https://doi.org/10.

5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

2D Numerical Simulation Study of Airfoil Performance

Nasser Shelil
Mechanical Engineering Department, College of Applied Engineering, King Saud University, S.A. & Port Said University,
Egypt
5 Correspondence to: Nasser Shelil (nshelil@ksu.edu.sa)

Abstract. The aerodynamic characteristics of DTU-LN221 airfoil is studied. ANSYS Fluent is used to simulate the airfoil
performance with seven different turbulence models. The simulation results for the airfoil with different turbulence models are
compared with the wind tunnel experimental data performed under the same operating conditions. It is found that there is a
good agreement between the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) predicted aerodynamic force coefficients with wind tunnel
10 experimental data especially with angle of attack between -5o to 10o. RSM is chosen to investigate the flow field structure and
the surface pressure coefficients under different angle of attack between -5o to 10o. Also the effect of changing air temperature,
velocity and turbulence intensity on lift and drag coefficients/forces are examined. The results show that it is recommended to
operate the wind turbines airfoil at low air temperature and high velocity to enhance the performance of the wind turbines.

Keywords. Airfoil – Wind Turbine – CFD – Turbulence Models – Simulation – Aerodynamic Performance – Lift and Drag.

15 1 Introduction

The trend of using renewable energy resources has increases significantly during the past decade. The using of wind power is
a promising power generation technology that can help the world to eliminate the dependency on the fuel based sources such
as oil and gas. It also helps the environment to be flourished without greenhouse effects or other pollutants. The wind turbine
technology offers electrical energy with lower installation and maintenance costs unlike the other energy sources. It is clean,
20 eco-friendly and prime national security at a time when the decreasing global reserves of fossil fuels is an eminent danger in
the sustainability of global economy (N. Karthikeyan, 2015).
Airfoil is a basic element of a wind turbine blade, and its aerodynamic characteristics have a major influence on the wind
energy conversion efficiency. Airfoil is the cross section of a wind turbine blade which is used to generate mechanical force
due to the motion of air around the airfoil. The design of wind turbine airfoils is a basic but important task for designing
25 optimal wind turbine rotors. Different types of airfoils are used along the blades in order to generate energy from the wind.
The pressure differences in the airfoil cause a force with two main components:
Lift force: it the component of force that acts on the vertical direction of oncoming airflow. It is a result of the unequal pressure
on the upper and lower airfoil surfaces. It is given by:
FL = CL (½AV2) (1)
30 Where CL is the lift force coefficient  is the density of air, A is the projected airfoil area (Chord x span), V is the velocity of
the undistributed air flow and (½AV2) is the dynamic force
Drag Force: it the component of force that acts in the parallel direction of oncoming airflow. It is a result of both viscous
friction forces at the surface of the airfoil and the unequal pressure on the upper and lower airfoil surfaces. It is given by:
FD = CD (½AV2) (2)
2
35 Where CD is the drag force coefficient and (½AV ) is the dynamic force
Lift and drag forces on an airfoil are influenced by the angle of attack, AOA, which is the angle between the distributed wind
direction and the chord of the airfoil (Namiranian, 2011). In order to get more performance from the rotor, it is required to
maximize the lift force and minimize the drag force.by optimize the angle of attack to obtain the best performance.

1
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

Junwei Yang et al., (Yang et al., 2020) investigate experimentally the effect of turbulent flow on an airfoil with a Gurney flap.
40 The wind tunnel experiments were performed for the DTU-LN221 airfoil under different turbulence level. The results
demonstrate that under low turbulent inflow condition, the maximum lift coefficient of the airfoil with flaps increased by
8.47% to 13.50% (i.e., thickness of 0.75%), and the Gurney flap became less effective after stall angle. Other studies are
performed to Study of a Gurney Flap implementation both experimentally and numerically using RANS based numerical
simulations (Iñigo Aramendia 2019).
45 The different turbulence models have significant impacts on the aerodynamic performance of wind turbine blade airfoil. The
numerical simulation method of investigation the behavior of flow around the airfoil has a strong adaptability of time-saving,
low cost, easy to reveal the details of the flow field, compared with wind tunnel experiment.
H. Wang et. al., (Hao Wang, Augest, 2014) compared the aerodynamic simulation results with the theoretical values of the lift
coefficients, drag coefficients and the ratio of lift coefficient to drag coefficient for the forecast of best angle of attack, the
50 effects of these three turbulence models on the blade airfoil aerodynamic performance were estimated. They used three
different turbulence models which are S-A, k-εRNG, k-ωSST on the aerodynamic performance of wind turbine airfoil under
different attack angles. Their simulation results demonstrate that, for the selected blade airfoil, using S-A turbulence model
before the best attack angle and k-εRNG turbulence model after the best attack angle respectively.
Two dimensional airfoil’s aerodynamic performance was simulated numerically by Ji Yaoa et al. (Ji Yaoa, 2012). The control
55 equations were Navier-Stokes equations, and four turbulence models were applied: Standard k- model of two equations, RNG
k- model, Transition SST model of four equations and Reynolds stress model of five equations. The lift coefficient curves of
four turbulence models were much closer with the experimental data, while drag coefficient curves differed largely with the
experimental data. This may be caused by the roughness of front edge or other factors. Five equations Reynolds stress model
had best result in four turbulence models.
60 Aftab et al., (S. M. A. Aftab, 2016) studied the Low Reynolds Number flows over airfoil. The turbulence models tested were:
one equation Spallart Allmars (S-A), two equation SST K-ω, three equation Intermittency (γ) SST, k-kl-ω and finally, the four
equation transition γ-Reθ SST. The results obtained show the values of the experimental study and the current CFD study are
found to be in good agreement. This Study clearly shows that capturing the transition behaviour, for low Reynolds numbers
flows, needs an accurate turbulence model. In the present case, γ-Reθ SST is preferred model as it predicts the flow behaviour
65 both at low and high AoA, accurately and in a short duration of time.
Unsteady aerodynamic characteristics is studied by G. H. Yu et.al. (G. H. Yu, 2010). They used using two-dimensional CFD
with Menter’s transition corrected K− SST turbulence model for various reduced frequencies. They observed that flow
separation is delayed to higher angles of attack compared with the static stall case, and the lift force is found to increase far
beyond that at the static stall angle. Reduced frequency is observed to have a significant impact on the aerodynamic forces and
70 the pitching moment. The peak in the lift force coefficient appears at a higher angle of attack with increasing reduced
frequency.
The turbulence model has a definitely great influence on the numerical simulation results of wind turbine blade airfoil.
Traditional numerical simulation process did not consider the impacts of the changed angle of attack on the simulation results,
no matter how much the angle of attack is, only one single kind of turbulence model was applied to simulate the aerodynamic
75 performance of wind turbine blade airfoil. This simulation method for airfoil aerodynamic performance has a large error result
(Hao Wang, Augest, 2014).
This work aims to simulate the behavior and performance of airfoil under different working conditions. A 2D model is
considered in Ansys Fluent CFD simulation of DTU-LN221 airfoil. Seven different turbulence models are used to perform the
simulation. The simulation results are compared with the experimental data to choose the suitable turbulence model to
80 continuing the investigation of the flow characteristics over the airfoil. The effect of the angle of attack of lift and drag

