AIAA 99-0063

Profile Stall Characteristics, Aerodynamic Damping and

Design Implications for Wind Turbine Blades

Spyros G. Voutsinas(a), Panagiotis K. Chaviaropoulos(b),

Vasilis A. Riziotis(a), Dimitris G. Mourikis(a)
(a)
NTUA - National Technical University of Athens, Fluids Section,
P.O. Box 64070, 15710 Zografou, Athens, Hellas
tel: (+)301-7721096, fax: (+)301-7721057, e-mail: aiolos@fluid.mech.ntua.gr
(b)
CRES - Centre for Renewable Energy Sources,
19th km Marathonos Ave., 109 09 Pikermi Attiki, Hellas,
tel: (+)301-6039900, fax: (+)301-6039904-5, e-mail: tchaviar@cresdb.cress.ariadne-t.gr

ABSTRACT ωi i=f,l flapwise and edgewise eigenfrequencies of

Aeroelastic stability of wind turbine blades is
considered and design implications are discussed. The
investigation is motivated by recent concern on
destructive “edgewise” vibrations of modern, half-
megawatt scale, blades. The work has two parts. First,
results from an investigation on a one-section model
problem are presented. The model is derived
combining a spring-mass-damper equivalent of the
structure with “non-stationary” aerodynamics based
on a linearized version of the ONERA dynamic stall
model. The stability characteristics are then
investigated in terms of the defining non-dimensional
structural and aerodynamic parameters. In the second
part, a full blade investigation is undertaken. The
aerodynamic modeling includes wake induced effects
whereas stall is not linearized. This direct approach
permits to check the trends and indications from the
first part on a commercial blade using a state of the
art aeroelastic model. A parametric investigation is
carried out with respect to the post stall behavior of
the airfoils in the outboard region as well as with
respect to the basic flap and edge eigenfrequencies.
The paper presents the results of this study and
discusses the corresponding design implications.
Key Words: Flap-Edge instability, Dynamic stall,
Edgewise vibrations, Wind turbines
NOMENCLATURE
β flapping angle of the blade
ζ inplane (edgewise) angle of the blade
U wind inflow velocity
V total inflow velocity V2=U2+(Ωr)2
Ω rotor rotational speed
φ relative wind angle Ωr tanφ=U
CL profile lift coefficient
CD profile drag coefficient
c section chord
r blade section radial position
θ local twist angle
ρ material density
ρα air density
the blade normalized by Ω
ξi i=f,l damping coefficients at the flapwise and
edgewise directions
W0 downwash velocity at the airfoil section
normalized by V
τ=t V/c reduced time
Γi i=1,2 Circulation terms (1:attached and
2:separated) normalized by V
ΔCL = CL inviscid -CL viscous lift loss due to viscous
effects
( )• differentiation with respect to t
( )/ differentiation with respect to the reduced
time
( )i differentiation with respect to incidence
calculated at a reference point
M mass matrix
C total damping matrix
K total stiffness matrix
Cs structural damping matrix
INTRODUCTION
Wind turbine technology has entered a mature
phase of development for which the aim is to
strengthen and extend the existing market through
better designs. Passage to machines beyond 1MW
level, adaptivity to different types of sites and
different types of electrical grids, high reliability for
low maintenance, increase of the energy absorption
are some of the technology issues associated to this
phase. There is no doubt that the success of such a
course is strongly related to the ability of
guaranteeing reliability and structural integrity of
wind turbines operating even under unfavourable
conditions (high wind speeds and turbulence, strong
gusts etc.). In this connection, recently there has been
strong concern on some destructive edgewise
vibrations that appeared on modern, half-megawatt
scale, blades. The report by T. Moeller1 mentions that
within nine months 0.5% of a 19m blade installed on
different 600kW wind turbines around the world,
exhibited crack damage. In nearly all cases, the
damage was associated with edgewise vibrations
which produced serious longitudinal cracks along the

