See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336723900

Structural design and analysis of a small wind turbine blade using Simple Load
Model, FAST-MLife codes, and ANSYS nCode DesignLife

Article  in  Wind Engineering · October 2019

DOI: 10.1177/0309524X19882430

CITATIONS READS

0 381

4 authors:

Lhoussaine Tenghiri Yassine Khalil

Al Akhawayn University Al Akhawayn University
6 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

F. Abdi Anas Bentamy

Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University Al Akhawayn University
123 PUBLICATIONS   833 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Demand Management System for Micro-grid - Towards the Smart City Vision View project

IRESEN InnoWind View project

All content following this page was uploaded by F. Abdi on 26 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research Article

Wind Engineering
1–18
Structural design and analysis of a Ó The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
small wind turbine blade using Simple sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0309524X19882430

Load Model, FAST-MLife codes, and journals.sagepub.com/home/wie

ANSYS nCode DesignLife

Lhoussaine Tenghiri1,2, Yassine Khalil1,2, Farid Abdi1 and Anas Bentamy2

Abstract
This article presents a structural design and analysis of 11-kW small wind blades. The stress and the fatigue on the blades were
computed using Simple Load Model from IEC 61400-2 standard, ANSYS nCode DesignLife, and FAST-MLife codes from the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Simple Load Model gives good results in terms of stress analysis but overestimates fatigue
damage on the blade. High safety factors imposed by the IEC 61400-2 standard, when full mechanical characterization of the blade
material cannot be achieved, lead to heavy structures that impact the blade cost. For the same design, full computational analysis
of the blade fatigue using FAST-MLife codes and the ANSYS nCode DesignLife revealed that the rotor blades will be safe against
fatigue for a design lifetime of 20 years. This study shows that simple and reliable aeroelastic models are still needed for fatigue
analysis of small wind blades.

Keywords
Wind turbine, rotor blades, aerodynamic performance, stress analysis, fatigue damage, mechanical characteristics

Introduction
The design process of a small wind turbine rotor (rated power less than 50 kW or rotor swept area less than
200 m2) consists in defining the aerodynamic shape of the blades that will be able to extract maximum energy
from the wind (IEC 61400-2, 2013; Wood, 2009). In designing a small wind turbine blade for maximum power
extraction, several design methodologies have been used in the literature. Wood (2004) has presented a computa-
tional design of small wind blades for the dual purposes of efficient power production and rapid starting at low
wind speeds. Maalawi and Negm (2002) have discussed an optimization model for the design of a typical blade
structure of horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWT) which consists in maximizing the blade natural frequency.
Higher natural frequencies are favorable for reducing both the steady-state and transient responses of the struc-
ture being excited. The design variables of this optimization process are the dimensionless radius of gyration,
cross-sectional area, and length of each segment composing the main blade spar. A detailed review of the current
state-of-art for wind turbine blade design has been presented by Schubel and Crossley (2012). This review presents
several design methodologies of the rotor blades of modern HAWT. Campobasso et al. (2016) have conducted an
optimization strategy for the aerodynamic design of HAWT rotors by including the variability of the annual
energy production (AEP) because of the uncertainty of the blade geometry caused by manufacturing and assembly
errors. Singh et al. (2013) have presented a methodology of proper selection of wind turbine airfoils, spars, and
composite material. Another multi-objective aerodynamic and structural optimization has been presented by Zhu

1
Laboratory of Signals, Systems and Components, Faculty of Sciences and Techniques, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco
2
School of Science and Engineering, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Ifrane, Morocco

Corresponding author:
Anas Bentamy, School of Science and Engineering, Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, P.O. Box 104, Hassan II Avenue, 53000 Ifrane, Morocco.
Email: a.bentamy@aui.ma
2 Wind Engineering 00(0)

et al. (2017). This optimization approach consists in maximizing the AEP, minimizing the blade mass and mini-
mizing the blade cost. Some other approaches tend to optimize the levelized cost of electricity (instead of the blade
cost) of the wind turbine which is a key driver to remain competitive with solar photovoltaic systems.
Due to the fact that small wind blades experience high numbers of fatigue cycles at relatively high rotational
speeds (compared to large wind turbines), fatigue damage analysis is necessary during any design process of a
small wind turbine. The objective of this study is to design and analyze the structure of a small wind turbine blade
under normal (fatigue loads) and extreme wind conditions. The design wind conditions are defined by the IEC
standard for small wind turbines; IEC 61400-2. These include load case ‘‘A’’ for fatigue analysis and load case
‘‘H’’ for extreme wind conditions (IEC 61400-2, 2013). The procedure of the design and analysis in this study con-
sists in five steps. First, the blade design parameters were presented. Determination of the chord length and the
twist angle distribution, at a certain design tip speed ratio (TSR), is the main task of the second step. This step
was performed using the Small Wind-turbine Rotor Design Code (SWRDC) (Sessarego and Wood, 2015). This is
an aerodynamic design and optimization tool that uses genetic algorithm (GA), blade element momentum (BEM)
theory (Liu and Janajreh, 2012), simple Euler–Bernoulli beam theory, a model for starting from Wood (2011) and
a noise model of Zhu (Leloudas, 2006) to design small-scale, fixed-pitch variable-speed (FPVS) HAWT rotors. To
determine an optimal geometry of the rotor blades (the chord and the twist angle distribution), SWRDC uses GA.
This is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. It starts with a randomly generated initial
population, breeds new members, determines the fitness (through the objective function) of existing and new mem-
bers, and then decides which members live and which ones die (Selig, 2011). The objective function in this study
consists in maximizing power coefficient, Cp , minimizing the blade mass, mB , and minimizing the rotor starting
time, Tst . In fact, designing the rotor blades only for maximum Cp could result in a high cut-in wind speed. This is
defined as the lowest mean wind speed (at the hub height) at which the wind turbine produces power (IEC 61400-
2, 2013). The starting performance of a wind turbine blade depends on the blade moment of inertia which is a
function of the blade geometry and the composite material density (Pourrajabian et al., 2019). By eliminating Tst
from the objective function, the rotor design would be more efficient in situations where the wind blows regularly
and strongly. Therefore, including Tst in the design optimization tends to maximize the energy capture from the
turbine.
To compute the total Cp of the blade (and hence the power output), BEM theory divides the blade into 30 sec-
tions from root to the tip, and the total Cp was calculated by integrating the values of Cp at these sections. The
BEM analysis in SWRDC involves an iterative technique which requires a specific number of iterations to esti-
mate the aerodynamic performance of the rotor design.
The objective function is constrained by the results of a structural optimization that consists in modeling the
blade as a simple beam with isotropic material properties using a simple Euler–Bernoulli beam analysis. SWRDC
minimizes the blade mass while satisfying a maximum allowable strain of the blade material. For the structural
analysis, the blade cross section is modeled as a thin shell. The shell thickness along the length of the blade will be
determined such that the calculated strain, ecal , is less than the maximum allowable strain, eall . When modeling the
blade using isotropic material properties, the elastic modulus, the ultimate tensile strain, and the material density
of the material used for the blade fabrication are required. The ultimate tensile strain is the strain at the point on
the stress–strain curve where stress is the maximum. A material partial safety factor of 9 was applied the ultimate
tensile strain of the blade material. This value is recommended by IEC 61400-2 standard when minimal characteri-
zation of the blade material is adopted (a factor of 3 for ultimate loads and 3 for material characterization). It is
worth noting that the structural analysis in SWRDC does not take fatigue effects into account during the blade
design. This is the reason why a detailed fatigue analysis was presented as a final step in the present design process.
In the third step, the mechanical properties of the blade material (unidirectional and multidirectional properties)
were computed using the Laminator software (The Laminator, 2018). Afterward, stress analysis on the blade was
performed using SLM from IEC 61400-2 and ANSYS software. Finally, computational analysis of fatigue damage
was conducted using FAST-MLife codes and ANSYS nCode DesignLife. Figure 1 summarizes the methodology
used for the design and analysis of the rotor blades.

