamic
inow, a wind turbine encounters both deep static stall
and dynamic stall much more frequently than a xed
wing. Finally, there exist diculties in experiment. For
eld tests, the extremely unsteady operational environ-
ment not only requires the data acquisition system to
have an appropriate dynamic response but also makes
dynamic analysis and design methods for wind turbines
were transformed with appropriate modications from
helicopter and propeller researches. Nowadays wind
turbine aerodynamics is a worldwide eld of research
and greatly helps the development of the wind industry
at large. In this paper, a very brief review of wind tur-
bine aerodynamics is presented with emphasis on aero-
dynamic models, computational uid dynamics, and ex-
periments.
II. BLADE ELEMENT MOMENTUM THEORY AND
OPTIMAL ROTOR
A. Blade element momentum theory
The basic and classical theory for understanding the
wind turbine aerodynamics is the one-dimensional mo-
mentum theory rst developed by Rankine and Froude,
which was then extended by Glauert to 2D ow includ-
ing rotational motion in the wake.1 The rotor is mod-
eled by an actuator disc which is divided into concentric
aerodynamically independent annular control volumes
(CV) or streamtubes. This actuator disc is based on
the assumptions that the ow is incompressible, invis-
cid, and axisymmetric and that the number of blades is
innite. Applying the mass conservation, axial and an-
gular momentum balances and energy conservation to
a CV, the following equations can be obtained

V dA = 0, (1)
CV 
ux V dA = T dA ex , (2)
 CV CV

the collected data dicult to resolve appropriately into rut V dA = Q, (3)

individual aspects. For wind tunnel experiments, the
 CV
 
wind tunnel wall interference remains a major diculty 1 2
in obtaining reliable data. p + [[V ]] V dA = P, (4)
CV 2
where V = (ux , ur , ut ) denotes the velocity vectors in
a) Corresponding author. Email: tgwang@nuaa.edu.cn. the axial, radius, and tangential directions, dA is the
062001-2 T. G. Wang
area vector normal to the CV, is the air density, r is
the local radius, T is the thrust, Q is the torque and P
is the rotor power extracted from the wind. The second
term on the right hand is the axial component of the
force exerted by the pressure on the CV, which is not
equal to zero but is negligible due to its little eect on
the power calculation.2
The combination of Eqs. (1)(4) can easily yield the
expressions of both power and thrust, but can neither -
nally determine the rotor aerodynamic performance nor
obtain the blade aerodynamic conguration. These lim-
itations can be overcome by introduction of the blade
element method dividing the blade into small elements
that act independently of surrounding elements and op-
erate aerodynamically as two-dimensional airfoils whose
aerodynamic forces can be calculated based on the lo-
cal ow conditions. The combination of the momentum
theory and the blade element approach sets up the so-
called blade element momentum (BEM) theory which
involves an iterative process to determine the aerody-
namic forces and also the induced velocities at the rotor
a (Cl cos + Cd sin )
= , (5)
1a 8 sin2
a (Cl sin Cd cos ) limit, giving an extremely signicant theoretical upper

= , (6)
1a 8 sin cos
where a and a are the axial and tangential induction
factors dened as a = (V0 V )/V and a = /, re-
spectively. V0 is the freestream velocity, V is the axial
velocity at the rotor, is the angular velocity of the
wake just behind the rotor, is the angular velocity of
the rotor; is the inow angle, is the rotor solidity,
Cl and Cd are the lift coecient and drag coecient,
respectively.
A limitation of the BEM theory is that when axial
induction factor is greater than 0.5, there would be neg-
ative ow in the wake. This contravenes the Rankine-
Froude ow theory and therefore the classic momentum
theory breaks down. To overcome this problem, sev-
eral thrust coecient formulas for large induced velocity
states have been proposed on the basis of experimental
investigations.3
The BEM method with modication often predicts
the gross performance of wind turbines with accept-
able accuracy at a cost of high dependence on empir-
ical 2D airfoil data. BEM methods are applied not
only in wind turbine designs but also in static perfor-
mance calculations. Meanwhile BEM methods have also
been extended to some unsteady applications by cor-
recting 2D experimental data to account for dynamic
stall and three-dimensional (3D) rotational eects.4,5
The upgraded models are successfully embodied into
some well-known codes AERODYN5 and BLADED.6
B. Optimal rotor
The ultimate aim of wind turbine design is to cap-
ture energy from wind as much as possible. Therefore,
Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 062001 (2012)
0.6
Experiment
Power coefficient CP
0.5
FVM
0.4 CFD
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Tip speed ratio
Fig. 1. Power coecient with tip speed ratio.6
an optimal rotor must have maximum power coecient.