1
trailing edge of the blade in the near root part. and lead-lag motion which are represented by the
Although the findings are recent, the problem is flapping angle β and the deflected inplane angle ζ.
old. The same author points out that theoretically The section is considered isolated and rotating at
edgewise vibrations can occur on all rotor blades and constant speed Ω into a wind flow stream U.
the problem increases with blade size and wind Assuming ζ << β and linearizing around a mean
strength. It is typically associated with stall regulated position β0 , the equations of motion take the form:
rotors at winds of 16-17m/s and apparently is ⎡1 0⎤ ⎧ζ ⎫
••
⎛ ⎡ 0 2 β0 ⎤⎞ ⎧ζ ⎫
•

triggered by gusts. Whether it starts at all, depends on

⎣   ⎝
[ ]
⎢ 0 1⎥ ⎨β ⎬+ Ω⎜ Cs + ⎢− 2 β ⎟ ⎨ ⎬ +...
0 ⎥⎦⎠ ⎩β ⎭
a series of factors: the physical properties of the wind 
⎦ ⎩ ⎭  ⎣
 0

M C
turbine and blades such as weight, stiffness and
⎛ ⎡0 0⎤⎞ ⎧ζ ⎫ 1 ρa 2 c ⎧CD cos φ − C L sin φ ⎫
structural shock absorption as well as the influence of
⎝
[ ]
+ Ω 2 ⎜ Ks + ⎢ ⎟⎨ ⎬ =
0 1⎥⎦⎠ ⎩β ⎭ 2 ρ
V ⎨ ⎬ (1)
r ⎩CD sin φ + C L cos φ ⎭
the prevailing weather conditions such as turbulence,  ⎣ 
 

temperature and so on. K f

Due to the seriousness of the situation especially
where,
in cases of complex terrain installations where wind
⎡cos θ − sin θ ⎤
conditions can become quite unfriendly, it was judged KS = T θ KSP T Tθ , CS = T θ CSP T Tθ ; T θ = ⎢
− − − − − ⎣ sin θ cos θ ⎥⎦
that a closer look on the design margins left, for
improving blades, is well-timed. Thus a theoretical ⎡ω l2 0 ⎤ ⎡2ξlω l 0 ⎤ ω i∗
K SP = ⎢ 2⎥
, CSP = ⎢ ⎥, ωi =
investigation was initiated with the objective of ⎣ 0 ω fl ⎦ ⎣ 0 2ξ f ω f ⎦ Ω
identifying the driving parameters and indicating
some design guidelines. The work has been divided System (1) is completed with the aerodynamic
into two parts. model that specifies the lift and drag coefficients. A
In the first part a simplified aeroelastic model is slightly modified version of the ONERA model is
used, formulated at the blade-section level2. One used8,9. Let
section is isolated and a linearized model is derived. W0 = sin(φ − θ ) + sin θ β ′ r / c − cos θ ζ ′ r / c (2)
Stability characteristics of this system are studied then
with respect to the most important parameters, π
namely the local reduced frequency, the normalized CL = W0/ + Γ1 + Γ2 and for Γi (3)
2
linear density and the steady stall characteristics of
Γ1/ + 2λΓ1 = 4λπW0 + 2πa L W0/ + d L W0/
the lift coefficient-incidence curve of the considered (4)
section. This part of the work has been detailed in a Γ2/ / + 2α L Γ2/ + 4rL Γ2 = −[4rL ( ΔC L )W0 + 2 E W0/ ]
separate paper2. Herein the results and conclusions
are summarized for the sake of completeness. where the constants are selected to represent a
In the second part, the complete rotor of a “mean” profile:
commercial blade is considered. A state of art λ =.17 a L =.53 σ 1 = −.07 E 2 = −.01 α 0 =.25
aeroelastic model is used to perform time domain α 2 =.3 r0 =.25 r2 =.25 d L = σ 1 ΔC L E = E 2 ( ΔC L ) 2
calculations3,4. Beam theory is used for the
α L = α 0 + α 2 ( ΔC L ) 2 rL = r0 + r2 ( ΔC L ) 2
description of the flexibility of the blades whereas
enhanced blade element modeling is used for the ΔC L = C L INVISCID
− CL VISCOUS

