A national laboratory of the U.S.

Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Innovation for Our Energy Future

WindPACT Turbine Rotor Design Study
June 2000 — June 2002
D.J. Malcolm
Global Energy Concepts, LLC Kirkland, Washington

Subcontract Report
NREL/SR-500-32495 Revised April 2006

A.C. Hansen
Windward Engineering Salt Lake City, Utah

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337

WindPACT Turbine Rotor Design Study
June 2000 — June 2002
D.J. Malcolm
Global Energy Concepts, LLC Kirkland, Washington

Subcontract Report
NREL/SR-500-32495 Revised April 2006

A.C. Hansen
Windward Engineering Salt Lake City, Utah NREL Technical Monitor: A. Laxson
Prepared under Subcontract No. YAT-0-30213-01

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337

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 electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone: 865.576.8401 fax: 865.576.5728 email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 phone: 800.553.6847 fax: 703.605.6900 email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste

Errata Sheet for
WindPACT Turbine Rotor Design Study NREL/SR-500-32495 CORRECTIONS Page 13 Table 3-1. Summary of Cost Models Used for Major Components in Baseline Designs 6th row, first column should read – Pitch bearings Not used for final costing 7th row, first column should read – Pitch bearings (Tasks #2, #3, #5) 7th row, fourth column should read – See text 12th row, second column should read – Bearing mass = (D x 8/600 – 0.033) x 0.00920 x D^2.5 Where D = rotor diam (m) 12th row, third column, delete “U of Sunderland [6] and” Page 14 Table 3-1 Continued 13th row, second column should read $/kW = 3.38E-7*Rating2 + 9.84E-4*Rating + 31.57 Page 18 Section 3.2.2.1 Pitch Bearings Starting with the second paragraph, the text in the section should be replaced with the following with the exception of the formula. The formula remains unchanged. An initial model for the total cost was: $/bearing = 0.0454*D2.98. This was found to correspond well with data obtained later from Avon Bearings (see Appendix C). These data included cost estimates for the range of ratings of interest and were based on initial estimates of peak moments. The mass and cost of the auxiliary pitch drive components were estimated to be equal to that of the pitch bearing itself and a factor of 2.0 was,

The resulting expression for the bearing mass. and #5. Different bearing types were recommended by Avon at the different sizes because of the relatively small diameter of these bearings compared to the high loads they must carry.5 MW and higher ratings.00920 x D^2.. speed reducer. from wind turbines between 750 kW and 2000 kW. etc. #3.3. Page 19 Section 3. At 750 kW. this model was not used for the final estimates in the costing and scaling efforts. controller. a single-row ball bearing was selected. D.gov/docs/fy06osti/32495.5 The mass of the bearing housing was assumed to be the same as that of the bearing itself and a rate of $17.therefore.60 per kg was used for both components. triple-row bearings were recommended and quoted. as noted below.2. was: Mass (kg) = (D x 8/600 – 0.nrel.) is equal to the cost of the bearing. whereas at the 1. #3.033) x 0. A new cost model was defined for Tasks #2. and #5 that reflected cost changes due to changes in the peak loads applied.2 Main Bearings – the text should be replaced with the following: The main bearing was assumed to be of a standard type and a formula for the mass was developed based on data. in terms of the rotor diameter. Therefore. it was again assumed that the cost of the remainder of the pitch system (motor. added to the cost. To download a corrected version of this report go to: http://www. The cost quoted for bearings for the 5-MW size did not fall on the same curve as for the others and it was therefore neglected in defining the cost model.pdf . the Avon cost data was reformatted into the following form: NOTE – FORMULAS AS WRITTEN IN ORIGINAL SHOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED For Tasks #2. collected by Powertrain Engineers Inc. However. The second bearing was included in the gearbox assembly.

.....6 Bedplate ..............................2................TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................2..................................... 21 3......1................................... 21 3....... v Results...................4 Generator.....9 High-Speed Shaft...........................3 Drive Train Components................................... 17 3...............2........................................................................2 Hub................................ TASK #1..........................1..............................................1 Blade Design ........ 1 Results on Web Site .....................................3 Gearbox....................................................................................1........................2.................................1........................................................... INTRODUCTION ........ DESIGN AND COST MODELS ..................................................3..........................................2 Rotor Components ............................................................... 3 2..........1 Blade Design File................2 Procedure ..........................2...........................................................................................................................................................1...................................................................................................................................................................7 Nacelle Cover............................................... 1 Scope................ 20 3.......2.......................................2...... v Approach............................ 6 2...........................................................8 Yaw System .........................2 Input Data File ...............2.............................................................3 1..............1 Organization................................................................3....1 Work Plan .........3.....1...2.... 20 3...............3.11 Switchgear and Other Electrical................................................................................................................................ 18 3...............................2.......2......................................................................................................................................................2...... 20 3..2 Specifications for Baseline Configurations.................................. Background ............................................2....... 1 Objectives .......................... 20 3.................................1 Aerodynamic Specifications .........2................... Coupler..............................1 1........................................2...................2..............................................................................................................................................2 Teetered Hub.....................2.......viii 1.....................................3 Simulation Software............3..........................................................1............................. v Introduction............................... 3 2............4 2........................ 19 3................................2 1............................. 18 3.......5 Power Electronics ..................................................3 Load Cases .......................10 Hydraulics and Lubrication..............3........................1 General Approach .......................... 15 3................................ 15 3................2............ 15 3....2......................2.......3..... 21 i .............................................................1...................................................................................................................................................................................vii Recommendations....................................................................2................. 19 3..................................... 6 2...... 4 2.2 Baseline Blade Design ...1............................................. 15 3.........................2.... 9 2............................. 9 2...................................................................3..... 10 3..........2........ 16 3........................................................ vi Conclusions............................3 Output Data File................................................... 21 3....3 Airfoil Schedule ............. 3 2...............4 Design and Cost Evaluation Process........................ 7 2...........................................................................4 Design Methodology............... 19 3........................ 19 3...........2 Main Bearings ..... 2 METHODOLOGY .....................3..................................................................................1 Pitch Bearings .........................................................................................................................1 Main Shaft.................................................................................. Brakes ..........................................................................................................1..........1.................................2...................................................................................................... 8 2........................................... 9 2............................................................. 12 3............................................... 1 1............................................ 12 3...........................................................................................................................................................4 Signals Recorded .2........................................................................................................3..3................................ 7 2..

..................1 8........................................................................................... 46 Non-Turbine Costs................................6 4...3 5........ 24 Material Properties................4..................................4..............................8 5..............................5..............2..5 4...................................................4 Cost of Energy Model ............................... 33 Observations from Task #3 results................ 37 6...... 52 ii ............................................. CONFIGURATION VARIATIONS ................................. 37 6.... 48 Summary ..........................................................................3 Preliminary Results ..............................................................................5......7 4....................1 Approach......................................................2................ 48 Recommendations.......................................................................................... 45 Blade Manufacturing.................................................. Basic Specifications ..................................................................................................................1 4............1 Foundations.......................................3 4....................................................................................................... DETAILED MODELING ........................................................... 10...2 8......................................................1 5.....2.....................................4 5............................................ 25 Campbell Diagram ..............................................................................................................................................2 Costs..4 4........................ 22 3...............................3.....2 Loads..................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Loads...................................................... 47 Assumptions within the Study .......................................5 7.......... ADAMS Results ....................................................................................... 37 6...................................................................................... 39 6............. 43 6................................. 48 8.... 22 3.............................................. 25 Pitch Control System ......... TASK #2.....3 9....................... 42 6.................................................................................. 24 Annual Energy Production.5 Balance of Station ............................................................................................................................................................................................2 5............... CONCLUSIONS .................................4 Tower ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40 6............................................ 25 Results from Design Process...............................................................................................................................6 Lessons from Task #5 ..................................... 44 7............................ 24 4........................................ ADAMS .................................. REFERENCES................... 24 FAST_AD vs.........................................1 Campbell Diagram ............... 23 3.........................2 Operating Costs. TASK #6................ 29 Conclusions from Baseline Study ...................................4................................4 Results from 3-Bladed Upwind Rotors ........2 Cost Models .............. 45 Installation................................. 36 TASK #3...............6 Transportation ...................................................................................................... BASELINE DESIGNS..................3 Costs...........................3 Control Systems .........................................................................5 6................ 30 FAST_AD vs.............................................................. 46 Acoustics............................................................................................2 7.................................... DESIGN BARRIERS................................................................ 33 Results from Task #3 ........2 4...................................................................... 38 6.................................................................. 37 6.................................................................. 29 Initial Matrix .............................................................................. 21 3...... 46 Design Load Cases.............................................................................................................................. 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................1 7................................................ 45 7.................................................................................................................................. 42 6.........5.....................2..4 7........................................... 23 4.... 30 TASK #5................ 40 6.........5 Results for 2-Bladed Rotors.................................................................. 30 Selection Approach .... 22 3........................... 5....................................................... 49 8..............3 7......5...............................................................................................................................................................

..................... 41 Figure 6-4.......................... 42 Figure 6-6............ Comparison of baseline and final costs of 3-bladed configurations by sub-assembly ............. Comparison of baseline and final Task #5 loads for 1.....................................vii Figure S-2..................................................... rotor diameter for current commercial wind turbines... 44 Figure E-1...................................and 2-bladed 1............... Cost of energy for baseline and final 3........... 4 Figure 2-3..5-MW 3-bladed upwind turbine.... E-4 Figure E-2........................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2-2....................................... Summary of cost of energy from all Task #3 configurations........................ 5 Figure 2-4............... 29 Figure 5-1................ Comparison of baseline loads with final Task #5 loads for 1..................................... WindPACT speed control with tower acceleration feedback . 17 Figure 4-1.................................................................................................. Cost-of-energy changes for 2-bladed configurations ................. Basic WindPACT rotor speed control system ....................... 15 Figure 3-2...................... rpm (Campbell diagram) for Task #5 1........... Comparison of baseline and final costs of 3....................................... Summary of component costs for 3-bladed configurations.................... rotor speed (Campbell diagram) of baseline 1.... 35 Figure 5-6..... 43 Figure 6-8.................................................5-MW blade model .... Rotor configurations selected........ Flow of information in the design process .................................. 7 Figure 2-6.. Airfoils used for baseline 1... Configuration control scheme for models ....and 3-bladed 1.......................... 35 Figure 6-1.............................. 40 Figure 6-3................... Comparison of baseline and final Task #5 loads for 1........ Natural frequencies vs.. 33 Figure 5-3.................................................5-MW 2-bladed upwind turbine ................................................. Cost of energy of baseline and final 3-bladed upwind designs...................... 1.....5-MW configurations ................ 41 Figure 6-5.............. Cost of energy for 2................................ 39 Figure 6-2............................APPENDICES A B C D E Details from Task #3 Configuration Variations Details from Task #5 Final Designs Avon Bearing Costs Calculation of Fatigue Damage Equivalent Loads Description of the Blade Pitch Control System LIST OF FIGURES Figure S-1..... E-5 iii ............................................................... Summary of component costs for 2-bladed configurations................ Natural frequencies vs...... 11 Figure 3-1.... 5 Figure 2-5......5-MW.......................and 2-bladed designs at 1...................................... Organization of project personnel .............................................. Cost of energy of baseline and final 3-bladed 750-kW............ 34 Figure 5-4................. Coordinates systems used and corresponding rotations .5-MW 3-bladed upwind turbine.............. and 3-MW configurations ..... Tasks and approximate schedule..................vii Figure 2-1...........................................5-MW model ..................... Specific rating vs..................... 28 Figure 4-3................. 34 Figure 5-5....................................... Summary of cost-of-energy breakdown for baseline configurations .................................................. 30 Figure 5-2............................................................................5-MW configurations by sub-assembly... Flow of work between GEC and Windward Engineering..... 26 Figure 4-2.......................... Cost-of-energy changes for 3-bladed configurations ...5-MW 2-bladed downwind turbine ........ Variation of root flapwise and edgewise moments with diameter ............................... 43 Figure 6-7..............................5MW ....

........................................ Governing Load Cases and Margins for Task #3 Configurations ................................... Table 3-3............................................................... Table 4-4................................... Summary of Costs of Baseline and Final 3-Bladed Machines at 750 kW. Governing Load Cases and Margins for Baseline and Task #5 Final Configurations..................................... 28 Initial Table of Configurations for Examination in Task #3 ............................. Summary of Baseline Design Properties and Cost of Energy .................................................5 MW..................... 17 Items Included in Operations & Maintenance .................. 31 Configuration Modifications Chosen for Study in Task #3................................ Comparison of 1. 32 Changes Made to Cost Models for Task #5.......................................................vi Types of Files Used in Design Process........... 24 Material Properties Used in Design of Major Components (Task #2) ....................... Table 7-2........................ Table 3-2......... Table 4-5............................................................................ 1............................................ Table 4-2....... 8 Loads and Variables Recorded During Simulations....... Rating.................... Costs and Cost of Energy Summary for All Task #3 Configurations................................................................. 13 Summary of Aerodynamic and Geometrical Design of Blades......................... 26 Costs of All Wind Farm Items for Baseline Designs ....................................................A-1 Table A-2................. Table 4-6..................... B-3 Table B-4.......... B-2 Table B-3... 6 Load Case Analyses Carried Out............................. 45 Table A-1........A-2 Table A-3............................................. Table 4-1.......5-MW Final Loads with Baseline Configurations .............. Relative Load Results from Task #3 Configurations.......................LIST OF TABLES Table S-1................. Comparison of Baseline and Final Loads for 3-Bladed Upwind Machines................. Table 6-2.... Table 7-1.............. 45 Installation Costs vs......... B-1 Table B-2...................................................................................... 25 Characteristics of Final Baseline Configurations .................. 37 Summary of Properties of the Baseline and Task #5 Final Configurations............................ and 3.......... Table 2-3........ Table 6-1................ Table 5-2................................. Rating ................................... Table 2-2....... 28 Critical Load Cases for Baseline Turbines ....................... 27 Trends from Baseline Designs: Dependence on Diameter ..............................................A-3 Table B-1........ 22 Initial and Final Overall Specifications ......................... 39 Transportation Costs vs........................................................ Table 2-1............................... 10 Summary of Cost Models Used for Major Components in Baseline Designs....................... Table 5-1.................. Table 4-3.................. Comparison of Final Costs with 1..5-MW Baseline Configurations ........... Table 3-1........... B-5 iv ..... B-4 Table B-5...........................................................................................0 MW .........

who carried out most of the aeroelastic simulations. downwind 3-bladed). the control system. and drivetrain design.0¢/kWh in low-windspeed sites. key loads were used to design all the major components using previously developed design methods in combination with cost models that were checked against current commercial data. The rotor systems were defined by making modifications to parameters such as the root-hub attachment. balance-of-station costs. the tip speed. variable-speed baseline designs of 750-kW. 4. Combination of the most promising features from Task #3 into final designs of 3-bladed and 2-bladed upwind and 2-bladed downwind configurations (Task #5). upwind 2-bladed. and a series of simulations corresponding to the IEC 61400-1 design conditions were carried out. To focus the research on those areas most useful to the industry. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) WindPACT (Wind Partnership for Advanced Component Technologies) project. a survey of industry participants was used to narrow the number of rotor systems evaluated. Other parts of the project have examined blade scaling. the blade stiffness. consultants were used for aspects of blade design. Establishment of 3-bladed upwind. 2. full-span pitch-to-feather. Development of cost models (Task #1). The purpose of the WindPACT project is to identify technology improvements that will enable the cost of energy (COE) from wind turbines to fall to a target of 3. Examination of a series of rotor configurations and modifications and their effects on the cost of energy (Task #3).5-MW. who were the prime subcontractors and responsible for all design and costing work. 1. From these results. In addition. LLC. and GEC.S. etc. The project was divided into four major tasks: 1. logistics. v . while this project was concerned with the effect of different rotor configurations and the effect of scale on those rotors.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This report presents the results of a study completed by Global Energy Concepts (GEC) as part of the U. 3. downwind 2-bladed. The rotor systems were grouped into four basic configurations (upwind 3-bladed. For each rotor system an aeroelastic model of the wind turbine with the appropriate properties was developed. and 5-MW ratings (Task #2). and gearbox and bearing design. controls. The results of the analysis for each concept were compared to a baseline representative of current industry practice. This work was shared between Windward Engineering. 3-MW. Approach The original project statement of work discussed a very broad set of rotor systems to be examined.

This was done to the 3-bladed and 2-bladed upwind and the 2-bladed downwind 1. Cost of energy estimates were made for each of these configurations and compared with their corresponding baseline versions (from Tasks #2 or #3).685 1.321 0.561 0. The results of these analyses showed that substantial load reductions were obtained.741 0.011 0. vi .5 MW.300 5.305 0.5-MW configurations.081 5.367 0.543 1.403 0.852 0.5 4.441 0.2 6.741 1.006 0. Summary of Baseline Design Properties and Cost of Energy 750 kW Rotor Diameter Hub Height Max Rotor Speed Hub Overhang Tower Base Diameter Cost of Energy Contributions Rotor Drive Train Controls Tower Balance of Station Replacement Costs O&M Total COE ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh 0.663 3.000 10. A total of 23 rotor systems were examined.800 4.5-MW rating while maintaining the baseline’s variable speed with full-span pitch control features.0 MW 99 119 14.864 1. Table S-1.6 2.889 0.477 1.5 MW 70 84 20. these three features were combined in an effort to arrive at the lowest COE.021 0. In Task #5.432 0.467 0.234 0.022 0.Results The Task #2 work resulted in the cost of energy for the four baseline designs shown in Table S-1. It was also applied to the 750-kW and the 3-MW 3-bladed upwind configurations.800 4.013 1.047 0.0 MW 128 154 11.800 4.5 3. The following three modifications that reduced loads throughout the system and offered widespread benefits were identified: • • • Tower feedback in the control system Passive flap-twist-to-feather coupling in the blades Reduced blade chord in combination with increased tip speed.800 5. which are illustrated in Figures S-1 and S-2.642 m m rpm m m 50 60 28.326 1.650 8.414 0. These features appeared to benefit each of the four basic rotor configurations. These results illustrate the increase in COE to be expected beyond 1.373 The modifications of Task #3 were all applied to a 1.330 4.499 0.434 0.197 0.

0 0.5 MW Rating 6. Cost of energy for baseline and final 3.0 2.0 MW Baseline 3.7% 5.5 MW Baseline 1.0 750 kW Baseline 750 kW T#5 Final 1. ¢/kWh 4. Conclusions • The cost of energy of the baseline designs has been reduced by up to 13%.9% Replace't costs Balance of stn Tower Controls Drive train Rotor Cost of Energy.0 750 kW -10.0 1.5 MW -8.5 MW T#5 Final 3.8% 1. Cost of energy of baseline and final 3-bladed upwind designs.0 3.0 0.2% 2-bladed upwind -10.0 2.and 2-bladed designs at 1.5MW.2% 3. • More than 50% of the cost of energy is unaffected by rotor design and system loads.0 3.0 1. Further COE reductions may be achieved by addressing the balance-of-station costs.6. 1. ¢/kWh 4. vii .0 Baseline T#5 Final Baseline T#5 Final Baseline T#5 Final Figure S-2.0 O&M 2-bladed downwind -3.4% Replace't costs Balance of stn Tower Controls Drive train Rotor Cost of Energy.0 MW T#5 Final Figure S-1. • The cost of energy reduction is small relative to the magnitude of the loads reductions that occurred throughout the system.0 3-bladed upwind -8.0 3-bladed upwind O&M 5.0 MW -12.

Alternatives to the use of conventional cranes and alternative tower designs will potentially benefit larger machines. Study various approaches for reducing COE by changes in the balance-of-station costs and in the fixed charge rate. No single rotor modification offered a solution to reduced rotor costs and lower system loads. 3-bladed upwind machine. • • • • • The Task #5 improvements were of most benefit to the 3-MW. and further improvements may be possible. The cost of the rotor as a fraction of the total capital cost rises with increasing rotor size.• Combinations of rotor improvements with parallel improvements in the drive train design and in the tower design must be pursued. Therefore. Their greater stiffness (compared to glass fiber) was needed to achieve the required flap-twist coupling and to avoid contact with the tower. This combination may offer COE improvements that approach the target COE reduction identified by the WindPACT project. Reduction of the blade chord combined with an increase in the tip speed. there were a number of modifications that offered some general benefits. The cost of a 3-bladed rotor is greater than the equivalent 2-bladed rotor and. Other control system enhancements may also have beneficial effects. Conduct more testing of material coupons and blade assemblies to support the use of bias-ply carbon fibers required for flap-twist coupling. This narrowed the difference in COE within the 750-kW to 3-MW range. larger machines can benefit more from rotor improvements. especially: • • • Inclusion of tower feedback to the blade pitch control system. Study the acoustic penalties associated with higher tip speeds and ways of ameliorating them. benefits more from rotor improvements. The inclusion of feedback from tower motion into the control system has reduced tower loads considerably. The extensive use of carbon fibers was essential to the final blade design. This feature has not been optimized. Develop further refinements of turbine control systems to reduce loads. Added costs of transportation and assembly adversely affect the COE for machines rated above 1. for the same reason. • • Recommendations • Combine the findings of this study with those of the parallel WindPACT drive train configuration study and the continuing study of the effect of specific rating. Instead.5 MW. Such combinations will bring the total COE reductions closer to the 30% target. Incorporation of flap-twist coupling in the blade design. • • • • viii .

