J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.

145 (2015) 115–122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Wind Engineering

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

Comparison of BEM and CFD results for MEXICO rotor aerodynamics

Borja Plaza a, Rafael Bardera b, Sergio Visiedo c,n
a
Computational Fluid Dynamics Branch, INTA, ISDEFE consultant, Torrejón de Ardoz, 28850, Spain
b
Experimental Aerodynamics Branch, INTA, Torrejón de Ardoz, 28850, Spain
c
Computational Fluid Dynamics Branch, INTA, ISDEFE subcontracted, Torrejón de Ardoz, 28850, Spain

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

Article history: This work aims to conduct an aerodynamic analysis of the MEXICO wind turbine rotor, establishing
Received 3 October 2014 comparisons between the results of two radically different computational techniques and measure-
Received in revised form ments, obtained in wind tunnel tests under controlled conditions in the framework of the MEXICO
12 May 2015
project (Boorsma and Schepers, 2009; Schepers et al., 2012). Forces, pressures, and torque generated in
Accepted 17 May 2015
the rotor are computed usingthe blade element momentum (BEM) and computational fluid dynamics
Available online 7 July 2015
(CFD) codes to investigate their main strengths and weaknesses at different wind speeds, highlighting
Keywords: the quality of the results obtained at different blade stations. In general terms, both methods tend to
MEXICO overestimate the spanwise distribution of forces and pressures. Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
Mexnext
(RANS)-CFD simulations maintain a uniform level of accuracy across the studied velocity range, whereas
Wind Turbines
BEM calculations outperform CFD estimates at low wind velocities but fail at higher velocities due to
Aerodynamics
CFD separated flow conditions. Blade tip loss and three-dimensional (3D) effects are partly responsible for
BEM inaccuracies in calculation, especially for the BEM code. These 3D effects are discussed briefly in relation
3D effects to force estimates.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the wind turbine industry,efficiency in costs and calculation
time at the design stages of their machines is imperative. The
simpler codes are based on the blade element momentum (BEM)
theory (Burton et al., 2011), and their accuracy and low computa-
tion time make them highly preferred by many companies that
design wind turbines. On the other hand, computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) codes, governed by the Navier–Stokes equations
(Anderson, 1995), are usually intended for research purposes due
to their high-performance computing (HPC) requirements. How-
ever, in recent years, the rapid development of computational
hardware has resulted in wind turbine designers using CFD codes
increasingly more, at the same level of more efficient and profit-
able codes as BEMs.
From the first international project in this field, the UAE Phase VI
(Leishman, 2002; Simms et al., 2001), to the more recent MEXICO
project, several fruitful studies have been carried out, causing
significant advances in the understanding of wind turbine aero-
dynamics. The most important developers of aerodynamic codes,
based on the lifting line theory, BEM, or CFD, continue to use the
n
Corresponding author at: Department of Aerodynamics, National Institute for
Aerospace Technology, Carretera de Ajalvir km 4. 28850, Torrejón de Ardoz. Madrid,
Spain. Tel.: +34 91 520 1165.
E-mail address: visiedoms.pers_externo@inta.es (S. Visiedo).
massive volume of data generated in these projects, with the aim of
improving their algorithms (Schepers et al., 2012; Boorsma et al.,
2014) or even developing basic theories (Schepers et al., 2012). Most
of the advancements in the codes have been directly related to the
accuracy of three-dimensional (3D)effect prediction as the predic-
tion becomes poorer at higher wind speeds due to rotational
augmentation, especially at the inboard sections. Unfortunately,
these phenomena remain highly debated (Guntur and Sørensen,
2014; Yelmule and EswaraRaoAnjuri, 2013), andonly few semi-
empirical corrections are implemented in the two-dimensional
(2D) polar curves of airfoils for BEM codes, as performed by Du-
Selig (Du and Selig, 1998).
This work compares the accuracy of the two abovementioned
methods in performing aerodynamic calculations on the MEXICO
wind turbine rotor. This is carried out by contrasting numerical
results, given by the BEM and CFD codes, with the data measured
in the wind tunnel to establish some clarifications trying to
contribute to the choice of the suitable technique from a technical
point of view.
The paper discusses the results obtained from the two
methods and their adequacy at different incoming wind speeds,
thus attempting to explain inaccuracies in calculation. For the
CFD technique, a previous study obtained good results using
multi-block structured meshes and unsteady simulations
(Schepers et al., 2012), but it also demonstrated that an
unstructured mesh combined with the moving reference frame

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.05.005
0167-6105/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
116 B. Plaza et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145 (2015) 115–122
method (steady simulation) gives results close to experimental
values, thus also reducing the preprocessing and calculation
times significantly.
