April 1999

NREL/SR-500-26173

Design of a Tapered and Twisted Blade for the NREL Combined Experiment Rotor
March 1998 – March 1999

P. Giguère and M.S. Selig
Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Illinois

April 1999

NREL/SR-500-26173

Design of a Tapered and Twisted Blade for the NREL Combined Experiment Rotor
March 1998 – March 1999

P. Giguère and M.S. Selig
Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Illinois

NREL Technical Monitors: James L. Tangler and David A. Simms
Prepared under Subcontract No. XAF-4-14076-03

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 or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe 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 government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or 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 37831 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 703-605-6000 or 800-553-6847 or DOE Information Bridge http://www.doe.gov/bridge/home.html
Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste

Colorado 80401 USA E-mail: james_tangler@nrel. The first blade set had no twist whereas the second had twist. Golden. As the next step.gov Phone: 303-384-6934 Fax: 303-384-6901 iii . and that uses the S809 airfoil.and variable-speed operations. The new CER blades are presently being built by an independent blade manufacturer. ______________________ James L. the design of a tapered/twisted blade for the CER was contracted out to the Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. was selected as the new CER blade. This blade design work consisted of a systematic trade-off study where many blade configurations were compared to determine how much the design constraints affected blade performance. NREL plans to test the new blades under constant.Foreword Previous phases of experimenting with the Combined Experiment Rotor (CER) of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have provided test results from two constant-chord blade sets. a blade having a linear taper and nonlinear twist. Tangler National Renewable Energy Laboratory – National Wind Technology Center 1617 Cole Boulevard. An extended version of this blade was also designed for a two-bladed rotor configuration. Based on the results of the tradeoff study.

The objective was to build on the knowledge base of the previous CER tests conducted with constant-chord/untwisted blades and constant-chord/twisted blades. and Lee J. Fingersh of NREL for their feedback and suggestions throughout this blade design work. David A. Such CER tapered/twisted blades will yield performance that is more representative of commercial blades. This blade design work for the CER was performed during the summer of 1997 while the first author was at the National Wind Technology Center. Michael C. (Sandy) Butterfield of NREL were also appreciated. iv . these new blades will continue to satisfy the scientific needs for fundamental research in rotor aerodynamics. The comments of Dr. Robinson and C.P. Tangler. Also. The authors would like to thank NREL for providing funding under subcontract XAF-4-14076-03 and the opportunity to design new blades for the CER. In addition. the authors would like to thank James L. Simms.Preface A tapered/twisted blade set was designed for the Combined Experiment Rotor (CER) of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Furthermore. the new blade is more representative of commercial blades than the previous blade sets. S822 and S823 airfoils. rotor thrust as well as lift coefficient and axial inflow distributions along the blade span are presented. Finally. which is a stall-regulated downwind wind turbine having a rated power of 20 kilowatt. a blade having a linear taper and a nonlinear twist distribution that uses the S809 airfoil from root to tip was selected. recommendations for future blade sets for the CER are also given. which considered nonlinear twist and taper distributions as well as the NREL S809. an increase in rotor speed was also investigated. Results for the CER equipped with the new blades (baseline and extended blades) in terms of mechanical power output. Even though the new blades were designed for constant-speed operations. Based on the results of this study. Despite the design constraints based on scientific needs. they can also be used for fundamental research in variable-speed operations. To facilitate the selection of the most appropriate rotor configuration for the NREL variable-speed test bed using the new blades. S814.and two-bladed rotor configurations. v . This blade configuration is the logical continuation of the previous constant-chord twisted and untwisted blade sets and will facilitate comparison with those earlier blades. These constraints were mainly related to scientific needs for fundamental research in rotor aerodynamics. A trade-off study was conducted to determine the effect of the different design constraints. The geometry of the new blade set was optimized based on annual energy production subject to the constraints imposed on the design. To enhance the performance of the new blade in a two-bladed rotor configuration instead of the baseline three-bladed rotor. an increase in blade span was investigated.Summary A tapered/twisted blade was designed to operate on the Combined Experiment Rotor (CER) of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). results showing the power coefficient as a function of the tip-speed ratio for various pitch settings are presented. A two-bladed rotor making use of extended blades and rotating at a speed 8% faster than the baseline speed or revolution per minute setting was found to yield comparable power output to that of the new blades in a three-bladed rotor configuration. The new blade was designed to be applicable for three. which led to the design of an extended blade having a 10% increase in span.

.………. 1 Design Constraints……………………………………………………………....….………...Contents Foreword……………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………….………. 15 Appendix A: Tabulated Data for the Tapered/Twisted CER blade……………..……………………….. 14 References……………………………………………………………..……….…iv Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Design Approach…………………………………………………………….………………..….………………….……. 8 Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………….… iii Preface………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16 Appendix B: Tabulated Results for Figures 4-8.… vii Introduction………………………………………………………………………….………………………....….………………………..…..………….….…………………….… v Nomenclature.……………………..……… 17 vi ..……..…………………………. 4 Performance Predictions………………………………………………….…………………...………………………..….3 Design Trade-offs and Blade Geometry Optimization…………….

.…………………… 10 7.…………………………………………. tip-speed ratio for the tapered/twisted CER blade.... Results of the blade configuration trade-off study…………………………………………………. Final twist distribution of the tapered/twisted CER blade.…………………………………………………. 6 3. 9 6...………….... 8 5..11 8...……………………………………………..12 List of Tables 1.. Lift coefficient distribution along the span for the tapered/twisted CER blade.List of Figures 1.. Axial inflow coefficient distribution along the span for the tapered/twisted CER blade. Planform of the baseline tapered/twisted CER blade (three-bladed rotor configuration)………….. Rotor thrust curves for the tapered/twisted CER blade. Power coefficient vs..7 4. 5 Nomenclature c HD R r N Blade chord Hub diameter Blade radius Radial distance along the blade span from the center of the rotor Newton vii .. 6 2.…………………………. Planform of the extended tapered/twisted CER blade (two-bladed rotor configuration)………….. Power curves for the tapered/twisted CER blade..

which is a stall-regulated downwind machine having a rated power of 20 kilowatt (kW) and operating at a speed of 72 revolutions per minute (rpm). 63%. This rotor is mounted on a Grumman Wind Stream 33 horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT). 47%. This report describes the approach and process used to design a tapered/twisted blade. two blade sets were tested with this wind turbine for fundamental research in rotor aerodynamics. In addition. An important part of this work was to conduct a study of the design trade-offs to determine the effect of those constraints on the energy capture of the rotor. and 95% span. Another objective was to determine the necessary modifications to the blade geometry and operating rpm for a two-bladed rotor configuration. the blade geometry for the new set was to be designed for maximum annual energy production. Because of the need for fundamental research in rotor aerodynamics and practical aspects. The first blade set was composed of constant-chord/untwisted blades and the second set had constantchord/twisted blades. namely at 30%. 80%. 2 and 3. Both of these blade sets were built with a chord of 457 mm (18 in. constraints were imposed on the design.Introduction The Combined Experiment Rotor (CER) of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has a diameter of 10.1 To date. The performance of the CER equipped with the new blade set was also investigated under variable-speed operation. one blade of each set was instrumented with chordwise pressure taps and a 5-hole probe at five spanwise locations.) and used the NREL S809 airfoil along the entire span. 1 . The objective of this work was to design a third blade set for the CER having both taper and twist. In contrast with the two other blade sets.06 m (33 ft) and is composed of three blades. These two blade sets were extensively tested and the results of those experiments can be found in Refs. and provides performance predictions for the CER equipped with the new blades.