The Rankine-Froude ow theory gives the rotor power
coecient
2P
CP = = 4a(1 a)2 , (7)
AV03
when a = 1/3, the maximum value of CP can be ob-
tained as 16/270.593, which is the well-known Betz
limit without regard to any losses resulting from wake
rotation, viscosity, and innite blade number assump-
tion, etc.
Because of its simplicity and high eciency, BEM
theory is widely used and wind turbine researchers have
been accumulating rich experiences on BEM methods.
Therefore, wind turbine aerodynamic designs are almost
based on BEM theory.
A recent attempt to design a high-performance
1.5 MW wind turbine blade has been made by Wang
et al.68 based on Pareto optimal theory for multi-
objective optimization, taking maximum annual energy
production and minimum blade mass as the optimiza-
tion objectives. The design acquires comprehensively
optimal solutions rather than a single aerodynamically
optimum solution which are obtained usually from the
conventional single-objective optimizations. This blade
design has been tested through aerodynamic calcula-
tion, aeroelastic validation, aeroacoustic calculation and
wind tunnel experiment. A 1/16-scale model of this
blade was tested in a 12 m 16 m wind tunnel, demon-
strating that the maximum power coecient for the
scaled model was as high as 0.492. Moreover, both
the computational uid dynamics (CFD) method and
a free-vortex method (FVM) were applied to calculate
the aerodynamic performance with the maximum power
coecient 0.505 and 0.528 (Fig. 1), respectively, for the
full-scale blade.
III. VORTEX WAKE METHOD
Another alternative for wind turbine aerodynamic
prediction is the so-called vortex wake methods. These
methods directly calculate the induced velocity via
062001-3 A brief review on wind turbine aerodynamics
1 700
Low-speed shaft torque/nm
1 300
900
Experiment
FVM
500
5 10 15 20
Wind speed/(m . s )
-1
Fig. 2. Comparisons of low-speed shaft torque.
Biot-Savart law from the bound vortices on the blade
and the trailing vortex in the wake which are repre-
sented by lifting line, lifting surface or vortex lattice
model. Vortex methods are commonly categorized into
three types as rigid wake model, prescribed wake model
and free wake model.
The diculty with the rigid wake model9 is that
expansion of the wake is not taken into account and
thus the blade load calculations might not be accurate
enough. To remedy this weakness, the prescribed wake
model uses experimental data or other numerical results
to locate the wake position.1012 In the free wake cal-
culation the vortex motion is calculated directly from
the eects of all the other components of the wake vor-
tex system and the eects of the blades at every time
step.1316 Free wake analyses are fundamentally better
suited to the complex ow elds generated by wind tur-
bines and avoid the diculty of prescribing a wake ge-
ometry, but doing so introduces more computational ex-
pense. Prescribed vortex wake methods have been tried
to use in wind turbine design.17 They are progressively
replaced by free vortex models. A recently developed
free vortex method applies a relaxation factor in every
short period iterative step to allow free distortion of the
vortex wake and free rolling-up of the tip vortex with an
introduction of vortex core whose vortical strength dis-
sipates with time to obtain convergent and appropriate
results (Fig. 2).13
Vortex wake methods are reckoned to be more ac-
curate than BEM method and should play a major role
in future engineering applications with the increase of
computer power.