2. Methods
The MEXICO experimental wind turbine is an instrumented
three bladed machine, with a horizontal axis and a 4.5-m rotor
diameter. It was tested at the German-Dutch DNW wind tunnel,
where large volumes of experimental data were recorded for a
great variety of operating conditions, but this work only investi-
gates three cases at different wind speeds. These cases represent
the turbulent wake state (U 1 ¼ 10 m=sÞ, design conditions
(U 1 ¼ 15 m=sÞ, and separated flow conditions (U 1 ¼ 24 m=sÞ, and
they demonstrate the effect of rotor loading on the calculations.
The remaining operating conditions for the simulations are set as
follows: axial flow (noyaw), a pitch angle of  2.31, and a rotation
speed of 424.5 rpm. All wind tunnel conditions (wind speed,
turbulence intensities, etc.), different measurements (pressures,
forces, etc.), and instrumentation (PIV, pressure sensors, etc.) used
in these tests are described in the section “Description of Experi-
mental Setup” (Boorsma and Schepers 2009).
The calculations were carried out at the National Institute for
Aerospace Technology of Spain (INTA), with the following variables
studied: normal force, tangential force, axial force, and torque. The
pressure coefficient (Cp) distribution is analyzed using few airfoils of
the blade to support the explanations for the forceresults; the 3D
effects are exposed with several images of streamlines on the
suction side of the MEXICO blade, extracted from CFD simulations.
The first step before starting the simulations is the transforma-
tion of the physical problem into a mathematical one, configuring
a calculation domain with appropriate initial and boundary con-
ditions: the preprocessing stage.
2.1. BEM CODE
For BEM calculations, the FAST code (developed by NREL) has
been chosen, in particular, the aerodynamic module AeroDyn, as it
has been validated for many different conditions and it is widely
used for wind turbine certifications.This code requires the blades
to be discretized into smaller elements with the same aerody-
namic and geometric properties. Fig. 1 shows the seven different
parts that compose the swept area of the multi-airfoil MEXICO
blade. The blade is split into 26 elements, the twist and chord
values of which are presented in Fig. 2. A higher density of
elements is used near the blade tip for precision as the BEM
calculation in this region is less accurate due to blade tip losses.
The aerodynamic coefficients C l , C d ,and C m of the airfoils DU91-
W2-250, RISØ-A1-21, and NACA 64-418, respectively, used in BEM
simulations for this work were taken from the Mexnext project.
These coefficients are results of wind tunnel tests for each airfoil at
the appropriate Reynolds number, as explained in the experimen-
tal description (Boorsma and Schepers, 2009). For transition air-
foils, the aerodynamic coefficients were extracted from the
average of polar curves of the adjacent airfoils.
Fig. 1. MEXICO blade airfoil configuration.
Fig. 2. Twist and chord of computed 26 blade elements.
2.2. CFD CODE
CFD simulations were performed usingthe commercial software
Fluent 14.5 (ANSYS), with an HPC cluster to carry out the calcula-
tions with the steady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS)
approach. The grid was modeled using the meshing ANSYS software,
ICEM. It was defined as an unstructured mesh because the number
of elements is not high enough to compute time savings.
The 3D-modeled hub, tower, and nacelle are simplifications of
the real tested model. A faithful reproduction of the blade
geometry was achieved using a fine mesh. The fluid domain was
divided into two regions. The first represents the fluid inside the
wind tunnel, and it extends 5 R from the rotor plane upwind and
25 R downwind with a width and height of 20 R, as shown in Fig. 3
(a), where R is the radius of the rotor.
The second region is a cylinder of 2.75 R diameter and 0.5 R
height, which contains all the moving parts, blades, and hub(Fig. 3
(b)). A moving reference frame is applied to this domain,which
rotates at a design wind turbine speed of 424.5 rpm.
A prism layer is created covering all wind turbine surfaces to
improve the calculation accuracy in the boundary layer. The turbu-
lence model k-ω shear stress transport (SST) is used, necessitating a
factor of y þ o1 after the computation. To ensure this, the thickness
of the first layer should be 5  10  6 m. The successive layers grow
progressively, as shown in Fig. 4, up to a total of 20 layers. The final
result is an unstructured tetra-prism layer mesh of about 12 million
elements to run the steady-RANS simulations.