03 m (16.) tip shape for the baseline three-bladed rotor A rated power of 20 kW A cone angle of 3. 2 .5 ft) including a 102-mm (4-in.4 degrees Keep distance from pitch axis to the leading edge less than 584 mm (23 in.4 Some practical constraints were imposed to facilitate the instrumentation of the new blades in a manner similar to the previous CER blade sets. Other constraints were imposed to ensure consistency with the previous blade sets for ease of comparison of the data.) at 80% of the blade span for comparison of the pressure data with the previous blade sets Use the S8095 airfoil for as much of the blade span as possible to facilitate comparison with the previous blade sets Transition to the S8145 root airfoil from the S809 airfoil not to begin before 47% of the blade span.) to allow for the installation of pressure taps and instrumentation on the instrumented blade A fixed chord length of 457 mm (18 in. The design constraints for the tapered/twisted blades for the CER were as follows: • • • • • • • • A blade span of 5.Design Constraints NREL provided the design constraints for the tapered/twisted CER blades.) so that the 5-hole probes do not hit the tower A minimum chord of 305 mm (12 in.

and a figure of merit (objective function) for the optimization. Particular attention was given to obtaining smooth stall characteristics along the entire blade span. PROPGA provides the optimum blade geometry. In addition.000 ft). PROPID was used to finalize the blade twist distribution and pitch setting. the blade geometry was optimized for maximum gross annual energy production (GAEP) using PROPGA. airfoil data obtained from wind tunnel experiments over a range of Reynolds numbers were used. Following the design of the blades for the baseline three-bladed rotor. Throughout the design process. the Prandtl tip-loss model was used and the Corrigan post-stall model10 was incorporated into PROPID to modify the two-dimensional airfoil for three-dimensional effects. PROPID is an inverse design and analysis method for HAWTs that is based on the bladeelement/momentum theory PROP code. In the present design work. Given a set of design constraints/requirements.829 m or 6. the power output of the rotor was computed up to a wind speed of 17. Once the final blade geometry was selected. the inverse design capability of PROPID was used to limit the mechanical power output of the CER to 20 kW.8 were used to carry out the blade design process. the trade-offs between various blade configurations and airfoils were investigated to determine the effect of the design constraints on the energy capture of the rotor.9 The inverse design capabilities of PROPID allow for the desired performance and aerodynamic characteristics of the rotor to be prescribed from which the blade geometry and corresponding operating conditions are determined. the GAEP (assuming a 100% generator efficiency) was computed based on a Rayleigh wind-speed distribution having an average wind speed of 7. For each blade configuration considered. As a first and important step in the design process. bounds for the parameters to be optimized. which is representative of the windy months at NREL. PROPID was also used to determine the necessary modifications to the blade geometry and operating rotor speed for a two-bladed rotor configuration. Also. In predicting rotor performance. Similar schemes were also used when necessary to extrapolate the data above the largest Reynolds number in the available data. The number of segments used along the blade span was 10 for a PROPGA run and 20 when using PROPID outside the optimization scheme of PROPGA.Design Approach The computer programs PROPID6. 3 . Also. To interpolate between Reynolds numbers.9 m/s (40 mph) using standard atmospheric conditions at the altitude of the National Wind Technology Center (1. a logarithmic scheme was used for the drag and linear interpolation was used for the lift.2 m/s (16 mph). PROPID was used to provide performance predictions with greater accuracy under constant-speed and variable-speed operations.7 and PROPGA7.11 PROPGA is a genetic algorithm based optimization method for HAWTs that relies on PROPID for the analysis of the possible blade/rotor designs.

4 The first two tasks were to optimize blades without any of the design constraints to provide a basis for comparison. a linear taper was adopted. it seemed logical to design the blades with only the S809 airfoil. that the S822 and S823 airfoils were designed after the first blade set for the CER was designed and built. A thicker airfoil inboard having a higher maximum lift coefficient would. the new blades are more representative of commercial blades than the previous two blade sets. a linear transition was used between the two airfoils.12 For the second blade set.000 for the S814 airfoil. It is important to note. the planform of the new blades was designed around that constraint. and below 700. of course. which were designed for medium-size wind turbines. Apart from the ease of 4 . the design of the blade planform was oriented towards a more "scientific" blade rather than a "commercial" blade. For a given set of constraints. The selection of the S809 airfoil was initially based on the need to use a well-documented airfoil and at the time of the design of the first blade set for the CER. According to the selection of a planform based on scientific needs. were obtained from logarithmic extrapolations for the drag and linear extrapolations for the lift. and thus have design Reynolds numbers that are closer to the operating range of the CER as compared with the S809 and S814 airfoils.14. This 3% increase in GAEP by using the S822 and S823 airfoils was not judged to be significant enough to offset the desire to preserve consistency with the S809 airfoil for the new CER blades. Nevertheless. Because of the importance of the 457-mm (18-in. all had tip-chord lengths larger than 305 mm (12 in.). Consequently. For the S822 and S823 airfoils. however. the data used were obtained from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign low-turbulence subsonic wind tunnel. the minimum chord constraint did not cause a loss in performance.) chord constraint at 80% of the blade span for comparison of pressure data with the existing blade sets.000.) chord length constraint at 80% blade span. Note that the data below a Reynolds number of 1. It was found that constraining the blade to a linear taper was not significantly detrimental to the energy capture as long as the twist distribution was nonlinear. Consequently. The results of the trade-off study are summarized in Table 1. The constraint that had the most significant negative impact on the energy capture was the 457-mm (18-in. The blades optimized without any chord and twist constraints using the S809 airfoil with or without the S814 root airfoil provided equivalent energy capture. Therefore. These two airfoils were designed for small blades. the S814 airfoil was further considered in the design. The case with the S822 and S823 airfoils was added to the NREL task list because of the objective to maximize energy capture.13 The airfoil data gathered with the S809 and S814 were used in the blade optimization process. Among the three blades optimized without any constraints. the S809 airfoil had been extensively tested at the Delft wind tunnel.Design Trade-offs and Blade Geometry Optimization The trade-off study was subdivided into a number of tasks that were defined by NREL.000 for the S809 airfoil. which resulted in a loss in energy capture that ranged from 2. provide a blade design more representative of commercial blades. Therefore. which was about 3% less than the GAEP of the blade making use of the S822 and S823 airfoils. the optimized blades that made use of the S814 airfoil inboard provided slightly better energy capture than blades using only the S809 airfoil.15 The data sets for each airfoil used in the design process were for clean-surface conditions. The S814 airfoil was also tested in the Delft wind tunnel at a later time. the S809 airfoil was used for consistency to provide a basis for comparison with the first blade set. The chord and twist distributions as well as the blade pitch were optimized for three sets of NREL airfoils:5 • S809 from root to tip • S814 at the root (0%–35% span) and S809 at the tip (75%–100% span) • S823 at the root (0%–35% span) and S822 at the tip (75%–100% span).5% to 7% depending on the tip chord. For the two cases with multiple airfoils along the blade span.