2
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

coefficients is investigated. The pressure coefficient is monitored at different angles of attack. The effect of temperature, air
velocity and turbulence intensity on the airfoil performance is demonstrated.

2 Methodology

2.1 Physical Model

85 The DTU-LN221 airfoil have been designed according to the requirements provided by LM and tested in the LM wind tunnel
(2015a; Cheng et al., 2014). The design of such type of wind turbine rotors have aerodynamically high efficiency, low cost
and low noise emission (Jt Cheng, 2014).
The DTU-LN221 airfoil model (Cheng, 2013; Sessarego, 2016; Yang et al., 2020; 2015a), as shown in Figure 1, was adopted
which has a chord length of 0.6 m and a span length of 1.5 m. The airfoil model was vertically placed in the test section. The
90 bottom part of the airfoil section was connected by the rotating shaft, which was fixed on a rotational plate. Therefore, the
angle of attack can be remotely controlled via a shaft connection with a motor below the wind tunnel. The airfoil model was
made of aluminum alloy.
In the experiment, the free stream flow velocity was 37.5 m/s, and the corresponding Reynolds number based on the airfoil
chord length was 1.5 x 106, although wind turbines often operate at wind speed below 37.5 m/s, but the magnitude of the
95 Reynolds number was up to an order of 106. Therefore, the experimental value of the Reynolds number was chosen to approach
an order of magnitude corresponding to those obtained from full-scale wind turbines (Yang et al., 2020; Roha. Lswt Campaign
Report on Dtu-C21; Lm Internal Report: Jupitervej).
The full description of the design of the airfoil profile is described in details in (Sessarego, 2016; Yang et al., 2020).
Table 1 show the basic data for the airfoil and operating conditions of the experimental data (Sessarego, 2016; Yang et al.,
100 2020).
Table 1: Basic data chosen for wind-turbine airfoil model

Property Value
Airfoil name DTU-LN221
Density of air 1.205 kg/m3
Dynamic viscosity of air 1.821 x 105 Ns/m2
Air Temperature 293 K
Design wind speed, Vo 37.5 m/s
Re 1.5 x 106
Airfoil chord 0.600 m
Airfoil thickness relative to chord 21%
Airfoil length 1.5 m
Material aluminum alloy

Figure 1: Profile coordinates of the DTU-LN221 airfoil (Sessarego, 2016)

3
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

105 2.2 Mathematical Modeling (Turbulence Models)

2.2.1 Inviscid flow

Inviscid flow analyses neglect the effect of viscosity on the flow and are appropriate for high-Reynolds-number applications
where inertial forces tend to dominate viscous forces. The inviscid is appropriate flow calculations of high-speed aerodynamic
analysis as the pressure forces on the body will dominate the viscous forces. Hence, an inviscid analysis will give you a quick
110 estimate of the primary forces acting on the body. After the body shape has been modified to maximize the lift forces and
minimize the drag forces, you can perform a viscous analysis to include the effects of the fluid viscosity and turbulent viscosity
on the lift and drag forces.
For inviscid flows, ANSYS Fluent solves the Euler equations. The mass conservation equation is the same as for a laminar
flow, but the momentum and energy conservation equations are reduced due to the absence of molecular diffusion.
115 - The Mass Conservation Equation:
The equation for conservation of mass, or continuity equation, can be written as follows:

+ ∇. (𝜌𝑣⃗) = 𝑆 (3)

The source Sm is the mass added to the continuous phase from the dispersed second and any user-defined sources.
- Momentum Conservation Equations:
120 Conservation of momentum is described by:

(𝜌𝑣⃗) + ∇. (𝜌𝑣⃗𝑣⃗) = −∇𝑝 + 𝜌𝑔⃗ + 𝐹⃗ (4)

where p is the static pressure and g and F are the gravitational body force and external body forces respectively. F also
contains other model-dependent source terms such as porous-media and user-defined sources.
- Energy Conservation Equation:
125 Conservation of energy is described by:

