Alexandria Engineering Journal (2022) 61, 12301–12310

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

Aerodynamic performance characteristics of

EYO-Series low Reynolds number airfoils
for small wind turbine applications
Emmanuel Yeboah Osei a,b, Richard Opoku a,c, Albert K. Sunnu a,
Muyiwa S. Adaramola d,*, Ebenezer Adu Kyeremeh a,e

a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kumasi Technical University, P. O. Box 854, Kumasi, Ghana
c
The Brew-Hammond Energy Center, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
d  Norway
Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, As,
e
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KAAF University College, Ghana

Received 12 December 2021; revised 20 April 2022; accepted 29 May 2022

Available online 18 June 2022

KEYWORDS Abstract In this study, the aerodynamic performance characteristics of three new EYO-Series low
Airfoil; Reynolds number (Re) airfoils were tested at Re = 100,000 to 500,000, which are typical range of
Lift coefficient; Re numbers encountered by airfoils of small wind turbine blades. The results generally demon-
Drag coefficient; strated aerodynamic performance improvements of all three airfoils with increase in Re. EYO7-8
Lift-to-drag ratio; recorded the highest lift-to-drag ratio of 170 at Re = 500,000. EYO9-8 had the highest stall angle
Drag bucket; of 15° at all tested Re except at Re = 200,000. EYO9-8 again had gradual stall performances at all
Small wind turbine; Re. All three airfoils also had good drag bucket performances where initial increases in lift were
Low Reynolds number; accompanied by either constant or reducing drag. The findings from this study showed that there
Wind energy are no significant variations in the lift performance for Re
300,000. The low variation in lift per-
formance for the EYO-Series airfoils is desirable for the design of small wind turbine blades for low
Re applications.
Ó 2022 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author at: Faculty of Environmental Sciences and
Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Renewable energy supply has been identified as one of the
 Norway (M.S. Adaramola).
Sciences, As, main solutions to the problem of climate change, its devastat-
E-mail addresses: emma.y.osei@gmail.com (E. Yeboah Osei), ropoku. ing impacts on the environment, and its dangerous anthro-
coe@knust.edu.gh (R. Opoku), muyiwa.adaramola@nmbu.no pogenic interference [1–5]. Fossil-fuel power generation
(M.S. Adaramola). which is known to be a major contributor to climate change
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria has been the main energy source for the world, especially in
University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.05.049
1110-0168 Ó 2022 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
12302 E. Yeboah Osei et al.

Nomenclature

Abbreviations l airfoil span

a L/Dmax angle of attack at maximum lift-to-drag ratio L lift force
a stall stall angle L/D lift-to-drag ratio
q air density L/D max maximum lift-to-drag ratio
c airfoil chord P pressure
l dynamic viscosity P1 stagnation pressure
m kinematic viscosity Re Reynolds number
Cd drag coefficient SSA sub-Saharan Africa
Cl lift coefficient U airflow speed
Cl max maximum lift coefficient AoA angle of attack
D drag force X/C relative chord position

sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [6,7]. In SSA, access to sustainable small wind turbine applications [40]. The research recorded
energy is a challenge and over 600 million people lack access general improvements in airfoil performance with respect to
to basic electricity [8–10]. increase in Re. At Re = 500,000, SG6040, SG6041, SG6042,
Wind energy is renewable, clean, and it is capable of pro- and SG6043 had maximum lift-to-drag ratio performances of
ducing power for small-scale and large-scale applications 86.6, 84.4, 105.9, and 125.1 respectively. However, at
[11–15]. However, not much research has been conducted to Re = 100,000, SG6040, SG6041, SG6042, and SG6043 had
the development of small-scale wind power technology, and maximum lift-to-drag ratio performances of 46.0, 51.5, 55.6,
this has slowed down their performance improvements and and 59.4 respectively. The maximum lift coefficients at
market penetration [16–19]. As a result of this, the aerody- Re = 500,000 were 1.42, 1.36, 1.52, and 1.70 for SG6040,
namic efficiencies of small-scale wind turbines generally lag SG6041, SG6042, and SG6043 respectively.
behind large-scale wind turbines [20,21]. For improved aerody- In addition, AF300 low Re wind turbine blade airfoil was
namic performance, small-scale wind turbines require the use developed in XFOIL by modifying other airfoils and was
of blades with special airfoils capable of good performance tested at Re between 38,000 and 205,000 [41]. The study
under low wind speed conditions [22]. recorded airfoil performance improvements with respect to
Airflows around small wind turbine blades are generally increase in Re. At Re = 100,000, AF300 had maximum lift-
dominated by low Reynolds number (Re) typically below to-drag ratio, maximum lift coefficient, and stall angle of 54,
500,000 [23–25]. Under these low Re conditions, improperly 2.05, and 14° respectively.
designed blade airfoils experience performance deterioration The ‘‘T.Urban 10/193” airfoil was designed and tested in
which negatively affects the wind turbine operating aerody- XFOIL for application in small wind turbines for urban envi-
namic efficiency [26–30]. For improved aerodynamic efficiency, ronment [42]. At Re = 500,000, the maximum lift-to-drag
small wind turbine blade airfoils need to have good perfor- ratio, maximum lift coefficient, and stall angle were 95, 1.9,
mances for lift, drag, lift-to-drag ratio, stall, and drag bucket and 12° respectively. However, at Re = 60,000, the maximum
[31–37]. Various studies have been conducted to develop wind lift-to-drag ratio, maximum lift coefficient, and stall angle were
turbine blade airfoils for low wind speed applications. Some of 18, 1.7, and 8° respectively.
these studies are discussed as follows. From the discussed literature, it is established that the aero-
Fifteen low Re airfoils (A18, BW-3, Clark-Y, E387, dynamic performance characteristics of an airfoil changes with
Go471a, NACA2414, RG15, S822, S823, S6062, S7012, the airflow Re. Thus, an airfoil will perform differently under
SD6060, SD7032, SD7037, and SD7062) were studied for aero- different Re conditions. For typical wind turbine applications,
dynamic performance [38]. The research recorded aerodynamic the airfoils along a blade encounter different Re conditions
performance improvements with respect to increase in Re as during normal operation. As a result for any wind turbine
well as relatively better performance for the thinner airfoils blade design to be successful, the aerodynamic performance
than the thicker airfoils. For example, at Re = 300,000, characteristics of the blade airfoils under different Re condi-
SD7032 and S823 airfoils had the highest and lowest maximum tions must be known and must be factored into the design pro-
lift-to-drag ratios of 83 and 63 respectively while SD7062 air- cess. From the literature review, the highest lift-to-drag ratio
foil had the highest lift coefficient of 1.66. performance reported for low Re applications is 125 for
Furthermore, six airfoils (E387, FX63-137, S822, S834, SG6043 airfoil at Re = 500,000. The highest stall angle
SD2030, and SH3055) were studied for aerodynamic perfor- recorded is 14° for AF300 airfoil at Re = 100,000. These
mance characteristics under low Re conditions between parameters are essential for the aerodynamic performance of
100,000 and 500,000 [39]. At Re = 500,000, FX63-137 small wind turbine blades and could be improved with the
recorded the highest maximum lift-to-drag ratio of 108 and development of new and optimized airfoils.
stall angle of 12°. However, at Re = 100,000, SD2030 The EYO-Series airfoils (EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8)
recorded the highest maximum lift-to-drag ratio of 53 and developed in a previous study was designed and solely tested
the same stall angle of 12°. at Re = 300,000 [43]. In this current study, the EYO-Series
Likewise, SG604x family airfoils (SG6040, SG6041, airfoils are tested at a range of Re conditions between
SG6042, and SG6043) were developed and tested for low Re Re = 100,000 and 500,000 to ascertain their aerodynamic
Small wind turbine applications 12303

performance characteristics across the range and to demon-

strate their improved aerodynamic performance characteristics
within the range. This Re range is the typical range small wind
turbines encounter during normal operation [44]. The results
of this study highlight important aerodynamic performance
parameters of the EYO-Series airfoils and benchmark for the
development of other low Re airfoils. The methodology used
to undertake this study is presented in the following section.
Fig. 2 EYO-Series airfoil profiles [43].
2. Methodology

2.1. Description of the EYO-Series airfoils

Table 1 Thickness and camber information for EYO-Series

EYO-Series airfoils (EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8) devel- airfoils [43]
oped and presented in [43] were tested for aerodynamic perfor-
mance in XFOIL version 6.99. The test parameters were lift Airfoil Thickness (% c) Camber (% c)
performance, stall performance, lift-to-drag ratio performance, EYO7-8 7 8
and drag bucket performance. The tests were conducted at EYO8-8 8 8
Re = 100,000; 200,000; 300,000; 400,000; and 500,000. The EYO9-8 9 8
airfoil test procedure in XFOIL is summarized in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 shows the basic steps used to achieve the airfoil aerody-
namic performance results. The airfoil profiles are presented in