The boundaryconditions are set as follows: “velocity inlet”
(blue surface in Fig. 3) for the airflow entrance, “Pressure outlet”
(red surface), “Symmetry“ for the rest of the tunnel faces (gray
surfaces), and “wall” for the surface of the wind turbine model.
The cylindrical surface between the rotational and static domain is
set as “interface” for a correct computation.
The computed CFD simulations employ a steady pressure-
based model, in addition to the Semi-Implicit Method for
Pressure-Linked Equation algorithm (SIMPLE) to solve the RANS
equations (Jasak, 1996).
3. Results and Discussion
The results obtained by BEM and RANS-CFD computation with
the simulations described in the previous section are presented in
this section. Forces, torque, and pressure are compared with the
MEXICO wind tunnel data, and they are evaluated using a
comparative analysis. Finally, the 3D effects are discussed briefly.
 B. Plaza et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145 (2015) 115–122
Fig. 3. MEXICO wind turbine grid.
Fig. 4. Prism layer and tetra-mesh.
Fig. 5. Normal and tangential forces.
3.1. FORCES
The spanwise distributions of normal force (Fn) and tangential
force (Ft) per unit length determine the blade’s aerodynamic and
structural performance. Both are represented in Fig. 5.
The normal force distribution is shown in Fig. 6 at three
different wind speeds. At wind speeds of 10 and 15 m/s, there is
a good agreement between calculations and measurements, espe-
cially for BEM code results.
Fig. 6 shows, in general,good agreement between the experi-
mental data and the calculations from both codes. However, a
closer look comparing Figs. 5 and 6 reveals that accuracy of the
BEM calculation decreases with increase in wind speed, because
117
the underprediction at the inner part of the blade and the over-
prediction near the tip are evident at an incoming velocity of
24 m/s. This limitationarises from the rotational augmentation
produced by 3D effects, which cannot be quantified directly with
any BEM code owing to their two-dimensional nature. 2D polar
curves (aerodynamics data input for BEM calculations) are com-
monly modified to improve the accuracy of the calculations. To
highlight the lack of accuracy of BEM calculations at high wind
speeds, no changes were made to the experimental polar curves in
the present study. However, in other calculations with different
BEM codes used by Mexnext project partners, no substantial
improvement was observed when 3D effects were taken into
consideration.
At a lower wind speed of 10 m/s, BEM calculations were closer
to the experimental results than the CFD estimates. The high load
on the rotor under this flow condition results in higher calcula-
tions of pressures at blades than real measurements, which
increasesuncertainty (Daniel Micallef, 2009) and leads to over-
estimation of the velocity in the boundary layer at the suction side
of the airfoil.
In spite of the general tendency of the CFD code to overpredict
normal loads, its results show good agreement with experimental
data at high wind speeds, as can be seen in Fig. 6(c). At this
incoming flow velocity, the calculations exhibit result oscillations
at the outer sections of the blades, likely due to the use of an
unstructured mesh under stalled flow conditions.
It is important to note the difficulties encountered for both codes
in the accurate prediction of the normal force at the blade tip region,
where a certain level of overprediction was observed for the three
cases. The high values in the BEM results indicate that the Prandtl
tip loss correction used in FAST is too optimistic, and the tip loss
factor should be lower at the inner sections near the tip region. The
118 B. Plaza et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145 (2015) 115–122
Fig. 6. Normal force distribution.
disagreement could also be due to an erroneous calculation of the
induction factors altering the local angle of attack, thus resulting in a
higher force than the experimental value.
Fig. 7 represents the tangential force distribution. In general, it
presents a similar trend to the distribution of normal force, but
some emerging differences must be pointed out.
The results from the BEM code approximate experimental
measurements to some extent at wind speeds of 10 m/s and
15 m/s, but the calculation curves are completely incongruent
with measured data for massive flow detachment at 24 m/s. Again,
this shows that BEM simulations are inaccurate at high wind
speeds as can be seen at the inner sections of the blade, where the
estimates decay drastically. Moreover, CFD simulations tend to
overestimate the tangential loads at the blade tip region for every
wind speed becausecalculations are highly sensitive in the tan-
gential direction, being fundamentally governed by pressure
gradients in the leading and trailing edges, precisely where the
major differences in measurements exist. The tangential force
computed with different codes by Mexnext partnersis highly
dispersed, as can be seen in Ref. Schepers et al., (2012). This
highlights the difficulty of computing the tangential loading,
considering that only pressure data were used to obtain the force
and disregarding the friction terms (Schepers et al., 2012) that
would have produced an even higher level of dispersion.