(𝜌𝐸) + ∇. (𝑣⃗. (𝜌𝐸 + 𝑝)) = −∇. ∑ ℎ 𝐽 +𝑆 (5)

2.2.2 Reynolds Average Navier Stoke(RANS)

In CFD, RANS is the most widely used turbulence modelling approach. In this approach, the Navier Stokes equations are split
into mean and fluctuating components. The total velocity ui is a function of the mean velocity ūi and the fluctuating velocity
130 úi as shown in the equation below (Hinze, 1975).
ui = ūi + úi (6)
The continuity and momentum equation incorporating these instantaneous flow variables are given by:

+ (𝜌𝑢 ) = 0 (7)

𝜌𝑢 + 𝜌𝑢 𝑢 = + 𝜇 + − 𝛿 + (−𝜌𝑢́ 𝑢́ ) (8)

135 These above equations (in Cartesian tensor form) are known as RANS equations, and the additional Reynolds stress terms
−𝜌𝑢́ 𝑢́ need to be modelled. The Boussinesq hypothesis is applied in relating the Reynolds stress and mean velocity:

−𝜌𝑢́ 𝑢́ = 𝜇 + − 𝜌𝑘 + 𝜇 𝛿 (9)

2.2.3 Spallart Allmars (S-A)

The S-A turbulence model is a one-equation model, designed for aerospace applications. It is quite robust and effective in
140 modelling the flow on an airfoil, with adverse pressure gradients in the boundary layer (Allmaras, 1992; W., 2007). The
modified continuity equation for S-A solves the turbulent viscosity ṽ.

4
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

𝜌𝑣 + (𝜌𝑣 𝑢 ) = 𝐺 = (𝜇 + 𝜌𝑣 ) +𝐶 − 𝑌 + 𝑆𝑣 (10)

Gv is the production of turbulent viscosity and Yv is the destruction of turbulent viscosity.

The turbulent viscosity is calculated as shown
145 t = ṽfv1 (11)
The fv1 is the viscous damping function

𝑓 = (12)

It has been reported that this model is effective for low Reynolds number cases, provided that the mesh resolution is super fine
with a wall Y+  1 (2015b; 2015c).

150 2.2.4 Standard k-ε Model

Two-equation turbulence models allow the determination of both, a turbulent length and time scale by solving two separate
transport equations. The standard - model in ANSYS Fluent falls within this class of models and has become the workhorse
of practical engineering flow calculations in the time since it was proposed by Launder and Spalding (Spalding, 1972).
Robustness, economy, and reasonable accuracy for a wide range of turbulent flows explain its popularity in industrial flow
155 and heat transfer simulations. It is a semi-empirical model, and the derivation of the model equations relies on
phenomenological considerations and empiricism.
The standard k-ε model (Spalding, 1972) is a model based on model transport equations for the turbulence kinetic energy (k)
and its dissipation rate (ε). The model transport equation for k is derived from the exact equation, while the model transport
equation for ε was obtained using physical reasoning and bears little resemblance to its mathematically exact counterpart.
160 In the derivation of the k-ε model, the assumption is that the flow is fully turbulent, and the effects of molecular viscosity are
negligible. The standard k-ε model is therefore valid only for fully turbulent flows.
The turbulence kinetic energy, k, and its rate of dissipation, ε, are obtained from the following transport equations:

(𝜌𝑘) + (𝜌𝑘𝑢 ) = 𝜇+ + 𝐺 + 𝐺 − 𝜌𝜀 − 𝑌 + 𝑆 (13)

And

165 (𝜌𝜀) + (𝜌𝜀𝑢 ) = 𝜇+ +𝐶 (𝐺 + 𝐶 𝐺 ) − 𝐶 𝜌 +𝑆 (14)

Where Gk represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients, Gb is the generation of
turbulence kinetic energy due to buoyancy, YM represents the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible
turbulence to the overall dissipation rate, C1 , C2 , and C3 are constants. k and  are the turbulent Prandtl numbers for k
and , respectively. Sk and S are user-defined source terms.
170 The turbulent viscosity, t , is computed by combining k and  as follows:

𝜇 = 𝜌𝐶 (15)

Where C is a constant.
The default values of the model constants are (Spalding, 1972):
C1 =1.44, C2 =1.92, C =0.09, k =1.0 and  =1.3

175 2.2.5 The RNG - model

The RNG - model was derived using a statistical technique called renormalization group theory. It is similar in form to the
standard k- model, but includes the following refinements:
- The RNG model has an additional term in its equation that improves the accuracy for rapidly strained flows.

5
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

- The effect of swirl on turbulence is included in the RNG model, enhancing accuracy for swirling flows.
180 - The RNG theory provides an analytical formula for turbulent Prandtl numbers, while the standard k- model uses user-
specified, constant values.
- While the standard k- model is a high-Reynolds number model, the RNG theory provides an analytically-derived
differential formula for effective viscosity that accounts for low-Reynolds number effects. Effective use of this feature
does, however, depend on an appropriate treatment of the near-wall region.
185 These features make the RNG k- model more accurate and reliable for a wider class of flows than the standard k- model.
The RNG-based k- turbulence model is derived from the instantaneous Navier-Stokes equations, using a mathematical
technique called “renormalization group” (RNG) methods. The analytical derivation results in a model with constants different
from those in the standard k- model, and additional terms and functions in the transport equations for k and . A more
comprehensive description of RNG theory and its application to turbulence can be found in (S. A. Orszag, 1993).