Fig. 2. Fig. 2 shows the profiles and geometrical differences L Cl 12 qU2 cl C
between the EYO-Series airfoils. Geometrical information ¼
¼ l ð4Þ
D Cd 12 qU2 cl Cd
for the airfoils in terms of thickness and camber expressed as
percentages of airfoil chord is presented in Table 1. P  P1
CP ¼ ð5Þ
1
2
qU2
2.2. Theoretical framework
The airflow Re is expressed in Eq. (1). Eq. (1) relates the
The theoretical framework for testing the aerodynamic charac- airflow Re to airflow speed, kinematic viscosity, airfoil chord
teristics of the EYO-Series airfoils is explained in Eq. (1) to Eq. as the characteristic length. The airfoil lift and drag forces
(5) [38,45,46]. are expressed in Eqs. (2) and (3) respectively. Eq. (2) relates
the lift force on the airfoil to the lift coefficient, airflow speed,
qUc Uc
Re ¼ ¼ ð1Þ density, airfoil chord, and span. Eq. (3) relates the drag force
l m on the airfoil to the drag coefficient, airflow speed, density, air-
foil chord, and span. The lift-to-drag ratio is expressed in Eq.
1
L ¼ Cl qU2 cl ð2Þ (4). The pressure coefficient around the upper and lower sur-
2 faces of the airfoils is expressed in Eq. (5) in terms of the stag-
1 nation pressure, airflow speed, and density.
D ¼ Cd qU2 cl ð3Þ
2
3. Results and discussions

3.1. Lift performances of EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8

airfoils

The lift performance curves for the designed and tested airfoils
for Re = 100,000 to 500,000 are shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and
Fig. 5 for EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8 respectively. The
results showed that the lift coefficients generally improved with
increase in Re. EYO7-8 had close lift performances for Re
from 200,000 to 500,000. The EYO7-8 airfoil had the highest
maximum lift coefficient of 1.804 at Re = 500,000. The lowest
maximum lift coefficient of 1.707 occurred at Re = 100,000.
The lift performance curves for EYO8-8 airfoil for
Re = 100,000 to 500,000 are presented in Fig. 4. Likewise,
the lift coefficient performance generally improved with
increase in Re. At Re = 200,000 to 500,000 and for angle of
attack below 10°, the lift coefficient performances were close.
EYO8-8 airfoil had the highest and lowest maximum lift coef-
ficients of 1.837 and 1.749 at Re = 500,000 and Re = 100,000
Fig. 1 Summary of XFOIL procedure for airfoil test. respectively.
12304 E. Yeboah Osei et al.

Generally, for all three airfoils, the improvement in lift per-

formance with respect to increase in Re was due to increased
airflow speed associated with high Re. Furthermore, at each
Re, the reduction in lift performances beyond the maximum
lift coefficients were due to the airfoils experiencing stall con-
ditions resulting from turbulence on the suction surfaces of
the airfoils providing resistance to lift. For each airfoil, there
was no significant variation in lift performance at
Re
300,000. This close performance trend shows that the lift
performances of the airfoils were relatively less sensitive to
changes in Re between Re = 300,000 and 500,000. This beha-
viour is due to non-linear aerodynamic characteristics gener-
ally associated with low Re flow conditions [47]. The close
lift performance trend is desirable for wind turbine blades
due to the less variation in loading conditions within that Re
Fig. 3 Lift coefficient curve for EYO7-8 airfoil. range.

3.2. Stall performances of EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8

airfoils

The stall performances of EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8 air-

foils at Re = 100,000 to 500,000 are presented in Table 2. For
the test Re conditions, all three airfoils had stall angles ranging
from 9° to 15°. EYO7-8 airfoil had the lowest and highest stall
angles of 9° and 13° respectively at Re = 100,000 and 500,000
respectively. However, the same stall angle of 12° was recorded
at Re = 200,000, 300,000, and 400,000.
EYO8-8 airfoil had the lowest and highest stall angles of
13° and 15° at Re = 500,000 and 200,000 respectively. How-
ever the stall angle remained the same at 14° at
Re = 100,000, 300,000, and 400,000. In the case of EYO9-8
airfoil, the lowest stall angle of 14° was recorded at
Re = 200,000, whiles the highest stall angle of 15° was
Fig. 4 Lift coefficient curve for EYO8-8 airfoil. recorded at Re = 100,000, 300,000, 400,000, and 500,000.
For each airfoil under each Re flow condition, the stall
angle represents the critical angle of attack beyond which the
lift coefficient performance begins to decline as a result of resis-
tance generated from turbulence on the suction surface of the
airfoil. The relatively higher stall angle of 15° for EYO9-8 air-
foil for almost all Re makes it desirable for use over a relatively
wider range of angles of attack. From the lift performance
curves in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5, all three airfoils generally
had gradual post-stall performances at Re
200,000. This
gradual post-stall characteristic is due to the shape of the air-
foils which was optimized for high lift-to-drag ratio perfor-
mance and is desirable for consistent aerodynamic
performance at wide range of angles of attack without sudden
loss of lift. Sudden loss of lift is known to rapidly degenerate
wind turbine rotor efficiency [41].