Determine the impact on COE of changes to the rotor size and rating in the 750-kW to 5-MW range. the U. To deal with these issues. further reductions in COE of up to 30% are required. 1. 1.1. INTRODUCTION 1. a greater level of innovation will be required in the design of wind turbines. A set of optimized configurations is identified and compared with the initial baseline designs. many concepts have been proposed to reduce loads and to lower COE. most current commercial machines have converged toward a design consisting of an upwind 3-bladed rotor with full-span pitch control. LLC (GEC). However. It presents the work plan that was followed and describes the results of each task. Global Energy Concepts.1 Background Over the past 20 years. To achieve this reduction.S. 1. Detailed results of all aspects of the calculations of the cost of energy are presented together with explanations of the appraisal system used to select the most promising configurations. One element of the WindPACT project has been a series of design studies aimed at each of the major subsystems of the wind turbine to study the effect of scale and of alternative design approaches. the cost of wind energy has decreased significantly and is now close to being competitive with conventional forms of energy.3 Scope This report describes the approach and rationale used to reach the objectives of the study and the organization of the work between GEC and its subcontractors. 1 . Over the past decades. was awarded contract number YAT-0-30213-01 under the WindPACT project to examine the role of the rotor design on the overall cost of energy. To achieve the further decrease in cost of energy (COE) necessary to make wind energy truly competitive with electricity generated from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. Identify rotor design issues that may be barriers to the development of larger machines. 3. In June of 2000. It is difficult for a manufacturer to develop radically new designs in an aggressive market-driven environment in which availability of a product is more important than long-term innovation. Department of Energy. through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). there is doubt about how far the current trend toward large machines should go and where barriers to this trend will be encountered. 2. The purpose of this project is to provide a vehicle for exploring advanced technologies for improving machine reliability and decreasing the overall cost of energy. In addition. has implemented the Wind Partnership for Advanced Component Technologies (WindPACT) project.2 Objectives There are three principal objectives of this study. Determine the effect of different rotor configurations and modifications on system loads and COE.

The Web site address is: www. In addition to copies of this report. a number of input data files. and design evaluation files will be available.gov/wind/windpact.nrel. 2 .1. ADAMS and FAST input files.4 Results on Web Site NREL plans to establish a Web site that will allow access to some of the detailed data related to this study.

Organization of project personnel. Figure 2-2 shows these tasks and their scheduling and gives a brief description of each. and 2-bladed downwind configurations. a number of baseline configurations were developed in the range between 750 kW and 5. METHODOLOGY 2. 2-bladed upwind. The task led to a kick-off meeting at which GEC and Windward Engineering presented their intended approach to NREL. and the major components were designed and their costs estimated. NREL Contract Administrator NREL Technical Monitor NREL Applied Research Group Project Manager Robert Poore Co-Principal Investigator David Malcolm (GEC) Co-Principal Investigator Craig Hansen (Windward Engineering) GEC Technical Staff Tim McCoy (design. 3 . The COE associated with each was calculated. Task #1 was a review of existing cost and optimization studies and the selection of cost models suitable for this project. 3bladed downwind. Aeroelastic models were built and analyzed under a number of load conditions. and the most promising modifications were identified.1.2. a number of modifications to the rotor were selected and applied to 3-bladed upwind.0 MW. 2. In Task #3. data processing) Dayton Griffin (blade design) Other Project Consultants Mike Zuteck (blade design) Bill Holley (controls) Mark Balas (controls) Ed Hahlbeck (gearbox. In Task #2.1 Organization The organization of the project and of the personnel is shown in Figure 2-1. bearings) Rockwell Automation (power electronics) Windward Technical Staff David Laino Jeff Minnema Figure 2-1.1 Work Plan The project was divided into nine tasks that reflect the objectives and the organization.

Excel spreadsheets were used to standardize much of the data storage and transfer.1. 2.2 Procedure The work was divided between GEC and Windward Engineering. 3 sizes 7. Tasks and approximate schedule. Final Design Review 2. and it was important to have a system to efficiently process and track these. 1. 1. Final Report 9. The project involved examining a large number of different turbine configurations. The 2-bladed configurations at 1.5-MW. A system of configuration control was established based on the naming scheme shown in Figure 2-4.5 MW were also optimized.75. Config Design Review Configuration review meeting 6.3. 4 . The remaining tasks identified particular barriers to development and to size and presented the results of the study.Task #5 examined combinations of the results of Task #3 to arrive at optimized 3-bladed designs for 750kW. Baseline Models 0.5 Select "best" configs 5. Kick-off Meeting Cost models Select dynamic model 3. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2-3. July 2000 Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 Task 8 Task 9 Process July 2001 Feb 2002 1. Configuration Study Sweep all configs at 1. while Windward carried out the majority of aeroelastic simulations. GEC initiated the designs and performed the evaluation and costing. 3 basic configs.0.0 MW Standard 3-bladed upwind 4. Detailed Modeling Selected models. Identify Design Barriers 8. 5. Industry Workshop Figure 2-2.5. and 3-MW ratings.

Configuration control scheme for models.x X xx Cxx Rxxxx Vxx revision size/rating number control system in MW identifcation configuration number type ID (A .Global Energy Concepts Use standardized spreadsheet to define model properties Independent aeroelastic analysis to check results (occasional) Windward Enginering Translate into FAST or ADAMS input file Add control system Modify design Add inflow and airfoil data Evaluate design margins Analyze Combine rainflow counts with SN curves for fatigue damage calculation Post process output in CRUNCH or Matlab Extract peaks for peak load design Put all output in standardized spreadsheet format Figure 2-3. 5. Flow of work between GEC and Windward Engineering. 3.5.0.0 This character defines the type defines the control of rotor (e.Z) one of four ratings: this ID number .g. 2-bladed) the configuration blade number run number revision of the blade design for this This is a unique version of 4-digit number configuration which is assigned to the run Figure 2-4.75. x. 1. 5 .3.parameters and is associated with vs.

2. The inputs to the spreadsheet were the design moments at key spanwise locations: the root.2. The output from the spreadsheet comprised the required thickness of the box spar at those sections and the corresponding section properties and weights.2. 6 . 50% span.1. These files are listed and described in Table 2-1.2. Some details of the spreadsheet structure and format are given below. The spreadsheet consisted of a Main Page on which all basic information was supplied and a number of pages on which further calculations were made and the data presented in a format suitable as input to the aeroelastic codes. The spreadsheet was based on the approach developed for the WindPACT Blade Scaling Project [3] and is described more fully in Section 3. Types of Files Used in Design Process File Type Blade design files Input data files Output data file Design evaluation and cost File log ADAMS input file FAST_AD input file Purpose Used to define the profile and structural properties of the blade Used to define all details of the turbine configuration. 2. Table 2-1. There was one page each for definition of the blade and the tower. Information on each file was maintained in a central logging system. and samples of each file type are available through the NREL WindPACT Web site.1.1 Blade Design File An Excel spreadsheet was prepared to supply the basic properties of the blade. and 75% span.1. from which the simulation model was constructed Formulated by Windward to store all output from a certain configuration analysis Using input and output data files. 25% span.adm text The relationship among the sets of files and how they were used in the design process and in the flow of information between GEC and Windward is shown in Figure 2-5.It was necessary to maintain a number of file types throughout the design process and to standardize the file formats for communications between GEC and Windward.2 Input Data File The input data file (see Figure 2-5) was used to transmit all information necessary to allow construction of a computer model of the entire turbine. carried out design and cost estimate of all components Used to list and track all configurations and files listed above Constructed by Windward from the input file to submit to the ADAMS code Constructed by Windward from the input file to submit to the FAST_AD code Format Excel Excel Excel Excel Excel *.

This file consisted of: • One page with all statistics from all the required signals/loads for all the load cases. estimates of design mts.xXnnV00 FileLog Windward Engineering InputData x. 7 .4 Design and Cost Evaluation Process This spreadsheet combined the configuration definition and the simulation outputs and determined whether the major components were adequately designed. Therefore the Main Page from the input data file was copied into the design spreadsheet along with all pages from the output data file. mainframe.xXnn+1V00 FileLog GEC Yes No new simulation required? suggested modifications DesignEvaluation x.1. gearbox. low-speed shaft.xXnnCxxRxxxx All other input design parameters InputData x.2. and tower.xXnn+1 BladeDesign x.1.Blade design parameters.xX01CnnRxxxxV00 BladeDesign xxXnnV01 FileLog FileLog DesignEval xxXnnCxxRxxxV01 Figure 2-5.2. Flow of information in the design process. The design spreadsheet contained one page for design calculations for each of the following: blades. • One page containing rainflow distributions from all the signals at each of the mean wind speeds for normal operation in turbulent conditions. hub.xXnn Windward simulation OutputData x. BladeDesign x. 2.3 Output Data File The output data file was received from Windward Engineering and contained all output results from the various simulations. • One page with the durations spent at each range of drive train torques for each of the mean wind speeds for the normal operation. 2.

50 years N/A N/A 50 N/A 8 . three 10-minute periods were simulated using different random seeds. Table 2-2. This allowed the user to make corrections until all the margins became zero. 16. 20. intensity option A. 24 Directions N/A Positive. Emergency stops were added in Task #5. characteristic _ strength * material _ safety _ factor −1 characteristic _ load * loading _ safety _ factor margin of safety (fatigue loading) = 1 – (fraction of fatigue damage done by factored loads) margin of safety (peak loads) = A positive margin indicated that there was spare safety and that the component could be made lighter. were included.1. 16. 20. All the extreme events were simulated and are listed in Table 2-2. 20. 20. Margins for fatigue load cases indicated the amount by which the fatigue life was over or below the 20-year target.A sheet titled Materials contained all the design properties for all the materials used in the design. negative N/A Positive. Kaimal spectrum Extreme coherent gust with direction change Extreme coherent gust Extreme direction change Extreme operating gust Extreme vertical wind shear Extreme horizontal wind shear Extreme wind model Emergency stops (Task 5 only) Acronym NTM ECD ECG EDC EOG EWSV EWSH EWM Estop Mean or Initial Wind Speeds (m/s) 8. The calculation of the margin of safety for peak loads and for fatigue loading is shown below. 24 12. negative N/A N/A Positive. 50 years 1. 16. if the required changes were more substantial. 24 12. 24 12. The intent was to adjust all components so that all margins of safety were at or very close to zero. such as overspeed and emergency stops. and 24 m/s. 20. At each mean wind speed. 16. 20. whereas a margin of zero indicated that the design was critical. 24 12. 20. 20.3 Load Cases The load cases set out in IEC 61400-1 [1] were used as a basis for the loads simulated in the analysis. 24 12. 12. 16. 24 42. Another sheet titled Evaluation calculated the margin of safety in the various modes for all components. 16. 20. This process was valid if the adjustments were small (less than about 10%) and the required changes would not lead to any significant change in loads. negative Turbulent N/A Return Periods (Years) N/A N/A N/A 1. 16. 16. The Evaluation sheet contained factors by which the major component dimensions could be adjusted. 12. However. 24 (@ 3 seeds each) 12. at mean wind speeds of 8. Margins for peak loads indicated the amount by which the load and/or the static strength could be adjusted. Load Case Analyses Carried Out Type of Load Normal turbulence model. The operation in turbulence was carried out with the standard IEC Kaimal spectrum [1] for IEC class 2.5 (@ 5 seeds) 12. 16. IEC class 2a. 2. None of the fault conditions. then a new simulation was carried out to ensure that the properties used in the aeroelastic analysis were consistent with the final configuration.

and FAST_AD [5]. The former has been used in conjunction with aerodynamic routines to provide a versatile tool able to represent any configuration and to include all nonlinear effects. The basic specifications were revised partway through Task #2.5 times annual average at hub height • Dynamically soft-soft tower (natural frequency between 0.75 per revolution) • Yaw rate less than 1 degree per second. These initial specifications were modified and reinterpreted as the project progressed. the material factors from the Germanischer Lloyd regulations [2] were used. 2.5 and 0.2 Specifications for Baseline Configurations The NREL Statement of Work included the following specifications for the baseline configurations: • Three blades • Upwind • Full-span variable-pitch control • Rigid hub • Blade flapwise natural frequency between 1. California (formerly Mechanical Dynamics of Ann Arbor. FAST_AD works with the same aerodynamic routines but is limited in the types of rotor that can be modeled.5 times annual average at hub height • Cut-out wind speed = 3. • For fiberglass blade design.2.143 • Rated wind speed = 1.4 Design Methodology The following rules were observed in the design process: • The limit states approach was used wherever applicable. No comparisons were made between results using the two sets of specifications.3 Simulation Software There are several codes that are intended for or can be adapted to the aeroelastic analysis of a horizontalaxis wind turbine. as a result. • The partial safety factors for material strength were in accordance with IEC 61400-1 [1] and with the applicable industry design codes. These limitations are balanced by shorter computer run times. All results in this report are based on the second set of specifications.1. and the deformation is limited to a number of preselected mode shapes.5 per revolution • Blade edgewise natural frequency greater than 1. available from MSC Software of Santa Ana.225 kg/m3 • Turbine hub height = 1.5 times flapwise natural frequency • Rotor solidity between 2% and 5% • Variable-speed operation with maximum power coefficient = 0.3 times rotor diameter • Annual mean wind speed at 10-m height = 5. which has been developed by Oregon State University and NREL. 9 .50 • Maximum tip speed <= 85 m/s • Air density = 1. reference in this document will be made to the first and second sets of specifications. The two that were considered for this project were the proprietary code ADAMS™. • The partial safety factors for loads (load factors) were in accordance with IEC 61400-1 [1]. Michigan) [4].8 m/s • Rayleigh distribution of wind speed • Vertical wind shear power exponent = 0. 2.5 and 2.

trailing edge in tension) kN m (positive. the blade root flapwise bending moment refers to the moment applied by the blade to the hub. blade #1 Flapwise shear force at root of blade #1 edgewise shear force at root of blade #1 axial force at root of blade #1 edgewise bending moment at root of blade #1 Flapwise bending moment at root of blade #1 Flapwise shear force at root of blade #2 edgewise shear force at root of blade #2 axial force at root of blade #2 edgewise bending moment at root of blade #2 Flapwise bending moment at root of blade #2 Flapwise shear force at root of blade #3 edgewise shear force at root of blade #3 axial force at root of blade #3 edgewise bending moment at root of blade #3 Notation WShh WDhh RpmLss Rpmgen RotorPower GenPower YawAng PitchAngB1 AzimHub DxTipOutB1 DyTipInB1 DxTipOutB2 DyTipInB2 DxTipOutB3 DyTipInB3 DxLongT DyLatT Mx75EdgeB1 My75FlapB1 Mx50EdgeB1 My50FlapB1 Mx25EdgeB1 My25FlapB1 FxRtFlapB1 FyRtFlapB1 FzRtExtB1 MxRtEdgeB1 MyRtFlapB1 FxRtFlapB2 FyRtFlapB2 FzRtExtB2 MxRtEdgeB2 MyRtFlapB2 FxRtFlapB3 FyRtFlapB3 FzRtExtB3 MxRtEdgeB3 Units Seconds m/s degrees (positive. FAST_AD had not been used in conjunction with any control systems. trailing edge in tension) kN m (positive. Task #1 included an item to modify the FAST_AD code for controlling the blade pitch and the electrical torque to simulate the modern variable-pitch. Note that the sign convention refers to the load applied to the part farther down the load path. In addition. variable-speed wind turbine. Table 2-3. blade #1 Flapwise bending moment at 50% span.4 Signals Recorded Table 2-3 lists the loads/measurements that were collected in the aeroelastic simulations. upwind face in tension) kN (positive in blade x direction) kN (positive in blade y direction) kN (positive in tension) kN m (positive. upwind face in tension) kN (positive in blade x direction) kN (positive in blade y direction) kN (positive in tension) kN m (positive. trailing edge in tension) kN m (positive. upwind face in tension) kN (positive in blade x direction) kN (positive in blade y direction) kN (positive in tension) kN m (positive. blade #1 edgewise bending moment at 25% span. 2. upwind face in tension) kN m (positive. upwind face in tension) kN m (positive. blade #1 edgewise bending moment at 50% span. For this reason. and Figure 2-6 shows the various coordinate systems that are referenced. Loads and Variables Recorded During Simulations Variable Time hub height wind speed hub height wind direction low speed shaft speed high speed shaft speed aerodynamic power generator electrical power yaw angle pitch angle of blade #1 Azimuth angle out-of-plane displacement of blade tip #1 in-plane displacement of blade tip #1 out-of-plane displacement of blade tip #2 in-plane displacement of blade tip #2 out-of-plane displacement of blade tip #3 in-plane displacement of blade tip #3 longitudinal displacement of tower top lateral displacement of tower top edgewise bending moment at 75% span. trailing edge in tension) kN m (positive. blade #1 Flapwise bending moment at 25% span. yaw ccw about Z axis) rpm (positive. trailing edge in tension) 10 . For example. cw about X axis) rpm kW kW degrees (positive ccw about Z axis) degrees (positive moves leading edge upwind) degrees (positive cw about X axis) m (positive downwind) m (measured in hub coordinates) m (positive downwind) m (measured in hub coordinates) m (positive downwind) m (measured in hub coordinates) m (positive downwind) m kN m (positive.It was recognized that although FAST_AD would speed the analysis process. while there was some experience incorporating control systems into ADAMS models. trailing edge in tension) kN m (positive. blade #1 Flapwise bending moment at 75% span. only ADAMS could model some of the intended configurations.

Loads and Variables Recorded During Simulations Variable Flapwise bending moment at root of blade #3 axial thrust in low speed shaft shear force in shaft edgewise to blade #1 shear force in shaft parallel to blade #1 torque in low speed shaft bending in low speed shaft at hub center about axis parallel to blade #1 chord bending in low speed shaft at hub center about axis parallel to blade #1 span bending in low speed shaft at main bearing about axis parallel to blade #1 chord bending in low speed shaft at main bearing about axis parallel to blade #1 span electrical torque applied to drive train downwind thrust at yaw bearing lateral thrust at yaw bearing Vertical load at yaw bearing Pitching moment at yaw bearing yawing moment at yaw bearing lateral bending moment at base of tower longitudinal bending moment at base of tower torsional moment at base of tower Notation MyRtFlapB3 FxThrustS FyS FzS MxTorqS MyS MzS MyBrgS MzBrgS GenTorq FxAxialN FyLat FzVertN MypitchN MzYawN MxLatT MyLongT MzYawT Units kN m (positive. upwind face in tension) kN kN kN kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN kN kN kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m Zn Yh Yb Pitch Angle Xh Xb Blade Pitch Rotation: Blade coordinates relative to hub coordinates Zs Zh Teeter Angle Xs Xh Ys Yn Shaft Rotation: Shaft coordinates relative to nacelle coordinates Zt Yaw Angle Xt Xn Yt Xt Global / tower coordinates Zs Azimuth Angle Key: t = tower n = nacelle s = shaft h = hub b = blade Yt Yn Yaw Rotation: Hub Teeter Rotation: Nacelle coordinates Hub coordinates relative relative to tower coordinates to shaft coordinates Figure 2-6.Table 2-3 (Continued). Coordinates systems used and corresponding rotations. 11 .

a cost model that could reflect the effects of small changes in peak loads was required. DESIGN AND COST MODELS 3. Task #1 of the project consisted largely of developing these cost relations. In general.” implying that further economies of scale of manufacture are not available. 12 . but the exact cost of components was not as important as the changes due to rotor configuration changes. Expressions from other cost models were checked for their applicability to current designs. the cost was considered to be a function of the weight. some cost models were revised during the project. in Task #3 when the effect of different configurations and associated load changes were being studied.3. The wind farm was assumed to be of 50 MW rated power for all the turbine sizes considered. The cost of each major component was checked against at least one known commercial example. As the project progressed. it was important for the cost of items such as pitch bearings to reflect the changes in rotor diameter. For most components. during the Task #2 baseline study when different rotor sizes were being compared. The size and weight of many components were expressed as functions of the rotor diameter. it was necessary to be able to estimate the cost of all major wind turbine components and to know how those costs change with perturbations in the rotor design.1 General Approach In order to calculate the effect of rotor changes on the final cost of energy. all components or subassemblies were assumed to be of a “standard” design. However. The costs of all components corresponded to “mature production. For example. Smooth functions were developed for all items. In these cases. The following general approaches and guidelines were used: • • • • • • • • • • Apart from the rotor. all components were checked for their adequacy under both peak and fatigue loads. For reasons such as this. TASK #1. Table 3-1 includes multiple entries for those items. It was important to obtain cost estimates that were realistic. Table 3-1 summarizes the approaches and formulas used for costing all items. although the data from which they were derived may have contained discrete steps. some of the initial cost models became inadequate.