3.2. GLOBAL VARIABLES
The studied global variables, torque and axial force (Fig. 8), are
mainly generated by the tangential and normal force, respectively.
Their importance lies in their contribution to define the general
wind turbine performance, as power coefficient or tower struc-
tural requirements. Fig. 9 represents the comparison between
calculation results and experimental data of axial force and torque
as a function of wind speed.
As discussed previously, the general tendency to overpredict
normal loads with increase in wind speed is reflected in the axial
force estimates of Fig. 9(a). It is interesting to note that some CFD
calculations of axial induction velocity through the rotor plane
(not seen in this article) produced higher values than experimental
data, leading to a pressure jump lower than real. This is incon-
gruent with the actuator disc theory because axial force computed
by the CFD code should be lower than the experimental value;
however,this is not the case.
BEM code calculations also overestimate the axial force, but it is
interesting to note that the calculation and the experimental value
are very close at 24 m/s. From Fig. 6(c), it can be deduced that this
coincidence is merely due to the compensation of the under- and
overestimation in the calculation of the normal force at the inner
and outer parts of the blade, respectively.
 B. Plaza et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145 (2015) 115–122
Fig. 7. Tangential force distribution.
Fig. 8. Axial force and torque.
Fig. 9(b) shows the results of torque calculations using the BEM
and CFD codes compared with the experimental data as a function
of wind speed. As already mentioned, torque estimates must be
consistent with the spanwise tangential force distribution,which
gives rise to the rolling moment. The curves of the CFD results
119
appear above the experimental values, so that the tangential force
is highly overestimated at the blade tip, which indicates the
importance of the accuracy of the calculation in this region.
Simulations with FAST provide good estimations of the torque
at 10 and 15 m/s, in agreement with the tangential force calcula-
tions; however, the BEM code fails again at the highest wind
speed, and the torque results remain at about 10% below the
experimental data.
3.3. Pressure Distribution
The pressure distribution along the blade can explain the
results in forces. For the three wind speed cases, the pressure
coefficient (C P ) is studied over two airfoils, at 35% and 92% of span,
representing the inner and outer sections on the blade. This
coefficient is defined as follows:
p  pref
CP ¼
q1
wherep is the absolute pressure over the airfoil surface, pref the
corresponding static pressure, and q1 is the dynamic pressure of
the steady flow in the wind tunnel given as q1 ¼ ð1=2ÞρU 1 2 .
Fig. 10 presents the distribution of the pressure coefficient at
the two sections along the non-dimensionalized chord “x/c,”
120 B. Plaza et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145 (2015) 115–122
Fig. 9. Axial force and Torque at different wind speeds.
where x is the local chord-wise coordinate. At 35% of span, the
pressure over the airfoil is, by far, lower than that on the outer
section as can be observed, and it is also lower than the calculation
error. The calculation is observed to be less accurate on the suction
side than on the pressure side, and the differences in experimental
measurements increase with the wind velocity in the blade tip
direction. The overprediction in pressure calculation could be a
specific limitation of the RANS simulation, as URANS offers a
slightly better solution as demonstrated in Ref. Pascal (2009). This
limitation could also arise from the refinement of the unstructured
mesh used, and a structured mesh could give better results.
For the highest wind speed case, with stall conditions at the
blades, the prediction of the separation point location is unlike the
measurements shown. As can be observed in Fig. 10(c), the sudden
pressure drop computed on the suction side, which indicates the
detachment of the flow, occurs behind measurements. This high-
lights the weakness of the RANS model for massive flow separa-
tions,because the turbulent model used (k-ω SST) is too dissipative
to capture many length scales and the complex turbulent struc-
tures generated in detachments. Some investigations with DES1
simulations (Yuwei Li et al., 2012; Meng and van Rooij, 2007) give
better results as many of these turbulent structures are resolved
and therefore the separation point is better predicted, although
the required computational resources increase significantly.
The general overprediction in the pressure calculation at the
suction side generates a similar trend in force to that seen
previously. The difference between the measured and computed
pressures in the outer section is more evident,corresponding with
the overestimation of forces at the blade tip region. For the 92%
spanwise station, the location of the peaks of pressure at the
suction side near the leading edge is well predicted; however, its
magnitude is overpredicted, leading to the high values in tangen-
tial forces seen in Fig. 7.