calculation of the aerodynamic loads. Dynamic
inflow effects and wake induced feedback as well as
dynamic stall are included. As compared with the one
section model, the full blade one does not simplify the
aerodynamics but performs time marching
calculations. In spite of their simplicity there is
considerable and rather successful experience with
this type of models so as to feel confident with at
least the trends shown by the analysis. Validation of
the numerical models can be found in previous work
by the present authors 3,4,5 as well as by others 6,7.
ONE-SECTION INVESTIGATION
In the present context only the lift coefficient is
treated in a non-stationary manner. Although the
extended ONERA model includes a similar unsteady
formulation for the drag coefficient CD, quasi-steady
variations are assumed for the latter, for simplicity
reasons.
The derivation is concluded with the
linearization of the aerodynamic coefficients. By
expanding around a reference “equilibrium” state
point and retaining only the linear terms,
( ΔCL )W0 = ( ΔCL )ref + ΔCLi (sin ϕ β / − cos ϕζ / )r / c,
(5)
CD = CD ref + CDi (sin ϕ β / − cos ϕ ζ / )r / c

Description of the model
To derive the equation of motion of a rotating
blade section situated at radial position r, a simplified
hinge-equivalent blade model is adopted, with two
springs at the hinge. They correspond to the flapping
where ΔCLi , CDi denote derivatives with respect to
incidence calculated at the reference point.
Combining (1)-(5) the linearized dynamic
equations can be written as a first order system:

2
 T
used for the flat and edge directions the linearity of
X = ⎧⎨β , ζ , Γ2 β , ζ , Γ2 , Γ1 ⎫⎬
• • • •
X = AX + B, (6) the approach allows the superposition of the findings.
⎩ ⎭
Stability of this system is assured when the real part In other words, introducing the same amount of
of all eigenvalues of matrix A are non-positive. damping in the flat or the edge, only, degree of
freedom the corresponding outcome would be
Results & Discussion identical with that of the combined case. It is seen
A near to the tip section from a typical blade that 1% damping in both flat and edge provides
used on stall regulated rotors has been selected (tip stability for all k larger than 0.05. This lower limit is
speed ΩR = 65 m/s and tip-speed-ratio = 4.33, close shifted to k=0.075 for ξ=0.5% and further to k=0.1
to its rated value). Also typical values were taken for for ξ=0.2%. Considering that the structural damping
the two non-dimensional bending eigenfrequencies: of the classical GRP blades drops with the
ω f = 4, ωe = 7 whereas for the density factor temperature, while Rf increases at the same time, it is
straightforward to conclude that low temperature
Rf = ρa c 2 / ρ a typical value would be 0.02. The operation of wind turbine blades favors flap-lead lag
pitch θ was set zero and the incidence φ = 18o . instability.
Coming back to the influence of the profile-
Finally ΔCL, ΔCLi and CDi values were fixed to 0.58,
dependent aerodynamic coefficients, the relative
6.05 and 0.74 respectively, corresponding to the
stability of airfoils of different thickness is studied.
NACA 632-218 profile at 180 incidence. In all of the
Considering the attractive in wind energy applications
cases considered matrix A has three conjugate
NACA 632-2XX series, calculations of the ΔCL, ΔCLi
complex and one real eigenvalue. Each eigenvalue is
and CDi are performed using the XFOIL10 code, for
associated to one of the degrees of freedom of the
12, 15, 18, 20 and 25% thickness. The resulting
problem (flap, lead-lag, Γ2 and Γ1). The eigenvalue
values of ΔCLi and CDi are then used in studying the
corresponding to Γ1 is the real one, and is always
stability of these sections. Fig 6 shows concisely the
negative enough to be absent from the stability plots
results of this exercise. It is seen that thinner airfoils
that follow. The same holds for the real part of the
favor aeroelastic instability. This happens because
eigenvalues associated to Γ2
thin airfoils are characterized by leading rather than
Fig. 1 shows a typical stability analysis plot with
trailing edge static stall, which produces higher
zero structural damping. The lead-lag branch is
derivatives of the aerodynamic coefficients. It is seen
unstable over the entire k range while the flap branch
also that the peak of the instability is always close to
is unstable within the k range [0.05 to 0.1],
200 corresponding, for a tip-area profile, to near-rated
corresponding to the outer part of the blade. The
operation conditions of the rotor blade.
instability strength (measured as the magnitude of the
The above analysis is based on non-dimensional
real eigenvalue part) is more pronounced at low k
coefficients and the findings are, in principal,
values, say from 0 to 0.1. Further numerical
independent from the rotor size, assuming
experimentation with different settings for the
aerodynamic and structural similarity (rotors with the
“viscous” parameters reveals that the coupled flap-
same tip-speed). Despite Reynolds number effects
lead lag aeroelastic problem is always unstable when
(longer blades - higher Reynolds numbers) on the
structural damping is not present. The increase of the
aerodynamic coefficients, there seems to be no
structural stiffness as expressed by higher bending
connection between aerodynamic instabilities and
eigenfrequencies improves the situation. Similar is
blade length.
also the trend when the blade mass is increased.
However in both cases the improvement is not
FULL-BLADE INVESTIGATION
enough to render the edgewise mode stable.
In terms of the aerodynamic characteristics, Fig
Description of the model
2, 3 and 4 show respectively the effect when, ΔCL,
The full-blade investigation was carried out using
ΔCLi and CDi are doubled one at a time. It is observed
GAST, a state of the art aeroelastic computer code
that these effects are much stronger than the ones
which performs time-domain calculations based on an
examined so far. It is seen that increasing ΔCL, and
enhanced blade element model for the aerodynamics
ΔCLi stabilize the lead-lag branch but destabilize
and beam approximations for the structural part.
dramatically the flap-branch. Increasing CDi has the
As described in (Voutsinas et al, 1997)3, an
opposite effect.
inertial term is added in the axial momentum equation
Of equal importance with the aerodynamic
in order to include dynamic inflow effects. Yaw
coefficients is the favorable effect of the structural
misalignment is accounted for by properly modifying
damping. Fig. 5 presents the stability plots obtained
the wake induced velocity and consequently the
for the reference case by increasing the damping
effective incidence to each blade section. Finally,
factor ξ from zero to 0.002, 0.005 and 0.010.
dynamic stall is introduced through the ONERA
Although a common damping factor value has been
model. So as a whole, the model in terms of