0. Pitch bearings (Tasks #2.26 $65.0110 (mt/diam)1. Cost checked with commercial data Cost model made consistent with WindPACT Drive Train study [9] U of Sunderland [6] and current commercial designs Powertrain Engineers Inc.000647*rating[kW]+13. Summary of Cost Models Used for Major Components in Baseline Designs Component Blades (Task #2) Cost Model/Formula WindPACT blade scaling design [3].5 Where D = rotor diam (m) cost = $17. grade 6545-18 Total mass less than 3-bladed hub.3*rating[kW] + 471 $52. but cost is greater See text Pitch bearings Not used for final costing.00/kW rating mass[kg] = 3.2 mass≅const*D 1800-rpm wound rotor induction motor with power electronics Generator (Tasks #2.340 $/kg = 0. and kN m.00/kg. #5) Gear box Data from Avon bearings (Appendix C).25/kg Area = length2 length[m] = 2*yaw brg to outer main brg mass = 84.92 $4.3*rating[kW] + 471 $7. with scale factor of 1. $/bearing = 0.0454*D2. #3. Overall $7.25 /kg Static analysis using peak root mt.00/kg Area = length*(width+height) length[m] = 2*yaw brg to outer main brg mass = 84.Table 3-1. #3) Hub (Task #5) Teeter hub Cast ductile iron sphere with openings. kW. quantities use the units of m. scale factor = 4. kg. length = 0.5 $4. See text Final relationship: 2.1628*mass-1.95 /kg $16. [8]. ID = 0. #3) Nacelle cover (Task #5) Scale factor included to obtain agreement with industry (5800 kg for 750-kW turbine) U of Sunderland formula for 2 kg/m .42/kg for hybrid carbon-glass spar $16.50. #5) Hub (Tasks #2. grade 60-45-18 $4. Unit_stress vs. mass curve fitted to 4 point designs Mass model from U of Sunderland [6].00/kW rating mass[kg] = 3.00920 x D^2.489 cost[$] = 6.1 kg/m2 Verification/Comparison 750 kW Class 1 wind: 2130 kg Class 2 wind: 1660 kg av.689*kg + 953 Life_factor [1/Nm] = 0.42/kg for bias-ply carbon-glass skins Static analysis using peak root mt with scale factor of 2. Cost from Morrison Fiberglass Area formula modified to be less sensitive to length Stress analysis of channel section using moments at yaw bearing Note: Unless specified otherwise. #3) Generator (Task #5) Main shaft Shaft often governed by stiffness rather than by strength Main bearings Bedplate Nacelle cover (Tasks #2.98 Cost doubled for remaining system and drives Mass [kg] = 0.5OD.1 kg/m2 cost = $10. 750-kW costs and weights compared with commercial data Curve fit through Avon data Ed Hahlbeck/Powertrain Engineers Inc.70/kg. $10. Mass x 2 for teeter and dampers.25 /kg Static analysis of cylindrical tube using peak root mt with scale factor = 3. 13 .60/kg Ductile iron casting. Diameter kept constant in Task #3 changes and thereafter Bearing mass = (D x 8/600 – 0. commercial: 2200 kg Costs from a range of commercial data [7] Scale factor selected to give 750kW weight = 3100 kg compared with a commercial 750/50 machine Scale factor selected to give better agreement with hub of 47-m machine Overall costs from AWT-27 Comment E-glass with structural spar Blades (Tasks #3.03*D.033) x 0.

Initial estimates from [6] Mass and cost made dependent on peak load Industry data U. kW.00/kW (total electrical) $9500 + 10*D $1.50/kW Mass [kg] = 0.49E-6*Rating2 – 0. #3) Power electronics (Task #5) Controls Tower Foundations (Task #2) Cost Model/Formula $4.57 $/kW = 2.689*mass + 953 $40.96 cost doubled for remaining system and drives Mass [kg] = 1. lease costs.17E-6*Rating2 – 0.008/kWh Assembly.581E-5*Rating2 – 0. civil works Electrical interface Permits.00/kW $67.38E-7*Rating2 + 9.0375*Rating + 54.00/kg $/bearing = 0.50/kg $/kW = 584*Rating-0. Excludes taxes.94E-4*Rating + 20.0145*Rating + 69.7 $/kW = 3.7 $/kW = 9.025*ratedHStorque[Nm] $10. Summary of Cost Models Used for Major Components in Baseline Designs Component Hydraulics Brakes. #5) Transportation $ = 510 * (Max_base_mt[kN m])0. couplings Yaw system (Task #2) Yaw system (Tasks #3.84E-4*Rating + 31. manufacturing industry Variable-speed system using wound rotor induction motor Comment See text $54. 14 .0221*Rating + 109. and insurance $/kW = 1. kg.489 0.0152(max_mt/bearing_diam – 36) $ = 6.Table 3-1 (Continued).54 $/kW = 3. installation Roads.465 Costs per U.and 1500-kW machines Adjusted to agree with updated quotes from Patrick & Henderson for a range of machine sizes Obtained from WindPACT logistics study [12] Obtained from WindPACT logistics study [12] Obtained from WindPACT report [13] Obtained from WindPACT report [13] Obtained from WindPACT report [13] Based on Danish survey of experience in that country [18] Flat rate adopted so that other trends can be investigated later Foundations (Tasks #3. engineering Long-term replacement Operations and maintenance Note: Unless specified otherwise.00/kW (total electrical) Verification/Comparison GEC estimate Mass from U of Sunderland [6] Data from Avon bearings. gearbox.0339*D2. and kN m.377 Comparison with data from WindPACT Drive Train study [9] [6] Initial design tuned to agree with commercial 750/50 data Adjusted to agree with quotes from Patrick & Henderson for 750.S. steel fabricating industry The steel caisson design of P&H is cheaper than traditional concrete slab designs Includes influence of changes in base loads Reflects large increases associated with 3and 5-MW turbines Modifications to width of roads and cost of crane pads Includes turbine transformers and cables to substation Replacement of blades. etc. quantities use the units of m.31 $15/kW/year $0. generator.S. #5) Switchgear Power electronics (Tasks #2.

• Maximum tip speed = 65 m/s • Ratio of maximum chord to rotor radius = 0.5 Vmean Linear (Commercial Blade Data) Figure 3-1. As part of the study. combined with the presence of vertical wind shear.25 0.3.70 0. Specific rating vs. This relationship is also shown in Figure 3-1 and is close to the line representing commercial data.30 0.2 Rotor Components 3.2. leads to a variation of specific rating with hub height and hence to rotor diameter.1 Blade Design 3.2.0 • Ratio of maximum (electrical) power to swept area = 0.20 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Rotor Diameter (m) Commercial Blade Data Vrated = 1. The blade-scaling project examined the feasibility and cost of increasing the scale of “current technology” in blade design and was based on the following approach: 15 .44 kW/m2 is close to an average value. and it was therefore necessary to model them in some detail.44 kW/m2 (“specific rating”) The data used to select the specific rating are illustrated in Figure 3-1. The design of the rotor blades for the baseline configurations followed the results from the WindPACT blade-scaling project [3] that was completed at GEC near the same time that this project began.55 0.50 0. and the following guidelines were adopted as being typical of current commercial practice.40 0. an initial design model was needed.1.45 0. in which a value of 0.1 Aerodynamic Specifications The blades are at the focus of this project. The NREL specification relating the rated wind speed to the hub-height mean wind speed. However.65 0. 3.2. rotor diameter for current commercial wind turbines. the blades in current use in the industry were reviewed.1. 0.09 • Tip speed ratio for maximum power coefficient = 7.35 0.60 Specific Rating (kW/m ) 2 0.2 Baseline Blade Design The final design and cost of the blades were determined through an iterative process using the results of the loads from the aeroelastic simulations.

A more structurally suitable set of airfoil shapes was derived by scaling the S818/S825/S826 foils and by the addition of a finite-thickness trailing edge.3 Airfoil Schedule The NREL S-series airfoils were used for the blade designs of this study. In Task #5. The WindPACT blade-scaling study also considered the cost of tooling and the implications of the size of the production run. 3. The cost of this construction was taken from [3]. 16 . 50%. and then it transformed to the S818 30% airfoil shape at 25% span location.78 mm. The section was reinforced at the root to accommodate the attachment studs for which a weight estimate was made. but we did not make use of these for the initial design since the model from the WindPACT Blade Scaling project [3] was available and could be tailored to this project. The cost of this was based on estimates in [7]. The current project assumes that all costs correspond to “mature production. 25%.” which means that at least 100 blades are produced per year. and 10% of the airfoil thickness. Designs were generated for four sections: 7%. The output consisted of the spar thickness required to resist the design moments together with the corresponding section properties and the surface strains due to a unit bending moment. The blade section was circular between the root at 5% span and 7% span. This spar was composed mainly of uniaxial glass fibers.15 of the chord position to 0. In the work of References [19] and [20]. assuming that the maximum lift occurs simultaneously along the entire blade.1. • • • • • • A number of weight and cost models are included in the University of Sunderland report [6]. and 75%. The WindPACT model is based on the extreme 50-year gust. This spar began at the 25% span location (corresponding to maximum chord) and tapered off to zero at the tip. Each blade included a longitudinal box spar that spanned from 0. This value will be reached earlier when 750-kW machines are used than when 5-MW machines are involved. the airfoils were deemed to be too thin for efficient application to large blades (assuming current commercial materials were used). The shape modifications and locations of airfoils along the blade are summarized in Table 3-2. It also includes a check for edgewise fatigue due to gravity loads plus the torque at rated power.50 of the chord. Designs for the required spar were based on interpolation between results for total spar thickness values of 0%. Input to the blade design spreadsheet consisted of the material properties and a set of flapwise design moments.• • The blades were assumed to consist of a fiberglass skin of largely triaxial material sandwiching a balsa core for stability. However. In Task #3 some of the configurations were composed of a hybrid carbon-glass spar. the S818/S825/S826 family was identified as having desirable aerodynamic properties. 5%. The loading used to obtain the first design estimate was the 50-year extreme wind on the stationary blade using the maximum lift coefficient along the entire blade. Each skin thickness was 1. the blade construction was further altered to include carbonglass skins with a bias angle to incorporate flap-twist coupling.2. the resulting airfoil shapes are shown in Figure 3-2.

Airfoils used for baseline 1.0 0.5 S818 / 0.025*D 5. which this project could not attempt to duplicate.16 / -0.0 MW cylinder / / 10.0 0.09 0.24 / 2.0 Figure 3-2.4 x/c Scaled S818 Scaled S825 Scaled S826 NREL S-series airfoils (scaled) with finite thickness trailing edge 0.16 / -0.0 70.0 S826 / 0.24 / 2.2 0.09 0. Summary of Aerodynamic and Geometrical Design of Blades Airfoils type / aspect ratios / twist (degrees) used Rotor diameter @ 5% span @ 7% span @ 25% span @ 50% span @ 75% span @ 100% span first specification second specification first specification Second specification 750 kW cylinder / / 10.5 cylinder / / 10. a simplified approach based on static analysis and a suitable “scale factor” was used.054*D 0.0 0.5 MW cylinder / / 10.1 y/c 0.5 S825 / 0.09 0.30 / 10.16 / -0.2 Hub Most current 3-bladed rotors use a hub made from a ductile iron casting in the shape of a sphere with openings for the blades and for the shaft connections.054*D 0.054*D 0.5 S818 / 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 S825 / 0.33 / 10.2 0.Table 3-2.24 / 2. The approach consisted of calculating the membrane stress due to the maximum applied moment at the 17 .5 S825 / 0.025*D 3.5 S818 / 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 cylinder / / 10.025*D 1.0 128.5 S825 / 0.0 99.5 S818 / 0.5-MW blade model. 0.5 cylinder / / 10.2.1 -0.5 S825 / 0. The stress analysis and design of these components are done by finite element analysis of multiple load cases.6 50.24 / 2.21 / 0.5 S825 / 0.6 93.08 7.5 S825 / 0.025*D Chord at 25%/radius Tip speed ratio for max Cp Root section diameter Spanwise radius at root Note:D is the diameter of the rotor.08 7.27 / 10. Instead.21 / 0.0 S826 / 0.6 46.0 0.8 1.09 0.0 0.08 7.21 / 0.16 / -0.6 120.33 / 10. 3.08 7.21 / 0.5 S825 / 0.0 S826 / 0.0 S826 / 0.5 cylinder / / 10.0 MW cylinder / / 10.054*D 0.6 66.0 -0.

and shell thickness.92 was adopted from then onwards. The cost of the total assembly was calculated using a value of $7. suggested that this value was too high. and combined with appropriate material properties to arrive at a design.2 Teetered Hub The concept adopted for the design of the teetered hub was of a cylindrical tube that mated with the blade pitch bearings at either end and was attached to the shaft through a central teeter pin. during Task #3. a single-row ball bearing was selected. and a value of 1.5 was appropriate. This membrane stress was increased by a scale factor. This was found to correspond well with data obtained later from Avon Bearings (see Appendix C).98. which accounted for the stress concentrations around the opening.) is equal to the cost of the bearing. and a power supply. An initial model for the total cost was: $/bearing = 0. Therefore.5 MW and higher ratings.0 was. #3. The mass and cost of the auxiliary pitch drive components were estimated to be equal to that of the pitch bearing itself and a factor of 2.2.2. and #5 that reflected cost changes due to changes in the peak loads applied. The pinion is driven through a speed reducer by a high-rpm electric motor. The pitch system for each blade consists of a bearing. the teeter pin. it was again assumed that the cost of the remainder of the pitch system (motor.2. added to the cost. etc. and #5.70/kg.0454*D2.0110 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ diameter[m] ⎝ ⎠ cos t[$] = mass * 6. as noted below. the Avon cost data was reformatted into the following form: ⎛ max_ applied _ moment[kN m] ⎞ mass[kg ] = 0. Initial comparisons indicated that a scale factor of 2. However. This implied that the reinforcements around the four openings were equivalent to a uniform sphere. triple-row bearings were recommended and quoted. therefore. #3. 3. whereas at the 1.489 For Tasks #2.opening as a function of sphere diameter. These data included cost estimates for the range of ratings of interest and were based on initial estimates of peak moments. Each blade is mounted to the hub via turntable bearings with an internal slewing ring for engagement with a drive pinion. a speed reducer.) was assumed to be equal in weight to the cylindrical tube. the dampers. 3. The mass of the remaining items (modifications to the single tube. an electric drive motor. The final mass was calculated as a complete sphere with the prescribed diameter and wall thickness. which was calculated from the known cost and mass of the AWT-27 turbine components. The lower value was used for all results presented in this report. controller. speed reducer.689 + 953 1. this model was not used for the final estimates in the costing and scaling efforts. Different bearing types were recommended by Avon at the different sizes because of the relatively small diameter of these bearings compared to the high loads they must carry.1 Pitch Bearings It was assumed that each of the blades is pitched independently. a controller. The cost quoted for bearings for the 5-MW size did not fall on the same curve as for the others and it was therefore neglected in defining the cost model. etc. At 750 kW. A new cost model was defined for Tasks #2. 18 .2. Further comparisons carried out later in the project. opening diameter. The wall thickness of the tube was designed by the peak moment from the blade roots and was adjusted by a scale factor to give agreement with known data (the AWT-27) and to be comparable to the mass of the equivalent 3bladed hubs. The total mass of the hub obtained in this manner was compared with some commercial hubs and the scale factor was tuned so that the model and commercial values were in good agreement.

from wind turbines between 750 kW and 2000 kW.00/kg. The mass of the shaft.033) x 0.3.3.3 Drive Train Components The drive train includes all components from the main shaft to the connection to the pad mount transformer including any power electronics and electrical switches. in terms of the rotor diameter. The shaft was assumed to be made from high-strength steel with a characteristic yield of 828 MPa. Powertrain Engineers was given the baseline turbine parameters and a requirement to operate at rated torque for a lifetime of 200. This approach was adopted throughout Task #3 and for the remainder of the project.5. These design results included detailed fatigue analyses.3.0 to allow for stress concentrations and to obtain initial agreement with current designs and with the University of Sunderland report [6]. Ed Hahlbeck of Powertrain Engineers was contracted to provide point designs for the 750-kW. it was determined that the shaft diameter was usually dictated by stiffness rather than strength considerations. The unit stresses from the gears with the lowest safety margins were curve fit to the total mass of the 19 . so that the mass and cost of the main shaft should remain constant with these perturbations. The following sections address the sizing.2.000 hours. The resulting expression for the bearing mass.A scale factor of 3. In addition to the mechanical and electrical power delivery and conversion equipment.2. calculated from the length and diameter. The second bearing was included in the gearbox assembly. and cost modeling of these components. 1. The cost of the teetered hub was higher than that of the 3-bladed hub due to the costs involved in the teeter pin and damper units. all the structural components and auxiliary mechanical and electrical components between the hub and the tower top are included in the drive train group.1 Main Shaft The main shaft was assumed to be a hollow cylinder with a flanged end for a bolted connection to the hub. 3. mass estimates. Both peak stresses and fatigue were considered.2 Main Bearings The main bearing was assumed to be of a standard type and a formula for the mass was developed based on data.3 Gearbox For the design of the gearbox. Determination of the outer diameter was based on an analysis of the stress at the bearing closest to the rotor (the location of peak bending) with an added scale factor of 4. 3. This value resulted in total hub weights that were slightly less than the total weights of corresponding 3-bladed hubs. The cost of the main shaft was initially allowed to change with the changes in loads created in Task #3. GEC used a combination of the resulting gearbox masses and the intermediate stress results to develop a model of gearbox mass based on the torque histograms from the simulations at each turbine rating.5-MW.50 was used.00920 x D^2. However.5 The mass of the bearing housing was assumed to be the same as that of the bearing itself and a rate of $17. and costs. 3-MW and 5-MW baseline turbines.2. D.03*(rotor diameter) and the inner-to-outer-diameter ratio was fixed at 0. The analysis was based on the standard AGMA methodology combined with experience in wind turbine gearbox design. was: Mass (kg) = (D x 8/600 – 0. The analyses and results can be found in Reference [8]. weight. collected by Powertrain Engineers Inc. 3.60 per kg was used for both components. 3.2. The length was initially fixed at 0.. was used to assess the cost at $7.

