energies

Article
Aerodynamic and Structural Integrated Optimization
Design of Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine Blades
Jie Zhu 1,2, *, Xin Cai 2 and Rongrong Gu 2
1 College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Jiaxing University, Jiaxing 314001, China
2 College of Mechanics and Materials, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China;
xcai@hhu.edu.cn (X.C.); gurr99@126.com (R.G.)
* Correspondence: zhukejie2222@163.com; Tel.: +86-573-8364-6050

Academic Editor: Frede Blaabjerg

Received: 14 December 2015; Accepted: 18 January 2016; Published: 22 January 2016

Abstract: A procedure based on MATLAB combined with ANSYS is presented and utilized for
the aerodynamic and structural integrated optimization design of Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine
(HAWT) blades. Three modules are used for this purpose: an aerodynamic analysis module using
the Blade Element Momentum (BEM) theory, a structural analysis module employing the Finite
Element Method (FEM) and a multi-objective optimization module utilizing the non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithm. The former two provide a sufficiently accurate solution of the aerodynamic
and structural performances of the blade; the latter handles the design variables of the optimization
problem, namely, the main geometrical shape and structural parameters of the blade, and promotes
function optimization. The scope of the procedure is to achieve the best trade-off performances
between the maximum Annual Energy Production (AEP) and the minimum blade mass under
various design requirements. To prove the efficiency and reliability of the procedure, a commercial
1.5 megawatt (MW) HAWT blade is used as a case study. Compared with the original scheme,
the optimization results show great improvements for the overall performance of the blade.

Keywords: integrated optimization design; horizontal axis wind turbine; multi-objective

optimization; annual energy production; blade mass

1. Introduction
Blades are regarded as the key components of the Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine (HAWT) system
and have been paid much attention by most of the leading wind turbine manufacturers to develop
their own blade design. As world wind energy market continuously grows, a number of blade
manufacturers have emerged recently, especially in China. However, their independent design and
manufacturing capabilities are weak, and the wind blade market is still dominated by the leading wind
turbine system manufacturers [1]. Thus, to enter the market successfully and be more competitive,
improving the fundamental technology on design and production of multi-megawatt (MW) class
blades is indispensable.
The design process of the blades can be divided into two stages: the aerodynamic design and
the structural design [2]. From the perspective of aerodynamic design, aerodynamic loads, power
performance, aerodynamic efficiency, and Annual Energy Production (AEP) are important, and from
the perspective of structural design, composite material lay-up, mass, stiffness, buckling stability, and
fatigue loads are concerned [3]. A successful blade design should take into account the interaction
between the two stages and satisfy a wide range of objectives, so the design process is a complex
multi-objective optimization task characterized by numerous trade-off decisions. Nevertheless, in
order to simplify the process, the aerodynamic design and the structural design are separated by the

Energies 2016, 9, 66; doi:10.3390/en9020066 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2016, 9, 66 2 of 18

conventional methods. As of now, most of the research is focused mainly on the optimization of either
aerodynamic or structural performances, which are unable to get the overall optimal solutions [4–9].
OnlyEnergies 2016, 9, 66 
a limited number of works are concerned with the optimization of both aerodynamic 2 of 18  and
structural performances, and the relative procedure for this purpose is scarce.
optimization of either aerodynamic or structural performances, which are unable to get the overall 
Grujicic [10] developed a multi-disciplinary design-optimization procedure for the design of
optimal solutions [4–9]. Only a limited number of works are concerned with the optimization of both 
a 5 MW HAWT blade with respect to the attainment of a minimal Cost of Energy (COE), and
aerodynamic and structural performances, and the relative procedure for this purpose is scarce. 
several potential solutions for remedying the performance deficiencies of the blade were obtained.
Grujicic [10] developed a multi‐disciplinary design‐optimization procedure for the design of a 
Bottasso [11] described procedures for the multi-disciplinary design optimization of wind turbines.
5 MW HAWT blade with respect to the attainment of a minimal Cost of Energy (COE), and several 
The optimization was performed by a multi-stage process that first alternates between an aerodynamic
potential solutions for remedying the performance deficiencies of the blade were obtained. Bottasso [11] 
shapedescribed 
optimization to maximize
procedures  for  the the AEP and a structural
multi‐disciplinary  design blade optimization
optimization  to minimize
of  wind  turbines. the
The blade
weight, and then combined the two to yield the final optimum solution. However, the problems
optimization was performed by a multi‐stage process that first alternates between an aerodynamic 
only shape optimization to maximize the AEP and a structural blade optimization to minimize the blade 
take a single objective function into account at each time, thus they can not obtain the trade-off
weight, 
solutions and  then 
among combined 
conflicted the  two  to  yield  the  final  optimum  solution.  However,  the  problems 
objectives.
only take a single objective function into account at each time, thus they can not obtain the trade‐off 
Benini [12] described a two-objective optimization method to design stall regulated HAWT blades,
solutions among conflicted objectives. 
the aim was to achieve the trade-off solutions between AEP per square meter of wind park and COE.
Benini  [12]  described  a  two‐objective  optimization  method  to  design  stall  regulated  HAWT 
Wang [13,14] applied a novel multi-objective optimization algorithm for the design of wind turbine
blades, the aim was to achieve the trade‐off solutions between AEP per square meter of wind park 
blades by employing the minimum blade mass and the maximum power coefficient, the maximum
and  COE.  Wang  [13,14]  applied  a  novel  multi‐objective  optimization  algorithm  for  the  design  of 
AEP and minimum blade mass as the optimization objectives, respectively. However, the blades are
wind turbine blades by employing the minimum blade mass and the maximum power coefficient, 
treated as beam models to calculate the structural performances in the above research, and the material
the maximum AEP and minimum blade mass as the optimization objectives, respectively. However, 
layups were not considered.
the blades are treated as beam models to calculate the structural performances in the above research, 
and the material layups were not considered. 
This paper describes a procedure for the aerodynamic and structural integrated multi-optimization
design ofThis 
HAWT paper  describes 
blades a  procedure 
to maximize the AEPfor  andthe  aerodynamic 
minimize and mass.
the blade structural  integrated 
The scope is to find
multi‐optimization  design  of  HAWT  blades  to  maximize  the  AEP 
the balance between the design process to obtain the optimum overall performance of theand  minimize  the  blade  mass. 
blades,
The  scope  is  to  find  the  balance  between  the  design  process  to  obtain  the  optimum  overall 
by varying the main aerodynamic parameters (chord, twist, span-wise locations of airfoils, and the
performance of the blades, by varying the main aerodynamic parameters (chord, twist, span‐wise 
rotational speed) as well as structural parameters (material layup in the spar cap and the position of
locations of airfoils, and the rotational speed) as well as structural parameters (material layup in the 
the shear webs) under various design requirements.
spar cap and the position of the shear webs) under various design requirements. 

2. Modeling of the Blade

2. Modeling of the Blade 

2.1. Finite Element Method (FEM) Model of the Blade

2.1. Finite Element Method (FEM) Model of the Blade 
As aAs 
starting point
a  starting  forfor 
point  thethe 
optimization,
optimization,  an initial definition 
an  initial  definitionof of the
the  blade
blade  aerodynamic
aerodynamic  and  and
structural configuration is required. In this paper, a commercial 1.5 MW HAWT blade with a length of
structural configuration is required. In this paper, a commercial 1.5 MW HAWT blade with a length 
37 m of 37 m and a mass of 6580.4 kg is used for a case study. 
and a mass of 6580.4 kg is used for a case study.
Figure 1 shows the geometry shape of the blade, which can be divided into three areas: root, 
Figure 1 shows the geometry shape of the blade, which can be divided into three areas: root,
transition region and aerodynamic region. The root area is normally circular in cross section in order 
transition region and aerodynamic region. The root area is normally circular in cross section in order
to match up with the bolted flange, the aerodynamic region uses aerofoil section to capture the wind, 
to match up with the bolted flange, the aerodynamic region uses aerofoil section to capture the wind,
and  the  transition  region  from  the  root  section  to  the  aerofoil  section  should  be  a  smooth  one  for 
and the transition region from the root section to the aerofoil section should be a smooth one for
structural reasons. 
structural reasons.

 
Figure 1. The geometry shape of the blade.
Figure 1. The geometry shape of the blade. 

The geometrical shape of the blade can be described by the airfoil series and the chord, twist
The geometrical shape of the blade can be described by the airfoil series and the chord, twist 
and  percent 
and percent thickness 
thickness distributions. 
distributions. TheThe  main 
main geometrical 
geometrical features 
features areare  summarized 
summarized inin  Table 
Table 1. 1. 
Seven
Seven control points (CP) with fixed radial locations are used for the chord and twist distributions, 
control points (CP) with fixed radial locations are used for the chord and twist distributions, as shown
as shown in Figure 2. The radial locations of the CP3‐7 are defined using half‐cosine spacing, CP1 is 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 3 of 18