3.3. Lift-to-drag ratio performances of EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and

Fig. 5 Lift coefficient curve for EYO9-8 airfoil. EYO9-8 airfoils

The lift performance curves for EYO9-8 airfoil for The lift-to-drag ratio performance curves of EYO7-8, EYO8-8,
Re = 100,000 to 500,000 are presented in Fig. 5. The lift coef- and EYO9-8 airfoils for Re = 100,000 to 500,000 are pre-
ficient performance improved with increase in Re, with consis- sented in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and Fig. 8 respectively. Generally,
tently close performance for Re = 200,000 to 500,000. EYO9- for all three airfoils, the lift-to-drag ratio performance
8 airfoil had the highest and lowest maximum lift coefficients improved with increase in Re and had a dome-shaped relation-
of 1.875 and 1.789 respectively at Re = 500,000 and ship with angle of attack for each Re. The highest lift-to-drag
Re = 100,000 respectively. ratio performance for all angles of attack occurred at
Small wind turbine applications 12305

Table 2 Stall performances for EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8 airfoils.

Airfoil Stall Angle (°)
Re = 100,000 Re = 200,000 Re = 300,000 Re = 400,000 Re = 500,000
EYO7-8 9 12 12 12 13
EYO8-8 14 15 14 14 13
EYO9-8 15 14 15 15 15

Fig. 6 Lift-to-drag ratio performance for EYO7-8 airfoil. Fig. 8 Lift-to-drag ratio performance for EYO9-8 airfoil.

300,000, and 400,000, the maximum lift-to-drag ratios for

EYO8-8 airfoil were 104.71, 131.21, and 144.84 respectively
at angles of attack of 6°, 5°, and 4° respectively.
From Fig. 8, at Re = 500,000, the highest maximum lift-to-
drag ratio for EYO9-8 airfoil was 160.10 at angle of attack of
4°. At Re = 100,000, the lowest maximum lift-to-drag ratio
was 62.55 at angle of attack of 8°. At Re = 200,000,
300,000, and 400,000, the maximum lift-to-drag ratios for
EYO9-8 airfoil were 101.36, 127.29, and 146.09 respectively
at angles of attack of 6°, 5°, and 4° respectively.
The lift-to-drag ratio performance indicates the amount of
lift generated by the airfoil relative to its drag. For each airfoil,
the highest lift-to-drag ratio performance at Re = 500,000 was
due to high energetic flow associated with high Re which tends
to create high lift. At Re = 300,000, the maximum lift-to-drag
ratio performances of 134.43, 131.21, and 127.29 for EYO7-8,
Fig. 7 Lift-to-drag ratio performance for EYO8-8 airfoil. EYO8-8, and EYO9-8 airfoils respectively compare favourably
with other low Re airfoils such as E387, SG6043, and Go471a
Re = 500,000, whiles the lowest performance occurred at developed in other studies [38,40].
Re = 100,000.
From Fig. 6, at Re = 500,000, the highest maximum lift-to- 3.4. Drag bucket performances of EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and
drag ratio for EYO7-8 airfoil was 169.68 at angle of attack of EYO9-8 airfoils
4°. At Re = 100,000, the lowest maximum lift-to-drag ratio
was 67.27 at angle of attack of 8°. At Re = 200,000, The drag bucket performance characteristics of EYO7-8,
300,000, and 400,000, the maximum lift-to-drag ratios for EYO8-8, and EYO9-8 airfoils are presented in Fig. 9,
EYO7-8 airfoil were 107.77, 134.43, and 154.21 respectively Fig. 10, and Fig. 11 respectively. Generally, all three airfoils
at angles of attack of 6°, 5°, and 4° respectively. had improvements in drag bucket performances with increas-
From Fig. 7, at Re = 500,000, the highest maximum lift-to- ing Re. However the performances were close from
drag ratio for EYO8-8 airfoil was 165.16 at angle of attack of Re = 200,000 to 500,000.
4°. At Re = 100,000, the lowest maximum lift-to-drag ratio From Fig. 9, for EYO7-8 airfoil, and at Re = 100,000, the
was 64.81 at angle of attack of 8°. At Re = 200,000, initial increase in lift was accompanied by marginal reduction
12306 E. Yeboah Osei et al.