3. If the predicted life was above or below that required. where the kW is from the total system rating rather than the rating of the power electronics.6 Bedplate The bedplate was assumed to be a 60-45-18 grade ductile iron casting with a tapered channel shape. The critical unit stress in the gearbox could then be calculated from a gearbox mass estimate. The overhanging moment and yaw moment at the yaw bearing were used to calculate the required dimensions to meet both peak and fatigue analysis requirements. the cost was reduced to $54. which allows variablespeed operation. etc.2. when combined with the torque histogram from the simulations.1 kg/m2 [6] and a cost of $10.2. 3. and cross section width and depth. 3.00/kW.00 /kW In Task #5. In order to be compatible with the more detailed study of electrical components in that project.3. The cost function used was $4.3. Later in the project. The initial cost model used was $67.corresponding four gearbox point designs. This unit stress.. which includes casting and machining costs. as a result.00/kW.5 Power Electronics No mass estimates were made for the power electronic system because it is assumed that they are inside the tower at the base and do not affect the turbine dynamic simulation.25/kg. The life factor (stress divided by maximum allowable stress) is used in fatigue life calculations and was related to the gearbox mass by the following formula: Life factor per unit torque [1/(N m)] = 0. this cost was also compared with information available from the WindPACT Drive Train study [9] and.00/kg was applied (as quoted by Morrison Molded Fiberglass).3. The estimated surface area was initially calculated as the square of the length where the length is twice the distance from the yaw axis to the outer main bearing [6].1628*(gearbox mass[kg])-1. The generator mass model was taken from the University of Sunderland report [6] for an 1800-rpm wound rotor with slip rings. such as the section for the generator.000647*rating[kW] + 13. A mass per unit area equal to 84.3405 The gearing for large turbine ratings becomes very large and the costs per unit mass tend to rise and the cost function used was: (0.0 was applied to the stress analysis to obtain agreement with current industry data. This value was based on data related to a major manufacturer.3.26) $/kg.00/kW.4 Generator The baseline turbine assumes a wound rotor induction generator with slip rings. the generator cost was reduced to $52. this cost model was compared with information used in the parallel WindPACT Drive Train study [9]. The cost of the bedplate was assessed by calculating the mass that satisfied the stress analysis and adding 50% to cover additional material not directly required to support the rotor. The cost models were verified with data from commercial data. The initial models used were: mass [kg] = 3.2.3*rating[kW] + 471 cost = $65.2. the mass was adjusted and the stress and life recalculated until a converged mass estimate was reached. 20 .7 Nacelle Cover The nacelle cover was assumed to be fiberglass and to cover the entire length of the nacelle. 3. An additional scale factor of 9. was used in a fatigue analysis using standard AGMA SN curves. A stress function was developed based on bottom and side wall thickness.

calculated for use in the simulations.4 Tower The tower was assumed to be a tapered steel tube and was designed for peak and fatigue bending moments at the base and at the top. was estimated from the equation in the University of Sunderland report [6].This formula for the cladding area is very sensitive to the length of the nacelle because the formula assumes that the width and the height also increase with the length. as well as the length.8 Yaw System The yaw system consists of a turntable bearing and slew ring driven by multiple electric drives that are connected to the slew ring through a speed reducer and pinion.2.50/kg was used to arrive at a total cost.2.2. Brakes The mass of the high-speed shaft and coupler were estimated based on the equation in Reference [6] as follows: Mass [kg] = 0.10 Hydraulics and Lubrication It was assumed that the hydraulic system is used only for the brakes and that the lubrication includes equipment for cooling the gearbox and bearings.0152 ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ diameter[m] ⎝ ⎠ cos t[$] = mass * 6. tower head mass. The mass. cabinets) exclusive of controls and power electronics was assumed to increase directly with rating.50/kW 3.025*rated HSS torque [N m] The mass of the brake calipers and additional disk mass on the coupler were estimated as an additional 50% of the shaft and coupler mass.03 times the rotor diameter.489 3.96 This formula is dependent only on the rotor diameter and was not suitable for reflecting cost changes due to changes in the loads for configurations having the same rotor diameter. and a rate of $1.3.3. The yaw bearing costs were based on quotes from Avon Bearings (see Appendix C) for the four baseline turbines. In Task #5. resulting in the following relation: yaw bearing cost [$] = 0.3. The cost for all of these items was assumed to average out to $10.00/kg. transformer. 3. The total mass was calculated using a linear taper of both diameter and wall thickness between the top and bottom. cables. 3.11 Switchgear and Other Electrical The cost of the electrical systems (switchgear. The total cost of the yaw system was estimated to be equal to twice the cost of the bearing. the mass model was changed to be dependent on the width and the height of the drive train.2. These quotes were curve fit to the rotor diameter. 1. ⎛ max_ applied _ moment[kN m] ⎞ − 36 ⎟ mass[ kg ] = 0.2. 3.9 High-Speed Shaft. This equation is a function of the rotor diameter and the initial estimates for rotor thrust.00/kW. 21 .3.689 + 953 The diameter of the yaw bearing was calculated as 0. Coupler. The masses and costs from Avon Bearings were reexamined and reformatted to be dependent on the maximum moment applied.0339*(Rotor diameter[m])2. and tower top diameter. The cost model used was $40. Cost = $4.

$/kW = 584*Rating[kW]-0. Inc.5 Balance of Station The costs of most items in the balance-of-station category were obtained from the earlier WindPACT studies on logistics [12] and balance of station [13]. This was done for reasons of access.2.2.” They may be divided into those associated with operations and those associated with maintenance.5. the diameter of the top of the tower was specified to be no less than 0. Table 3-3.2 Operating Costs There are several types of costs that are sometimes included in the category of “operations and maintenance.5 of the base diameter. California. of Bakersfield. and for aesthetics. Their costs were adjusted for the hub heights of the current project and were fit to a power curve resulting in the formula below. The design check of the tower sections used a material yield stress of 350 MPa and a fatigue strength defined by BS7608 class D. 3. These costs assume soil conditions typical of the Great Plains. In addition.This rate was obtained by consultation with members of the steel fabricating industry and by comparison with known costs of towers in the Turbine Verification Project [10]. The scenarios used in these reports referred to a selected site in South Dakota and are appropriate for the current study.1 Foundations The costs of the foundations were based on information received from Patrick & Henderson. Trend lines were developed from the WindPACT results and were used in this project. A check was also carried out for local stability using formula 14.5. and the roads for the 2.5-MW and 5-MW machines were adjusted to have a 40-ft (12-m) width. a maximum ratio of 320 was adopted. In order to maintain the diameter/wall thickness ratio to values that are acceptable to manufacturers. Items Included in Operations & Maintenance Class of O&M Cost Operations Local property taxes Insurance Land lease Project administration Local utilities Maintenance Regular scheduled maintenance Unscheduled maintenance Long-term replacement 22 . That company has developed a cost-effective system of wind turbine foundations utilizing a post-tensioned. The trend line formulas are listed in Table 3-1. accommodation of the yaw bearing. The costs of the gravel pads for the cranes were reduced by a factor of 2.2.377 This formula was found inadequate for Task #3 when the effects of small changes in loads were required. 3.16 from [11].465 3. The WindPACT values for Roads & Civil Works from [13] were considered unrealistic and were modified. concrete-filled steel caisson. Therefore the costs were reevaluated and also updated with additional data from Patrick & Henderson to arrive at the following expression. which was used for Tasks #3 and #5: Cost [$] = 510*(max_base_moment[kN m])0.

soiling.008/kWh in accordance with NREL guidelines. In addition.4 Cost of Energy Model The formula used to calculate the cost of energy was specified by NREL and is given below.00/kW/year (based on reports from Europe [18]). (FCR x ICC) + LCR + O&M AEPnet where COE = Levelized cost of energy ($/kWh) FCR = Fixed charge rate (0. The long-term replacement costs were fixed at $15. It is recognized that different models may affect the trends observed in this study. and the housing and interface equipment. It was especially difficult to obtain data that could help to predict the effect of scale on O&M costs for which it is necessary to separate the effects of age from the effects of size. the microprocessor.6% financing charge rate (this was approved by the staff of the NWTC).A number of sources were used to survey current costs. One source used was a report by Lemming & Morthorst [15]. 3. which is reflected in the formula quoted in Table 3-2. The remaining operations costs were fixed at $0. The cost of the development and testing is not included here. These costs are affected very little by the size of the machine.106 /yr was used) ICC = Initial capital cost ($) LRC = Levelized replacement cost ($/yr) AEPnet = Net annual energy production (kW/yr) = AEPgross adjusted for availability. and the results varied widely. in part because they did not all include the same items and because the circumstances of each information source are always different [16.3 Control Systems The cost of the control and protection system must include the cost of the necessary sensors. O&M = Operating and maintenance cost ($/kWh) COE = 23 . In order to simplify this situation. array losses. 17]. the following decisions were made: • • • All the operations costs were included in the 10. No attempt was made to vary the costs with machine size. etc. operators are naturally reluctant to disclose information that may be proprietary. 3.

These configurations were used in Task #2 until.0.6. The improved version of FAST_AD was used in a number of analyses in Task #3. Table 4-1.0.0 60. However. It was agreed that the axial and shear force results from FAST_AD should not be used in design.2 x rotor_diameter 50. The discussion that ensued resulted in the adoption of a second set of specifications and a second series of simulations and design evaluations. 66.0. The two sets of specifications are listed in Table 4-1. 5000 4. BASELINE DESIGNS The objective of Task #2 was to generate designs for four wind turbines with ratings from 750 kW to 5.1 Basic Specifications An initial set of configurations and the rationale for them were presented to NREL staff at the kick-off meeting in August 2000.0. 99.0.0 750.84. but it was decided that all subsequent analyses in Task #2 would be made using ADAMS. It became apparent that some loads did not agree. ADAMS Results The initial intention was to use the FAST_AD code for all of Task #2 and for as much as possible of Task #3. which were functions of the wind at the reference height of 10 m and the tower height. Sea-level density and the specified drive train efficiencies were used in the calculation of AEP.3 Annual Energy Production For each blade design and schedule. Therefore.4.0 750. Task #1 included the addition of a suitable PID controller routine into FAST_AD. in December 2000.0.0. 3000. 119. and the following additional losses were included: 95% • Availability 2% • Blade soiling losses 5% • Array losses 24 . 1500. 1500.0 MW and to use these designs as standards to which later designs could be compared. Later it was found that the tower base bending moments from FAST_AD were also substantially different from the ADAMS model results. More details concerning this comparison are given in Section 4-2. 5000 Revised Specification IEC class 2 75 m/s 1. 128.2 FAST_AD vs.154.0 61. 4. the FAST_AD code was initially used to generate results. 121. 4. and it was noticed that the results for axial and shear forces from FAST_AD were erratic and did not compare well. Because the baseline designs did not involve unusual features. 120.0. and a number of additional output signals were added to FAST_AD in Task #2. the NREL project monitor questioned whether those specifications represented the class of rotor that was of most interest. ADAMS models were developed for some of the turbines. The cause and resolution of the discrepancies were developed by Windward Engineering. TASK #2. Initial and Final Overall Specifications Parameter Design wind regime Rated tip speed Hub height Rotor diameters (m) Hub heights (m) Ratings (kW) Initial Specification IEC class 1 65 m/s 1. and results from the two sets of models were compared.0. 70. This table was incorporated into a spreadsheet to calculate total annual energy production (AEP) under specified wind regimes. 3000.0. and finally all turbines were analyzed using ADAMS.3 x rotor_diameter 46. the PROP code [14] was used to generate a table of powercoefficient against tip-speed ratios. 156. Comparisons were made between equivalent FAST_AD and ADAMS models.0. 86. 93.

25 4.25 Component Material Blade Hub Shaft Mainframe Tower Fiberglass Ductile iron HS steel Ductile iron Structural steel R=0 R=-1 R=10 7586 µε 3620 µε 3620 µε Yield stress = 310 Mpa Yield stress = 828 Mpa Yield stress = 310 Mpa Yield stress = 350 Mpa m = 8. A torque-speed look-up table was provided to the simulation. energy production. Table 4-2.5 m = 16.0 m = 16. The minimum was chosen for peak aerodynamic efficiency.9 1. and the cost of energy are presented in Table 4-4 and are summarized in Figure 4-1.1 1.1 1. The pitch rate was limited to 10 degrees/second.0 m =13. and the maximum value was set at approximately 90 degrees (corresponding to fully feathered). 4.4 Material Properties The static strength. The corresponding costs. Above the rated torque value.The AEP calculation assumed sharp transitions in the power curve with no smoothing.93 2. the fatigue strength details.1 1. Material (including consequences of failure factor) Static Fatigue 2. 4.25 1. 25 . the rotor no longer operated at peak efficiency.8 m = 6. and the partial safety factors used in the principal components are listed in Table 4-2. the look-up table provided a near-constant torque with increasing rotor speed.1 1.93 1.9 1.25 1.9 1.5 Pitch Control System All rotors used full-span collective pitch control to maintain constant rotor speed above rated wind speed.93 2.0 m = 16. The pitch control system was provided with maximum and minimum values of the pitch angle. Once the specified maximum speed or maximum power was reached. Details of the pitch controller are provided in Appendix E.6 Results from Design Process Table 4-3 contains results of the configurations adopted for the four baseline machines.8 BS 7608 class D m=3 1. Material Properties Used in Design of Major Components (Task #2) Stress Ratio Static Design Strength/ Strain Fatigue Design SN Slope Partial Safety Factor. and the blades were pitched to maintain the specified maximum speed. which maintained the rotor operating at maximum power coefficient in the variable-speed range.

05 5086 15.000 1.560 2.05 0.0A08C01V02c 5.9 5663 x 17.203 102.03 0.7 122.05 0.75A08C01V00c 1. Summary of cost-of-energy breakdown for baseline configurations.04 0.Table 4-3.792 3.259 2946 5421 10.0 367.381 32.5 MW 3.239 0.603 23.407 2.5 10.104 50.0 MW Replace't costs Balance of st'n Tower Controls Drive train Rotor Figure 4-1.440 2823 x 8.319 209.016 101.5 14.0 MW 5.057 45.02 0.01 0.06 0.424 1.7 46.610 4851 x 17. 26 .839 132.124 101.971 5048 15.373 x 33.00 750 kW 1.05 O&M Cost.980 x 0. Characteristics of Final Baseline Configurations Units File Name Rotor diameter Max rotor speed Max tip speed Rotor tilt Blade coning Max blade chord Radius to blade root Blade mass Rotor solidity Hub mass Total rotor mass Hub overhang Shaft length x diam Gearbox mass Generator mass Mainframe mass Total nacelle mass Hub height Tower base diam x thickness Tower top diam x thickness Tower mass m rpm m/s degrees degrees m m kg kg kg m m kg kg kg kg m mm mm kg 750 kW 1.330 3.0500 0.398 x 0.024 4723 10.030 20.522 4070 x 13.2 2000 x 6.669 60 84 119 154 4013 x 12.5 MW 3.5A08C01V03c 3.0 MW 5.905 52.790 x 0.0A04C01V00c Adm 50 70 99 128 28.014 12.2 75 75 75 75 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 8% of radius 8% of radius 8% of radius 8% of radius 5% of radius 5% of radius 5% of radius 5% of radius 1818 4230 12.936 27.600 x 1.0 MW .6 784. $/kWh 0.101 0.5 11.500 42.6 20.371 16.650 6.4 8081 x 25.300 4.598 270.

414 0.477 1.062 9.499 0. This leads to the trend of larger blades being governed by edgewise gravity forces in place of aerodynamic flapwise forces.057 873 2. safety system Tower Balance of station Foundations Transportation Roads. 27 .750 35.530 147.0 MW 1.022 0.790 431.500 118.857 12.000 22.834 697. There is a considerable difference in the dependence on rotor diameter for the flapwise and edgewise fatigue loads at the blade root.852 0.000 69.903 429.359 112.800 4.197 0.305 0. Most loads that are due mainly to aerodynamic forces vary approximately with the diameter to the power of 3.561 0.520 18.250 5.780 1.312.205 255.713 126.791 64.627 200.552 32.224 5.800 4.0 MW 727.213 192.191 35.919 1.074 21.392.714 224.021 0.864 1.490 551.375 17.432 0. Costs of All Wind Farm Items for Baseline Designs Rating Rotor Blades Hub Pitch mechanism and bearings Drive train. for this series of baseline designs.433 3.000 3.492 48. It also shows the next critical load case and the available margin for that loading.660 217.901 10.000 201.800 4.828 388.367 1.500 100.244 108.603.268 21.092 63.150 1. the edgewise fatigue loading becomes critical between the 3.440 1.403 0.898 10.682 10.741 928 4. Loads that involve gravity forces vary with the diameter to a greater power.474.307 149.234 0.484. nacelle Low-speed shaft Bearings Gearbox Mechanical brake.800 5.868 3. which is greater than 2.992 60.698 1.and the 5-MW sizes.132.464 213.931 437.325 224.984 97.411 48. HS coupling.304 15.881 2.794 64.000 6.945 0.500 126. which also is in keeping with expectations.283 10.642 Table 4-5 shows how some of the key loads vary with rotor diameter.919 26.094 1. this agrees with simple estimates.0.947 325.385 7.426 905.903 101.705 433.631 8. Figure 4-2 illustrates how.458.994 0.816.410 136.148 10.500 71.765 253.445.321 3.Table 4-4. the energy yield of these systems varies with the diameter to the power 2.115 120.436 357.254.196 69.543 1.2.617 16. For comparison.452 30.896 24.374 71.441 0.741 5.750 50. civil works Assembly and installation Electrical interface/connections Permits.317 150.869 34.152 2.176.434 0.5 MW 247.931 50.000 335.200 183.002 56.790 655.000 28.741 1.548 562. etc.773 19.889 0.150 255.216 2.586 44.0 due to the increase in tower height and mean wind speed.006 0.000 109.371.027 77.312 76.000 13.685 1.715 0.500 12.047 0.467 0.968 195.463 0.513 51.326 1.897 64.282. engineering Initial capital cost (ICC) Initial capital cost (ICC) Net annual energy production Rotor Drive train Controls Tower Balance of station Replacement costs O&M Total COE kW $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $/kW kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh ¢/kWh 750 kW 101.862 1.263 41. Generator Variable-speed electronics Yaw drive and bearing Main frame Electrical connections Hydraulic system Nacelle cover Control. Table 4-6 shows critical load cases for each component.011 0.260 120.004 78.415 873.

75A08C01V01c EWM Fatigue 2% Fatigue EWM 19% Fatigue EWM 41% Fatigue ECD 50% Fatigue EWM 12% Machine rating 1.000 6.5 MW 3. kN m root flap mt.645 2. see Table 2-2.0A01C01V01c Fatigue (TE) EWM 25% Fatigue (TE) EWM 31% Fatigue EWM 76% Fatigue ECD 10% Fatigue EOG 21% Component Blade root Blade @ 50% (flapwise mt) Hub (blade root mt) Mainframe (pitch bending) Tower base (fore-aft mt) governing load Next critical load margin to that load governing load Next critical load margin to that load governing load Next critical load margin to that load governing load Next critical load margin to that load governing load Next critical load margin to that load Note: For the meaning of the loading acronyms.192 3.0 MW 5.460 3.053 3.946 3. Variation of root flapwise and edgewise moments with diameter.0 MW 1.266 2.317 2.10.000 0 50 root edge mt. fatigue 70 90 110 Rotor Diameter.000 2.5A08C01V04c 3.000 4. fatigue 8.911 3.000 Root Bending Moment. Table 4-5. TE indicates Trailing Edge (associated with edgewise bending in contrast to flapwise bending). Trends from Baseline Designs: Dependence on Diameter Load Root flapwise bending moment Root edgewise bending moment 50% span flapwise bending moment 50% span edgewise bending moment Pitching moment at yaw bearing Fore-aft bending at tower base Exponent of Diameter in Trend Line Peak Loads Equivalent Fatigue Loads 2. m 130 Figure 4-2.959 Table 4-6.362 3.464 3. Critical Load Cases for Baseline Turbines 750 kW . 28 .0A08C01V03c EWM Fatigue (TE) Fatigue EWM 11% 1% Fatigue Fatigue EWM EWM 45% 30% Fatigue Fatigue EWM EWM 67% 68% Fatigue Fatigue ECD NTM 27% 60% Fatigue Fatigue EWM EWM 35% 84% 5.924 3.

Approximately 50% of the total costs are unaffected by changes in rotor loads. rotor speed (Campbell diagram) of baseline 1.5 0.0 0 3P 1P 5 10 Rotor Speed.5% change in the COE. The figure also shows the harmonic frequencies at 1P.0 1.7 Campbell Diagram Figure 4-3 shows the predicted natural frequencies vs. Considerable reductions in COE may still be achieved by rotor changes if the load reductions affect the entire load path. rotor speed for the baseline model of the 1.5-MW configuration. The diagram shows the fundamental fore-aft mode to be close to the 1P excitation and also that the first blade mode is close to the 3P excitation at the maximum operating speed. rpm 15 20 25 30 20. and 6P and also shows the maximum operating speed of the rotor (20. Improvements in rotor design will.4. 3P.5 2.5 rpm). • • 29 . There are considerable costs that are affected only slightly or not at all by load variation. therefore. benefit larger turbines more than smaller turbines. This is because the mass and cost of the rotors increase with diameter faster than other costs. Hz 1.5-MW model. A change of 10% in the rotor cost will therefore translate into only 1% to 1. These include some electrical drive train costs and balance-of-station costs. such as balance-ofstation costs. The rotors of the larger machines represent higher fractions of the total costs. Campbell Diagram for 15A08V08 2.0 6P 0.5 rpm Figure 4-3.5 Natural Frequency.8 Conclusions from Baseline Study The study of the baseline configuration at the range of sizes has led to the following observations: • • The rotor cost comprises between 10% and 15% of the total cost of energy. Natural frequencies vs. 4.

