1.

Introduction
Three trends in generating and providing electricity can be observed: Firstly, utilizing free
primary,i.e., renewable energy, avoiding the cost for CO2-emission certificates and other end-of-
lifetime waste disposal cost. Secondly, distributed small and volatile energy resources are
combined into a small smart grid to improve reliability and robustness of decentralized grids.
“Smart” in this context implies the control of the production and distribution utilizing smart
meters, smart appliances, storage facilities like batteries and renewable energy resources. This
can be of particular interest for rural electricity distribution networks and the future
infrastructure required for electric vehicles. As an example, within its Seventh framework
programme, the European Commission supported numerous projects like “Open Systems for
Energy Services”, “Smart … rural grid innovating resilient electricity distribution
infrastructures, services and business models”, “Scalable energy management infrastructure for
aggregation of households” (FP7 [1]). Thirdly, in some cases the cost for feeding the power into a
grid (orreversely drawing electricity from a grid) may exceed all other cost. A link-up to a public
grid even may be economically impossible in remote areas.
This paper exclusively deals with small horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWT) for grid-
independent or small smart grid systems, Figure 1. Obviously, the current and future demand
provides enough support to sustain a significant number of manufacturers. In highly
industrialized areas of the world, advanced methods allow manufacturing at high levels of
quality and even mass production, whereas in other parts of the world simple manufacturing
techniques are necessary, Figure 2. In the past ill-conceived small wind turbines have damaged
the reputation for such machines. Today standards and testing institutions increasingly
provide consumers with realistic and comparable performance ratings of competing products.
Examples are the British small wind turbine standard [2], the German annual market survey on
small wind turbines [3] and the Austrian small turbine test field Energie-For Schungspark
Lichtenegg [4]. On the other hand, not all small turbine manufacturers, especially the small
batch producers, may have access to the engineering capacity to design an efficientturbine.
A number of studies have been undertaken on wind turbines focusing on structural
analysis, rotordynamics and optimization of the shape of wind turbines. Yuan chang Chen et al.
[19,20] and Wel Chen et al. [21], recently studied and reported extensively on the dynamics of
the blade rotor and blade modeling. Many computational approaches have also found
applications in aerodynamic design of wind turbines such as computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD), Wake Method and Blade Momentum (BEM) theory. BEM theory is widely used in
aerodynamic design of wind turbines due to its simplicity and accuracy [26]. With blade
optimization, power coefficient close to Betz limit of 59.2% can be realized with wind turbines.
On aerodynamics performance optimization, a number of studies are reported in the
literature [22–24]. Ceyhan [22] undertook a study on the aerodynamic performance
optimization of horizontal axis wind turbine blades using the BEM theory and genetic
Algorithm. In the study, the chord and twist distribution were the key variables during the
design and were optimized for optimum power production. Using differential evolution
method, Clifton- Smith and wood [23], undertook a
research with the aim of maximizing power coefficient and minimizing the starting time of small wind
turbines blades. Liu et al. [24], developed an optimization method for wind turbines blades in order to
maximize the annual energy output. A 7.5% increase in the annual energy output was realized in the
study. Meng-Hsien [25], undertook a different study both numerically and experimentally on a small
wind turbine blade, where one blade was designed using the BEM theory and the other was non-twisted
blade. It was found out that the blade designed with BEM theory had higher coefficient of performance
compared to the non-twisted blade.
Most wind turbines optimizations are conducted for wind turbines working in on design
conditions. Wind turbines are exposed to different working conditions. In addition, matching the
electric generator to the turbine performance characteristics curves is fundamental in ensuring the
components are protected against extreme design effects.

Figure 1. Examples of micro and small wind turbines in the Netherlands.

Figure 2. Examples of small batch turbine manufacturing; left: rural workshop in Kenya,
middle: wooden blade carved with the help of a grid of drill holes of precise depth
(requiring a standard carpenter’s workshop only); right: CNC-milled mold for a carbon
fiber composite manual blade manufacture in Germany.

Hence, the objective of the paper is to report a procedure for designing blades for small HAWTs.
The turbine rotor with these blades should yield a shaft power as close as possible to theoretical
maximum and match best to a given electric generator. The underlying theory is an advanced version
of the well-established blade-element-momentum (BEM) theory, encoded in our own in-house
MATLAB™ code deapWind1 and validated extensively Kaufmann [5]. Eventually, as an exemplary
case study, this paper describes the design of a small generator/battery charger with a 1 m diameter
turbine rotor. Starting point is a one-year histogram of measured wind speed at the candidate site at
Dedan Kimathi University of Technology in rural central Kenya. Upon design and manufacturing, a
concluding wind tunnel experiment demonstrates how well the methodology works.

