NREL/SR-440-6918 * UC Category: 1213 * DE97000206 Design and Experimental Results for the S809 Airfoil Dan M. Somers Airfoils, Incorporated State College, Pennsylvania NREL technical monitor: James Tangler a @F*, — PNR National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Managed by Midwest Research Institute for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-AC36-83CH10093 Work performed under task number WE711110 DOCUMENT IS. teed January 1997 0)NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express of implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibilty for the accuracy, completeness, ‘or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would notinfinge privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its ‘endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States govemment or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state of reflect those of the United States ‘government or any agency thereof. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from: Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) P.O, Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 97831 Prices available by calling (423) 576-8401 ‘Available to the public from: National Technical Information Service (NTIS) U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 (708) 487-4650 SS ————CSDISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.Foreword Validation of the Eppler Airfoil Design and Analysis Code has been a goal of several NREL-sponsored, two-dimensional investigations in the low-turbulence wind tunnel of the Delft University of Technology Low Speed Laboratory, The Netherlands. Initial validation of the code with respect to wind-turbine airfoils was based on data acquired for low maximum-lif-coefficient airfoils of the thin- and thick-airfoil families. ‘The first of these tests was conducted in 1985 upon completion of the design effort for a thin-airfoil family for stall-tegulated rotors. The primary airfoil of this family, the 13.5-percent-thick S805, was tested and the results showed that the Eppler Code predicted all the section characteristics well except the profile-drag coefficient. The drag coefficient was under predicted as a result of underestimating the significance of the laminar separation bubbles, through which the laminar flow transitioned to turbulent flow. The design of the subsequent thick-airfoil family included an adjustment to the design methodology that accounted for this bias error. In 1986, this adjustment was verified in a wind-tunnel test of the 21-percent-thick $809, the primary airfoil of this thick-airfol family. Through these tests, the Epler Code was “validated” so future airfoils, of moderate thickness, could be designed with greater confidence. For wind-turbine blades, ‘moderate-thickness airfoils are typically used for the outboard portion of the blade. eae fames L. Tangler Wind Technology Division National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd. Golden, Colorado 80401 USA. Internet Address: tanglerj@teplink.nrel.gov Phone 303-384-6934 FAX 303-384-6901Contents Page Introduction . Denes eee eee renee 1 Symbols and Abbreviations rns 2 Airfoil Design 2.0.0.2... cee eee eee reece ee 3 Experimental Procedure . . 6 Discussion of Results ee . . 5 8 Concluding Remarks ..........0 6 rr 12 Acknowledgments. noacnnee we ee References. ... : vtec eens bettteetreteesterteseeee 22 Table 1. Airfoil Design Specifications . . 4 Table 2. $809 Airfoil Coordinates . oe . . wees 15 a aS 16 Table 4. Roughness Size and Location .........-..-.. 