From Fig. 10, for EYO8-8 airfoil, and at Re = 100,000, ini-

tial increase in lift coefficient to about 1.7 was accompanied by
sharp decrease in drag. Beyond this point, the lift decreased
with corresponding sharp increase in drag. At Re = 500,000,
initial increase in lift coefficient up to about 1.7 occurred stea-
dily with no corresponding change in drag. However, beyond
this point, the lift coefficient decreased marginally accompa-
nied by sharp increase in drag. This performance trend was
similar for Re = 200,000, 300,000, and 400,000.
From Fig. 11, for EYO9-8 airfoil, and at Re = 100,000, ini-
tial increase in lift coefficient to almost 1.8 occurred with mar-
ginal decrease in drag. Beyond this point, the lift decreased
marginally with corresponding sharp increase in drag. At
Re = 500,000, initial increase in lift coefficient to about 1.6
occurred with almost no increase in drag. Beyond this point,
Fig. 9 Drag bucket for EYO7-8 airfoil. the drag began to increase sharply with corresponding mar-
ginal reduction in lift. This performance trend was similar
for Re = 200,000, 300,000, and 400,000.
For all three airfoils, the drag buckets show the relative
growth of lift coefficients and drag coefficients over the perfor-
mance domains of the airfoils. At all Re, each airfoil had its
initial increase in lift coefficient occurring at either constant
drag or reducing drag up to about the point of maximum lift
coefficient. This aerodynamic behaviour was as a result of
how the airfoils were designed and optimized for maximum
lift-to-drag ratio performance. The zones in the drag buckets
beyond the maximum lift coefficients where the drag coeffi-
cients increased sharply form part of the post-stall regions
where turbulence on the airfoil surfaces reduced lift generation
and increased drag. The ability of the airfoils to increase lift
performance up to about the point of maximum lift coefficient
whiles maintaining or reducing the level of drag is a generally
desirable characteristic of high performance airfoils.
Fig. 10 Drag bucket for EYO8-8 airfoil.
3.5. Pressure distribution of EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8
airfoils

The top and bottom surface pressure distributions of EYO7-8,

EYO8-8, and EYO9-8 airfoils at Re = 300,000 for AoA of 0°,
4° (angle at maximum lift-to-drag ratio), astall, and 20° are pre-
sented in Fig. 12, Fig. 13, Fig. 14, and Fig. 15 respectively.
Generally, all three EYO-Series airfoils had similar pressure
distributions at each tested AoA.
From Fig. 12, at AoA of 0°, there was relatively more
suction (negative pressures) on the top surface of each airfoil

Fig. 11 Drag bucket for EYO9-8 airfoil.

in drag up to lift coefficient of about 1.7. Beyond this point,

marginal lift reduction occurred accompanied by sharp
increase in drag. At Re = 500,000, initial increase in lift coef-
ficient up to about 1.6 occurred steadily with no corresponding
change in drag. Beyond lift coefficient of 1.8, drag increased
sharply with marginal reduction in lift. This performance trend Fig. 12 Pressure distributions of EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8
was similar for Re = 200,000, 300,000, and 400,000. airfoils at 0° AoA.
Small wind turbine applications 12307

leading edge. The pressure loading was also greater towards

the leading edge of each airfoil compared with the trailing
edge. This indicated that the contribution to lift performance
of the airfoils at AoA of 4° mainly came from the region close
to the leading edge. For all the airfoils, the stagnation points at
AoA of 4° occurred at the leading edge.
From Fig. 14 and Fig. 15, at astall and AoA of 20° respec-
tively, the pressure loading for each airfoil was much greater
towards the leading edge. This indicated that the contribution
to lift performance of the airfoils at AoA of 20° also came
mainly from the region close to the leading edge. The stagna-
tion point for each airfoil at both AoA occurred at about 2%
chord away from the leading edge on the bottom surface.
Generally, for airfoils, higher lift force is associated with a
Fig. 13 Pressure distributions of EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8 relatively greater amount of suction on the low pressure sides
airfoils at 4° AoA. or upper surfaces of the airfoils. As a result, the relatively high
suction pressure in the pressure coefficient test results for the
EYO-Series airfoils at AoA of 4° confirm the high lift-to-
drag ratio performance results at that AoA.

4. Performance summary and technical perspective

The performance summaries for EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and

EYO9-8 airfoils for lift and stall, and lift-to-drag ratio are pre-
sented in Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 respectively. From Fig. 16,
EYO9-8 airfoil had the highest maximum lift coefficient at
each tested Re whiles EYO7-8 airfoil had the lowest values.
From Fig. 17, EYO7-8 airfoil had the highest maximum lift-
to-drag ratio at each Re whiles EYO9-8 airfoil had the lowest

Fig. 14 Pressure distributions of EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8

airfoils at astall.

Fig. 16 Lift and stall performance summary for EYO-Series

airfoils.

Fig. 15 Pressure distributions of EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8

airfoils at 20° AoA.

compared with the positive pressures on the bottom surfaces.