3
aerodynamics is non-linear and that makes it
necessary to perform internal iterations at each time
step. Due to the specific type of aerodynamic
modeling, aerodynamic damping can be explicitly
calculated. As regards the structural part, the model
includes the flap and edge bending, the torsion as
well as the radial flexion. The numerical
approximation is made using standard finite element
formalism. The final set of equations has the usual
form:
•• •
M u + C u + Ku = F
It is solved applying the second order Newmark
scheme. The model can include the dynamics of the
hub junction as well as the coupled dynamics with the
shaft and the tower. In the present analysis however
these aspects have not been accounted for.
Results & Discussion
The objective of this part of the work is to
provide further quantitative information on the
stability characteristics of wind turbine blades
operating in dynamic stall conditions using a more
detailed analysis which would in principal be more
accurate especially since linearizations have been
suppressed. Therefore, in a certain way and within the
limits of blade element theory this part also intends to
confirm the findings of the one-section analysis.
To this end, a number of tests are conducted for a
rotor equipped with commercial 19m long blades.
The inflow conditions are chosen so that the blades
operate in the post stall region, along the entire span.
It is considered that the inflow velocity follows a
sinusoidal variation with a frequency equal to 20% of
the rotational frequency. The mean wind speed is
fixed at 17m/s whereas the amplitude of the variation
is taken 7.5m/s which corresponds to a 15%
turbulence intensity. The stability characteristics of
the blades are examined with respect to the basic
flapwise and edgewise eigenfrequencies, the post stall
aerodynamic behaviour of the airfoil sections being at
the outer part of the blades and the structural damping
characteristics.
As concerns the structural behaviour of the
blades, the first flapwise and edgewise natural
frequencies are set as parameters of the analysis. Four
representative values are chosen for each
eigenfrequency forming a 4x4 matrix of test cases
(Table I). Τo simplify the problem and at the same
time to isolate the effects of the flapwise and
edgewise vibrations the radial and torsional directions
are considered stiff. On the other hand the cross
stiffness (flapwise-edgewise) distribution is set equal
to zero. This situation is practically realistic for an
untwisted blade. The mass of the blade is kept
constant, thus in order to alter the eigenfrequencies
the whole stiffness distribution is modified.
4
Table I : Eigenfrequencies given as a fraction of the
rotational frequency (Ω=0.47).
ωf 3.50 4.05 4.50 4.95
ωl 5.50 6.50 7.05 7.95
Regarding the aerodynamic behaviour of the
airfoils, six sets of CL curves are chosen, for each of
the two sections forming the outer part of the blade.
They correspond to two different values of ΔCL/CLmax
(0.35 and 0.20), where ΔCL is the difference between
the maximum CL and the CL at the post stall region,
and three values for the negative slope of the stall
region of the CL curve (-0.15, -0.10, -0.05).
The rainflow counting (rfc) plots of selected test
cases are presented in the sequel at fixed numbers of
cycles ( 10 and 100). Very high ranges in these plots
exceeding the range of the graph represent unstable
situations.
From this parametric investigation it is found that
the slope of the CL curve in the post stall region does
not have a significant effect on the stability
characteristics of the blade when reasonable values of
this parameter are considered, representative of the
thickness and camber of the airfoil sections used for
wind turbine blades. So, in the sequel results for
dCL/dα=-0.10 are only presented
In Fig. 7 & 8 we give the rfc plots of the flapwise
and edgewise bending moments at the blade root, for
the two different ΔCL/CLmax . In each graph we
present the rfc plots for the different values of ωl as
the ωf is kept fixed. In Fig.9 & 10 the same
information is presented in a different manner. Now,
ωl is kept constant while changing ωf . In all the
above cases a 0.5% Rayleigh structural damping was
introduced.
Comparing the results for the different ΔCL/CLmax
it is clear that the post stall behavior of the airfoils, is
the driving mechanism for instabilities. When
ΔCL/CLmax is low (Fig. 8, 10) only the case where
both natural frequencies are very low is unstable. On
the contrary when ΔCL/CLmax increases, most
situations become unstable (Fig. 7, 9).
Regarding the effect of the eigenfrequencies the
conclusion of the one-section analysis, that
unfavorable situations are anticipated as we decrease
the natural frequencies, is confirmed. From Fig. 7 it is
obvious that as the 1st flapwise eigenfrequency
increases we are led to more stable conditions. This
conclusion is not valid when during the increase of ωf,
the edge eigenfrequency ωl is approached at the same
time (Fig 7.d1-7d2). In this case significant flap -
edge vibrations are obtained. On the other hand, for a
specific value of ωf, more stable conditions are
obtained as we increase the edgewise natural
frequency ωl. The latter is not verified only when ωf
becomes very small (Fig. 7a1-7a2). Then unstable
conditions are obtained in all cases, irrespective of the
