Original Article

Proc IMechE Part A:

J Power and Energy
A numerical study of blade thickness 226(7) 867–881
! IMechE 2012

and camber effects on vertical axis Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

wind turbines DOI: 10.1177/0957650912454403

pia.sagepub.com

Louis Angelo Danao1,2, Ning Qin1 and Robert Howell1

Abstract
This article presents the results of a two-dimensional computational study into the effects of rotor blade thickness
and camber on the performance of a 5 kW scale vertical axis wind turbine. Validation is provided by reference to
experimental data for a pitching aerofoil with dynamic stall phenomenon. The performance of the turbine is mapped out
for a variety of different tip speed ratios and detailed investigations are presented to determine how and, most import-
antly, why the turbine performance varies with thickness and camber as it does. The rotor blades chosen were the
NACA0012, NACA0022, NACA5522 and LS0421. The turbine rotor has a diameter of d ¼ 3.1 m with a blade chord
length of c ¼ 0.18 m. Over the range of tip speed ratios examined, the NACA0012 profile performed with the highest
overall performance of 50% at  ¼ 3.5. Slightly cambered aerofoils (such as the LS0421) can improve the overall
performance of the vertical axis wind turbine, whereas a camber of 5% (NACA5522) results in unfavourable perform-
ance. Of the cambered blades tested, the LS0421 performs the best with maximum CP of 0.40 at  ¼ 3.5. A camber along
the blade path causes the blades to generate higher values of torque in both the upwind and the downwind regions.
It was also determined that inverted cambered profiles produce power mostly in the upwind region.

Keywords
Vertical axis wind turbine, computational fluid dynamics, unsteady, thickness, camber

Date received: 1 February 2012; accepted: 11 June 2012

Introduction
Wind energy is becoming an increasingly important
sustainable energy source. This is mainly due to
changes in national and international energy policies
in response to climate change. Many of the large-scale
commercial wind farms have been built in the UK
(including the largest off-shore wind farm) and electri-
city generation from wind now exceeds 5 GW installed
capacity with a further 9.5 GW in application. The UK
Government had ambitious targets under the Kyoto
Protocol for renewable energy generation of 10% of
UK consumption by 2010. Although this target was
not achieved, 2.5% of the UK’s power generation
came from wind energy in 2009.1
The vast majority of installed wind power solutions
are horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWTs). However,
there may be advantages for using vertical axis wind
turbine (VAWT) machines which include them not
having to yaw into the wind and lower production
costs as the blades can be of constant profile along the
span (H-type). While horizontal axis machines
are highly developed, the understanding of VAWTs is
lacking. Much of the research on VAWT design was
carried out as long ago as the late 1970s and early
1980s, notably at the US Department of Energy
Sandia National Laboratories2–5 and in the UK by
Reading University, and Sir Robert McAlpine and
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of the Philippines,
Philippines
Corresponding author:
Louis Angelo Danao, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University
of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK.
Email: louis.danao@sheffield.ac.uk
868 Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 226(7)

Sons Ltd (through their subsidy VAWT Ltd) who stall, which is also the key aerodynamic phenomenon for
erected several prototypes including a 500 kW version VAWTs relating to performance.
at Carmarthen Bay.6 However, when it became accepted
that HAWTs were more efficient at these large scales,
VAWT kinematics
interest in VAWT designs waned and HAWTs have
since dominated the market. Little research can be One blade of the VAWT is shown in Figure 1(a). As the
found in the last couple of decades on VAWTs, but VAWT rotates with an angular velocity
in a flow of
analysis tools have improved immeasurably since then. wind speed U1, the velocity of the wind relative to the
Fundamental studies relating flow physics and perform- blade changes and is given by
ance are lacking in the literature and significant work is
required to determine the true potential of VAWTs. * * *
W ¼ U1 þ V ð1Þ
For example, it has never been conclusively shown
that HAWTs are fundamentally more aerodynamically *
efficient than VAWTs. It is often stated that there are where V ¼ 
r and r is the radius of the VAWT.
some advantages of VAWTs over HAWTs but again, This velocity fluctuates from a maximum of
nothing has ever been proven. It has been suggested ( þ 1)U1 to a minimum of (  1)U1, where  is the
that VAWTs may be more appropriate than HAWTs tip speed ratio. At the same time, the angle of attack 
at very large scale (10 MWþ) due to the alternating also varies periodically between the positive and nega-
gravitational loading on a HAWT blade becoming tive values. The magnitudes of the relative velocity and
excessive. the angle of attack are given by
Considerable improvements in the understanding
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
of VAWTs can be achieved through the use of W ¼ U1 1 þ 2 cos  þ 2 ð2Þ
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and experimental
 
measurements. However, in many circumstances, 1 sin 
experimental data are not available due to the cost and  ¼ tan ð3Þ
 þ cos 
complexity of creating different models for testing. For
this reason, computational modelling is used in this art- where  is the azimuth angle and is measured from the
icle to show how the performance of VAWTs changes vertical Y-axis in the anti-clockwise direction.
with the thickness of rotor blade profiles and camber. An interesting feature in the variation of the angle of
In order to validate the CFD study, a valuable set of attack is that it closely resembles a sine wave, as shown
pitching aerofoil experimental data were used to com- in Figure 1(b). This perceived variation is relative to a
pare various turbulence models for flow with dynamic reference frame attached to the rotating VAWT with its