2. Design and performance calculation procedure

The turbine design methodology comprises three fundamental steps: (i) The design of the HAWT
rotor, especially its profiled and twisted blades, (ii) the prediction of its performance characteristics in
terms of shaft power, shaft torque and axial thrust force on the complete rotor, (iii) the overall power
produced when “loaded” by the torque from the electric generator. Upon this last steps, it is
straightforward to determine the overall electric power output for a given—say annual—wind speed
histogram. Eventually, measures to achieve low cut-in wind speed and switch-off features for high
winds have to be designed. The latter steps are out of the scope of this paper.

2.1. Aerodynamic design of rotor blades

The blade design is based on the standard GLAUERT/SCHMITZ blade element momentum (BEM)
theory as described for instance Gasch and Twele [6] or Gerhard et al. [7]). It is summarized only
briefly; some more details are presented in the following section. The turbine design process starts
with the specification of:
• the design wind speed far upstream of the turbine c0,design,
• the design rotor diameter Dtip (= 2rtip),
• the density of the air , the turbine will operate with, and
• the design tip speed ratio design, of the turbine
utip  Dtipn (1)
de s ign  =
c 0,design c 0,design

with the circumferential velocity of the blade tip due to its rotation utip and the rotor speed n.
Essentially, c0,design and Dtip determine the power harvested by the turbine, and design, its rotational
speed for a given c0,design. Each blade is thought as a number of blade elements (BE) with a small radial
size r, stacked from root to tip, Figure 3 left. The BEs in a coaxial strip form themselves into an elementary
blade cascade (CA). The most relevant geometrical parameters of each local BE are, Figure 3 right,
• the chord length, l,
• the pitch angle, ,
• the angular distance, t, between two circumferentially adjacent BE’s,
• the number of blades, B, and
• the solidity, , of the CA
 𝑙
 = 𝑙 (2)
t 2r B

Figure 4 left shows schematically a wind turbine with a boundary stream tube. The free stream
wind speed far upstream, c0 is decelerated to c3 far down stream in the wake. c3 comprises a
circumferential velocity component cu3 (i.e., the swirl) and an axial (= meridional) cm3. The spatially
averaged velocities at the entrance and exit plane of a CA are depicted in Figure 4 right. c’s indicates
absolute frame of reference, w’s rotating frame of reference flow velocities; u is the circumferential
velocity of the CA due to the rotation of the rotor. Again, c2 comprises a circumferential and a
meridional velocity component cu2 and cm2, respectively. Instead of carrying on with dimensional
quantities, the standard GLAUERT/SCHMITZ theory deals with the non-dimensional axial and
tangential induction factors
cm 1 cu 2
a 1− with c = c = c and a' − . (3a, b)
m 1 m2
c0 2 u

Figure 3. Left: Segmentation of a turbine rotor into coaxial strips; right: Elementary blade
cascade (CA).

For maximum power extraction from the wind the classic BETZ theory [8] requires
1
c = (c +c ) (4)
m 0 m3
2

which is assumed to hold true, also within the GLAUERT/SCHMITZ theory. The outcome of the
combined application of the axial and angular momentum conservation are design values of a and a'
or in other words, the kinematics of the flow, each local BE ensures in order to provide maximum
power output at a specified design wind speed, c0, design. The design values of a and a' are depicted in
Figure 5. They are functions of the relative radial position r/rtip and design of each BE considered.
 Figure 4. Left: Wind turbine rotor in boundary stream tube; right: Velocity triangles at the
rotor entrance and exit planes; the dashed black line indicates the blade profile mean line.

0.7
adesign
0.6
a'design

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-1 0 1
10 10 10
r/rtip* design

Figure 5. Design induction factors for maximum power (GLAUERT/SCHMITZ theory).

The effect of any flow deflecting elementary blade cascade CA is attributed to lift and drag forces
L and D from all BE’s in the CA which are considered to be isolated infinite span airfoil sections
aligned to the free stream incoming flow velocity w with an angle of attack , Figure 6 left. Key


parameters of an airfoil sections are its lift coefficient CL and its drag/lift ratio , defined as
L C
CL  1 ,   CD with D (5a, b, c)
C  1 w 2  r .
D
w 2 𝑙  r L

2 𝑙
2

The airfoil shape is chosen by the designer, who also has to identify the CL () and CD () from
wind tunnel data or other sources. The inflow velocity to each BE corresponds to the vector mean of
the inlet and outlet relative velocities w1 and w2; its magnitude is

2
1  r 
w = + (2u − cu 2 ) = c0 (1− a ) + (1+ a ' )
2 2
 design 
2

2
2
4cm,1 design design
r 
(6)
 tip 

and the flow angle

  2cm,1   1 − adesign rtip 1 
  = arctan   = arctan  (7)
2u − c 1+ a ' r  
 u2   design design 

Eventually, this results in the solidity of each elementary blade cascade CA.