Energies 2016, 9, 66  3 of 18 

in Figure 2. The radial locations of the CP3-7 are defined using half-cosine spacing, CP1 is
Energies 2016, 9, 66  at root,
3 of 18 
at root, CP3 is at the maximum chord station and CP7 is at the tip. Then, the chord and twist are 
CP3 is at the maximum chord station and CP7 is at the tip. Then, the chord and twist are3 of 18 
Energies 2016, 9, 66  defined
defined  with  an  8th  order  Bezier  curve  and  a  5th  Bezier  curve,  except  the  twist  remains  constant 
at root, CP3 is at the maximum chord station and CP7 is at the tip. Then, the chord and twist are 
with an 8thof 
inboard  order Bezier
the  an 
maximum  curve and a 5thFigure 
chord.  Bezier curve, exceptthe 
thepercent 
twist remains constant inboard of
Bezier  As 
curve  and  a 3 5th 
illustrates,  thickness 
at root, CP3 is at the maximum chord station and CP7 is at the tip. Then, the chord and twist are 
defined  with  distribution 
constant is 
chord.8th Asorder 
Figure 3 illustrates, Bezier  curve, 
the percent thickness except  the 
distributiontwist  remains 
therepresented by the span‐wise location of airfoils listed in Table 1. Six more control points with fixed 
maximum is represented by the
defined 
inboard with  an  maximum 
of  the  8th  order  Bezier 
chord. curve  and  a  5th 
As  Figure  Bezier  curve, 
3  illustrates,  the except  the 
percent  twist  remains 
thickness  constant 
distribution  is 
span-wise location of airfoils listed in Table 1. Six more control points with
percent thickness are defined. Then, a cubic polynomial is fit through the control points.  fixed percent thickness are
inboard  of  the  maximum  chord.  As  Figure  3  illustrates,  the  percent  thickness  distribution  is 
represented by the span‐wise location of airfoils listed in Table 1. Six more control points with fixed 
defined. Then, a cubic polynomial is fit through the control points.
represented by the span‐wise location of airfoils listed in Table 1. Six more control points with fixed 
percent thickness are defined. Then, a cubic polynomial is fit through the control points. 
Table 1. The main geometrical features of the blade. 
percent thickness are defined. Then, a cubic polynomial is fit through the control points. 
Table 1. The main geometrical features of the blade.
Table 1. The main geometrical features of the blade. 
Location (m) Airfoil  Chord (m) Twist (°) Percent Thickness (%) 
Table 1. The main geometrical features of the blade. 
Location (m)
0 
Location (m)
Airfoil 
Circle 
Airfoil
Chord (m)
1.88 (m) Twist (°)
Chord 10.00 (˝ ) Percent Thickness (%) 
Twist Percent 100 
Thickness (%)
Location (m)
1.0  0  Airfoil 
Circle 
Circle  Chord (m)
1.88 
1.88  Twist (°)
10.00  Percent Thickness (%) 
100 
100 
0 0  Circle
Circle  1.88
1.88  10.00
10.00  100 100
6.8 1.0  Circle 
DU400EU  1.88 
3.02  10.00  100 
40 
1.0 Circle 1.88 10.00 100
1.0 
6.8 
9.3  Circle 
DU400EU 
DU300EU  1.88 
3.02 
2.98  10.00 
10.00 
7.30  100 
40 
30 
6.8 DU400EU 3.02 10.00 40
6.8 
9.3 
13.7  DU400EU 
DU300EU 
DU91_W2_250  3.02 
2.98 
2.51  10.00 
7.30 
4.35  40 
30 
25 
9.3 DU300EU 2.98 7.30 30
9.3 
13.7 
29.8 
13.7 DU300EU 
DU91_W2_250 
NACA_64_618 
DU91_W2_250 2.98 
2.51 
1.68 
2.51 7.30 
4.35 
−0.33 
4.35 30 
25 
18 
25
29.813.7 
29.8  DU91_W2_250 
NACA_64_618 
NACA_64_618 2.51 
1.68 
1.68 4.35 
−0.33 
´0.33 25 
18  18
36.5  NACA_64_618  1.21  −1.13  18 
36.529.8 
36.5  NACA_64_618 
NACA_64_618 
NACA_64_618 1.68 
1.21 
1.21 −0.33 
−1.13 
´1.13 18 
18 18
 
36.5  NACA_64_618  1.21   −1.13  18 
3.5 13
3.5     13 1 2 3
3.0
3
Control points   1 2 3
Control points
3.0 Control points 139 Control points
2.5 3.5 34   91 4
2 3
) ()()

2.5
Chord (m)

4 4 Control points
2.0 3.0 Control points
(m) (m)

3 5 95
(Twist

2.0 5 5
1.5 12.5 2 5
TwistTwist

4 6 4 5
Chord

1.5 1 2
2.0 6 6
1.0 5 51 5 6
7 1 7
Chord

1.0 1 2
1.5 7 7
0.5 6
0.5 6
1.0 1
-3
0.0 0.0 7 -30 7
0 55 10
10 15
15 2020 2525 3030 35 35 40 40
00.5 0 5 5 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 3030 3535 4040    -3 Bladelength
Blade length(m)
(m)
   
0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15
(a) 
(a) 
20 25
(b) 
(b) 
30 35 40   Blade length (m)  
(a)  (b) 
Figure 2. (a) Chord and (b) twist distribution of the blade. 
Figure 2. (a) Chord and (b) twist distribution of the blade. 
Figure 2. (a) Chord and (b) twist distribution of the blade.
Figure 2. (a) Chord and (b) twist distribution of the blade. 
100100
8 8
100 Control
Controlpoints
points
80 80 8
(%) (%)
Percent thickness (%)

Control points
80
thickness

60 60
thickness

60 9
40 9
Percent

40 9 10
10
11
40 11
Percent

20 10 12 13
20 11 12 13
20 12 13
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
00 5 10 15 Blade 20
length (m)25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40  
  
Blade length (m)
Blade length (m)
Figure 3. Percent thickness distribution of the blade. 
Figure 3. Percent thickness distribution of the blade.
Figure 3. Percent thickness distribution of the blade. 
Figure 3. Percent thickness distribution of the blade. 
Figure 4 shows a typical structural cross section of the blade, which is composed of four parts: 
Figure 4 shows a typical structural cross section of the blade, which is composed of four parts:
Figure 4 shows a typical structural cross section of the blade, which is composed of four parts: 
Figure 4 shows a typical structural cross section of the blade, which is composed of four parts: 
leading  edge,  trailing  edge,  spar  cap  and  shear  webs.  The  spar  cap  mainly  consists  of  glass  fiber 
leading edge,
leading  trailing
edge,  trailing edge,
edge,  spar
spar  cap and shear webs. Thespar 
sparcap 
cap mainly consists of glass fiber
leading  edge, 
composite  trailing 
materials,  edge, 
while  the  cap 
spar  cap and 
other and  shear 
shear 
three  webs. 
webs. 
parts  The 
The 
consist  spar 
of  cap 
glass  mainly 
mainly 
fiber  consists 
consists 
composite  of of  glass 
glass 
materials  fiber 
fiber 
with 
composite
composite materials,
composite materials, while
materials,  thethe 
while 
while  other
the  three
other 
other  parts
three 
three  consist
parts 
parts  of glass
consist  fiber
of glass 
of  glass 
Balsa and PVC core materials. The material properties are listed in Table 2.  composite
fiber 
fiber  materials
composite 
composite  with
materials 
materials  Balsa
with 
with 
and PVC core materials. The material properties are listed in
Balsa and PVC core materials. The material properties are listed in Table 2.  Table
Balsa and PVC core materials. The material properties are listed in Table 2.  2.

 
Figure 4. A typical structural cross section of the blade.    
Figure 4. A typical structural cross section of the blade. 
Figure 4. A typical structural cross section of the blade.
Figure 4. A typical structural cross section of the blade. 
Energies 2016, 9, 66  4 of 18 

Energies 2016, 9, 66  4 of 18 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 Table 2. The material properties of the blade.  4 of 18

Material  E1 (GPa)  E2 (GPa) G12 (GPa) v12  (kg/m3) Thickness (mm)

Table 2. The material properties of the blade. 
UD‐1200‐xxx  Table 2. The12.5 
42.2  material properties of0.24  the blade.1910  3
Material  E1 (GPa)  E2 (GPa) G12 3.5  (GPa) v12  (kg/m 0.873 
) Thickness (mm)
2AX‐1200‐0660 
UD‐1200‐xxx  11.5 
42.2  11.5 
12.5  11.8 
3.5  0.61 
0.24  1909 
1910  0.878 
0.873 
Material E1 (GPa) E2 (GPa) G12 (GPa) v0.47  ρ (kg/m 3) Thickness (mm)
3AX‐1200‐6330  26.9  13.4  7.5  12 1910  0.906 
2AX‐1200‐0660  11.5  11.5  11.8  0.61  1909  0.878 
UD-1200-xxx
3AX9060‐1200‐0336  42.2
31.8  12.5
11.4  3.5
6.5  0.24
0.49  1910
1910  0.873
0.906 
3AX‐1200‐6330  26.9  13.4  7.5  0.47  1910  0.906 
2AX-1200-0660
Balsa  11.5
3.5  11.5
0.8  11.8
0.16  0.61
0.39  1909
151  0.878
25.4 
3AX9060‐1200‐0336 
3AX-1200-6330 31.8 
26.9 11.4 
13.4 6.5 
7.5 0.49 
0.47 1910 
1910 0.906 
0.906
PVC 
Balsa 
3AX9060-1200-0336
0.05 
3.5 
31.8
0.05 
0.8 
11.4
0.02 
0.16 
6.5
0.09 
0.39 
0.49
60 
151 
1910
10/15/20/25 
25.4 
0.906
Balsa
PVC  3.5
0.05  0.8
0.05  0.16
0.02  0.39
0.09  151
60  25.4
10/15/20/25 
The  FEM PVC model  of  the  0.05blade  is 0.05
generated 0.02 by  using 0.09 ANSYS  Parametric 
60 Design  Language 
10/15/20/25
(ADPL) 
The in  ANSYS 
FEM  model software, 
of  the  which  enables 
blade  is  the  creation 
generated  by  using of  ANSYS 
various  FEM  models 
Parametric  by  changing 
Design  the 
Language 
main aerodynamic and structural parameters. The model is entirely created with SHELL99 element 
The in 
(ADPL)  FEM modelsoftware, 
ANSYS  of the blade is generated
which  enables by using
the  ANSYS
creation  Parametric
of  various  FEM  Design Language
models  (ADPL)the 
by  changing  in
for 
ANSYSmodeling  the  spar  cap  and  SHELL91  element  for  modeling  the  thick 
software, which enables the creation of various FEM models by changing the main aerodynamic
main aerodynamic and structural parameters. The model is entirely created with SHELL99 element  sandwich  structures, 
namely the leading edge, trailing edge and shear webs. The two types of elements model the layup 
and
for  structural the 
modeling  parameters.
spar  cap The and model is entirely
SHELL91  element created with SHELL99
for  modeling  element
the  thick  for modeling
sandwich  the
structures, 
as orthotropic in given layers by real constants, which contain the material properties, orientation 
spar cap and SHELL91 element for modeling the thick sandwich structures,
namely the leading edge, trailing edge and shear webs. The two types of elements model the layup  namely the leading edge,
and thickness. The number of real constants should be reasonably determined, as a small number of 
trailing edge and shear webs. The two types of elements model the layup as orthotropic in given layers
as orthotropic in given layers by real constants, which contain the material properties, orientation 
real constants could result in big calculation errors, while a large number of them would be time‐ 
by real constants, which contain the material properties, orientation and thickness. The number of real
and thickness. The number of real constants should be reasonably determined, as a small number of 
consuming. 
constants Based 
should be on  a  reasonable 
reasonably simplification 
determined, as a small of  number
the  layup,  290 constants
of real
real constants could result in big calculation errors, while a large number of them would be time‐ real  constants  are  defined 
could result in big
through adjusting the model many times, as shown in Figure 5, each color represents a real constant. 
calculation
consuming. errors,
Based while
on  a areasonable 
large number of them would
simplification  be time-
of  the  layup, consuming. Based on aare 
290  real  constants  reasonable
defined 
In  order  to  prevent 
simplification erroneous 
of the layup, results, 
290 real a  regular 
constants quadrilateral 
are defined throughmesh  generation 
adjusting
through adjusting the model many times, as shown in Figure 5, each color represents a real constant.  method 
the model manyis times,
used as
to 
generate 
shown elements 
in to 
In  order  Figure with 
5, each
prevent  low  aspect 
color represents
erroneous  ratios. 
results, aa realThe  FEM 
constant.
regular  model  with 
In order to
quadrilateral  a  mass 
prevent
mesh  of  6555.2 
erroneous
generation  kg  is  shown 
results,is aused 
method  in 
regular
to 
Figure 6. The validation process of the FEM model had been carried out in our previous work [15] 
quadrilateral
generate  mesh with 
elements  generation method
low  aspect  is used
ratios.  The toFEM 
generate elements
model  with  a with
mass  low
of aspect
6555.2 ratios. The FEM
kg  is  shown  in 
to guarantee the reliability of the numerical simulation. 
model with a mass of 6555.2 kg is shown in Figure 6. The validation process of the FEM model had
Figure 6. The validation process of the FEM model had been carried out in our previous work [15] 
been carried out in our previous work [15] to guarantee the reliability of the numerical simulation.
to guarantee the reliability of the numerical simulation. 