value of the ωl. Exactly the same conclusion is drawn
as concerns the effect of the edgewise eigenfrequency
on the stability characteristics of the blade (Fig.
9&10). It is apparent (Fig. 9) that higher values of ωl
increase stability.
An other important parameter that affects
stability characteristics is the twist angle of the blade,
as expressed structurally by the cross stiffness
distribution (flap-edge) along the blade. It is seen in
the rfc plots of Fig. 11-12 that a twisted bladed is
more stable that an untwisted one. This happens
because through the cross stiffness, energy from the
edgewise direction is absorbed by the flapwise
direction, and this has a significant stabilizing effect
since edgewise vibrations are reduced in the whole
range of the number of cycles.
Finally, the effect of the structural damping
should be also mentioned. It is confirmed that
structural damping has a tremendous effect on
stability. The effect of the structural damping is
shown in Fig 13-14 where two cases are presented.
For a 0.3% structural damping the first situation (Fig.
13) is stable whereas the second (Fig.14) is unstable.
By increasing slightly structural damping at 0.5%
both situations become stable while the ranges in the
rfc plots of the two bending moments are significantly
reduced.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The stability characteristics of wind turbine
blades are investigated, first, using a linearized “one-
section” model and then by applying a full-blade
analysis on a commercial 19m blade. Parameters to
this analysis are the flapwise and edgewise
eigenfrequencies, as well as the post stall
aerodynamic characteristics which determine the
aerodynamic damping. From the one section
investigation it is seen that in the absence of structural
damping, the system is unstable, especially at the
lower reduced frequency regime corresponding to the
blade near-tip area. Parametric studies have shown
that instability is amplified when i) the density ratio
Rf (the air density divided by the normalized linear
density of the blade) takes higher values, in other
words when the blade is lighter, ii) when the blade
natural frequencies become lower and iii) when the
lift-loss and/or the lift-loss and drag derivatives of the
airfoil polar curves take higher values. Performing
polar curve computations for five NACA 63-2XX
profiles of different thickness it appears that thicker
profiles have more stable behavior. This indicates
once again that instabilities, when present, are
triggered from the outer part of the blade. Structural
damping has a dramatic stabilizing effect. Even a
small amount of structural damping in the edge
direction can drastically suppress the range and the
strength of the unstable region. Low ambient
5
temperature is favoring aeroelastic instabilities,
reducing the structural damping and increasing the
density factor. Disregarding Reynolds number effects
on the aerodynamic performance it appears that the
flap lead-lag instability is independent from the blade
size for aerodynamically (tip-speed is maintained)
and structurally similar blades. These trends are
confirmed by the full-blade analysis, in which besides
the realistic modeling of the blade, any damping
originating from the wake response or the non linear
character of dynamic stall are also included. In
addition to that it is found that blade natural
frequencies cannot be considered separately from
each other. It is also found that apart from the
structural damping the cross stiffness distribution
along the blade has a significant effect on the stability
characteristics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Part of the work has been financially supported
by the Greek General Secretary of Research and
Technology under contract EPET-II #573. Financial
support was also provided by the Research
Committee of NTUA under contract 67/20.
REFERENCES
1. T. Moeller, “Blade Cracks Signal New Stress
Problem”, WindPower Monthly, May (1997).
2. P.K. Chaviaropoulos, “Flap Lead-Lag Aeroelastic
Stability of Wind Turbine Blade Sections”, To be
published
3. S.G. Voutsinas, V.A. Riziotis and P.
Chaviaropoulos,1997, “Non-Linear Aerodynamics
and Fatigue Loading on Wind Turbines Operating
at Extreme Sites”, AIAA paper no. 97-0935
4. V.A. Riziotis and S.G. Voutsinas, 1997, “GAST:
A General Aerodynamic and Structural Tool for
Wind Turbines”, EWEC’ 97, Dublin
5. V.A. Riziotis, P.K. Chaviaropoulos. and S.G.
Voutsinas, 1996 ,"Development of a State-of-the
Art Aeroelastic Simulator for Horizontal Axis
Wind Turbines. Part 2: Aerodynamic Aspects and
Application", Wind Engineering Vol. 20, No. 6
6. H. Snel and J.G. Schepers, 1994, “Joint
Investigation of Dynamic Inflow effects and
Implementation of an Engineering Method”, ECN
report ECN-C. -94-107, Netherlands
7. J.G. Schepers and H. Snel, 1995, “Dynamic
Inflow: Yawed conditions and Partial Span Pitch
Control ”, ECN report ECN-C-95-056,
Netherlands
8. D. Petot, 1989, "Differential Equation Modeling of
Dynamic Stall’, Rech. Aerosp., No 5
9. W.A. Bierbooms, 1991, "A Comparison between
Unsteady Aerodynamic Models", Proc. EWEC 91
Conf., Amsterdam.
10. M. Drela, 1989, "XFOIL: An Analysis and
Design System for Low Reynolds Number
 Airfoils", Conference on Low Reynolds Number
Airfoil Aerodynamics, Univ. Of Notre Dame
0.01