1 Initial Matrix Table 5-1 shows the list of configurations initially considered. teetered hubs with delta-3. within a certain range. The changes were made one at a time so that.2 Selection Approach A questionnaire was sent to staff at the NWTC. at Windward Engineering. TASK #3. The list of final configurations included upwind and downwind machines. and a process was therefore begun to reduce that number to a more manageable one. upwind 3-bladed downwind configuration space upwind 2-bladed >Variable speed >Full-span pitch >Tube towers >Same airfoil family downwind 11 configs 3 configs 3 configs 9 configs Figure 5-1.) and to details of the rotor. CONFIGURATION VARIATIONS The purpose of Task #3 was to determine the effect on COE of changes to the rotor configuration. Rotor configurations selected.5-MW rating should be followed by a study of the effect of certain selected configurations. although the preferred configurations tended to be the 3-bladed upwind and the 2-bladed downwind.5. The decision was made to eliminate those options and also to remove the simulations at all four ratings for the three non-baseline configurations. The results of that survey indicated that the following were not favored: pitch-to-stall rotors. to solicit opinions about what configurations were expected to be the most cost effective and what configurations might be deleted from consideration. their effects could be superimposed. 30 . It became apparent that resource limitations would prevent a thorough analysis of this number of configurations. at GEC. It was agreed that the simulations of the reduced number of configurations of 1. such as the tip speed or the stiffness of the blade. on the range of ratings. This is reflected in the diagram of final selections illustrated in Figure 5-1 and in the accompanying list shown in Table 5-2. The objective was to identify those configurations that had the most beneficial effect on COE and to determine how these effects were influenced by scale or rating. etc. 5. These changes were to the type of rotor (3 blades/2 blades. requiring a total of 58 designs to be evaluated. or stiff towers. those with constant speed. or combination of configurations. and to participants at the WindPACT Workshop (in October 2000). 5.

5 2 Up R. CS VS S All 1.5 MW or all) All 1. struct. S S SS S Yes No No Yes No A F A F F F S M S S M S A All 1. pitch to feather (PF).5 1. PS PF. PF. teeter (T). S R R F. Initial Table of Configurations for Examination in Task #3 Rotor size (1. flapping hinge (F). PF SS S Yes No F A A Total F/A Note: A blank cell indicates that it is unchanged from the cell above. PS F PF PF F. PS F.5 Orientatio n: upwind (Up) or downwind (Down) Up Hub type: rigid (R).Table 5-1. PF PF F. S R S All 1. PS PF PF S S VS SS SS. iterations) 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 4 6 2 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 6 1 1 3 1 3 2 58 Number of blades 3 Tower feedback to pitch control No VS.5 2 Down T R R. teeter with d3 (Td) R Blade type: regular (R) or soft (S) R Fixed pitch (F). S R PF.5 3 Down R R F R T R R. S. 31 . PF.5 5 Down R F F. pitch to stall (PS) PF Tip speed: standard (S) or modified (M) S S M Diameter: standard (S) or modified (M) S M S S Variable (VS) or constant speed (CS) VS Tower stiffness: soft-soft (SS) or soft (S) S Yaw drive: active (A) or free (F) A Model: FAST_ AD (F) or ADAMS (A) F Number of new models (not incl. PF. PS PF S M S VS VS S SS S Yes No No No F F S VS S S M S Td F 1.

together Most blade loads reduced. Tower for config. Max chord reduced from 8% to 6% of radius Prepreg fiberglass has greater quality control. More sophisticated analysis and design needed 32 . Y. most In E02. but all other loads and costs up See Appendix E Tower loads and cost down significantly. high-strain blade material high-strain blade material intermediate baseline soft blades hinged blades intermediate baseline 12% increase in diameter 13% increase in tip speed intermediate baseline soft blades Comments Blade dimensions were increased by same ratio Results Summary 12% increase in diameter 13% increase in tip speed feedback from tower included in control system positive delta-3 For details of delta-3 feature. but hub cost difficult to with necessary restraints to ensure tower estimate. together with necessary restraints for tower clearance Loads in and cost of rotor increased as expected. Other loads largely unchanged Achieving a soft-soft tower led to a very thick tube. E very expensive. fatigue SN curve is but other costs unchanged flatter Similar to A but downwind with tower shadow All loads and costs up slightly Material as in configuration Y Blade softness reduced most blade loads and tower loads Flapwise hinges installed at blade roots. [25]) to incorporate an “alpha” value of approximately 0. clearance Max chord = 10% of radius Rotor cost much reduced from 3-bladed baseline Similar to configuration B All loads up. as in Y Hub and nacelle loads increased due to higher teeter restraint forces Similar to configuration B Higher rotor loads and cost balance increase in AEP Similar to configuration C Higher loads and higher final COE Similar to configuration D Tower loads reduced and other loads unchanged Some loads reduced but final COE unchanged High blade root loads required to avoid tower strike. especially those due to teeter restraint Similar to configuration C Slight increase in rotor loads and cost All downwind configurations incorporated free yaw All rotor loads increased from upwind case High strain blade material. Tip speed increased to 85 m/s.Table 5-2. Lower flapwise fatigue loads in blade. Root flap mt from each blade compared to mean from all three blades Significant decrease in the loads in all components Material as in config. feedback from tower. E02. the soft-soft tower (with no other changes) loads were higher than in baseline was achieved by reducing the elastic modulus of the tower material Added stiffness was achieved through the use of Loads generally unchanged. reduced chord. of Rotor Feature Modified Letter Blades Orientation A 3 Upwind Baseline B 3 Upwind 12% increase in rotor diameter C 3 Upwind 13% increase in tip speed D 3 Upwind feedback from tower motion in control system E 3 Upwind soft-soft tower. Configuration Modifications Chosen for Study in Task #3 ID No.17 An attempt to incorporate the algorithm from Ref. Reduced rotor cost permissible strains are higher. and increased tip speed F G H X Y J K L M N P Q R S T U V W 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Upwind Upwind Upwind Upwind Upwind Downwind Downwind Downwind Upwind Upwind Upwind Downwind Downwind Downwind Downwind Downwind Downwind Downwind stiff blades blades with flap-twist coupling flap-pitch feedback in control system increased tip speed. Lighter rotor led to greater carbon fiber in the spar rpm fluctuations The stiffness matrices in the ADAMS models were Most loads were reduced significantly adjusted (see Ref. Costs of all components were increased slightly [26]. [27] hinged blades Flapwise hinges in each blade at root. see Ref. Other loads also increased Blade was unchanged from baseline Gearbox cost reduced. In config. Tower clearance a potential problem.

and the relevant normalization basis was selected. 5. 4-2). This is noted. Care was taken to compare results only from the same code.0 4.4 Results from Task #3 Details of the loads from selected locations from all the configurations studied are presented in Table A-1 (Appendix A). It includes the net annual energy production and the COE from each major assembly.0 3.0 0. Table A-3 presents cost information from all subassemblies for all configurations. Some of the important results of the configuration changes are included in Table 5-2. ¢/kWh 3.5 0. as well as the final COE. two simulation codes were used: FAST_AD.3 FAST_AD vs. 33 . In that table.5 3-bladed upwind 3-bladed 2-bladed downwind upwind 2-bladed downwind Cost. Table A-2 refers to the same load locations but gives the governing load case and the margin to the next critical load case.and 2-bladed results and show the COE changes relative to the baseline models.0 O&M Repl't costs Balance of stn Tower Controls Drive train Rotor Figure 5-2. ADAMS As described earlier (Sections 2-3. Summary of cost of energy from all Task #3 configurations.5 1.0 1. Figures 5-5 and 5-6 present similar COE information according to subassembly. 5.5 2.5 4. The final cost of energy from all the configurations is summarized in Figure 5-2. the loads have been normalized with respect to appropriate baseline models to allow quick and meaningful evaluation. and ADAMS.5. Figures 5-3 and 5-4 graphically present some of the same COE information but separate the 3.0 2. Some analyses were carried out using ADAMS and some using FAST_AD.

5% 4% 3% 2%

3-bladed
baseline cost

upwind

downwind

Change in COE

1% 0% -1% -2% -3% -4% -5% -6% X C D H J E02 A_Adm A_Fst G B Y F K
V

Configuration ID

Figure 5-3. Cost-of-energy changes for 3-bladed configurations.

5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% -4% -5% -6% T R N M_Adm Q_Adm T02 P M_Fst Q_Fst U S -7% W

upwind

downwind 3-bladed baseline cost

2-bladed

Change in COE

2-bladed baseline cost

Configuration ID

Figure 5-4. Cost-of-energy changes for 2-bladed configurations.

34

L

-7%

30% 20% 10% Cost/kWh 0% -10% -20% -30%

rotor drive train tower

3-bladed

upwind

downwind

3-bladed baseline cost

A_Adm

A_Fst

G

Y

E02

J

X

B

C

D

Configuration ID

Figure 5-5. Summary of component costs for 3-bladed configurations.

20%

upwind

downwind

F

H

2-bladed

10% 2-bladed baseline cost Cost/kWh 0% -10% -20% -30% M_Fst Q_Fst -40%

M_Adm

Q_Adm

K
V

rotor drive train tower

T02

Configuration ID

Figure 5-6. Summary of component costs for 2-bladed configurations.

35

W

P

T

N

R

S

U

L

-40%

5.5 Observations from Task #3 results
A number of principles should be kept in mind when evaluating the Task #3 results presented above. • • • The results should be regarded as indicating trends rather than absolute values. Some of the trends can be applied in either direction. For example, the effects of decreasing the tip speed can be considered to be the opposite of the effects of increasing the tip speed. Some results may not be realizable. For example, configurations X and Y show considerable cost reductions but also have blade-tower interference problems. In addition, the manner in which the flap-twist coupling would be implemented in configuration G and the cost involved have not been fully determined. Furthermore, the higher tip speeds adopted in configurations C and X may lead to unacceptable acoustic emissions. Comparisons must be done using the same aeroelastic code. The differences between the two codes are of the same order as the differences between the configurations. Several of the modifications need to be optimized for best performance. For example, the tower feedback in the controls could be refined for improved results.

• •

The following conclusions were drawn from the Task #3 results: • The final cost of energy is much more sensitive to the energy capture than it is to changes in the loads. The approximately 2% energy loss associated with changing from three to two blades (due to tip losses) is significant. All of the basic configurations (upwind/downwind, 3-/2-bladed) are affected in a similar manner by some modifications. These include changes to the tip speed, the diameter, and tower feedback. The analysis of the rotors with hinged blades (configurations L and W) requires much care because the results are very sensitive to the restraints offered to the flapping motion. A more complete analysis should give more attention to the transient conditions, such as emergency stops. Nevertheless, the load reductions obtained from these configurations did not exceed those that were offered by other modifications, and these configurations were not selected for further study in Task #5. This omission was not intended to detract from current attempts at commercializing such rotors; it was a reaction to the rigorous demands of this configuration. Two-bladed teetered rotors are also sensitive to transients and peak load conditions because the restraining force from the teeter restraints may occur at these times. Downwind rotors would probably benefit from an increased hub overhang and a tuning of the teeter restraints. The incorporation of soft blades (configuration K) did lead to some attenuation of loads. The relationship among tip flexibility, blade materials, and blade weight is not completely clear. Although increasing the tip speed alone had deleterious effects (configuration C and P), the combination of increased tip speed with decreased blade chord (configuration X) had considerable benefits. The interpretation of these results is that it is more efficient for a blade of lower solidity to move faster and to do the same mechanical work with lower loads. The following features were recommended for further study in Task #5 in all three basic configurations (3-bladed upwind, 2-bladed upwind, and 2-bladed downwind): • • • Tower feedback Reduced chord with increased tip speed Flap-twist coupling.

• •

• •

36

6. TASK #5. DETAILED MODELING
6.1 Approach
The purpose and approach of Task #5 was discussed and finalized at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) meeting. The decision was made to consider separately the three basic configurations (3-bladed upwind, 2-bladed upwind, and 2-bladed downwind) because the results of Task #3 showed that the COE from all three could be improved by similar modifications. The most promising features identified in Task #3 were to be combined and applied to the three basic configurations at the 1.5-MW size. The effect of size would also be examined. In addition, it was agreed at the PDR that the cost models would be reviewed and that the power curve implied by the simulations would be compared with the results from aerodynamic models using the PROP code.

6.2 Cost Models
A review of the cost models resulted in the changes listed in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Changes Made to Cost Models for Task #5 Component Hub Change in Cost or Design Model Scale factor reduced to give hub weights and costs more consistent with a range of commercial data. This was applied to the spherical hub of the 3-bladed configurations and a corresponding change was made to the teetered hubs of the 2-bladed rotors. Made dependent on width of nacelle, as well as length. This led to more realistic cost changes due to changes in the hub overhang. The cost per kW was reduced from $65/kW to $52/kW to reflect costs used in the WindPACT drive train design study. The cost per kW was reduced from $67/kW to $54/kW to reflect costs used in the WindPACT drive train design study. Algorithm adjusted upward to reflect the costs of foundations quoted more recently by Patrick and Henderson. A price of $16.42/kg was adopted for material containing bias-ply carbon fibers. Adjustment was made in the spreadsheets to separate the inboard material (glass fiber) from the carbon-dominated spar and outboard skin.

Nacelle cover Generator Power electronics Foundations Blades

The same cost model changes were made to the corresponding baseline (Task #2) configurations so that comparisons of the two sets would be valid.

6.3 Preliminary Results
The results from Task #3 indicated that the following features had beneficial effects on loads and costs throughout the turbine system: • • • Tower feedback in the control system Incorporation of flap-twist coupling in the blade Reduced blade solidity in conjunction with higher tip speeds.

There was little problem in implementing the first of these three features because no change was required from its implementation in Task #3. However, the application of flap-twist coupling in the blade used in

37

The reduction in loads from combining the tower feedback with the reduced solidity led to a substantial reduction in the tower section and in the tower flexural stiffness. lower solidity and higher tip speed. Work on adaptive blades on behalf of Sandia National Laboratories (Reference [7]) showed that the necessary coupling could best be achieved by incorporation of carbon fibers at 20° to the longitudinal axis. using hand lay-up fiberglass in the blades. and allowing the hub height to be restored to 84 m in conjunction with a natural frequency comfortably below the 1P resonance. in Task #3 showed lower loads but at the expense of a negative tower clearance margin. led to a lowering of the fundamental natural frequency of the turbine and to a resonance with the 1P excitation frequency. the decision was made to reduce the hub height from 84 m to 80 m. 38 . also incorporated a soft-soft tower feature.2P. It was. This meant that the exact lay-up of off-axis and uniaxial fibers could be modeled in ANSYS using the NuMAD interface (Reference [23]). therefore. The models. Furthermore. In this manner the AEP was completely restored. converted into the ADAMS model. It was found that this change permitted the incorporation of the full solidity reduction without any tower clearance problem so long as some coning was added to the blades and a modest addition was made to the hub overhang.Task #3 lacked rigorous modeling of the necessary composites. in Task #5 some coning was added to the rotor and the extent of the lower solidity was reduced.4 Results from 3-Bladed Upwind Rotors Table 6-2 presents a summary of some of the properties of the final 3-bladed configurations developed in Task #5. which resulted in an annual energy production loss of up to 2%. the decision was made to change from using fiberglass to the same carbon-glass hybrid that was examined in Task #3 configuration F. in turn. in turn. This. thereby restoring the natural frequency to approximately 1. the initial twist schedule and the minimum pitch angle were modified so that the addition of the elastic twist during operation resulted in the desired optimum shape and pitch angle. allowing a smaller section. The results from studying the third feature. To address this. Another parallel study for Sandia National Laboratories (Reference [22]) resulted in a procedure to extract the equivalent set of beam properties from a 3-dimensional finite element model of the blade. therefore. The elastic twist that occurred due to the blade flap-twist coupling reduced the loads throughout the structure but also slightly reduced the energy captured. and there was inadequate information for the accompanying cost models. With these new design tools available. GEC staff made progress in the modeling of flap-twist blades and their fabrication costs. 6. it appeared that the resulting blade could have the required overall flexural stiffness if the off-axis carbon fibers were placed in the skin while the spar was composed of uniaxial carbon-glass hybrid. It was found that the combination of the three features further reduced the loads in the tower. a softer tower. indicated continued tower clearance problems and little or no reduction in loads. To address the problem of blade-tower clearance. In parallel with these preliminary results. To balance this effect. decided to delay incorporation of this feature until these deficiencies could be corrected. and the equivalent beam properties could be extracted and included in the input file that was. it was possible to combine all three of the chosen features and to ascribe accurate cost models to the blades. Therefore. The maximum performance coefficient was reduced by up to 4%. while not artificially strengthening some components. Models of this 3-bladed upwind configuration.

rotor speed for the final Task #5 model of the 3-bladed upwind 1.111 10.992 Rotor diameter Max rotor speed Max tip speed Rotor tilt Blade coning Max blade chord Blade mass Rotor solidity Hub mass Total rotor mass Hub overhang Shaft length x diam Gearbox mass Generator mass Mainframe mass Total nacelle mass Hub height Tower base diam x thickness Tower top diam x thickness Tower mass m rpm m/s Deg Deg M kg kg kg mm mm kg kg kg kg m mm mm kg 6.3 4070 x 13.143 60 60 4013 x 12.6 32. 39 .4 75 85 5 5 0 3 8% R 6% R 1818 868 0.4 75 85 5 5 0 3 8% R 6% R 12.0 1.05 0.016 17.5 MW Baseline Task #5 Final 1.936 5463 0.9 3296 x 10.203 33.5 23.038 5086 2464 12.057 12.598 111.6 94. rpm (Campbell diagram) for Task #5 1.381 6063 2300 2330 1398 x 424 1398 x 400 4723 4816 2946 2949 5048 3689 20.0500 0.868 119 119 8081 x 25.0 MW Baseline Task #5 Final 3. Hz 2.4 2823 x 8.5 6691 x 21.038 15. The figure also shows the harmonic frequencies at 1P.869 3.5-MW 3-bladed upwind turbine.882 3300 3500 1980 x 560 2185 x 560 10.05 0. rpm 10 15 20 25 23.104 8063 32.2 246. Summary of Properties of the Baseline and Task #5 Final Configurations 750 kW Baseline Task #5 Final .1 Campbell Diagram Figure 6-1 shows the predicted natural frequencies vs.5 Natural Frequency.054 1.917 84 84 5663 x 17.Table 6-2.2 rpm).371 10.083 5421 5421 15.500 22.0 0.4.4 2000 x 6.5 16. Campbell Diagram for 15AA12 2.795 132.124 21.371 45.4 4969 x 15.2 75 85 5 5 0 3 8% R 6% R 4230 2281 0.610 3280 x 10.7 46.0A08C01V0 3. Natural frequencies vs.270 101.5 0. and 6P and shows the maximum operating speed of the rotor (23.603 10.5A08C01V03 1.2 rpm 30 Figure 6-1.0 0 5 6P 3P 1P Rotor Speed.319 49.0AA02C01V 2c 00 99 99 14.8 29.038 50. 3P.440 1525 x 4.839 45.0 367.5AA12C05V cAdm 00 70 70 20.5 1.498 4650 4950 2790 x 792 3100 x 800 23.75A08C01V .319 52.75AA04C01V 00c 00 50 50 28.522 2461 x 7.7 122.5-MW configuration.905 19.

9 0. 6.4 Task #5 final peak lds final fatigue lds Blade flap mt @ root Blade flap mt @ 50% Yaw brg My Tower base My Figure 6-2. Figure 6-1 indicates which load condition governs the baseline and Task #5 final designs.7 0. Table B-5 in Appendix B gives full information on which loads govern the baseline and final designs and how much margin there is to the next most critical load.5 0. The COE data are shown schematically in Figures 6-3 and 6-4. in which some loads from the 1. which is unaffected by tower feedback and by flap-twist coupling.6 0.5MW. As well as showing the final peak and equivalent fatigue loads normalized with respect to the baseline loads.3-bladed upwind fatigue displt fatigue displt Governing loads fatigue fatigue fatigue EWM Baseline Fraction of baseline value 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.4. and 3-MW ratings are included in Table B-2 in Appendix B.4.0 0.3 Task #5 final vs.2 Loads A detailed compilation of system loads for the baseline and final Task #5 3-bladed upwind 750-kW. baseline loads . 40 . Figure 6-2 shows considerable reductions in all loads except for the peak loads at the tower base. 1.5-MW final configuration are compared with the corresponding baseline loads.5-MW 3-bladed upwind turbine. and 3-MW configurations is presented in Appendix B as Table B-1. That load is due to the extreme wind condition on the stationary rotor (EWM).6. Comparison of baseline loads with final Task #5 loads for 1.3 Costs Details of the costs of all components for the baseline and final 3-bladed upwind machines for the 750kW. 1. 1.8 0. A sample of these results is shown in Figure 6-2.5-MW.

0 1. 1.2% 3.0 3-bladed upwind O&M 5.8% 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 MW Tower B of stn Figure 6-4.9% Replace't costs Balance of stn Tower Controls Drive train Rotor Cost of Energy.6.5 0. and 3-MW configurations. 1.9 0. Cost of energy of baseline and final 3-bladed 750-kW.5 MW Baseline 1.0 MW T#5 Final Figure 6-3.0 MW -12. 3. ¢/kWh 4. 1.5-MW.0 750 kW Baseline 750 kW T#5 Final 1.0 MW Baseline 3.1 Fraction of baseline cost 1.8 0.0 750 kW -10. 41 .0 3. Comparison of baseline and final costs of 3-bladed configurations by sub-assembly.5 MW T#5 Final 3. 750 kW final 3-bladed upwind.0 0.6 0.4 Rotor Drive train final 3-bladed upwind.5 MW final 3-bladed upwind.5 MW -8.

2-bladed upwind fatigue displt fatigue displt Governing loads fatigue fatigue fatigue Estop Baseline 1.3 Fraction of baseline value Task #5 final vs. especially to the fatigue load at the tower base.5-MW 2-bladed upwind turbine.5-MW configurations is presented in Appendix B as Table B-3. Figures 6-5 and 6-6 show considerable reductions in peak and fatigue loads. 1. in which selected loads from the final configurations are shown normalized by the corresponding baseline loads.9 0.1 1.5 0.5. Comparison of baseline and final Task #5 loads for 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.5 Results for 2-Bladed Rotors 6. 42 . baseline loads .4 1. Figures 6-5 and 6-6 indicate what load condition governs the baseline and Task #5 final designs.8 0. Samples of these results are shown in Figures 6-5 and 6-6.1 Loads A detailed compilation of system loads for the baseline and final Task #5 2-bladed upwind and downwind 1. As well as showing the final peak and equivalent fatigue loads.6 0.4 Task #5 peak loads fatigue loads Blade flap mt @ root Blade flap mt @ 50% Yaw brg My Tower base My Figure 6-5.6.

Cost of energy for 2.2 1.0 1.0 3-bladed upwind -8.5-MW 2-bladed downwind turbine.4% Replace't costs Balance of stn Tower Controls Drive train Rotor Cost of energy. ¢/kWh 4.5.5-MW configurations.2 Costs Full details of the costs and cost of energy for the baseline and final 2-bladed 1.4 Fraction of baseline value 1.0 2.0 O&M 2-bladed downwind -3.and 3-bladed 1. 1.6 0.0 Baseline T#5 Final Baseline T#5 Final Baseline T#5 Final Figure 6-7.7% 5.8 0. 43 . Comparison of baseline and final Task #5 loads for 1.5 MW Rating 6.0 3. Summaries of this information are shown in Figures 6-7 and 6-8. 6.2% 2-bladed upwind -10.Task #5 final vs.0 0.5 MW configurations are given in Table B-3 in Appendix B.0 0.2-bladed downwind 1. loads .4 fatigue displt fatigue displt Governing loads fatigue fatigue fatigue EOGop Baseline Task #5 peak loads fatigue loads Blade flap mt @ root Blade flap mt @ 50% Yaw brg My Tower base My Figure 6-6.

There is an uncertain balance between the cost of blades on one hand and the cost of additional hub overhang and the penalties of added tilt and/or coning.6 0. The reason for this is that a teetered hub uses the 1 per rev loads due to yaw error to teeter into a new direction. and reduced chord with higher tip speed) appears to be effective.and 2-bladed 1.7 0.5 0. and must be balanced by consideration of the acoustic penalties.5-MW configurations by sub-assembly. The optimum level for this approach must depend on further investigation of system design. which then allows the thrust to realign the nacelle in yaw. It is possible that the inclusion of flap-twist coupling into a 2-bladed. which may excite natural frequencies. The downwind 2-bladed rotors also experience strong harmonic loading from the tower shadow.6 Lessons from Task #5 The following observations can be made from the results presented above: • • • The combination of features adopted in Task #5 (tower feedback.8 0.1. There can be an energy loss associated with flap-twist coupling unless the initial twist and the minimum pitch of the blade are corrected. The blades have become governed by stiffness to avoid tower clearance problems. teetered. It has been necessary to incorporate a large amount of carbon fiber in the blade to successfully incorporate flap-twist coupling without incurring blade-tower clearance problems. Comparison of baseline and final costs of 3. • • • • 44 .9 0. The identification of natural frequencies for 2-bladed rotors is more complex than for 3-bladed machines.0 0.1 Fraction of baseline cost Comparison of Task #5 final with baseline costs .4 Rotor Drive train Tower B of stn final 3-bladed upwind final 2-bladed upwind final 2-bladed downwind Figure 6-8. and there were insufficient resources in this project to develop the Campbell diagram for these configurations. Lower COE can be achieved by reducing the chord and increasing the tip speed with attention to the spanwise tapering of the blade.1. 6. flap-twist coupling. especially the blade design.5 MW 1. free-yaw rotor is not as productive as when applied to a rotor with a rigid hub.

Nacelle parts can be transported separately and assembled on site.004 $253. has been assumed. it was difficult to prescribe costs to some designs because they were novel and there was not a reliable base of information. Movement of these items is limited by weight.790 Cost per kW $32.586 $51.5 MW 3.4 $34. or width.5 $33. These costs depend on the relative location of the manufacturer of these components and the site of the wind farm. To reduce these costs.0 MW Installation cost per Turbine $24. Blades can be designed to be manufactured in parts that are assembled in the field or manufactured at a project site.0 MW $35. Rating Rating Transportation Cost per Turbine $26. it became apparent that some costs rose especially steeply with size. Transportation Costs vs.4 $262.8 $37.0 $84. or an alternative tower construction approach can be adopted.0 MW 5. such as South Dakota.2 Installation The installation costs quoted in Table 4-6 were also obtained from Reference [12] and are summarized in Table 7-2. 7.1 Transportation Reference [12] examines in detail the costs and logistics of transporting the various components for large wind turbines.150 Cost per kW 750 kW 1.0 MW and greater are significantly penalized by transportation costs. The items that pose the most transportation problems are the tower sections.714 $224.0 MW 5. These factors are possible barriers to the increased size of machines or to the reduction of costs of a given rating. In addition. Rating Rating 750 kW 1. They are discussed further in the subsequent sections.7. 7. Installation Costs vs. the following changes would have to take place: • • • Tower sections can be transported in partial cylinders and fastened together on the site.4 It is clear from Table 7-1 that machines of 3.312. TASK #6. the nacelle.5 $44. DESIGN BARRIERS During execution of this project.410 $1. and the blades. Table 7-2. for the current project. a site in the Midwest United States.713 $112. height. length.374 $50.9 45 .5 MW 3. Table 7-1 shows how the cost of transportation varies with machine rating: Table 7-1.

and the relative appraisal of the configurations will be unaffected. and more information will be available in due course. 7. This cost could be reduced by incorporating a self-erecting tower scheme that would also allow installation of the nacelle and rotor parts. In general.) Recent field studies (Reference [24]) have demonstrated that taller machines. Nevertheless. The reason for this is largely due to the cost of the crane required to lift parts into place.0 MW. The high tip speeds proposed may be more acceptable in regions such as the Midwest than in more populated areas.3 Blade Manufacturing Reference [3] concluded that the weights and costs of scaling up conventional blades increase approximately with the diameter to the power of 3. It is known that this spectrum (and the alternative von Karman spectrum) does not satisfactorily include all extreme events that may occur during operation. This phenomenon may subject a turbine to violent coherent turbulence and high loads.4 Acoustics Acoustic emission from wind turbines is a matter that is critical to the acceptance of the industry and is one that is subject to considerable research (Reference [21]). However. However.0.5 Design Load Cases All the simulations and the loads in this project have been based on use of the standard Kaimal spectrum of turbulence from Reference [1].The costs per kW of installed power increase only slightly up to ratings of 3. Hence the blade costs for larger machines will comprise a greater fraction of the total cost. especially in locations such as the Midwest. the proposal in Task #5 to increase the tip speed from 75 to 85 m/s is one that may be criticized for potentially increasing acoustic emission to an unacceptable level. especially when combined with greater tower heights. this possibility does not invalidate the conclusions drawn from the project. can be subject to a phenomenon known as the low-level jet stream. that the loads used for design in this project may underestimate those that may occur in some locations. 7. therefore. the design of the blade is important because the blades generate loads that are seen by all parts of the turbine. Therefore. 7. (This may change in the future when extrapolation techniques are improved. much of the emission is from the blade tips and increases with the tip speed. the cost of the rotor is not greater than about 15% of the total cost so that a certain increase in rotor costs has only 0.0 MW. uncertainty about costs and reliability of adaptive blades must be considered a barrier to implementing this technology.15 of that effect on the final COE. In the meantime. and it is recommended that research continue into the design of blade details that will attenuate the emissions. the subject of adaptive blades is one that is undergoing considerable study at present. The designs and modifications use the same loads. Although this project was able to estimate the costs of fabrication of one type of construction. and this is why the separate inclusion of deterministic extreme events is also required. some Midwest residents may object to undue noise level. but there is a more substantial increase at 5. implying that the cost of the blades per kW will increase linearly with diameter. 46 . This has been illustrated in the current project by the introduction of lower solidity blades accompanied by flap-twist coupling in the blade material. However. It is possible. The latter property raises questions of fabrication methods and final costs.

costs which may not be barriers to lowering the cost but do make it more difficult to bring about a reduced COE purely by improved rotor design. 47 . land. etc.7. maintenance. whereas a change to the aerodynamic performance and the annual energy production will have a direct effect on the COE.6 Non-Turbine Costs Approximately 50% of the cost of energy is from items that are unaffected by rotor design. Hence. any rotor change that may reduce the energy production by even a small amount must be offset by a considerable reduction in material cost. Another relevant fact is that changes to the various components of the wind turbine affect only part of the total COE equation. replacement. These are the balance of station.

• • More than 50% of the COE is unaffected by rotor design and system loads. The emphasis in this study has been on the different configurations of the rotor. and no effort has been made to optimize them. and marketing costs. In the course of achieving this. A number of types of rotors and control strategies were eliminated at the start of Task #3. These include: • All the costs presented in this study are intended to be used to compare one set against another. for the same reason. • • • • 48 . The three modifications that resulted in the most general reductions in system loads and in a subsequent reduction in the cost of energy were: • Inclusion of tower feedback to the blade pitch control system. Therefore. CONCLUSIONS 8. All costs assume that a mature production rate or number has been achieved. This includes all development.8.1 Assumptions within the Study The basic assumptions used in this study must always be borne in mind. tooling. Instead there were a number of modifications that offered some general benefits. • • • • • • 8. Such combinations will bring the total COE reductions closer to the 30% target. All non-recurring manufacturing costs have been neglected. Further COE reductions may be achieved by addressing the balance-of-station costs. This also applies to the operating and maintenance costs. The cost of the rotor as a fraction of the total capital cost rises with increasing rotor size. No single rotor modification offered a solution to reduced rotor costs and lower system loads. They should not be regarded as absolute although much effort has been made to ensure that they are consistent with typical commercial costs. The configurations of the drive train and tower have been assumed to be of a standard type. benefits more from rotor improvements. This will be harder to achieve for components for larger turbines than it will be for smaller turbines. continuously variable speed. This value was agreed on after reviewing common commercial practice and the apparent trends. • Incorporation of flap-twist coupling in the blade design. The cost of a 3-bladed rotor is greater than the equivalent 2-bladed rotor and.39 kW/m2. Combinations of rotor improvements with parallel improvements in the drive train design and in the tower design must be pursued. • Reduction of the blade chord combined with an increase in the tip speed. larger machines can benefit more from rotor improvements. several trends and conclusions have become apparent. which have been assumed to be a constant per kWh for all configurations and for all ratings. although considerable reductions have occurred to the loads throughout the system.2 Summary The cost of energy of the baseline designs has been reduced by no more than 13%. The specific rating (rated power/swept area) of all configurations has been maintained at 0. The remaining configurations have all featured full-span pitchable blades. and a pitch-to-feather control strategy.

Likewise. • • • • • • • 8. The COE is very sensitive to changes in the annual energy production. This feature has not been optimized. The inclusion of feedback from tower motion into the control system reduced tower loads considerably.5 MW. Develop further refinements of turbine control systems to reduce loads. The extensive use of carbon fibers was essential to the final blade design. especially the downwind machine. Study the acoustic penalties associated with higher tip speeds and ways of ameliorating them. the COE is sensitive to any performance loss due to the flap-twist coupling. Conduct more testing of material coupons and blade assemblies to support the use of bias-ply carbon fibers required for flap-twist coupling. the added tip losses associated with larger chords penalize the 2-bladed rotors. The Task #5 improvements were of most benefit to the 3-MW 3-bladed upwind machine. and further improvements may be possible. This is attributed to dynamic issues caused by the strong harmonic loading due to the tower shadow.3 Recommendations The following recommendations are made: • Combine the findings of this study with those of the parallel WindPACT drive train configuration study and the continuing study of the effect of specific rating. • • • • 49 . the benefit to the 2-bladed configurations. Alternatives to the use of conventional cranes and alternative tower designs will benefit larger machines. Several loads in the final 2-bladed downwind machine were higher than the corresponding loads in the baseline design. Study various approaches for reducing COE by changes in the balance-of-station costs and in the fixed charge rate. This narrowed the difference in COE within the 750-kW to 3-MW range. Their greater stiffness (compared to glass fiber) was needed to achieve the required flap-twist coupling and to avoid contact with the tower. The use of carbon fiber was accompanied by a change from a fatigue-governed blade to one governed by peak loads or by deflection. Therefore. Other control system enhancements may also have beneficial effects. However. was less than the benefit to the 3-bladed configuration. The selected rotor modifications benefited all three basic configurations.• • • Combination of these three modifications (in Task #5) resulted in further COE improvements in the 3-bladed upwind configuration. It is likely that correct tuning will reduce the loads to be equal to or less than the baseline values. Added costs of transportation and assembly adversely affect the COE for machines rated above 1. This combination may offer COE improvements that approach the target COE reduction identified by the WindPACT project. and care must be taken to adjust the initial twist schedule to compensate for elastic deformations.

Germanischer. Minneapolis. December 2000. Safety of Wind Turbine Conversion Systems. 2000. Freeman. WindPACT Turbine Design Scaling Studies Technical Area 1 – Composite Blades for 80. December 2000. Griffin. 8. MN. CO. and Jenkins. Global Energy Concepts. ADAMS/Solver Reference Manual.A. LLC for National Renewable Energy Laboratory.V. Balance of Station Cost. Wind Turbine Gearbox Mass – A Parametric Study for Global Energy Concepts. 9. 61400-1. 4. 14. 1998. For ETSU W/34/00170/REP. Global Energy Concepts LLC. Lloyd. 5th Edition.N. University of Sunderland. WindPACT Drive Train Study. NREL Subcontract YAM-0-30203-01.E. repared for National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Version 11. 1998.A. and Morthorst.: (publication pending). August 10. G.” EWEC ’99. 10.N. September 1995. (May 10-13. Preliminary Design Status Summary. 15.. WindPACT Blade System Design Studies – Task #2 Blade Study Report.. “A Multipoint Inverse Design Method for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines. Walker. OSU/NREL Report 95-01.E. REFERENCES 1. R. and Harman.. Commonwealth Associates Inc. Users’ Manual for the FAST_AD Advanced Dynamics Code. Final Report. “O&M Costs and Economical Life Time of Wind Turbines. C. Golden. Selig. 6.” Presented at the AWEA Windpower ‘94 Conference. Global Energy Concepts. Harrison.S. D. International Electrotechnical Commission. WindPACT Turbine Scaling Studies. 50 . Galambos. LLC. Document # 20189-1.. Regulations for the Certification of Wind Energy Conversion Systems. SAND2001-XXXX. J. J. 2. EPRI #1000961.R. Griffin. L. P. Mechanical Dynamics Inc. 5. Tangler. Sandia National Laboratories. Nice. December 2001. NREL/SR-500-29492. March 2001. Wilson.9. Rotor and Blade Logistics. John Wiley & Sons. Wind Turbine Verification Project Experience. Technical Area 2 – Turbine. 1999. NM. 3. 11. Global Energy Concepts LLC on behalf of EPRI. S. 1994). T. 12. 1994. 7. Albuquerque. WindPACT Turbine Design Scaling Studies. R.to 120-Meter Rotor. March 1-5. France.L. Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures. July 2000. D. Cost Modeling of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines. M. 2002. 1999. Technical Area 4. Powertrain Engineers. 13. Lemming.

24. Phase 2. Moriarty. Lobitz. S. Global Energy Concepts.G. March 2002. January 2001.” Windpower Monthly. January 1997.M. 18.” John Wiley & Sons.. S.” Proceedings of AIAA/ASME Wind Energy Symposium. M. July 24-26. April 2000. 2000. On behalf of Sandia National Laboratories..M. Veers. Reno. Nevada. Tangler.L. Windpower ’95. “Predictions on Costs. P.J. January 2000.” Proceedings AIAA/ASME Wind Energy Symposium.J. and Hermann. “NREL Airfoil Families for HAWTS. and Somers. Nevada.” Proceedings of a workshop held at NWTC. J. Larwood.W. “Tradeoffs in Active Control of Aerodynamic Power and Loads on a HAWT Rotor. 22.S. Associations Warn Turbine Owners..J. “Wind Energy Costs. 17.. and Chaney.. 21.” American Wind Energy Association. D. J. Laird. Somers. Nevada.M. D. D. Rock.” Wind Energy Series No.D. Hau. Reno. Ltd.. Hand.” AIAA/ASME Wind Energy Symposium. R. January 2002.” Proceedings of ASME/AIAA Wind Energy Symposium. and Laino. “Performance of Twist-Coupled Blades on Variable Speed Rotors. Migliore. S. Nevada.L. 23. P. (Editor). and McKenna. P. Development of Blade Property Extraction Code to Interface with NumMAD. “The NREL Large Scale Turbine Inflow and Response Experiment – Preliminary Results. 25. D. 51 .” Proceedings of ASME/AIAA Wind Energy Symposium. January 2000.. Harrison. Eggers. National Wind Coordinating Council.16.L. Nevada. 2001. “Large Wind Turbines. Colorado. January 2000. Design and Economics.. Reno. 11.. and Tangler. Reno. “Wind Tunnel Tests for Two Airfoils for Wind Turbines Operating at High Reynolds Numbers. “A Numerical Manufacturing Odyssey.. N. E. K. Kelley. E. Document 20173. 19. “Fundamentals of Aeroacoustics with Applications to Wind Turbine Noise. 26. 20. D. Reno. A.

European Commission.” European Community Wind Energy Conference.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. Technical Concept Analysis. Wind Energy – The Facts. P. J. EWEA.W. October 1997. December 1997.. Volume 4: Environment. Wind Energy – The Facts. Madrid. P. Volume 3: Industry and Employment. Nevada. Glasgow. September 1990. 1998. Madrid. Nevada. Reno. P. Bulder.” European Community Wind Energy Conference. M. Directorate-General for Energy. Snel. January 1999. Directorate-General for Energy. Wind Energy – The Facts. European Commission. Contract JOR3-CT95-0087 for The European Commission. “Predicting Ultimate Loads for Wind Turbine Design. May 2000. September 1990. F. European Commission. Part 2.” Wind Energy. ‘BLADOPT’ – “A Numerical Optimization Tool for Rotor Blades using Cost of Energy as the Target Function. Prices and Values. January 2000. and Buhl. “Predicting Ultimate Loads for Wind Turbine Design. and Buhl. Pierce. H. and Selig.” Proceedings of AIAA/ASME Wind Energy Symposium. D. and Madsen. EWEA. Directorate-General for Energy. Madrid. “Economic Optimization of Wind Power Plants. Non Nuclear Energy Programe.L. and Macrae. Vol. Thresher. Volume 5: Market Development. Directorate-General for Energy.” European Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition. 1999. “Will Multi-Megawatt Wind Turbines Ever Be Economic?” European Wind Energy Conference and Exhibition. “Blade Geometry Optimization for the Design of Wind Turbine Rotors. Harrison. EWEA. European Commission. Follings. Th. September 1990. 70-85. Part 1.D. “Design Recommendations for Large WECS. 2: Methods Assisting the Design of OWECS Part B: Optimization of Operation and Maintenance. F. “Study on the Next Generation of Large Wind Turbines. G. Madsen. 1998.J. 1998.S. and Hagg. Reno. Glasgow. pp. BIBLIOGRAPHY Giguere. Wind Energy – The Facts. EWEA. 1998. 1998. European Commission.” Proceedings of AIAA/ASME Wind Energy Symposium. Volume 2: Costs. Fuglsang. January 1999.W. Pierce. “Audit and Review of the IDWGP Operations. N. M.” Proceedings of AIAA/ASME Wind Energy Symposium. and van Bussel. “Evolution of Wind Turbine Generator Configurations.. “Study on the Next Generation of Large Wind Turbines. A. Dublin. Van Holten..” Wind Utility Consulting.” European Wind Energy Conference.191-306. Vol. EWEA. Manufacturing Cost Analysis. P. “Optimization Method for Wind Turbine Rotors.. C. Follings. Volume 1: Technology. and Follings.. K..A. K. R. F.” European Community Wind Energy Conference. Reno. 52 . G. 80. M. and Dodge. Schontag. July 1989. Ireland. H.. Directorate-General for Energy. pp. Nevada. 1998. Wind Energy – The Facts.H.10. Madsen. D. G. 1. July 1989. Opti-OWECS Final Report Vol. Jenkins.J. F. R. Milborrow.

Appendix A Details from Task #3 Configuration Variations .

baseline 1.27 0.64 1.07 1.00 1.44 1.23 0.65 0.40 1.43 1.02 1.82 1.12 1.44 1.43 0.25 0.05 1.66 1.25 1.08 -0.76 0.96 1.5U01C01V00c tower feedback 1.28 peak 1.01 1.05 1.82 0.08 0.99 0.82 1.21 0.03 1.60 1. soft blades Adams FAST FAST FAST FAST FAST FAST Adams Adams FAST FAST FAST FAST Adams FAST FAST FAST Adams FAST FAST FAST Adams FAST Adams Adams A (Adm) A(Adm) A (Fst) A (Fst) A (Fst) A (Fst) A (Fst) A (Adm) A (Adm) A (Fst) A (Fst) A (Fst) A (Fst) A (Adm) A (Fst) M (Fst) M (Fst) A (Adm) A (Adm) Q (Fst) Q (Fst) Q (Adm) Q (Fst) Q (Adm) Q (Adm) 1.69 1.19 1.16 0.08 Tower Clrnce margin 0.26 1.03 1.01 0.21 1.08 1.93 1.00 1.14 0.47 1.89 1.00 1.17 0.91 0.06 1.13 1.39 1.5A08C01V03cAdm baseline A (Fst) B C D E02 F G H Y X J K L M N P Q Q R S T U V W 1.19 0.5G05C01V01 1.99 0.14 0.5Y01C01V01c 1.50 1.03 0. downwind downwind.77 0.99 0.00 1.98 0.53 1.25 1.45 1.42 1.58 1.36 1.01 0.92 0.92 1.5Q02C01V01cFst 1.96 1.96 0.12 1.34 1.00 1.5M03C01V00c 1.04 1.00 1.36 1.42 fatig 1.13 1.5Q02C03V01cAdm int.77 1.05 1.47 0.24 1.5F02C01V00c 1.95 0.98 0.92 1.15 1.14 1.80 1.19 1.00 1.85 0.82 0.92 1.96 1.07 1.10 0.46 0.48 1.04 1.13 0.88 1.81 0.06 1.94 0.00 0.39 0.93 1.00 0.00 0.81 1.74 0.01 1.00 0.17 1.00 -0.5W02C01V01 hinged blades A-1 .5D01C07V00c 1.18 0.95 fatig 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.99 0.97 0.13 0.96 0.86 0.00 1.37 1.96 1.84 0.55 1.Table A-1.06 0.43 0.26 2.08 0.96 fatig 1.97 0.03 1.79 0.00 1.74 1.04 0.94 0.5B01C01V01e 1.34 1.70 1.89 0.76 1.01 0.47 1.08 -0.07 1.98 1.5C02C01V01c 1.97 Tower Base My peak 1.02 0. tp spd +13% baseline.05 1.85 0.37 1.05 1.33 1.21 0.07 0.89 1.14 1.40 1.01 1.77 1.16 fatig 1.36 1.20 0.99 1.70 1.85 1.32 0.00 0.27 0.5E02C01V00c 1.77 1.24 0.94 1.95 0.5R01C01V01c 1.01 1.02 0.09 1.42 1.22 1.12 1.96 1.81 0.04 0.09 fatig 1.00 0.02 1.86 0.40 1.00 1.02 0.5H01C01V01c 1.27 1.83 0.26 1.81 1.72 1.36 1.71 2.05 0.99 1.38 1.42 1.92 0.42 0.08 1.00 1.34 1.95 0.17 0.75 1.34 0.78 0.04 1.37 1.01 0.90 0.74 0.03 1.19 1.10 0.76 1.89 1.00 1.85 0.11 1.99 1.42 1.92 1.00 1.85 0.14 0.84 0.03 1.14 0.03 1.41 1.64 1.84 Load Location and Type Hub-Shaft My Shaft Torque peak 1.15 0.80 0.16 1.05 0.16 0.04 0.53 1.82 Blade 50% Flap peak 1.04 0.00 1.02 1.06 1.93 0.98 1.04 0.43 1.16 0.08 0.00 1.20 1. Relative Load Results from Task #3 Configurations Configuration Type 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld dwnwind 3-bld downwin 3-bld dwnwind 2-bld upwind 2-bld upwind 2-bld upwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind Letter ID Model ID Description Code Used Normalize Base Root Flap peak A (Adm) 1.00 0.5N02C01V00c 1.74 0.5X01C01V01c 1.90 0.96 0.5S01C01V00c int baseline soft blade diam + 12% 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.66 1.02 0. baseline diam + 12% tip spd + 13% 1.40 -0.17 0.01 0.95 1.26 0.93 0.50 1.21 0.91 0.04 0.40 0.73 1.96 Yaw Bearing My peak 1.08 1.11 1.79 1.04 0.00 0.00 1.92 fatig 1.66 0.14 1.5A08C01_3V02c 1.82 1.5T01C01V01cAdm Ti spd + 13% 1.90 1. low chrd.00 0.40 1.87 0.31 -0.5L01C01V01cAdm hinged blades 1.36 1.26 1.39 1.5N02C01V00c int.19 0.5J01C01V01c 1.32 0.01 1.07 1.07 0.00 1.89 1.99 1.67 1.5K02C01V00c baseline diam + 12% tip spd + 13% + twr feedback soft-soft tower stiff blades flap twist coupling flap pitch feedback high strain blades high strain.5V01C07V02Adm positive delta-3 1.80 2.08 1.02 0.93 1.93 1.55 1.79 0.75 1.19 1.27 1.22 0.00 1.81 1.

5T01C01V01cAdm Ti spd + 13% 1. Governing Load Cases and Margins for Task #3 Configurations Configuration Type Letter ID Model ID Description Code Used Gov load 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld upwind 3-bld dwnwind 3-bld dwnwind 3-bld dwnwind 2-bld upwind 2-bld upwind 2-bld upwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind 2-bld dwnwind A (Adm) 1.5X01C01V01c 1. low chrd.5Y01C01V01c 1.5L01C01V01cAdm hinged blades 1.5A08C01V03cAdm baseline A (Fst) 1. baseline diam + 12% tip spd + 13% 1. soft FAST blades Adams FAST FAST FAST Adams FAST FAST FAST Adams FAST Adams Adams EWM Fatigue EWM fatigue EWM EWM fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue EWM fatigue fatigue EWM fatigue EWM NTM EWM fatigue ECD EWM EWM EOG EOG EWM fatigue EWM EWM fatigue EWM fatigue 1.5S01C01V00c int baseline soft blade diam + 12% 1.5E02C01V00c 1.3% 3% 14% 6% 10% 31% ?? 53% 52% 22% 12% 23% 117% 10% 10% 17% 39% 3% 1% 1% 16% 1% 5% 39% Gov load fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue EWM EWM fatigue EWM fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue Governing load case and margin to next critical load 50% Flap Next load EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM ECD EWM EWM ECD fatigue EWM fatigue ECD EWM EWM EOG EOG NTM NTM EWM NTM NTM EWM ECD Mrgn to nxt ld 45% 24% 16% 30% 24% 23% 43% 27% 48% 17% 12% 32% 18% 43% 45% 39% 49% 68% 76% 33% 86% 73% 72% 34% 35% Gov load fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue EWM Hub Next load EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EOG EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EOG EOG EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM fatigue Mrgn to nxt ld 67% 55% 43% 68% 55% 38% 42% 56% 112% 23% 49% 62% 54% 150% 55% 49% 66% 100% 48% 65% 43% 74% 34% 44% 22% Gov load fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue ECD fatigue Mainframe Next load ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD ECD EWM NTM NTM NTM NTM NTM fatigue EDC Mrgn 27% 43% 39% 41% 43% 61% 48% 20% 72% 38% 43% 12% 7% 22% 22% 28% 20% 55% 47% 52% 50% 80% 30% 1% 22% Gov load fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatiigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue Tower Base Next load EWM EWM ECD EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EOG ECD EWM EWM NTM EWM NTM EOG EOG NTM NTM EOG EOB NTM NTM Mrgn to nxt ld 35% 44% 37% 43% 3% 24% 66% 49% 97% 110% 63% 44% 36% 32% 95% 130% 100% 83% 26% 120% 130% 74% 72% 75% 72% high strain blades FAST high strain. FAST tp spd +13% baseline.5G05C01V01 1.Table A-2.5Q02C03V01cAdm int.5M03C01V00c 1.5R01C01V01c 1.5U01C01V00c 1.5Q02C01V01cFst 1.5C02C01V01c 1. downwind FAST downwind.5V01C07V02Adm 1.5A08C01_3V02c B C D E02 F G H Y X J K L M N P Q Q R S T U V W 1.5H01C01V01c 1.5J01C01V01c 1.5W02C01V01 tower feedback positive delta-3 hinged blades A-2 . baseline 1.5N02C01V00c int.5D01C07V00c 1.5B01C01V01c 1.5N02C01V00c 1.5K02C01V00c baseline diam + 12% tip spd + 13% + twr feedback soft-soft tower stiff blades flap twist coupling flap pitch feedback Adams FAST FAST FAST FAST FAST FAST Adams Adams fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue fatigue Root Flap Next load ECD EWM EWM EWM EWM EWM EOG EOG EOG Mrgn to nxt ld 52% 6.5F02C01V00c 1.

576 1.358 0.165 0.225 0.851 0. brngs Drve trn.852 0.423 0.434 0.422 0.419 0.251 0. Costs and Cost of Energy Summary for All Task #3 Configurations A A B bslne bslne bslne 3-bld 3-bld diam upwnd upwnd +12% Adams $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k MWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh 248 148 64 36 563 20 12 151 3 98 101 12 64 60 7 36 10 184 388 49 51 79 51 127 33 1.861 0.707 0.459 1.478 0.433 4.023 0.237 0.407 1.224 A-3 .020 0.218 249 148 63 38 570 20 12 160 3 98 101 9 65 60 7 36 10 185 388 49 51 79 51 127 33 1.474 FAST 219 115 71 33 586 20 12 166 3 98 101 18 66 60 7 36 10 191 389 50 51 79 51 127 33 1.182 FAST 206 101 85 20 554 20 12 155 3 98 101 6 58 60 7 36 10 160 382 42 51 79 51 127 33 1.022 0.467 0.177 P T02 R S U V 2-bld 2-bld 2-bld 2-bld 2-bld 2-bld upwnd Q Q dwnwnd dnwnd dwnwnd dwnwnd dwnwnd +13% 2-bld 2-bld tp spd soft diam twr D3=+45 tpspd dwnwnd dwnwnd +13% bld +12% fdbck FAST 206 104 86 16 535 20 12 146 3 98 101 5 48 60 7 36 10 189 384 44 51 79 51 127 33 1.286 FAST 271 134 110 26 579 20 12 171 3 98 101 8 65 60 7 36 10 241 388 48 51 79 51 127 33 1.582 1.022 0.771 0.800 4.850 0.397 0.800 4.377 0.481 1.274 0.707 0.389 Adams FAST 195 98 81 16 549 21 13 155 3 98 101 7 49 60 7 36 10 185 384 44 51 79 51 127 33 1.414 G bslne flptwst cplng H bslne flpptch fdbck Y X K bsln Tp spd 3-bld L high +13% J dwnwnd 3-bld M M strain lwr 3-bld soft hinged 2-bld 2-bld blds chrd dwnwnd bld dwnwnd upwnd upwnd FAST 167 90 52 24 549 20 12 146 3 98 101 8 59 60 7 36 10 179 385 45 51 79 51 127 33 1.417 0.022 0.817 0.322 4.318 0.800 4.800 4.852 0.023 0.341 4.800 4.022 0.398 4.467 0.707 0.819 0.406 0.467 0.800 4.253 0.389 FAST 346 214 89 43 602 20 12 169 3 98 101 18 79 60 7 36 10 206 397 52 51 82 51 129 33 1.360 0.845 0.022 0.490 5.800 4.393 4.453 1.433 0.333 4.707 0.423 0.851 0. civil wks Assmbly.462 1.857 0.415 0.488 5.419 0.244 FAST Adams FAST 205 100 86 19 554 20 12 155 3 98 101 5 58 60 7 36 10 187 383 43 51 79 51 127 33 1.463 4.232 0.478 0.325 4.408 0. installtn Elect interfc/cnnct Permits.023 0.800 4.387 4.023 0.328 Adams 301 138 118 44 563 20 12 159 3 98 101 10 59 60 7 36 10 164 385 45 51 79 51 127 33 1.343 185 95 58 33 572 20 12 158 3 98 101 12 65 60 7 36 10 194 388 48 51 79 51 127 33 1.625 1.817 0.475 0.851 0.247 202 100 85 17 551 20 12 159 3 98 101 6 51 60 7 36 10 182 384 44 51 79 51 127 33 1.862 0.467 0.467 0.223 Adams 202 101 83 18 559 20 12 159 3 98 101 7 58 60 7 36 10 177 384 44 51 79 51 127 33 1.257 0.844 0.403 4.397 0.151 0.235 0.861 0.510 1.391 0. bearing Main frame Elctrcl cnnctns Hydrlc system Nacelle cover Control system Tower Balance of stn Foundations Transportation Roads.800 4.777 0.321 FAST 265 162 71 32 571 20 12 154 3 98 101 13 68 60 7 36 10 189 388 48 51 79 51 127 33 1.273 C bslne tipspd +13% FAST 276 171 73 32 559 20 12 142 3 98 101 14 68 60 7 36 10 198 389 49 51 79 51 127 33 1.323 4.404 0.425 0.443 0.249 0.261 N 2-bld upwnd diam +12% FAST 277 134 119 24 586 20 12 176 3 98 101 10 64 60 7 36 10 223 391 46 51 82 51 129 33 1.800 4.818 0.800 4.800 4.396 4.192 0.349 4.023 0.817 0.800 4.023 0.800 4.415 0.406 F D E02 bslne bslne bslne + stiff twr sft sft bld fdbck twr s FAST 265 162 71 32 571 20 12 154 3 98 101 13 68 60 7 36 10 163 388 48 51 79 51 127 33 1.467 0.366 171 64 90 17 576 20 12 162 3 98 101 9 69 60 7 36 10 199 384 44 51 79 51 127 33 1.485 1.858 0.023 0.438 1. engnrng Initial cap cost Net ann energy Rotor Drive train Controls Tower Balance of stn Repl't costs O&M Total COE FAST Adams Adams FAST 222 125 64 32 574 20 12 159 3 98 101 12 67 60 7 36 10 193 388 48 51 79 51 127 33 1.206 Configuration Model Used Rotor Blades Hub Ptch mch.365 1.020 0.329 4.431 1.179 0.020 0.424 4.538 1.549 1.435 4.244 0.857 0.800 4.346 4.022 0.861 0.446 0.660 1.384 1.817 0.852 0. cplng Generator Var spd elctrncs Yw drve.204 0.451 0.242 0.396 0.741 0.852 0.800 4.217 0.093 FAST 285 173 77 35 581 20 12 160 3 98 101 18 67 60 7 36 10 198 389 49 51 79 51 127 33 1.022 0.467 0.707 0.817 0.844 0.023 0.285 0.255 0.800 4.707 0.677 1.249 0.856 0.475 0.467 0.360 0.604 1.459 1.023 0.860 0.022 0.331 FAST 263 162 71 31 571 20 12 154 3 98 101 14 68 60 7 36 10 198 393 53 51 79 51 127 33 1.800 4.467 0.467 0.800 4.547 1.Table A-3.800 4.817 0.424 4.800 4.453 1.251 0.313 4.707 0.819 0.562 5.800 4.478 0.478 0.318 0.800 4.289 4.707 0.478 0.022 0.800 4.306 223 140 51 32 555 20 12 151 3 98 101 10 59 60 7 36 10 172 386 46 51 79 51 127 33 1.023 0.817 0.479 0.434 0.467 0.253 0.022 0.403 0.800 4.423 0. nacelle Low-speed shaft Bearings Gearbox Mech brk.362 0.861 0.442 1.777 0.817 0.582 1.234 0.478 0.305 4.800 4.478 0.293 0.478 0.741 0.817 0.490 1.388 4.467 0.467 0.854 0.861 0.268 W 2-bld dwnwnd hngd Adams 197 89 80 28 554 20 12 153 3 98 101 6 60 60 7 36 10 161 382 42 51 79 51 127 33 1.817 0.255 0.543 1.280 229 113 98 18 561 20 12 146 3 98 101 8 71 60 7 36 10 202 386 46 51 79 51 127 33 1.022 0.022 0.244 0.226 Adams 192 97 83 13 559 20 12 155 3 98 101 6 62 60 7 36 10 177 384 44 51 79 51 127 33 1.338 4.022 0.

Appendix B Details from Task #5 Final Designs .

0 2.138 3.68 2.081 889 497 369 1.543 15.162 710 11.274 330 283 37 1.0 0.302 1.074 2.179 801 62.700 3.0 0.38 5.523 -0.925 1.464 -5.618 895 590 71 4.851 10.5A08C01V 1. Comparison of Baseline and Final Loads for 3-Bladed Upwind Machines 750 kW Baseline Final Design 1.237 815 847 1.970 3.0 3.644 25.369 1.711 0.298 1.0 MW Baseline Final Design .464 1. frequ kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN kN kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m P P deg deg deg m m 5.185 0.966 473 31.424 83 3.944 95.946 1.578 3.835 898 3.520 0.429 101.956 3.0AA02C01V V00 07cAdm V00 V01adm 00 04cAdm Tilt Coning Angle of contact Tip out of pln displt Tip clearance mrgn Blade rt flap mt max abs equiv fatigue Blade rt edge mt max abs equiv fatigue Blade 25% flap mt max abs equiv fatigue Blade 25% edge mt max abs equiv fatigue Blade 50% flap mt max abs equiv fatigue Blade 50% edge mt max abs equiv fatigue Blade 75% flap mt max abs equiv fatigue Blade 75% edge mt max abs equiv fatigue Shaft/hub My max abs equiv fatigue Shaft/hub Mz max abs equiv fatigue Shaft thrust max abs equiv fatigue Shaft Mx max abs equiv fatigue Yaw brg My max abs equiv fatigue Yaw btg Mz max abs equiv fatigue Tower base Mx max abs equiv fatigue Tower base My max abs equiv fatigue First system nat frequ First blade nat.210 1.5 MW Baseline Final Design 3.201 279 22.72 5.969 1.079 468 1.0 3.058 27.215 2.0 0.75AA04C01 1.0 0.095 0.Table B-1.0 4.18 3.0 3.743 266 1.369 2.363 465 335 278 527 283 175 127 216 130 55 43 53 33 12 8 909 228 871 230 159 25 1.056 526 248 176 456 231 89 68 108 56 19 13 1.468 -2.917 2.023 557 1.590 1.816 -1.0A09C02 3.377 0.210 579 324 44 3.314 5.761 263 5.0 1.791 1.5AA12C05 3.105 583 2.536 1.017 184 685 182 12.0 3.0 0.390 5.656 7.0 0.350 733 412 382 553 338 146 126 133 87 33 23 2.325 31 1.0 2.389 4.322 8.736 0.951 2.513 83 1.707 1.0 0.082 747 275 164 115 335 156 87 59 140 66 33 22 32 16 7 5 438 119 409 120 128 16 484 33 475 93 458 98 7.862 -1.003 5.129 1.088 2.411 -0.744 1.0 0.129 5.040 6.0 0.348 5.8 3.380 1.063 599 502 433 272 116 83 7.820 235 10.655 797 89 10.934 -0.87 3.482 1.0 3.622 1.75A08C01V .821 3.467 -3.360 330 1.901 769 3.51 max min B-1 .087 83.467 -2.478 526 7.173 593 360 206 275 144 69 42 3.66 5.