190 2.2.6 Standard k-ω Model

The standard k-ω model in ANSYS Fluent is based on the Wilcox k-ω model (Wilcox, 1998), which incorporates
modifications for low-Reynolds number effects, compressibility, and shear flow spreading. One of the weak points of the
Wilcox model is the sensitivity of the solutions to values for k and ω outside the shear layer (freestream sensitivity). While
the new formulation implemented in ANSYS Fluent has reduced this dependency, it can still have a significant effect on the
195 solution, especially for free shear flows (Menter, 2009).
The standard k-ω model is an empirical model based on model transport equations for the turbulence kinetic energy (k) and
the specific dissipation rate (ω), which can also be thought of as the ratio of ω to k (Wilcox, 1998).
As the k-ω model has been modified over the years, production terms have been added to both the k and ω equations, which
have improved the accuracy of the model for predicting free shear flows.
200 The turbulence kinetic energy, k, and the specific dissipation rate, ω, are obtained from the following transport equations:

(𝜌𝑘) + (𝜌𝑘𝑢 ) = 𝛤 +𝐺 −𝑌 +𝑆 (16)

And

(𝜌𝜔) + (𝜌𝜔𝑢 ) = 𝛤 +𝐶 − 𝑌 +𝑆 (17)

Where Gk represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean velocity gradients. G represents the generation
205 of . k and  represent the effective diffusivity of k and , respectively. Yk and Y represent the dissipation of k and  due
to turbulence. All of the above terms are calculated as described below. Sk and S are user-defined source terms.

2.2.7 Shear-Stress Transport (SST) k-ω model

The shear-stress transport (SST) k-ω model was developed by Menter (Menter, 1994). It is a combination of the Wilcox K-ω
and the standard K-ε model. It is so named because the definition of the turbulent viscosity is modified to account for the
210 transport of the principal turbulent shear stress. The standard K-ε is transformed to K-ω by substituting ε = Kω (W., 2007). It
has feature that gives the SST k-ω model an advantage in terms of performance over both the standard k-ω model and the
standard k-ε model. Other modifications include the addition of a cross-diffusion term in the ω equation and a blending function
to ensure that the model equations behave appropriately in both the near-wall and far-field zones (2015b; 2015c).
The SST k-ω model has a similar form to the standard k-ω model. The turbulence kinetic energy, k, and the specific dissipation
215 rate, ω, are obtained from the following transport equations:
   k ~ (18)
(k )  (ku i )  (k )  G k  Yk  Sk
t x i x j x j

6
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

and
    (19)
()  (u i )  ( )  G   Y  D   S
t x i x j x j

where
220 Gk represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to mean velocity gradients. G represents the generation of ω.
k and  represent the effective diffusivity of k and ω, respectively. Yk and Y represent the dissipation of k and ω due to
turbulence. D represents the cross-diffusion term. Sk and S are user-defined source terms. Calculations for all previous terms
have been fully described in (2015b; 2015c).

2.2.8 The Reynolds stress model (RSM)

225 The Reynolds stress model (RSM) (B. E. Launder, 1975; Launder, 1989; Launder, 1978) is the most elaborate type of RANS
turbulence model that ANSYS Fluent provides. Abandoning the isotropic eddy-viscosity hypothesis, the RSM closes the
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations by solving transport equations for the Reynolds stresses, together with an equation
for the dissipation rate. This means that five additional transport equations are required in 2D flows, in comparison to seven
additional transport equations solved in 3D.
230 Since the RSM accounts for the effects of streamline curvature, swirl, rotation, and rapid changes in strain rate in a more
rigorous manner than one-equation and two-equation models, it has greater potential to give accurate predictions for complex
flows. However, the fidelity of RSM predictions is still limited by the closure assumptions employed to model various terms
in the exact transport equations for the Reynolds stresses. The modeling of the pressure-strain and dissipation-rate terms is
particularly challenging, and often considered to be responsible for compromising the accuracy of RSM predictions.
235 The default Reynolds stress model in ANSYS Fluent is based on the -equation, and uses a linear model for the pressure-strain
term. The second -based model allows the usage of a quadratic model for the pressure-strain term.
The two Reynolds stress models based on the -equation both use a linear model for the pressure-strain term, but differ with
regard to the scale equation: the stress-omega model is based on the -equation, whereas the stress-BSL model solves the
scale equation from the baseline (BSL) k- model and thus removes the free-stream sensitivity observed with the stress-omega
240 model.

2.3 Numerical Simulation (Model Setup)

Generating the right computational domain for a Fluid Dynamic problem is an important task of the modeling process. It is
necessary to take into account different requirements (J., 2015). The domain should not be too small to correctly reproduce the
flow around the airfoil and it should not be too large to not uselessly increase cells number of the grid and hence computation
245 time (Rosario Lanzafame). It is preferable to do independency study to select the suitable domain/grid for your case of study.
It should to be taken into account the requirements of the meshing in terms of quality and first cell positioning near the airfoil.