UNSTABLE
0.01

Real Part of Eigenvalues

0.00
STABLE
UNSTABLE
Real Part of Eigenvalues

0.00
STABLE -0.01

Γ-2
-0.01
-0.02 flap
lead-lag
Γ-2

-0.02 flap
lead-lag -0.03

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

k=Ω*c/W
-0.03

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15

k=Ω*c/W
0.20 0.25 0.30
Fig. 4: Influence of CDi

Fig. 1: Stability diagram of the reference case

0.003

0.002

0.001 ξ = 0. UNSTABLE

0.000
0.01 STABLE
Real Part of Eigenvalues -0.001

-0.002

UNSTABLE -0.003 ξ = 0.002

Real Part of Eigenvalues

0.00
-0.004
STABLE
-0.005
ξ = 0.005
-0.006
-0.01
-0.007 Γ-2

-0.008 flap
Γ-2 ξ = 0.010
-0.009 lead-lag
-0.02 flap
lead-lag -0.010

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

k=Ω*c/W
-0.03

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

k=Ω*c/W Fig. 5: Influence of the structural damping

Fig. 2: Influence of ΔCL

0.020
Γ-2 κ = 0.1 , Rf = 0.02
flap
lead-lag
0.016
63-215
0.01
63-212
Real Part of Eigenvalues

UNSTABLE

0.012
Real Part of Eigenvalues

0.00

STABLE
0.008

-0.01

0.004
Γ-2
63-218
-0.02 flap
lead-lag 0.000

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
incidence (deg)
-0.03

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

k=Ω*c/W Fig 6: Stability characteristics of three
NACA 63-2XX profiles
Fig. 3: Influence of ΔCLi

6
 ω-flap=3.5 - RFC plot ω-flap=3.5 - RFC plot

600 1000

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

500
800

700
400
600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

200
100
100
0 0
5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95 5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95
ω-lag ω-lag

a1 a2
ω-flap=4.05 - RFC plot ω-flap=4.05 - RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0 0
5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95 5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95
ω-lag ω-lag

b1 b2
ω-flap=4.50 - RFC plot ω-flap=4.50 - RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0 0
5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95 5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95
ω-lag ω-lag

c1 c2
ω-flap=4.95 - RFC plot ω-flap=4.95 -RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bendig moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300
100-cycles 500
100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0
0
5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95
5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95
ω-lag
ω-lag

d1 d2
Fig 7: Rfc plots of a 19m blade, ΔCL/CLmax = 0.35,
dCL/dα=-0.1

7
 ω-flap=3.5 - RFC plot ω-flap=3.5 - RFC plot

600 1000

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

500
800

700
400
600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

200
100
100
0 0
5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95 5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95
ω-lag ω-lag

a1 a2
ω-flap=4.05 - RFC plot ω-flap=4.05 - RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0 0
5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95 5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95
ω-lag ω-lag

b1 b2
ω-flap=4.50 - RFC plot ω-flap=4.50 - RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0 0
5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95 5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95
ω-lag ω-lag