18List of Figures Page 1. __Inviscid pressure distributions 19 2. $809 airfoil shape a 3. Delft University of Technology 1.80-% 1.25-m low-speed wind tunnel 2 4. Model and wake rakes mounted in test section. All dimensions are in mm 2B 5. Photograph of wake rakes mounted on strut m4 6. Wake rakes : 2B 7, Static-pressure, integrating, and total- bpressure wwake-rake tubes. All dimensions are in mm. 6 8. Pressure distributions for R = 2,000,000. Arrows indicate direction of angle-of-attack change (for determination of hysteresis) a 9. Oil-flow photographs of upper surface for R = 1,000,000 37 10. —_Oil-flow photographs of upper surface for R = 2,000,000 41 11. Oil-flow photographs of upper surface for R = 3,000,000 9 12. _Oil-flow photographs of lower surface for R = 1,000,000 2 13. Oilflow photographs of lower surface for R = 2,000,000 . : 54 14. _Oil-flow photographs of lower surface for R = 3,000,000 . 56 15. Transition location, Bars extend from beginning to end of transition . oe 58 16. Spanwise drag coefficients for R = 2,000,000... 2. ...0cseeeeeeeeeeeees 8 17. Section characteristics... .. bbd poseosooe 66 18, Bifec of roughness on section characteristics R 19. Effect of turbulators on drag coefficients B 20. Effect of turbulators on section characteristics for R’ = 1,000,000 . o 21. Comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure distributions . aL 22. Comparison of theoretical and experimental section characteristics with transition free... eee eee eee cece eee eee 4 23. Comparison of theoretical and experimental seetion characteristics with transition fixed .......... 90 24, Comparison of section characteristics of $809 and NACA 4421 airfoils for R = 3,000,000 ...... rr | 25. Comparison of section characteristics of $809 and NACA 23021 airfoils for R = 3,000,000 Bee ee ”Design and Experimental Results for the S809 Airfoil Dan M, Somers + March 1989 Abstract A 21-percent-thick, laminar-flow airfoil, the $809, for horizontal-axis wind-turbine applications, has been designed and analyzed theoretically and verified experimentally in the low-turbulence wind tunnel of the Delft University of Technology Low Speed Laboratory, The Netherlands. ‘The two primary objectives of restrained maximum lift, insensitive to roughness, and low profile drag have been achieved. The airfoil also exhibits a docile stall. Comparisons of the theoretical and experimental results show good agreement. Comparisons with other airfoils illustrate the restrained maximum lift coefficient as well as the lower profile-drag coefficients, thus confirming the achievement of the primary objectives, Introduction ‘The majority of the airfoils in use on horizontal-axis wind turbines today were originally devel airplanes. The design requirements for these airfoils, primarily National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) airfoils (refs. 1-6), are significantly different from those for wind-turbine airfoils. Accordingly, two sets of thick airfoils were designed, using the method of references 7 and 8, specifically for horizontal-axis wind-turbine applications. (Gee ref. 9.) The major, distinguishing feature between the two sets is the maximum lift coefficients of the airfoils for the outboard portion of the wind-turbine blade. The first set produces relatively low (“restrained”) maximum lift coefficients outboard whereas the second set produces maximum lift coefficients outboard that are 0.2 higher than those produced by the first set. In conjunction with this effort, the primary airfoil (0.75 blade radial station) of the first set was selected for experimental verification. In 1986, an investigation was conducted in the low-turbulence wind tunnel of the Delft University of Technology Low Speed Laboratory (ref. 10), The Netherlands, to obtain the basic, low-speed, two-dimensional aerodynamic characteristics of this airfoil. The results have been compared with the predictions from the method of references 7 and 8 and also with data from another low- turbulence wind tunnel for other airfoils. The specific tasks performed under this study are described in Solar Energy Research Institute (SER) Subcontract Number