3 Results and Discussions

The Ansys R17 package is used to simulate the air flow characteristics over DTULN221 airfoil. The 2-D Design Modeler
(DM) is used to draw the airfoil profile by using the coordinates of 300 points to guarantee the smoothness and accuracy of
250 the airfoil profile. The computational domain is composed an upstream C-shape, half of circle, in which the airfoil is included.
The airfoil end is located at the center of the semicircle. The diameter of the semicircle is 10 times the chord of the airfoil
(Schepers J. G., 2004). The downstream domain is a square with side length equals the circle diameter as shown in Fig. 2 C-
H type structured grid is applied in the airfoil domain to consider the boundary layer’s effect on the aerodynamic performance

7
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

of airfoils. Also considering the requirements of turbulence model for the grid, the boundary layer mesh is denser around the
255 airfoil, so the results met the stability requirements.
The mesh is constructed by Ansys Mesh. 2-D curvature, fine, high smoothing mesh with growth rate of 1.05 is constructed.
Different edges and face sizing are chosen to build up different meshes with different number of elements to check the
independency of the results.
A mesh dependency study is made to verify that the solution obtained numerically is not dependent on the mesh size. Six
260 different grids were created. All are fine meshes of approximately 108700, 63000, 51000, 36000, 24000 and 16000 cells have
been designed, respectively. Both lift and drag dimensionless coefficients were calculated at zero degree angle of attack for
the six grids. The grid with 24000 cells generated the same results as the higher number of cells grids. The exact total number
of model grid was 23897 elements. It could be seen from the figure that the distribution of the grid was much denser in airfoil’s
front edge, back edge and airfoils surface. The mesh of the computational domain was shown in Fig 2.a. Airfoil and nearby
265 wall grid were shown in Fig 2.b .

a. Study domain b. Focus around the airfoil

Fig. 2. The integral mesh grid

3.1 Model Validation (Turbulence Models Comparison)

To validate the simulation of the DTULN221 airfoil, seven turbulence models are applied to numerically simulate under the
same conditions of Re number, temperature, and turbulence intensity. The air velocity is 37.5 m/s which generates a turbulence
with Re of 1.8x106. 2D, Double Precession, serial processing options are chosen. Density based, SIMPLE algorithm is used in
270 processing coupling problems of speed and pressure in FLUENT solver. The second-order upwind scheme is used to discrete.
The Energy Equation is on and Air is considered as a real gas. The initial and boundary conditions are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 : Initial and Boundary Conditions

Boundary Type Variables notes

Conditions
inlet Velocity Inlet V= 37.5 m/s x and y components of
T= 293 K velocity are varied
Pg= 0 kPa according to AOA
T.I. = 0.0011
Turbulent viscosity ratio =10

Outlet Pressure Outlet T= 293 K

Pg= 0 kPa
T.I. = 0.0011
Turbulent viscosity ratio =10

Airfoil Wall Stationary wall

surface Non slip
Zero roughness
Walls Wall Stationary wall
8
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

Non slip
Zero roughness
Viscous Alternate: Inviscid, Spalart-Allmaras, k-, RNG k-, k-, SST k- and RSM.
Model
Other Air density: ideal gas
Conditions Air density: ideal gas
Airfoil Chord: 0.6 m
Airfoil Length = 1.5 m
AOA : varied from -10o to 20o

3.2 Lift and Drag Coefficients

275 Seven viscous models are used to simulate the flow over DTULN221 airfoil. These models are Inviscid, Spalart-Allmaras, k-
, RNG k-, k-, SST k- and RSM. The lift and drag coefficients are monitored for each simulation. The results are compared
with the experimental findings in (Roha. Lswt Campaign Report on Dtu-C21; Lm Internal Report: Jupitervej; Yang et al.,
2020). Their experimental measured data of the airfoil were corrected by after the reference (Allen, 1944). The experimental
values of the lift and drag coefficients of the selected airfoil are compared with the simulated lift and drag coefficients of the
280 seven turbulence models respectively.
Fig. 3 shows the comparison of the lift coefficients simulated by seven turbulent models and the theoretical lift coefficient. In
general, Lift force increases with AOA and reaches to the maximum value at an angle of attack of (10o12o) in this type of
airfoil. After this point, the lift coefficient decreases with further increase of AOA due to entering the airflow in turbulent
region which separates the boundary layers from the airfoil. Therefore, the drag force rapidly goes up and the lift force goes
285 down at this region.
In order to verify the simulation results of lift coefficients of seven turbulent models, the flow fields given by seven turbulent
models are also given subsequently as Fig. 3 . According to Fig. 3, the simulated lift coefficients of the theoretical value and
seven different turbulence models are very close during the attack angle of -5°: 10° range and more consistent with the
experimental values. Lift coefficient increases nearly linearly with the increasing attack angle when the attack angle is smaller
290 than 10°. The lift coefficient results of seven turbulence models show significant differences when the angle of attack is bigger
than 10°.
Some reasons of the deviation between the experimental data and the simulation results may be the roughness of the airfoil
surface which may affect the experimental results. The pressure of the air fan in the wind tunnel may affect the simulation
results as it wasn’t taken into consideration. Also, the effect of flow separation may affect the drag force considerably. Airfoil
295 flow separates when airfoil is at a high angle of attack, which is caused by the viscosity of fluid. So, it can be noticed that the
inviscid model present a good approximation over the other models at higher angle of attack as it ignores the viscous force.
From Fig. 3, it can be noticed that the results can be divided into three regions:
AOA < -5 in this region there is a noticeable deviation between the experimental results and experiments. Most of the models
are approximately gave the same values of lift force but the nearest values with the experiments are given by SST k- and
300 RSM.
-5 < AOA < 10 a good results compared with the experimental findings. Both inviscid and RSM show the best approximation
while k- and Spalart-Allmaras models are the worst.
AOA > 10 a clear diversity of the results appears where the inviscid, k- and RSM gave good results with respect to the
experimental data. While Spalart-Allmaras model is still the worst.
305 Fig. 4 shows the comparison of drag coefficient using different viscous models. It is shown that the drag coefficient is small
up to AOA<10. Then the drag increases rapidly with the increase of AOA. The best results for drag coefficient are given by
the inviscid and RSM models while the worst results are delivered by k- model.