 
Figure 5. Real constant distribution of the blade. 
 
Figure 5. Real constant distribution of the blade.
Figure 5. Real constant distribution of the blade. 

 
 
Figure 6. Finite Element Method (FEM) model of the blade.
Figure 6. Finite Element Method (FEM) model of the blade. 
In order to determine the flap-wise, edge-wise and torsional rigidities of the FEM model, two
Figure 6. Finite Element Method (FEM) model of the blade. 
In  order  to  determine  the  flap‐wise,  edge‐wise  and  torsional  rigidities  of  the  FEM  model,   
concentrated forces are applied at the tip in the corresponding directions, respectively. From the
two  In 
concentrated 
order  forces  are 
to  determine  applied 
the  at  the 
flap‐wise,  tip  in  and 
edge‐wise  the  corresponding  directions, 
torsional  rigidities  respectively. 
of  the  FEM  model,    
deformed results, the bending deflections and the node displacements are recorded, the bending
From concentrated 
two  the  deformed  results,  the  bending  deflections  and corresponding 
the  node  displacements  are  recorded,   
angles and bending forces 
rate perare 
unitapplied  at  the 
length, the twisttip  in  and
angle the  corresponding ratedirections,  respectively. 
of twist are calculated  
From  the  deformed  results,  the  bending  deflections  and  the  node  displacements  are  recorded,   
Energies 2016, 9, 66  5 of 18 

the bending angles and bending rate per unit length, the twist angle and corresponding rate of twist 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 5 of 18

are  calculated  following  the  same  approach  used  in  [16].  Then,  the  flap‐wise  and  edge‐wise 
rigidities can be computed as the ration between the moment M acting on a given cross section and 
following the same approach used in [16]. Then, the flap-wise and edge-wise rigidities can be computed
the rate of rotation dθ/dz; the torsional rigidity can be computed by the ration between the torque T 
as the ration between the moment M acting on a given cross section and the rate of rotation dθ/dz; the
transmitted across a given section and the corresponding rate of twist dφ per unit of length dz [8,17]. 
torsional rigidity can be computed by the ration between the torque T transmitted across a given section
Figure 
and7 the
shows  the  comparisons 
corresponding between 
rate of twist dϕ perthe 
unitrigidities 
of length of  the  FEM 
dz [8,17]. model 
Figure and the
7 shows the  original  blade.   
comparisons
between the rigidities of the FEM model and the original blade. As can be seen, the rigidities
As can be seen, the rigidities are in good agreement in the flap‐wise, edge‐wise and torsional directions.  are in
good agreement in the flap-wise, edge-wise and torsional directions.

5 Original blade
FEM model
4
EI (GN·m 2)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Blade length (m)  
(a) 
7

6 Original blade
FEM model
5
EI (GN·m 2)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Blade length (m)  
(b) 
3.0

2.5 Original blade

FEM model
2.0
GJ (GN·m 2)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Blade length (m)
(c) 
Figure  7.  (a) 
Figure 7. comparison  of  of
(a) comparison the 
theflap‐wise 
flap-wise rigidity;  (b)  comparison
rigidity; (b) comparison ofof 
thethe  edge‐wise 
edge-wise rigidity;   
rigidity;
(c) comparison of the torsional rigidity. 
(c) comparison of the torsional rigidity.

2.2. Aerodynamic Loads of the Blade 
Aerodynamic  loads  for  design  are  computed  using  Blade  Element  Momentum  (BEM)   
theory [18,19], which include the operational and the ultimate load cases. The operational load case 
considers  the  wind  condition  corresponding  to  the  maximum  root  flap  bending  moment  under 
Energies 2016, 9, 66  6 of 18 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 6 of 18
operational  state.  The  range  of  flow  speeds  from  cut‐in  to  cut‐out  is  divided  into  different  values 
every 0.5 m/s, and the flap bending moment under each wind speed is calculated using Equation (1): 
2.2. Aerodynamic Loads of the Blade
R

M flapare computed 2 2
Aerodynamic loads for design 4πρu a(1using‐ a)FrBlade
dr   Element Momentum (BEM) (1)
0
theory [18,19], which include the operational and the ultimate load cases. The operational load
where  ρ   is the air density, 
case considers u   is the wind speed, 
the wind condition corresponding to athe   is the axial induction factor, F is the Prandtl’s 
maximum root flap bending moment under
operational state. The range of flow speeds from cut-in to cut-out is divided into different values every
correction factor and R is the blade length. 
0.5 m/s, and the flap bending moment under each wind speed is calculated using Equation (1):
The maximum value is derived from all the flap bending moments experienced over the range of 
flow speeds, then the corresponding wind speed  ż R u   can be obtained. Afterwards, the force normal to 
M f lap “ 4πρu2 ap1 ´ aqFr2 dr
the rotor plane  dp   and the force tangential to the rotor plane  dp   are calculated as follows:  (1)
N 0 T

where ρ is the air density, u is the wind speed, a is the axial induction factor, F is the Prandtl’s correction
 1
factor and R is the blade length.dpN = ρW 2 c( r )(Cl cos  Cd sin )dr
 from2 all the flap bending moments experienced over the range of
The maximum value is derived    (2)
flow speeds, then the corresponding 1
dp = ρW c(r )(C sin  C cos )dr
wind speed
2 u can be obtained. Afterwards, the force normal to
the rotor plane dp N and the force  tangential
T l d
2 to the rotor plane dpT are calculated as follows:
$
1
Where W is relative velocity composed of the axial velocity and the tangential velocity,  c( r )   is the 
& dp N “ ρW 2 cprqpCl cosφ ` Cd sinφqdr
’
’
2
local chord, Cl and Cd are the lift and drag coefficients, 
1
   is the angle between the plane of rotation  (2)
2 cprqpC sinφ ´ C cosφqdr
’
and the relative velocity. 
’
% dp T “ ρW l d
2
Where W is relative velocity composed of the axial velocity and theperiod 
The  ultimate  load  case  takes  the  gust  speed  with  a  return  of  50 
tangential years  into 
velocity, cprq account 
is the local to 
make the wind turbine last for the design period. In this case, the blades are parked or idling and 
chord, Cl and Cd are the lift and drag coefficients, φ is the angle between the plane of rotation and the
the ultimate load can be calculated approximately by empirical formula [20]: 
relative velocity.
The ultimate load case takes the gust speed  q2sC
p(r ) with a return
f c( r )  
period of 50 years into account to make (3)
the wind turbine last for the design period. In this case, the blades are parked or idling and the ultimate
load can be calculated approximately by empirical 1 formula [20]:
where  Cf  is  a  force  coefficient,  and  q2s  ρV2s2   is  the  dynamic  pressure  from  an  extreme  wind 
2 “ q2s C f cprq
pprq (3)
speed time averaged over 2 s. For a homogeneous terrain, V2s can be computed using: 
1 2
where C f is a force coefficient, and q2s “ ρV2s is the dynamic pressure from an extreme wind speed
2   h +2 3R  
time averaged over 2 s. For a homogeneous V2s  Vb ktterrain,
ln  V2s can be computed
hub
 + 3    using: (4)
„  ˆ z0 ˙   
hhub ` 2{3R ,
V2s “ Vb k t ln `3 , (4)
z0
where  Vb = 27 m / s   is  a  basis  wind  speed,  hhub   is  the  hub  height,  z0   is  the  roughness  length 
where Vb “ 27m{s is a basis wind speed, hhub is the hub height, z0 is the roughness length and k t is
and  kt   is 
a terrain a  terrain 
factor. If thefactor.  If  the  surrounding 
surrounding landscape haslandscape 
no nearbyhas  no  nearby 
obstacles obstacles 
and very and  very  low 
low vegetation, the
vegetation, the roughness length is approximately 0.01 m and the terrain factor is 0.17. 
roughness length is approximately 0.01 m and the terrain factor is 0.17.
The operational and the ultimate load distributions of the FEM model are shown in Figure 8. 
The operational and the ultimate load distributions of the FEM model are shown in Figure 8.