5% Given a 457-mm (18-in.4. The linear taper was preserved in extending the baseline blade.) Same as above with tip chord of 381 mm (15 in. The tabulated data for the geometry of the baseline blade including the 10% span extension is given in Appendix A.9% % diff.1% -2. the chord tapers from a maximum of 737 mm (29 in. in GAEP baseline -3. The planform of the proposed blade for the third set of the CER. and R remains the span of the baseline blade).) Same as above with tip chord of 356 mm (13. there is no blending between airfoils.5 in. and thus the uncertainty level in the design process is reduced.) tip chord would have been best but because of the desire to operate the new blade set in a two-bladed rotor configuration.7% -5.) Same as above with tip chord of 419 mm (16.) chord at 80% blade span and the use of a linear taper.3% -3. 5 .) Linear taper and nonlinear twist Same as above with chord of 457 mm (18 in. (Note that the x-axis extends to a r/R of 1. a rotor with a slightly larger solidity was selected.).) at 80% r/R Same as above with tip chord of 305 mm (12 in. The blade with the 10% increase in span is referred to as the extended tapered/twisted CER blade. the taper ratio of the blade is 2.) at 80% r/R % diff.7% % diff.1 (29:14 in. With the blade extension. Also. which gave a tip chord of 305 mm (12 in. it was found that increasing the blade span by 10% was a good compromise between enhancing the performance of the baseline blade in a two-bladed rotor configuration and limiting the increase in blade loads. the design of the blade planform was reduced to the selection of the tip chord. More precisely. a 305-mm (12-in. Table 1: Results of the blade configuration trade-off study given in terms of percentage difference in gross annual energy production (GAEP) Blade Configuration Tradeoff Study 1) Cases with different airfoils and no constraint Airfoils Root (0%-30% r/R) Tip (75%-100% r/R) S823 S822 S814 S809 S809 S809 2) Cases with the S814/S809 airfoils Constraints No constraint Minimum chord of 305 mm (12 in.1. is shown in Figure 1. which is later referred to as the baseline tapered/twisted CER blade. in GAEP baseline same as baseline -0. a 356-mm (14-in. Both blade spans can be accommodated by the same mold having 110% the span of the baseline blade.) tip chord appeared to be the best compromise between operating the blades in a three-bladed and twobladed rotor configuration. in GAEP baseline same as baseline -0. Figure 2 depicts the baseline blade with the 10% span extension. At the root. For optimum energy capture.5 in. The taper ratio of the baseline blade is 2.).0% -2.) 3) Cases with the S809 airfoil Constraints No constraint Minimum chord of 305 mm (12 in.) Linear taper and nonlinear twist Same as above with chord of 457 mm (18 in.) at 25% blade span to the hub diameter at 14% span.comparison with the previous CER blades. there is no added confusion in the aerodynamics of modeling the 3D post-stall effects when only the S809 airfoil is used on the new blades.5% -2.7% -3. or simply the baseline blade.1% -6. Using PROPID.

Consequently.Fig. the same tip geometry used on the existing blade sets should be scaled down according to the tip-chord lengths of the baseline and extended blades. The final twist distribution is shown in Figure 3 and the optimum pitch setting was 5 degrees (with pitch defined at 75% of the blade span). 2: Planform of the extended tapered/twisted CER blade for the two-bladed rotor configuration (the normalized chord is c/R and the normalized radial position is r/R) The twist distribution and the pitch setting of the baseline blade were optimized for maximum GAEP. Finally. no new tip shape was designed for the new CER blades. 1: Planform of the baseline tapered/twisted CER blade for the three-bladed rotor configuration (the normalized chord is c/R and the normalized radial position is r/R) Fig. 6 . Particular attention was also given to obtaining a smooth power curve and smooth transition to stall from root to tip.

3: Final twist distribution of the tapered/twisted CER blade with pitch defined at 75% span of the baseline blade (the normalized chord is c/R and the normalized radial position is r/R) 7 .Fig.

the baseline blade in a two-bladed rotor configuration can greatly benefit from a 15% increase in rotor speed (83 instead of 72 rpm).03 m (16. As expected. Also.Performance Predictions The power curve of the baseline tapered/twisted CER blade is shown in Figure 4a. As indicated in this figure. b) extended blade The rotor thrust as a function of wind speed is shown in Figure 5.5 ft) 3-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 72 rpm 5 Extended Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 5. increasing the blade pitch from 5 to 8 degrees provides the rated power of 20 kW. a) 20 Mechanical Power (kW) 15 10 5 Baseline Tapered/Twisted CER blade Span of 5.15 ft) 2-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 78 rpm 2-bladed rotor at 8 deg pitch and 72 rpm 2-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 72 rpm 0 0 5 10 15 20 Wind Speed (m/s) Fig. 4: Power curves for the tapered/twisted CER blade (mechanical power): a) baseline blade.53 m (18.03 m (16. This figure shows that the performance of the extended blades can be considerably improved if the rotor speed is increased from 72 to 78 rpm (8% increase). Figure 4b depicts the power curve of the extended tapered/twisted CER blade with the baseline blade for comparison.5 ft) 3-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 72 rpm 2-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 83 rpm 2-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 72 rpm 0 0 5 10 15 20 Wind Speed (m/s) b) 20 Mechanical Power (kW) 15 10 Baseline Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 5. having two blades instead 8 .

5 ft) 3-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 72 rpm Extended Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 5. 5: Rotor thrust curves for the tapered/twisted CER blade: a) baseline blade.5 ft) 3-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 72 rpm 2-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 83 rpm 2-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 72 rpm 500 0 0 5 10 15 20 Wind Speed (m/s) b) 3000 2500 2000 Thrust (lbs) 1500 Baseline Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 5.53 m (18.03 m (16.03 m (16. for four wind speeds: 9 . b) extended blade Figures 6 and 7 show the lift coefficient and axial inflow distributions. respectively.of three reduced the overall rotor thrust loads.15 ft) 2-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 78 rpm 2-bladed rotor at 8 deg pitch and 72 rpm 2-bladed rotor at 5 deg pitch and 72 rpm 1000 500 0 0 5 10 15 20 Wind Speed (m/s) Fig. a) 3000 2500 2000 Thrust (N) 1500 1000 Baseline Tapered/Twisted CER blade Span of 5.

