the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 30 Oct 2025
Research on the Influence of Blade Tip Trailing-Edge Serrated Structure on Wind Turbine Noise Reduction and Performance
Abstract. Wind turbines are a key technology for producing clean energy, but the noise they generate can create environmental concerns. This study explores how serrated edges on turbine blades influence noise, structural safety, and energy output. A prototype wind turbine was equipped with serrated blades and tested at a field site in China. Measurements showed that the serrated design reduced aerodynamic noise by nearly four decibels. At the same time, computer simulations revealed that this design caused a small increase in structural loads and a slight decrease in annual electricity generation. The findings suggest that serrated blades can help reduce the noise impact of wind turbines, but they also highlight the need to carefully weigh the trade-offs between quieter operation, safety margins, and efficiency.
- Preprint
(1016 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 29 Dec 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on wes-2025-119', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Dec 2025 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 168 | 58 | 12 | 238 | 18 | 18 |
- HTML: 168
- PDF: 58
- XML: 12
- Total: 238
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The article "Research on the Influence of Blade Tip Trailing-Edge Serrated Structure on Wind Turbine Noise Reduction and Performance" deals with field test measurements of the noise emitted by a 3MW wind turbine with or without the use of serrations at the trailing edge, over a limited range of span close to the blade tip. BEM simulations are also carried-out to compare the mechanical loads generated in both configurations.Â
The topic is interesting and the work is relevant. However, the article is very short and lacks information. The literature review is very limited in the introduction and it seems that most of the references mentioned in the "reference" section are not called in the article (this is an issue). Also, more details about the experimental set-up and the simulations are required. Keep in mind that you should provide at least the information so that a reader can repeat your work. I am also not sure that the comparison between field tests and simulations is relevant based on the wind speed considered.
Detailed comments in a chronological order:
 - Introduction: please call your references in an appropriate way (name and year or number, the journal usually has an expectation).Â
         + the literature review in the introduction is extremely short. You must give a larger overview in order to show what is new in your work.
 - Fig. 1:Â
   - u, U and V0, please be consistent (later in the text as well).
   - I guess it is -\omega r (1+b) in (b) (according to the arrow that we barely see)
   - your choice of L/D leeds to a cas where the turbine would need to be motored to rotate. It is fine for the visualization of the velocity triangle, but not that nice in term of illustrating the operation of a wind turbine (we would expect FT to be in the opposite direction).
 - Eq. 5: I guess it should be "b" instead of "a" for Vrot (according to Fig. 1)
 - line 83: "axial velocity factor" => do you mean "axial induction factor"?
 - It is really not clear how the serration will be taken into account in your BEM simulations. Explain this. You give some detail at line 105 but we still do not know how the CL and CD are affected. Please explain it.
 - line 100: "The findings are intended to provide a valuable reference for future research in the field of wind turbine noise control" => wait at least the conclusion before writing such statement.Â
 - line 102: what do you mean by "which has a good power characteristic for capturing the optimal Cp value"? It is not clear to me (it would need to be rephrased).
 - line 103: "the fine pitch angle is uniformly set to 0deg" => what do you mean by "fine" here?
 - Fig. 2 and Tab. 1: are "h" and "H" the same parameters?
 - Fig. 2: for more clarity, it would be good to add a figure where you illustrate on a schematic the extent of the serration structure compared to the blade length.
 - section 3.2: give more technical details about the "test software, microphones, tuners and other writing and data acquisition modules".
 - section 3.2: give the distance from the turbine to the measurement location in turbine diameters as well.
 - section 3.4: the picture (left) is not fully explicit. Add arrows to identify what component is what (including the "reflective hard board")
 - section 3.2: what are the "non acoustic parameters" (line 127)?
 - table 2 and 3: Make clear what "serration option" (Tab. 1) is presented in these tables.Â
      + why is the maximum wind speed not the same in both cases? => you cannot make conclusions over the range 5.5 to 11 m.s-1, it should be limited to the lower maximum wind speed (9.5m.s-1).
 - line 148: "a detailed comparison was made of the noise spectrum" => you must show the spectrum if you write about it.Â
     + some analysis based on the aerodynamics would be interesting: does 400Hz correspond to something in particular?
 - section 4.2: how are the serration structures taken into account in the BEM simulations? Are the CL, CD modified? Based on what information?
 - Fig. 5 and 6: I do not understand the differences between the actual turbine and the simulations. Are the CP = f(TSR) curves not the same in both cases?
 - lines 165-170: I am not sure that I understand correctly: in the field tests, the wind speed is the wind speed in the near wake of the turbine? Make clear where the anemometer is located (with a schematic and the distances). If this is the case, as you mention, the measured wind speed is lower than the far upstream wind speed (the one used in the simulation). So how do you compare the curves?
 - line 170: I do not understand how you determine the number of hours of operation of the wind turbine in both cases. Make it clear.
 - Fig. 7: make clear the meaning of the terms of the x-axis: R-Hub, S-hub, etc... (an additional schematic would be welcome: you must show the coordinate frame that you use) + make clear what is the operating point considered (before calling Fig. 7).
 - line 183: "The load case corresponded to the pitch actuator fault condition defined in IEC 61400-1" => can you clarify what is this load case in the paper? It would be good to give the information to the reader straightaway, without the need for him to read the IEC 61400-1.
 - line 185 and around: why would the serrated blade delay the pitch motion? It is not clear.
 - line 200: "..., the peak value of the serrated blade is relatively large near the first order frequency of the tower." => you did not provide the natural frequencies prior to this statement (nor after), you must provide it if do this kind of analysis.
 - you mention a 3% to 4% difference between the serrated and non-serrated blades in terms of Mx, My and Mz. How does that compare with the accuracy of your model?