HK-6-06075-1. } President, Airfoils, Incorporated, State College, Pennsylvania‘Symbols and Abbreviations Values are given in both SI and U.S. Customary Units. Measurements and calculations were made in SI Units. G ce DFVLR NACA pressure coefficient airfoil chord, mm section profile-drag coefficient section lift coefficient section pitching-moment coefficient about quarter-chord point Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt fir Luft- und Raumfabrt National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Reynolds number based on free-stream conditions and airfoil chord transition (subscript) free-stream velocity, m/s wake rake (subscript) airfoil abscissa, mm span station, mm airfoil ordinate, mm angle of attack relative to chord line, degAirfoil Design Objectives and Constraints ‘Two primary objectives are evident from the design specifications for this airfoil (table 1). The first objective was to achieve a maximum lift coefficient that is relatively low (restrained). A requirement related to this objective was that the maximum lift coefficient not decrease with transition fixed near the leading edge on both surfaces. ‘The second objective was to obtain low profile-drag coefficients over the range of lift coefficients from 0.2 to 0.8 for a Reynolds number of 2.0 X 10°. ‘Two major constraints were placed on the design of this airfoil. First, the zero-lift pitching-moment coefficient must be no more negative than -0.05. Second, the airfoil thickness must be 21-percent chord. Philosophy Given the above objectives and constraints, certain characteristics of the design are evident. The following sketch illustrates the desired polar that meets the goals for this design. dh Sketch 1 ‘The desired airfoil shape can be related to the pressure distributions that occur at the various points in the sketch. Point A is the lower limit of the laminar bucket; point B, the upper limit. The values of the drag coefficients at both points are nearly equal and are determined by the extents of laminar flow on the upper and lower surfaces. The drag increases very rapidly outside the laminar bucket because the transition point moves quickly toward the leading edge. This feature results in a rather sharp leading edge that produces a suction peak at the higher lift coefficients. This peak limits the maximum lift coefficient and assures that transition will occur very near the leading edge. Thus, the maximum lift coefficient occurs with turbulent flow along the entire upper surface, and, therefore, the addition of roughness at the leading edge shouldhave little influence on the boundary-layer development along the upper surface and, accordingly, the maximum lift coefficient. Because the great airfoil thickness allows a wider laminar bucket to be achieved than that specified, point A should not be the lower limit of the bucket but, instead, near the middle. From the preceding discussion, the pressure distributions at points A and B can be deduced. The pressure distribution at point A should ook something like this: ° s 40 xe ‘Sketch 2 ‘To achieve low drag, a favorable pressure gradient is desirable along the upper surface to about 0.5c. Aft of this point, a short region of adverse pressure gradient (“transition ramp”) is desirable to promote the efficient transition from laminar to turbulent flow. Thus, the initial slope of the pressure recovery is relatively shallow. This short region is followed by a steeper concave pressure recovery that produces lower drag and has less tendency to separate than the corresponding linear or convex pressure recovery (ref. 11). A favorable pressure gradient is desirable along the lower surface to about 0.4c to achieve low drag. The initial slope of the pressure recovery is very shallow in order to inhibit the formation of significant laminar separation bubbles. ‘The amounts of pressure