IV. AIRFOIL AERODYNAMIC DATA
A. Static data
Reliable airfoil aerodynamic data as input are pre-
requisite to obtain accurate results from both BEM
method and vortex wake method. Usually the airfoil
aerodynamic coecients are obtained via wind tunnel
Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 062001 (2012)
tests with a very limited range of angles of attack and
Reynolds numbers. However, at some extreme condi-
tions, such as parked conditions, yawed ows or failed
control states, the blade elements may experience high
angles of attack and Reynolds numbers. For this rea-
son, aerodynamic airfoil data containing an entire range
of angles of attack are often indispensable for a reliable
and vigorous calculation. In order to generate addi-
tional data outside the tested range, an assumption has
been widely admitted that the aerodynamic coecients
can be extrapolated only when the ow on one side of
25
the airfoil is fully separated at high angles of attack such
that the airfoil can been regarded as a curved plate.
Based on this assumption, Viterna and Janetzke devel-
oped a widely used method which has been embodied
into an NREL code, but the extrapolated pitching mo-
ment coecients show less rigorous.18 Lindenburg an-
alyzed massive test data of various airfoil geometries
and derived several empirical relations which showed
good agreements with experimental data19 as seen in
Fig. 3. Tangler provided some benecial guidelines for
developing an empirical approach that predicts post-
stall aerofoil characteristics by analyzing UAE Phase
VI experimental results.20
An alternative to acquire airfoil aerodynamic coef-
cients is numerical simulation. The most used tool
for airfoil design and aerodynamic evaluation is XFOIL
in which viscous-inviscid analysis methods have been
integrated and always gives quite accurate results be-
fore stall. However, the viscous method is based on
integral boundary layer equations which are invalid for
separation ow, so the stall properties are usually un-
reliable. To overcome these problems, more accurate
numerical methods, such as detached eddy simulation
(DES),21,22 large eddy simulation (LES),23,24 have been
adopted and claimed to get good results in some specic
conditions.
B. Rotational augmentation
The loads and energy output usually are underesti-
mated using BEM and vortex wake method with static
airfoil data for a rotational rotor. This augmentation of
rotating blade aerodynamic properties is often referred
to stall delay due to the 3D rotational eect. Figure 4
shows the lift coecient as a function of angle of attack
derived from NREL measurements at the 30% radial
location for the wind speed of 25 m/s, and the static
data comes from DUT wind tunnel tests at the same
condition.25 It can be seen from this gure that the
airfoil stalls at around 15 at 2D static condition and
the lift coecient Cl reaches a maximum of 1.05. How-
ever, for the rotating blade, the phenomenon of Cl stall
does not happen at such angle, but is delayed to 26.4
and the lift coecient is then enlarged to 2.1. The most
notable features of rotational augmentation are the dra-
matic enhancement of lift coecient and a delay of the
occurrence of ow separation to a higher angle of attack.
062001-4 T. G. Wang
2.5
Aerodynamic coefficient
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0 0.6
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-90
Fig. 3. Coecients for the NACA63-215 airfoil.19
2.5
Lift coefficient Cl
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0 10
Fig. 4. Cl at 0.3R statuary and rotating blade.25
Wind tunnel tests conducted in Refs. 2629 have
suggested that the stall delay phenomenon can be found
pervasive existing at any radial locations and through-
out all blade operating envelopes, particularly intense
at the inboard sections of the blade. Comparative anal-
yses of MEXICO and UAE Phase VI experimental data
regarding rotational augmentation have also been per-
formed by Schreck et al.30
The stall delay phenomena remain incompletely
characterized and understood. However, it has been
widely accepted that two main contributions are com-
monly indicated for these phenomena. One is the Cori-
olis force, which acts in the chordwise direction alle-
viating the adverse pressure gradient and hence tends
to delay separation. On the other hand, the centrifu-
gal force tends to pump airow from blade root to tip,
resulting in a thinner boundary layer.
The eect of rotational augmentation must be
taken into account for better predicting rotor perfor-
mance. One approach is that the 3D data can be
obtained directly from rotor experiments or numerical
calculations.3134 An alternative as a common method
is to build a kind of stall delay model able to adjust
2D aerodynamic data to account for 3D rotational ef-
fects by a series of correction formula. For this, various
stall delay models have been proposed.3543 Compara-
tive study on six of such models has been carried out
with the use of a vortex wake code.25 The results from
Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 062001 (2012)
1.2
Static
1.0 Dynamic
Lift coefficient Cl
0.8
Measured coefficient 0.4
StC coefficient
0.2
-40 10 60 110 160 210
11 14 17 20 23 26 29
Angle of attack/() Angle of attack/()
Fig. 5. Typical dynamic stall curves of the lift coecient.