The pressure loading along the chord length of each airfoil
remained relatively uniform from the leading edge to the trail-
ing edge. This uniform pressure loading indicated that the lift
generation of the airfoils at AoA of 0° was uniformly dis-
tributed from the leading edges of the airfoils to the trailing
edges. For all three airfoils, the stagnation points (point of
maximum pressure) at AoA of 0° occurred at the leading edge.
From Fig. 13, at AoA of 4°, a greater amount of the suction Fig. 17 Lift-to-drag ratio performance summary for EYO-Series
on the top surface of each airfoil was concentrated towards the airfoils.
12308 E. Yeboah Osei et al.

blades, especially, in off-design and post-stall

conditions.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing

financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the research support by the Kwame

Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)
Fig. 18 Comparative aerodynamic performance summaries of and Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) collabo-
other low Re airfoils from [38,40]. rative project titled ‘‘Upgrading Education and Research
Capacity in Renewable Energy Technologies (UPERCRETs)”,
which is funded through the Energy and Petroleum (EnPe)
values. Lift-to-drag ratio performances of the EYO-Series air- Project of the Norwegian Agency for Development Coopera-
foils and how they compare with other low Re airfoils at tion (Norad).
Re = 300,000 are presented in Fig. 18. The EYO-Series airfoils
outperform the other airfoils and are suitable for use in low References
wind speed turbines. The high performance of the EYO-
Series airfoils is due to their design for high lift-to-drag ratio [1] T.S. Amjath-Babu, T.J. Krupnik, S. Aravindakshan, M.
under low Re conditions. Arshad, H. Kaechele, Climate change and indicators of
probable shifts in the consumption portfolios of dryland
5. Conclusion farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for policy, Ecol.
Indic. 67 (2016) 830–838, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2016.03.030.
In the present study, the EYO-Series airfoils (EYO7-8, EYO8- [2] Y. Gao, X. Gao, X. Zhang, The 2 ° C global temperature target
8, and EYO9-8) designed for small wind turbine applications and the evolution of the long-term goal of addressing climate
were tested in XFOIL for aerodynamic performance character- change — from the United Nations Framework Convention on
istics. The tests were conducted at Re = 100,000; 200,000; Climate Change to the Paris Agreement, Engineering. 3 (2017)
300,000; 400,000; and 500,000, which form part of the typical 272–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2017.01.022.
Re range experienced by small wind turbine airfoils. From the [3] R.A. Rosen, E. Guenther, IPCC Working Group III report on
results, there were general performance improvements with the macro-economics of mitigating climate change, Energy
Policy. 93 (2016) 330–334.
respect to increase in Re. From this study, the following main
[4] J.A. Tambo, Adaptation and resilience to climate change and
findings were made. variability in north-east Ghana, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 17
(2016) 85–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.04.005.
i. There were close lift performances for the airfoils with [5] R. Opoku, E.A. Adjei, D.K. Ahadzie, K.A. Agyarko, Energy
no significant changes at Re between 300,000 and efficiency, solar energy and cost saving opportunities in public
500,000. tertiary institutions in developing countries: The case of
ii. EYO7-8 and EYO8-8 airfoils had gradual stall perfor- KNUST, Ghana, Alexandria Eng. J. 59 (2020) 417–428,
mances at Re
200,000, whiles EYO9-8 airfoil had https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.01.011.
gradual stall performances at all tested Re. [6] J. Khan, M.H. Arsalan, Solar power technologies for
iii. From the drag bucket analyses, all three airfoils at all Re sustainable electricity generation – A review, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 55 (2016) 414–425, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
increased lift performance to the point of maximum lift
rser.2015.10.135.
at either constant or reducing drag. [7] F.F. Adedoyin, I. Ozturk, M.O. Agboola, P.O. Agboola, F.V.
iv. EYO7-8, EYO8-8, and EYO9-8 had maximum lift-to- Bekun, The implications of renewable and non-renewable
drag ratios of 169.68, 165.16, and 160.10 respectively energy generating in Sub-Saharan Africa : The role of
and maximum lift coefficients of 1.804, 1.837, and economic policy uncertainties, Energy Policy. 150 (2021),
1.875 respectively at Re = 500,000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112115 112115.
v. The stall angles for all three airfoils ranged from 9° to [8] K. Uddin, G. Prinsloo, J. Marco, P. Jennings, Techno-economic
15°. The highest stall angle of 15° was recorded for analysis of the viability of solar home systems using lithium-ion
EYO8-8 at Re = 200,000 and EYO9-8 at batteries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Energy Procedia. 138 (2017)
Re = 100,000; 300,000; 400,000; and 500,000. 267–272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.053.
[9] S. Oluoch, P. Lal, A. Susaeta, Investigating factors affecting
vi. The aerodynamic performance results make the EYO-
renewable energy consumption : A panel data analysis in Sub
Series airfoils suitable for use in small wind turbine Saharan Africa, Environ. Challenges. 4 (2021), https://doi.org/
blades especially within the Re range of 300,000 and 10.1016/j.envc.2021.100092 100092.
500,000 due to the less variation in lift loading condi- [10] G. Falchetta, A.G. Dagnachew, A.F. Hof, D.J. Milne, The role
tions within that range. of regulatory, market and governance risk for electricity access
vii. The gradual stall performance of EYO9-8 airfoil at all investment in sub-Saharan Africa, Energy Sustain. Dev. 62
tested Re makes it suitable for use for wind turbine (2021) 136–150, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2021.04.002.
Small wind turbine applications 12309