   
(a)  (b) 

Figure  8. (a) Operational load distribution 
Figure 8. (a) Operational load distribution of 
of the 
the FEM 
FEM model; 
model; (b) Ultimate load distribution 
(b) Ultimate load distribution of 
of the 
the
FEM model. 
FEM model.
Energies 2016, 9, 66 7 of 18

3. Formulation of the Optimization Problem

3.1. The Objective Functions

A successful blade design must satisfy a wide range of objectives, such as maximization of the
AEP and power coefficient, resistance to extreme and fatigue loads, restriction of tip deflections,
avoiding resonances, and minimization of weight and cost, some of these objectives are in conflict [2].
In order to make wind energy more competitive with other energy sources, manufacturers are
concentrating on increasing the energy output capacity and bringing down the cost of blades and
other components at the same time, so minimizing the COE is an attractive target pursued by many
researchers. However, the cost of the blades involves many factors such as cost of the materials,
production tooling, manufacturing labor and overland transportation, and some of them are hard
to estimate. According to some studies [21,22], reducing materials to minimize the blade mass can
not only cause cost reduction of the blade but also have a multiplier effect through out the system
including the foundation. Thus, the maximum AEP and the minimum blade mass are taken as the
objective functions.
The energy that can be captured by a wind turbine depends upon the power versus wind speed
characteristic of the turbine and the wind-speed distribution at the turbine site. The wind-speed
distribution is represented by the Weibull function. The AEP is defined as in Equations (5)–(7):
N
ÿ 1
f p1q “ AEP “ rPpui q ` Ppui`1 qs¨ f pui ă u0 ă ui`1 q ˆ 8760 (5)
2
i “1
żR
Ppui q “ 4πr3 ρui ω 2 a1 p1 ´ aqFdr (6)
0
ˆ ´ ¯ ˙ ˆ ´ ˙
ui k u i `1 ¯ k
f pui ă u0 ă ui`1 q “ exp ´ ´ exp ´ , (7)
A A
where Ppui q is the power under wind speed ui , f pui ă u0 ă ui`1 q is the probability that the wind
speed lies between ui and ui` 1 , ω is the rotational speed of the blade, a1 is the tangential induction
factor, k is a form factor and A is a scaling factor.
The blade mass depends upon the consumption of materials, which can be expressed as:
ÿ
f p2q “ mass “ ρi ˆ Vi (8)
i
where ρi is the material density, Vi is the volume of the material.

3.2. Design Variables

The geometrical shape and the rotational speed of the blade contribute directly to the aerodynamic
performances. Therefore, the values of the control points in Figures 2 and 3 and the rotational speed are
selected as aerodynamic design variables, while the blade length and the airfoil series are employed
as the basic parameters. In order to match up with the bolted flange conveniently, the root diameter
remains unchanged, which means the chord value of CP1 is fixed. Moreover, the chord of CP2 is equal
to CP1, so the chord values of CP3-7 are defined as five aerodynamic variables (x1 to x5 ). As the twist
remains constant inboard of the maximum chord, which means the twists of CP1-3 are the same, then
the twist values of CP3-7 are defined as another five aerodynamic variables (x6 to x10 ). The span-wise
locations of CP8 and CP13 are also fixed, one is at root and the other is at tip, thus the locations
of CP9-12 (airfoils with relative thickness of 40%, 30%, 25% and 18%) are employed as four more
aerodynamic variables (x11 to x14 ). In addition, the rated rotational speed of the rotor is selected as the
last aerodynamic variable (x15 ).
The spar cap of the blade is primarily designed with a relatively large thickness to carry the
aerodynamic loads, so it makes a major contribution to the blade mass [23]. In addition, the blade
mass can further decrease by positioning the shear webs appropriately. Therefore, the number and
 The  spar  cap  of  the  blade  is  primarily  designed  with  a  relatively  large  thickness  to  carry  the 
aerodynamic loads, so it makes a major contribution to the blade mass [23]. In addition, the blade 
aerodynamic loads, so it makes a major contribution to the blade mass [23]. In addition, the blade 
mass can further decrease by positioning the shear webs appropriately. Therefore, the number and 
mass can further decrease by positioning the shear webs appropriately. Therefore, the number and 
location of layers in the spar cap, the width of the spar cap, and the position of the shear webs are 
location of layers in the spar cap, the width of the spar cap, and the position of the shear webs are 
selected as the structural design variables. 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 8 of 18
selected as the structural design variables. 
Figure  9  shows  the  original  material  layup  in  the  spar  cap.  The  region  from  4.4  m  to  25.3  m 
Figure  9  shows  the  original  material  layup  in  the  spar  cap.  The  region  from  4.4  m  to  25.3  m 
(shown in green) will be optimized as it has a much greater number of layers than the other regions. 
location of layers in the spar cap, the width of the spar cap, and the position of the shear webs are
(shown in green) will be optimized as it has a much greater number of layers than the other regions. 
Eight control points are used to simulate the layup in the selected region, and the number of layers 
selected as the structural design variables.
Eight control points are used to simulate the layup in the selected region, and the number of layers 
are defined to change linearly between the control points, as shown in Figure 10. CP16‐19 each has 
Figure 9 shows the original material layup in the spar cap. The region from 4.4 m to 25.3 m
are defined to change linearly between the control points, as shown in Figure 10. CP16‐19 each has 
(shown in green) will be optimized as it has a much greater number of layers than the other regions.
two parameters that are the number and the location of layers, while the other CPs each have one 
Eight control points are used to simulate the layup in the selected region, and the number of layers
two parameters that are the number and the location of layers, while the other CPs each have one 
parameter that is the number of layers. In addition, CP17 and CP18 have the same number of layers. 
are defined to change linearly between the control points, as shown in Figure 10. CP16-19 each has
parameter that is the number of layers. In addition, CP17 and CP18 have the same number of layers. 
Thus,  the 
twonumber 
parameters of that
layers  of number
are the CP14‐21 
andis 
thedefined 
location as  seven while
of layers, structural 
the othervariables  (x16  one
CPs each have to  x22),  the 
Thus,  the  number  of  layers  of  CP14‐21  is  defined  as  seven 
location of layers of CP16‐19 are defined as another four structural variables (x structural 
parameter that is the number of layers. In addition, CP17 and CP18 have the same number variables 
23 to x(x 16
of 26   to  x22),  the 
). Two more 
layers.
location of layers of CP16‐19 are defined as another four structural variables (x
structural variables (x
Thus, the number27 of and x ),  to x
28) are used to define the width of the spar cap and the position of the 
layers of CP14-21 is defined as seven structural variables (x16 to x2223 26). Two more 
the location
structural variables (x
of layers of CP16-19 27 and x 28) are used to define the width of the spar cap and the position of the 
are defined
shear webs, respectively, as shown in Figure 4. as another four structural variables (x23 to x26 ). Two more structural
variables (x27 and x28 ) are used to define the width of the spar cap and the position of the shear webs,
shear webs, respectively, as shown in Figure 4. 
respectively, as shown in Figure 4.

 
 
Figure 9. Original material layup of the spar cap. 
Figure 9. Original material layup of the spar cap.
Figure 9. Original material layup of the spar cap. 
65
65 17 18 Control points
60
17 18 Control points
60
of layers

55
16 19
of layers

55
50 16 19
Number

50
45
Number

15 20
45
40 15 20
40
35
14 21
35
30 14 21
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
30
0 5 10 Blade length
15 (m) 20 25 30  
Blade length (m)  
Figure 10. Parametric material layup of the spar cap.
Figure 10. Parametric material layup of the spar cap. 
Figure 10. Parametric material layup of the spar cap. 
Twenty-eight variables in total are defined, which can be expressed in the following form:
Twenty‐eight variables in total are defined, which can be expressed in the following form: 
T
X “ r x1 x2 . . . xn s , n “ 28. (9)
Twenty‐eight variables in total are defined, which can be expressed in the following form: 
X  [ x1 x2  xn ] ,n = 28  
T
(9)
3.3. Constraint Conditions
X  [ x1 x2  xn ]T ,n = 28 .   (9)
.
The blade design is a multi-criteria constrained optimization problem, and the aerodynamic
and structural requirements should be well satisfied [24,25]. In this paper, the following constraint
3.3. Constraint Conditions 
conditions are mainly taken into account: the strain, the tip deflection, the vibration and the buckling
3.3. Constraint Conditions 
The  blade  design  is  a  multi‐criteria  constrained  optimization  problem,  and  the  aerodynamic 
The  blade  design  is  a  multi‐criteria  constrained  optimization  problem,  and  the  aerodynamic 
and structural requirements should be well satisfied [24,25]. In this paper, the following constraint 
and structural requirements should be well satisfied [24,25]. In this paper, the following constraint 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 9 of 18

constraints. These constraints represent the strength, stiffness, dynamic behavior, and stability design
requirements, respectively.
(1) Generally, the stress and the strain criterions should be considered to reflect the strength of
the blade. However, the maximum stress generated in the considered 1.5 MW blade under different
loads is far less than the allowable stress, while the maximum strain is much closer to the design value.
Therefore, only the strain criterion is used to verify that no elements in the model exceeded the design
strains of the material [22]. This is expressed as follows:
ε max ď ε d {γS1 , (10)
where ε max is the maximum equivalent strain, ε d is the permissible strain, and γs1 is the strain
safety factor.
(2) In order to prevent the collision between the blade tip and the tower, the maximum tip
deflection should be less than the set value. This can be expressed as follows:
dmax ď dd {γS2 , (11)
where dmax is the maximum tip deflection, dd is the allowable tip deflection, and γs2 is the tip deflection
safety factor.
(3) In order to avoid resonance, the natural frequency of the blade should be separated from the
harmonic vibration associated with rotor rotation. This is expressed in the inequality form:
|Fblade´1 ´ 3Frotor | ě ∆, (12)
where Fblade´1 is the first natural frequency of the blade, Frotor is the frequency of the rotor rotation,
and ∆ is the associated allowable tolerance.
(4) Since the blade is a thin-walled structure, its surface panels near the root are particularly
vulnerable to elastic instability, and the buckling problem must be addressed [23]. In order to avoid
buckling failure, the buckling load should be greater than ultimate loads. This can be expressed
as follows:
λ1 ě 1.0 ˆ γS3 , (13)

where λ1 is a ratio of the buckling load to the maximum ultimate load, called lowest buckling
eigenvalue, and γs3 is the buckling safety factor.
In addition, the lower and upper bounds of design variables should be set appropriately to control
the change range, shown in Equation (14a). The twist, chord, and relative thickness distributions
are all required to be monotonically decreasing, so the corresponding variables should be satisfied
with the inequality form in Equation (14b,c). Considering the manufacturing maneuverability and
the continuity of the material layup, the variables that represent the number of layers are required
to be monotonically increasing to a maximum value and then monotonically decreasing, shown in
Equation (14d,e). $ L
’ xi ď xi ď xiU i “ 1, 2, ..., 28
’ paq
’
’
’
’ x j ´ x j`1 ą 0 j “ 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 pbq
’
’
’
&
xk ´ xk`1 ă 0 j “ 11, 12, 13 pcq , (14)
’
’
’
’
’
’
’ x g ´ x g`1 ď 0 g “ 16, 17, 18 pdq
’
’
xh ´ xh`1 ě 0 h “ 19, 20, 21
%
peq

where x L is the lower bound of the variables, and xU is the upper bound of the variables.
The lower and upper bounds of the variables and the constraint conditions are shown in Table 3.
Energies 2016, 9, 66 10 of 18

Table 3. Lower and upper bounds of the variables and the constraint conditions.