4 0.3 0.7 m/s (15 mph) 9. a) 1.0 m/s (20 mph) 11. 9.2 ft) 2-bladed rotor at pitch of 5 deg and 72 rpm 4.2 0.5 m/s (10 mph) 6. 6. accounts for the lower thrust of the two-bladed rotor configuration.2 m/s (25 mph) Lift Coefficient 1. b) extended blade 10 . Also.7 m/s (15 mph) 9.0 m/s (20 mph) 11. 6: Lift coefficient distribution along the span for the tapered/twisted CER blade: a) baseline blade.5 Baseline Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 5.1 0.6 0.0.0 0. and 25 mph).8 0.7.2 m/s (25 mph) indicates that the blade is stalled over that portion of the blade.0 0.7 0.0 0. and 11.0 Normalized Distance Along Blade Span (r/R) Fig.5 Extended Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 5.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 Normalized Distance Along Blade Span (r/R) b) 1.7 0.5 ft) 3-bladed rotor at pitch of 5 deg and 72 rpm 4.9 1.2 0. 20. Note that the inboard drop in lift coefficient shown in Figure 6b for a wind speed of 11.53 m (18.2 m/s (10.9 1. The axial inflow distribution not being at the optimum value of one third is an indication that the new CER blades are not truly optimized for maximum energy capture.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 m/s (25 mph) Lift Coefficient 1.5 0.5 m/s (10 mph) 6.8 0.4.4 0.5 0.5 0. the lower values of the axial induction coefficient for the extended blade for a given wind speed and radial position along the blade span.5. 15.03 m (16.6 0.

5 ft) 3-bladed rotor at pitch of 5 deg and 72 rpm 4.1 0.5 Extended Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 5.3 0.53 m (18.6 0.2 m/s (25 mph) 0. 7: Axial inflow coefficient distribution along the span for the tapered/twisted CER blade: a) baseline blade.1 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.5 0.0 Normalized Distance Along Blade Span (r/R) Fig.2 0.7 m/s (15 mph) 9.2 m/s (25 mph) Axial Inflow Coefficient 0.2 ft) 2-bladed rotor at pitch of 5 deg and 72 rpm Axial Inflow Coefficient 0.4 0.5 m/s (10 mph) 6.2 0.0 m/s (20 mph) 11. b) extended blade 11 .0 m/s (20 mph) 11.0 0.0 Normalized Distance Along Blade Span (r/R) b) 0.2 0.2 0.4 4.5 Baseline Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 5.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.03 m (16.7 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.7 m/s (15 mph) 9.5 m/s (10 mph) 6.a) 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.

5 m (14. 8: Power coefficient vs. Figure 8 shows how the power coefficient varies with tip-speed ratio for different pitch settings and blade spans. tip-speed ratio for the tapered/twisted CER blade: a) baseline blade.20 0.10 0. results for shorter blades were computed to match different rated power requirements.0 m (13. 5.1 ft) 12 .Although the new blades were designed for constant-speed operation.60 Baseline Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 4. only the results of pitch angles of 1. 3. c) blade span of 4.3 0. performance under variable-speed conditions was also investigated because of plans to use them on the NREL variable-speed test bed.2 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tip-Speed Ratio Fig. a) 0.8 ft) 1 deg pitch 3 deg pitch 5 deg pitch 7 deg pitch 0. and 7 degrees are shown.5 m (14.8 ft). b) blade span of 4.30 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tip-Speed Ratio b) 0.4 0.5 ft) 1 deg pitch 3 deg pitch 5 deg pitch 7 deg pitch 0.1 0.6 Baseline Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 5.5 Power Coefficient 0.03 m (16.50 Power Coefficient 0. All data presented in Figures 4-8 are tabulated in Appendix B.40 0. For the blade spans. Blade pitch angles of 0 to 7 degrees were considered but for clarity.

20 0.c) 0.30 0. 8 (concluded) 13 .1 ft) 1 deg pitch 3 deg pitch 5 deg pitch 7 deg pitch 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Tip-Speed Ratio Fig.50 Power Coefficient 0.0 m (13.40 0.60 Baseline Tapered/Twisted CER Blade Span of 4.10 0.

The new blades were designed to be applicable for three. it is recommended to use a mold with a length of 110% of the span of the baseline blade to accommodate both the baseline and extended blades. the use of a more suitable root airfoil is strongly recommended. 14 .and two-bladed rotor configurations. the new blades are more representative of commercial blades than the previous blades. Although the new blades were designed for constant-speed operations. they can also be applicable for fundamental research in variable-speed operations. The results of this study led to the design of a blade having a linear taper and a non linear twist distribution that makes use of the S809 airfoil from root to tip. In fabricating the blades. In the event that a fourth blade set for the CER would be built with the goal of designing a blade representative of commercial blades. This blade configuration is the logical continuation of the previous blade sets and will facilitate comparison with those earlier blades.Conclusions and Recommendations A third blade set for the CER was designed based on an extensive trade-off study that was conducted to determine the effect of several design constraints on rotor performance. extending the blade span by 10% and increasing the rotor speed from 72 to 78 rpm were found to be beneficial. In this respect the S823/S822 airfoil combination would provide enhanced energy capture as compared with the S814/S809 combination. Even though the new blades were designed with many constraints based on scientific needs. To enhance performance in a two-bladed rotor configuration.

Shipley.. J. M. “Design and Experimental Results for the S809 Airfoil.S. Young.P. 8 Selig. November 1995.. 7 Giguère. Rockwell International. and Guglielmo. D. Lyon.S. M.. October 19–22. 19. J. 13 Somers.” NREL/SR-440-6919.S. XAF-4-14076-03. SoarTech Publications. 9 Hibb. D. M.E. Rocky Flats Plant. 34. 11 Tangler.S. and Schilling.. 1997. January 1997 (tests conducted in 1994)...” Appendix A of the Statement of Work of NREL Subcontract No. 5 Tangler. 1. October 1996.. Horseshoe Circle. J. and Luttges..S. “Combined Experiment Phase I.” NREL/TP-442-6916.J. Musial. 15 Selig. “Empirical Model for Stall Delay Due to Rotation. March 1996. 1995. 10 Corrigan.” NREL/SR-440-6918.” 13th Canadian Wind Energy Association Conference and Exhibition.C. A.S. 2.S. Quebec City. pp.” American Helicopter Society Aeromechanics Specialists Conference. 2 Butterfield. DC.” AIAA Journal. J..” ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering.P. 1983. Golden. “Development and Application of a Multipoint Inverse Design Method for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines. M.S..” Horizontal-Axis Wind System Rotor Performance Model Comparison–A Compendium.. 1 15 .. Vol.C.” American Wind Energy Association WindPower ’97 Conference.L.. D. TX. “Calculating Rotor Performance with the Revised PROP Computer Code. September 20. D... Robinson. Vol. and Coverstone-Carroll. and Giguère.References Huyer.P. C. 12 Somers. Final Report.. pp.” NREL/TP-257-4655. 1994.. M. Quebec. Austin. M. Virginia Beach. S. J. 3 Miller. M. B.A. San Francisco.L. J. Ninham.J. 1410−1419. CA.” Wind Engineering. “An Evaluation of an Empirical Model for Stall Delay Due to Rotation for HAWTs. M. and Selig. and Somers. pp. 1995. 1504 N.. and Robinson.J.. January 1997 (tests conducted in 1986). M. Summary of Low Speed Airfoil Data–Vol.” American Wind Energy Association WindPower ’95 Conference. 118.J.. January 19–21. V. P. 1995. “Design of an Optimized Tapered and Twisted Blade for NREL’s Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment Grumman Wind Turbine. C. Horseshoe Circle. M.W.M.. P.A. 91−105. 2. D.L. 6 Selig. Canada. 4 Simms. Simms. Phase II Data Characterization. Giguère... UC-60. Broeren. J. C. No. Summary of Low Speed Airfoil Data– Vol. RFP-3508.. 1997.L. “Unsteady Aerodynamics Associated with a Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine. “Aerodynamic Blade Design Methods for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines. and Tangler.. Vol.. 1996.M.. “NREL Airfoil Families for HAWTs. and Radkey. and Selig. Guglielmo.A. 1996. Washington. CO. W. 7. SoarTech Publications. D. T.L. Virginia 23451. Wind Energy Research Center. “Combined Experiment. D. P. Virginia Beach.S. 22−28.. “Application of a Genetic Algorithm to Wind Turbine Design. 1996. R.P.. 14 Selig. Virginia 23451. “Design and Experimental Results for the S814 Airfoil. 1504 N. No. and Simms.A.