Figure 6. Left: Lift and drag force on an 2D airfoil section in a wind tunnel—aligned to
mean flow direction with an angle of attack, ; middle: Transformation of the 2D airfoil
section into a BE; right: Aerodynamic force components on a BE.

r
4a ' 
 r design tip D
design   = r . (8)
 rtip   r 1+ a '  2
 1+ a 'design   r 
2

CL,D (1− adesign )1− design  design 1+  design

  r 
  
D
 rtip 1− a design 
1− a design tip 

and the pitch angle

 design =  − design . (9)

In our implementation the public domain software XFOIL (Drela, [9,10]) is integrated, which
yields the airfoil lift and drag coefficients as a function of the chosen airfoil shape, angle of attack and
the Reynolds number
w 𝑙
Re = , (10)

 being the kinematic viscosity of the air.
Finally, the geometrical parameters design, hence l for the chosen number B of rotor blades, and
design are sufficient to draw the blades and the complete rotor.

2.2. Prediction of aerodynamic rotor performance

The goal of this analysis is the aerodynamic performance of the rotor with its geometry as found
in the previous section. Among others the shaft power, the shaft torque and the axial thrust the rotor
experiences due to the incoming wind are most relevant. These quantities are not only of interest at its
design point design, but also at all off-design operating points (i.e., at arbitrary values of    D n c ) — tip 0

preferably in terms of the non-dimensional power, torque and thrust coefficients

PS
CP  ,C M
  S  = CP  and F (11a, b, c)
   CT    ax 2
2 3 M
3 2  2

D c D c   Dc
tip 0 tip 0 tip 0
2 4 28 2 4

CP (), CM () and CT () are the non-dimensional performance characteristics of the turbine.
The method chosen for estimating the performance characteristics is again based on the blade
element momentum (BEM) theory, although refined for reasons of accuracy. In contrast to the design
method, the flow velocities, or synonymously a and a', and the angle of attack, , hence lift and drag
at each BE need to be computed for arbitrary values of . For the sake of completeness, some more
steps, which have been omitted in section 2.1 are presented in this section. Full details can be found in
Kaufmann [5].
Starting point is the conservation of axial momentum applied to the fluid in a coaxial strip
from 0 to 3 as in Figure 4 left. It yields the axial force acting on the elementary blade cascade CA

 Fax,CA = ( c0 − cm3 )  m . (12)

The mass flow rate through the CA is

 m =  cm1 A = cm1 2 r r . (13)

The theoretical shaft power is obtained via EULER's turbine equation (i.e., conservation of angular
momentum, friction ignored) as
 Pth ,CA = u ( cu 2 − cu1 )  m

Eventually, with the definitions of the induction factors Eq (3a,b), the CA thrust and power coefficients
become;
 Fax,CA
CT ,CA  = 4a (1− a) (14a)
 02c rr

and

 Pth,CA = 4a ' 1 − a  r 
2

CP,th,CA  ( )  , (14b)
c30r r  rtip 

respectively. For any given value of , the two Eq (14a,b) bear the four unknown quantities CT,CA,
CP,th,CA, a and a'. Additional equations are obtained by considering each CA as a set of isolated BE’s
experiencing a lift and a drag force. Referring to Figure 6 right the force components on one BE in the
CA are
1
F = w2 (C cos  + C sin  ) 𝑙 r (15a)
BE ,ax  L  D 
2

and
 1
F =  w2 ( C sin  − C cos  ) 𝑙 r . (15b)
BE ,u  L  D 
2

Eventually, the local thrust and power coefficient of the complete CA (consisting of B BE’s) are
obtained as
B𝑙r  
2
 B F   r 
 (1 + a ') ( C cos  + C sin  )

2
 (16a)
CT ,CA    =
ax,BE tip 
(1− a) +
2
r
 c20rr  2 r   L  D 
 tip  
rtip

and
 B P  B𝑙r  
2
 r  r
CP,CA    ( )  ( CL cos   − CD sin   ) 
2
= tip 
 ( − ) 2
+  1 + a ' , (16b)
BE
 r 1 a 
 c0rr  2
3  rtip  rtip
 
rtip

respectively. Eventually, equating CT,CA from Eq (14a) and (16a) and CP,th,CA = CP,CA from Eq (14b)
and (16b) yields two non-linear equations for the two unknowns a and a' for any  considered:
B𝑙r  
2
 r 
4a (1− a ) = tip 
( )  ( )  ( C L cos   + C D sin  )
 (17a)
2 2
r  1 − a +  rtip  1 + a '
2
 
rtip

 r  B𝑙r  
2
 r 
tip 
4a ' (1 − a )    = ( ) (1 + a ' )  ( C L cos   − C D sin   ) 
2 2
1 − a +    (17b)
 rtip  2   rtip  
 