3.4. 3D EFFECTS
The origin of the physical phenomenon to explain the stall
delay remains a matter of debate. When an airfoil rotates, the stall
1
DES: Detached Eddy Simulations, is a combined method which solves the
near wall region by mean of RANS models, and uses LES (Large Eddy Simulations)
calculations when the turbulent length scale exceeds the grid dimension.
may occur at higher angles of attack than the equivalent 2D curve
from the static wind tunnel test at the same Reynolds number. It is
known that adverse gradients of pressure suffered by the airflow
over the suction side of the blade slow down the flow near the
trailing edge, as in the boundary layer. Under the combination of
both effects, the flow velocity may decay to zero or even reverse
flow can occur. If this inversion of flow direction occurs, the
separation takes place and the airfoil is in stall conditions. The
adverse pressure gradient is reduced for unknown reasons by the
blade rotation; however, the following explanation is commonly
accepted: the rotation produces an increase of dynamic pressure in
the spanwise direction,which in turn adds to the centrifugal force
experienced by air particles, resulting in a radial induction to the
flow. This radial component of velocity generates the appearance
of the Coriolis force, which redirects the flow towards the trailing
edge inducing a positive pressure gradient that causes reattach-
ment of the flow and delays the separation (Lee and Chua, 2012;
Tony Burton et al., 2011).
The streamline pattern on the suction side of the blade at
different wind speeds explains the behavior of the near-wall flow.
When fluid particles start to experience the radial component of
velocity, the rotational augmentation begins. Fig. 11 shows the
streamlines (oil flow) at 10, 15 and 24 m/s, where vortex regions
and reverse-flow zones, which determine the flow separation, as
deduced by Guntur et al. Guntur and Sørensen (2014) and Mukesh
(Yelmule and EswaraRaoAnjuri, 2013), are seen.
At 10 m/s, the flow is attached to the whole blade, as shown by
Fig. 11 (a); however, at the inner region near the hub, a radial
component can be seen probably due to vortex shedding in this
zone. When U1 ¼15 m/s,a strong radial component appears near
the trailing edge of the blade, which covers the length from the
hub to the 45% station, where the flow starts to reverse and hence
detach. The line of flow separation can be observed, which is the
confluence of reverse streamlines. It is interesting to observe the
mid-span vortex near the 60% section (rE 1.35 m) in Fig. 11 (b).
The cause of this vortex is unknown, although it may be inducted
by the abrupt transition between airfoils RISØ-A1-21 and NACA
64-418, very close to this section. This vortex is responsible for the
distortion in the force curves in this region, as seen in Fig. 6 and
Fig. 7 at a wind speed of 15 m/s. At a wind speedof 24 m/s (Fig. 11
(c)), massive reverse flow appears from the trailing to leading
edges on the suction side of the whole blade, causing the
boundary layer to separate by about 30% chord-wise.
 B. Plaza et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145 (2015) 115–122 121

Fig. 10. Pressure distribution at sections 0.35 R and 0.92 R.

Fig. 11. Suction side streamlines on MEXICO blade at different wind speed. (a) U∞ = 10m/s (b) U∞ = 15m/s (c) U∞ = 24m/s.

The 3D effects are very important, particularly for inner the discrepancies between both codes, as the CFD technique can
sections, and its calculation should be taken into consideration predict these effects,providing good results at this region of
to improve the accuracy of BEM codes. This is the main reason for the blade.
122 B. Plaza et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145 (2015) 115–122
4. Conclusions and Future Work
Different results from the BEM and CFD calculations with the
MEXICO experimental wind turbine were explored and discussed
in comparison with experimental measurements.
This work confirms that BEM calculations achieve some great
results, surprisingly better than RANS-CFD at low and medium
wind speeds. However,the BEM technique is not suitable when the
incoming wind velocity is high enough to produce detachment at
the blades. Rotational 3D effects are to be taken into consideration
in these simulations, especially at high wind speed, because the
accuracy of the calculations decays considerably with velocity. On
the other hand, RANS-CFD simulations produce good results over
the whole range of wind velocity, although theBEM calculations
are slightly better for turbulent wake and design conditions.
Overestimates near the blade tip region highlights the difficulties
in calculation for both codes as a result of the strong loss
produced.