Parameter Lower Bound Upper Bound Unit

x1 -x5 1.0 3.3 m
x6 -x10 ´2.0 12.0 ˝

x11 -x14 6.0 30.0 m

x15 10 25 rpm
x16 28 38 -
x17 28 48 -
x18 33 58 -
x19 35 65 -
x20 33 55 -
x21 28 45 -
x22 28 40 -
x23 7.0 9.0 m
x24 10.0 13.0 m
x25 16.0 19.0 m
x26 20.5 22.0 m
x27 0.13 0.25 m
x28 0.50 0.70 m
εmax - 0.005 -
dmax - 5.5 m
λ1 1.2 - -
Fblade´1 ď3Frotor ´ 0.3 or ě3Frotor + 0.3 Hz

4. The Integrated Optimization Design Procedure

The purpose of the present work is to improve the overall performance of HAWT blades by means
of an optimization of its aerodynamic and structural integrated design, a procedure that interfaces
both the MATLAB optimization tool and develops the finite element software ANSYS. Three modules
are used in the procedure: an aerodynamic analysis module, a structural analysis module and a
multi-objective optimization module. The former two provide a sufficiently accurate solution of
the aerodynamic performances and structural behaviors of the blade; the latter handles the design
variables of the optimization problem and promotes functions optimization. The non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA) II [26–28] is adapted for the integrated optimization design. It is one
of the most efficient and well-known multi-objective evolutionary algorithms and has been widely
applied to solve complicated optimization problems. According to the method, the Pareto optimal
front can be obtained considering the set of Non-Dominated Solutions.
Figure 11 shows the flowchart of the integrated optimization process. After inputting the original
parameters, an initial population is generated randomly in MATLAB with the aerodynamic and
structural variables written in a string of genes. The aerodynamic variables are used to define the
geometry shape of the blade while the structural variables are used to define the internal structure.
Then, the BEM theory is applied to evaluate the aerodynamic performance, such as power, power
coefficient, aerodynamic loads, etc. Meanwhile, a macro file that can transfer the variables from
MATLAB into ANSYS is created using APDL language. Through some specific commands, the
procedure opens the software ANSYS, calls the macro file to generate a parametric FEM model of
the blade and simulates the load cases in order to obtain the structural behaviors, namely, the strain
level, the tip deflection, the natural frequencies, the bulking load factors, etc. After several constraint
conditions have been checked, two appropriate fitness functions are evaluated. The next step is to
classify the solutions according to a fast non-dominated sorting approach and assign the crowding
distance. Finally, a new population is created and the process can restart until the optimization
procedure converges.
Energies 2016, 9, 66 11 of 18
Energies 2016, 9, 66  11 of 18 

 
Figure 11. Flowchart of the integrated optimization process.
Figure 11. Flowchart of the integrated optimization process. 

5. Optimization Application and Results

5. Optimization Application and Results 
The basic parameters of the rotor, wind condition and NSGA-II algorithm are listed in Table 4.
The basic parameters of the rotor, wind condition and NSGA‐II algorithm are listed in Table 4. 
The Weibull form factor and scaling factor are determined from local meteorological data of inland
The Weibull form factor and scaling factor are determined from local meteorological data of inland 
China with
China  with anan 
annual average
annual  windwind 
average  speed speed 
of 6 m/s, 6  m/s, knamely, 
of  namely, k  A= =1.91 
= 1.91 and 6.8 m/s.
and The probability
A  =  6.8  m/s.   
distribution of the specified wind speed is shown in Figure 12.
The probability distribution of the specified wind speed is shown in Figure 12. 

Table 4. Parameters of rotor, wind condition and non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm
Table  4.  Parameters  of  rotor,  wind  condition  and  non‐dominated  sorting  genetic  algorithm 
(NSGA)-II algorithm.
(NSGA)‐II algorithm. 

Parameter
Parameter Value
Value Unit
Unit
Rotor diameter 
Rotor diameter 77 
77 m m 
Number of blades 
Number of blades 33  - ‐ 
Hub diameter
Hub diameter  33  m m 
Hub height 75 m
Hub height  75  m 
Rated wind speed 12 m/s
Rated wind speed 
Rated rotational speed 12 
19 rpmm/s 
Rated rotational speed 
Rated power 19 
1500 kWrpm 
Cut-in wind speed
Rated power  4
1500  m/skW 
Cut-out wind speed
Cut‐in wind speed  254  m/sm/s 
Air density 1.225 kg/m3
Cut‐out wind speed 
Weibull form factor k
25 
1.91 -
m/s 
Air density 
Weibull scaling factor A 1.225 
6.8 m/skg/m 3 

Weibull form factor k 
Number of individuals 1.91 
40 - ‐ 
Number of iterations
Weibull scaling factor A  30
6.8  - m/s 
Probability of crossover 0.8 -
Number of individuals  40  ‐ 
Probability of mutation 0.05 -
Number of iterations  30  ‐ 
Probability of crossover  0.8  ‐ 
Probability of mutation  0.05  ‐ 
Energies 2016, 9, 66
Energies 2016, 9, 66  12 of 18
12 of 18 
Energies 2016, 9, 66  12 of 18 

  0.14
  0.14
0.12
0.12 k=1.91 c=6.8 Weibull distribution
0.10 k=1.91 c=6.8 Weibull distribution
0.10
0.08

Probability
0.08

Probability
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
-0.02
-0.020 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 speed (m/s)
Wind 15 20 25
Wind speed (m/s)  
 
Figure 12. Weibull probability distribution of wind speed. 
Figure 12. Weibull probability distribution of wind speed. 
Figure 12. Weibull probability distribution of wind speed.

Figure 
Figure 13 shows
shows  the Pareto
Pareto  front  obtained 
by by  taking 
the the  maximum  AEPAEP  and  the  minimum 
Figure 1313  shows the front
the  Pareto  obtained
front  obtained  taking
by  taking  maximum
the  maximum  and the
AEP  and minimum blade
the  minimum 
blade mass as the optimization objectives. The points on the left hand of the front identify design 
mass as the optimization objectives. The points on the left hand of the front identify design solutions
blade mass as the optimization objectives. The points on the left hand of the front identify design 
solutions having low mass yet low energy production, whereas the points on the right hand of the 
having low mass yet low energy production, whereas the points on the right hand of the front present
solutions having low mass yet low energy production, whereas the points on the right hand of the 
front present design solutions having high energy production but also high mass, which indicates 
design solutions having high energy production but also high mass, which indicates there are some
front present design solutions having high energy production but also high mass, which indicates 
there  are 
conflicts some  conflicts 
the twobetween  the 
It two  objectives.  It  cannot 
pointbe 
is said  which 
thepoint 
choiceis 
ofthe 
thebest,  the 
there  are between
some  conflicts  objectives.
between  the  cannot be said which
two  objectives.  It  cannot  be  the
said best,
which  point  is  the  solution
best,  the 
choice of the solution in the practical design should be made according to the designer’s favor. 
in the practical design should be made according to the designer’s favor.
choice of the solution in the practical design should be made according to the designer’s favor. 
In order to explain the formation of the Pareto front better, four optimized schemes extracted 
In order to explain the formation of the Pareto front better, four optimized schemes extracted at
In order to explain the formation of the Pareto front better, four optimized schemes extracted 
at  different 
different positions 
positions on  the 
on the Pareto 
frontfront  are  analyzed,  as  marked  in  Figure  13.  The  values  of  the 
at  different  positions  on  Pareto
the  Pareto  are analyzed,
front  as marked
are  analyzed,  in Figure
as  marked  13. The
in  Figure  values
13.  of the design
The  values  of  the 
design variables of schemes A, B, C, D and the original scheme are listed in Table 5. 
variables of schemes A, B, C, D and the original scheme are listed in Table 5.
design variables of schemes A, B, C, D and the original scheme are listed in Table 5. 
5900
5900
A
5850
5850
A
5800
5800
5750 Ⅰ
(kg)

5750 Ⅰ B
(kg)

5700 B
mass

5700
mass

5650 C
C
Blade

5650 D
Blade

5600 D
5600
5550
5550 Ⅱ
5500 Ⅱ
5500
5450
5450
3.400 3.415 3.430 3.445 3.460 3.475 3.490 3.505 3.520 3.535 3.550
3.400 3.415 3.430 3.445 3.460 3.475 3.490 3.505 3.520 3.535 3.550
AEP (GWh/yr)  
AEP (GWh/yr)  
Figure 13. Pareto front of two objectives. 
Figure 13. Pareto front of two objectives.
Figure 13. Pareto front of two objectives. 