Rotational
the study have shown that the existing models gener-
Statuary
ally overestimate the loads compared to measurement
data on a wind turbine blade over a range of operating
conditions, none of which can fully represented the ow
physics. Rotational augmentation is still a hot spot for
the wind turbine aerodynamic performance prediction,
and a rigorous approach is still the urgent need.
20 30 40 C. Dynamic stall
Angle of attack/()
When a wind turbine is subjected to the time vary-
ing uctuations in the wind or control actions inducing
frequent changes of angle of attack, dynamic stall phe-
nomena in responsible of a stall delay and hysteresis
loop in aerodynamic characteristics are often observed.
The dynamic stall processes with various mo-
tion patterns have been investigated in detail. Both
experiments4450 and computational uid dynamics
methods5156 revealed that the prominent features
within a full cycle of dynamic stall are incessant spread-
ing of ow reversal on the suction side, the formation
and convection of a large-scale leading edge vortex, mas-
sive ow separation, and ow reattachment. A typical
dynamic stall curve of the lift coecient for an oscil-
lating airfoil is depicted in Fig. 5,57 where the dynamic
stall features are distinctively dierent from the steady
characteristics.
Dynamic stall on wind turbine is more compli-
cated because of its rotation and highly unsteady exter-
nal operational environment, and produces large excur-
sions of the aerodynamic loads during the vortex break-
down, resulting in fatal structural failures and violent
vibrations.58,59 Therefore, the development of dynamic
stall engineering models has been necessitated. Sev-
eral empirical and semi-empirical dynamic stall mod-
els are available for the wind rotor aerodynamic analy-
sis in despite of original intention for helicopter appli-
cations, which have been documented by Leishman.60
Among these models, Leishman-Beddoes dynamic stall
model61 and its modied version62 are most widely used
in wind industry. However, results from the applications
062001-5 A brief review on wind turbine aerodynamics
of these models to wind turbines demonstrate large de-
viations from measured data,63,64 which at least can
be attributed to two key reasons. One is the airfoils
used in these models which are quite dierent from that
specially developed for wind turbine applications. The
other may be related to 2D experimental data, on the
basis of which the models were developed, meaning that
the rotational eects strongly aecting the development
of the boundary layer are not considered. To address
these issues, a lot of eorts have already been made
to enhance the applicability of those models to wind
turbine aerodynamics. A modied Leishman-Beddoes
dynamic stall model for lower Mach numbers was pro-
posed by Sheng et al.,65 and similar work also nished
by Gupta and Leishman66 and Hansen et al..67 Larsena
et al.68 introduced a new dynamic stall model taking
into account attached ow and leading-edge separation.
Lu and Wang69 presented a 3D dynamic stall model
constructed with the emphasis of the onset, growth,
and convection of the dynamic stall vortex based on
a 3D wing dynamic experimental data. Despite these
new progresses need to be more validated, they have
provided at least some benecial insights to dynamic
modeling.
Though dynamic stall has extensively been studied,
the mechanism of dynamic stall has not been completely
understood and characterized yet. In particular, the
process that leads to the formation of the stall vortex
and the mechanism that causes the vortex to detach are
still controversial. Also, more generally, robust dynamic
stall model is still challenging wind turbine designers
and aerodynamic analysts.
V. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
Computational uid dynamics (CFD), based on Eu-
ler or Navier-Stocks equations, has potential to provide
a consistent and physically realistic simulation of the
turbine ow eld, and can naturally be used to solve
the complex ow over the wind turbine.
According to the capabilities that the length scales
of turbulence are modeled, CFD can basically be di-
vided into three catalogues for the simulations of wind
turbine oweld: Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS), LES, and direct numerical simulation (DNS).