9
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

Exp. Inviscid Spalart k-e

k-e RNG k-w k-w SST RSM

1.5
LIFT COEFFICIENT [-]
1

0.5

0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.5

-1
AOA [O]

310 Fig. 3 The comparison of lift coefficient using different models

Exp. Inviscid Spalart k-e

k-e RNG k-w k-w SST RSM

0.5
0.45
0.4
DRAG COEFFICIENT [-]

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
AOA [O]

Fig. 4 The comparison of drag coefficient using different models

3.3 Effect of Angle of Attack on the Flow Field

RSM is applied to simulate the fluid field at different angles of attack. Four AOA (-5o, 0o, 5o, and 10o) are chosen to show the
315 flow field represented by pressure and velocity distributions.
Fig. 5 shows the flow fields of wind turbine blade airfoil with different angle of attack. As the AOA increases, The pressure
in the lower side of the air foil increases while the velocity decreases. On the other side, upper side, the pressure the pressure
is positive with AOA of -5o whereas negative pressure contours emerged in zero and positive AOA. With the decrease of the
pressure on the upper side of the airfoil, the velocity increases. The design of such airfoil helps to have extra lift force from
320 the tail of the airfoil as well as the front head.
The flow field of the trailing edge of wind turbine blade airfoil shows that the flow still belongs to laminar status for the four
conditions of AOA, and there are no turbulence and flow separation at all. That is why the simulation results of aerodynamic
performance of blade airfoil using this turbulent model is very near and coincide with the experimental values very much.

10
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

AOA Pressure contours Velocity contours

-5

10

Fig. 5: The flow fields of wind turbine blade airfoil with different angle of attack

325 3.4 Pressure Coefficient

The pressure coefficient Cp on the airfoil surface is defined as:

𝐶 =

where pi is the pressure at position i , po is the free stream static pressure at the airfoil,  is the air density and Uo is the free
stream velocity.
330 The distribution of pressure coefficient of DTULN221 airfoil under different angle of attack is shown in Fig 6. Reynolds stress
model (RSM) is applied to perform the simulation. Pressure differences between upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil
increases with the AOA increasing. At front edge of airfoil, pressure difference is higher, compared to rear edge, where the lift

11
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

is produced. It could be seen from this figure that the airfoil leading edge had a larger curvature, the flow on the airfoil surface
would have a large acceleration, then the static pressure would lower on the airfoil’s surface. With the increase of the angle of
335 attack, the differences become more larger at the leading edge.
There was an anti-curvature shrinking section on the airfoil rear edge pressure side, which could lower the velocity and increase
the pressure as shown also in Fig. 6, so the pressure coefficient of rear edge pressure side had an obvious inclination.
The figure showed that the distribution of pressure on the airfoil’s surface varied largely under different attack angle. When
the attack angle was less than zero, the pressure coefficient of airfoil’s upper surface was positive and lower surface was
340 negative, indicated that at this time lift force of airfoil pointed below. It could be seen from Fig. 6 that the larger attack angle,
the greater difference of pressure coefficient between upper and lower surface. For DTULN221 airfoil, the difference of
pressure coefficient on the airfoil’s front edge was much larger, while on the rear edge was much lower, indicated that the lift
force of airfoil mainly come from front edge. For that type of airfoil, when the attack angle was zero, the pressure coefficient
of airfoil’s upper and lower surface is not equal, as the DTULN221 airfoil is not symmetry. And when the attack angle was
345 larger than zero, the pressure coefficient of airfoil’s upper surface was negative and lower surface was positive, indicated that
at this time lift force of airfoil pointed up.

AOA = -5o

AOA = 0o

AOA = 5o

12
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

AOA = 10o

Fig. 6: The surface pressure coefficients under different angle of attack

3.5 Effect of Air Temperature

RSM is used to investigate the effect of changing air temperature on the airfoil characteristics. Both lift and drag coefficients
350 are monitored at different air temperature. The temperature range was from 283 K to 323 K with step 10 K. Air velocity
remains constant with a value of 37.5 m/s and turbulence intensity of 0.0011. Fig. 7 shows the comparison of lift coefficient
under different air temperature. The lift coefficients are close to each other with a very small variation. Also, there was no
noticeable change in the drag coefficients with the variation of air temperature as shown in fig. 8.
Not only lift and drag coefficients are the variables that affect the behavior of the wing turbine but also lift and drag forces.
355 The power delivered from the wind turbine depends on both lift and drag forces. So, it is important to study the effect of other
operating variables on lift and drag forces.
Fig. 9 shows the comparison of lift force under different air temperature. The lift force decreases with the increase of air
temperature. That is due to the decrease of air density with temperature. It’s important to simulate the airfoil with a model that
take the variation of the density of air with temperature. The decrease of lift force with temperature tends to a loss in power at
360 high temperature days or high temperature locations which may be taken into considerations in site selection for installing the
wind turbine. The loss in the magnitude of the lift force is higher with the increase of AOA.
Fig. 10 shows the comparison of drag force under different air temperature. The drag force decreases with the increase of air
temperature.