Small wind turbine blade structure

Blade design parameters
The wind turbine system considered is an FPVS small wind turbine with a direct drive permanent synchronous gen-
erator. The design turbine machine has a rated power of 11 kW at a design wind speed, Vdesign , of 10.5 m/s. The
Tenghiri et al. 3

Figure 1. Flow chart for the design and analysis of the rotor blades.

turbine rotor diameter is 7 m (3.5 m radius) and the rated rotational speed is 172 r/min. The blades were designed
using an optimized airfoil FX63-137 which is used in low Reynolds number application for small wind turbines
(Khalil et al., 2019).

Design Reynolds number. In wind turbine applications, Reynolds number can be calculated using the following equa-
tion (McTavish et al., 2013)

Urel  C
Re = ð1Þ
m
where m is the kinematic viscosity of the air, Urel is the relative wind speed to the airfoil, and C is the chord length
of the airfoil. It has been shown that most of a turbine’s power is produced near the tip, so the value of Re most
often quoted is the tip Re (Wood, 2011).
The relative wind speed, which represents the actual wind speed involved in the aerodynamic operation of the
rotor blades, can be determined using equation (2)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Urel = ðð1 + a0 Þ  O  rÞ2 + ð1  aÞ2 V2design ð2Þ

where O is the design rotational speed in rad/s. For a wind turbine with a maximum efficiency (an axial induction
factor, a, of 1/3 and a negligible rotational induction factor, a#, equation (2) becomes
4 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Table 1. Small wind turbine design parameters.

Design parameter Value Unit

Wind turbine generator rated power 11.000 W

Design wind speed (rated wind speed) 10.5 m/s
Assumed rotor aerodynamic power coefficient 0.42 –
Assumed total power coefficient 0.378 –
Number of blades 3 –
Design tip speed ratio 6 –
Design angle of attack 2.5 °
Rotor radius 3.5 m
Design rotational speed 172 r/min
Design torque 932.38 Nm
Design Reynolds number 612 291 –
Airfoil type FX63-137 –

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
22
Urel = (rtip O)2 + V2design ð3Þ
3

where rtip is the blade radius at the tip. Assuming that the blade spanwise location at 0.72 R (72% of the blade
radius) is the effective radius for which the aerodynamic performance approaches significantly those of the whole
blade and by taking an average chord length of 0.2 m at this specific location, equation (1) gives an operating Re
of 612,291. This value would vary during the wind turbine operation due to the wind speed fluctuations. This Re
value will be considered as a typical design parameter.

Design TSR. High TSRs present many drawbacks such as noise generation, high centrifugal forces because of the
high rotational speeds and problems of vibration (Göcxmen and Özerdem, 2012; Mollasalehi et al., 2013). As the
maximum efficiency at the TSR does not considerably vary between 6 and 10, a TSR of 6 was selected. An analysis
on the aerodynamic performance of the FX63-137 was conducted. The maximum achievable power coefficient was
found to be 0.42. This corresponds to a design angle of attack of 2.5°. By including the efficiency of the drive train,
the generator (assuming an overall transmission efficiency of 90%), and aerodynamic losses through the action of
viscosity, it is reasonable to assume that the total power coefficient is about 0.4 (Wood, 2011). Table 1 summarizes
the main design parameter of the rotor blade.
The polar coordinates (lift and drag coefficients) of the airfoil were obtained using computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) method based on the ANSYS-Fluent software. A maximum lift to drag ratio of 141.4 was found.
To have the overall distribution from –180° to 180°, an extrapolation of the polar coordinates was done using
Viterna method (Mahmuddin et al., 2017).

Blade aerodynamic shape

The chord and the twist angle distributions were determined using the SWRDC code. This code is based on the
work of an MSc project done at the University of Calgary and recorder for small-scale wind turbine rotors. Each
criterion is called an objective and is optimized by either minimizing or maximizing its objective function. The rotor
design is formulated as a weighted min–max problem
" #
fi ðxÞ  Zmin
Minimize maxqi= 1 Wi 3 max i
ð4Þ
Zi  Zmin i

Subject to x2S P
where q is the number of objectives, Wi are weights that satisfy Wi ø 0 and qi= 1 Wi = 1, fi (x) are the objective
functions, Zmax
i and Zmini are the maximum and the minimum objective values of the population in the current
iteration, and S is the feasible region (region where the constraints are satisfied).
SWRDC attempts to minimize the maximum value of the following vector
Tenghiri et al. 5

Table 2. Genetic algorithm parameters used for the blade design.

Parameter Value

Population size 104

Number of generations 100
Mutation index 20
Crossover type Simulated binary crossover (SBX)
Mutation probability 0.0555
Crossover probability 0.9

Figure 2. Chord and twist angle distribution of the small wind turbine blade.

Figure 3. Optimized blade geometry.

" #
Cp ðiÞ  Cmin
P Tst ðiÞ  Tmin
st mB ðiÞ  mmin
B
W1 max , W 2 , (1  W 1  W 2 ) max
ð5Þ
CP  Cmin P T max
st  T min
st m B  m min
B

For all the runs in this study, Table 2 summarizes the GA parameter values that have been used:
Through multiple iterations, the chord length and the twist angles are calculated and presented in Figure 2.
The chord at the blade root section (0.14 R) is around 0.376 m, and the twist angle varies from 22.23° at the
blade root to 0° at the blade tip.
As the root section of the rotor blades is usually designed to generate the required starting torque at low wind
speed conditions, the chord length at this blade location was defined using a linear relationship (3D loft) of the
chord lengths from the rectangular root section (0.085 R) to the active position at 14% of the blade length. This
smooth transition was performed by increasing gradually both the chord length and the thickness of the sections.
The final blade shape is shown in Figure 3.