RANS approach with empirical turbulence model has
been widely applied to almost all range of ow prob-
lems experienced by wind turbines. Figure 6 shows a
typical rotor wake structure calculated using RANS.70
Two equations k-omega SST turbulence model devel-
oped by Menter71 is considered to be the most out-
standing representative among numerous existing tur-
bulence models for wind turbine applications.7275 But
the results from the present investigations suggest that
the empirical parameters in the turbulence model can
markedly aect the simulation results. An alternative
with better accuracy is LES which has been a growing
interest in the area of rotor ows eld simulations.76,77
Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 062001 (2012)
Y
X Z
Fig. 6. Typical rotor wake structure of NREL Phase VI
blade.70
The main idea of LES is that large eddies are directly
resolved and the eect of the small eddies is modeled
by sub gridscale model. A subgrid-scale stress model is
indispensable for the closure of LES equations. There-
fore, a variety of subgrid-scale stress models have been
proposed.78,79 LES has more attraction to rotor wake
analysts, but is still prohibited to deal with the near-
surface regions due to its huge computational overhead.
Therefore, a combined approach, detached eddy simu-
lation (DES), in which RANS and LES are adopted in
the near-surface and far-surface, respectively, has been
proved to obtain good solution.80,81 DNS, which directly
solves full Navier-Stokes equations and needs to catch
all relevant scales of turbulence with ultrane computa-
tional grid, is currently impossible to be applied in full
wind turbine ow eld.
CFD methods are making inroads into the elds of
industrial applications associated with both design and
analysis.82 However, either of the RANS or LES, at least
so far, has been applied only to very specic cases due to
the massive computational costs and numerical issues.
VI. EXPERIMENTS FOR WIND TURBINE AERODYNAM-
ICS
As in other aerodynamic areas experimental study
is indispensable to wind turbine aerodynamics. Numer-
ous experiments on wind turbines have been performed
over the last three decades. The experimental study is
usually carried out by two means ie., operation in eld
and tests in wind tunnels.
Field experiments have been largely carried out over
many years which have been well documented through
IEA Wind Annex XIV83 and Annex XVIII.84 These les
contain a large number of measurement data associated
to many types of dierent machines.
Field experiments can provide comprehensive aero-
dynamic and dynamic information for wind turbines
operating in natural conditions. However such experi-
ments are typically very time consuming expensive and
complicated through the large volumes of data and the
extensive data reduction which are required. It is there-
062001-6 T. G. Wang Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 062001 (2012)

Speed/m . s-1 theory, regardless of its simplication, is still a daily de-

800 0 5 10 15 20 25
sign tool for wind turbines. However, BEM method has
Y/mm 700 many natural shortcomings, and relatively less ability
600 to model the physics of the turbine aerodynamics in the
eld of high unsteady conditions, such as atmospheric
500
turbulence, wind shear, deep stall, interactions of neigh-
400 boring turbines, wake and etc. Therefore, more sophis-
0 200 400 600 800 ticated vortex wake models have been developed to di-
X/mm
rectly deal with vortices that dominate the wind turbine
(a) 0 age angle
oweld in essence and therefore may provide relatively
Speed/m . s-1
reliable information although they require more valida-
800 0 5 10 15 20 25
tions. Introduction of dynamic stall model and 3D ro-
700 tational eect model greatly improves the wind turbine
aerodynamic load calculations. However, more accu-
Y/mm

600
500
400
0 200 400 600
X/mm
(b) 60 age angle
Fig. 7. Tip vortex at nominal wind speed 12 m/s.86
fore often common to utilize wind tunnel testing which
can be executed under controlled test conditions.
A well-known experiment is the NREL unsteady
aerodynamics experiment (UAE) Phase VI turbine test
in the NASA Ames 24.4 m 36.6 m wind tunnel ac-
complished in 2000. The test model was a two-bladed
stall-regulated wind turbine with a diameter of 10.1 me-
ters. More detailed information about the experiment
has been documented by Hand.29
Another systemic wind turbine test in wind tunnel
is the so-called model experiment in controlled condi-
tions (MEXICO) subjected to the European 5th Frame-
work Programme.85 The MEXICO turbine had a three-
bladed pitch-controlled upwind rotor that was 4.5 m in
diameter and was tested in the NFAC 9.5 m 9.5 m
wind tunnel.