Table 5. Values of the design variables. 
Table 5. Values of the design variables.
Table 5. Values of the design variables. 
Parameter  Original Scheme  Scheme A Scheme B Scheme C Scheme D  Unit
Parameter 
Parameter Original Scheme 
Original Scheme Scheme A
Scheme A Scheme B
Scheme B Scheme C
Scheme C Scheme D 
Scheme D Unit
Unit
x1  3.08  2.70  2.60  2.47  2.44  m 
xx11  3.08 
3.08 2.70 
2.70 2.60 
2.60 2.47 
2.47 2.44 
2.44 m 
m
x2  2.88  2.64  2.56  2.43  2.41  m 
xx22  2.88 
2.88 2.64 
2.64 2.56 
2.56 2.43 
2.43 2.41 
2.41 m 
m
xx3  2.30 
2.30 2.21 
2.21 2.15 
2.15 2.10 
2.10 2.08 
2.08 m 
m
x33  2.30  2.21  2.15  2.10  2.08  m 
xx44  1.82 
1.82 1.66 
1.66 1.64 
1.64 1.61 
1.61 1.60 
1.60 m 
m
x4  1.82  1.66  1.64  1.61  1.60  m 
xx55  1.21
1.21  1.16
1.16  1.16
1.16  1.19
1.19  1.17
1.17  m
m 
x5  1.21  1.16  1.16  1.19  1.17  m 
˝
xx66  8.73
8.73  10.69
10.69  10.38
10.38  9.70
9.70  9.56
9.56  ° 
xx67  8.73 
6.64 10.69 
6.72 10.38 
6.61 9.70 
6.59 9.56 
6.60 ˝° 
xx7  6.64 
3.14 6.72 
3.84 6.61 
3.49 6.59 
3.80 6.60 
3.58 ° 
˝
x78  6.64  6.72  6.61  6.59  6.60  ° 
xx89  3.14 
0.43 3.84 
0.85 3.49 
0.82 3.80 
0.88 3.58 
0.97 ° 
˝
x8  3.14  3.84  3.49  3.80  3.58  ˝
° 
xx910  0.43 
´1.13 0.85 
´0.49 0.82 
´0.81 0.88 
´0.22 0.97 
0.02 ° 
xx 9  0.43 
6.75 0.85 
7.73 0.82 
6.96 0.88 
7.10 0.97 
7.03 m° 
x1011  −1.13  −0.49  −0.81  −0.22  0.02  ° 
x10  −1.13  −0.49  −0.81  −0.22  0.02  ° 
x11  6.75  7.73  6.96  7.10  7.03  m 
x11  6.75  7.73  6.96  7.10  7.03  m 
 x12  9.50  9.81  9.32  10.51  9.73  m 
x13  14.10  14.18  14.32  14.34  14.21  m 
x14  28.95  24.32  25.16  24.35  24.20  m 
x15 
Energies 2016, 9, 66
19.0  15.5  15.6  15.2  14.9  13 of rpm 
18
x16  33  32  30  30  29  ‐ 
x17  43  38 Table 5. Cont. 36  35  34  ‐ 
x18  53  48  46  44  44  ‐ 
x19  Parameter 62  Scheme
Original 53  A Scheme
Scheme 51 B Scheme50 C Scheme D 48 Unit ‐ 
x20  x12 53  9.50 41 
9.81 39 
9.32 10.5138  9.73 38  m ‐ 
x13 14.10 14.18 14.32 14.34 14.21 m
x21  x14 43  28.95 33 
24.32 31 
25.16 24.3530  24.20 30  m ‐ 
x22  x15 33  19.0 29 
15.5 29 
15.6 15.2 29  14.9 28 rpm ‐ 
x16 33 32 30 30 29 -
x23  x17
7.8  43 7.6 
38
8.0 
36 35
7.6  34
7.8  - m 
x24  x18 11.0  53 12.1 
48 11.8 
46 44 11.9  44 11.8  - m 
x19
x25  x20
18.0  62
53
53
17.9 
41
51
17.9 
39
50
38
17.7  48
38
-
17.7  - m 
x26  x21 21.4  43 21.3 
33 21.3 
31 30 21.3  30 21.2  - m 
x22 33 29 29 29 28 -
x27  x23
0.188 7.8 0.195 
7.6
0.180 
8.0 7.6
0.193  7.8 0.191 m m 
x28  x24 0.620 11.0 0.589 
12.1 0.558 
11.8 0.553  11.8 0.551 m
11.9 m 
x25 18.0 17.9 17.9 17.7 17.7 m
x26 21.4 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.2 m
Figure 14 shows the chord distributions of the original scheme and optimized schemes. Due to 
x27 0.188 0.195 0.180 0.193 0.191 m
x28 0.620 0.589 0.558 0.553 0.551 m
the blade root diameter remaining the same, the chords of the optimization schemes change slightly 
in the root area. After the root area, the chords of the optimized schemes show an obvious decrease 
Figure 14 shows the chord distributions of the original scheme and optimized schemes. Due to
when compared to the original scheme, especially in the maximum chord region and near the blade 
the blade root diameter remaining the same, the chords of the optimization schemes change slightly in
tip.  This theindicates  that the
root area. After the 
rootoriginal 
area, the scheme  is  optimized
chords of the possibly schemes
designed 
showby  the  conventional 
an obvious decrease whenmethods 
(Wilson compared
method toor  Glauert 
the method), 
original scheme, which 
especially in leads  to  a  larger 
the maximum chord. 
chord region andThe 
near reduction 
the blade tip.of  the  chord 
This
indicates that the original scheme is possibly designed by the conventional methods (Wilson method
could reduce the power production to some extent, but it can result in a lighter blade and a lower 
or Glauert method), which leads to a larger chord. The reduction of the chord could reduce the power
thrust at the same time. 
production to some extent, but it can result in a lighter blade and a lower thrust at the same time.

3.5
Original scheme
3.0 Scheme A
Scheme B
2.5 Scheme C
Scheme D
Chord (m)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Blade length (m)  
Figure 14. Comparison of chord distribution.
Figure 14. Comparison of chord distribution. 
Figure 15 shows the twist distributions of the five schemes. The twists of the optimized schemes
Figure  15  shows 
also change slightlythe  twist 
in the distributions 
root area for structuralof  the  five 
reasons. Then,schemes.  The  twists 
the twists increase from theof  the  optimized 
maximum
schemes also change slightly in the root area for structural reasons. Then, the twists increase from 
chord region, but the distribution trends almost remain the same as the original scheme. Due to the
decreasing
the  maximum  of theregion, 
chord  rotationalbut 
speed (x15
the  listed in Tabletrends 
distribution  5), the angle between
almost  the mean
remain  the  relative
same  as velocity
the  original 
and tangential direction will increase. With the incensement of the twist, the angle of attacks can
scheme. Due to the decreasing of the rotational speed (
almost remain the same, which guarantees the airfoils still x15 have
  listed in Table 5), the angle between the 
higher lift-to-drag ratios to partly
mean relative velocity and tangential direction will increase. With the incensement of the twist, the 
make up for the power loss caused by the reduction of the chord.
angle  of  attacks  can  almost  remain  the  same,  which  guarantees  the  airfoils  still  have  higher 
lift‐to‐drag ratios to partly make up for the power loss caused by the reduction of the chord. 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 14 of 18 
14 of 18
Energies 2016, 9, 66  14 of 18 

13
13 Original scheme
11 Original
Scheme A scheme
11 Scheme
Scheme A B
9 Scheme
Scheme B C
9 Scheme
Scheme C D
7 Scheme D

() ()
7
5

Twist
5

Twist
3
3
1
1
-1
-1
-3
-3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15Blade length
20 (m)25 30 35 40
 
Blade length (m)  
Figure 15. Comparison of twist distribution. 
Figure 15. Comparison of twist distribution.
Figure 15. Comparison of twist distribution. 
The  percent  thickness  distributions  are  shown  in  Figure  16.  The  locations  of  the  airfoils  with 
The percent 
The  percent thickness 
thickness distributions 
distributions are 
are shown 
shown in in Figure
Figure  16. The locations 
16.  The  locations of of the 
the airfoils 
airfoils with 
with
40% and 30% thicknesses for the optimized schemes move toward the tip. From the structural point 
40% and 30% thicknesses for the optimized schemes move toward the tip. From
40% and 30% thicknesses for the optimized schemes move toward the tip. From the structural point  the structural point
of  view,  this  is  good  for  increasing  the  section  moment  of  inertia.  The  location  of  the  airfoil  with 
of view, 
of  view, this
this  is
is good
good for
for increasing
increasing the
the section
section moment
moment of of inertia. The location 
inertia.  The  location of 
of the 
the airfoil 
airfoil with 
with
25% thickness almost remains the same, while that of the airfoil with 18% thickness moves toward 
25% thickness almost remains the same, while that of the airfoil with 18% thickness
25% thickness almost remains the same, while that of the airfoil with 18% thickness moves toward  moves toward
the  root.  As  the  airfoil  with  18%  thickness  has  a  higher  lift‐to‐drag  ratio,  the  aerodynamic  region 
the root. 
the  root. As 
As the 
the airfoil 
airfoil with 
with 18% 
18% thickness 
thickness has 
has a 
a higher
higher  lift-to-drag ratio, the 
lift‐to‐drag  ratio,  the aerodynamic region
aerodynamic  region 
composed by this airfoil is the main part of the blade to capture wind energy. Moving the location 
composed by this airfoil is the main part of the blade to capture wind energy. Moving the location
composed by this airfoil is the main part of the blade to capture wind energy. Moving the location 
of  the  airfoil  with  18%  thickness  towards  the  root  can  increase  the  length  of  this  region,  which  is 
of the 
of  the airfoil 
airfoil with 
with 18% 
18% thickness 
thickness towards 
towards the 
the root 
root can 
can increase 
increase the 
the length 
length of of this 
this region, 
region, which 
which is 
is
beneficial to capture more energy, thus improving the power efficiency from the aerodynamic point 
beneficial to capture more energy, thus improving the power efficiency from the
beneficial to capture more energy, thus improving the power efficiency from the aerodynamic point  aerodynamic point
of view. The blade shapes become much smoother after optimization, which is more convenient for 
of view. The blade shapes become much smoother after optimization, which is more convenient for
of view. The blade shapes become much smoother after optimization, which is more convenient for 
manufacturing. The decreasing of the rotational speed could reduce the rotor rotation times during 
manufacturing. The decreasing of the rotational speed could reduce the rotor rotation times during a
manufacturing. The decreasing of the rotational speed could reduce the rotor rotation times during 
a 20 year life span, and thus improve the fatigue life of the blade. 
20 year life span, and thus improve the fatigue life of the blade.
a 20 year life span, and thus improve the fatigue life of the blade. 
100
100 Original scheme
Original
Scheme A scheme
80 Scheme
Scheme A B
80
(%)(%)

Scheme
Scheme B C
Scheme
Scheme C D
thickness

60 Scheme D
thickness

60

40
Percent

40
Percent

20
20

0
00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15Blade length
20 (m)25 30 35 40
 
