the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Computational aerodynamics for soft-wing kite design
Abstract. Soft-wing kites are morphing, bridled, tensile lifting surfaces used for wind-assisted ship propulsion and airborne wind energy applications. Their swept-back planform, pronounced anhedral, and unconventional leading-edge geometry induce complex aerodynamic behaviour that challenges conventional modelling approaches. For leading-edge inflatable (LEI) kites, pressure-side separation induced by the inflated tubular leading edge renders classical inviscid methods insufficient, thereby necessitating sectional input from higher-fidelity approaches. This study presents and applies a computationally efficient aerodynamic framework to an LEI kite by coupling a vortex step method (VSM) with RANS-derived airfoil polars validated against wind-tunnel measurements. The RANS simulations were used to train a machine-learning surrogate model to facilitate parametric design studies. Applying machine learning to LEI kite aerodynamics is novel, and it achieves R2 > 0.98 across the considered parameter space. Three-dimensional load predictions for the TU Delft V3 LEI kite were evaluated against wind-tunnel data and reference three-dimensional RANS simulations. Within the operational incidence range α ∈ [−1,10]°, the predicted lift and drag agree with measurements to within 9 % and 13 %, respectively. Across this range, the framework reproduces the measured aerodynamic trends more consistently than the reference three-dimensional RANS results, while reducing the computational cost by several orders of magnitude. A rigid-body stability analysis indicated static stability in roll, pitch, and yaw, but limited aerodynamic damping within the quasi-steady model. Parametric analyses revealed inherent trade-offs between aerodynamic efficiency and stability, motivating the adoption of multi-objective optimisation strategies. The validated framework provides high predictive accuracy at low computational cost and forms a foundation for rapid aerodynamic analysis, stability assessment, design optimisation, and aero-structural coupling in the conceptual and preliminary design phases.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Wind Energy Science.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(25059 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 13 May 2026)
- AC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-46', Jelle Poland, 27 Feb 2026 reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2026-46', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Apr 2026
reply
This paper brings together several elements related to the aerodynamic predictions for kites in airborne wind energy systems, using results and methods from multiple related publications.
* The title is too broad, as the parametrization of the airfoil section seems to apply only/mostly to leading-edge inflatable kites, not to ram-air kites for instance, so the title should mention this limitation.
* The title is somewhat misleading, as the "soft" aspect is not included in this paper, there is not aero-elasticity. This is also present in the manuscript and in the conclusion.
* The introduction with the step-wise build up and history of the lifting line method is interesting and suitable for a PhD thesis, but does not support the key message of this paper and is not required to understand what is being done in the presented work.
* The machine learning model is now built separately for each Re, which is strange, as Re will constantly be varying during operation so also in realistic simulations. This should be changed by making a combined model, probably after gathering new data, or mentioned clearly as a significant limitation of the applicability.
* The PCHIP interpolation for the angle of attack is a strong limitation, because that means a user or application should always extract the data from the model at the sampling points and then fit them before actually using the data. Smooth and physical behaviour should be built into the machine learning model by construction, e.g. by having coefficients of a polynomial for the data as output instead of the actual data.
* The actual contribution and goal of this paper are drowning in too much other information that is interesting as such, but not contributing to the message.
* Line 29: Give a range for the lift-to-weight ratios.
* Line 35: "But" is a coordinating conjunction and should only be used at the beginning of sentences to signal a shift in thought.
* Line 69: Kutta (1902) => (Kutta, 1902)
* Line 182: Fritz (2024) => (Fritz, 2024)
* Line 226: Introduce abbreviation AIC here.
* Line 275: Motivated => and which is motivated
* Line 283: w_i should be introduced after equation (19)
* Line 328: Is this at 20% starting from the TE? Or 80% in the current formulation?
* Line 334: The sizes that were coming out of the sensitivity analysis should be summarized here.
* Line 338-9: It seems contradicting that one chord length is used in the z-direction and at the same time unit depth. Furthermore, it is not clear what the physical distance (in multiple of chord lengths) covered by the 201 cell layers is.
* Line 346: Mention the remaining error
* Line 353-5: It is strange to mention documentation of 2025 for an older OpenFOAM version
* Line 393: The importance of the variables could be quantified using Sobol indices
* Line 411: What did the flow field in the outliers look like? How come there is a strong variation in their results despite all being converged?
* Line 464-5: This fits better with line 445
* Line 482: The counterclockwise only applies on the pressure side (but that is also where the recirculation occurs here)
* Line 487: encounters both three => encounters three
* Line 580: V => U_\infty
* Line 587: The last sentence is repetition from the line above.
* Line 639: Missing point at end
* Line 711: < 0 => > 0
* Figure 17: Indicate also unstable regions due to other criteria, e.g. in the right subplot with a second colorCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2026-46-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 383 | 180 | 15 | 578 | 20 | 27 |
- HTML: 383
- PDF: 180
- XML: 15
- Total: 578
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
"Within this context, 2D RANS computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of LEI kites..."
Should have been: "Within this context, 3D RANS computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of LEI kites..."