It is worthy to note that a large-view ow eld
measurements using PIV technique with high resolu-
tion CCD cameras on a rotating small wind turbine
model were conducted in a 3.2 m wind tunnel at the
Low Speed Aerodynamics Institute of China Aerody-
namics Research and Development Center (CARDC).86
The strong tip vortex was clearly captured in the ex-
periment (Fig. 7). The results show that the tip vor-
tex rstly moves inward for a very short time and then
moves outward with the wake expansion while its vor-
ticity decreases with time after just trailed from the
trailing edge of the blade tip and then increases contin-
uously with rapid roll-up to form a strong tip vortex.
VII. CONCLUSIVE REMARKS
Recent progresses in wind turbine aerodynamics
have been selectively presented in this paper. BEM
rate dynamic stall models and delay stall models are
required, which can be developed only through much
more experimental and computational studies. CFD
800 methods have provided deep insight to wind turbine
owelds. However, CFD methods have not been used
for design purposes with condence. Nevertheless, with
the increase in computer power and with the advances
in computational techniques the CFD solver is becom-
ing a promising and powerful tool for analysis of wind
turbine aerodynamics. Wind turbine experiments are
essential not only for understanding of the aerodynamic
mechanism but also for code validation.
By consideration of the complexity of wind turbine
operation conditions, the investigation of turbine aero-
dynamic is still particularly challenging for wind energy
exploitation.
1. H. Glauert, in: W. F. Durand ed. Aerodynamic Theory
(Springer, Berlin, 1935).
2. R. Mikkelsen, J. N. Srensen, and W. Z. Shen, Wind Energ.
4, 121 (2001).
3. M L. Buhl Jr. A New Empirical Relationship between Thrust
Coecient and Induction Factor for the Turbulent Windmill
State (Boulevard, Golden, Colorado, USA, 2005).
4. M. O. L. Hansen, Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines (Earthscan
Publications Ltd., 2008).
5. J. R. P. Vaza, J. T. Pinhob, and A. L. A. Mesquitaa, Renew.
Energy 36, 1734 (2011).
6. T. G. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Zhong, et al., Chin. Sci. Bull.
57, 466 (2012).
7. L. Wang, T. G. Wang, and Y. Luo, Appl. Math. Mech. Eng.
Ed. 32, 739 (2011).
8. L. Wang, T. G. Wang, and J. H. Wu, et al., J. NUAA 43, 672
(2011). (in Chinese)
9. M. A. Kotb, and M. M. Abdel Haq, Wind Eng. 16, 95 (1992).
10. F. N. Coton, T. G. Wang, and R. A. M Galbraith, Wind
Energy 5, 199 (2002).
11. F. N. Coton, and T. G. Wang, Journal of Power and Energy
213, 33 (1999).
12. T. G. Wang, and F. N. Coton, J. Wind Een. Ind. Aerod. 89,
873 (2001).
13. B. F. Xu, and T. G. Wang, J. NUAA 43, 592 (2011). (in
Chinese)
14. M Dssing, Vortex Lattice Modelling of Winglets on Wind
Turbine Blades (Ris National Laboratory, Technical Univer-
sity of Denmark, Denmark, 2007).
15. S. Chkir, Energy Procedia 6, 777 (2011).
16. X. Shen, X. C. Zhu, and Z. H. Du, Energy 36, 1424 (2011).
17. K. Badreddinne, H. Ali, and A. David, Renew. Energy 30,
2019 (2005).
062001-7 A brief review on wind turbine aerodynamics
18. L. A. Viterna, and D. C. Janetzke, Theoretical and Exper-
imental Power from Large Horizontal-axis Wind Turbines,
NASA-TM-82944 (NASA, Cleveland, USA, 1982).
19. C. Lindenburg, Stall Coecients, Aerodynamic Airfoil Co-
ecient at Large Angles of Attack, ECN-RX-01-004 (Na-
tional Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado,
USA, 2001).
20. J. L. Tangler, Wind Energy 3, 247 (2004).
21. F. Richez, I. Mary, and V. Gleize, et al., Theor. Comp. Fluid
Dyn. 22, 305 (2008).
22. S. Schmidt, and F. Thiele, Flow Turbul. Combul. 71, 261
(2003).