Figure 1. VAWT fundamentals: (a) forces and velocities on a blade; (b) angle of attack  variation as a function of azimuth angle  at
 ¼ 2.
Danao et al.
origin at the VAWT axis. As the tip speed ratio 
increases, the skewness of the  variation becomes
less and the profile comes closer to the sine wave
(zero skew).
Simulation methodology
Model geometry
The two-dimensional (2D) VAWT used in this study is
a representation of a typical 5 kW VAWT available in
the market. This VAWT model is a three straight-blade
H-type model, similar to the previous studies at the
University of Sheffield7,8 The computational domain
(Figure 2(a)) is such that the boundaries are sufficiently
far from the rotor to minimise boundary effects such as
insufficient wake development and blockage conditions.
The rotor has a diameter of d ¼ 3.1 m with a blade
chord length of c ¼ 0.18 m. The upwind and side
Figure 2. Details of the 2D CFD model for a single VAWT blade: (a) computational domain; (b) leading edge mesh; (c) blade mesh;
and (d) periodic convergence of moment coefficient.
869
boundaries are equivalent to 5d from the VAWT
axis while the downwind boundary is 10d away.
The domain is composed of one stationary, outer
sub-domain and one rotating, inner sub-domain. The
interface between the two sub-domains is 5c from
the VAWT blades.
The mesh around the blade is made up of a struc-
tured boundary layer mesh and a fully unstructured
mesh beyond (Figure 2(b)). The height of the first cell
is 2  105 m which gives an average of the yþ values
from the flow solutions of around 1 with a maximum
not exceeding 5. Equally spaced grid points are placed
around the aerofoil and a structured boundary layer
mesh with 25 layers (about 1%c) is inflated from the
blade surface with a growth rate of 1.05. The fully
unstructured mesh is grown from the structured bound-
ary layer mesh with a growth rate of 1.1 (Figure 2(c))
and a maximum edge length of ½c in the rotating sub-
domain. The total number of cells for the entire model
is approximately 230,000, including the rotating zone
870
around the blades and the far-field stationary domain.
The mesh resolution is much finer than previous work
done at the University of Sheffield7,8 in order to better
resolve the dynamically stalled flow around the blade
aerofoil.
Grid independence was checked by successively
refining surface parallel mesh dimensions until
negligible changes in the torque coefficient were
observed. It has been determined that 1500 equally
spaced nodes on the blade surface is the level at
which grid independence is attained. This is comparable
to the density of nodes from Consul et al.9 and is coar-
ser than that of Ferreira et al.10 It is fair to comment
that having 1500 points is somewhat large. However,
the use of equal spacing leads to such a high number to
satisfy density requirements in the leading edge and the
trailing edge areas. Maximum edge length for the
unstructured grid was also checked and the most
reasonably accurate setting was used. Growth rates
for both structured boundary layer and unstructured
mesh were kept constant throughout.
Numerical set-up
Ansys Fluent 6.3 was used for the numerical computa-
tions of the study. Simulations conducted represent flow
conditions of a constant inflow of 5 m/s with free-stream
turbulence intensity Tu ¼ 0.1% and free-stream turbu-
lence length scale l ¼ 0.01 m. In Fluent, a fully unsteady,
segregated solver was selected and all spatial discretisa-
tion terms were set to second order to accurately capture
the unsteady flow behaviour. The numerical time-step
size was set to an equivalent of ½ rotation of the
VAWT. Simulations were allowed to run until periodic
convergence was observed in the predicted moment coef-
ficients. This was seen to take place after five full rota-
tions of the VAWT (Figure 2(d)).
Time-step convergence was determined when the
residuals fell below 1  104 and a residual drop of at
least two orders of magnitude in each time step for
all conserved variables. Verification of time-step size
and convergence criteria acceptability necessitated a
Figure 3. Blade profiles used in the study: (a) NACA0012; (b) NACA0022; (c) NACA5522; (d) inverted NACA5522; (e) LS0421; and
(f) inverted LS0421.
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 226(7)
sensitivity analysis to be performed. Both time-step
size and convergence criteria were successively refined
independently until negligible changes in torque coeffi-
cient were observed.
Blade geometry
Symmetric profiles used in the simulations were the
NACA0012 and NACA0022 while cambered profiles
used were NACA5522 and LS0421 (NACA, National
Advisory Committee on Aeronautics; LS, low-speed
aerofoil series). Both positive and negative cambers
were considered and the blade profiles can be seen in
Figure 3.
Validation of turbulence model
To properly select the appropriate turbulence model for
the problem, a pitching aerofoil study was conducted
for validation. Experiments done by Lee and
Gerontakos11 on a pitching NACA0012 provided the
dynamic data of the lift, drag and moment coefficients,
and streamline plots required for both force and
flow validations. The blade has a chord length of
c ¼ 0.15 m and executes a sinusoidal pitching motion
of about 0.25c with a mean angle of attack of 10 , a
pitching magnitude of 15 and a reduced frequency
of  ¼ 0.1. The free-stream wind velocity is 13 m/s
with turbulence intensity of 0.08% corresponding to a
Reynolds number based on chord of around
Rec ¼ 1.35  105.
It should be noted that the pitching motion does not
fully capture the actual flow around a VAWT blade
since there is also a varying incoming velocity magni-
tude aspect around a VAWT blade that is not present
in an aerofoil pitching about a fixed point. The rates of
change in the angle of attack are also different which
can lead to a different flow behaviour between the two.
Regardless of this, it is believed that the dynamic inter-
actions of a pitching aerofoil with a moving fluid are
the closest possible validation case available (due to the
Danao et al.
lack of detailed VAWT experimental data) with the
flow closely matching that of a moving VAWT blade
in as far as lift and stall are concerned. This is by far a
better method compared to static aerofoil validation
because of the dynamic stall being similar. Another
point that supports the use of this method is that the
variation of the angle of attack, as seen by a VAWT
blade without velocity induction, closely resembles a
sine wave albeit skewed. The authors believe that this
similarity would result in similar flow behaviour and
dynamic stall characteristics in the sense of testing tur-
bulence modelling.
A fully structured O-grid was used for the simula-
tions. The aerofoil grid comprises 1500 nodes over the
surface with a first cell height of 2  105 m ensuring a
yþ & 1. The cells expand from the wall at a growth rate
of 1.1. The boundary of the domain was set to 20c from
the aerofoil. The total model size is approximately
275,000 cells. The pitching motion was controlled by
means of a user-defined function that prescribes the
angular velocity of the entire domain to match the
angular position dictated by the sine wave function
 ¼ O þ A sin(!t), where O ¼ 10 , A ¼ 15 and
! ¼ 17.33 rad/s. A time-step size of t ¼ 0.001154 s
(equivalent to 0.1c/U1) was used.
Different models were tested to find the most appro-
priate turbulence model for this study. The one-equation
Spalart–Allmaras (S–A) model, and the two-equation
renormalisation group (RNG) k–" and shear stress
transport (SST) k–! models were selected for the
study, all with low Reynolds (LR) number capabilities.
The S–A model automatically detects LR option if the
mesh is resolved fine enough down to the wall.12 For the
RNG k–" and SST k–! models, LR effects through vis-
cous damping are enabled to account for LR modelling
in the near-wall region. Runs were also conducted with-
out enabling the LR options for models RNG k–" and
SST k–! to check if not having LR capabilities can
impose significant differences on the predicted flow fea-
tures and force estimates.
For this validation study, the initial mesh was con-
structed following the description mentioned earlier. In
order to confirm grid independence, a second and third
mesh were constructed with twice and half the resolution
in the wall and wall-normal directions. It was deter-
mined that the initial mesh was independent as the
results compared to the finer mesh showed negligible
difference in lift coefficient predictions. However, when
compared to the coarser mesh, significant differences in
the results were observed. All cases were run until full
periodic convergence and it was observed that this hap-
pened after just two oscillation cycles. Time-step conver-
gence was based on a residual drop to 1  106 and a
drop of at least three orders of magnitude in each time
step.
871
Force predictions
Figure 4(a) and (b) shows the lift coefficient loops
versus the angle of attack for different turbulence
models. The static and dynamic experimental results
are plotted for comparison. It can be observed that in
the upstroke, almost all the turbulence models accur-
ately predict lift with the exception of the LR SST k–!
model. There is some oscillation in the lift that the LR
SST k–! model predicts that is seen as the aerofoil
pitches upward, which is not present in the experimen-
tal results. Maximum lift is not captured by the RNG
k–" and LR SST k–! models as they prematurely lose
lift and proceed to drop even before reaching the max-
imum angle of attack. It is necessary to capture the
maximum lift because this has a significant effect on
the overall performance of the VAWT.
In the downstroke, all models under predict the lift
with the SST k–! model being the closest to the experi-
ment results and the S–A being the farthest away.
Overall, the most accurate model is the SST k–!
model as far as lift is concerned. As mentioned previ-
ously, the LR RNG k–" model was also tested but
results are not presented because they almost exactly
match the results of the fully turbulent RNG k–"
model.
Figure 4(c) and (d) shows the drag and moment
coefficient loops for the SST k–!. The drag is slightly
over predicted by the SST k–! model at  ¼ 25 versus
experiment results. The pitching moment is closely
calculated by the SST k–! model with an exception in
the region close to the maximum angle of attack as the
computed maximum moment coefficient is more than
double that of the experiment results. Again, the SST
k–! model is the best candidate for the turbulence
model with the best agreement to experiment results
for this pitching aerofoil case.
Flow predictions
The good agreement in the force predictions of the SST
k–! model necessitates further investigation. The flow
physics was checked to establish its suitability to
VAWT simulation. Boundary layer snapshots of the
pitching aerofoil at different stages are presented in
Figure 5. Both numerical results from this study and
the corresponding experimental results from Lee and
Gerontakos11 are shown. At angles of attack of less
than 11 (not shown) in the upstroke, flow is still
fully attached. Afterwards, flow reversal starts to
spread from the trailing edge upward. It is not apparent
in both Figure 5(a) and (f) but a closer inspection at the
trailing edge for  ¼ 16.75 " indicates reversed
flow already creeping up towards the leading edge
(Figure 5(k)). This is consistent with observations
872
from the experiment as mentioned in Lee and
Gerontakos.11 After the flow reversal phenomenon
that precedes dynamic stall, the formation of a separ-
ation bubble in the leading edge is observed (Figure
5(b)). This separation bubble rapidly grows and even-
tually evolves into the dynamic stall vortex that is con-
vected downstream (Figure 5(c) and (d)) until it is
detached from the aerofoil surface after which sepa-
rated flow (Figure 5(e)) is observed to persist until
reattachment. The numerical results accurately capture
the development of the dynamic stall vortex, as can be
seen in Figure 5(f) to (j). This is a strong indication that
the SST k–! model is appropriate because the dynamic
stall phenomenon is properly captured.
Based on the results obtained in this validation
study, it is established that the SST k–! is the better
turbulence model that satisfactorily predicts not only
the forces acting on the pitching aerofoil but also the
physics of flow that accompanies it. This verifies the
validity on the use of the SST k–! model as an appro-
priate turbulence model for dynamic flow simulation
that is required of an aerofoil in VAWT motion. This
has been one of the most comprehensive validation
studies done for a VAWT as both dynamic force and
flow predictions are compared against experiments.
Figure 4. Force coefficient loops for the pitching aerofoil: (a) lift coefficient loops for SST k–! and S–A; (b) lift coefficient loops for
RNG k–" and LR SST k–!; (c) drag coefficient loop for SST k–!; and (d) moment coefficient loop for SST k–!.
S–A: Spalart–Allmaras; RNG: renormalisation group; LR: low Reynolds; and SST: shear stress transport.
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 226(7)
Results
After the validation of the turbulence models, a wide
range of  was tested for all blade profiles to capture
the power coefficient (CP) curves that depict a good
picture of VAWT performance. Figure 6(a) shows the
CP curves for the symmetric aerofoil cases. The
NACA0012 performs best at  ¼ 3–4 with maximum
CP of 0.50 at  ¼ 3.5. Figure 6(b) shows the moment
coefficient plots of one blade for both profiles at
 ¼ 3.5. Between the two, the thinner blade produces
more torque in the upwind  ¼ 0 to 180 , while there
is not much difference in torque produced in the down-
wind  ¼ 180 to 360 .
For all the blade profiles, maximum torque is
achieved at close to  ¼ 90 with  ¼ 3.5. Also, the
kink in the torque ripple at  ¼ 270 is indication of
the blade’s interaction with the wake of the VAWT
post which slightly reduces the torque generated. The
general behaviour of the torque ripple as a blade goes
one full rotation is that of the high torque generated in
the upwind due to unperturbed, incident wind hitting
the blade, and comparatively poor downwind perform-
ance dictated by reduced incident wind velocity as well
as blade–wake interactions.
Danao et al. 873

symmetric NACA profiles were tested, namely

Stalling of symmetric aerofoils NACA0012 and NACA0022. Force coefficients on a
In order to examine the effects of blade thickness on the single blade of the VAWT were extracted from the simu-
stalling behaviour and performance of the VAWT, two lations to aid in the analysis. Instead of using standard

Figure 5. Visualisations for different angles of attack from Lee and Gerontakos:11 (a) 16.75 "; (b) 21.9 "; (c) 22.4 "; (d) 24.7 "; (e)
14.1 #; (f) to (j) are numerical results for SST k–! corresponding to a to e with contours of vorticity superimposed (arrows indicate
the direction of aerofoil travel). (k) flow reversal near trailing edge,  ¼ 16.75 ".
874
aerodynamic definitions of the different dimensionless
coefficients, more appropriate expressions were adopted
for lift, drag and moment coefficients and are as follows
L D M Healy13 where his model predicts thicker aerofoils to
Cl ¼ 1 2
, Cd ¼ 1 2 , Cm ¼ 1 2
2 V c 2 V c 2 V cr
where V is the blade linear velocity as defined in the
‘VAWT kinematics’ section, c the blade chord and r the
rotor radius. The use of blade linear velocity instead of
the relative velocity in the definition of the dynamic
pressure is intentional. For a VAWT blade, the relative
velocity is constantly changing in both magnitude and
incidence. To facilitate the comparison of the force
coefficients between different aerofoil profiles, the use
of a constant reference velocity is preferred. Between
the aerofoils tested, the NACA0012 performs better
with a good power coefficient across a wide range of
tip speed ratios. Figure 6(c) shows the pressure coeffi-
cient on the blade surface for the two symmetric blades
at  ¼ 90 and  ¼ 3.5. It can be seen that the
NACA0012 experiences greater pressure difference
between the suction side and the pressure side of the
blade. Both blades will see the same geometric angle of
attack and so the NACA0012 generates greater lift.
Figure 6. Symmetric aerofoil performance plots: (a) power coefficient curves; (b) moment coefficient plot for one full rotation of a
single blade,  ¼ 3.5; (c) pressure coefficient plots at  ¼ 90 ,  ¼ 3.5; and (d) moment coefficient plots at  ¼ 2.5.
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 226(7)
This is consistent to the moment coefficient plot
(Figure 6(b)) where the NACA0012 clearly operates
better even over the entire rotation versus the thicker
NACA0022. This contradicts the study performed by
ð4Þ perform better than thinner ones. But it is important
to point out that Healy’s model is based on the multi-
ple-streamtube model that does not account for blade–
wake interactions in the downwind region and uses
static aerofoil data from Jacobs and Sherman14 for per-
formance prediction.
To understand why the thinner NACA0012 blade
performs better, the details of the performance of the
two blades as they go around one full rotation was
investigated. In the upwind, the NACA0012 generates
the highest torque and reaches maximum at around
 ¼ 90 . This is true for both  ¼ 2.5 (Figure 6(d)) and
 ¼ 3.5 (Figure 6(b)). Low  present highly unsteady
performance characteristics and flow features. In the
second half of the upwind at  ¼ 2.5, the blade is stalled
and vortices are constantly shed over time. As the blade
passes downwind between  ¼ 180 and 240 , the torque
curve of the NACA0012 has a peak lower than that of
the NACA0022 (Figure 6(b)). This could be the effect
of the blade’s interaction with the large vortices that
were generated by other blades in the previous quarter
Danao et al. 875

of rotation (Figure 7(a) to (d)). At  ¼ 210 , the
NACA0012 experiences separated flow, thereby losing
lift. Drag is significantly higher for this part of the
NACA0012’s rotation as well. Going past  ¼ 270 ,
the flow over the NACA0012 reattaches and positive
torque is produced until the end of its rotation at
 ¼ 360 .
A slightly different torque ripple is observed with the
thicker NACA0022. Again, the vortices released from
the second quarter of rotation of other two blades affect

Figure 7. Contours of vorticity at different blade positions for  ¼ 2.5.

Numbers 1–3 correspond to the three blades of the VAWT.
876 Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 226(7)

Figure 8. Aerodynamic performance plots: (a) lift coefficient loop for NACA0012 in one full rotation; (b) drag coefficient loop for
NACA0012 in one full rotation; (c) power coefficient curves for cambered blade profiles; (d) moment coefficient plots of cambered
blades,  ¼ 2.5; (e) lift coefficient loop for the LS0421 and inverted LS0421 profile,  ¼ 2.5; and (f) drag coefficient loop for the LS0421
and inverted LS0421 profile,  ¼ 2.5.
NACA: National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics; LS, low-speed aerofoil series.

the performance of the current blade passing the third
quarter of rotation of the VAWT. But the difference
from the thinner NACA0012 is that the vortices are
smaller and are dissipated faster. It can be seen from
Figure 7(e) to (h) that the NACA0022 blade interacts
with fewer vortices. Also, the flow is attached to the
blade at  ¼ 210 , providing the blade an opportunity
to produce lift. There is also an observed positive
torque generated in the last quarter of rotation.
At higher  the trend is clear, as the NACA0012
stands out with higher performance. At  ¼ 3.0,
vortex structures are observed to be generated much
later in the second quarter of rotation and are also
dissipated faster, hence less of them interact with the
passing blades in the third quarter. Large vortices are
not seen for  ¼ 3.5 throughout the full rotation of the
VAWT but some flow separation is detected near the
trailing edge for high angles of attack. Data are not
shown for reasons of brevity. With the flow almost
always attached to the blade, this is seen as one of
the major factors to the predominantly positive
torque that the blade generates.
At  ¼ 4.0, it is observed that the flow is fully
attached to the suction surface of the blade for more
than three quarters of the full rotation. This was also
observed by Consul et al.9 in their 2D simulations of a
NACA0015. Although there is an increase in , lift
(Figure 8(a)) and power coefficient (Figure 6a) at
Danao et al.
 ¼ 4.0 are still lower compared to  ¼ 3.5. At high ,
the limiting factor to the lift generated is the low angle
of attack seen by the blade. The drag is also seen to be
lower at higher  (Figure 8(b)). The torque generated at
 ¼ 4.0 has a slightly lower peak in the upwind and
downwind compared to  ¼ 3.5.
Camber effects
The motivation for the present camber study is to deter-
mine if there are advantages in the use of a cambered
aerofoil for the VAWT given that the path traversed by
the VAWT blades is circular, effectively giving a virtual
inverted camber to the aerofoil.15 Previous studies16–20
have suggested that an asymmetric aerofoil improves
the performance of the VAWT inferred from static
aerofoil force data and mathematical models, none of
these though have discussed the physics of flow in a
detailed manner that only visualisation can provide.
This is where CFD’s advantage comes in. Two
cambered blade profiles were tested and compared to
the symmetric aerofoil NACA0022. A cambered
NACA5522 aerofoil was first selected with 5%
camber at 50% chord position and thickness 22%c.
Both positive camber (in the direction of, but not neces-
sarily on, the path curve) and inverted camber were
tested. The next aerofoil chosen was the LS0421 with
2.3% camber and a thickness of 21%c.
Of the aerofoils tested, the positive camber LS0421
performs best overall with a maximum power coeffi-
cient of 0.40 at  ¼ 3.5. The NACA0022 and the
inverted LS0421 have very similar power coefficient
predictions from  ¼ 3.0–4.0. Both the NACA5522
and the inverted NACA5522 perform poorly compared
to the other profiles at these higher . It is worthy to
mention that the power coefficient profile of the
NACA5522 is the flattest. This is a favourable feature
in unsteady wind conditions because a change in  does
not significantly change the power coefficient. However
with the same flow conditions, the power derived by
this blade is considerably lower than the other aerofoil
profiles. Both inverted camber profiles (NACA5522-inv
and LS0421-inv) perform poorly at low .
Positive cambered aerofoils present an advantage at
low , as seen in Figure 8(c). A camber along the cir-
cular path of the VAWT blade as with the NACA5522
and the LS0421 gives higher power coefficient values
versus the straight NACA0022 at  ¼ 2.0. Giving the
blade a slight camber improves the overall performance
of the VAWT which is also seen by Beri and Yao16 and
Baker.17 This does not completely contradict the find-
ings of Healy18 but suggests that a symmetric aerofoil is
not the best profile when it comes to VAWT perform-
ance. At  ¼ 2.5, a close inspection at the moment
coefficient plot just before  ¼ 90 (Figure 8(d)) shows
877
a clear difference in the torque generated by each blade
at just stalled conditions. The inverted LS0421 gener-
ates the greatest torque while the NACA5522 has the
least. While the torque is high for the inverted LS0421
in the upwind, the downwind performance is poor with
low torque values compared to most of the other blade
profiles.
This is also true for the inverted NACA5522 where
the torque is largely positive in the upwind but mostly
negative in the downwind. This is probably due to the
fact that in the upwind, the direction of the camber
produces a positive angle of attack, i.e. the suction
side of the blade is the surface outside the curve of
the camber. However, in the downwind side, this rela-
tionship is reversed with the suction side of the blade in
the inside of the camber curve. As such, flow is much
more separated as the blade passes the downwind side.
The lift coefficient on the inverted LS0421 at  ¼ 330
(Figure 8(e),  ¼ 8.7 ) is 0.209 while the drag
coefficient is 0.007 (Figure 8(f)). Compare this to
 ¼ 90 ( ¼ 21.8 ) where the lift coefficient is 0.714
and the drag coefficient is equal to 0.283; so, it is
concluded that very little lift (and effectively low
torque) is produced in the downwind. In fact, the
moment coefficient predicted at  ¼ 330 is negative at
0.010 (Figure 8(d)). Contrary to Kirke’s19 conclusion,
a cambered aerofoil whose concave side is facing out-
ward (inverted camber) offers poorer performance than
the one that has a positive camber.
It is now appropriate to examine and compare the
factors affecting force predictions over the aerofoil
surface for the LS0421 and inverted LS0421. Shown
in Figure 9 are pressure coefficient and skin friction
coefficient plots for the two aerofoils at six different
azimuth positions. Initially focusing on the inverted
LS0421 profile in the upwind region, a clear distinc-
tion can be made between the three azimuth positions
in so far as the size of the enclosed area of the pres-
sure coefficient curve is concerned. Between  ¼ 60
and  ¼ 90 , there is not much distinguishable differ-
ence in the size of the enclosed area. However, the
skin friction coefficient at  ¼ 60 is generally higher,
thereby increasing the drag and subsequently decreas-
ing the torque produced as evidenced by the lower
moment coefficient.
Shifting attention to the LS0421 in the downwind,
the pressure coefficient plots show that it is at  ¼ 330
where the enclosed area is greatest amongst the three.
However, the skin friction at the same azimuth position
is also the greatest between the three. These three azi-
muth positions have roughly the same moment coeffi-
cient values regardless of their differences in pressure
and skin friction values. The inverted camber is ideal in
the upwind while the positive camber is preferred in the
downwind.
878 Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 226(7)

Figure 9. Moment coefficient plots for one blade of the LS0421 and inverted LS0421 profiles, one full rotation at  ¼ 3.5, with
pressure coefficient and skin friction coefficient plots at different stages of the rotation.
LS, low-speed aerofoil series.