recovery on the two surfaces are determined by the pitching-moment constraint and the airfoil thickness.At point B, the pressure distribution should look like this: xfe Sketch 3 No suction spike exists at the leading edge. Instead, the peak occurs just aft of the leading edge. This feature is the result of incorporating increasingly favorable pressure gradients toward the leading edge. It is quite important in that it allows a wider laminar bucket to be achieved Execution Given the pressure distributions for lift coefficients of 0.2 and 0.8, the design of the airfoil is reduced to the inverse problem of transforming the pressure distributions into an airfoil shape. ‘The Epler Airfoil Design and Analysis Program (refs. 7 and 8) was used because of confidence gained during the design, analysis, and experimental verification of several other airfoils. The airfoil is designated the S809. The inviscid pressure distributions computed by the method of Teferences 7 and 8 for lift coefficients of 0.2 and 0.8 are shown in figures I(a) and 1(b), respectively. The airfoil shape is shown in figure 2 and the coordinates are contained in table 2‘Experimental Procedure ‘Wind Tunnel ‘The low-turbulence wind tunnel (ref. 10) of the Delft University of Technology Low Speed Laboratory, ‘The Netherlands, is a closed-throat, single-return, atmospheric tunnel (fig. 3). ‘The turbulence level in the test section varies from 0.02 percent at 10 m/s (33 f/s) to 0.04 percent at 60 m/s (200 ft/s). ‘The octagonal test section is 180.0 cm (70.87 in.) wide by 125.0 cm (49.21 in.) high. Electrically actuated tumtables provide positioning and attachment for the two-dimensional model. The turntables are flush with the top and bottom tunnel walls and rotate with the model. The axis of rotation coincided with the quarter chord of the model which was mounted vertically between the turntables. (See fig. 4.) The gaps between the model and the turntables were sealed. Model ‘The aluminum, wind-tunnel model was constructed by the Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt flr Luft- und Raumfahrt ¢.V. (DFVLR), Braunschweig, Federal Republic of Germany. The model had a chord of 600.00 mm (23.622 in.) and a span of 1248 mm (49.13 in.). Chordwise orifices were located in the upper and lower surfaces to one side of the midspan at the staggered positions listed in table 3. Spanwise orifices were located in the upper surface only in order to monitor the two-dimensionality of the flow at high angles of attack. All the orifices were 0.40 mm (0.016 in.) in diameter with their axes perpendicular to the surface. The measured model contour was generally within 0.1 mm (0.004 in.) of the prescribed shape. Wake Rake A total-pressure, a static-pressure, and an integrating wake rake were mounted on a strut between the ‘tunnel sidewalls (figs. 4 and 5). The strut could be positioned spanwise and streamwise in the test section. ‘Movement of the strut provided positioning of the wake rakes normal to the sidewalls. The details of the wake rakes are shown in figures 6 and 7. The integrating wake rake was not used in this investigation. Instrumentation Measurements of the basic tunnel pressures, the static pressures on the model surfaces, and the wake-rake pressures were made by a multitube manometer which was read automatically using photoelectric cells. Data were obtained and recorded by an electronic data-acquisition system. Methods The static-pressure measurements on the mode! surface were reduced to standard pressure coefficients and ‘numerically integrated to obtain section normal-force coefficients and section pitching-moment coefficients about the quarter-chord point. Section profile- + ox so i 0 is yo» ao» tm ‘ htt ow gs rete * H » « soezans 29n01 0 sorjams redin » or (2° sf s99q} 710 ainsseag + axes 724 x uoya 180d asynurds 61a Pepnyauoy = "sy 9anby a ooo'ooo'e = uoriis0d astaueds ” a. dex — 50 + + & oe + Pa oe coe : a 3 * . . . * aoeyans remo: > soesans seddn yy ; + ¥ta (0) s00t3130 sinssesa + ayer oxen x #oo0' 00's = uso; 5 909 Beap astmueds --94 osnbtg seeabep 0°0 = 7 (8) ue) Sy4D1OHOMA aor Le 8 eee“seesbep t7¢ = 90 (a) (U0) e%01040m, ow Credwt | , 1 | | i 1 i | i i | i 7 € yo 9 bP (pes) 7 a (e) & = 5.4 degrees 65 Figure 16.