For this work, the preprocessing and calculation timesof the
two techniques are vastly different. By far, BEM simulations
tookless time than RANS-CFD. This time efficiency makes the
BEM method the tool of choice for large-scale use in the wind
turbine industry; however, to improve the designs and the under-
standing of rotor flow physics, CFD techniques are required
because of the vast amount of information they provide for all
the flow variables.
Future work for BEM codes should be focused on improving the
accuracy of results at high wind speeds, studying rotational 3D
effects and developing new models to compute them, as the
calculation of separated flow is unaffordable by this technique.
Tip loss correction models should be reviewed to estimate forces
at the blade tip region with more accuracy, because the Prandtl
correction is generally optimistic. With the improvement of
computational performance, the research community must seize
the opportunity to perform CFD simulations with more complex
models such as DES or LES to gain a deep insight into some
unknown physical mechanisms,thus allowing the development of
new, faster models for wind turbine calculation.
References
Anderson, John, 1995. Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics With Applica-
tions. McGraw-Hill Education.
Boorsma, K., Schepers, J.G., 2009. Description of experimental setup MEXICO
measurements, ECN-X-11-120. Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
K. Boorsma, J.G. Schepers, Sugoi Gomez-Iradi, Helge Aagaard Madsen, NielsSøren-
sen,Wen Zhong Shen, and Christoph Schulz, Mexnext-II: The Latest Results on
Experimental Wind Turbine Aerodynamics, EWEA 2014 Annual Event, Barce-
lona, Spain, March 2014.
Burton, Tony, Jenkins, Nick, Sharpe, David, Bossanyi, Ervin, 2011. Wind Energy
Handbook. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom.
Z. Du, M. Selig, “A 3-D Stall-Delay Model for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine
Performance Prediction.” 1998 ASME, Wind Energy Symposium. AIAA-1998-
21, January 1998.
Guntur, Srinivas, Sørensen, Niels N., 2014. A study on rotational augmentation
using CFD analysis of flow in the inboard region of the MEXICO rotor blades.
Wiley Online Library.
Jasak, H., 1996. Error analysis and estimation for the finite volume method with
applications to fluid flows PhD thesis. Imperial College of Science, Technology
and Medicine.
Hsiao Mun Lee and LeokPoh Chua, Investigation of the stall delay of a 5 kW horizontal
axis wind turbine using numerical method, International Conference on Renew-
able Energies and Power Quality (ICREPQ 12), Santiago de Compostela, Spain,
March 2012.
Leishman, J. Gordon, 2002. Challenges in Modeling the Unsteady Aerodynamics of
Wind Turbines PAPER 2002-0037. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS
AND ASTRONAUTICS, Reston, VA 20191 4344, USA.
F. Meng and R. P.J.O.M. van Rooij, CFD investigations with respect to model sensitivity
for the non-rotating flow around the NREL Phase VI Blade, Proceeding of the
European Wind Energy Conference EWEC, Milan, Italy, 2007.
L. Pascal, Analysis of MEXICO measurements, Energy research Centre of the Nether-
lands (ECN), 2009.
Daniel Micallef, 2009. MEXICO Data Analysis, Stage III - Cp Distributions Using the
Stagnation Point Method and Sensitivity Analysis. Energy research Centre of
the Netherlands (ECN).
Schepers, J.G., Boorsma, K., Cho, T., Gomez-Iradi, S., Schaffarczyk, P., Jeromin, A.,
Shen, W.Z., 2012. Review of computational fluid dynamics for wind turbine
wake aerodynamics. Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
Schepers, J.G., Boorsma, K., Chon, T., 2012. NielsSørensen,Final report of IEA Task 29,
Mexnext (Phase1): Analysis of Mexico wind tunnel measurements, ECN-E-12-004.
Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN).
Simms, D., Schreck, S., Hand, M., Fingersh, L.J., 2001. NREL Unsteady Aerodynamics
Experiment in the NASA-Ames Wind Tunnel: A Comparison of Predictions to
Measurements. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado
80401-3393, USA.
Tony Burton, Nick Jenkins, Sharpe, David, Bossanyi, Ervin, 2011. Wind Energy
Handbook. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom.
Yelmule, Mukesh M., EswaraRaoAnjuri, VSJ, 2013. CFD predictions of NREL Phase VI
Rotor Experiments in NASA/AMESWind tunnel. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL of
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH.
Yuwei Li, Kwang-Jun Paik, Xing, Tao, Carrica, Pablo M., 2012. Dynamic overset CFD
simulations of wind turbine aerodynamics. Renewable Energy 37, 285–298.