[11] A.A. Prasad, R.A. Taylor, M. Kay, Assessment of solar and [27] X. Tang, X. Huang, R. Peng, X. Liu, A direct approach of
wind resource synergy in Australia, Appl. Energy 190 (2017) design optimization for small horizontal axis wind turbine
354–367, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.135. blades, Procedia CIRP 36 (2015) 12–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[12] H.S. Ramadan, Wind energy farm sizing and resource j.procir.2015.01.047.
assessment for optimal energy yield in Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, [28] A. Tummala, R. Kishore, D. Kumar, V. Indraja, V.H. Krishna,
J. Clean. Prod. 161 (2017) 1283–1293, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. A review on small scale wind turbines, Renew. Sustain. Energy
jclepro.2017.01.120. Rev. 56 (2016) 1351–1371, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[13] A. Eltayesh, F. Castellani, M. Burlando, M. Bassily, A.S. rser.2015.12.027.
Huzayyin, H.M. El-batsh, M. Becchetti, Experimental and [29] A. Gray, B. Singh, S. Singh, Low wind speed airfoil design for
numerical investigation of the effect of blade number on the horizontal axis wind turbine, Mater. Today Proc. 45 (2021)
aerodynamic performance of a small-scale horizontal axis wind 3000–3004, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.999.
turbine, Alexandria Eng. J. 60 (2021) 3931–3944, https://doi.org/ [30] N. Verma, B.D. Baloni, Influence of Reynolds number
10.1016/j.aej.2021.02.048. consideration for aerodynamic characteristics of airfoil on the
[14] P. Sadorsky, Wind energy for sustainable development : Driving blade design of small horizontal axis wind turbine, Int. J. Green
factors and future outlook, J. Clean. Prod. 289 (2021), https:// Energy 19 (7) (2022) 733–746.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125779 125779. [31] S.N. Akour, M. Al-Heymari, T. Ahmed, K.A. Khalil,
[15] Q. Wen, X. He, Z. Lu, R. Streiter, T. Otto, A comprehensive Experimental and theoretical investigation of micro wind
review of miniatured wind energy harvesters, Nano Mater. Sci. 3 turbine for low wind speed regions, Renew. Energy 116 (2018)
(2021) 170–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoms.2021.04.001. 215–223, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.076.
[16] N. Karthikeyan, K.K. Murugavel, S.A. Kumar, S. Rajakumar, [32] A. Chehouri, R. Younes, A. Ilinca, J. Perron, Review of
Review of aerodynamic developments on small horizontal axis performance optimization techniques applied to wind turbines,
wind turbine blade, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 801– Appl. Energy 142 (2015) 361–388, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
822, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.086. apenergy.2014.12.043.
[17] L.C. Pagnini, M. Burlando, M.P. Repetto, Experimental power [33] S. Rajakumar, D. Ravindran, Iterative approach for optimising
curve of small-size wind turbines in turbulent urban coefficient of power, coefficient of lift and drag of wind turbine
environment, Appl. Energy 154 (2015) 112–121, https://doi. rotor, Renew. Energy 38 (2012) 83–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.117. renene.2011.07.006.
[18] F. Papi, A. Nocentini, G. Ferrara, A. Bianchini, On the use of [34] H. Shah, S. Mathew, C.M. Lim, A novel low Reynolds number
modern engineering codes for designing a small wind turbine: an airfoil design for small horizontal axis wind turbines, Wind Eng.
annotated case study, Energies 14 (2021) 1–23, https://doi.org/ 38 (4) (2014) 377–391.
10.3390/en14041013. [35] K.M. Almohammadi, Assessment of several modeling
[19] P. Arumugam, V. Ramalingam, K. Bhaganagar, A pathway strategies on the prediction of lift-drag coefficients of a
towards sustainable development of small capacity horizontal NACA0012 airfoil at a moderate Reynold number,
axis wind turbines – Identification of influencing design Alexandria Eng. J. 61 (2022) 2242–2249, https://doi.org/
parameters & their role on performance analysis, Sustain. 10.1016/j.aej.2021.07.008.
Energy Technol. Assessments. 44 (2021), https://doi.org/ [36] N. Verma, B.D. Baloni, Artificial neural network - based meta -
10.1016/j.seta.2021.101019 101019. models for predicting the aerodynamic characteristics of two -