Blade length (m)  
Figure 16. Comparison of percent thickness distribution.
Figure 16. Comparison of percent thickness distribution. 
Figure 16. Comparison of percent thickness distribution. 
Figures 17 and 18 show the comparison of power coefficients and powers between the original
Figures 17 and 18 show the comparison of power coefficients and powers between the original 
scheme Figures 17 and 18 show the comparison of power coefficients and powers between the original 
scheme  and  optimized
and optimized  schemes,
schemes,  respectively. When compared 
respectively.  When  compared to  to the 
the original
original  scheme,
scheme,  the the  power
power 
scheme  and 
coefficients optimized  schemes,  respectively.  When  compared  to  the  original  scheme,  the  power 
coefficients  of  the  optimized  schemes  increase  significantly  in  the  speed  range  of  4  to  8  m/s,  and
of the optimized schemes increase significantly in the speed range of 4 to 8 m/s, and 
coefficients 
decrease of  the 
slightly inoptimized  schemes 
the peed range of 10increase  significantly 
to 13 m/s. The powerin coefficients
the  speed of range  of  4  to  8  m/s, 
the optimized and 
schemes
decrease slightly in the peed range of 10 to 13 m/s. The power coefficients of the optimized schemes 
decrease slightly in the peed range of 10 to 13 m/s. The power coefficients of the optimized schemes 
all reach the maximum values of about 0.49 at 8 m/s wind speed (a 7.7% increase compared to the
all reach the maximum values of about 0.49 at 8 m/s wind speed (a 7.7% increase compared to the 
all reach the maximum values of about 0.49 at 8 m/s wind speed (a 7.7% increase compared to the 
original
original scheme),
scheme), and and keep relatively
keep  highhigh 
relatively  values in thein speed
values  range of
the  speed  6 to 9of 
range  m/s.
6  to With the reduction
9  m/s.  With  the 
original 
of chord, scheme), 
the rated and 
wind keep  relatively 
speeds of the 4 high  values 
optimized in  the  gradually
schemes speed  range  of  6 from
change to  9 12m/s. 
to 15With 
m/s,the 
as
reduction of chord, the rated wind speeds of the 4 optimized schemes gradually change from 12 to 
reduction of chord, the rated wind speeds of the 4 optimized schemes gradually change from 12 to 
shown
15  m/s, inas Figure
shown  15.in The comparisons
Figure  in Figures 17in 
15.  The  comparisons  and 18 reveal
Figures  that18 
17  and  thereveal 
optimized schemes
that  the  have
optimized 
15  m/s, 
better as  shown  in 
aerodynamic Figure  15.  The 
performances thancomparisons 
the original in  Figures 
scheme at 17 wind
low and  18  reveal 
speeds, butthat 
the the  optimized 
performances
schemes have better aerodynamic performances than the original scheme at low wind speeds, but 
schemes have better aerodynamic performances than the original scheme at low wind speeds, but 
gradually become worse whenbecome 
the wind speed increases. As can be seen from Figure 12,be 
forseen 
a turbine
the  performances  gradually  worse  when  the  wind  speed  increases.  As  can  from 
the 
site performances 
with an annual gradually 
average become 
wind worse 
speed of 6 when 
m/s, the 
the wind  speed 
probabilities increases. 
of the wind As  can 
speed be 
lying seen  from 
between
Figure 12, for a turbine site with an annual average wind speed of 6 m/s, the probabilities of the wind 
Figure 12, for a turbine site with an annual average wind speed of 6 m/s, the probabilities of the wind 
Energies 2016, 9, 66  15 of 18 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 15 of 18 
15 of 18
speed lying between 4 m/s and 8 m/s are much higher than those lying between 10 m/s and 13 m/s, 
speed lying between 4 m/s and 8 m/s are much higher than those lying between 10 m/s and 13 m/s, 
so the optimized schemes are more reasonable as they can utilize more wind energy resources. 
4 m/s and 8 m/s are much higher than those lying between 10 m/s and 13 m/s, so the optimized
so the optimized schemes are more reasonable as they can utilize more wind energy resources. 
schemes are more reasonable as they can utilize more wind energy resources.
0.5
0.5 Original scheme
Blade A scheme
Original
0.4 Blade
Blade B
A

Cp Cp
0.4 Blade
Blade C
B
Coefficient Blade
Blade D
C
Coefficient 0.3
Blade D
0.3
0.2
Power

0.2
Power

0.1
0.1
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.0
0 5 10 Wind speed
15 (m/s) 20 25 30  
Wind speed (m/s)  
Figure 17. Comparison of power coefficient under different wind speed. 
Figure 17. Comparison of power coefficient under different wind speed.
Figure 17. Comparison of power coefficient under different wind speed. 
1600
1600
1400 Original scheme
1400 Scheme
OriginalAscheme
1200
Scheme
Scheme B A
1200 Scheme C
1000 Scheme B
Power(kW)

Scheme
Scheme D C
1000
Power(kW)

800 Scheme D
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0 5 10 Wind speed
15 (m/s) 20 25 30  
Wind speed (m/s)  
Figure 18. Comparison of power under different wind speed.
Figure 18. Comparison of power under different wind speed. 
Figure 18. Comparison of power under different wind speed. 
Figure 19 shows the comparison of material layup in the spar cap between the original scheme
Figure 19 shows the comparison of material layup in the spar cap between the original scheme 
and optimized schemes. From Figure 19 and Table 4, it can be seen that the number of layers changes
Figure 19 shows the comparison of material layup in the spar cap between the original scheme 
and  slightly
optimized 
fromschemes. 
4.4 m to 8From 
m andFigure 
21.5 m19  to and 
25.3 mTable 
while4, itit  can  be  seen 
decreases that from
obviously the  number 
8 m to 21.5of  m
layers 
and  along
optimized  schemes.  From  Figure  19  and  Table  4,  it  can  be  seen 
changes slightly from 4.4 m to 8 m and 21.5 m to 25.3 m while it decreases obviously from 8 m to that  the 
span-wise of the blade, and the thickest region becomes smaller. This indicates that the two number  of  layers 
changes slightly from 4.4 m to 8 m and 21.5 m to 25.3 m while it decreases obviously from 8 m to 
21.5 m along span‐wise of the blade, and the thickest region becomes smaller. This indicates that the 
regions from 4.4 m to 8 m and 21.5 m to 25.3 m have less impact on the blade mass than the middle
21.5 m along span‐wise of the blade, and the thickest region becomes smaller. This indicates that the 
two regions from 4.4 m to 8 m and 21.5 m to 25.3 m have less impact on the blade mass than the 
part. The reason is that the original number of layers in these two regions is less, and the relatively
two regions from 4.4 m to 8 m and 21.5 m to 25.3 m have less impact on the blade mass than the 
large lower bounds limit it to change significantly. As the region from 4.4 m to 8 m withstands higher
middle part. The reason is that the original number of layers in these two regions is less, and the 
loads, large 
relatively  the number
lower ofbounds 
layers inlimit 
this region is a bit more
it  to  change  than it in As 
significantly.  the the 
region from from 
middle part. The reason is that the original number of layers in these two regions is less, and the 
region  21.5 m4.4 
to 25.3
m  to m 8  m 
after optimization.
relatively  large  lower  bounds  limit  it  to  change  significantly.  As  the  region  from  4.4  m  to  8  m 
withstands higher loads, the number of layers in this region is a bit more than it in the region from 
The position of the shear webs decrease after optimization, which means that the shear webs move
withstands higher loads, the number of layers in this region is a bit more than it in the region from 
21.5 m to 25.3 m after optimization. 
toward the centerline of the spar cap. According to the sensitive analysis in our previous work [29],
21.5 m to 25.3 m after optimization. 
The position of the shear webs decrease after optimization, which means that the shear webs 
although the blade mass will increase from 6555.2 kg to 6560.2 kg when the position was reduced
move  The position of the shear webs decrease after optimization, which means that the shear webs 
bytoward 
20%, thethe  centerline 
maximum of can
strain the reduce
spar  cap. 
from According  to  the i.e.,
0.00429 to 0.00412, sensitive 
improveanalysis 
the bladein  our  previous 
strength on
move  toward  the  centerline  of  the  spar  cap.  According  to  the  sensitive 
work [29], although the blade mass will increase from 6555.2 kg to 6560.2 kg when the position was analysis  in  our  previous 
the premise that the mass is almost unchanged. Thus, the number of layers in the spar cap could
work [29], although the blade mass will increase from 6555.2 kg to 6560.2 kg when the position was 
reduced  by  20%, 
decrease the which
further, maximum 
makesstrain 
the bladecan much
reduce  from The
lighter. 0.00429 
width to of0.00412, 
the spari.e., 
capimprove  the  blade 
also decreases
reduced 
after by  20%,  the  maximum  strain 
widthcan  reduce  from 
can0.00429  to  0.00412, 
amount ofi.e., 
strength on the premise that the mass is almost unchanged. Thus, the number of layers in the spar 
optimization, and a smaller of the spar cap reduce the improve 
materials, the isblade 
which
strength on the premise that the mass is almost unchanged. Thus, the number of layers in the spar 
cap  could  decrease 
beneficial further, 
for reducing the which  makes  the  blade  much  lighter.  The  width  of  the  spar  cap  also 
blade mass.
cap  could  after 
decreases  decrease  further,  which 
optimization,  and  makes  the  width 
a  smaller  blade  much 
of  the lighter.  The can 
spar  cap  width  of  the 
reduce  spar 
the  cap  also 
amount  of 
decreases  after  optimization,  and  a  smaller  width  of  the  spar  cap  can  reduce  the  amount  of 
materials, which is beneficial for reducing the blade mass. 
materials, which is beneficial for reducing the blade mass. 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 16 of 18
Energies 2016, 9, 66  16 of 18 

65
Original scheme
60 Scheme A
Scheme B
55 Scheme C
Scheme D

Number of layers
50

45

40

35

30

25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Blade length (m)  
Figure 19. Comparison of material layup of the spar cap. 
Figure 19. Comparison of material layup of the spar cap.

The AEP, 
The  AEP, blade
blade  mass
mass  and
and  structural performances of 
structural  performances  of the 
the schemes 
schemes are 
are presented 
presented in 
in Table 
Table 6. 
6.
Compared with 
Compared  with the 
the original 
original scheme, 
scheme, the 
the AEP 
AEP of 
of schemes 
schemes A, A, B, 
B, C, 
C, D 
D increase 
increase by 
by 11.40%, 
11.40%, 10.99%, 
10.99%,
9.48% and
9.48%  and 7.56%,
7.56%,  respectively, while
respectively,  thethe 
while  blade massmass 
blade  decreases by 10.39%,
decreases  13.53%,13.53%, 
by  10.39%,  15.33% 15.33% 
and 15.96%,
and 
respectively.
15.96%,  The maximum
respectively.  strain increases,
The  maximum  the tip deflection
strain  increases,  decreasesdecreases 
the  tip  deflection  firstly andfirstly 
then increases,
and  then 
and the lowest buckling load factor decreases, but they still satisfy the constraint conditions set in the
increases, and the lowest buckling load factor decreases, but they still satisfy the constraint conditions 
procedure. The structural stiffness reduces with the decreasing of the blade. However, the reduced
set in the procedure. The structural stiffness reduces with the decreasing of the blade. However, the 
ratio of the stiffness is greater than that of the mass of the blade. Therefore, the first natural frequency
reduced ratio of the stiffness is greater than that of the mass of the blade. Therefore, the first natural 
decreases, but there is no occurrence of resonance. Compared with the best result having a blade
frequency decreases, but there is no occurrence of resonance. Compared with the best result having 
mass of 6064.6 kg in [15], the reduction of chords and spar width can further decrease the blade mass
a blade mass of 6064.6 kg in [15], the reduction of chords and spar width can further decrease the 
obviously in the case of a small difference between the material layups.
blade mass obviously in the case of a small difference between the material layups. 

Table 6. Comparison of the annual energy production (AEP), blade mass and structural performance.
Table 6. Comparison of the annual energy production (AEP), blade mass and structural performance. 

AEP
AEP  Blade
Blade  Maximum
Maximum Maximum Tip
Maximum Tip  The The Lowest 
Lowest The First 
Buckling The  
First Natural
Scheme
Scheme  (GWh/Year) Mass (kg) Strain Deflection (m) Buckling 
Eigenvalue Natural  (Hz)
Frequency
(GWh/Year)  Mass (kg)  Strain  Deflection (m) 
Original 3.175 6555.2 0.00429 4.60 Eigenvalue 
2.024 Frequency (Hz) 
1.027
Original 
A   3.537
3.175  6555.2  0.00481
5874.1 0.00429  4.134.60  2.024 
1.491 1.027 
0.969
BA  3.524
3.537  5668.4
5874.1  0.00485
0.00481  4.364.13  1.358
1.491  0.938
0.969 
C 3.476 5550.3
B  3.524  5668.4  0.00491
0.00485  4.75
4.36  1.252
1.358  0.907
0.938 
D 3.415 5509.1 0.00498 4.92 1.216 0.884
C  3.476  5550.3  0.00491  4.75  1.252  0.907 
D  3.415  5509.1  0.00498  4.92  1.216  0.884 
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions 
This paper describes a multi-objective optimization method for the aerodynamic and structural
integrated design of HAWT blades. The method is used to obtain the best trade-off solutions between
This paper describes a multi‐objective optimization method for the aerodynamic and structural 
the two conflict
integrated  design objectives of maximum
of  HAWT  AEPmethod 
blades.  The  and minimum
is  used blade mass. the  best  trade‐off  solutions 
to  obtain 
A procedure uses BEM theory and an FEM model,
between the two conflict objectives of maximum AEP and minimum blade mass.  and the NSGA II algorithm is developed
for this purpose. The BEM theory and FEM model are utilized to determine the aerodynamic and
A procedure uses BEM theory and an FEM model, and the NSGA II algorithm is developed for 
structural
this  purpose. performances
The  BEM oftheory 
HAWTand  blades,
FEM  and the optimization
model  are  utilized fitness functionsthe 
to  determine  as well. The NSGA
aerodynamic  and II
algorithm is adopted to handle the design variables chosen for optimization
structural performances of HAWT blades, and the optimization fitness functions as well. The NSGA  and search for the group
of algorithm 
II  optimal solutions following
is  adopted  the basic
to  handle  principles
the  design  of Genetic
variables  Programming
chosen  and Pareto
for  optimization  concepts.
and  search  for  the 
The procedure has been applied successfully to a 1.5 MW commercial HAWT blade, and
group of optimal solutions following the basic principles of Genetic Programming and Pareto concepts. 
satisfactory schemes has 
The  procedure  to increase the AEPsuccessfully 
been  applied  and decrease to the blade
a  1.5  MW  mass are achieved
commercial  under
HAWT  a specific
blade,  and 
annual average wind speed. The results indicate that the maximum AEP requires blades having large
satisfactory schemes to increase the AEP and decrease the blade mass are achieved under a specific 
chords and
annual  layerwind 
average  thicknesses, thus results 
speed.  The  high masses, while
indicate  that the
the requirement
maximum  AEP  of therequires 
maximum blade
blades  mass
having 
is just the opposite. The further aerodynamic and structural analysis of
large chords and layer thicknesses, thus high masses, while the requirement of the maximum blade the optimization schemes
show great
mass  improvements
is  just  the  opposite. forThe 
the further 
overall performances
aerodynamic of thestructural 
and  blade, which indicates
analysis  of  the
the efficiency and
optimization 
reliability of the proposed procedure.
schemes  show  great  improvements  for  the  overall  performances of  the  blade, which  indicates  the 
In future work, an attempt will be made to define the chord and the twist distributions more
efficiency and reliability of the proposed procedure. 
appropriately with Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBs) curves. The optimization of the material
In future work, an attempt will be made to define the chord and the twist distributions more 
appropriately  with  Non‐Uniform  Rational  B‐Splines  (NURBs)  curves.  The  optimization  of  the 
Energies 2016, 9, 66 17 of 18

layup in the whole spar cap will also be carried out to further improve the overall performances of
the blade.

Acknowledgments: This work is financially supported by the key disciplines of Zhejiang Province-Building
Energy Saving Technology (Grant No. 71012005Z-2).
Author Contributions: Jie Zhu carried out most of the work presented here, Xin Cai was the supervisors of this
work, and Rongrong Gu had a relevant contribution with her extensive knowledge about the FEM modeling of
the blade.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. BTM Consult. World Wind Energy Market Update 2015; BTM Consult: Chicago, IL, USA, 2015.
2. Burton, T.; Jenkins, N.; Sharpe, D.; Bossanyi, E. Wind Energy Handbook; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester,
West Sussex, UK, 2011.
3. Kim, B.; Kim, W.; Lee, S.; Bae, S.; Lee, Y. Developement and verification of a performance based optimal
design software for wind turbine blades. Renew. Energy 2013, 54, 166–172. [CrossRef]
4. Xudong, W.; Shen, W.Z.; Zhu, W.J.; Sørensen, J.N.; Jin, C. Shape optimization of wind turbine blades.
Wind Energy 2009, 12, 781–803. [CrossRef]
5. Kusiak, A.; Zheng, H. Optimization of wind turbine energy and power factor with an evolutionary
computation algorithm. Energy 2010, 35, 1324–1332. [CrossRef]
6. Sharifi, A.; Nobari, M.R. Prediction of optimum section pitch angle distribution along wind turbine blades.
Energ. Convers. Manag. 2013, 67, 342–350. [CrossRef]
7. Maalawi, K.Y.; Badr, M.A. Frequency optimization of a wind turbine blade in pitching motion. P. I. Mech.
Eng. A 2010, 224, 545–554. [CrossRef]
8. Dal Monte, A.; Castelli, M.R.; Benini, E. Multi-objective structural optimization of a HAWT composite blade.
Compos. Struct. 2013, 106, 362–373. [CrossRef]
9. Chen, J.; Wang, Q.; Shen, W.Z.; Pang, X.; Li, S.; Guo, X. Structural optimization study of composite wind
turbine blade. Mater. Des. 2013, 46, 247–255. [CrossRef]
10. Grujicic, M.; Arakere, G.; Pandurangan, B.; Sellappan, V.; Vallejo, A.; Ozen, M. Multidisciplinary design
optimization for glass-fiber epoxy-matrix composite 5 MW horizontal-axis wind-turbine blades. J. Mater.
Eng. Perform. 2010, 19, 1116–1127. [CrossRef]
11. Bottasso, C.L.; Campagnolo, F.; Croce, A. Multi-disciplinary constrained optimization of wind turbines.
Multibody Syst. Dyn. 2012, 27, 21–53. [CrossRef]
12. Benini, E.; Toffolo, A. Optimal design of horizontal-axis wind turbines using blade-element theory and
evolutionary computation. J. Sol. Energ. 2002, 124, 357–363. [CrossRef]
13. Wang, L.; Wang, T.G.; Luo, Y. Improved non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA)-II in
multi-objective optimization studies of wind turbine blades. Appl. Math. Mech Engl. 2011, 32, 739–748.
[CrossRef]
14. Wang, T.; Wang, L.; Zhong, W.; Xu, B.; Chen, L. Large-scale wind turbine blade design and aerodynamic
analysis. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2012, 57, 466–472. [CrossRef]
15. Cai, X.; Zhu, J.; Pan, P.; Gu, R. Structural optimization design of horizontal-axis wind turbine blades using a
particle swarm optimization algorithm and finite element method. Energies 2012, 5, 4683–4696. [CrossRef]
16. Cairns, D.S.; Mandell, J.; Combs, D.C.; Rabern, D.A.; van Luchene, R.D. Analysis of a Composite Blade Design
for the AOC 15/50 Wind Turbine Using a Finite Element Model; Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque,
NM, USA, 2001.
17. Locke, J.; Valencia, U.; Ishikawa, K. Design studies for twist-coupled wind turbine blades. In Proceedings of
the ASME 2003 Wind Energy Symposium, Reno, NV, USA, 6–9 January 2003; American Society of Mechanical
Engineers: Wichita, KS, USA, 2003; pp. 324–331.
18. Spera, D.A. Wind Turbine Technology; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Fairfield, NJ, USA, 1994.
19. Gasch, R.; Twele, J. Wind Power Plants: Fundamentals, Design, Construction and Operation; Springer Science &
Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2011.
20. Hansen, M.O. Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
Energies 2016, 9, 66 18 of 18

21. Ashwill, T.D. Cost Study for Large Wind Turbine Blades: WindPACT Blade System Design Studies
(No. SAND2003-1428); Sandia National Labs.: Albuquerque, NM, USA; Livermore, CA, USA, 2003.
22. Buckney, N.; Pirrera, A.; Green, S.D.; Weaver, P.M. Structural efficiency of a wind turbine blade.
Thin-Wall Struct. 2013, 67, 144–154. [CrossRef]
23. Lee, Y.J.; Jhan, Y.T.; Chung, C.H. Fluid-structure interaction of FRP wind turbine blades under aerodynamic
effect. Compos. Part B 2012, 43, 2180–2191. [CrossRef]
24. Liao, C.C.; Zhao, X.L.; Xu, J.Z. Blade layers optimization of wind turbines using FAST and improved PSO
algorithm. Renew. Energy 2012, 42, 227–233. [CrossRef]
25. Jureczko, M.E.; Pawlak, M.; M˛eżyk, A. Optimisation of wind turbine blades. J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 2005, 167,
463–471. [CrossRef]
26. Deb, K.; Pratap, A.; Agarwal, S.; Meyarivan, T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II.
IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2002, 6, 182–197. [CrossRef]
27. Serrano, V.; Alvarado, M.; Coello, C.A. Optimization to manage supply chain disruptions using the NSGA-II.
In Theoretical Advances and Applications of Fuzzy Logic and Soft Computing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2007; pp. 476–485.
28. Palanikumar, K.; Latha, B.; Senthilkumar, V.S.; Karthikeyan, R. Multiple performance optimization in
machining of GFRP composites by a PCD tool using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II).
Metal Mater. Int. 2009, 15, 249–258. [CrossRef]
29. Zhu, J.; Cai, X.; Pan, P.; Gu, R. Multi-objective structural optimization design of horizontal-axis wind turbine
blades using the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II and finite element method. Energies 2014, 7,
988–1002. [CrossRef]

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).