Blade material and layup schedule

The blade material comprises E-glass fiber and epoxy resin. This is the most common composite material for wind
blades manufacturing because of its good strength to weight ratio (Etcheverry and Barbosa, 2012). For the
6 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Table 3. Mechanical properties of E-glass fiber.

E-glass fiber

Longitudinal modulus, E1f (GPa) 74.00

Transverse modulus, E2f (GPa) 74.00
Shear modulus, G12f (GPa) 30.00
Poisson ratio, n12f 0.22
Thermal expansion coefficient, CTE1f (m/m/c) 5.3 3 10–6
Tensile strength, sf (MPa) 1800
Compressive strength, scf (MPa) 1500
Shear strength, Sf (MPa) 60
Density, rf (kg/m3) 2500
Thermal conductivity coefficient, Kf1 (W/m/K) 1.28

Table 4. Mechanical properties of epoxy resin.

Epoxy resin

Young modulus, Em (GPa) 3.35

Shear modulus, Gm (GPa) 1.3
Poisson ratio, nm 0.35
Thermal expansion coefficient, CTEm (mm/m/°C) 45 3 10–6
Tensile strength, sm (MPa) 75
Compressive strength, scm (MPa) 102
Shear strength, Sm (MPa) 55
Density, rm (kg/m3) 1200
Thermal conductivity coefficient, Km (W/m/K) 0.2

polymer matrix, epoxy resin is the most common matrix in the wind energy industry. This is mainly because of its
good properties in terms of load-carrying ability and its resistance to environmental damage and degradation.
Besides, it has lesser shrinkage compared to its other counterparts, thus maintaining good dimensional tolerance
during curing (Ahmad and Izhar-ul-Haq, 2012). Tables 3 and 4 present the mechanical characteristics of the E-
glass fiber and epoxy resin that were adopted in the study.
In order to strengthen the blade structure and minimize the blade tip deflection under extreme wind conditions,
the blade root section and the blade shell thicknesses were made from E-glass fabrics diagonally oriented along the
blade span with some unidirectional plies to assist spar caps in flapwise bending. Layup thickness of the blade sec-
tions was modeled according to the layup schedule presented in Table 5 (Forcier et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2011).

Fiber volume fraction and mechanical characteristics

Composite mechanical properties (such as strength and stiffness) are mainly dependent on the fiber volume frac-
tion (Vf ). This is the amount of the fibers in the composite. The amount of fiber in the composite is largely gov-
erned by the used manufacturing process. For a typical vacuum infusion technique which was selected as the blade
manufacturing in this study, a theoretical maximum fiber volume fraction of 60% can be achieved (Mishnaevsky
et al., 2017). Vacuum infusion is a process that uses vacuum pressure to drive resin into a reinforcement package.
Dry fiber layers are positioned into the blade mold and vacuum is applied before resin is injected. When complete
vacuum is achieved, resin is completely aspirated into the laminate via designed placed tubes. By using this tech-
nique, the only required amount of resin is driven into the laminate and any excess will eventually be sucked out
into the resin trap via the vacuum line. This reduces weight, increases strength and stiffness, and generates a fin-
ished part with better mechanical properties (Mohd Yuhazri et al., 2010). Vacuum infusion results in a product
with high tensile properties with minimal voids in the finished laminates (Heckadka et al., 2015; Herrera et al.,
2019). It is a clean process as it requires neither brushes nor rollers, and therefore there is no spattering. Also, it
requires much lower tooling cost compared to other techniques (such as resin transfer molding (RTM)) because
one half of the tool is a vacuum bag. Compared to the hand lay-up technique, vacuum infusion has the advantage
Tenghiri et al. 7

Table 5. Layup schedule of the wind turbine blade.

Location (m) Shell layup Thickness (m) Spar-cap layup Thickness (m)

0–0.210 [(645)4/033/(645)4/033/(645)4]s 0.0780 Rectangular section

0.210–0.310 [(645)2/08/(645)2]s 0.0120 [(645)2/04/(645)2]s 0.0080
0.310–0.410 [(645)2/07/(645)2]s 0.0110 [(645)2/04/(645)2]s 0.0080
0.410–0.513 [(645)2/06/(645)2]s 0.0100 [(645)2/04/(645)2]s 0.0080
0.513–0.617 [(645)2/06/(645)2]s 0.0100 [(645)/04/(645)]s 0.0060
0.617–0.720 [(645)2/06/(645)2]s 0.0100 [(645)/04/(645)]s 0.0060
0.720–0.824 [(645)2/05/(645)2]s 0.0090 [(645)/04/(645)]s 0.0060
0.824–0.927 [(645)2/05/(645)2]s 0.0090 [(645)/03/(645))s 0.0050
0.927–1.031 [(645)2/05/(645)2]s 0.0090 [(645)/03/(645)]s 0.0050
1.031–1.134 [(645)2/04/(645)2]s 0.0080 [(645)/03/(645)]s 0.0050
1.134–1.238 [(645)2/04/(645)2]s 0.0080 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040
1.238–1.341 [(645)2/04/(645)2]s 0.0080 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040
1.341–1.444 [(645)2/03/(645)2]s 0.0070 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040
1.444–1.548 [(645)2/03/(645)2]s 0.0070 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040
1.548–1.651 [(645)2/03/(645)2]s 0.0070 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040
1.651–1.755 [(645)2/03/(645)2]s 0.0070 [(645)/01/(645)]s 0.0030
1.755–1.858 [(645)2/03/(645)2]s 0.0070 [(645)/01/(645)]s 0.0030
1.858–1.962 [(645)/03/(645)]s 0.0050 [(645)/01/(645)]s 0.0030
1.962–2.065 [(645)/03/(645)]s 0.0050 [(645)/01/(645)]s 0.0030
1.065–2.169 [(645)/03/(645)]s 0.0050 [(645)/01/(645)] 0.0015
2.169–2.272 [(645)/03/(645)]s 0.0050 [(645)/01/(645)] 0.0015
2.272–2.376 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040 [(645)/01/(645)] 0.0015
2.376–2.479 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040
2.479–2.582 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040
2.582–2.686 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040
2.686–2.789 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040
2.789–2.893 [(645)/02/(645)]s 0.0040
2.893–2.996 [(645)/01/(645)]s 0.0030
2.996–3.100 [(645)/01/(645)]s 0.0030
3.100–3.203 [(645)/01/(645)]s 0.0030
3.203–3.307 [(645)/01/(645)] 0.0015
3.307–3.410 [(645)/01/(645)] 0.0015

Table 6. Mechanical properties of the blade composite with unidirectional fibers.

E-glass/epoxy (Vf = 50%)

Longitudinal modulus, E11 (GPa) 38.67

Transverse modulus, E22 (GPa) 11.10
Shear modulus, G12 (GPa) 3.50
Poisson’s ratio, n12 0.28
Longitudinal tensile strength, s (MPa) 900
Longitudinal compressive strength, sc (MPa) 784
Shear strength, S (MPa) 44.1
Density, r (kg/m3) 1850

of being cost-effective as it requires less labor-intensive process which generates important savings on labor costs
(Mandri, 2016).
The nominal fiber volume fraction employed in this study is 50%. Experimental results show that the mechani-
cal properties were improved for typical volume fractions between 25% and 50% (Upendra Shah, 2013). To com-
pute the unidirectional blade mechanical properties, the Laminator software was used. This software is based on
the classical laminated plate theory and used to compute and analyze laminated composites properties. Table 6
summarizes the unidirectional properties of the E-glass/epoxy composite.
The ultimate tensile strength of the blade composite (different fiber orientations) was computed using the
Laminator software and a value of 215 MPa was obtained.
8 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Structural analysis of the blade

The IEC 61400-2 standard recommends three different methods for the determination of the design loads: loads
acquired from experimental measurements, loads obtained via aeroelastic simulations, and via the SLM. The SLM
combines straightforward, and possibly simplistic, equations for the main loads with high safety factors. As its
name implies, it is the simplest design methodology. However, SLM is associated with high safety factors and
increased conservatism (Evans et al., 2018). Also, it has been shown that SLM presents a barrier to small wind
developers which may risk over-designing components (Wood, 2009). The principle of SLM consists in dividing
the life cycle of a wind turbine into different design situations. SLM identifies the key ultimate and fatigue loads
that supposedly occur over the lifetime of a blade. The two load cases of interest in this study are load case A for
normal operation (fatigue analysis) and load case H for ultimate load analysis (extreme wind conditions).

Fatigue loads in normal operation (load case A)

The only load case that covers the fatigue behavior of the small wind turbines is the load case A for normal opera-
tion. The applied loads on the blades and that make up this load case are given as follows: the first load is the force
applied in the spanwise direction (direction of the blade)

FZB = 2mB Rcog O2design ð6Þ

where Rcog is the radial distance from the hub center to the blade center of gravity which is taken here as 0.974 m.
The parameter mB is the blade mass which is taken as 30.3 kg. The blade mass was computed using PreComp
code from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (Bir, 2005). This is a code that provides span-variant struc-
tural properties for composite blades. The parameter Odesign is the design rotational speed of the rotor.
The lead–lag (in the direction of rotation) and flapwise moment (in the direction of the wind; alternatively, out
of the plane of rotation) are calculated using the following equations

Qdesign
MxB = + 2mB gRcog ð7Þ
B
ldesign Qdesign
MyB = ð8Þ
B
where Qdesign is the design torque, ldesign is the design TSR, B is the number of the rotor blades, and g is the accel-
eration due to the gravity (m/s2).

Loads in extreme conditions (load case H)

The load case that covers the behavior of the small wind turbine blade under parked conditions (rotor not produc-
ing power) is load case H. According to SLM model, the loads are calculated using a wind speed of Ve50 which is
the 3-s 50-year extreme wind speed. The main loading on a stationary rotor is due to drag which is supposed
applied at the blade root.
Based on the load case H, the bending moment applied on the blade root under extreme wind conditions is given
by

1
MyB = Cd rU2 e50 Aproj, B R = 2393:02 N m ð9Þ
4
where Aproj, B is the projected area of the blade which is taken as 0.54 m2. Cd is the drag coefficient which is taken
as 1.5. r is the air density (1.225 kg/m3). Table 7 gives the computed forces and moments using FAST code and
SLM.

Blade stress level and safety factors

For a circular root section, the stress level of the fatigue cycles (or the equivalent stress for a combined bending
and axial load) is given by the following equation
Tenghiri et al. 9

Table 7. Loads on the rotor blades in normal and extreme wind conditions.

Normal wind conditions (Vdesign = 10.5 m/s) Extreme wind conditions

(Vdesign = 52.5 m/s)

Type of load SLM model FAST code SLM load case H

Spanwise force (KN) 19.14 15.7 –
Flapwise bending moment (N m) 889 986 2393.03
Edgewise bending moment (N m) 1865 2350 –

SLM: Simple Load Model.

Table 8. Partial safety factors for loads and material characterization.

Model Partial safety factors for loads (gf )

Fatigue loads Ultimate loads

SLM 1 3
Partial factors for material characterization (gm )
Fatigue loads Ultimate loads
Minimal characterization Full characterization Minimal characterization Full characterization
10 1.25 3 1.1

SLM: Simple Load Model.

seqB = szB + sMB ð10Þ

The axial stress due to the centrifugal load is given by

FzB
sZB = ð11Þ
AB
where AB is the cross-sectional area of the blade root which is taken as 0.0121 m2 (root diameter of 150 mm). The
bending stress sMB is given by
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
M2xB  M2yB
sMB = ð12Þ
WB
where WB is the blade section modulus which is ratio of the second moment of area of the root section to the dis-
tance from the centroid to the point of maximum stress. In order to assess the allowable stresses for various com-
ponents of a wind turbine, the standard IEC 61400-2 defines partial safety factors for both load cases (gf ) and
blade material (gm ). Table 8 gives the partial safety factors used for fatigue and ultimate load in the SLM.
The use of a full material characterization (low safety factors) has several requirements such that the blade prop-
erties have been obtained from materials and configurations representative of the final structure and the static and
the fatigue testing have been done with appropriate load spectrum and rate effects. Also, the material properties
must have been estimated with 95% probability at a 95% confidence level (IEC 61400-2, 2013). Full material char-
acterization requires deep knowledge of both the material properties and the manufacturing process. This is hard
to achieve, especially during the first stages of the design process. Therefore, minimal characterization was adopted
and partial safety factors of 9 and 10 were used for ultimate and fatigue loads, respectively.

Blade maximum stress assessment (load case H)

SLM model. For stress analysis, the ultimate strength, S0, of the blade material is 215 MPa. Therefore, the material
stress limit, sallowable, is given by:
10 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Table 9. Results of stress analysis using SLM model.

Load case H—parked wind loading

Stress limit (MPa) Calculated stress (MPa) Conclusion

Blades 65.15 30.26 SAFE

SLM: Simple Load Model.

Figure 4. Stress distribution on the blade structure.