283 K 293 K 303 313 K 323 K

1.4

1.2

1
Lift Coefficient [-]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2
AOA [o]

Fig. 7: The comparison of lift coefficient under different air temperature

13
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

283 K 293 K 303 K 313 K 323 K

0.05
0.045
0.04
Drag Coefficient [-]

0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AOA [o]

Fig. 8: The comparison of drag coefficient under different air temperature

283 K 293 K 303 313 K 323 K

700

600

500
Lift Force [N]

400

300

200

100

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-100
AOA [o]

Fig. 9: The comparison of lift force under different air temperature

283 K 293 K 303 K 313 K 323 K

30

25
Drag Force [N]

20

15

10

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AOA [o]

Fig. 10: The comparison of drag force under different air temperature

14
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

3.6 Effect of Air Speed

365 RSM is used to investigate the effect of changing air speed on the airfoil characteristics. Both lift and drag coefficients are
monitored at different air velocity. The velocities are (10, 20, 30, 37.5 and 50) m/s. Air temperature remains constant with a
value of 293 K and turbulence intensity of 0.0011. Fig. 11 shows the comparison of lift coefficient under different air velocity.
The lift coefficient increases with the increase of air velocity. The percentage in the increase of the lift coefficients at an angle
of attack of 10o is more significant compared with the change of lift coefficient at lower angles of attack. There is a small
370 change in the drag coefficients with the variation of air velocity as shown in fig. 12.
Fig. 13 shows the comparison of lift force under different air velocity. The lift force increases with the increase of air velocity.
The rate of change at angle of attack of 10o is much considerable. It’s about three times of that at 0o angle of attack. The
increase in the lift force is proportional with the square of velocity so it preferable to operate the wind turbines at higher air
velocity.
375 Fig. 14 shows the comparison of drag force under different air velocity. The drag force increases with the increase of air
velocity.

10 m/s 20 m/s 30 m/s 37.5 m/s 50 m/s

1.4

1.2

1
Lift Coefficient [-]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2
AOA [o]

Fig. 11: The comparison of lift coefficient under different air velocity

10 m/s 20 m/s 30 m/s 37.5 m/s 50 m/s

0.05
0.045
0.04
Drag Coefficient [-]

0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AOA [o]

Fig. 12: The comparison of drag coefficient under different air velocity

15
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

10 m/s 20 m/s 30 m/s 37.5 m/s 50 m/s

1200

1000

800
Lift Force [N]

600

400

200

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-200
AOA [o]

Fig. 13: The comparison of lift force under different air velocity

10 m/s 20 m/s 30 m/s 37.5 m/s 50 m/s

45
40
35
Drag Force [N]

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AOA [o]

Fig. 14: The comparison of drag force under different air velocity

3.7 Effect of Turbulence Intensity

The effect of changing air flow turbulence intensity on the airfoil characteristics is investigated by simulate the airfoil with
RSM as a turbulence model. Both lift and drag coefficients are monitored at different turbulence intensity of 0.0011, 0.1, 1, 10
380 and 20. Air velocity remains constant with a value of 37.5 m/s and temperature of 293 K. Fig. 15 shows the comparison of lift
coefficient under different turbulence intensity. The lift coefficients are close to each other with a very small variation. The
little change of the lift coefficient is in a direct relation with the turbulence intensity. Also, there was no noticeable change in
the drag coefficients with the variation of air temperature as shown in fig. 16.
Fig. 17 shows the comparison of lift force under different turbulence intensity. The lift force does not change significantly
385 with the change of the turbulence intensity.
Fig. 18 shows the comparison of drag force under different turbulence intensity. The drag force does not change significantly
with the change of the turbulence intensity.

16
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

TI=0.0011 TI=0.1 TI=1 TI=10 TI=20

1.4

1.2

1
Lift Coefficient [-]

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0.2
AOA [o]

Fig. 15: The comparison of lift coefficient under different air turbulence intensity

TI=0.0011 TI=0.1 TI=1 TI=10 TI=20

0.05
0.045
0.04
Drag Coefficient [-]

0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AOA [o]

Fig. 16: The comparison of drag coefficient under different air turbulence intensity

TI=0.0011 TI=0.1 TI=1 TI=10 TI=20

700

600

500
Lift Force [N]

400

300

200

100

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-100
AOA [o]

Fig. 17: The comparison of lift force under different air turbulence intensity

17
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

TI=0.0011 TI=0.1 TI=1 TI=10 TI=20

30

25
Drag Force [N]

20

15

10

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AOA [o]

Fig. 18: The comparison of drag force under different air turbulence intensity

4 Conclusion

390 A numerical simulation study of the aerodynamic performance of DTU-LN221 airfoil is presented. The turbulence model has
a definitely great influence on the numerical simulation results of wind turbine blade airfoil. Seven turbulence models are used
to simulate the flow over the airfoil. These models are Inviscid, Spalart-Allmaras, k-, RNG k-, k-, SST k- and RSM.
The lift and drag coefficients delivered from the simulation are compared with the wind tunnel experimental data. The range
of the AOA of this simulation was between -10o to 20o. There was no a general model which can be called the best over the
395 range of study. But RSM presented a good results over the other turbulence models especially in the range of AOA between -
5o to 10o.
The RSM is selected to investigate the effect of changing AOA, air temperature, velocity and turbulence intensity on the
characteristics of the airfoil. The following points can be concluded:
- By increasing the AOA (within the range of study - between -5o to 10o), The pressure in the lower side of the air foil increases
400 while the velocity decreases.
- The larger attack angle, the greater difference of pressure coefficient between upper and lower surface.
- Even the change in lift and drag coefficients is very small with the variation of air temperature, there was a noticeable change
in the lift and drag forces.
- The lift force decreases with the increase of air temperature.
405 - The lift coefficient increases with the increase of air velocity.
- The lift force increases rapidly with the increase of air velocity.
- The lift and drag forces does not change significantly with the change of the turbulence intensity.

Acknowledgements

The author extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for
410 funding this research work through the project number (DRI-KSU-1410)

References

Design of next generation wind turbine rotors (NextRotor), DTU Wind Energy, 2015a.
: FLUENT Ansys, Theory Guide Release 17, Ansys Inc.2015b.
: FLUENT Ansys, User’s Guide Release 17, Ansys Inc.2015c.