23. S. Eisenbach, and R. Friedrich, Theor. Comp. Fluid Dyn. 22,
213 (2008).
24. M. R. Visbal, R E. Gordnier, and M C. Galbraith, Exp. Fluids
46, 903 (2009).
25. S. O. Breton, F N. Coton, and G. Moe, Wind Energy 11, 459
(2008).
26. G. Ronsten, J Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 39, 105 (1992).
27. J. M. Savino, and T. W. Nyland, Wind Turbine Flow Vi-
sualisation Studies, NASATM-89903 (NASA Lewis Research
Center Cleveland, USA, 1985).
28. W. J. McCroskey, Measurements of Boundary Layer Transi-
tion, Separation and Streamline Direction on Rotating Blades
(NASA, USA, 1971).
29. M. M. Hand, D. A. Simms, and L. J. Fingersh, et al., Unsteady
Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI: Wind Tunnel Test Con-
gurations and Available Data Campaigns (National Renew-
able Energy Laboratory Golden, Colorado, 2001).
30. S. Schreck, T. Sant, and D. Micallef, Rotational Augmentation
Disparities in the MEXICO and UAE Phase VI Experiments,
(National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, Colorado, 2010).
31. S. J. Schreck, Rotationally Augmented Flow Structures and
Time Varying Loads on Turbine Blades (National Renewable
Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado,
2007).
32. P. K. Chaviaropoulos, and M. O. L. Hansen, J. Fluids Eng.
122, 330 (2000).
33. W. Z. Shen, and J. N. Srensen, J. Comput. Phys. 150, 518
(1999).
34. J. Johansen, and N. N. Srensen, Wind Energy 7, 283 (2004).
35. J. L. Tangler, and M. S Selig, An Evaluation of an Empirical
Model for Stall Delay Due to Rotation for HAWTS (National
Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, Colorado, 1997).
36. H. Snel, and V. Holten, in: Proc. 20th European Rotorcraft
forum (Amsterdam, 1994)
37. Z. H. Du, M. S. Selig, and S. Michael, in: Proc. 36th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (Nevada, 1998)
38. P. M. Sforza, and M. Pasquale, in: Proc. Intersociety Energy
Conversion Engineering Conference (Boston, 1991)
39. H. Dumitrescu, and V. Cardos, AIAA J. 42 408 (2004).
40. N. V. Raj, An Improved Semi-Empirical Model for 3-D Post-
Stall Eects in Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines [MS Thesis].
(University of Illinois, Urbana Champagne, 2000).
41. P. K. Chaviapoulos, and M. O. L Hansen, J Fluid Eng. 122,
330 (2000).
42. B. C. Johansen, J, and P. B Anderson, in: Proc. 2006 Euro-
pean Wind Energy Conference, (Athens, 2006).
43. C. Lindenburg, Investigation into Rotor Blade Aerodynamics,
(Petten, Netherlands 2003).
44. S. J. Schreck, J. Aircraft 33, 279 (1996).
45. L. W. Carr, J. Aircraft 25, 6 (1988).
46. C. Shih, L. Lourenco, and L. Van Dommelen, et al., AIAA J.
30, 1153 (1992).
47. S. J. Schreck, W E. Faller, and M. C. Robinson, J. Aircraft
39, 868 (2002).
48. D. Rival, and C. Tropea, J. Aircraft 47, 80 (2010).
Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 062001 (2012)
49. G. Z. McGowan, K Granlund, and M. V. Ol, AIAA J. 49,
1511 (2011).
50. M. V. Ol, L. Bernal, and C. K. Kang, et al., Exp. Fluids 46,
883 (2009).
51. E. Dumlupinar, and V. Murthy, in: Proc. 29th AIAA Applied
Aerodynamics Conference (Hawaii, 2011)
52. A. Spentzos, G. Barakos, and K. Badcock, et al., AIAA J. 43,
1023 (2005).
53. C. Marongiu, and R. Tognaccini, in: Proc. 48th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Fo-
rum and Aerospace Exposition (Florida, 2010)
54. M. R. Visbal, AIAA J. 49, 2152 (2011).
55. T. Xu, P. Sullivan, and M. Paraschivoiu, J Aircraft 47, 328
(2010).