- Concluded.Soyysqieyoeaeys worqoes —"e1 exnbTd ooo'ooo'r = u ce) =P, eatePo 'o ae £10}010907 peeds MoT og HT Kojouyoo1 yo Kyss0NuN wed*penuyquon -"¢1 eanbra S aooroos's = we ca » ave aca ao a-a- avst on Ce, a = ea | s Pr —4s° + annem on Jos eaters —or 2 ——_-—_-——— | t-s_-~ s+ ‘wy | | | \ 9 | 'g o 6 2 benno eee ede Ise Lo a faoyo10907 peeds moy ppl FZ A6ojouyoo, jo A\ss0nUN Wea“po0%oo0'2 =H «9d 68 Syuoyorss909 ATT eATaTsOa (FY atnPo Lee 410301090) peeds mo gpl fy K6ojouypoy, jo Ayssoqun leders o-ar- a-ae~ ast penuryuoy ="gt eambya aoo'ooa'z =u ¢>) syuerotsse09 47TT eararBeN CTT) Po oar ee 'o Kioyosogoy peeds Mo7 BZ KGojouyooy jo Ayssonun 100a-ez are 000’ o0s'2 = H «PD a-ar- ave ar] last to) ae ‘fupyo10907 peeds M07 hy KBojouyoey yo Ayssonun lea oreprez a a ova es ar —- oe — | * od a a ar--| ——— lors -———_ oz a st ‘us, 2 '9 ve ey — fsoy01090) peeds mo1 pall ty ABo}oUyDe, Jo AysERIUN ¥YIEGwe 000" o00'r =H «RD =P etePo 2 ‘f1oyo1090) peods oy ABojouyo9, Jo AysseANUN 14I90 22 eo 20 a-or- ove a-ve oe —— “ oa . = _—— 5 4 +— —_—_|, 4+— s+ eee 8 ie pt al = ee le-r ——— lo-t + = s-s — —— js-r Ip 'y ah a= aespanuyquop -"ey 92nbra ee » eatePo pve aver oo ara ove avez ovat on are ee _ a — 200} Is s eet ¢ 7 a+: = i ve--| es = ls“ - {+ st Oey, i 9 'o } Pe ee a —tee a ° 4a0y01090 pods Moy Goro Wy ABojouyoo, jo Kyssonun y1oa“goo‘ooo'z = «>> “syuetorsse0> ysTT oa » a-az a-ar 2-9 por aoe are avr a are a ae — a. — 20-2} ~ — Ly te o_o Fo lant | ___s-= |— ee" — svt = +> svt ae ay Ig 'g ae —_—- ae — ———- lee Auoyos09p7 peeds Moy ppl {hy KGojouyoos jo Aysuonun yeaoo'oos'z = u «PD » eatePy aoe oar ave o-0e aor ae ate 2-2 - 0 209} — — ere jas los e2"-| s-+ i = fe * oe “o 'y 'y ae a ae as a == 2 a) fuoyo10907 poods mo} —_ ppl wad sean? Wy Kojouype jo AyssonuN YIeapepnisuoy ~"ey eanBy a oo'ooo'e = ue) » aro oe aor oa am- ave ere or / oe ve a . —— - wrt or “" LL ae sa oe + fran fp one, ws ° 'g ve ah a la-e — ‘Kuoyo109o7 pesds M07 A] Aeojouyoo, jo Gs10NUN YOR8 “syueyorsse0> Sep wo sz0qetngany 30 990353 ~" 61 eanbya saets cry eyins 19K01 7 eoezans ieddn G] 30 ° soverngangpepntauey ~"gt eanbTa teoets cay sorgans sedéa GQ | 130 ° soyringing000'000'T = 4H 405 SoyysyseyoEsEyD UOT yD—s Ho srOyETNGIny Jo 490553 -"Or vINbT a ert*Po aco erst avo as a-o a Tae is A= ee er = eee — Ist = * 282" wy Ig 'o 7 loz — — = 2 ut a 10 ° sroyringang, ap ae ~! f20y010q0 poods no} hy Keojouyooy yo Ayssonun ied—— Theory —O- Experiment (ae) = 0.27 Figure 21.- Comparison of theoretical and experimental pressure distributions 81Theory —O— Experiment tb) ey = 0.77. z Figure 21.- Continued 82—— Theory —O- Experinent Figure 21.~ Concluded.o 'o 'g ee a ——___—_l- i ee — re D> queuyaede3—o— Kaoaus. seuyuey“panuyquog -"2z eanbya ooo'ous'T =H (a) Asoy010907 pods mo a ABojouyoo] 30 AysonUN yieGooo'ooo'z = uc) 86 Syuoporsseo 437T eaTaTsed (1) | i | __} _———---_—| | I, | Oo je 410101090) poods Mo} gall Hy Keojouyse, jo Myssonun yied ccc aaca aaa ACCC CACC aaa eeep40q0} peods Mo?“panuyquop "zz emnbTa oo oe eo os i ° vos} fh le. ss | | _—— a Pad — lov — oe — wf oe , ly Ip —— —| 2 L -|—_——_——lp yesuys04s3 a Liew 410101090) pseds Moy ppl {Hy K6ojouyoo, 40 Ayssenun 4100 _fyoyo10q0 peeds MoT galt HT ABojouysoy jo Ayssonun yea queny2ed1g3—p— 43004, ——aware 3 srieqseiseimp voyage reyuaaysedte pur Tr) mop ~"e2 santa g “goo'aoo'T © w CRD eatro 2-02 . oer 06 ove ao oa ort a oo a “e"0 ved ————s- s 1 ar] - _ _ se--}——— ———_|—~ js — at one, wy lg 'o oe —L_____l______,. ————t-—_—— fucyo10qe1 pesds mo 1 scoouoos yo Aysowun yeaspanuryuoy -"e2 eanbya 5 ooo‘oos't =u (a> » eatPo avae aot ao aver- Bree aoe ‘at a-0 Co ——— Z a = — ~——"a's aa-al ——,- fo tr BS $l sa en vee ae s+ ist oe: “o 'y 'o ve a0 ee love fa0y010q0 peeds Moy ABojouyse,, Jo Aysuentun wea quenysedrg 3004, ——ry Theo: —O- Experiment eee _ Delft University of Technology ait Low Speed Laboratory = 28 Cy Cys? fe) R= 2,000,000. (i) Positive Lift coefficients7 As jorsity of Technology Aggy yt ow Speed Laborator 5 —_ Delft Univpenuyquop -"er osn6ta z & “goo'oos’e =u (P eatePo ore 2-0 an eo wae o-ae eat o fp —T a : _ = = 2-2} / - s- | Fa ar--| aa ers —*t ——Jo°s 22° s-t — * Ho y 'y oe i — ae 7 oe ‘Auoyo10907 poods m7 ppl fh] KBoouyoe, 30 Ays10NUN JIG quamysedrg —Q— 43004 —pepnyouoy -"ez eanbya 8 “goo'oo0'e =u «aD » _otPo ove avo oa eat ave ave aor a" or —— Or = en a0"9 —————E— L. | Jroeofeorr? | ar lot ~ = ee ~ — let | ose MH lg ae lave —_—— =e yuowy 2ede3 fuoy010907 poods mo pall x04, —— "Hy KBojouyoa jo Aysuonun Ie96 opo‘goo'e = M205 stTossTe Tb) VOVN PUL ogg Fo SOT ASTIVyoeIRYD WoTIDes 70 WostzEduoD -"pr oInBT a » entePo vee are ao oP avor~ est aor ors eo ars = oe = —— aaa 200) Is . = are jet —— + ee ————| i st eae —s"t ose wy Ip 'o een — ae = ——"p2 sos o 1tbb 0 ‘fuoyo1090" paedg Moy, ooh Hy K6ojouyse, 30 Ayssonun lea000'000'E = u 105 st ToszTe S2ORL VOVN PUL 09s Fo S9FISFse,DeIEYD UOT {Des Zo Uostseduoy - "oz osnBIa avez oar ae acer a “st AP. eotePo pr aeee s are — a a2 ees] is-t ony, 9 'o ee --'— are = Asoyo10qo7 poods mo] ppll Cr ABo}OUYDAL Jo KySUOALUN, 3180 soso 12082 ©Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB NO. 0704-0188: TR gy te eg ere nnd ea as pce, ha parc re ata wig ee am ce nee maa Le egg ele a aa Epes steer baat a Ost ae 0 HSE ay ade Se usenet ge Rao ae TO Bibs Washington, 06 2080.0 see ieee - i 1 2 ‘2, REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED REPORT DATE Subcontract Report January 1997 TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Design end Experimental Results for the S809 Airfoil C: HK-4-04148.01 ‘AUTHOR'S) TA: WE711110 Dan M. Somers PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESSIES) ' PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER. Airfolls, Incorporated ‘State College, Pennsylvania 'SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING [AGENCY REPORT NUMBER National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Bivd SR-440-6918 Golden, CO 80401-3393 DE97000108 11, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES NREL Technical Monitor: James Tangler 12s. OISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12, DISTRIBUTION CODE. National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce ue-1213 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 ‘ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words} ‘An 21% thick, laminar-flow airfoil, the $809, for horizontal-axis wind turbine applications, has been designed and analyzed theoretically and verified experimentally in the low-turbulence wind tunnel of the Delft University of Technology Low Speed Laboratory, The Netherlands. The two primary objectives of restrained maximum lift, insensitive to roughness, and low profile drag have been achieved. The airfoil also exhibits a docile stall. Comparisons of the theoretical and experimental results show ‘good agreement. Comparisons with other airfoils illustrate the restrained maximum lift coefficient as well as the lower profile- drag coefficients, thus confirming the achievernent of the primary objectives. SUBJECT TERMS (NUMBER OF PAGES horizontal-axis wind-turbine airfoil PRICE CODE SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION | 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT OF THs PAGE (OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unolassified ue NSN 7540.01-280-5500 ‘Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Proseraes by ANS! Sa, 2381