18
https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2021-45
Preprint. Discussion started: 21 May 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

415 Allen, H. J. V., W.G.: Wall Interference in a Two-Dimensional FlowWind Tunnel, with Consideration of the effect of
Compressibility, NACA Rep., 782, 155-184, 1944.
Allmaras, P. S. a. S.: A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, Technical Report AIAA-92-0439. American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1992.
B. E. Launder, G. J. R., and W. Rodi: Progress in the Development of a Reynolds-Stress Turbulence Closure, J. Fluid Mech.,
420 68, 537-566, 1975.
Cheng, J., Zhu, W. J., Fischer, A., García, N., Madsen, J., Chen, J., and Shen, W. Z.: Design and validation of the high
performance and low noise CQU-DTU-LN1 airfoils, Wind Energy, 17, 10.1002/we.1668, 2014.
Cheng, J. T. Z., W.J.; Fischer, A.; García, N.R.; Madsen, J.; Chen, J.; Shen, W.Z.: Design and validation of the high
performance and low noise CQU-DTU-LN1 airfoils, Wind Energy, 17, 1817–1833, 2013.
425 G. H. Yu, X. C. Z., and Z. H. Du: Numerical simulation of a wind turbine airfoil: dynamic stall and comparison with
experiments, Proc. IMechE., 224, 657-677, 10.1243/09576509JPE942, 2010.
Hao Wang, J. D., Bing Ma, Shuaibin Li: Aerodynamic simulation of wind turbine blade airfoil with different turbulence
models, JVE INTERNATIONAL LTD. JOURNAL OF VIBROENGINEERING, 16, 2474-2483, Augest, 2014.
Hinze, J. O.: Turbulence, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York1975.
430 Iñigo Aramendia , U. F.-G., , Ekaitz Zulueta, Aitor Saenz-Aguirre and Daniel Teso-Fz-Betoño: Parametric Study of a Gurney
Flap Implementation in a DU91W(2)250 Airfoil, Energies, 12, 10.3390, 2019.
J., B.: Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principles and Applications, Third Edition., Elsevier Ltd.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-19038-1, 2015.
Ji Yaoa, W. Y., jianliang Wanga, Jianbin Xiec , Haipeng Zhoub , Mingjun Pengd, Yong Sund: Numerical simulation of
435 aerodynamic performance for two dimensional wind turbine airfoils, International Conference on Advances in Computational
Modeling and Simulation2012.
JT Cheng, W. Z., A Fischer, NR Garcia, J Madsen, J Chen, WZ Shen: Design and validation of the high performance and low
noise CQU-DTU-LN1 airfoils, Wind Energy, 17, 1817-1833, 10.1002/we.1668, 2014.
Launder, B. E.: Second-Moment Closure: Present... and Future?, Inter. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 10, 282-300, 1989.
440 Launder, M. M. G. a. B. E.: Ground Effects on Pressure Fluctuations in the Atmospheric Boundary Layer, J. Fluid Mech., 86,
491-511, 1978.
Menter, F. R.: Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications, AIAA Journal, 32, 1598-1605,
1994.
Menter, F. R.: Review of the SST Turbulence Model Experience from an Industrial Perspective, International Journal of
445 Computational Fluid Dynamics, 23, 2009.
N. Karthikeyan, K. K. M., S.Arun Kumar, S.Rajakumar: Review of aerodynamic developments on small horizontal axis wind
turbine blade, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 801–822, 2015.
Namiranian, A.: 3D Simulation of a 5MW Wind Turbine, Mechanical Engineering, Bleckinge Institute of Technology,
Karlskrona, Sweden, 72 pp., 2011.
450 ROHA. LSWT Campaign Report on DTU-C21; LM Internal Report: Jupitervej, D., 2012.,
Rosario Lanzafame, S. M., Michele Messina: 2D CFD Modeling of H-Darrieus Wind Turbines using a Transition Turbulence
Model, 68th Conference of the Italian Thermal Machines Engineering Association, ATI2013, 45, 131-140, 2014.
S. A. Orszag, V. Y., W. S. Flannery, F. Boysan, D. Choudhury, J. Maruzewski, and B. Patel: Renormalization Group Modeling
and Turbulence Simulations, International Conference on Near-Wall Turbulent Flows, Tempe, Arizona1993.
455 S. M. A. Aftab, A. S. M. R., N. A. Razak, K. A. Ahmad: Turbulence Model Selection for Low Reynolds Number Flows, PLoS
ONE, 11, 15, 10.1371/journal.pone.0153755, 2016.
Schepers J. G., F. L., Rooij R. V., Bruining A.: Analysis of detailed aerodynamic field measurements using results from an
aeroelastic code, Wind Energy, 7, 357-372, 2004.
Sessarego, M., Shen, W. Z., Sørensen, J. N., & Ramos García, N. : Design of Large Wind Turbines using Fluid-Structure
460 Coupling Technique., Wind Energy, DTU, DTU Wind Energy, 2016.
Spalding, B. E. L. a. D. B.: Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence, Academic Press, London, England1972.
W., V. H. K. a. M.: An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: the finite volume method, Pearson Education2007.
Wilcox, D. C.: Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, Inc. , La Canada, California1998.
Yang, J., Yang, H., Zhu, W., Li, N., and Yuan, Y.: Experimental Study on Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Gurney Flap on
465 a Wind Turbine Airfoil under High Turbulent Flow Condition, Applied Sciences, 10, 7258, 2020.

19