59 20.5-in station.011 4.352 2.682 0. 3) The hub extends to the 28.749 24.598 0.710 0.48 2.575 198.542 0.67 6.800 Chord (m) Hub diameter Hub diameter To be computed3 To be computed3 0.465 212.500 59. From the 28.000 27.724 0. 2) The blade uses the S809 airfoil from root to tip.84 3.486 0.500 33.8 in.850 14. A pitch setting of 5 degrees is recommended for both the two.459 0.445 114.905 168.675 92.375 0.000 13.357 HD − 39.751 14. HD is the hub diameter in inches.356 0.00 -2.533 Radial Distance (in.849 25.533 m (217.09 0.735 2.11 -1.000 18.030 5.483 0.5-in.305 Chord (in) Hub diameter Hub diameter To be computed3 To be computed3 29.000 Twist (degree) 0.795 179.968 1.905 3.76 0.626 0.0 in) corresponds to the baseline blade.36 -2. there is a linear transition from the hub to the S809 airfoil.05 14.772 4.000 201.00 0.118 5.000 28.04 9.403 0.654 0.08 -2.496 157.522 1.258 1.950 15.685 190.150 19.798 2.895 70.350 20.347 0.) 0.and three-blade rotors.570 0. Note that the twist at the 75% station is zero only in the case of the three-blade rotor.450 21.431 0. The chord lengths in that region can be computed using the following equation according to the hub diameter.Appendix A: Tabulated Data for the Tapered/Twisted CER blade Radial Distance (m) 0.125 147.550 22.) corresponds to the extended blade.565 103.628 2.288 4.181 3.650 23.000 38.841 5.75 4.075 2.335 217. and r is the radial distance in inches as well. station.651 12.84 -2.235 136.319 0.395 5.40 1.00 -0. whereas a span of 5. to the 49.55 -1.030 m (198.50 Notes: 1) A blade span of 5.00 27.949 26.514 0.51 0.00 30.000 0.55 -1.050 16. 4) The pitch is defined at the 75% blade station and the pitch axis is the 30% chord line.737 0.551 12. 16 .015 148.785 81.115 49.458 3.  29 − HD  c=  r + 2.357  21  where c is the chord in inches.5-in.565 4.345 125.250 19.838 0.

23 22.24 9.37 -0.72 15.60 18.0 15.38 29.06 12.89 10.2 2.58 -0.73 -0.0 -1.2 15.14 13.0 -0.0 19.00 Wind Speed (m/s) 0.0 19.36 -0.72 0.17 -0.41 13.47 -2.19 12.11 2.0 18.33 14.25 18.00 12.34 14.91 19.98 20.76 10.27 -2.52 15.1 16.50 12.89 6.0 -0.3 6.02 -0.01 10.4 13.7 11.11 16.80 11.76 13.53 4.49 5.0 13.11 18.4 5.6 4.6 8.3 10.73 11.05 5.66 2.0 8.47 18.0 19.48 12.0 0.49 11.0 8.82 19.0 -1.98 -1.5 4.48 11.78 5.54 9.98 -1.74 5.21 9.63 7.17 -3.58 18.34 2.69 39.41 15.0 2.78 13.24 12.0 1.67 19.70 2.22 -0.03 11.0 4.4 17.62 -1.1 12.72 17.9 14.31 19.59 12.5 17.93 15.72 1.0 17.53 8. 4–8 Data shown in Fig.67 3.34 17.62 -6.32 15.44 13.47 14.87 28.36 -4.0 17.99 13.33 19.20 6.11 15.42 0.80 4.82 6.23 -0.2 7.83 5.29 -0.0 19.74 13.05 25.0 19.06 8.0 17.14 16.8 10.08 11.75 10.49 3.33 37.60 15.32 -0.86 2.5 8.93 -2.92 -2.58 34.73 13.08 10.20 24.53 38.31 7.46 1.48 -1.4 0.81 14.25 9.25 33.64 12.90 8.60 17.0 12.89 1.50 11.0 11.61 19.93 -0.85 19.16 21.72 0.75 19.47 3.02 19.0 6.09 18.44 15.74 5.25 0.0 -2.78 4.31 12.3 14.02 10.48 9.51 18.00 19.94 10.40 -2.68 19.73 12.63 2.98 -1.51 14.0 13.6 12.92 3.72 40.39 19.77 4.47 18.0 1.72 -3.41 15.49 0.37 12.0 19.86 32.82 -0.03 -0.34 17.60 12.85 35.94 12.3 1. 4 Baseline Blade Extended Blade 2-bladed 2-bladed 2-bladed 2-bladed 2-bladed rotor 3-bladed 5 5 5 5 5 8 Pitch (degree) 72 72 83 72 78 72 rpm Wind Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Speed Power Power Power Power Power Power (mph) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) (kW) 1.73 12.0 15.67 19.16 -2.39 27.28 16.69 6.01 8.72 3.19 0.90 0.17 2.43 15.0 19.70 4.93 19.34 17.0 16.32 0.19 -1.6 16.0 5.39 -0.8 15.06 2.0 18.87 30.03 15.36 15.9 9.97 16.93 1.73 11.0 9.7 3.85 19.73 7.51 2.83 14.50 15.9 1.16 -1.95 15.8 6.03 0.0 4.5 13.58 4.08 36.72 -0.Appendix B: Tabulated Results Figures.72 13.67 19.37 14.7 7.07 12.0 19.18 10.0 -0.99 20.0 19.8 2.9 5.37 -1.50 17.87 3.78 19.84 18.54 19.98 8.0 3.77 1.99 14.20 8.25 23.62 -2.67 -1.52 19.42 0.43 12.68 18.42 31.26 1.0 19.9 17 .14 12.1 3.65 -1.65 15.93 3.0 18.86 15.75 26.81 19.99 8.62 19.0 -2.56 17.60 16.0 14.71 15.2 11.0 0.67 19.38 6.62 -0.00 1.83 16.93 7.4 9.07 9.25 15.