So far the analysis refers to one CA at r/rtip. The overall turbine thrust and power coefficients, i.e., the
targeted characteristics of the complete rotor, are obtained by summation over all CA’s:
CT ,CA (
   ) 2  r r
Fax ( )  
CT ( ) 1 D2  = all CA's
 Dtip2 (18a)
c2  tip
 
 2 0 4  4

CP,CA (
   ) 2 r r
Pth ( )  
CP,th ( )  1 D2  = all CA's
 Dtip2 (18b)

c3  tip 
 2 4 
0
4

A number of supplementary semi-empirical models are required to take into account effects that
had been neglected so far. For instance, friction was partly excluded resulting in a theoretical CP,th. or:
At the blade tip a radial flow component develops causing a tip vortex. And the root region of the blade
in the vicinity of the hub is affected by vortex type secondary flows.
A customary model for the flow in the blade root and tip region is due to BETZ/PRANDTL and
Glauert [11] (see e.g., a summary in Sorensen [12], Gasch and Twele [6], Moriaty and Hansen [13]).
The thrust and power coefficients derived from momentum conservation (Eq (15a,b)) are modified by
a factor F1 that gradually reduces the axial and tangential forces from those CA’s which are located
close to the blade tip and the hub:

CT ,CA = F1  4a (1 − a ) (19a)
 2
 r 
CP,th,CA = F1  4a '(1− a)   (19b)
r
 tip 

with
  r  
4 B 1 − rtip   r rhub
rtip − rtip


F1 = arccos  exp   arccos exp  B


 (20)
 2
2 r sin   2 r
sin 
 
      
  rtip    rtip 

Since the flow “leaks” around the blade tip from pressure to suction side, lift and drag of airfoil
sections in the tip region are different from what the infinite span polar data suggest. Shen et al.
proposed in [14] a correction

  r 
  B 1−
(
arccos exp  − exp (−0.125(B − 21)) + 0.1 ) r  
tip
2
F2 = (21)
   2 sin  


  
  

that is incorporated into Eq (17a,b):

B𝑙  
2
 
C =  (1 − a )2 +  r   (1 + a ' )2   F  ( C cos  + C sin  ) (22a)
2 r  r   
 2
T ,CA L D

  tip  

B𝑙  
2
 
C =  (1 − a )2 +  r   (1 + a ' )2   F  ( C cos  − C sin  ) r  (22b)
2 r  r   
 2
P,CA D
L rtip
  tip  

In practice, as the axial induction factor a exceeds a critical value acrit ≈ 1/3, complicated flow
patterns result in much larger thrust coefficients as compared to the prediction by the basic BEM.
Hence, Eq (14a) is replaced according to Buhl [15] by;
8  40   50  for a ≥ 0.4. (23)
C = + 4F − a+ − 4F a2
T ,CA
9  1
9   9 1
   

As in the design part, the polar data of the infinite span airfoil sections are obtained via XFOIL.
Post stall data, however, are obtained from Viterna et al. [16].
Some literature suggests solving the non-linear Eq (18a,b) with all their hidden supplementary
model equations for a and a' explicitly (see e.g., the textbooks of Hansen [17] or Sørensen [12]). Since
the authors encountered stability problems, an implicit scheme was set up [5]. It is encoded in our own
inhouse MATLAB code, deapWind, which turned out to be very stable and reliable.

2.3. Converting non-dimensional into dimensional performance characteristics

Once the non-dimensional performance characteristics are known, it is trivial converting them
into dimensional:
 
n =
c0
, P (n ) = C (n )  D2 c 3 M (n ) = C (n )  D3 c 2 , F ( n ) = C ( n )    D2 c 2 (24a, b, c, d)
 Dtip
S P tip 0 S M tip 0 ax T tip 0
2 4 2 8 2 4
 It is worth noting that the value of Re stays the same only, if the size of the turbine Dtip is preserved
and c0 equals the design wind speed c0,design. If the dimensional performance curves are required for
other than the original design parameters, for instance for various wind speeds c0, two options are
possible: Either eqs. (24a,b,c,d) are used neglecting the effect of Re, or running the performance
prediction scheme as described in section 2.2 for each c0. The first option is faster and often sufficient
for most practical purposes.