Summary of Costs of Baseline and Final 3-Bladed Machines at 750 kW.518 1.047 0.022 0.254 0.884 0.106 10. 1.336 1.499 0.75AA04C01 1.022 0.258 0.011 0.467 0.011 0.365 910 4.522 0.125 64 43 336 6 156 162 18 144 120 14 63 10 370 896 99 253 136 113 224 70 2.056 0.175 0.872 0.307 1.0 MW 750 kW Baseline Final Design 1.236 58 43 375 6 156 162 42 194 120 14 67 10 513 905 108 253 136 113 224 70 3. and 3.364 0.0 MW Baseline Final Design .470 1.913 0.800 3.312 0.377 0.260 167 112 34 21 501 22 12 146 3 78 81 6 52 60 7 33 10 142 397 57 51 79 51 127 33 1.047 0.434 0.372 0.800 4.047 0.147 0.817 0.5 MW Baseline Final Design 3. HS cpling.800 4.926 236 152 48 36 536 20 12 161 3 78 81 12 66 60 7 36 10 179 403 63 51 79 51 127 33 1.154 0.318 1.800 4.499 0.811 0.254 0.666 1.612 394 262 90 42 1.5 MW.800 4.217 811 4.75A08C01V0 .0AA01C02 4cAdm V00 07cAdm 00 1adm V00 Rotor Blades Hub Pitch mchnsm & bearings Drive train. safety system Tower Balance of station Foundations Transportation Roads. civil works Assembly & installation Elect interfc/connect Permits.099 0.013 0.5AA12C05V 3.797 932 10.5A08C01V 1.204 1.365 1.394 0.0A09C02V0 3.468 0.402 1.921 0.939 654 413 157 85 1. engineering Initial capital cost (ICC) ICC per kW Net annual energy Rotor Drive train Controls Tower Balance of station Repl't costs O&M Total COE $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $/kW MWh c/kW h c/kW h c/kW h c/kW h c/kW h c/kW h c/kW h c/kW h 100 63 18 19 246 7 4 71 1 39 41 5 26 30 3 19 10 72 223 41 27 45 24 71 16 652 869 2.800 3. etc Generator Variable spd electronics Yaw drive & bearing Main frame Electrical connections Hydraulic system Nacelle cover Control.084 B-2 .352 66 44 10 11 225 7 4 66 1 39 41 3 16 30 3 15 10 44 216 33 27 45 24 71 16 561 748 2. nacelle Low-speed shaft Bearings Gearbox Mech brake.434 0.Table B-2.

0 3.0 2.5AB05C02 cAdm V00 6. Comparison of 1.5-MW Final Loads with Baseline Configurations 3-Bladed Upwind Baseline Final Design 1.533 2727 1251 1057 914 1625 772 460 432 670 372 173 150 144 97 32 27 1417 354 35 318 284 39 2758 91 2018 225 1080 215 14.563 2609 0. mass and cost were added to the blade to restore this margin to zero.292 2403 1166 802 475 1355 670 408 246 539 275 163 102 112 62 31 21 1544 532 132 195 221 32 1760 126 2644 579 313 4 14.711 0.051 -0.76 0.523 -0.59 Note: When clearance margins were negative.138 3298 1237 815 847 1350 733 412 382 553 338 146 126 133 87 33 23 2105 583 2210 579 324 44 3424 83 3079 468 1966 473 31. B-3 .390 5482 1.669 3373 21.18 3.70 2-Bladed Downwind Baseline Final Design 1.Table B-3.816 -1.0 0.16 2-Bladed Upwind Baseline Final Design 1.5AA12C05 m V00 Tilt Coning Angle of contact Tip out of pln displt max min Tip clearance mrgn Blade rt flap mt Blade rt edge mt Blade 25% flap mt Blade 25% edg mt Blade 50% flap mt Blade 50% edg mt Blade 75% flap mt Blade 75% edg mt Shaft/hub My Shaft/hub Mz Shaft thrust Shaft Mx Yaw brg My Yaw btg Mz Tower base Mx Tower base My First syst nat freq First blade nat.822 3.5Q02C0 3V01cAd 1.5M03 C01V04 1.0 3.932 5927 ~1.66 5.679 -0.700 3736 0.78 3.166 2264 935 706 418 1245 560 365 204 502 252 126 81 104 58 26 16 1109 310 52 230 230 28 2010 110 1268 204 850 212 10.0 2.513 2815 24.0 2.0 2. freq max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue max abs equiv fatigue kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN kN kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m kN m P P deg deg deg m m 5.467 -3.2 3.0 6.7 4.735 5687 ~1.775 -0.5A08C0 1V07cAd 1.214 1150 21.0 2.0 2.5AC02C01 m V00 5.003 -0.0 0.429 0.307 -4.951 2058 27.7 6.527 5021 24.294 -1.041 2146 1264 1146 949 1255 766 510 448 544 368 190 157 133 95 36 29 1562 727 182 442 254 39 2520 96 2627 418 0 9 13.803 3.925 1644 25.926 -4.75 5.074 2081 889 497 369 1056 526 248 176 456 231 89 68 108 56 19 13 1360 330 1274 330 283 37 1513 83 1743 266 1201 279 22.406 3091 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.7 6.0 0.0 2.

133 4.881 0.022 0.099 0.217 4.023 0. Comparison of Final Costs with 1.023 0.227 0.478 0.383 1.800 4.478 0.132 Final Design 1.023 0.707 0.5Q02C03V0 4cAdm 168 97 58 13 522 20 12 155 3 78 81 6 62 60 7 37 10 177 396 56 51 79 51 127 33 1.467 0.5-MW Baseline Configurations 3-Bladed Upwind Baseline Filename Rotor Blades Hub Pitch mchnsm & bearings Drive train.022 0.478 0.889 0.478 0. civil works Assembly & installation Elect interfc/connect Permits.365 1.800 4.310 4.468 0. HS cpling etc Generator Variable-speed electronics Yaw drive & bearing Main frame Electrical connections Hydraulic system Nacelle cover Control.872 0.817 0.163 0.881 0.884 0.376 1.415 0. nacelle Low speed shaft Bearings Gearbox Mech brake.5M03C01V0 4cAdm 171 98 57 16 547 21 13 155 3 98 101 7 49 60 7 34 10 185 396 57 51 79 51 127 33 1.800 3.396 0.708 0.394 0.800 3.5AC01C0 2V00 146 70 60 16 518 20 12 149 3 78 81 10 66 60 7 32 10 139 393 53 51 79 51 127 33 1.260 Final Design 1.818 2-Bladed Downwind Baseline 1.328 1.5A08C01 V07cAdm 236 152 48 36 536 20 12 161 3 78 81 12 66 60 7 36 10 179 403 63 51 79 51 127 33 1.984 B-4 .175 0.Table B-4.708 0. engineering Initial capital cost (ICC) Net annual energy Rotor Drive train Controls Tower Balance of stn Repl't costs O&M Total COE $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k $k MWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh c/kWh 1.800 3.518 1.081 0.170 0.023 0.889 0.216 Final Design 1.312 0.257 0.707 0.939 2-Bladed Upwind Baseline 1. safety system Tower Balance of station Foundations Transportation Roads.800 4.365 4.298 1.5AA12C0 5V00 167 112 34 21 501 22 12 146 3 78 81 6 52 60 7 33 10 142 397 57 51 79 51 127 33 1.811 0.312 0.272 4.207 4.5AB05C0 2V00 133 70 48 15 482 20 12 145 3 78 81 4 44 60 7 28 10 115 393 53 51 79 51 127 33 1.

75A08C .5 MW 2-Bladed Upwind Baseline Task 5 1.Table B-5.5Q02C 1.5AC01 03V04cA C01V02 dm Fatigue Displ’t EOG 39% Fatigue EOG 68% Fatigue EOG 71% Fatigue EWM 55% Fatigue EOG 71% EWS 44% Displ’t EWSV 35% Fatigue EWSV 70% Fatigue EWSV 84% Fatigue EOG 30% 750 kW 3-Bladed Upwind Baseline Task 5 .0 MW 3-Bladed Upwind Baseline Task 5 3. Governing Load Cases and Margins for Baseline and Task #5 Final Configurations 3-Bladed Upwind Baseline Task 5 1.0AA02 02V01Ad C01v00 m Fatigue Displ’t EWM 1% Fatigue ECD 57% Fatigue EWM 90% Fatigue ECD 23% Fatigue Estop 29% NTM 50% Displ’t NTM 6% Fatigue NTM 63% Fatigue ECD 20% Fatigue Estop 3% B-5 .5M03C 1.75AA04 01V04cA C01V00 dm EWM Displ’t Fatigue 18% Fatigue EWM 47% Fatigue EWM 68% Fatigue ECD 50% Fatigue EWM 47% NTM 14% Displ’t EDC 10% Fatigue NTM 56% Fatigue ECD 64% Fatigue EOG 14% 3.5AB05 01V04cA C02V01 dm Fatigue Displ’t EWM 10% Fatigue EWM 40% Fatigue EWM 55% Fatigue ECD 5% Fatigue NTM 78% EWM 10% Displ’t EWSV 7% Fatigue EWM 38% Fatigue ECD 49% Fatigue Estop 4% 2-Bladed Downwind Baseline Task 5 1.5AA12 01V07cA C05V00 dm Governing EWM Displ’t load Blade Next Fatigue EDC root My critical margin 52% 33% Governing Fatigue Displ’t load Blade Next EWM EDC 50% My critical margin 50% 12% Governing Fatigue Fatigue load Hub Next EWM EDC critical margin 22% 64% Governing Fatigue Fatigue load MainNext ECD NTM frame critical margin 36% 30% Governing Fatigue Fatigue load Tower Next EWM NTM base critical margin 40% 17% 1.5A08C 1.0A09C 3.

6 66 93 120 Yaw Bearings Specifications Avon Data bolt circle maximum maximum equiv thrust thrust design machine quantity P/N Unit Cost Cost/50MW Weight [kg] diam moment thrust due to mt capacity margin rating per 50MW m kN m kN kN kN kW 1.500 1850 2.02941 1500 33 1788B3 $6.15173 3000 50 TR2086B1 $31.00601 750 67 120B6 $3.005 1440 6523 0.Appendix C Avon Bearing Costs rotor diam m 46.177 355 2.14 3773 1201 7052 8866 -0.379.438 24775 28834 -0.05386 5000 10 TR15168B $46.374 $210.011709 750 200 2544B1 $4.000 620 1.16486 1500 100 TR1263B2 $13.000 6800 Pitch bearings 1.000 11514 21976 -0.700 4700 3.785 4000 4.754 $1.xls) C-1 .587.45 1217 494.105 $494.548 11826 2919 18565 21746 -0.086 27646 5616 27064 34121 -0.045 $809.6 66 93 120 46.331 $223.000 $460.2 3357 4245 -0.11082 5000 30 TR15142B1 $0 5700 Avon Bearing costs (f: WindPACT rotor scaling\task 1\bearingcostWtSummaryDM.425 4071 10736 -0.342 770 2.08648 3000 17 TR15107B $29.795 $1.

will be ni D= Ni ∑ −m = S0 ∑ n iSim Suppose that the same fatigue damage is done by a single load. Si. This corresponds to a single straight line on a log-log graph. Se. done by a number of loads. It should be noted that this expression is valid only if the assumption is made of a single relationship between the load and fatigue strength. 1 ∑ D-1 . the damage.Appendix D Calculation of Fatigue Damage Equivalent Loads Suppose that the fatigue strength of a material is given by the single relationship S = S0 N or ⎛ S N=⎜ ⎜S ⎝ 0 −1 m ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ −m where S = load applied S0= a constant N = number of cycles at load level S m = a constant According to Miners cumulative damage rule. applied for ne cycles. applied for ni cycles respectively. Si. and is known as the equivalent fatigue load. D. Then D= ne ⎛ Se ⎞ = ne ⎜ ⎟ ⎜S ⎟ Ne ⎝ 0⎠ m m m so that ⎛ Se ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ne ⎜ ⎜S ⎟ =⎜S ⎟ ⎝ 0⎠ ⎝ 0⎠ or ∑ n iSim ⎡1 ⎤ m n iSim ⎥ Se = ⎢ ⎣ ne ⎦ The last line is an expression for a load level that will cause the same fatigue damage as a combination of loads.

Appendix E Description of the Blade Pitch Control System .

KDs/(1+τs). where τ is a time constant that is small compare with other significant time scales in the system. This prevents the integrated speed error from accumulating when the rotor is operating in low winds. power regulation is entirely dependent upon speed regulation. The presence of the pitch demand saturation function requires that integrator anti-windup be included in the controller. The ADAMS actuator and the FAST_AD actuators are selected to have essentially identical characteristics. The PID controller determines the desired pitch angle. Figure 2 is similar. In ADAMS. 2001 This document briefly describes the pitch control systems used in the WindPACT Rotor Design Study. Therefore. The rotor characteristics are a strong nonlinear function of wind speed. This requires that the PID gains be “scheduled” as a function of blade pitch angle. and KD. Instead. then constant (or very slowly increasing) torque above the rated generator speed. LLC March 2. The systems attempt to operate at constant tip speed ratio (fixed pitch) when the wind is below rated. Hansen Windward Engineering. all the pitch controllers in this study have as their primary goal the control of generator speed. feathering the blade (increasing pitch) when the generator speed is too high. θmin is the pitch angle at which optimum rotor aerodynamic performance is achieved when operating at constant tip speed ratio. In FAST_AD the pitching dynamics are not calculated directly. below rated speed. of the form: E-1 . When the rotor speed is below the desired setpoint. This is shown as the feedback with gain KAW in the figures. Above rated. the pitch controller attempts to maintain constant rotor speed (“rated speed”). We have used a gain of 0. the system power output will change only in proportion to rotor speed since the torque remains essentially constant. The generator/power-electronics systems in this study have torque proportional to the square of generator speed below rated. the pitch will remain constant at θmin. The pitch demand is limited to the range of θmin to 90°. We implement all the controls in discrete time. The pitch control systems are implemented in the form of linear transfer functions in ADAMS and FAST_AD models. This makes it possible to operate at constant tip speed ratio below rated as long as the blade pitch remains constant. Figure 1 shows the control diagram for the basic speed controller. Each of the PID gains is multiplied by a function. but tower acceleration is input to the pitch demand controller in an attempt to damp longitudinal vibration of the tower. The results are insensitive to this gain when implemented in this manner. The generator torque characteristics must be matched to the rotor torque in order to actually achieve constant tip speed ratio operation. The typical time step is 0. As the wind speed approaches the rated value. GS. Generator speed error is input to the basic controller. Note that this anti-windup term is fed back to the integrator only. Both systems use basic PID control with gains denoted in the figures as KI. which applies a pitching moment to the blade. the actuator is represented as a linear transfer function between pitch demand and actual pitch.Pitch Control Systems for the WindPACT Rotor Design Study C. When implemented numerically. this pitch demand is sent to an actuator.3 rpm/deg in all of our simulations. All the wind turbines under investigation in this study use full-span. hence blade pitch. KP. collective pitch control in conjunction with variable-speed generators. we use a modified form of the derivative term. The same control subroutines and controller data files are used in both codes to calculate the pitch demand.025 sec. Hence.

The turbine drive train is represented as a single torsion spring. The pitch actuator in the WindPACT models is a simple second order system: H a ( s) = 2 ωn 2 s 2 + 2ξω n s + ω n with ξ = 80% of critical damping and a natural frequency that is a multiple of the rotor speed. and the rotor “gain”. The exponent p is negative. and rotor inertia. To alleviate this problem. which in turn cause pitch oscillations. The resulting transfer function between rotor torque and generator speed is: H DT ( s ) = k Ir Ig ⎞ ⎛ Ak I g s 3 + As 2 + ⎜ 1 + ⎟ ks + Ir ⎠ Ir ⎝ Many of the rotors we are modeling have a tower natural frequency close to 1 cycle per rotor revolution (1P). In most cases we have used ωn = 4Ω. GS. we have implemented tower acceleration feedback. It should be selected such that the product of the gain schedule value. The tower motion appears as a cyclic wind speed input to the rotor and causes rotor speed oscillations. to blade pitch. Coefficients a and p must be selected such that aθ1p = 1 . θ1. is nearly ∂θ constant for all wind speeds in the operating range. with slope = A. ∂Q (the sensitivity of rotor torque. p. We generally find it necessary to reduce the speed control effectiveness in order to avoid excessive tower fatigue loads. k. Finding the best balance between tower loads and effective speed control is subjective and largely a matter of trial and error with system simulations. Ir. Q. The generator torque is represented as a linear function of generator speed.⎧1 ⎪ GS = ⎨ aθ p ⎪ aθ p ⎩ 2 ⎫ θ < θ1 ⎪ θ1 ≤ θ ≤ θ 2 ⎬ ⎪ θ > θ2 ⎭ where a. This is illustrated in Figure 2. where Ω is the rotor angular velocity. and θ2 are constants input by the user. θ). The tower dynamics (in the “tower fore-aft motion” box) are represented as a transfer function from rotor thrust to tower-top velocity: HT ( s) = s2 ω t2 + s kt 2ξ ωt s +1 E-2 . between the generator inertia. These systems experience substantial tower motion parallel to the wind direction. Ig. This motion can be exacerbated by a highly responsive pitch control system.

The sensitivity of rotor thrust to changes in pitch angle. the selection of all the controller parameters remains at least in part a matter of trial and error. all of the aerodynamic characteristics ∂V of the system are represented by simple constants determined by steady-state simulations. We generally find that we can decrease loads in one area at the expense of increased loads elsewhere. was mentioned above. We select the constants using simple MATLAB models of these controllers. E-3 . Using this technique. 1 T H LC ( s ) = 1 s+ αT s+ ∂T . The tower acceleration is input to a lag compensator to determine a change in pitch in response to the motion. We also need the sensitivity of rotor ∂θ ∂Q torque to wind speed (or tower speed). Then we run a series of turbine simulations in turbulent winds and estimate the fatigue damage at several locations on the turbine. ωt is the natural frequency. Selection of the best design depends on the lowest cost of energy. We have found that we can use this feedback to reduce tower loads or to improve speed regulation without increasing tower loads. obviously not a simple thing to evaluate. which are know to be important to the system dynamics. and ξ is the structural damping ratio. Obviously this approximation neglects unsteady and nonlinear aerodynamic effects. This compensator is of the form: ∂T . The rotor thrust is a linear function of the blade pitch (at a given wind speed) with a slope of determined from steady-state aerodynamics calculations at the desired wind speed and pitch angle. . Two additional derivatives are needed to run a simple linearized model of this system. ∂θ where α > 1 and T is a time scale related to the period of tower motion. However.Here kt is the effective stiffness of the tower. As a result. the controllers must be verified and fine-tuned in full system simulations over the entire operating range of the system.

Ω Ωd + - pitch limits θd actuator θ dQ/d θ Q + - KI / s + + K AW gain scheduling uses current pitch drive train Ω Figure E-1. Basic WindPACT rotor speed control system E-4 .θ = blade pitch Ω = generator speed pitch demand controller Q = rotor torque ( ) d = demand K P + K D s / (1 + τ s) + Ωd .

x dQ dV Q Ωd + - Ωd .. x s T dT dθ K P + K D s / (1 + τ s) + + + + + pitch limits θd θ tower fore aft motion .Ω actuator dQ dθ Q + + drive train Ω KI / s K AW + - gain scheduling uses current pitch Figure E-2.θ = blade pitch Ω = generator speed pitch demand controller Q = rotor torque ( ) d = demand T = rotor thrust V = wind speed x = tower-top displacement lag compensator . WindPACT speed control with tower acceleration feedback E-5 .

SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law. Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. including suggestions for reducing the burden. The study focused on different rotor configurations and the effect of scale on those rotors. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES NREL Technical Monitor: A. no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NREL/SR-500-32495 National Technical Information Service U. searching existing data sources. 4661 Holly Lane. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information. including the time for reviewing instructions. and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The purpose of the WindPACT project is to identify technology improvements that will enable the cost of energy from wind turbines to fall to a target of 3. TASK NUMBER WE001510 and WER11510 5f.0 cents/kilowatt-hour in low wind speed sites.C. Kirkland. TELEPONE NUMBER (Include area code) Standard Form 298 (Rev. UT 84117 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER YAT-0-30213-01 9.J Malcolm and A. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. GRANT NUMBER 5c. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. PROJECT NUMBER D. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Subcontract Report June 2000 – June 2002 5a. NUMBER OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES 19a. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. CONTRACT NUMBER WindPACT Turbine Rotor Design Study DE-AC36-99-GO10337 5b. AUTHOR(S) 5d. Z39. THIS PAGE 17.S. 1. Department of Energy’s WindPACT (Wind Partnership for Advanced Component Technologies) project.To) Revised April 2006 4. #100. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL 19b. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. WindPACT. Global Energy Concepts. Golden. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT NREL 11. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: a. 15. Salt Lake City. 5729 Lakeview Drive NE. ABSTRACT c. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield. to Department of Defense. Laxson 14.18 . CO 80401-3393 12. Hansen NREL/SR-500-32495 5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. SUBJECT TERMS wind turbine rotor. REPORT b. VA 22161 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words) This report presents the results of the turbine rotor study completed by Global Energy Concepts (GEC) as part of the U.REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.S. wind energy. WA 98033 Windward Engineering. DATES COVERED (From . LIMITATION 18. Global Energy Concepts 16. REPORT TYPE 3. gathering and maintaining the data needed.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful