energies
Article
Performance Analysis of Ultra-Scale Downwind Wind Turbine
Based on Rotor Cone Angle Control
Zhen Li 1 , Bofeng Xu 1, *, Xiang Shen 2 , Hang Xiao 3 , Zhiqiang Hu 4 and Xin Cai 5
Citation: Li, Z.; Xu, B.; Shen, X.; Xiao,
H.; Hu, Z.; Cai, X. Performance
Analysis of Ultra-Scale Downwind
Wind Turbine Based on Rotor Cone
Angle Control. Energies 2022, 15, 6830.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186830
Academic Editors: Francesco
Castellani and Davide Astolfi
Received: 5 August 2022
Accepted: 15 September 2022
Published: 18 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 6830. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15186830
1 Research Center for Renewable Energy Generation Engineering of Ministry of Education, Hohai University,
Nanjing 211100, China
2 Department of Mechanical and Construction Engineering, Northumbria University,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
3 China State Shipbuilding Corporation Haizhuang Windpower Co., Ltd., Chongqing 401123, China
4 School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
5 Structural Engineering Research Center of Jiangsu Province Wind Turbine, Hohai University,
Nanjing 211100, China
* Correspondence: xubofeng@hhu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-136-2159-1448
Abstract: The theoretical feasibility of the power output strategy based on rotor cone angle control for
ultra-scale downwind wind turbines is studied in this paper via the Open FAST simulation platform.
The performance of five cases, namely UW, DW, DWC, DW6, and DW6IC, which have different
rotor parameters or control strategies compared with the reference DTU 10 MW wind turbine, are
calculated and analyzed. It is found that the downwind rotors have significant advantages in reducing
the blade root load. The DW case reduces the peak load at the blade root by 22.54% at the cost of
1.57% annual energy production loss. By extending the length and redesigning the stiffness of the
blade, the DW6 case achieves 14.82% reduction in the peak load at the blade root and 1.67% increase
in the annual energy production under the same blade weight as that of the UW. The DWC case with
rotor cone angle control has the same aerodynamic performance as the DW case with the same blade
parameters. However, when the wind speed achieves or exceeds the rated speed, the blade root load
decreases at a greater rate with the increasing wind speeds, and achieves minimum load with a wind
speed of 16 m/s. Compared with the UW case, the DW6IC case with the improved rotor cone angle
control reduces the peak load of the blade root by 22.54%, leading to an increase in annual energy
production by 1.12% accordingly.
Keywords: wind turbine; downwind rotor; rotor cone angle control; performance analysis
1. Introduction
Global wind power is gradually achieving grid parity. In pursuit of lower electricity
costs, both the single capacity of wind turbines and the blade length have been increasing.
However, the blade design may reach a maximum size which will fail in an extreme wind
regime. Thus, there are new development opportunities in downwind wind turbines
(DWTs) [1,2]. Although the downwind rotor will be affected by the tower shadow on
aerodynamics and aeroacoustics [3–5], there is no need to worry about the interference
between the blades and the tower. Theoretically, the DWT’s size can keep increasing.
In addition, the downwind rotor can also reduce the blade root load by adjusting the
cone angle, and by pre-bending and blade stiffness, while the blade can be lighter and
more flexible, which reduces the electricity costs [6–10]. Therefore, DWTs may be more
competitive in ultra-scale wind turbines.
As for the aerodynamic performance of ultra-scale DWTs, Kress et al. [11–15] proved
by CFD simulation and Hitachi 2MW wind turbine scale model tunnel experiments that
DWTs have better aerodynamics that include higher power output and better yaw stability
than the upwind wind turbines (UWTs), under the same conditions. In sites characterized
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 11

Energies 2022, 15, 6830 DWTs have better aerodynamics that include higher power output and better yaw stabil- 2 of 11
ity than the upwind wind turbines (UWTs), under the same conditions. In sites character-
ized by upflow angles, the DWT with proper cone angle is more suitable than UWT. How-
ever, the maximum
by upflow angles, the value
DWT of with
the rotor
proper thrust
coneand theisaerodynamic
angle more suitable performance
than UWT. of DWTs
However,
are
thealso more fluctuating.
maximum value of the Larwood [16] and
rotor thrust andAnderson
the aerodynamic[17] further demonstrated
performance that the
of DWTs are
nacelle
also more blockage effect leads
fluctuating. to better
Larwood [16]aerodynamic
and Anderson performance
[17] further of DWTs via NRELthat
demonstrated Phasethe
VI tunnel
nacelle experiments
blockage and CFD
effect leads simulations.
to better aerodynamic However,
performanceWang of [18] concluded
DWTs via NREL thatPhase
the
DWT has higher
VI tunnel experimentsfluctuating
and CFD load and lower However,
simulations. power output Wangthan[18] UWTs.
concluded Multiple
that thepapers
DWT
in
hasthe literature
higher have obtained
fluctuating load anddifferent
lower power studyoutput
conclusions,
than UWTs.so theMultiple
aerodynamicpapers perfor-
in the
mance
literatureof ultra-scale
have obtained DWTs needs to
different be further
study studied.
conclusions, so the aerodynamic performance of
ultra-scale
Based DWTs on theneeds to be further
aerodynamic studied. of DWTs, the traditional pitch control
characteristics
method Based on the aerodynamic
of regulating the powercharacteristics
output and blade of DWTs,
loadthe traditional
of wind turbinespitch control
has somemethod
disad-
of regulating
vantages. the power
To reduce output
the load on and
DWTs, blade load of wind
Rasmussen [19] turbines has some
et al. designed the disadvantages.
passive varia-
To reduce
ble rotor cone the load
anglesondownwind
DWTs, Rasmussenrotor with [19]hinge
et al. designed
structure the for passive
megawatt variable
wind rotor cone
turbines,
angles downwind rotor with hinge structure for megawatt wind
according to the bionic principle. With the increase of the rotor load, the rotor cone angles turbines, according to the
bionic principle. With the increase of the rotor load, the rotor cone
increase, and the rotor load decreases by 25% to 50%. In recent years, Loth et al. [20–24] angles increase, and the
rotoradvantage
took load decreases of theby 25% to 50%. of
characteristics In palm
recenttrees
years,to Loth
resistetaerodynamic
al. [20–24] took advantage
loads. They the- of
the characteristics
oretically performed of the
palm trees and
design to resist aerodynamic
verification of theloads.
downwind They theoretically
variable coneperformed
angle ro-
theon
tor design and verification
ultra-scale wind turbines. of the downwind
In addition, theyvariable cone designed
theoretically angle rotor andonverified
ultra-scale
the
wind turbines. In addition, they theoretically designed and
variable cone angle structure on the ultra-scale DWTs. To reduce the fluctuating load of verified the variable cone
angle structure
downwind rotors,onNoyes
the ultra-scale DWTs. To
[22,23] proposed reducestrategy
a control the fluctuating
of couplingloadtheof cone
downwind
angle
and the pitch control system. Hoghooghi [25,26] improved a sine/cosine pitchthe
rotors, Noyes [22,23] proposed a control strategy of coupling the cone angle and pitch
control
control system. Hoghooghi [25,26] improved a sine/cosine
strategy based on independent pitch. They both improve the power output and yaw sta- pitch control strategy based
on independent
bility and reduce pitch. They bothloads
the fluctuating improve
on DWTs.the power output and
The coupled yawsystem
control stability and reduce
is more com-
the fluctuating loads on DWTs. The coupled control system
plex and may increase the failure rate of DWTs. Flexible blades will generate opposite is more complex and may
increase the failure rate of DWTs. Flexible blades will generate
thrust during emergency braking, which increases the risk of the blade striking the tower opposite thrust during
emergency
[1]. Based onbraking,
these, the which
rotorincreases
cone angle thecontrol
risk ofstrategy
the blade forstriking
DWTs needs the tower
more[1]. Based
research
on these, the rotor cone
to provide references for designers.angle control strategy for DWTs needs more research to provide
references for designers.
This study will propose a new rotor cone angle control strategy for controlling the
This study will propose a new rotor cone angle control strategy for controlling the
power output of ultra-scale DWTs. The cone angle control replaces the traditional pitch
power output of ultra-scale DWTs. The cone angle control replaces the traditional pitch
control when the DWT operates above the rated wind speed, as shown in Figure 1. The
control when the DWT operates above the rated wind speed, as shown in Figure 1. The
comprehensive comparisons of the output power and the blade root loads with/without
comprehensive comparisons of the output power and the blade root loads with/without
rotor cone angle control of different cases will be made to reveal the influence mechanism
rotor cone angle control of different cases will be made to reveal the influence mechanism
of the rotor cone angle control on the aerodynamic efficiency and load of DWTs.
of the rotor cone angle control on the aerodynamic efficiency and load of DWTs.

Coning
control

Pitching
control
wind

Schematicof
Figure1.1.Schematic
Figure ofpitching
pitchingcontrol
controland
andconing
coningcontrol.
control.
Energies 2022, 15, 6830 3 of 11

2. Reference Wind Turbine and Simulation Tool

2.1. Reference Wind Turbine
The DTU 10 MW reference wind turbine is a UWT with variable speed and pitch
control. Its main parameters are shown in Table 1, and the detailed parameters can be
found in Ref [27].

Table 1. Main parameters of the DTU 10 MW wind turbine.

Param. * Value Param. Value

Prated (MW) 10 B 3
Drotor (m) 178.3 Rhub (m) 2.8
γ (◦ ) 2.5 T (◦ ) 5
V rated (m/s) 11.4 Ωrated (rpm) 9.6
V in (m/s) 4 V out (m/s) 25
* Nomenclature in Table 1: Prated is the wind turbine rated power, B is the number of blades, Drotor is the rotor
diameter, Rhub is the hub radius, γ is the rotor cone angle, T is the tilt angle, V rated is the rated wind speed, Ωrated
is the rotor rated rotational speed, V in is the cut-in wind speed, and V out is the cut-out wind speed.

The DTU 10 MW wind turbine class is IEC Class IA. This study uses the wind resource
data in Table 2 to calculate the annual energy production (AEP) of the wind turbine.

Table 2. Basic parameters of wind resource at the site.

Param. Value Param. Value

Weibull scale parameter 11.60 Average wind velocity (m/s) 10.10
Weibull shape parameter 2.11 Average wind power density (W/m2 ) 1125

In Table 2, Weibull scale parameter and Weibull shape parameter determine the
probability density distribution of the hourly mean wind speed at the site. As the Weibull
shape parameter increases, the variation range of the hourly average wind speed decreases
when Weibull scale parameter is a constant value. As the Weibull scale parameter increases,
the variation range of the hourly average wind speed increases when Weibull shape
parameter is a constant value.
The DTU 10 MW wind turbine (referred to as UW) is considered as the baseline model.
To study the influence of the rotor cone angle control on the aerodynamic performance
of the large-scale downwind wind turbines, four cases are derived by improving the
benchmark UW’s rotor parameters and control strategy:
1. DW: downwind rotor with the same aerodynamic shape and structural parameters as
UW’s blade and the same control strategy as UW’s rotor.
2. DWC: same rotor as the DW, but replacing pitch control with rotor cone angle control.
3. DW6: applying DW’s control strategy. The blade length and chord length are increased
by 6%. The mass and stiffness distributions of the blade are redesigned separately to
make the weight of the DW6 blades equal to those in UW cases.
4. DW6IC: same rotor as the DW6, but replacing pitch control with improved rotor cone
angle control, which is described in Section 3.4.
The blade is upscaled with the form of N = N0 ·η k , where N is the blade scaling
parameter (such as mass, stiffness), N0 is the initial blade scaling parameter (such as initial
mass, initial stiffness), η is the scaling factor (η = 1.06), and k is a power law factor that
depends on the parameter to be scaled (kmass = 2.1, kstiffness = 4.5) [24]. The blade weights
of the DW6 and DW6IC are equal to UWs so as not to increase the cost of the blades.
Consequently, the mass-per-unit-length of the DW6 and DW6IC is 0.943 times that of UW,
and both flapwise and edgewise stiffness-per-unit-length are 1.085 times that of UW. In
addition, due to the fact that DW6 and DW6IC are geometrically scaled from UW, and they
have the same rotor solidity and the same optimal tip speed ratio, the UW’s controller in
Energies 2022, 15, 6830 4 of 11

the region of tracking the optimal tip speed ratio is still applicable to the DW6 and DW6IC
models [28].
The performance analysis and objectives of the comparison are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Pairwise comparison of these five simulation cases.

Model Comparison Performance Analysis * Objective

UW vs. DW P/Mxy /RtArea/β Influence of the downwind rotor on the wind turbines
UW vs. DW6 P/Mxy /RtArea/Def Performance of DWT with extended blades
DW vs. DWC P/Mxy /β/γ Feasibility of downwind rotor cone angle control
DWC vs. DW6IC P/Mxy /RtArea/γ Performance of DWT improved downwind rotor cone angle control
* Nomenclature in Table 3: P is the wind turbine output power, Mxy is the blade root resultant moment of flapping
moment My and edgewise moment Mx , RtArea is the rotor swept area, β is the pitch angle, and Def is the blade
tip deflection.

2.2. Simulation Tool

The primary simulation tool used in this study is Open FAST v2.4.0. Open FAST wind
turbine co-simulation platform has been developed by the NREL. It is the framework that
couples computational modules for aerodynamics, hydrodynamics for offshore structures,
control and electrical system (servo) dynamics, and structural dynamics to simulate wind
turbine configurations with upwind or downwind rotor. In 2005, GL (Germanischer Lloyd,
Hamburg, Germany), one of the leading certification organizations in the wind energy area,
issued FAST with a certification on its load calculation of onshore wind turbines [29].
The classic Blade Element Momentum Theory is used in the AeroDyn v15 module to
determine the aerodynamic loads exerted on the blade. The simulation considers blade
tip loss, hub loss, and three-dimensional rotation effect correction and couples the wind
turbine tower shadow effect. As for the structural dynamics, the ElastoDyn module uses
Linear Euler–Bernoulli Beam Theory (LBT module models the blades as straight, isotropic
beams with limited geometric nonlinearities and only flapwise and edgewise bending
deflections) and the assumed modes discretization method. The degree of freedom of the
blade is opened, while that of the tower is closed.
Since the schedule of the active rotor cone angle control is not determined, the traversal
method is used to complete the simulation calculation when the rotor cone angle control is
simulated, and the pitch control in the Servodyn module is turned off. The performance
of DWTs is simulated in the operating wind speeds from 4 m/s to 25 m/s. At each given
wind speed, each case is simulated for a large number of operating conditions to find the
suitable rotor cone angle from the initial value 2.5◦ with 0.01◦ bins, and the corresponding
aerodynamic performance and blade load are obtained.
The simulation time is set to 200 s, the simulation time step is set to 0.005 s, and the
stable simulation results of the last 100 s are considered.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Comparison of Downwind and Upwind Rotors
To study the influence of the downwind rotor on the aerodynamic performance of
the wind turbine, the performances of the DW and UW are simulated in the steady-state
operating conditions. The obtained results are shown in Figure 2.
It can be seen from Figure 2a that the power output of the DW is smaller than that of
the UW when the operating wind speed is lower than the rated wind speed, due to the
negative influence of the tower shadow and the reduction of the rotor swept area. The
maximum power loss is 4.1% and annual energy production loss is 1.57%. The swept area
of the downwind rotor is mainly affected by the structure of the rotor. As shown in Figure 3,
the blade bends in downwind due to the flapping load, and the flapping load of the blade is
affected by the pitch control, which increases first and then decreases, resulting in the swept
area of the downwind rotor first decreasing and then increasing, as shown in Figure 2b.
However, the upwind rotor has the opposite result. It can be observed from Figure 2c that
 Energies 2022, 15, 6830 5 of 11

the peak load at the blade root of the DW is reduced by 22.54%. This is because the rotor
cone angles make the DW’s rotor reduce the angle between the blade net force and the blade
axis, as shown in Figure 3. The blade flapping load is Fx = Fcos(θ − γ) in UWTs, while the
blade flapping load is Fx = Fcos(θ + γ) in DWTs. Generally, 0 < θ − γ < θ + γ < π2 , so
the peak load at the blade root of the DWT is less than that of the UWT. In addition, the
DW case has a smaller rotor swept area (cf. Figure 2b). To ensure the same rated power
output of the DW and UW case when operating at an over-rated wind speed, the DW case
must have better aerodynamic performance than the UW case. Therefore, the pitch angle
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 11
of the DW is slightly smaller than that of the UW at the same wind speed when operating
at an over-rated wind speed, as shown in Figure 2d.

2.5x104
1.0x104
2.5x104
8.0x103
2.5x104

RtArea/m2
6.0x103
P/kW

4.0x103 2.5x104
UW
UW 2.4x104
2.0x103 DW
DW
0.0 2.4x104
4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25
v/(m/s) v/(m/s)

(a) (b)

3.0x104
UW 20
2.5x104
DW
Mxy/kN·m

2.0x104
β/deg

10
1.5x104
UW
1.0x104
DW
5.0x10 3 0

0.0
5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
v/(m/s) v/(m/s)

(c) (d)
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW (a) Output 6 of 11
Figure 2.curves.
Figure 2. (a) Output power (b) power curves. area
Rotor swept (b) Rotor swept(c)
curves. area curves.of(c)blade
Loads Loadsroot
of blade root curves.
curves.
(d) Pitch angle curves.
(d) Pitch angle curves.
It can be seen from Figure 2a that the power output of the DW is smaller than that of
the UW when the operating wind speed is lower than the rated wind speed, due to the
negative influence of the tower shadow and the reduction of the rotor swept area. The
FC
maximumFx power loss isF4.1% C and annual energy production loss is 1.57%. The swept area
Fx
of the downwind
F θ rotor is mainly affected
F θ by the structure of the rotor. As shown in Figure
wind 3, the blade bends in downwind due to the flapping load, and the flapping load of the
FT FT
blade is affected by the FG pitchγ control, which increases first and then decreases, resulting
FG
in the swept area of the downwind rotor first decreasing and then increasing, as shown in
Figure 2b. However, the upwind rotor has the opposite result. It can be observed from
Figure 2c that the peak load at the blade root of the DW is reduced by 22.54%. This is
because the rotor cone angles make the DW’s rotor reduce the angle between the blade
net force and the blade axis, as shown in Figure 3. The blade flapping load is
F x = F co s( θ - γ ) in UWTs, while the blade flapping load is Fx = F cos( θ + γ ) in DWTs.
π
Generally, 0 < θ − γ < θ + γ < , so the peak load at the blade root of the DWT is less than
2
that of the UWT. In addition, the DW case has a smaller rotor swept area (cf. Figure 2b).
To ensure the same rated power output of the DW and UW case when operating at an
over-rated wind speed, the DW case must have better aerodynamic performance than the
UW case. Therefore, the pitch angle of the DW is slightly smaller than that of the UW at
DWT UWT
the same wind speed when operating at an over-rated wind speed, as shown in Figure 2d.
Figure 3. Influence
Figure of rotor
3. Influence conecone
of rotor angleangle
on blade load. load.
on blade

3.2. Comparison of Baseline Upwind Rotor and Downwind Rotor with Extended Blades
Since the downwind rotors have smaller rotor swept areas and power outputs, and
the peak load at the blade root in the DW case is 22.54% lower than that in the UW case.
To make both DW and UW cases have a same rated wind speed, the blade aerodynamic
Energies 2022, 15, 6830 6 of 11

3.2. Comparison of Baseline Upwind Rotor and Downwind Rotor with Extended Blades
Since the downwind rotors have smaller rotor swept areas and power outputs, and
the peak load at the blade root in the DW case is 22.54% lower than that in the UW case.
To make both DW and UW cases have a same rated wind speed, the blade aerodynamic
shape parameters (including blade length, chord length and blade pre-bend) of the DW are
increased by 6%, hence the case is denoted as DW6. In addition, the blade stiffness of DW6
is redesigned so that the blade weight of DW6 is the same as that of UW.
The output power curves of DW6 and UW are shown in Figure 4a. They have the
same rated power and rated wind speed. Because the downwind rotors have larger rotor
swept area (cf. Figure 4b), the power output of DW6 is larger than that of UW when the
wind speed is lower than the rated speed, and the annual energy production of DW6 is
1.67% higher than the UW. Although the DW6 blade is longer, its blade root load is smaller
due to the downwind structure and the 2.5◦ cone angle. Compared with the upwind rotor,
the blade root load can be reduced by up to 14.82% (cf. Figure 4c). Although its blade root
flapping load is slightly smaller than UW when the wind speed is lower than the rated
speed, because the relative stiffness of DW6 is smaller, the blade tip deflection in flapping
direction of DW6 is still larger than that of UW, and the peak blade tip deflection increases
by 3.79% (cf. Figure 4d). Due to the combined effect of the cone angle γ and the pitch
control at over-rated wind speed, DW6 has greater reduction rate of the blade root flapping
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 11
load than that of UW with increasing wind speed and DW6 has a much smaller blade root
flapping load than that of UW. Therefore, the blade tip deflection of DW6 is smaller than
that of UW.

1.0x104 2.8x104

8.0x103 2.8x104
2.7x104
RtArea/m2

6.0x103
P/kW

2.6x104
4.0x103
2.6x104 UW
UW
2.0x103 2.5x104 DW6
DW6
0.0 2.5x104
4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25
v/(m/s) v/(m/s)

(a) (b)

3.0x104 10
UW
2.5x104 8 UW
DW6 D W6
2.0x104 6
Mxy/kN·m

D ef /m

4
1.5x104
2
1.0x104
0
5.0x103
-2
0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25 v/(m/s )
v/(m/s)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 4. 4.
(a)(a) Output
Output power
power curves.
curves. (b)(b) Rotor
Rotor sweptarea
swept areacurves.
curves.(c)
(c) Loads
Loads of
of blade
blade root
root curves.
curves.
(d) Blade tip deflection in the flapping direction curves.
(d) Blade tip deflection in the flapping direction curves.

3.3.3.3. Comparison
Comparison of Downwind
of Downwind Rotors
Rotors with
with Rotor
Rotor Cone
Cone Angle
Angle Control
Control andand with
with Pitch
Pitch Control
Control
Figure
Figure 5 presents
5 presents thethe performance
performance simulation
simulation results
results of of
thethe DWC
DWC with
with rotor
rotor cone
cone
angle controller
angle and
controller thethe
and DW DWwith pitch
with controller
pitch in the
controller operating
in the wind
operating speed
wind ranges.
speed ranges.

1.0x104 2.5x104
DW
8.0x103 2.0x104 DWC
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12

Energies 2022, 15, 6830 7 of 11

1.0x104 2.5x104
DW
8.0x103 2.0x104 DWC

Mxy/kN·m
6.0x103 1.5x104
P/kW

3
4.0x10 DW 1.0x104
3 DWC
2.0x10
5.0x103
0.0
0.0
4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25
v/(m/s) v/(m/s)

(a) (b)

4 2.0 60

20
1.5
3 40
γ/deg

γ/deg
β/deg

β/deg
10 1.0
20
2
β 0.5 β
0
γ γ 0
1 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
v/(m/s) v/(m/s)
(c) (d)
Figure 5.
Figure 5. (a) Outputpower
(a) Output powercurves.
curves.(b)
(b)Loads
Loadsof
ofblade
bladeroot
root curves.
curves. (c)
(c) Pitch
Pitch angle
angle and
and cone
cone angle
angle
curves of DW. (d) Pitch angle and cone angle curves of DWC.
curves of DW. (d) Pitch angle and cone angle curves of DWC.

It can
It can be
be seen
seen from
from Figure
Figure 5a
5a that
that they
they have
have the
the same
same power
power output
output when
when the the wind
wind
speed is lower than the rated speed because the blades of the DWC and DW aresame
speed is lower than the rated speed because the blades of the DWC and DW are the the
and both
same andoperate in the optimal
both operate tip speed
in the optimal tipratio state
speed withstate
ratio variable
withspeed control
variable speed(cf.control
Figure
5c,d).
(cf. When
Figure the wind
5c,d). When speed exceeds
the wind the rated
speed exceedsspeed, the blade
the rated rootthe
speed, load of the
blade DWC
root loadrap-
of
idly decreases due to the increasing rotor cone angle. The blade root
the DWC rapidly decreases due to the increasing rotor cone angle. The blade root load load reaches the min-
imum value
reaches at the wind
the minimum value speed
at theofwind
16 m/s
speed(cf.of
Figure
16 m/s 5b),
(cf.where
Figurethe
5b),flapping
where themoment
flapping of
blade root M is approximately 0. As the wind speed and rotor
moment of blade root My is approximately 0. As the wind speed and rotor cone angles
y cone angles continue to
increase (cf.
continue Figure 5d),
to increase (cf. the contribution
Figure of the centrifugal
5d), the contribution force FC of the
of the centrifugal blade
force FC ofto the
the blade
blade
root
to theflapping
blade root moment
flappingMy moment
gradually Mincreases,
y gradually and the blade
increases, androot
theflapping
blade rootmoment
flapping in-
creases inincreases
moment the opposite
in thedirection,
opposite causing
direction,thecausing
blade root load to
the blade increase.
root load to increase.

3.4.
3.4. Comparison
Comparison of of Downwind
Downwind RotorsRotors withwith Normal
Normal and
and Improved
ImprovedRotor
RotorConeConeAngle
AngleControl
Control
The
The load
load atat the
the blade
blade root
root inin the DWC
DWC case with the rotor cone angle control control decreases
decreases
rapidly
rapidlywhen
whenititoperates
operates at at
thethe
over-rated
over-rated wind speed.
wind TheThe
speed. DWC DWCpresents the smallest
presents peak
the smallest
load (23,400 kN · m) at the blade root as well when compared with
peak load (23,400 kN·m) at the blade root as well when compared with the UW and DW6 the UW and DW6 cases.
To compensate
cases. the power
To compensate theoutput
powerloss of the
output DWC
loss case
of the and to
DWC keep
case andthetominimum peak load
keep the minimum
at
peak load at the blade root, the DW6IC case is introduced in the paper. DW6IC rotor
the blade root, the DW6IC case is introduced in the paper. DW6IC has the same as
has the
DW6 but use the improved rotor cone angle control rather than pitch
same rotor as DW6 but use the improved rotor cone angle control rather than pitch control control in DW6. To
make
in DW6.theTopeak
makeload theatpeak
the blade
load at root
theinblade
the DW6IC caseDW6IC
root in the not higher
case than kN·m,
23,400than
not higher the
23,400
wind speed where begins the executing rotor cone angle control
kN·m, the wind speed where begins the executing rotor cone angle control of the DW6IC of the DW6IC is smaller
than that ofthan
is smaller the that
DWC of(cf.
theFigure
DWC (cf. 6c).Figure 6c).
The
The simulation results of the DW6IC
simulation results of the DW6IC are are shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 6.
6. In
In Figure
Figure 6a,
6a, the
the power
power
output
output of DW6IC is larger than that of UW and DWC before it executes rotor cone angle
of DW6IC is larger than that of UW and DWC before it executes rotor cone angle
control
control due
due toto the
the larger
larger blade
blade length
length andand swept
swept area
area of
of DW6IC
DW6IC (cf.(cf. Figure
Figure 6b). However,
6b). However,
when the blade root load of DW6IC reaches 23,400 kN·m, DW6IC increases the rotor cone
angle to limit its blade root load (cf. Figure 6c). The power output of DW6IC is gradually
smaller than UW until it reaches the rated wind speed. However, the annual energy
Energies 2022, 15, 6830 8 of 11
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 11

production of DW6IC is still 1.12% higher than that of UW and 2.72% higher than that of
DWC.
at theAs shown
wind in Figure
speed 6c, the
of 16 m/s. rotor
As the conespeed
wind angleand
of DW6IC is slightly
rotor cone larger than
angles continue to that of
increase,
DWC when it operates at an over-rated wind speed, because the blade length
the reverse blade root flapping moment of DW6IC starts to be larger than that of DWC, of DW6IC
is 6% longerinthan
resulting that of
DW6IC’s DWC
blade and
root has6.11%
load a larger swept
larger thanarea.
DWC Therefore,
at 25 m/s,larger rotor
as shown incone
Figure
angles
6d. are required to reduce the sweep area and aerodynamic efficiency of the rotor to
limit the power output.

3.0x104
1.0x104

8.0x103 2.5x104
DWC
DW6IC

RtArea/m2
3
6.0x10 2.0x10 4
P/kW

3
4.0x10
UW 1.5x104
2.0x103 DWC
DW6IC 1.0x104
0.0
4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25
v/(m/s) v/(m/s)

(a) (b)

60 3.0x104
50 2.5x104 DWC
40 4 DW6IC
2.0x10
Mxy/kN·m
γ/deg

30
1.5x104
20
DWC 1.0x104
10 DW6IC
5.0x103
0
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
v/(m/s) v/(m/s)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 6. 6.(a) Outputpower
(a)Output power curves.(b)
curves. (b)Rotor
Rotorswept
swept area
area curves.
curves. (c)
(c)Rotor
Rotorcones
conesangle curves.
angle (d)
curves.
Loads of blade root curves.
(d) Loads of blade root curves.

3.5.Furthermore,
Discussions the DW6IC case executes the rotor cone angle control to make it the same
peak load Theatsimulation
the blade root as in
results ofDWC whenunder
five cases the wind speedconditions
the wind is lower than the rated
shown speed,
in Table 2 are
and DW6IC has
shown in Table 4. larger rotor cone angles when it operates at an over-rated wind speed.
Therefore, the blade root load curves in both DW6IC and DWC cases are similar when the
wind
Tablespeed is greater
4. Case thanresults.
simulation the rated wind speed, reaching the minimum value at the wind
speed of 16 m/s. As the wind speed and rotor cone angles continue to increase, the reverse
blade root flapping AEP (kW·h)
moment of DW6IC ∆AEP (%) to be Max-M
starts xy (kN·m)
larger than that of DWC, ∆Max-M xy (%)
resulting in
UW 5.05 × 10 7 - 3.02 ×
DW6IC’s blade root load 6.11% larger than DWC at 25 m/s, as shown in Figure 6d. 10 4 -
DW 4.98 × 107 −1.57% 2.34 × 104 −22.54%
3.5. Discussion
DW6 5.14 × 107 1.67% 2.57 × 104 −14.82%
TheDWC simulation results
4.98 × 10 of
7 five cases under
−1.57% the wind conditions
2.34 × 10 4 shown in Table 2 are
−22.54%
shown in Table 4. 5.11 × 10
DW6IC 7 1.12% 2.34 × 10 4 −22.54%
Under the same conditions of rotor parameters, although the power output of DW is
lower thanUnderthatthe
of same
UW and annual energy
conditions of rotorproduction
parameters, lossalthough
is 1.57% the duepower
to the tower
outputshadow
of DW is
and the reduction of the rotor swept area, the peak load of the
lower than that of UW and annual energy production loss is 1.57% due to the tower blade root is reduced by
22.54%, which proves that the DWT has advantages in reducing the
shadow and the reduction of the rotor swept area, the peak load of the blade root is re-load. The DW6 is 6%
longer
duced than
by the DW which
22.54%, blade, making
proves thatup for
thethe
DWTpowerhas output
advantages loss of in DW. Compared
reducing the load.withThe
DW, the annual energy production of DW6 increased by 3.29%, but
DW6 is 6% longer than the DW blade, making up for the power output loss of DW. Com- the peak load of blade
root also with
pared increased by 9.97%.
DW, the annualUnder
energythe conditionofofDW6
production the same bladeby
increased weight
3.29%, ofbut
DW6 theandpeak
UW, the peak load of the blade root of DW6 decreased by 14.82%, and
load of blade root also increased by 9.97%. Under the condition of the same blade weight the annual energy
of DW6 and UW, the peak load of the blade root of DW6 decreased by 14.82%, and the
Energies 2022, 15, 6830 9 of 11

production increased by 1.67%. Therefore, under steady-state operation conditions, DW6

has better performance.

Table 4. Case simulation results.

AEP (kW·h) ∆AEP (%) Max-M xy (kN·m) ∆Max-M xy (%)

UW 5.05 × 107 - 3.02 × 104 -
DW 4.98 × 107 −1.57% 2.34 × 104 −22.54%
DW6 5.14 × 107 1.67% 2.57 × 104 −14.82%
DWC 4.98 × 107 −1.57% 2.34 × 104 −22.54%
DW6IC 5.11 × 107 1.12% 2.34 × 104 −22.54%

In addition, DWC with rotor cone angle controller has the same aerodynamic perfor-
mance as DW with pitch controller. However, DWC has larger reduction rate of the blade
root load when the operating wind speed is over-rated, and the minimum blade root load
is found at the wind speed of 16 m/s. DW6IC has the characteristic that the blade root load
decreases faster with the wind speed with the rotor cone angle control.
DW6IC executes the rotor cone angle control when the wind speed is lower than
the rated speed, resulting in DW6IC’s annual energy production 0.54% less than DW6.
However, DW6IC’s blade root load is 8.96% less than DW6. Furthermore, under the
condition that DW6IC has the same the peak load of the blade root as DWC, the annual
energy production is increased by 1.12% and the peak load of the blade root is reduced by
22.54% compared with UW.

4. Conclusions
The DTU 10 MW wind turbine was used as the baseline model, and Open FAST was
applied to simulate five cases that improve the rotor parameters and control strategy. By
comparing the performance of these five cases (UW, DW, DW6, DWC, DW6IC), the effects of
the rotor-cone-angle control on the power output and blade load of large-scale downwind
wind turbine blades were analyzed, and the following conclusions were obtained:
1. The downwind rotor has great advantages in reducing the blade root load and the
downwind blade can be longer and less stiffness because of the relaxed tower clearance
constraint. The DW reduces the peak load of the blade root by 22.54% at the expense
of annual energy production loss of 1.57%. The DW6 achieves 14.82% reduction in the
peak load of the blade root and a 1.67% increase in annual energy production than UW
under the same blade weight via extending the length of the blade and redesigning
the mass and stiffness distributions of the blade.
2. The DWT has better performance by replacing pitch control with rotor cone angle
control. The DWC with rotor cone angle controller has the same aerodynamic per-
formance as the DW. However, it has greater reduction rate of blade root load at
over-rated wind speed. It reaches the minimum blade root load at a wind speed
of 16 m/s. Compared with the UW, the DW6IC with improved rotor cone angle
control reduces the peak load of the blade root by 22.54%, and the annual energy
production increases by 1.12%, which is more suitable for offshore wind farms with
high wind speed.
Although downwind rotors are not extensively used, the advantages of the downwind
structure, that they have no need to consider blade-tip deflection striking the tower, will
become more obvious as modern commercial wind turbines continue to grow aggressively
in size. The analysis of different examples in this paper proves the feasibility of the
downwind structure and cone angle control, which can provide a reference for the design
of large downwind rotors. The future work will be to further optimize the cone angle
control strategy and apply it to the actual unit.
Energies 2022, 15, 6830 10 of 11

Author Contributions: Z.L. ran the codes and prepared this manuscript under the guidance of B.X.
and X.S.; H.X., Z.H. and X.C. supervised the work and contributed to the interpretation of the results.
All authors carried out data analysis, discussed the results, and contributed to writing the paper. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by National Engineering Research Center for Offshore Wind-
power (grant number HSFD22004); the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(grant number B210202063); the Royal Society Grant IEC/NSFC/19140.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Koh, J.H.; Ng, E.Y.K. Downwind offshore wind turbines: Opportunities, trends and technical challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2016, 54, 797–808. [CrossRef]
2. Bortolotti, P.; Ivanov, H.; Johnson, N.; Barter, G.E.; Veers, P.; Namura, N. Challenges, opportunities, and a research roadmap for
downwind wind turbines. Wind Energy 2022, 25, 354–367. [CrossRef]
3. Reiso, M.; Hagen, T.R.; Muskulus, M. A calibration method for downwind wake models accounting for the unsteady behaviour
of the wind turbine tower shadow behind monopile and truss towers. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2013, 121, 29–38. [CrossRef]
4. Dose, B.; Rahimi, H.; Herráez, I.; Stoevesandt, B.; Peinke, J. Fluid-structure coupled computations of the NREL 5 MW wind
turbine by means of CFD. Renew. Energy 2018, 129, 591–605. [CrossRef]
5. Dose, B.; Rahimi, H.; Stoevesandt, B.; Peinke, J. Fluid-structure coupled investigations of the NREL 5 MW wind turbine for two
downwind configurations. Renew. Energy 2020, 146, 1113–1123. [CrossRef]
6. Ning, A.; Petch, D. Integrated design of downwind land-based wind turbines using analytic gradients. Wind Energy 2016, 19,
2137–2152. [CrossRef]
7. Bortolotti, P.; Bottasso, C.L.; Croce, A.; Sartori, L. Integration of multiple passive load mitigation technologies by automated
design optimization-The case study of a medium-size onshore wind turbine. Wind Energy 2019, 22, 65–79. [CrossRef]
8. Chetan, M.; Yao, S.L.; Griffith, D.T. Multi-fidelity digital twin structural model for a sub-scale downwind wind turbine rotor
blade. Wind Energy 2021, 24, 1368–1387. [CrossRef]
9. Xu, B.; Li, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Cai, X.; Wang, T.; Zhao, Z. The parametric modeling and two-objective optimal design of a downwind
blade. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 708230. [CrossRef]
10. Namura, N.; Shinozaki, Y. Design optimization of 10 MW downwind turbines with flexible blades and comparison with upwind
turbines. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1618, 042021. [CrossRef]
11. Frau, E.; Kress, C.; Chokani, N.; Abhari, R.S. Comparison of performance and unsteady loads of multimegawatt downwind and
upwind turbines. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2015, 137, 041004. [CrossRef]
12. Kress, C.; Chokani, N.; Abhari, R.S. Downwind wind turbine yaw stability and performance. Renew. Energy 2015, 83, 1157–1165.
[CrossRef]
13. Kress, C.; Chokani, N.; Abhari, R.S. Design considerations of rotor cone angle for downwind wind turbines. J. Eng. Gas Turbines
Power 2016, 138, 052602. [CrossRef]
14. Kress, C.; Chokani, N.; Abhari, R.S. Passive minimization of load fluctuations on downwind turbines. Renew. Energy 2016, 89,
543–551. [CrossRef]
15. Kress, C.; Chokani, N.; Abhari, R.S.; Hashimoto, T.; Watanabe, M.; Sano, T.; Saeki, M. Impact of flow inclination on downwind
turbine loads and power. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2016, 753, 022011. [CrossRef]
16. Larwood, S.; Chow, R. Reconsidering downwind operation by analysis of the National Renewable Energy Laboratorys Phase VI
data. Wind Eng. 2019, 43, 133–146. [CrossRef]
17. Anderson, B.; Branlard, E.; Vijayakumar, G.; Johnson, N. Investigation of the nacelle blockage effect for a downwind turbine. J.
Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1618, 062062. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, Z.Y.; Tian, W.; Hu, H. A comparative study on the aeromechanic performances of upwind and downwind horizontal-axis
wind turbines. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 163, 100–110. [CrossRef]
19. Rasmussen, F.; Petersen, J.T.; Vølund, P.; Leconte, P.; Szechenyi, E.; Westergaard, C. Soft Rotor Design for Flexible Turbines: Final
Report; Risø National Laboratory: Roskilde, Denmark, 1998.
20. Ichter, B.; Steele, A.; Loth, E.; Moriarty, P.; Selig, M. A morphing downwind-aligned rotor concept based on a 13-MW wind
turbine. Wind Energy 2016, 19, 625–637. [CrossRef]
21. Loth, E.; Steele, A.; Qin, C.; Ichter, B.; Selig, M.S.; Moriarty, P. Downwind pre-aligned rotors for extreme-scale wind turbines.
Wind Energy 2017, 20, 1241–1259. [CrossRef]
22. Noyes, C.; Loth, E.; Martin, D.; Johnson, K.; Ananda, G.; Selig, M. Extreme-scale load-aligning rotor: To hinge or not to hinge?
Appl. Energy 2020, 257, 113985. [CrossRef]
23. Noyes, C.; Qin, C.; Loth, E. Pre-aligned downwind rotor for a 13.2 MW wind turbine. Renew. Energy 2018, 116, 749–754. [CrossRef]
24. Qin, C.C.; Loth, E.; Zalkind, D.S.; Pao, L.Y.; Yao, S.; Griffith, D.T.; Selig, M.S.; Damiani, R. Downwind coning concept rotor for a
25 MW offshore wind turbine. Renew. Energy 2020, 156, 314–327. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 6830 11 of 11

25. Hoghooghi, H.; Chokani, N.; Abhari, R.S. Effectiveness of individual pitch control on a 5 MW downwind turbine. Renew. Energy
2019, 139, 435–446. [CrossRef]
26. Hoghooghi, H.; Chokani, N.; Abhari, R.S. Enhanced yaw stability of downwind turbines. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1356, 012020.
[CrossRef]
27. Bak, C.; Zahle, F.; Bitsche, R.; Kim, T.; Yde, A.; Henriksen, L.C.; Hansen, M.H.; Blasques, J.P.A.A.; Gaunaa, M.; Natarajan, A.
Description of the DTU 10 MW Reference Wind Turbine; DTU Wind Energy Report-I-0092; Technical University of Denmark Wind
Energy: Roskilde, Denmark, 2013.
28. Bortolotti, P.; Kapila, A.; Bottasso, C.L. Comparison between upwind and downwind designs of a 10 MW wind turbine rotor.
Wind Energy Sci. 2019, 4, 115–125. [CrossRef]
29. Jonkman, J.M.; Buhl, M. FAST User’s Guide; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2005.