56. M. Sanchez-Rocha, M. Kirta, and S. Menon, in: Proc. 44th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (Nevada,
2006).
57. K. Mulleners, and M. Rael, Exp. Fluids 52, 779 (2012).
58. A. C. Hansen, X. Cui, and C. P. Buttereld, J. Solar Energ.
Eng. 112, 310 (1990).
59. S. Schreck, M. Robinson, and M. Hand, et al., Wind Energy
3, 215 (2000).
60. J. G. Leishman, Wind Energy 5, 85 (2002).
61. J. G. Leishman, and T. S. Beddoes, J. Am. Helicopter Soc.
34, 3 (1989).
62. K. Pierce, and A. C. Hansen, J. Solar Energ. Eng. 3, 200
(1995).
63. W. Sheng, R. A. McD. Galbraith, and F. N. Coton, J. Sol.
Energ. Eng. 130, 13 (2008).
64. R. Pereira, G. Schepers, and M. D. Pavel, in: Proc. 49th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Hori-
zons Forum and Aerospace Exposition (Florida, 2011).
65. W. Sheng, R. A. McD. Galbraith, and F. N. Coton, in: Proc.
46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit (Nevada,
2008).
66. S. Gupta, and J. G Leishman., Wind Energy 9, 521 (2006).
67. M. H. Hansen, M. Gaunaa, and H. Aagaard, A B-L Type Dy-
namic Stall Model in State-Space and Indicial Formulations,
RisR-1354 (Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark,
2004).
68. J. W. Larsena, S. R. K. Nielsen, and S. Krenk, J. Fluid Struct.
23, 959 (2007).
69. C. Lu, and T. G. Wang, Appl. Math. Mech-Engl. 32, 393
(2011).
70. W. Zhong, and T. G. Wang, J. NUAA 43, 640 (2011). (in
Chinese)
71. F. R Menter, in: Proc. 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference (Or-
lando, Florida, 1993).
72. N. N. Srensen, J. A. Michelsen, and S. Schreck, Wind Energy
5, 151 (2002).
73. C. E. Carcangiu, J. N. Srensen, and F. Cambuli, et al., Phys.:
Conf. Ser. 75, 012031 (2007).
74. N. N. Srensen, J. A. Michelsen, and S. Schreck, Wind Energy
5 151 (2002).
75. A. Spentzos, G. N. Barakos, and K. J. Badcock, et al., J.
Aircraft 44, 1118 (2007).
76. R. K. Zhang, and J. Z. Wu, Wind Energy 15, 407 (2012).
77. F. Porte-Agel, Y. T. Wu, and H. Lu, et al., J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerod. 99, 154 (2011).
78. N. Sezer-Uzol, A. Guptab, and L. N. Longa, Lecture Notes in
Computational Science and Engineering 67, 457 (2009).
79. P. Sagaut, Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows
(Springer, Germany 2005).
80. B. J. Geurts, and F. Bos, Phys. Fluids 17, 13 (2005).
81. J. Johansen, N. N. Srensen, and J. A. Michelsen, et al., Wind
Energy 5, 185 (2002).
82. J. Larsen, in: Proc. of ANSYS Conference & 26th CADFEM
Users Meeting (Darmstadt, 2008)
062001-8 T. G. Wang
83. J. G. Schepers, A.J. Brand, and A. Bruining, et al., Final Re-
port of IEA Annex XIV: Field Rotor Aerodynamics, ECN-C-
97-027 (Energy Research Centre of The Netherlands, Petten,
The Netherlands 1997).
84. J. G. Schepers, A. J. Brand, and A. Bruining, et al., Final
Report of IEA Annex XVIII: Enhanced Field Rotor Aerody-
namics Database, ECN-C-02-016 (Energy Research Centre of
Theor. Appl. Mech. Lett. 2, 062001 (2012)
Netherlands Petten, Netherlands, 2002).
85. H. Snel, J. G. Schepers, and B. Montgomerie, J. Phys.: Conf.
Ser. 75, 1 (2007).
86. J. P. Xiao, J. Wu, and L. Chen, et al., Appl. Math. Mech.
Engl. Ed. 6, 729 (2011).