0 Wind Speed (m/s) 0.66 239.41 1772.38 706.00 1426.90 64.0 17.10 1433.64 2-bladed 5 83 Thrust (N) -197.30 2191.56 2428.09 1857.0 8.0 11.99 2653.17 670.00 209.49 2093.99 2392.96 797.96 2295.92 2063.70 1486.7 7.7 11.33 329.0 28.03 2081.96 1114.0 18.2 2.97 -10.0 33.76 1636.84 1796.8 6.39 751.94 1218.58 2241.18 2033.99 2597.01 1877.18 2121.27 -137.57 875.1 16.99 1002.97 2480.40 -140.0 23.32 163.21 1801.86 1691.0 29.00 1263.14 642.47 31.07 -176.97 1864.09 545.57 2338.0 20.85 1988.2 15.68 1393.02 978.05 1446.49 2357.63 2144.24 1753.65 -26.30 1502.85 1704.03 2220.5 8.30 247.60 2129.1 12.9 9.60 25.6 4.15 1317.9 14.0 34.67 1811.75 1547.57 2459.82 410.30 18 .34 2525.89 2333.25 2123.42 2230.38 312.14 2895.5 13.0 39.28 678.77 832.80 199.83 1857.0 14.0 3.98 801.4 5.42 -63.65 2125.0 37.79 -98.35 1509.81 1811.38 1513.90 2544.09 2836.48 2350.21 2186.15 2368.3 6.09 2729.97 544.44 1132.77 1272.0 38.83 2623.32 126.13 2704.0 4.0 6.32 1758.71 1362.0 4.4 9.94 1915.76 1942.00 132.51 -302.91 672.1 3.22 1215.0 22.42 305.37 2005.8 2.0 9.75 1930.76 438.6 12.37 2270.13 552.3 10.57 212.45 2252.19 1612.0 27.52 1190.67 306.81 1936.0 15.52 1865.93 2106.80 2226.58 435.28 1974.0 32.11 2-bladed 8 72 Thrust (N) -316.9 1.0 5.0 36.19 1511.19 Extended Blade 2-bladed 2-bladed 5 5 72 78 Thrust Thrust (N) -151.82 584.0 25.0 10.21 2188.0 17.43 1999.73 1407.81 753.4 0.89 2252.87 1596.49 425.17 -31.94 1518.0 12.62 -121.2 11.22 -68.0 16.40 1878.13 817.91 2784.0 13.64 1681.02 1575.11 2023.0 13.32 925.56 49.17 1882.4 17.83 1680.28 -94.34 1790.08 2083.08 1088.86 2277.27 960.7 3.0 24.88 1766.82 464.14 1593.37 1184.23 (N) -139.3 14.66 1258.0 21.27 2112.35 1958.Data shown in Fig. 5 rotor pitch (degree) rpm Wind Speed (mph) 1.69 1075.53 -105.4 13.0 30.30 -116.49 1721.58 -26.9 Baseline Blade 3-bladed 2-bladed 5 5 72 72 Thrust Thrust (N) -174.99 2192.73 1895.5 4.56 962.69 1632.89 1057.19 228.49 537.12 419.91 1724.39 2562.54 1742.50 1823.20 1832.0 7.15 2421.80 1892.30 95.13 116.21 38.23 -79.02 1707.09 2161.20 2035.45 1329.02 2297.67 1830.98 -240.34 2442.45 1571.14 2316.56 2258.95 (N) -187.81 1649.0 8.20 35.95 -114.68 2148.02 -276.0 35.33 1917.30 139.34 1969.70 338.11 1912.54 1629.09 1958.64 2060.9 5.8 10.3 1.5 17.05 -171.59 2503.53 1613.8 15.20 2268.32 1362.55 2023.66 864.14 -12.70 936.54 1730.27 1658.12 2177.31 1427.01 634.0 40.57 1750.21 1987.34 348.57 520.57 1583.19 2167.24 2096.80 2048.73 2491.19 2166.2 7.15 1313.6 8.0 19.48 -47.0 31.14 2052.95 2397.0 26.96 134.90 1090.6 16.33 2212.0 2.

1329 1.7504 1.7449 1.3292 0.2695 0.5311 0.7266 0.9091 1.1021 0.0137 0.3077 0.1624 0.7 m/s .1823 0.2243 0.7654 1.0041 1.98 0.0465 1.13 0.2309 0.73 0.0866 1.6578 1.6653 0.Data shown in Fig.9213 1.2 m/s .1262 0.7781 1.9892 0.0062 1.2155 1.08 0 0 0 0 0.7147 1.9632 1.33 0.5 m/s .6193 0.1249 1.83 0.58 0.1342 1.0909 1.7774 1.28 0.2027 0.3093 0.3953 0.1711 1.9 m/s .0156 0.6949 1.9823 1.7 m/s .2112 0.0399 1.3078 0.48 0.2206 0.1938 0.93 0.02 0.78 0.98 0.8197 1.8995 1.7991 1.0895 0.2773 0. 15 mph 8.186 1.1722 0.88 0.9636 1.795 1.8494 1.007 0.688 0.2315 0.7488 1.0693 1.2 m/s .3978 0.9 m/s .2787 0.0752 0.1704 1.83 0.78 0.0838 0.18 0.9861 1.43 0.03 and 0.139 0.2197 0.3856 0.0537 0.3812 0.1504 1.0255 1.3083 0.12 1. 6 Baseline Blade Normalized Lift Lift Lift Lift Radial Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Distance Wind Speed Wind Speed Wind Speed Wind Speed (r/R) 4.0999 0.13 0.3949 0.1275 0.0956 0.8709 0.3873 0.7706 1.9512 0.03 and 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.3774 0.73 0.0787 1.6825 1.1849 0. 15 mph 8.33 0.9955 19 .0651 1.5 m/s .232 0.1341 1.3939 0.7729 1.2283 0.6007 0. 10 mph 6.137 1.88 0.53 0.0548 0.23 0.1056 0. 20 mph 11.6734 1.93 0.28 0.0221 0.1114 1.9401 1.2397 0.3838 0.9928 1.58 0. 10 mph 6.7937 1.48 0.3255 0.0889 0.3015 0. 20 mph 11.7986 0.3117 0.38 0.1739 0.9935 Extended Blade Normalized Lift Lift Lift Lift Radial Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Distance Wind Speed Wind Speed Wind Speed Wind Speed (r/R) 4. 25 mph 0.7102 1.1505 1.6512 0.1005 1.53 0.149 0.056 0.1098 1.63 0.68 0.0551 1.38 0.1352 0.2277 0.3356 0.1348 1.68 0.23 0.3165 0.0838 0.769 1.3929 0.2376 0.3936 0.3185 0. 25 mph 0.308 0.18 0.8799 1.63 0.0219 1.9577 1.8077 1.1559 0.7281 1.0443 1.39 0.3224 0.