c1 c2
ω-flap=4.95 - RFC plot ω-flap=4.95 -RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bendig moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300
100-cycles 500
100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0
0
5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95
5.5 6.5 7.05 7.95
ω-lag
ω-lag

d1 d2
Fig 8: Rfc plots of a 19m blade, ΔCL/CLmax = 0.20,
dCL/dα=-0.1

8
 ω-lag=5.50 - RFC plot ω-lag=5.50 - RFC plot

600 1000

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

500
800

700
400
600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

200
100
100
0 0
3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95 3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95
ω-flap ω-flap

a1 a2
ω-lag=6.50 - RFC plot ω-lag=6.50 - RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0 0
3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95 3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95
ω-flap ω-flap

b1 b2
ω-lag=7.05 - RFC plot ω-lag=7.05 - RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0 0
3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95 3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95
ω-flap ω-flap

c1 c2
ω-lag=7.95 - RFC plot ω-lag=7.95 -RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bendig moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300
100-cycles 500
100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0
0
3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95
3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95
ω-flap
ω-flap

d1 d2
Fig 9: Rfc plots of a 19m blade, ΔCL/CLmax = 0.35,
dCL/dα=-0.1

9
 ω-lag=5.50 - RFC plot ω-lag=5.50 - RFC plot

600 1000

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

500
800

700
400
600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

200
100
100
0 0
3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95 3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95
ω-flap ω-flap

a1 a2
ω-lag=6.50 - RFC plot ω-lag=6.50 - RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0 0
3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95 3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95
ω-flap ω-flap

b1 b2
ω-lag=7.05 - RFC plot ω-lag=7.05 - RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bending moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300 500
100-cycles 100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0 0
3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95 3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95
ω-flap ω-flap

c1 c2
ω-lag=7.95 - RFC plot ω-lag=7.95 -RFC plot

600 1000
flapwise bendig moment - range (KNm)

edgewise bending moment - range (KNm)

900
500
800

400 700

600
10-cycles 10-cycles
300
100-cycles 500
100-cycles
400
200
300

100 200

100
0
0
3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95
3.5 4.05 4.5 4.95
ω-flap
ω-flap

d1 d2
Fig 10: Rfc plots of a 19m blade, ΔCL/CLmax = 0.20,
dCL/dα=-0.1

10
 600 1000
Untwisted Untwisted
Twisted Twisted
500
800

Range - Edgewise Moment (KNm)

Range - Flapwise Moment (KNm)

400
600

300

400
200

200
100

0 0
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Number of cycles Number of cycles

a1 a2
Fig 11: ΔCL/CLmax = 0.35, dCL/dα=-0.1,
ωf =4.05, ωl =7.05
600 1000
Untwisted Untwisted
Twisted Twisted
500
800

Range - Edgewise Moment (KNm)

Range - Flapwise Moment (KNm)

400
600

300

400
200

200
100

0 0
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Number of cycles Number of cycles

a1 a2
Fig 12: ΔCL/CLmax = 0.20, dCL/dα=-0.1,
ωf =4.05, ωl =7.05
600 1000
0.5% Structural Damping 0.5% Structural Damping
0.3% Structural Damping 0.3% Structural Damping
500
800
Range - Edgewise Moment (KNm)
Range - Flapwise Moment (KNm)

400
600

300

400
200

200
100

0 0
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Number of cycles Number of cycles

a1 a2
Fig 13: ΔCL/CLmax = 0.35, dCL/dα=-0.1,
ωf =4.05, ωl =7.05
600 1000
0.5% Structural Damping 0.5% Structural Damping
0.3% Structural Damping 0.3% Structural Damping
500
800
Range - Edgewise Moment (KNm)
Range - Flapwise Moment (KNm)

400
600

300

400
200

200
100

0 0
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Number of cycles Number of cycles

a1 a2
Fig 14: ΔCL/CLmax = 0.35, dCL/dα=-0.1,
ωf =4.05, ωl =7.95

11