S0
sallowable = ð13Þ
gf  gm

Using equations (12), the calculated stress is given as:

MyB
sMB = ð14Þ
WB

Table 9 summarizes the results for stress analysis.

The blade structure is safe against failure during extreme wind conditions. While the rotor blades seem to be safe
using SLM, there is a potential for over-design of the structure due to high safety factors. This would increase the
cost and the weight of the blades. To validate these results obtained, finite element analysis is required.

ANSYS. To validate the results obtained SLM, finite element method using ANSYS was conducted. The coordi-
nates of the airfoil, the chord and the twist distribution, and the thicknesses are imported to the 3D CAD Design
Software SOLIDWORKS. CFD approach was performed by simulating the airflow for a wind velocity of 52.5 m/
s ANSYS (same wind conditions as SLM). The pressure distribution was exported to the structural analysis model
in ANSYS to evaluate the maximum stress. Figure 4 shows the stress distribution on the blade structure (von-
Mises stress).
Tenghiri et al. 11

As the equations of the SLM model computes the stress in the blade root, a comparison of the maximum stress
from ANSYS (41.77 MPa) and SLM (30.26 MPa) shows that SLM model gives good results the stress on the blade
structure. Figure 4 shows that the maximum stress is distributed along the length of the blade where the spar cap
was integrated into the blade shell. This is not surprising given that the spar cap are the stiffest part of the blade
(suction and pressure sides) which is mainly used to withstand the extreme flap-wise bending moments on the blade
structure, and then to minimize the blade tip deflection. The use of spar caps and shear web in the blade structural
design allows increasing the stiffness of the blade without changing its shape.

Blade fatigue assessment

Fatigue analysis using SLM model
To evaluate the fatigue damage on a wind turbine structure, the IEC 61400-2 recommends the use of the Miner’s
law for cumulative damage. Based on this law, a component is supposed to be broken when the damage is unity.
The damage of a component is computed using the following equation (Sun et al., 2013):
X ni
Dm =   ð15Þ
i
Ncycle gf g m seqB

where ni is the number of cycles performed, Ncycle is the number of cycles to failure, gf is the partial safety factor
for the used load case, and g m is the partial safety factor for material characterization. The parameter between par-
entheses in the denominator is known as the associated stress level.
According to the SLM, there is a single bin ‘‘i’’ for which the number of fatigue cycles is given by

BOdesign Td
n= = 5:43109 ð16Þ
60
where Td is the design life of the wind turbine (20 years) in seconds. In order to determine the number of cycles to
failure (Ncycle ), the S-N curve characterization for composite materials (maximum stress versus cycles to failure)
was used. As discussed by many authors (Mao and Mahadevan, 2002; Vassilopoulos, 2010), the S-N behavior of
composite materials at a constant stress ratio RS (minimum stress over maximum stress) fits to an exponential rela-
tionship which is linear on a maximum stress versus log cycles to fail basis, yielding, for a static strength, S0 (ulti-
mate tensile strength).

S
= 1  b log Ncycle ð17Þ
S0

where S is the associated stress level, Ncycle is the number of cycles to failure, and b is the fatigue coefficient which is
the slope of the normalized S-N curve. A stress ratio of 0.1 was used as it simulates the turbine blades’ operational
conditions. This value would vary significantly between damage cycles. However, a value of 0.10 is sufficiently conser-
vative. The fatigue coefficient, b, varied significantly in tension. The best glass fiber composites have a value of b close
to 0.10, while the worst have a value close to 0.14. For laminates with epoxy resin, Germanischer Lloyd (GL) guideline
recommends using a value of 0.1 for the fatigue coefficient when no specific values are available. This value applies for
laminates with a fiber content of at least 30% and at most 55% by volume without further verification (Germanischer
Lloyd, 2010). Using equation (17), a number of cycles to failure of 108.26 cycles was found.
Based on Miner’s rule and taking into consideration an estimated design lifespan of 20 years, a cumulative the-
oretical fatigue damage of Dm = 29.7 was determined. As the damage factor is well above the assigned limit of
unity, the wind turbine blade would fail. Table 10 summarizes the results of the fatigue analysis using SLM model.
According to the SLM, the rotor blades will just stand for 246 days before breaking under cyclic loading. In
order to make the blade pass the fatigue analysis, two major modifications are needed. First, full material charac-
terization with low safety factors must be adopted and a minimum ultimate tensile strength of 260 MPa is required
for the blade material. Furthermore, a fatigue coefficient (that represents the fatigue resistance of the blade mate-
rial) of 0.09 must be adopted. However, the use of low safety factors (full characterization) requires a strong
knowledge of the blade material properties which is difficult to achieve in our design case. Besides, the best glass
fiber composites cannot have fatigue coefficients below 0.10 (Nijssen, 2006; Sutherland, 2000). Therefore, more
accurate approaches for fatigue damage assessment are required.
12 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Table 10. Results of fatigue prediction using SLM model.

Load case A—fatigue loads on the rotor blades

Fatigue damage limit Calculated damage (Dm) Conclusion

Blades 1.00 29.7 FAILURE

SLM: Simple Load Model.

Table 11. Blade mechanical properties as described in the PreComp preprocessor.

Mat. Id (-) E1 (GPa) E2 (GPa) G12 (GPa) n12 (-) Density (kg/m3) Mat. name (-)

1 38.68 11.1 3.5 0.28 1850 Unidirectional FRP

2 10.63 10.63 8.5 0.51 180 Double-bias FRP

FRP: fiber-reinforced plastic.

Fatigue analysis using FAST and MLife codes

Time-series data on fatigue loads. The most common tool that has been widely used to generate the time-series data
on the fatigue loads is the FAST code. This is a comprehensive aeroelastic simulator capable of predicting both
extreme and fatigue loads of HAWT. In 2005, FAST code was evaluated by the GL WindEnergie and found suit-
able for the calculation of onshore wind turbine loads for design and certification (Jonkman and Buhl, 2005). To
run the FAST code, five input files must be completed (more than 100 parameters). In the blade input file, the
blade geometry, the distributed blade properties, and the blade mode shapes are described. The distributed proper-
ties of the blade and the mode shapes were computed using PreComp and BModes codes. The blade mechanical
properties are given to the PreComp preprocessor using the unidirectional characteristics of the lamina as shown
in Table 11.
The AeroDyn input file includes all of the parameters related to the aerodynamics of the small wind turbine
such the wind data file with a full-field wind data in a binary form (using TurbSim code), the coordinates of the
used airfoils as well as the blade geometry.

Fatigue assessment using MLife code. Blade fatigue assessment was performed using MLife code from NREL. This is
a Matlab-based tool which is used to post-process results from wind turbine tests, aeroelastic, and dynamic simula-
tions. MLife gives as results the lifetime damage and the time until failure. As the time-series data derived from the
analytical simulations must be converted into cycle count matrices, the technique typically used in the wind turbine
industry is the rainflow counting algorithm (Marsh et al., 2016). This algorithm has demonstrated good agreement
with measured fatigue lives when compared to other counting algorithms.
MLife processes the random signals for fatigue analysis by characterizing the cycles by a load-mean and a range
and assumes linear accumulation of the damage with each of these cycles according to Miner’s rule (Palmgren and
Miner). The total damage from all cycles is given by
X n
Dm =  i  ð18Þ
i Ni LRF
i

where Ni denotes the number of cycles to failure, ni is the cycle count (number of fatigue cycle that the components
will experience), and LRF
i is the cycle’s load range about a fixed load-mean value. The relationship between load
range and cycles to failure (S-N curve) is modeled by
!m
Lult  LMF
Ni = 1 RF
ð19Þ
2 Li

where Lult is the ultimate design load of the component, LMF is the fixed load-mean, and the parameter m is the
Whöler exponent (the inverse of the fatigue coefficient, b). Typically, the ultimate design load is taken as the
Tenghiri et al. 13

Table 12. Reduction factors for material safety factor.

Reduction factor Designation Value

1
C1b = N m Curve of high-cycle fatigue for the load cycle number N and slope parameter m 1
C2b Temperature effect 1.1
C3b Effect of fiber orientation 1
C4b Post-cured laminate 1
C5b Partial safety factor for the blade trailing edge 1

maximum value of the load channel to be processed multiplied by a load factor (Freebury and Musial, 2000). The
time-series data of the aerodynamic loads on the blade are given in output files that contain many columns called
load channels. These load channels present the time variation of the aerodynamic loads (given in kilonewton) on
the blade root in different directions (flapwise, edgewise, or spanwise).
The ultimate loads are determined from the load channels at 15 m/s wind speed. The ultimate load is set to 8
times the maximum absolute load in the flapwise direction, 12 times the maximum absolute load in the edgewise
direction, and 3 times the maximum absolute load in the flapwise direction. The reason for this is that we need to
make sure that every load cycle is counted and binned. For fatigue verification, a partial safety factor of 1.48 was
used for the blade material. This typical value is recommended by GL guideline and was computed using equation
(20)
Y
gm = 1:35 Cib ð20Þ
i

where Cb represents the reduction factors that are given in Table 12.
Actually, the above formulations assume that the fatigue cycles occur over a constant, or fixed, load-mean.
However, the actual load cycles will occur over a spectrum of load-means. Therefore, a correction must be made
to the fatigue cycles’ load ranges to analyze the data as if each cycle occurred about a fixed mean load. This is
known as the Goodman correction that can be considered using the following equation (Hayman, 2012)
!
Lult  LMF
LRF
i = LR
i ð21Þ
Lult  LM
i

where LR M
i is the ith cycle’s range about a load-mean of Li .
To correctly estimate the total lifetime damage from the short input time series, the time-series damage-cycle
counts must be extrapolated over the whole design lifetime of the wind turbine. This can be done using an extra-
polation factor for each single time series.
This extrapolation factor is given by
(T v
d Apl
Vin \Vave ł Vout
flife
j =
Tl
Td pvl ð22Þ
Tl Otherwise

where A is the availability factor (how long the turbine will be operating), Vave is the average wind speed, Td is the
design lifetime period, Tl is the total elapsed time for all power production time series that have a mean wind speed
falling in bin l, flife v
j is the extrapolation factor for the time series j, and pl is the probability of the wind speed falling
into bin l.
Therefore, the extrapolated cycle counts for one time series over the design lifetime are given by
life
nlife
ji = fj  nij ð23Þ

where nij is the ith cycle count for time series j. Therefore, the lifetime damage that will be accumulated for all
cycles and time series is given by
14 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Table 13. Parameters of the wind speed distribution.

Parameter Unit Value

Mean wind speed m/s 6.4

Rayleigh shape factor – 2.0
Cut-in wind speed m/s 3.0
Cut-out wind speed m/s 16
Maximum wind speed m/s 24

Table 14. Results of FAST and MLife codes simulation.

Lifetime period (s): 6.31E + 008

Lifetime damage

nlife =2.32E + 9 Flapwise Edgewise Spanwise

b (1/m) = 0.1
LUlt (kN) 2.31E + 001 9.88E + 000 4.95E + 001
Dm 2.79E2006 2.12E2005 4.47E2001

Time until failure

Tfail (s) 2.26E + 014 2.98E + 013 1.41E + 009

Bold values signifies the main results from the analysis.

X X nlife
ji
Dlife
m = ð24Þ
j i
Nji

In addition to calculating the damage over a design lifetime, MLife computes the time until failure. Since failure
occurs when damage equals one, the time until failure, Tfail , is simply the ratio of the design lifetime over the accu-
mulated damage

Td
Tfail = ð25Þ
Dlife
m

Using the Rayleigh probability density function (IEC 61400-2, 2013), Table 13 gives the wind speed characteristics
at a hub height of 24 m above the ground level. This is the height at which the wind turbine rotor will be installed.
The Rayleigh parameters were computed using wind data of the site where the wind turbine system will be
installed.
Using five different time series which are generated with 10 min (690 s) simulations per 1 m/s wind speed bin
from the cut-in wind speed to the cut-out wind speed (mean wind speeds of each time series: 3.55, 6.035, 8.35,
10.57, and 12.57 m/s), the results of the analysis of fatigue loads on the blade structure are given in Table 14.
The 10-min time series were used because minimal cyclic variation in wind speed is found within periods of 10 min
to 1 h.
As can be seen, the accumulated damage over the lifetime of the wind turbine is lower than unity. Therefore,
with respect to the main blade directions (flapwise, edgewise, and Z-direction), the small wind blades seem to be
safe against fatigue. Results show also that SLM overestimates the number of fatigue cycles as FAST-MLife codes
computed the fatigue damage with only 2.32E + 9 cycles over the lifetime of the blades instead of 5.43E + 9 cycles
from SLM.

Fatigue analysis using ANSYS

To make sure of the damage ratios generated by FAST and MLife codes, verification was carried out using nCode
DesignLife composite of ANSYS. This tool combines the calculated stresses together with specific fatigue proper-
ties to generate fatigue hotspots and life damage ratios. Fatigue damage prediction is generally done in one
Tenghiri et al. 15

Table 15. Results of fatigue analysis using nCode DesignLife module.

Load direction Damage ratio (Dm)

Flapwise direction 1.73 E206

Edgewise direction 1.38 E205
Spanwise direction 0.2747

Table 16. Results of fatigue analysis from SLM, FAST and MLife, and ANSYS.

Damage ratio (Dm)

Load direction SLM FAST-MLife codes ANSYS nCode DesignLife

Flapwise direction 29.7 (all the directions combined) 2.79E2006 1.73 E206
Edgewise direction 2.12E2005 1.38 E205
Spanwise direction 0.447 0.274

SLM: Simple Load Model.

direction; however, in the case of the blade wind turbine, the loads are expressed in multi-axial directions. In order
to have accurate results, this necessitates multi-axial correction which is embedded in nCode DesignLife using the
strain-life approach. This approach is commonly used in situations where local plasticity may occur. The main
mechanical characteristics that are required for the analysis are: ratio of test, volume fraction, fatigue cut-off,
Standard error of Log N, ultimate tensile strength (of laminate) and fiber share. The macro-mechanical behavior
of the laminate is defined by a global orientation tensor which corresponds to a homogeneous material having the
same mechanical characteristics as laminates. The load spectrum, as a function of time, was imported from the
time-series files that were generated using the FAST code. These loads were computed for a range of wind speeds
between the cut-in wind speed (3 m/s) to the cut-out wind speed of (15 m/s). Fatigue damage was computed in
MLife and nCode DesignLife composite using the same time-series file from FAST code. Table 15 summarizes the
results using nCode DesignLife composite.
The fatigue damage is very small following the flapwise and edgewise direction. A damage factor of 0.27 was
found in the spanwise direction. This is not surprising given that the cyclic loads in this direction are very high in
comparison with the other loading directions. Therefore, the rotor blades are safe against fatigue during a design
lifetime of 20 years.

Discussion
Stress and fatigue analysis of 11-kW small wind blades was conducted using SLM model from IEC-61400-2,
ANSYS software, and FAST-MLife codes. The blades pass easily the stress analysis under extreme wind condi-
tions. The results of stress analysis in the blade root were obtained using SLM model and ANSYS. Stress analysis
revealed that SLM model gives reliable results of the loads on the blade structure. Table 16 summarizes the results
of the three approaches.
The fatigue assessment using SLM model shows that the blade will fail before attaining its design lifetime of
20 years (246 days only). In order to make wind turbine blade pass the fatigue analysis in the SLM model, three
modifications must be completed. The first modification consists in minimizing the safety factors of fatigue loads
and the blade material, that is, passing from 10 to 1.25 for fatigue load and 9 to 1.1 for blade material safety fac-
tors, respectively. This corresponds to a full characterization which is difficult to be fulfilled at an early stage of
the design process. The second modification consists in strengthening the blade structure (adding more fabric
layers which makes the structure heavy and expensive) in order to increase the ultimate tensile strength of the
blade. The minimum value of the ultimate tensile strength that makes the turbine blade passes the fatigue analysis
is 260 MPa by considering a full mechanical characterization. This corresponds to a cumulative damage factor of
Dm = 0.939. The last modification consists in lowering the blade fatigue coefficient from 0.1 to 0.09. This is very
difficult to achieve since best E-glass/Epoxy composite materials have a fatigue coefficient of 0.1.
16 Wind Engineering 00(0)

To validate the fatigue analysis of the blades, full computational process is necessary. The cumulative damage
on the rotor blades, over an extrapolated lifetime of 20 years, was estimated using both FAST-MLife codes and
nCode DesignLife composite of ANSYS. Identical time-series data on the aerodynamic loads applied on the tur-
bine blades were used. The results show that the small wind blades are safe against fatigue.
The SLM model is a good starting point as it combines straightforward, and possibly simplistic, equations for
the main loads with high safety factors. However, more accurate models for the fatigue analysis of small wind tur-
bine structure should be used. This type of models will allow more accurate computer modeling of different loads
on the turbine in response to stochastic inputs in normal operation conditions.

Conclusion
A structural design and analysis of a small wind turbine blade was conducted using SLM, FAST-MLife codes and
ANSYS software. The optimum blade geometry was performed using GA (SWRDC code). The turbine blade was
optimally design to operate at a single tip-speed ratio between cut-in wind speed (3 m/s) and rated wind speed
(10.5 m/s). The blade fails the fatigue analysis with SLM but passes the stress analysis with a significant difference
between the blade stress limit and the calculated stress. Stress analysis using ANSYS shows that SLM gives good
results of stress on the blade over the different load scenarios. To make the blade safe against fatigue using SLM,
the blade structure must be reinforced and the safety factors must be lowered. This would result in a heavy struc-
ture which would affect the cost-effectiveness of the wind turbine. Fatigue analysis performed by ANSYS software
and FAST-MLife codes revealed that the blade structure passes the fatigue analysis. These results lead to the con-
clusion that SLM model from IEC 61400-2 is a good starting point for an improved design of wind turbine blade.
The failure of the rotor blades to pass fatigue analysis using SLM is due mainly to three reasons. The first reason
is related to the rough approximation used by SLM and which consists in using one single bin (equation (16)) to
compute the number of fatigue cycles, ni. This calculation method leads to an overestimation of the number of
fatigue cycles with a difference of 3.1E + 9 cycles compared to the results obtained from FAST-MLife code. The
second reason concerns the forces and moments on the blade during normal operation (load case A). The associ-
ated stress level, that is used to calculate the fatigue damage factor in equation (15), was determined based on the
assumption that the wind speed during normal operation has a constant value of 10.5 m/s. The use of such a rela-
tively high wind speed leads to an overestimate of the centrifugal loads and the bending moments on the blade dur-
ing normal conditions. The third reason concerns the high safety factors that are imposed by IEC 61400-2 when
full material characterization cannot be achieved, especially during early stages of the design process. This usually
leads to heavy structure and affects the cost of the final blade design.
This article suggests a revision of both the design parameters (such as the design wind speed and the design tor-
que for fatigue loads) and the partial safety factors for material characterization when the requirements of full
characterization cannot be fulfilled. Finally, simple and reliable aeroelastic models are still needed to accurately
compute the fatigue damage on the rotor blades during the design process of wind turbine systems.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
This work was supported by the Research Institute for Solar Energy and New Energies-IRESEN (InnoWind-2013 wind turbine.
Available at: https://iresen-aap.org/page/nos-projets-innovants).

ORCID iD
Anas Bentamy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7711-3183
Tenghiri et al. 17

References
Ahmad S and Izhar-ul-Haq (2012) Wind blade material optimization. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 2(4): 48–57.
Bir GS (2005) User’s guide to PreComp (Pre-processor for computing composite blade properties). Technical report, NREL,
Golden, CO, January.
Campobasso MS, Minisci E and Caboni M (2016) Aerodynamic design optimization of wind turbine rotors under geometric
uncertainty. Wind Energy 19: 51–65.
Etcheverry M and Barbosa SE (2012) Glass fiber reinforced polypropylene mechanical properties enhancement by adhesion
improvement. Materials 5: 1084–1113.
Evans SP, Bradney DR and Clausen PD (2018) Assessing the IEC simplified fatigue load equations for small wind turbine
blades: How simple is too simple? Renewable Energy 127: 24–31.
Forcier LC, Sumner J, Gagnon T, et al. (2013) Structural design and validation of a 10 kW wind turbine blade. In: Proceedings
of the 19th international conference on composite materials (ICCM19), Montreal, QC, Canada, July 28–August 2, pp. 1–9.
Available at: http://confsys.encs.concordia.ca/ICCM19/AllPapers/FinalVersion/FOR80520.pdf
Freebury G and Musial W (2000) Determining equivalent damage loading for full-scale wind turbine blade fatigue tests. In:
Proceedings of the 19th American society of mechanical engineers (ASME) wind energy symposium, Reno, NV, 10–13 Janu-
ary, pp. 1–12. Golden, CO: NREL.
Germanischer Lloyd (2010) Guideline for the Certification of Wind Turbines. Germanischer Lloyd Industrial Services GmbH,
Hamburg, Germany.
xmen T and Özerdem B (2012) Airfoil optimization for noise emission problem and aerodynamic performance criterion on
Göc
small scale wind turbines. Energy 46: 62–71.
Hayman GJ (2012) MLife Theory Manual for Version 1.00 (Technical report). Golden, CO: NREL.
Heckadka SS, Nayak SY, Narang K, et al. (2015) Chopped strand/plain weave E-glass as reinforcement in vacuum bagged
epoxy composites. Journal of Materials 2015: 957043.
Herrera C, Correa M, Villada V, et al. (2019) Structural design and manufacturing process of a low scale bio-inspired wind tur-
bine blades. Composite Structures 208: 1–12.
IEC 61400-2 (2013) Wind turbines-Part 2: Requirements for small wind turbines. Available at: https://infostore.saiglobal.com/
preview/98703825051.pdf?sku=865246_SAIG_NSAI_NSAI_2057927
Jonkman JM and Buhl ML Jr (2005) FAST User’s Guide (Technical report). Golden, CO: NREL.
Khalil Y, Tenghiri L, Abdi F, et al. (2019) Improvement of aerodynamic performance of a small wind turbine. Wind Engineer-
ing. Epub ahead of print 23 May. DOI: 10.1177/0309524X19849847.
Leloudas G (2006) Optimization of wind turbines with respect to noise. Master’s Thesis, Technical University of Denmark,
Lyngby.
Liu S and Janajreh I (2012) Development and application of an improved blade element momentum method model on horizon-
tal axis wind turbines. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering 3(30): 1–10.
Maalawi KY and Negm HM (2002) Optimal frequency design of wind turbine blades. Journal of Wind Engineering and Indus-
trial Aerodynamics 90: 961–986.
Mahmuddin F, Klaraa S, Sitepua H, et al. (2017) Airfoil lift and drag extrapolation with Viterna and Montgomerie methods.
In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on applied energy (ICAE2016), Beijing, China, 8 October, pp. 811–816.
Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, Inc.
Mandri G (2016) Blade Manufacturing of Small Wind Turbine within the Moroccan Context (Capstone design report). Ifrane,
Morocco: Al Akhawayn University.
Mao H and Mahadevan S (2002) Fatigue damage modelling of composite materials. Composite Structures 58: 405–410.
Marsh G, Wignall C, Thies PR, et al. (2016) Review and application of Rainflow residue processing techniques for accurate fati-
gue damage estimation. International Journal of Fatigue 82: 757–765.
McTavish S, Feszty D and Nitzsche F (2013) Evaluating Reynolds number effects in small-scale wind turbine experiments.
Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 120: 81–90.
Mishnaevsky L Jr, Branner K and Petersen HN (2017) Materials for wind turbine blades: An overview. Materials 10(1285):
1–24.
Mohd Yuhazri Y, Phongsakorn PT and Sihombing H (2010) A comparison process between vacuum infusion and hand lay-up
method toward Kenaf/Polyester composite. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 10(3): 54–57.
Mollasalehi E, Sun Q and Wood D (2013) Contribution of small wind turbine structural vibration to noise emission. Energies 6:
3669–3691.
Nijssen R (2006) Fatigue Life Prediction and Strength Degradation of Wind Turbine Rotor Blade Composites. Delft: Delft Uni-
versity of Technology.
Pourrajabian A, Dehghanb M, Javed A, et al. (2019) Choosing an appropriate timber for a small wind turbine blade: A com-
parative study. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 100: 1–8.
Schubel PJ and Crossley RJ (2012) Wind turbine blade design. Energies 5: 3425–3449.
Sessarego M and Wood DH (2015) Multi-dimensional optimization of small wind turbine blades. Renewables: Wind, Water,
and Solar 2: 1–11.
18 Wind Engineering 00(0)

Singh VK, Thomas TT and Warudkar V (2013) Structural design of a wind turbine blade: A review. International Journal of
ChemTech Research 5(5): 2443–2448.
Selig MS and Coverstone-Carroll VL (1996) Application of a genetic algorithm to wind turbine design. Journal of Energy
Resources Technology 118(1): 22–28.
Sun Q, Dui H and Fan X (2013) A statistically consistent fatigue damage model based on Miner’s rule. International Journal of
Fatigue 69: 16–21.
Sutherland HJ (2000) A summary of the fatigue properties of wind turbine materials. Wind Energy 3: 1–34.
Tang X, Peng R, Lui X, et al. (2011) Design and finite element analysis of mixed aerofoil wind turbine blades. In: Proceedings
of the 7th PhD seminar on wind energy in Europe, 27–28 October, pp. 1–9. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
The Laminator (2018) Classical Analysis of Composite Laminates. Available at http://www.thelaminator.net (accessed 10 July
2018).
Upendra Shah D (2013) Characterization and optimization of the mechanical performance of the plant fibre composites for struc-
tural applications. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham.
Vassilopoulos AP (2010) Fatigue Life Prediction of Composites and Composite Structures. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing
Limited.
Wood DH (2004) Dual purpose design of small wind turbine blades. Wind Engineering 28(5): 511–528.
Wood DH (2009) Using the IEC simple load model for small wind turbines. Wind Engineering 33(2): 139–154.
Wood DH (2011) Small Wind Turbines Analysis, Design, and Application. New York: Springer-Verlag London Limited.
Zhu J, Cai X and Gu R (2017) Multi-objective aerodynamic and structural optimization of horizontal-AxisWind turbine
blades. Energies 10: 101–118.

View publication stats