[20] T.F. Ishugah, Y. Li, R.Z. Wang, J.K. Kiplagat, Advances in dimensional airfoils for small horizontal axis wind turbine,
wind energy resource exploitation in urban environment : A Clean Technol. Environ, Policy. 24 (2022) 563–577, https://doi.
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37 (2014) 613–626, https:// org/10.1007/s10098-021-02059-2.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.053. [37] R. Yadav, A. Bodavula, Numerical investigation of the effect of
[21] W. Yossri, S. Ben Ayed, A. Abdelke, Airfoil type and blade size triangular cavity on the unsteady aerodynamics of NACA 0012
effects on the aerodynamic performance of small-scale wind at a low Reynolds number, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G J.
turbines : Computational fluid dynamics investigation, Energy. Aerosp. Eng. 236 (6) (2022) 1064–1080.
229 (2021) 120739. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021. [38] P. Giguere, M.S. Selig, Low Reynolds number airfoils for
120739. small horizontal axis wind turbines, Wind Eng. 21 (1997)
[22] N.P. Noronha, M. Krishna, Aerodynamic performance 367–380.
comparison of airfoils suggested for small horizontal axis wind [39] M.S. Selig, B.D. McGranahan, Wind tunnel aerodynamic
turbines, Mater. Today Proc. 46 (2021) 2450–2455, https://doi. tests of six airfoils for use on small wind turbines, J. Sol.
org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.359. Energy Eng. 126 (2004) 986–1001, https://doi.org/10.1115/
[23] R.K. Singh, M.R. Ahmed, Blade design and performance testing 1.1793208.
of a small wind turbine rotor for low wind speed applications, [40] P. Giguere, M.S. Selig, New airfoils for small horizontal
Renew. Energy 50 (2013) 812–819, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. axis wind turbines, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 120 (1998) 108–
renene.2012.08.021. 114.
[24] Y. Liu, P. Li, W. He, K. Jiang, Numerical study of the effect of [41] R.K. Singh, M.R. Ahmed, M.A. Zullah, Y. Lee, Design of a low
surface grooves on the aerodynamic performance of a NACA Reynolds number airfoil for small horizontal axis wind turbines,
4415 airfoil for small wind turbines, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. Renew. Energy 42 (2012) 66–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
206 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104263 104263. renene.2011.09.014.
[25] K. Rogowski, G. Królak, G. Bangga, Numerical Study on the [42] J.C.C. Henriques, F. Marques da Silva, A.I. Estanqueiro,
Aerodynamic Characteristics of the NACA 0018 Airfoil at Low L.M.C. Gato, Design of a new urban wind turbine airfoil
Reynolds Number for Darrieus Wind Turbines Using the using a pressure-load inverse method, Renew. Energy 34
Transition SST Model, Processes 9 (2021) 447, https://doi.org/ (2009) 2728–2734, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.
10.3390/pr9030477. 05.011.
[26] S. Rehman, M.M. Alam, L.M. Alhems, M.M. Rafique, [43] E.Y. Osei, R. Opoku, A.K. Sunnu, S.A. Muyiwa, Development
Horizontal axis wind turbine blade design methodologies for of high performance airfoils for application in small wind
efficiency enhancement—A review, Energies 11 (2018) 1–34, turbine power generation, J. Energy 2020 (2020) 1–9, https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en11030506. org/10.1155/2020/9710189.
12310 E. Yeboah Osei et al.

[44] S. Kumar, S. Narayanan, Airfoil thickness effects on flow and [46] J.F. Manwell, J.G. Mcgowan, A.L. Rogers, Wind Energy
acoustic characteristics, Alexandria Eng. J. 61 (2022) 4679–4699, Explained: Theory, Design, and Application, second ed., John
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.10.022. Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009.
[45] I. Bayati, M. Belloli, L. Bernini, A. Zasso, Aerodynamic design [47] H. Lee, D. Lee, Low Reynolds number effects on aerodynamic
methodology for wind tunnel tests of wind turbine rotors, J. loads of a small scale wind turbine, Renew. Energy 154 (2020)
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 167 (2017) 217–227, https://doi.org/ 1283–1293, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.097.
10.1016/j.jweia.2017.05.004.