Overall, the positive camber gives better perform-
ance than the inverted camber profile. The advantage
of the inverted camber in the upwind is drastically
reduced by its very low performance in the downwind.
Whereas the inverted camber’s performance is accept-
able only in the upwind, the positive camber is able to
generate high values of torque over the entire rotation,
giving it a higher mean torque and consequently higher
CP. Over a wide range of , the positive camber is still
the better performing profile with considerably
improved performance over the inverted camber in
the low  range.
Danao et al. 879

Figure 10. Moment coefficient plots for one blade of the NACA0022, NACA5522 and LS0421 profiles, one full rotation at  ¼ 3.0,
with pressure coefficient plots and pressure contour plots superimposed with streamlines at different stages of the rotation.
NACA: National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics; LS, low-speed aerofoil series.
Notes: Pressure coefficient plots do not have the same scales in the ordinate axis.

To complete the analysis for the camber study, there
is a need to compare the performance of a cambered
aerofoil to a symmetric profile. Shown in Figure 10
are the moment coefficient plots for three aerofoil sec-
tions, NACA0022, NACA5522 and LS0421, at  ¼ 3.0.
At first glance, there is not much difference in the torque
ripple between the three profiles except for the region
approaching  ¼ 150 where the torque values for the
NACA5522 deviate from the other two and plunge
into the negative zone. The differences in power
880
coefficients between the three do not exceed 6%. In fact,
the difference between the NACA0022 and the LS0421 is
only 1%. But it is at this tip speed ratio where the great-
est gap in power coefficients is observed, hence the
choice for this part of the analysis.
For most of the rotation, the flow is partially to fully
attached to the blades. At maximum torque close to
 ¼ 90 , it can be seen from the streamline plot that the
flow is almost fully attached to the NACA5522 and par-
tially attached to the NACA0022 and LS0421. However,
the NACA0022 generates the largest torque of the three
at this particular stage. Visual inspection of the flow field
cannot directly tell us which blade is performing better.
This is a true observation to other stages in the rotation
as well. At  ¼ 240 , the flow is almost fully attached to
the NACA0022 while less attached to the other two. In
spite of this, it is the LS0421 that generates the greatest
torque at this azimuth position.
It is at  ¼ 150 where a definite conclusion can be
made from the given plots. As mentioned above, the
torque values for the NACA5522 drop into the negative
region while the other two profiles’ hover close to zero.
The pressure coefficient plot for this azimuth shows
that the surface of the NACA5522 switch from being
the suction side to the pressure side and moving back
from the leading edge to the trailing edge. This switch is
indication of loss of lift as the aerofoil experiences deep
stall. It is unmistakable in the streamline plot that there
is a large-scale vortex that is shed by the NACA5522
while none can be seen from the NACA0022 or the
LS0421.
Throughout the whole rotation, only the
NACA5522 produced large vortices as the blades pass
the second quarter of revolution. The vortices shed are
not associated to dynamic stall and as such do not
positively contribute to the lift generated. They are
seen to develop from the trailing edge as a phenomenon
that can accompany stalled and separated flow condi-
tions. Overall, the LS0421 is the best performing aero-
foil of the cambered profiles tested over a wide range of
tip speed ratios. It is able to generate reasonable values
of torque in both the upwind and the downwind,
thereby increasing its mean power coefficient.
Conclusions
A pitching aerofoil study was performed to determine
the validity of a set of turbulence models for VAWT
simulations. Very good agreement in both force and
flow predictions were seen with the use of the SST k–!
model. It is shown that the SST k–! model is the most
appropriate turbulence model for use in unsteady
aerofoil motion with dynamic stall phenomenon.
2D CFD simulations were carried out to investigate
the performance effects of VAWT blade aerofoil
Proc IMechE Part A: J Power and Energy 226(7)
thickness and camber variation. Results show that for
the two symmetric aerofoils tested, the thinner blade is
more preferred with maximum CP up to 0.50 for
NACA0012 at  ¼ 3.5. Over the entire range of 
tested, the NACA0012 aerofoil performs better than
the NACA0022. Slightly cambered aerofoils such as
LS0421 profile can improve the overall performance
of the VAWT whereas a camber of 5% as the case
for NACA5522 is unfavourable. The cambered
NACA5522 is, in general, inferior to the symmetric
NACA0022, especially in the high  region. Of the
thicker blades tested, the LS0421 performs the best
with maximum CP of 0.40 at  ¼ 3.5. A camber along
the blade path causes the blades to generate high values
of torque in both the upwind and the downwind
regions. On the other hand, inverted cambered profiles
produce power only in the upwind side. Between the
candidate profiles investigated, the NACA0012 gave
the best overall aerodynamic performance for power
extraction. CFD flow visualisations complemented by
a non-traditional discussion of the physics of flow offer
new insight into the way VAWT performance analysis
is carried out.
Funding
This work was funded by the Engineering Research and
Development for Technology Program of the Department
of Science and Technology through the University of the
Philippines – College of Engineering.
References
1. UK energy in brief. National statistics publication. URN
10D/220, July 2010, http://www.deec.gov.uk (accessed 26
August 2010).
2. American Wind Energy Association. Vertical axis wind
turbine: the history of the DOE program. US
Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories,
American Wind Energy Association, 1986.
3. Dodd HM. Performance predictions for an intermediate-
sized VAWT based on performance of the 34-m VAWT
test bed. In: Proceedings of the 9th ASME wind energy
symposium (ed DE Berg), New Orleans, LA, 14–17
January 1990, vol. 9.
4. Dodd HH, Ashwill TD, Berg DE, et al. Test results and
status of the DOE/Sandia 34-m VAWT test bed. In:
Proceedings of the Canadian wind energy association con-
ference, Albuquerque, NM, 14 September 1989.
5. Berg DE, Klimas PC and Stephenson WA. Aerodynamic
design and initial performance measurements for the
Sandia 34-m vertical axis wind turbine. In: Proceedings
of the 9th ASME wind energy symposium, New Orleans,
LA, 14–17 January 1990, vol. 9.
6. Price TJ. UK large-scale wind power programme from
1970 to 1990: the Carmarthen Bay experiments and the
Musgrove vertical-axis turbines. Wind Eng 2006; 30(3):
225–242.
Danao et al. 881

7. Hamada K, Smith T, Howell R, et al. Unsteady flow

simulation and dynamic stall around vertical axis wind Appendix
turbine blades. In: 27th ASME wind energy symposium,
Reno, NV, 7–10 January 2008, AIAA-2008–1319. Notation
8. Howell R, Qin N, Edwards J, et al. Wind tunnel and
c aerofoil chord
numerical study of a small vertical axis wind turbine.
Renew Energy 2010; 35: 412–422.
Cd drag coefficient
9. Consul CA, Willden RHJ, Ferrer E, et al., Influence of Cf skin friction coefficient
solidity on the performance of a cross-flow turbine. In: Cl lift coefficient
Proceedings of the 8th European wave and tidal energy Cm moment coefficient
conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 7–10 September 2009. Cp pressure coefficient
10. Ferreira CS, Van Bussel G and Van Kuik G. 2D CFD CP power coefficient
simulation of dynamic stall on a vertical axis wind tur- d VAWT rotor diameter
bine: verification and validation with PIV measurements. D drag force
In: 45th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, k turbulence kinetic energy
Reno, NV, 8–11 January 2007, AIAA-2007–1367. l turbulence length scale
11. Lee T and Gerontakos P. Investigation of flow over an
L lift force
oscillating aerofoil. J Fluid Mech 2004; 512: 313–341.
M moment
12. Fluent. Fluent 6.3 user’s guide, Chapter 12, 2006.
13. Healy JV. The influence of blade thickness on the output r VAWT rotor radius
of vertical axis wind turbines. Wind Eng 1978; 2(1): 1–9. Rec chord-based Reynolds number
14. Jacobs E and Sherman A. Airfoil section characteristics as Tu turbulence intensity
affected by variations of the Reynolds number. NACA U1 free-stream wind velocity
Report no. 586, 1937. V blade velocity
15. Migliore PG, Wolfe WP and Fanucci JB. Flow curvature W blade relative velocity
effects on Darrieus turbine blade aerodynamics. J Energy yþ dimensionless wall distance
1980; 4: 49–55.
16. Beri H and Yao Y. Effect of camber airfoil on self start-  instantaneous angle of attack
ing of vertical axis wind turbine. J Environ Sci Technol
A pitching magnitude
2011; 4: 302–312.
O mean angle of attack
17. Baker JR. Features to aid or enable self-starting of fixed
pitch low solidity vertical axis wind turbines. J Wind Eng " turbulent dissipation rate
Ind Aerodyn 1983; 15: 369–380.  azimuth angle
18. Healy JV. The influence of blade camber on the output of  reduced frequency
vertical axis wind turbines. Wind Eng 1978; 2(3): 146–155.  tip speed ratio
19. Kirke BK. Evaluation of self-starting vertical axis wind  air density
turbines for stand-alone applications. PhD Thesis, ! specific dissipation rate
Griffith University, Australia, 1998.
rotor angular velocity
20. Kadlec EG. Characteristics of future vertical axis wind
turbines. Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque,
NM, November, 1982.