238 0.098 0.33 0.13 0.201 0.03 and 0.2 m/s .095 0.001 0.118 0.107 0.33 0.93 0.83 0.38 0.093 0.087 0.272 0.195 0.179 0.239 0.137 0.139 0.08 0.000 0.163 0.231 0. 7 Baseline Blade Normalized Axial Inflow Axial Inflow Axial Inflow Axial Inflow Radial Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Distance Wind Speed Wind Speed Wind Speed Wind Speed (r/R) 4.58 0.175 0.196 0.265 0.124 0.013 0.199 0.38 0.43 0.310 0.9 m/s .106 0.5 m/s .186 0.294 0.119 0. 10 mph 6.73 0.110 0.151 0.254 0.173 0.7 m/s .266 0.5 m/s .43 0.98 0.53 0.193 0.192 0.152 0.288 0.223 0.202 0.278 0.194 0.204 0.217 0.210 0.68 0.78 0.146 0.125 0. 20 mph 11.074 0.294 0.73 0.141 0.9 m/s .126 0.148 0.150 0.141 0.079 0.067 0.365 0.079 0. 25 mph 0.261 0.177 0. 15 mph 8.181 0. 25 mph 0.88 0.268 0.165 0.251 0. 20 mph 11.135 0.156 0.7 m/s .130 0.93 0.116 0.134 0.58 0.28 0.000 0.199 0.314 0.278 0.194 0.160 0.147 0.230 0.227 0.225 0.121 0.175 0.092 0.243 0.149 0.077 0.102 0.13 0.054 0.166 0.040 0.08 0.83 0.098 0.229 0.192 0.143 0.195 0.120 0.000 0.48 0.212 0.081 0.2 m/s . 10 mph 6.145 0.184 0.162 0.203 0.104 0.375 0.23 0.176 0.123 0.03 and 0.198 0.28 0.209 0.194 0.243 0.175 0.221 0.121 0.000 0.273 0.086 0.109 0.098 0.264 0.075 0.000 0.63 0.129 0.000 0.253 0.120 0.277 0.348 0.18 0.106 0.309 Extended Blade Normalized Axial Inflow Axial Inflow Axial Inflow Axial Inflow Radial Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Distance Wind Speed Wind Speed Wind Speed Wind Speed (r/R) 4.106 0.258 0.48 0.131 0.022 0.154 0.53 0.220 0.230 0.164 0.172 0.68 0.327 0.63 0.000 0.133 0. 15 mph 8.Data shown in Fig.208 0.88 0.187 0.143 0.255 0.305 0.18 0.23 0.104 0.98 0.198 0.225 20 .007 0.000 0.78 0.216 0.

446 0.255 0.168 0.426 0. 8 Baseline Blade Tip-Speed Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Ratio 0 deg pitch 1 deg pitch 2 deg pitch 3 deg pitch 4 deg pitch 5 deg pitch 6 deg pitch 7 deg pitch 10.274 0.104 0.471 0.227 0.057 0.419 0.132 0.371 0.42 0.206 0.106 0.418 0.111 0.413 4.404 0.214 0.29 0.389 0.137 0.264 3.447 0.58 0.98 0.135 0.370 0.089 0.299 0.068 0.237 0.145 0.358 0.099 0.381 0.197 2.68 0.337 6.106 0.470 0.82 0.415 0.201 0.107 0.408 4.115 0.390 0.220 0.212 2.203 0.466 0.339 0.124 0.41 0.362 0.275 0.05 0.405 0.114 0.085 0.090 0.65 0.406 0.350 0.167 2.14 0.313 0.072 0.73 0.290 0.082 0.343 0.267 0.460 0.356 0.421 0.075 0.479 0.097 0.185 0.190 0.389 3.114 2.70 0.074 0.49 0.39 0.448 0.03 0.475 0.136 0.301 0.439 0.125 0.385 0.430 0.369 3.166 0.267 0.457 0.341 0.472 0.066 0.095 0.17 0.099 21 .247 0.347 0.077 0.180 0.92 0.392 0.463 0.094 8.23 0.144 2.168 0.437 0.328 3.443 0.245 2.086 0.125 0.149 0.23 0.107 2.185 0.182 0.115 0.454 0.447 0.243 0.135 0.098 0.Data Shown in Fig.372 0.126 0.105 0.257 0.479 0.349 3.176 0.307 3.297 0.436 0.464 0.290 0.182 0.196 0.425 0.098 0.084 0.407 0.436 0.305 0.369 0.366 0.209 0.220 0.456 0.228 2.083 0.124 0.12 0.169 0.080 0.367 6.113 0.060 0.124 0.204 0.398 0.57 0.429 0.430 0.085 0.076 0.444 0.302 0.458 0.233 0.303 0.293 7.474 0.063 0.472 0.437 0.413 4.458 0.137 0.358 0.47 0.479 0.399 5.436 0.394 0.483 0.415 0.70 0.459 0.092 0.239 0.136 0.094 0.345 0.163 0.158 0.055 0.282 0.123 2.06 0.114 0.29 0.243 0.151 0.190 0.420 0.236 0.198 0.51 0.317 0.375 0.85 0.463 0.477 0.385 0.321 0.279 0.418 0.328 0.068 0.415 4.212 0.483 0.070 0.052 0.134 0.347 0.268 0.291 0.26 0.278 0.091 0.314 0.150 0.454 0.295 0.102 0.136 0.363 0.438 0.160 0.181 2.410 0.336 0.285 3.02 0.35 0.188 0.082 0.187 0.464 0.090 0.441 0.147 0.148 0.53 0.208 0.078 0.154 2.152 0.133 2.114 0.387 5.405 4.026 9.062 0.322 0.100 0.405 0.46 0.164 0.123 0.331 0.64 0.250 0.219 7.171 0.387 0.334 0.270 0.228 0.048 0.258 0.453 0.

71 0.112 1.94 0.446 0.311 0.82 0.05 0.079 0.372 0.264 0.134 0.99 0.204 0.364 3.363 0.324 3.122 0.432 0.10 0.418 0.370 0.104 0.183 0.258 0.457 0.162 0.283 2.47 0.136 0.79 0.451 0.233 0.112 0.436 0.450 0.275 0.317 0.176 0.362 5.414 0.470 0.086 0.406 0.44 0.319 0.447 0.431 0.120 1.003 0.401 3.335 0.453 0.342 0.075 0.096 0.435 0.21 0.245 0.014 0.110 8.082 0.425 0.258 0.072 0.469 0.397 0.387 0.362 0.097 22 .433 0.445 0.418 0.136 0.41 0.146 0.148 0.290 0.103 0.289 0.311 0.284 0.255 0.23 0.430 0.121 0.29 0.44 0.187 0.286 6.097 0.387 0.122 0.456 0.089 0.123 0.178 2.070 0.094 0.58 0.457 0.377 0.100 0.384 3.359 0.161 0.096 0.463 0.246 0.059 0.192 0.180 0.83 0.89 0.104 1.209 0.266 0.223 0.205 0.273 0.152 0.169 0.080 0.475 0.429 0.226 2.184 0.213 0.423 0.075 0.99 0.302 0.052 0.158 0.112 0.088 0.16 0.451 0.301 0.141 2.446 0.054 0.243 2.124 0.197 0.431 0.31 0.048 0.424 0.076 0.46 0.112 0.439 0.165 0.382 0.241 0.151 0.249 0.460 0.165 2.277 0.111 0.335 0.057 0.320 0.431 0.16 0.03 0.238 0.216 0.473 0.112 0.377 0.357 0.465 0.382 5.402 0.210 2.173 0.091 0.355 0.113 0.182 0.471 0.463 0.449 0.461 0.386 0.085 0.5 m span Tip-Speed Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Ratio 0 deg pitch 1 deg pitch 2 deg pitch 3 deg pitch 4 deg pitch 5 deg pitch 6 deg pitch 7 deg pitch 10.61 0.068 0.099 0.083 0.398 0.410 0.104 0.471 0.132 0.410 0.304 0.411 3.373 0.327 0.130 2.093 0.067 0.199 0.395 4.182 9.137 0.103 0.61 0.191 0.081 0.410 0.069 0.05 0.061 0.152 2.208 0.81 0.312 0.429 0.218 0.075 7.225 0.447 0.343 0.89 0.062 0.155 0.209 6.149 0.445 0.412 0.168 0.37 0.123 0.181 0.438 0.291 0.407 0.123 0.379 0.089 0.428 0.304 0.276 0.409 4.455 0.30 0.262 2.203 0.336 0.332 0.145 0.304 2. 8 (continued) Baseline Blade cut to a 4.406 0.341 0.266 0.188 0.368 0.53 0.464 0.409 0.348 0.Data Shown in Fig.194 2.298 0.360 0.181 0.403 4.387 0.001 0.090 0.384 0.144 0.409 3.133 0.399 0.102 0.199 0.352 0.113 0.230 0.171 0.343 3.141 0.91 0.74 0.235 0.332 5.462 0.470 0.338 0.296 0.065 0.253 0.077 0.42 0.081 0.132 0.

418 0.312 0.080 0.426 0.433 0.277 2.274 5.12 0.400 3.069 0.144 0.110 0.82 0.098 0.354 2.423 0.094 0.110 0.159 0.086 0.297 2.136 1.360 0.421 0.299 0.336 0.69 0.229 0.370 0.101 0.349 0.315 2.415 0.399 0.284 0.082 7.388 0.085 0.390 0.320 0.459 0.146 0.063 0.372 4.054 6.420 0.431 0.204 0.121 0.059 0.149 0.328 0.225 0.395 0.398 0.451 0.332 0.400 3.150 0.186 0.084 0.052 0.386 0.268 0.101 0.100 0.255 0.416 0.328 0.156 0.192 0.079 0.214 0.151 0.061 0.435 0.364 0.Data Shown in Fig.449 0.175 0.10 0.042 0.088 0.438 0.21 0.319 0.399 0.369 0.239 0.090 0.17 0.87 0.445 0.62 0.089 0.194 6.54 0.054 0.303 0.48 0.129 0.42 0.455 0.264 0.204 2.120 0.270 0.420 0.368 0.109 0.217 0.433 0.392 3.082 0.394 3.291 0.439 0.433 0.119 0.41 0.294 0.461 0.120 0.118 1.072 0.161 0.373 0.18 0.455 0.444 0.324 0.427 0.453 0.06 0.077 0.087 0.051 0.442 0.057 0.297 0.102 1.198 0.96 0.176 0.225 0.379 0.0 m span Tip-Speed Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Cp Ratio 0 deg pitch 1 deg pitch 2 deg pitch 3 deg pitch 4 deg pitch 5 deg pitch 6 deg pitch 7 deg pitch 9.406 0.049 0.126 1.457 0.173 2.131 0.184 0.457 0.093 0.402 0.110 0.338 0.98 0.078 0.93 0.397 0.142 0.316 0.444 0.418 0.344 0.160 0.147 1.370 0.061 0.415 0.068 0.171 0.462 0.61 0.210 0.074 0.331 0.437 0.204 0.444 0.211 0.164 0.04 0.397 0.21 0.422 0.181 0.099 0.409 0.137 0.81 0.108 1.210 0.306 0.272 0.447 0.372 0.74 0.179 0.352 0.383 0.81 0.042 0.361 0.328 0.232 0.284 0.235 0.109 0.321 5.24 0.345 0.402 3.108 0.361 0.394 0.450 0.434 0.189 2.240 0.168 0.446 0.32 0.220 2.188 0.238 2.134 0.37 0.166 0.108 0.132 0.453 0.92 0.405 0.083 0.261 0.140 0.321 0.77 0.414 0.121 0.067 0.071 0.312 0.375 0.282 0.094 23 .131 0.192 0.101 0.226 0.004 8.066 0.444 0.160 1.284 0.459 0.169 0.298 0.118 0.250 0.73 0.127 0.428 0.334 2.354 0.462 0.198 0.375 0.59 0.464 0.257 2.217 0.73 0.096 0.092 0.412 0.092 0.248 0.410 0.355 0.352 4.135 0.271 0.375 3.153 0.68 0.075 0.386 4.218 0.245 0.168 0.119 0.080 0.198 0.073 0. 8 (concluded) Baseline Blade cut to a 4.49 0.49 0.259 0.

rotor. DC 20503. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Subcontractor Report 5. which considered nonlinear twist and taper distributions as well as the NREL S809. to Washington Headquarters Services. Suite 1204. DISTRIBUTION CODE National Technical Information Service U. 14. This blade configuration is the logical continuation of the previous constant-chord twisted and untwisted blade sets and will facilitate comparison with those earlier blades. including the time for reviewing instructions. The geometry of the new blade set was optimized based on annual energy production subject to the constraints imposed on the design. and completing and reviewing the collection of information. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES SR-500-26173 12a. and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188). the new blade is more representative of commercial blades than the previous blade sets. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Unclassified Unclassified UL Standard Form 298 (Rev.REPORT DATE 3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Department of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 306 Talbot Laboratory. Giguere.REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB NO. 104 S. Based on the results of this study. FUNDING NUMBERS Design of a Tapered and Twisted Blade for the NREL Combined Experiment Rotor 6. CO 80401-3393 11. horizontal-axis wind turbine. NUMBER OF PAGES wind energy. Selig 7. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. blade design 16. Washington. gathering and maintaining the data needed. searching existing data sources. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. a blade having a linear taper and a nonlinear twist distribution that uses the S809 airfoil from root to tip was selected. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) A tapered/twisted blade was designed to operate on the Combined Experiment Rotor (CER) of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). including suggestions for reducing this burden. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT 20. VA 22161 13. Arlington. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd.D. 1.S. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information. Despite the design constraints based on scientific needs. which is a stall-regulated downwind wind turbine having a rated power of 20 kilowatt. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE 19. 2. PRICE CODE 17. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. Directorate for Information Operations and Reports. S814. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED April 1999 4. Golden. VA 22202-4302. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT 18. Urbana. Wright St. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway. AUTHOR(S) C: XAF-4-14076-03 TA: WE901110 P. Illinois 61801-2935 9. M. SUBJECT TERMS 15. S822 and S823 airfoils. A trade-off study was conducted to determine the effect of the different design constraints. These constraints were mainly related to scientific needs for fundamental research in rotor aerodynamics. Z39-18 298-102 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful