Curran Crawford PhD | Wind Power | Wind Turbine

Advanced Engineering Models for Wind Turbines with Application to the Design of a Coning Rotor Concept

Curran A. Crawford

Trinity College Department of Engineering

This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy October 2006

“Engineering is the science of economy, of conserving the energy, kinetic and potential, provided and stored up by nature for the use of man. It is the business of engineering to utilize this energy to the best advantage, so that there may be the least possible waste.” – Willard A. Smith (1908)

I, Curran Crawford, certify that this dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. The thesis has a total word count of less than 65,000 and includes less than 150 figures.

A This manuscript was prepared using the L TEX2e system implemented in MiKTeX and worked on in TeXnicCenter. The diagrams were prepared in Draw and the figures in Matlab and Excel.

The text is set in 11 pt font. Copyright c 2006 by Curran Crawford

Title: Advanced Engineering Models for Wind Turbines with Application to the Design of a Coning Rotor Concept Author: Curran A. Crawford Keywords: Wind Turbine, Coning Rotor, BEM Theory, Rotor Optimization

The core focus of this thesis is the development of engineering-level aerodynamic and structural models, suitable for the design of highly flexible wind turbines with large coning and yaw angles. The enhanced models are integrated to enable optimization of a coning rotor wind turbine concept. GH BLADEDTM is used as a reference industry-standard code, to evaluate the validity of current design tools applied to highly flexible concepts. The coning rotor concept combines the load shedding properties of flap-hinged blades with gross change in rotor area, via large coning angles and lengthened blades, to achieve increased energy capture at nominally constant system cost. Based on up-scaling the original detailed design work from the mid-1990’s, a comparison to a modern conventional machine indicates that the coning rotor remains a valid alternate technology track. Design theory is also used to justify the coning conceptual approach. The primary theoretical contribution of this work is an enhanced Blade Element Momentum (BEM) method. Utilizing vortex theory to model induction, computationally efficient corrections are derived that are key in more accurately predicting performance for coned rotors. The theory is extended to include wake expansion, dynamic inflow, and yawed conditions, as well as considering centrifugal and radialflow induced stall-delay. The theory is favourably validated against Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and experimental results for both real and idealized rotors. BLADEDTM was to be modified with the enhanced BEM method for dynamic analyses. To support these analyses, a beam sectional model and Finite Element Method (FEM) approach to the generalized centrifugally stiffened beam problem were implemented. Ultimately, the linear structural theory in current codes precluded accurate predictions at large flap angles. In lieu of a fully non-linear flexiblebody simulation, a rigid-body dynamic model of the system was developed. The coupled aerodynamic and structural models were then used to analyse steady-state and dynamic operation, including optimal control schedules. Parametric optimization studies were used to examine the interplay between design variables for the coning rotor, relative to a reference conventional machine. Increased blade length, shape and airfoil choice were found to be tightly coupled, yielding energy gains of 10–30% over conventional rotors. Airfoil choice and control mechanism were found critical to limiting torque and thrust. The fundamental nonlinear open-loop dynamics were also examined, including flap and edgewise damping behaviour. Low-Frequency Noise (LFN) was computed with a properly implemented physics-based model, to quantify sensitivity to design and operational parameters. The current work is a preliminary, but critical step, in proving the worth of the coning rotor. Controller design and an accurate flexible-body code will be required for full load-set simulations, to affect detailed component design and costing. Ultimately, prototype testing will be needed to validate the complicated stalling behaviour of the coning rotor.

I have also enjoyed spending time away from work with all those bound together by Portugal Street and Canadian friends from “The Other Place. given me support and encouragement throughout my time at Cambridge. Paul Veers and Jose Zayas at Sandia National Labs also provided a North American perspective to wind energy. especially Patrick Moriarty. Jason Jonkman and Scott Schreck. is greatly acknowledged. Funding by the UK Commonwealth and Canadian NSERC scholarships is gratefully acknowledged. Thomas Wulf and Andrew Streatfield at Rothe Erde provided valuable insight into very large bearing design and applicabilty to wind turbines. Graeme McCann. especially Thomas.” My family has. making the endeavour truly worthwhile. made available the UAE dataset. industry-level code. The support given by members of Garrad Hassan. Robert Mikkelsen at the Technical University of Denmark provided valuable feedback and data for the development of the BEM method. On a more personal note.Acknowledgements I would like to begin by thanking Jim Platts and Dr. Ervin Bossanyi. . Bill O’Niel for their supervision throughout the process. numerous people at Cambridge provided good company during the course of the PhD. conversation and code (BLADEDTM ). in terms of time. Coton at Glasgow University generously provided the source code for HAWTDAWG and helped in attempting to modify it to suit the coning rotor. Dr. and their efforts to integrate my changes into BLADED are greatly appreciated. In particular. The team at NREL in the US. Rina has shared the whole process with me. Andy. David Quarton’s generous offer of BLADED enabled comparison to an advanced. Henk Polinder and Maxime Dubois from the Delft University of Technology provided data and insight into direct-drive generator costing. and Tam´s. as well as insight into their codes and noise prediction. Carlos proved a good friend at our meetings on both sides of a the Atlantic. none of the important questions would have been asked. as ever. Without Jim’s open “what if?” at our weekly meetings. Peter Jamieson’s initial overview of the coning rotor concept was invaluable. and Robert Rawlinson-Smith always responded quickly to e-mail queries. Tony Mercer. Finally.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Load Matching . . . . . .1. . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 System Constraints . . . . . . . . .3 Metrics . . . . .1. . .3. . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Supporting the Grid 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Chasing Function . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . .7. .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Further Impacts . . . . . . . . . .1 Locale . . . . . .3 Operational Conditions 3. . . . .6. 3 Variations on a Theme 3. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 VAWT or HAWT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . 2. . . . . 1. . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 To Lift or Drag . . . . . . . . .1 Wind Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . .1 Governing Equations . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . .2 Lift-Drag Comparison . .3 Thesis Outline . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Goals and Methods . . . . .5 Scale . . . . 3. 3. . . . . . .2 Characterisation . . . . . . . . . . . .2 COE and CF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1. . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . 1 1 2 5 I Wind Energy in Context 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 15 15 16 19 20 21 21 21 23 23 26 26 29 30 30 31 2 System Considerations 2. . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . .7 Adapting Structures . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . .1 Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . 2.3 The End User . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Dynamic Considerations 3. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Dynamic Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . .2. . .2. . . .1 The Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . 1. . . . . . . . .2 Scoping the Coning Rotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . .3. . . . . . . .6 Control Strategy . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Decentralization . . . .1 Design Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .4 Aerodynamic Modelling . . . .14 Dynamic BEM . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . 4. . .4. .1 Back to Basics . . . .3 Pitch Control . . . . . .2 Modelling Approaches . . . . 3. . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . .7. . . . . . . . .12 Additional Wake Geometries .4. . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . .7 Azimuthal Induced Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 32 32 32 34 36 36 II Analysis 41 42 42 45 45 47 47 49 53 54 57 58 60 64 72 73 75 76 77 96 97 100 103 109 114 114 119 124 130 136 137 141 4 Analytic Development 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Acoustic Modelling . . .6. . .4. . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . .3 Momentum Balances . . . . . . . . . .2 Dynamic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . .4 Centrifugally Stiffened Beam . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Control . . . . .4. . . . 4. . . . . . . . .6. .1 Industry Standard Comparison (BLADEDTM ) 4. . . . . . . .9 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . .9 Spanwise Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7. .5. . . . . . . .2 Flow Field Kinematics . 4. . . .8 Stall Delay and Centrifugal Pumping . 4. . . ii . . . . . 4. . . . . .3 Low-Frequency Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. .2 Kinetostatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Soft Approach . . . .13 Aerodynamic Analytic Optimum .6 Structural Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Aerodynamic Noise . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . 4.10 Closed Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . Function to Form . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . 4. . .4. . . . . 4. . . 3. .5. . . . . . . . .3 Dynamic Modelling .11 Expanding Wake . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . Coning Rotor Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Coordinate Systems . . . . . . . .4 Coning Rotor Adaptation . . . 4. . .1 Sectional Modelling . . 4. . .5 Wake Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . .4 Blade Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . 4. . . .5. . . . . .1 Steady State Operation . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . .6.8. . . . . . . . . . . .8. . . . . . . . .3 Coned Rotor Performance Metrics . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . 4. .4. . . . .3. . . . . . . .8. . . . . . . . . . . .6 Relating Disc to Far Field . . . . .4. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Post-Processing . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Topology . . . . . .1 Historical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . .8 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1 Conventional Rotors .3 Aerodynamic Behaviour . . . 5. . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . .8 Yawed Flow . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . .1 Initial Comparison and Updating . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . .2 COE and CF Performance . . . . . . . . 6.8. . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Mode Shape Modification by Coning 5. . . . . . .2 Beam Model . . .4. . . .1. . .4 BLADEDTM Validation and Suitability . . . . . .2 Up-Scaling CONE-450 Results 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Structural Validation . . . iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 NREL UAE . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . .9 Generator Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Shear Stress Generator Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Coning Rotor Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . 5. .1. . . . . .8 4. 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Uniformly Loaded Rotor . .5 Generator Model Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . .3 Flapping Hinge . . . . . . . . . . .4. .9. . . . . . . . . III Design 185 185 185 186 187 188 190 191 191 193 194 195 6 Rotor Optimization 6.4. . . . . .2 Acoustics Validation .1 Sectional Properties . . . . . . . . 5. 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Parked Conditions . .4. . . . .1. . . . . . . . .9. .4. . . . 6. . . 6. . 141 142 143 143 144 144 147 147 148 149 153 155 156 160 164 165 167 169 171 172 177 178 178 179 181 182 5 Validation 5. . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . .1 Proxy Cost Metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Steady State Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . .2 Analytic Magnetic Circuit Generator Cost Modelling . 5. . . .5 Tjaereborg Rotor . 5. . . . 5. . . 4. . . . . . .2 Magnetic Materials Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Dynamic Inflow . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Shifting Benchmarks .2 Uniform Loading Results .3. . . . . . . . .4 Rotor Optimization Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Model . . . . . . 4. . 5. . . . . . . . . . .5 Parametric Study . . . . . 6.3 Fundamental Model Deficiencies . . .1.3 CONE-450 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . .4 Radial and Far-Field Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Aerodynamic Validation .4. . . . . . . . . .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . .1. . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The Next Steps . . . . 7. . . . . . . . . .2 Design Refinements . . . C. . . . . . 8 Conclusions 8. . . . . . . . . . .6 6. . . . . . 7. . .3 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Control Strategy Effects . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . D Historical Machines E Material Specifications . . . . . . . .2 NREL UAE Phase IV .5. . 8. . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . Bibliography A Geometric Transformations B Cross Section Analysis C Reference Machine Specifications C. . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . .1 Fundamental Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 199 201 203 203 208 211 217 217 217 222 229 230 231 234 237 238 239 241 241 242 243 245 A-1 B-1 C-1 C-1 C-4 C-7 C-10 C-12 C-12 D-1 E-1 7 Design Considerations 7. .6 Coning Rotor Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . . . 7. . . . .1.5.2 Tower Thump . .5. . . . . .1 Tjaereborg Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Design Variables and Parameters Optimizer Tuning .6 Remaining Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 CONE-450 Concept . . .1 Dynamic Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6. . Blade Length . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . Aerodynamic Uncertainty . . .4 GH Demo Machine . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . .1 Variation with Wind Speed 7.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . . . . .2 Aerodynamic Damping .5 MW Reference Machine (REF-1500) C. . . . . . .4 6. . . . . . . .6.5 Dynamic Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. C. . . .2. . . . Control Strategy Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. C. . . .2 6. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Wake Profile Influence . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . .5 6. . . . . . Stepwise Optimization Approach Aerodynamic Optimum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Analytical Contributions . . . .3 1. . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Mitigation by Offset . iv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .9 4. . . . .8 4. . . . . .23 4. Wind velocity and force vectors for various control strategies . . . . . . . . . . . .4 4. . . Power control in CP − λ and τ − Ω planes . . . . . . . . . Power curve regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3.5 3. .20 4. Kinematics setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Skewed wake table transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1. . . . . . . . . .5 4.List of Figures 1. . . . . . . Coordinate systems .13 4. . . . . . . . .24 Example “Danish concept” HAWT machines . . .2 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 4. . . . . Sectional data corrected for spanwise flow .7 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expanded wake profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .model model behaviour .16 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . Example VAWT machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3. . . Example total velocity tower shadow flow field . . . . . .7 4. . . . . . . . . . Tower shadow model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 4. . . . . .22 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grids for table . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 3. . .11 4. . . Kinematics at rotor for single stream-tube . . . . . . . . . . .19 4. . . . . . Vortex ring geometry .3 4.12 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 4. . . . . .3 3. . . . . . . . . . Skewed flow velocity vectors and boundary layer profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coning rotor illustration . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . Dynamic wind vector decomposition . . . . . . . Variation of CP and CF with translation direction θ for lift device Blade mass trend with rotor diameter . . . . . . . .17 4. . . . . Wing section lift curves for 45◦ swept wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 4. . .21 4. . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. Wake decomposition into rings and filaments . . . . . . Dynamic flow relative to airfoil section . . . . . . . . . CP and CF for translating airfoils utilizing lift and drag . . . . v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stall delay behaviour for 2D sections in yawed flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Velocity field around vortex cylinder . .15 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thrust CT. . Effective sweep angle with coning for typical operating conditions Experimental 2D lift curves for varying yaw angle . . . . . . . . Axial. . Azimuthal induction along blade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coning rotor schematic layout . . . . . 3 3 4 22 22 25 25 26 27 28 34 43 48 48 50 52 55 56 57 59 61 64 65 67 68 68 71 74 79 81 82 84 86 86 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . Specific energy capture as a function of machine rating . . . . . Skewed wake integral . . .14 4. . . . . . . . . . . Flow relative to airfoil section . . . .6 4. . . . . . . . root and bound vortex filaments . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strained fibre . . . . . . . . . . . Uniform blade Out-of-Plane (OP) rotating modes . .16 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 4. . . . . BLADEDTM computed steady power curve for PTS . . . . . . . . Uniform blade OP rotating modes for teetered hub . . Dynamic stall hysteresis loop for cyclic α . . . Uniformly loaded axial induction (β = −20◦ . NREL UAE Sequence S measurements and predictions . . Uniform blade In-Plane (IP) rotating modes . . . . . . . . . . . Tjaereborg axial induction (β = 20◦ ) . Collective IP mode shapes for Demo blade . . . .5 5. . . Uniformly loaded axial induction as a function of β for Bladed thrust model (CT = 0. . . . . . . . . . . Free-hub rotating uniform blade IP modes . . . . . . .18 5. . . . . . . . . .9 5. . .12 5. . .37 5. . . .32 4. .89) . . .29 4. .26 5. . . . . . . . . . . Simple isolated rotor acoustic prediction . . . . . Effect of tilt on pressure signature for upwind rotor . . . . . . . . . Beam element . . . . . . CT = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . .89) . . . . .14 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .15 5. . . . . . . . . Section definition . . . .22 5. . . . . . . CT = 0. . . . . .8 5. . . . . . . Speed windows for optimal and limiting operation . . . . . . . . . .36 4. . . . . . . . vi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 91 115 117 118 120 120 123 130 133 134 139 140 149 150 151 151 152 155 157 158 159 160 161 163 164 166 168 169 170 170 171 171 173 174 174 175 175 177 179 Uniformly loaded axial induction (β = 0◦ . . . .27 4. . . .35 4. . . . . . . . . . .25 5. .23 5. . . . . . . .6 5. . .33 4.1 5. . . . . . . . . . . Tjaereborg axial induction (β = −20◦ ) . . . . NREL UAE Sequence F measurements and predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 5. Operating point solution flow chart . . . . . . . . . Tjaereborg aerodynamic loading as a function of β . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 5.2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPL for upwind rotor with tower influence for varying azimuthal step size . . . . . . Element centrifugal force . . . . . . . . .89.28 4. . . Uniformly loaded radially induced velocity as a function of β (CT = 0. . . . . . CT = 0. . .4. . . . . . .5 free-hub rotating uniform blade with IP modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 4. .11 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 5. .10 5. . . . . . .13 5. . . . .30 4. . . .34 4. .19 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 5. . . .26 4. .3 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniformly loaded axial induction as a function of loading CT (β = 0◦ ) Uniformly loaded axial induction (β = 20◦ . Power coefficient map for rotor operating points as a function of β . . . . . . . . . .4 5. . Section layout for kinetostatics . . . . . . . . Kinetostatic offset vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no wake expansion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lhub = 0. . Effect of tilt on downwind rotor SPL .20 5. . . . .27 Dynamic stall parameters . . . . . . . . . .89) Tjaereborg axial induction (β = 0◦ ) . . . . . . . . . . .89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tjaereborg root bending moments in yawed flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of tilt on section out-of-plane velocity . . Acoustic footprint of downwind rotor with tilt and shear . . . Integrated loading . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of section coordinate systems . . . . Blade section triangulation . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .16 7. . . . . Performance maps for reference tip radius and control variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPL variation with wake deficit . . . . . .8 6. . .aero and cone angle βdesign. . . . . . . . . . . vii 186 188 189 190 191 197 200 201 204 205 206 207 209 210 211 215 218 219 220 221 223 226 227 228 228 230 231 232 232 233 233 234 235 236 . . . . . . . . . Dynamic situation with flapping blades and rotating imbalance . . Damping constant variation with airfoil for 21% thick airfoils and PTS SPL variation with wind speed . . . . . . . . . . . Acoustic spectrum variation with offset from tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 7. .10 6. . .2 7. . . . . . . . . Relative energy yield and maximum thrust variation with blade length Stip and balance angle βbalance . . . . . Hub loads for blade flapping without aerodynamic contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . Damping constant variation with airfoil for 15% thick airfoils and PTS Variation of Angle of Attack (AOA) α and total twist angles over wind speed range with airfoil choice (15% thick) for PTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 6. . . . . . .9 7. SPL variation with wake width . . . . . Generator cost variation with diameter and torque/speed levels . . . . .15 6.14 7. . . . .7 7. . . . . .11 6. . .12 6.3 7. CP − λ curves for β = 0◦ and varying airfoil set . . . . . Betz limit variable area rotor performance . . . . . .7 6. .5 6. . Energy yield relative to REF-1500 varying with mean wind speed and hub height . . SPL variation with offset from tower . including stall delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Damping constant variation with control strategy for 15% thick set I airfoil . . .13 7. . . . . SPL variation with cone angle and observer azimuth angle . . . . . Chord and twist profile control . . Performance maps for actual tip radius . . . . . . . . . .10 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 6. . . . . . . . . .12 7. Blade chord profiles for λdesign. . . annual energy yield Eann and total blade mass variation with aerodynamic design tip speed λdesign. . . . . . . . . . .16 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 6. . . Variation in operational curves with stall delay models for set II rotors Flap angle solution expansion terms . . . . . Typical section layup . . . . . . . . . . . .6 7. . . Power coefficient CP . . . . . . . . . . . . Operational curves for optimal rotors at βbalance = 30◦ . . . . . . . .18 Operational rotor thrust curves for upscaled machines relative to REF1500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .aero .17 7. . . . . . . .8 7. . . . . . . . . . . . Logarithmic decrement δd for flap hinge damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .aero = 6–8 . . . .11 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 7. . . . . .1 6. .4 6. . . . . . Finite differencing prediction for CP as a function of solution tolerance tol and step size h for chord and twist control points . . . . . . Industry machine performance . .9 6. . .13 6. . . . .6. . . .15 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acoustic spectrum variation with wake deficit . . . . . . . . . . . .5 7. . . . . . Acoustic spectrum variation with wind speed. . . . . . . . .14 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acoustic spectrum variation with wake width . . Blade flapping without aerodynamic contribution . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 C. . . . . . . . . . . .5 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Rotor thrust variation over azimuth for control strategy choice . . . . . . . . .6 Tjaereborg blade details . . .1 Section integral coordinate transform . . .3 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Acoustic spectrum variation with cone angle . . . 7. . C. . . . . . . . . Airfoil coefficients (NACA . . . . . . . . . 236 237 238 B-1 C-2 C-6 C-8 C-11 C-13 C-14 viii . . . . .4 C. . . .1 C. . 63-4XX) . . CONE-450 details . . . . . . . . .20 Footprint SPL changes with variation in cone angle . . . . NREL UAE blade details REF-1500 details . .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. . . . . . Demo machine details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . Demo machine parameters CONE-450 parameters . .1 6.1 5. . . . . Web layup schedule .1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 5. . . . . SPL variation with control strategy above rated . .List of Tables 2. . . . . Collective IP eigenfrequencies for Demo blade . . REF-1500 parameters . . . .1 4. . . . . . . .4 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 IEC Wind Turbine Classes . . . . . . . .2 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Section layup material specifications . . . Outer skin layup schedule . . . . . E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89) . . . . . .1 Soft machine history . . . . . 11 19 112 145 152 169 176 177 181 200 200 238 239 C-1 C-5 C-7 C-10 C-12 D-2 E-2 Axiomatic/TRIZ design method similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Windowing functions . . . . . .1 7. . . . . .3 5. . . . .5 6. . . .1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Active magnetic specific material costs . . .4 C. . . . . . . . D. . . .2 C. . . . Upwind SPL predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniformly loaded power coefficients (CT = 0. . . . . . . . .3 C. . . . . . SPL variation with dynamic motion and cone angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NREL UAE parameters . . . . . . . . .1 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uniform blade with long hub eigenfrequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steady flap angle variation with actuator moment for Ω =50 RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . Tjaereborg parameters . . . . . .2 5. . . .2 7. . .


List of Acronyms AMT AOA BEM BOP DV CF CFD CHP COE CS DES DFT DNS DOE DOF DP EOM FD FEM FFT FR FSS FW-H GDT GH HAWT HVDC IP LE LES LFN LVRT NA NPV NREL NS ODE Axial Momentum Theory Angle of Attack Blade Element Momentum Balance of Plant Design Variable Capacity Factor Computational Fluid Dynamics Combined Heat and Power Cost of Energy Coordinate System Detached Eddy Simulation Discrete Fourier Transform Direct Numerical Simulation Design of Experiments Degrees of Freedom Design Parameter Equations of Motion Finite Difference Finite Element Method Fast Fourier Transform Functional Requirement Fixed Speed Stall Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings Japanese General Design Theory Garrad Hassan and Partners Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine High Voltage Direct Current In-Plane Leading Edge Large Eddy Simulation Low-Frequency Noise Low Voltage Ride Through Neutral Axis Net Present Value National Renewable Energy Laboratory Navier-Stokes Ordinary Differential Equation xi .

OP PDE PDF PMG PTF PTS PV RANS SGSF SQP SPL TE TRIZ UAE URANS VAWT VSS WTC Out-of-Plane Partial Differential Equation Probability Density Function Permanent Magnet Generator Pitch to Fine Pitch to Stall Process Variable Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Savitzky-Golay Smoothing Filters Sequential Quadratic Programming Sound Pressure Level Trailing Edge Theory of Inventive Problem Solving Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Variable Speed Stall Wind Turbine Company xii .

g. blade length Thrust Velocity (wind speed if no subscript specified) Induced velocities in momentum and vortex theories respectively A B c cd cl cm CP CT m P p r Re s. Strain xiii . 1P . u Greek Symbols α β χ Airfoil AOA Cone angle (positive downwind) Aerodynamic skew angle BEM correction factors. 3P Pressure Radius Reynolds number V l/ν Spanwise coordinate. S T V w.List of Symbols Given the range of equations covered. The remaining symbols are defined in context as they are introduced and used. Rotation frequency and its multiples e. only the most generic and consistent are included here. English Symbols a a Axial induction factor Tangential induction factor Aspect ratio Number of blades Chord length Sectional (2D) drag coefficient Sectional (2D) lift coefficient Sectional (2D) moment coefficient Power coefficient P/ 1/2ρV 3 πD2 Thrust coefficient T / 1/2ρV 2 πD2 Mass Power.

Plane containing 2D axes Element index i. also Identity matrix Geometric vector. y Unit geometric vector xiv .Γ γ γtot γtwist γset γpitch Λ λ µ ν Ω ψt ψyaw ρ σ Vortex filament strength Vortex strength per unit area Total blade section twist angle (all pitch angles positive towards feather) Blade section geometric twist angle Blade fixed pitch offset (set angle) Active blade pitch angle Sweep angle Tip-speed ratio rΩ/V Dynamic viscosity ρν Kinematic viscosity µ/ρ Rotor rotation speed Nacelle tilt angle Nacelle yaw angle Density Blade solidity Bc/2πr. indicates vector component in that direction Time index n Matrix. also x. Stress Notation x–y xi xn A x I x x ˆ A set of 2D (or 3D) axes. where i is an axis label. also a b c d a b Column vector.

and food production through to manufacturing. The turbines are among the best energy sources in terms of energy payback 1 . To properly appreciate the context of this thesis. The tractability of tackling stationary energy use and supply. 2]. A growing appreciation of the deleterious climatic effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is increasing regulatory pressure to mitigate or avoid CO2 release into the atmosphere [3]. Ultimately. and transport. lighting. unknown future decommissioning costs. as well as subsidies to all forms of energy. medicine. a carbon tax.5% of the 13. However. and in particular electricity production. It is in this overall context that this thesis seeks to develop engineering tools capable of properly analysing and optimizing a potentially much more cost-effective wind turbine concept. has made this area of key public importance [4].g. creates an artificially skewed playing field.1 Wind Power Wind power has for the past 5 years increased in installed capacity by 20-30% each year [2]. Unfortunately. many populous nations are rapidly aspiring to Western standards of living. inclusion of externalities. Simultaneously. 1. the highly competitive electricity market will select the most costeffective technology. To compete in this economic environment. computers. e. wind power provided 0. it is important to bear in mind the overall scale of our society’s energy use. indicating commercial viability with proper siting and regulatory framework. as opposed to transport fuels. in all forms and with myriad correctable inefficiencies.Chapter 1 Introduction Energy lies at the heart of modern society. the coning rotor. consider that worldwide in 2003. wind power must deliver power of grid-standard quality and at a competitive price relative to “conventional” generation. when considering enhancement of electricity production. intensifying the use of and competition for energy.5% slice electricty represented of the 125 PWh consumed at end-use from all primary sources [1. enabling everything from heating.

2 Scoping the Coning Rotor The coning rotor was studied in the mid-1990’s as an alternative technology track [7]. 15 kW machines of the early 1980’s to today has been achieved by technical and scale evolution of the “Danish concept”. a Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine (HAWT) is chosen (i. 1. particularly for off-shore sites. Pitch actuators at the roots of the blades directly control the aerodynamic power input to the rotor. although the Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (VAWT) (examples shown in Fig. a gearbox transfers torque from the rotor to an actively controlled generator. their impact is virtually nil. 2 Energy payback ratio is the lifetime energy produced divided by energy used to produce the technology. 1. potentially capable of delivering significant cost of energy reductions relative to then state-of-the-art machines. The coning rotor builds on a lineage of flexible machine designs. given proper design and consideration of local communities and wildlife. although sharing many engineering principles with aircraft design. Progress from the 6 m diameter. Almost universally. 1.2) with a vertical rotation axis received much attention in the past. and may still find application at extremely small and large scales. although some directly drive a low-speed generator. illustrated in Fig. In a modern machine. . Once the turbines are built. 1. sited both on-shore and off-shore. These strong economic and sustainability credentials make wind power attractive from multiple perspectives. are hinges at the blade roots. Modern examples are shown in Fig. The latter is being tackled by more active control (in turn made possible by power electronics and fast actuators) and refined structural designs and materials. 1 Energy payback time represents the time taken to produce as much energy as used in production of the generating device.1. in an attempt to both capture more energy and achieve a lighter (cheaper) structure. and load mitigation to reduce structural cost. The essential physical features of the coning rotor. as opposed to the rigid “Danish concept”.2 Chapter 1 Introduction time1 (3-7 months [5]) and ratio2 (17–39 [6]). Key modern development work is aimed at increased reliability.e.3. Wind turbine design has achieved a high level of sophistication. are quite distinct in their objective (to deliver reliable energy) and therefore demand more cost-sensitive solutions. It should be appreciated that wind turbines. 5 MW machines. typified by rigid three-bladed rotors placed upwind of the towers. enabling production of 120 m diameter. the rotation axis of the rotor is near horizontal).

de)) Figure Figure Scoping the Coning Rotor 3 (a) 1.2 Example VAWT machines .3 MW Bonus machines at Lambrigg wind farm (b) REpower 5 MW HAWT being installed offshore near Beatrice oil platform in the North Sea (Image from (b) 300 kW Flowind Darrieus-type VAWT (Image from www.1 Example “Danish concept” HAWT machines (a) 6 kW XC02 Quiet Revolution QR5 VAWT (Image from www.repower.ecopowerusa.

the blades are fully-coned to approximately 85◦ . Figure 1. The hinges afford a steady load-matching advantage by turning the blades from bending beams into tension members. capturing more energy. extreme wind conditions. particularly at scales greater than a few hundred kilowatts. By avoiding extreme loading. The differentiating features of the coning rotor are larger operational and parked coning angles. the blades can be relatively longer. both aerodynamically and struc- . The rotor must obviously be downwind of the tower.4 Chapter 1 Introduction enabling the blades to flap downwind. thus sweeping out a cone. The root difficulty has been in achieving accurate models. Flap-hinged blades have long been known to afford this benefit [8–10]. as the centrifugal and aerodynamic forces balance each other.3 Coning rotor illustration Dynamic movement of the blade may also further mitigate transitory loading. Even with these positive aspects. flexible concepts have not achieved commercial success. In shut-down.

1.3 Thesis Outline


turally.1 These are required to adequately size components and synthesize conservative operational profiles. The inherent flexibility of conventional “rigid” machines is a difficulty in itself, without the further non-linearities of gross-coning. Failures have been typically caused by dynamic behaviour that was not accurately predicted, making a clear understanding of underlying assumptions important for all types of wind turbines. Numerous areas of study present themselves for further validating the coning rotor concept. This thesis is limited to enhancing the engineering models that will underpin any future development work. Without properly formulated tools, any more detailed analysis and design is premature. In particular, the novel aspect of the concept, the rotor itself, is of primary interest, with due consideration given to the capabilities of other components. Furthermore, technical analysis is pursued, rather than economic estimates. Having developed the requisite analysis suite, a parametric study is made of the concept, focusing on blade design and operational strategy. This step represents the most optimistic view of performance benefit relative to traditional machines, and must be completed in order to justify and motivate future work. This first stage is required in any case as a base for future dynamic simulations and further refinement of the design loads. Although the focus is on the coning rotor, the developed theory and optimization procedure have relevance to current conventional machines, operating at large yaw angles with increasingly flexible blades.

1.3 Thesis Outline
This thesis is divided into three distinct parts, following a natural progression from problem definition to solution. Part I deals with the fundamental aspects of harvesting wind energy. Chapter 2 outlines the relevant characteristics of the wind resource, together with the constraints placed on the wind energy converter by the energy system being supplied. Chapter 3 provides a fundamental overview of possible functional and physical approaches, based on the set of constraints imposed by the overall energy system. It also more clearly defines the operational and physical aspects of the coning rotor, justifying the concept from a design theory perspective, relative to other conceptual proposals.
There have of course been cases in which elements of the machine were designed incorrectly for financial or expediency reasons.


Chapter 1 Introduction Part II presents the analysis tools required to explore highly flexible wind turbine

concepts, motivated by the analysis requirements created by the physical aspects of the coning rotor in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents the theories that have been developed and implemented in a unified analysis suite, ExcelBEM. In particular, a novel Blade Element Momentum (BEM) method is presented, incorporating corrections to more correctly model coned and yawed rotors in steady and unsteady flow. The implementation of a Low-Frequency Noise (LFN) model is presented next. A structural model for the blade sections is then developed, followed by dynamic Equations of Motion (EOM) and a centrifugally stiffened Finite Element Method (FEM) beam model. Finally, an optimal control scheduling algorithm is described, followed by a brief reference to a generator model and cost metrics. The work carried out to validate the various theories, to the extent possible, is presented in Chapter 5. The BEM method developments draw on the author’s published material [11]. The remaining limits and shortcomings of the analytic methods are discussed, as is the suitability of currently available industry codes. It should be noted at this point that the reference code, BLADEDTM , is clearly capable of its intended use in simulating conventional machines; it is the suitability for unconventional concepts such as the coning rotor that is being explored. Using the analytic tools developed in Part II, Part III explores the fundamentals of designing a coning rotor, including aspects of the author’s published papers [12, 13]. Chapter 6 first up-scales the results of the original CONE-450 study to a modern MW-scale machine. The aerodynamic characteristics of the coning rotor are then discussed, with relevance to the optimization of rotors. A set of optimization and parametric studies of coning rotors is then presented and discussed. The control strategy, airfoil choice and blade length are primary foci. Chapter 7 then explores some critical elements for the further design of the coning rotor. The fundamental dynamic response and aerodynamic damping are presented first, followed by a parametric study of LFN trends with design parameters. The thesis culminates with Chapter 8, by highlighting the main outcomes of this work, covering both the theoretical contributions to wind turbines in general, and the specific coning rotor concept study. The thesis concludes with suggestions for future work to be carried out to address the outstanding issues and move the concept forward towards reality.



Wind Energy in Context



System Considerations
This chapter gives only the most brief of introductions to the source, transmission and end-use of wind energy. The emphasis is on the salient points which must be considered when proposing and analysing an alternative wind turbine concept. Numerous authors inform the following sections, and provide more in-depth discussions of the facets presented [14–19]. The resource itself is introduced in §2.1, followed by transmission via the grid in §2.2 to the end user in §2.3.

2.1 The Resource
Wind energy is actually a form of solar energy, ultimately originating from the nuclear reactions in the sun. Solar radiation differentially heats the atmosphere and earth’s surface. This creates unbalanced pressure forces that drive the kinetic motion of the air.

2.1.1 Scales
Wind energy is present at three spatial scales: global (e.g. trade winds); secondary scales impacting the lower atmosphere (e.g. hurricanes, monsoon circulation); and tertiary localized winds (e.g. land/sea breezes, valley/mountain winds, thunderstorms, tornadoes). Temporal variation exists on an inter-annual, annual, diurnal (day/night) and short term basis.

2.1.2 Characterisation
An atmospheric boundary layer exists above the surface of the earth, so that the wind-speed grows with height z above reference height zref and wind-speed Vref : V = Vref roughness. 9 z zref


The power-law exponent α is typically 1/7, varying with wind conditions and surface


Chapter 2 System Considerations

The annual temporal variation is described well by a Weibull distribution with Probability Density Function (PDF) f (V ): f (V ) = dF k = k V k−1 exp − dV c V c


The shape factor k is in the range 1.8–2.2, and the scaling parameter c is used to fit the mean wind-speed. The specific power content of the wind is 1/2ρV 3 . This cubic relationship with velocity V means that higher wind speeds deliver much more energy than low speeds. Total energy yield from a turbine with power output function P = P (V ) is computed from:

E = 8760

P (V )f (V )dV


where Vci and Vco are the lower and upper bounds of the wind turbine’s operational wind speeds. The 8760 = 24 × 365 constant in the formula requires V in units of m/s and P in kW to yield E in kWh, the standard energy “unit” in the electricity industry. More detailed temporal and spatial description of the wind-speed is provided by the following [17]: • Turbulence intensity • Probability density function • Autocorrelation function • Integral time • Power spectral density function Offshore wind conditions are generally favourable compared to those on-shore. The relatively smooth and unobstructed surface increases the shear rate α (i.e. higher speeds at lower heights) and reduces turbulence levels.

2.1.3 Metrics
Potential installation sites are characterised by their annual mean wind-speed. The standard at 10 m height ranges from Class I (0.0–4.4 m/s) through to Class VII (7.0–9.4 m/s). Wind energy cost is typically quoted for Class VI sites. Bear in mind that the V 3 relationship means that that a Class VII site has 50X more power than a Class I site. Accurate knowledge of local conditions is critical for delivering veracious energy yield predictions. For the purposes of loads calculation, the IEC standard [20] specifies four classes of wind speed shown in Table 2.1, defined at the hub height.

A mix of generation technologies is used to constantly adjust power to match the demand load.g. nuclear) or quick load-following (e.1 System Constraints The market structure can play a dominant role in wind power’s economic success. 2.2 The Grid The electricity grid interconnects generators and consumers. Wind power is often ascribed a low value in displacing conventional plant. such as High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) [21]. little backup capacity is required [22]. often across municipal. determines the relative economics and hence dispatch choice. Unfortunately. Geography has a large impact as well. It has evolved to facilitate large central generating stations exploiting economies of scale. wind. state and national boundaries. Detailed studies and recent experience has indicated that up to a 20% market share of electricity generation. The closer the scheduling of supply is to actual dispatch. nationally distributed wind-power plants will tend to smooth output fluctuations.5 Class II III 42.5 (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) 11 2.” While it is true that the wind does not blow all the time. are permitting increasing transmission distances. the more accurate the forecast and hence system value.2) of the machine will also affect the efficient utilization of transmission resources. .2. whether it be baseload (e. The time-constant of the generator. coal. as transmitting electricity long distances is quite costly.5 59.5 8. as with many renewables. and described as “intermittent. It is more accurate to say that wind power is “variable. New transmission technologies. natural gas). Moving offshore only increases this burden. The Capacity Factor (CF) (see §3.” but then so to is electricity demand. has a low power density and is often best captured far from load centres.2 The Grid Table 2.6 37.05 Uref I 50 10 70 52.2.5 39.4 IV 30 6 42 31.1 IEC Wind Turbine Classes (Adapted from [20]) Item Reference wind speed Annual average wind speed 50 yr return gust speed 1 yr return gust speed Uref Uave 1.5 52.4 Uref 1.g.5 44.5 7.

simple induction generators were used to passively soft-couple the rotor to the grid frequency. regulators have toughened the requirements for connection. At the same time. 2. the scale effects of wind turbines must be born in mind when considering small installations.e. as it was at the dawn of the electrified age in the early 1900’s. this approach was. With increasing levels of wind plant on the grid. 26]) is available.2.g. Nevertheless. as is the ability to provide reactive power to actively control the power factor.2 Supporting the Grid Wind turbines have been grid-connected successfully for many years [23]. In particular. 2. and is quite effective. including the quality of the wind resource which grows with height (i.2. have prompted fossil-fuel based machines of modest scale to be installed. Embedding generation within the grid network of course poses its own set of technical and regulatory challenges.12 Chapter 2 System Considerations 2. The typical consumer does not engage with the . and for smaller scale machines. It has been suggested that given the inherently distributed nature of renewables. including the costs to some users associated with network outages. the social engagement with the power system generated by embedded generation may in itself be beneficial in terms of demand management. In the past. Low Voltage Ride Through (LVRT) is a requirement in many localities. machines are increasingly variablespeed. At very low penetrations of wind power. This has placed increasing demands on power electronics and generators to supply these services to the grid. the grid will be required to redistribute power to continually satisfy demand regardless of wind resource. either at the individual machine or overall wind farm level. hydrogen [25. Savings accruing to Combined Heat and Power (CHP).3 The End User The final consumers of electricity are not interested in energy per se. it makes sense to pursue a distributed model [24]. batteries. further decoupling the grid and rotor. but rather the services provided by that energy. Until such time as a cost-effective energy storage solution (e. size of machine). flywheels. For structural and power-capture reasons. compressed air.3 Decentralization There has been recent interest in returning to a distributed generation model.

Aviation Proper siting away from major flight-paths and markers on the machines minimise the possibility of collision.3 The End User 13 generation technology unless it either adversely affects them. Apart from the technical impact of remoteness.3. a better understanding of the visual [30] and audible [31] signals that birds use for navigation. when the generated power is many hundreds or thousands of miles away [27. 28]. and a shift away from multi-element truss towers attractive for nesting. MoD objections to a number of projects on the grounds that national security is threatened by blocking radar sites [32] may largely be alleviated by radar placement and even stealth blades [33]. However.g. in reality it only consists of the tower bases.2. access roads and any sub-stations that may be present. or they are concerned about the wider impacts of the technology (e. this requires careful consideration of populations local to the machines.3. Two-bladed machines tend to produce . and blade shaping (tip and Trailing Edge (TE)) have largely alleviated these problems.2.3. Land Use While it is often assumed to encompass the entire area of the wind park [34]. The involvement of large companies in financing and installing wind parks has enabled the rapid deployment seen in recent times.5. With proper machine design and siting.1. a number of quantifiable concerns are often expressed. variable-speed machines (matching noise to background wind noise). Animals are happy to graze close to turbines and so farming can continue unabated. originating from the blade aerodynamics (see §4.1 Locale As mentioned in §2. Noise Noise was a large problem with early turbines. these can be mitigated. Avian Largely addressed by appropriate siting.2 Further Impacts Apart from the subjective impact of wind turbines and wind parks mentioned in §2. climate change). there is a danger of alienating consumers if they are not properly consulted. requiring standards of practice in installation and machine design to be upheld [29]. Nacelle acoustic insulation. 2. 2. wind power is frequently generated close to a minority population to serve larger centres.1.1) and mechanical sources in the nacelle.

14 Chapter 2 System Considerations more noise than three-bladed machines [35]. .2) from downwind machines must be taken into account. and tower thump (see §7. Visual Flicker Proper siting must avoid sunlight shining though the spinning blades and casting a flickering shadow on nearby building occupants.

3. many researchers and practitioners have done and continue to do so. The principles are then applied to the justification of the coning rotor and similar concepts in §3.Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme All wind turbines operate in the context set out in Chapter 2.8. Conceptual design 3. To be efficient in selecting ideas for more detailed study and effort. The steps are: 1. based on the functional requirements. As outlined in §3. as well as charged particle. Planning and clarifying the task 2. [38] presents design as a four step process. in practice iteration between steps is carried out. sail-based [37] and multi-rotor concepts. to produce a concept that cost-effectively provides electricity from the wind. it is possible to utilize approaches from design theory to tease out the fundamentals of wind energy.2 through 3.1 Chasing Function Pahl et al. Embodiment design 4. Jamieson [36] gives a good overview. Detailed design The task here is clear. Although presented as a sequential process.1 provides a brief summary of this body of theory. It is possible to propose myriad concepts for achieving this overall function. This is either required as a result of errors in previous steps. with the goal to transform energy from the wind into useful work.7. Indeed. airborne. Section 3. The second and third stages typically involve the creativity 15 . or as a beneficial part of the design process where the design process itself is sufficiently integrated and flexible to accommodate it through design space exploration. The topology and operational principles of the coning rotor are expounded in §3.9. including various wind concentrators. the challenges to obtaining the benefits of the coning rotor motivate the analysis and more detailed design work presented in Parts II and III respectively.

Starting with the top-level functionality. Unfortunately. intuitive or discursive. a number of generalized design theories are useful in analytically deriving the design. The latter set of methods is useful here. to inform a generic discussion of wind energy converters. the FRs are sub-divided into 2–10’s of subordinate levels.1 Axiomatic Design Axiomatic design theory is an attempt to set down rigorous rules (axioms) governing design [41. bio-mimicry.1. They are thus highly designer dependent. Axiomatic design and TRIZ are the most applicable amongst other possible options: bond-graphs [42]. In particular. The first is the functional domain. 45]. The final detailed design step is relatively well handled by the application of quantitative engineering theory.g.1. a set of DPs and PVs are co-evolved to affect the . and not useful in rigorous concept justification. by separating the functional and embodiment aspects of the design. through to generic frameworks with abstracted solution spaces [41]. analogies. To aid in the intermediate steps. In parallel. The second is the physical space. but is rather a framework to work in. These steps are crucial. an abstract space containing the decomposed functionality of the design.16 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme of the designer. It does not set out specific steps to follow. 3. Design activity consists of mapping Functional Requirements (FRs) in the abstract space to Design Parameters (DPs) and Process Variables (PVs) in the physical space. reverse engineering. 3. containing the actual parts and assemblies required to perform the specific functions. consisting of two domains. as they determine at a fundamental level the effectiveness of the design. to knowledgecapture tools [40]. such as brainstorming and other interactive activities. The key to both is separate consideration of the design in functional and physical spaces. Discursive methods follow a set of deliberate procedures to analyse the design.1. from top-level (convert wind to electricity) through to minute detail (e. both of which may be complemented by “conventional” methods [38]. blade root connection). taking many forms from rigid and automated design catalogues [39]. rely on the unconscious flashes of inspiration. topological-spatialphysical decomposition software [43]. they are also the most unquantifiable and ill-defined steps. Conventional methods include: literature searches. and CAD-based software [44].1 Design Theory Engineering design can follow one of two approaches. Intuitive methods. and model testing.

as long as the functionality may be properly controlled. For example.1. i.1b) (3. This is akin to the information axiom. independent of the specific application [49]. Design constraints are not considered FRs. Note that physical integration of parts is not precluded. achieved by incorporating the stochastic nature of the design to ensure that functionality is achieved in all circumstances. 3.1c) (3. [48] espouses robust design.1. These may be stated in word and numerical form as: Independence Axiom The FRs must be satisfied independently.2 TRIZ Altshuller in Russia instigated an exhaustive patent search to extract principles common to all innovation. for a tabletop in the physical space.1e) If the design is properly uncoupled.1. each a point. keep the design as simple as possible to achieve a high probability of success p: I = log2 range 1 = log2 tolerance p (3. The Theory . DPs and Design Variables (DVs). Two fundamental axioms are used (together with numerous corollaries) to inform the choice of the best design.1d) (3. Mathematically this is defined as: F R = A DP DP = B P V C = AB ∂F Ri Aij = ∂DPj ∂DPi Bij = ∂P Vj (3. Japanese General Design Theory (GDT) also centres on a decompositional approach [47].1. i.1 Chasing Function 17 FR’s [46]. C will be diagonal or triangular. line surface or volume where a Wirkung (fulfilment of an FR) is performed.1.e.1. variation in a DP or PV must only affect one FR at a time.3. but impose limits in FRs. the top surface is a Wirk element performing the function of holding up an object.1. Taguchi et al.e. Information Axiom Minimise the information content I. An organ is a collection of Wirk elements.1a) (3.2) German design theory of the Workshop-Design-Konstruktion (WDK) school proposes a level of abstraction between the physical and functional spaces: the organ domain [47].1.

At infinite ideality. However. requirement of multiple properties from same material). Forty “inventive principles” were found (e. the former frequently overlooked in a poor design (e. segmentation.g. using the minimal amount of the appropriate material required for the intended purpose. The base functionality must be broken down into sub-functions [38]. multiplication cycle.1.g.g. technical (e. analogous to parts and assemblies in the physical domain. the generic aspects of the method are useful here. 3. material and integration. defined as: Ideality = Benefits Expenses + Harms (3. etc.18 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme of Inventive Problem Solving (known by its Russian acronym TRIZ) and the computation tool ARIZ deriving from those efforts. Implicit in a number of the methods is the concept of lean design. as the mind has limited capacity to effectively focus on multiple issues simultaneously. Parameters here are mass. Integration deals with part . Eight lines of “technical evolution” were identified: life cycle. Material leanness is achieved by optimized form. improving one parameter at the expense of another) or physical (e. asymmetry). transition from macro to micro level. uneven development of parts. length. a refrigerator in a cold environment obviating the need for a refrigeration cycle). and automation. useful in solving a “contradiction. an approach followed in later sections for the wind turbine.3) Technical systems evolve towards higher ideality by utilizing external and internal resources. Abstraction of function is found to be a powerful tool for breaking out of old ideas. dynamization. The concept of ideality figures prominently in the method. lower cost and higher performance). A complimentary theme is a multi-level approach in all domains. temperature.g. the end itself can be concentrated upon.g. the mechanism disappears leaving only function. synchronization. By postponing visualization of the means-to-an-end. Lean process refers to the streamlining of the design process itself.1. which can be applied in three contexts: process. is quite dogmatic and requires large investments of time and user skill. scaling up/down.1. by emphasizing the generality of the essential principles involved [38].3 Common Elements An overarching theme common to many design theories is that of thinking in multiple domains. of focusing attention on the core issues.” A contradiction in TRIZ is one of three types: administrative (e. as it is the critical denominator of success. taking out.

defined as the proportion of time the machine is available to produce power (i. rather than direct mechanical energy (e. the CF is merely a reflection of the economic decision of rated power. and this is usually misconstrued that “wind turbines only work 30% of the time.1 Axiomatic/TRIZ design method similarities (Adapted from [50]) Axiomatic Design Corollary 2 Minimise the number of FRs TRIZ Ideal Final Result System imposes fee for realizing function. which is a trade-off between low-wind energy Electricity production. This is echoed by a number of other corollaries.1b) A related concept is availability. etc. CF and availability are related but not synonymous. excluding down-time due to maintenance. 1 . traditional waterpumping) is the current focus. typically around 30%.1.g. compared in Table 3.2. Cost of Energy (COE) and Capacity Factor (CF): COE = CostAmortized capital + BOP + OM Energy CapturedActual Energy capturedActual CF = Energy capturedTheoretical operation at rated power (3. Table 3. Eppinger in their Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST)/Value Analysis [47].2. energy and complexity Evolution Pattern 5 Increased complexity followed by simplification Evolution Line Mo-Bi-Poly Guidelines for reducing complication of a system Corollary 3 Integration of physical parts Corollary 7 Uncoupled design with less Information 3. The idea of function sharing has also been explored by Ulrich. It is important to realize the wind turbine availability is on-par with conventional plants. The CF of wind is much lower. elements of axiomatic design and TRIZ respectively. therefore minimize substance. Seering. as does the concept of ideality in TRIZ.2 COE and CF 19 count issues and the overall simplicity of the design.3.).e.1 Two metrics are useful in this discussion. The second axiom of axiomatic design makes lean design explicit.” This is false.1a) (3.2 COE and CF The primary function of a wind turbine is to efficiently (economically and technically) convert wind power to electricity.

pitch actuation. 29] found a 10% rotor cost change led to a 1% to 1. for example offshore or in remote areas. p.3. The CF of a machine is typically seen as an artefact of that design process and the wind regime on-site.g. The denominator represents the amount of energy captured over the economic lifetime of the machine. active yaw.5.2. Malcolm and Hansen [51. the power captured is: P = 1/8ρV 3 CP πD2 (3. The typical FR of a wind turbine is a low delivered COE. In fact. 0. This would better utilize the expensive transmission cabling and infrastructure.2. Both numerator and denominator of COE are affected by the control strategy. 3. so that increase in energy capture can give an overall reduction in COE. and extremely large rotor and very small generator would yield a CF of 100%.5% COE change.g. At each wind speed V . With remote load-centres. fixed or variable speed) and aerodynamic control (e. relative to a Carnot efficiency of say 30%.20 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme capture and high-wind loading. a turbine is only capturing 50% of the available wind. . influencing both the loads and energy picked up from the wind. Hypothetically.593. this is a technical measure. As will be seen in §3. to finance a structure capable of sustaining the applied loading required to convert and transmit power from the wind through to the electrical connection point.2) Note that CP is defined relative to the rotor area. assuming 100% availability. This is in turn constrained by the level of compliance in the drive train (i. It is akin to stating that a heat engine is only 15% efficient. etc. Another common misconception is that for a CP of say. Some added cost (e. for a coning mechanism) is justified on the basis that the rotor cost is only approximately 10-20% of total cost. the choice is critical. fundamentally limited to the “Betz limit” of 16/ 27 = 0.3 To Lift or Drag The second-level choice for the functionality in a wind energy technology is to base it on either lift or drag forces.). The COE numerator is dominated by machine and balance of plant (BOP) capital cost.e. power coefficient CP and area A = π/4D2 at that point. it may be beneficial to consider a high CF as a FR in its own right.

trimmed to maintain the same Angle of Attack (AOA)).3. The drag device can never move faster than the wind.3. It is also possible to construct much simpler physical devices utilizing drag.2. The latter involves considerable physical infrastructure. The energy extracting force F in the direction of motion is non-dimensionalized as: CF = F 1/2ρV 2 A = [cos θ (CL sin β + CD cos β) + sin θ (CL cos β − CD sin β)] · 1 − 2δ cos θ + δ 2 δ sin θ tan β = 1 − δ cos θ The power coefficient is then simply CP = δCF .1 for the lift device. planform area for lift) travels at velocity Vd through wind speed V . taking CD = 2.1 Governing Equations In the most general case. The lift CL and drag CD coefficients are the fully 3D values for the device. especially if energy capture is the objective. Leaving aside the laminar separation bubbles seen at very low Re (around . translation angle θ. Angles around θ = 90◦ have the highest peak force and power coefficients. The two vectors subtend an angle θ.1.4 operates at θ = 90◦ . In fact. and θ = 90◦ . Both characterise the conditions in which the boundary layer develops. With higher Re more energy is fed into the boundary layer. CL = 0. a device of area A (frontal area for pure drag device. considering that the HAWT discussed next in §3. to overcome the surface roughness attempting to retard the flow.8 and CD = 0. 3. 3.0 and θ = 0◦ for the drag device. the drag device is severely limited.3. This is fortuitous. and some measure of surface roughness. so for high-force/low-speed applications these may have an advantage. its prime functional advantage is a better CF for δ < 0. limiting its power capture. Figure 3.1) 3.3.2 shows the effect of the next decision. The alternative is either a VAWT. Otherwise.3. or a device the translates on rails at some angle to the wind.e. both relative to fixed ground.2 Lift-Drag Comparison A simple caparison is shown in Fig.3 Operational Conditions Key non-dimensional parameters for aerodynamic performance are the Reynolds number Re = ρV l/µ. (3.3 To Lift or Drag 21 3. and their magnitude ratio is δ = Vd /V . These values are assumed constant throughout (i.

0 1.0 C_F 20 C_P 20 3.0 Lift C_P Drag C_P Lift C_F Drag C_F CP 0.4 1.0 Figure 3.0 4.6 0.5 δ 5.8 0.22 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.0 1.2 CP 4 3 2 1 0 0.0 8.0 1.0 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme 2.0 0.0 CF .0 Figure 3.0 8.0 7.6 1.2 Variation of CP and CF with translation direction θ (deg) for lift device CF 5 1.5 1.4 0.0 6.0 7.0 6.2 δ 5.0 4.8 C_P 90 C_P 100 C_P 80 1.0 3.1 CP and CF for translating airfoils utilizing lift and drag 9 8 7 6 C_F 100 C_F 80 C_F 90 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.

VAWTs have been commercially abandoned. This fundamentally limits their CP . the cl curve in stall may vary dramatically with Re and roughness. Quietrevolution from XCO2 E. The range that wind turbines operate in.2).g. The exceptions are a resurgent interest at small and very large scale. even in ideal conditions. the blades are constantly changing lift. for the most part. and no cyclic gravity loading. . The limiting case for a VAWT is a gyromill. higher Re conditions and smoother surfaces tend to permit higher cl. For structural reasons. Mitigating against these are: cyclical aerodynamic loading (this led to fatigue failure of early aluminium blades). For all of these reasons. operation in the wake of the tower and other blades. ability to operate in any wind direction. 1.3 predicts equal performance for a VAWT and HAWT (see Figs. for the same airfoil. usually close to ground loosing wind shear benefit.4 VAWT or HAWT 23 1x104 ).1 The latter is predicated on avoiding the cyclic gravity loads that are starting to drive the design of very large HAWT blades. 1. and a large turbine around 1–10x106 . COE would be expected to rise with scale.max by avoiding separation. even with complicated pitching systems.g. Critical to lift devices. with rapidly varying yaw angle. Aerogenerator from Wind Power Ltd. the wing sections on a large jet transport aircraft operate around 1–10x107 . VAWTs have certain physical advantages including: generator location at ground-level. according to the “square-cube” law which 1 2 E. At the most basic level.2 3.5 Scale The ideal scale of machine is very hard to derive analytically. 3. To set wind turbines in aerodynamic context with other applications. A small wind turbine blade would see Re around 1–10x105 .3. having vertical straight blades with continuous pitching to only shed vorticity (change lift) as the blades transit directly upstream/downstream. is the same range over which large differences in cl behaviour appear.2(b)) so that aerodynamically.1 and 1. The former may have benefits over a HAWT in built-up areas. the blades are usually formed in a troposkein shape (see Fig. It is therefore essential that airfoil data is obtained for the operational Re and surface roughness.4 VAWT or HAWT The fundamental momentum balance derived in §4.4.

as the machine cost certainly exceeds the D2 exponential progression. learning has dropped costs by 12. however cost performance can be adversely affected if aerospace type composites are employed (Vestas is transitioning to pultruded carbon fibre-wood composite blades to avoid this). Changing materials complicate trend analysis of blade weight (a proxy cost metric). Moving offshore changes the equation. This is of course overly simplistic. 3. Coulomb and Neuhoff [54] have studied the cost progression of machines.9. High-performance materials (e. before vendors ceased disclosing list prices. including falling installation and maintenance costs with fewer overall machines. whereas the commercial average is 2. with 5 MW prototypes currently being installed. for this data set. 400-500 kW machines were found to be optimal.4.3 compiled from vendor data sheets. although this excluded Balance of Plant (BOP) factors. when analysing cost data with size it was found important to include wind shear exposing machines to higher wind-speeds as they grow. carbon fibre) may deliver technical performance. There is some finite upper-limit on machine size. The largest influence was design condition (see Table 2. optimal size predictions depend on myriad assumptions that are difficult to prove in the absence of real experience. for a number of reasons. A technology typically exhibits cost reduction from the experience gained over time. while the volume of material (cost) increases as D3 . In this case of wind turbines. owing to transportation restrictions.1.7% with each doubling in installed capacity. Some authors have used component-wise scaling laws to arrive at curves predicting optimum machine size [16. shown in Fig. 18].g. and improving wind resource with tower height. shifting the cost centre away from the turbine to BOP. Figure 3. The TRIZ technical evolution trend of scaling up is clearly evident in the wind industry. Vestas is increasing the use of carbon fibre to obtain stiffness.1) making tailored machine/rotor design increasingly important. while others have pursued more detailed design study on components including blades [52] and balance-of-plant [53]. Offshore it is less clear. from the perspective of learning curves. With these considerations. while LM evolves their ‘standard’ polyesterglass blades. Onshore the limit is practically around 2 MW. The averaged curve fit indicates a cost exponent with D of 2. Based solely on machine cost. Jamieson [36] found that a multi-rotor concept would improve the area/volume relationship. Griffin [55] found in a scaling study a Dx cost exponent of 2.24 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme states that energy capture increases with diameter squared D2 . In general.4 shows historical data compiled from WindStats magazine for a range .

3.4 Specific energy capture as a function of machine rating For the purposes of this thesis.7911x2.5 MWe machine is used as a target scale.1055 20 40 60 Rotor Diameter (m) 80 100 120 140 Figure 3. but it is fairly gradual and only in evident in winter and spring. with winter winds higher than those in summer. There is large data scatter and some outlying data sets. as the wind resource would tend to skew general trends. with less variance in summer months possibly owing to less persistent storm activity.5 Scale 25000 LM Vestas PNE (Multibrid) Enercon Siemens Ecotecnia 25 Per Blade Mass (kg) 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 y = 0. No offshore data is included. Specific Energy Capture (kWh/m ) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Autumn Winter Spring Summer 2 Rating (kW) Figure 3. a 1. There is a general increase in average energy capture with machine size. The seasonal variation is evident in the seasonal trend lines.3 Blade mass trend with rotor diameter of machines comprising full data sets over the year. Data for . This size is representative of on-shore machines currently being installed.

this is a complex and critical step (as will be shown in Chapter 6). variable speed operation permits optimal energy capture operation. Region II to optimally track the maximum power extraction point. In Region II. and Region III above Vr to track the peak power of the generator. at speeds that have very high energy content but very low frequency of occurrence. a conventional machine (see §C. up to a maximum Vco where the rotor is parked.26 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme the REF-1500.6. This is usually done at fixed pitch angle.5 shows the three control regions: Region I below Vci . but is subordinate to the first task of specifying the control strategy and targets. where the wind turbine is parked. 3. The second step is therefore left to previous [56. 3.5 Power curve regions The mechanism of control is important to both loads and energy capture. Figure 3. The choices of Vci and Vr are economic. Functionally.6 Control Strategy Wind turbine control synthesis is divided into two sequential stages: scheduling and controller design [56]. ideally with maximal capture area. The latter provides the control loops and gains using control theory [57]. 59] and future work. 58.1 Goals and Methods All wind turbines have two competing goals. Vco avoids extreme loads on the machine. Region III .3) was also available for this size machine. Figure 3. to capture energy while avoiding loads.2). as there is low energy content at low wind speeds (see §3. Likewise.

2 Note that FSS. either by changing the relative velocity vector (FSS.2. and PTF coupled to cone angle. Fixed Speed Stall (FSS). 3. 357] Re effects modify the curve somewhat. Veers et al.6. to produce the same power. Notice that each maintains the same product of torque-producing force vector and rotational velocity rΩ. in order of decreasing usage are: Pitch to Fine (PTF). Figure 3. PTS). while PTF avoids 1 2 E. and highlights the dynamic stability bounds and strict manufacturing tolerances required to practically execute such a strategy. p.6 Control Strategy 27 must limit rotor power to that of the generator maximum. Pitching strategies alter the CP − λ curve directly. Yaw1 and coning both affect the gross capture area. [62] provides a good overview of the static possibilities. via Eq. Pitch to Stall (PTS).7(a) shows the conventional control strategies considered from the nondimensional rotor perspective. Each alters CP .2). as shown in Fig.opt . 61]. though one of a number of mechanisms. Figure 3.6 Wind velocity and force vectors for various control strategies From this list of choices. while VSS and FSS both move along a nominally constant curve. VSS) or AOA via pitch angle (PTF. and Variable Speed Stall (VSS). VSS and PTS all operate in the left-hand stalling portion of the CP − λ curve. Gamma 60 machine [16. (3. . The resulting thrust force also varies between strategies.1) adopts an even more complicated use of PTS coupled to rotation speed. with associated CP loss mechanisms either side of the peak CP.g. The Proven machine (see Table D.3. Adaptive flexible coupling between flexible blades (in bending or speed-linked extension) and torsion have been proposed by a number of authors [60. modern machines use almost exclusively PTF. A coning rotor combines coning control with VSS or PTS. More conventional control methods for Region III.

With sufficient wind.opt of the rotor is tracked by maintaining λopt . The impacts of coning on this control map are discussed in §4. the rotor tracks from A to B in low winds. At some point C the upper speed limit is reached. as the rotor inertia is involved rather than energy-producing aerodynamic torque [63]. The generator will impose lower Ωmin and upper Ωmax bounds.28 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme stalling.3. so it is necessary to indirectly control based on an aerodynamic1 torque estimate τ and rotor speed Ω. Active control of power in Region III (i.e. This may be altered somewhat by the speed-dependent inefficiencies in the drivetrain/generator. Controlling on generator torque is sub-optimal.7 and 6. not FSS) removes the prime arguments for low-lift airfoils [65. Provision of pitch action enables on-line tuning to account for modelling errors.7(b) presents the control schedule as it is actually implemented.3. the stall behaviour of the rotor is subject to considerable uncertainty between prediction and measurement [64]. (a) CP − λ (b) τ − Ω Figure 3. The wind speed cannot be accurately measured. and adjustment for air density variation and blade soiling. while VSS must increase torque to reduce Ω and stall the rotor towards point Dstall . 4. enabling the use of high-lift airfoils for more cost-effective blade designs. 66]. Pitching strategies PTF and PTS maintain a constant torque at Dpitch . After Vci . the optimal CP. In particular. 1 .7 Power control in CP − λ and τ − Ω planes Figure 3. sometimes “prematurely” to smoothly transition between Region II and Region III controllers. Additional control inputs reduce somewhat the burden of analysis fidelity and afford performance enhancements.

vestas. PTF has been widely adopted because with fast actuators. p. If the peak is sharp (usually a steep stalling front to the left). excess torque must be applied not only in steady-state (torque must rise to maintain power P = τ Ω). However. http://www. to do this.7(a) effects the ability of the control system to accomplish this objective in unsteady winds. PTS operates in an opposite sense. The only large turbine to use PTS is the V-82. tower moves upwind. in that steady-state control can maintain rated power and actively transition from the optimal cl /cd point to a stalled point. VSS is better than FSS. New grid demands such as LVRT (see §2. The latter occurs because PTF operates in the linear-regime where much larger cl changes can occur with AOA than in stall.2 Dynamic Considerations Although this work focuses on the steady-state facets of the control problem. experience2 is that PTS does reduce fatigue loading relative to PTF. This lag provides greatly reduced power quality above rated. All variable-speed concepts attempt to maintain optimal power capture in Region II. Hoffmann [59] and Burton et al. It is usually preferred over VSS because of the difficulty in analysing stalled rotors. 355].2. July. if the ill-damped edgewise vibrations found in large blades are adequately controlled 1 V82 1.1. PTF may also interact with tower vibrations in the following sequence: pitch action. The negative slope of the Dpitch –Dstall VSS control objective in Fig. Practically. sharp drop-offs in power will occur since the rotor speed response is limited by inertia. [16. via pitch action.3.7(b) is unstable and demands a compensating controller.1 the perceived advantages being smaller/quicker pitch actions and reduced load variation associated with gust-slicing [16.2. 3. VSS rotors require a sharp peak to limit power in Region III. p. Tomas Vronsky at Vestas Wind Systems A/S . thrust decreases. The slope either side of the CP peak in Fig. making optimal low-wind operation a competing design objective.2) also make direct control of rotor input power. relative velocity increase. it directly and quickly limits input rotor power. 3. increasingly a control requirement. Mercer [58]. In particular. a number of dynamic considerations must be kept in mind.6 Control Strategy 29 3. more pitch pdf/produkter/2006/V82_UK. Vestas website.pdf. but also dynamic torque to alter the inertia of the rotor (via τdyn = IdΩ/dt).6. as discussed in §6. 2006 2 Personal communication. 476] all discuss the fundamentally poor power regulation of VSS concepts in Region III.65 MW machine (previously NM-82). reducing fatigue loading while increasing mean loads.

75]. these changes are capable of reducing the applied loading and resulting structural stresses developed in the structure. x the generalized displacements and F the applied forces. However.2. Indeed. and [K] are the mass. since the forces may be reduced by modifying the airflow. The functioning of a flexible structure is best explained by the fundamental dynamic equation of any structure. therefore forces are reacted almost exclusively by the stiffness. such as carbon fibre composites. 3. extreme loads are higher in extreme yaw error situations. teetering of two-bladed machines is almost essential for viable performance [15. which must be large. The following sections explore the application of this concept to wind turbine design. Properly designed. In a compliant structure. and the displacements are also larger. One way around this is to use light highmodulus materials. [67] found higher blade flap fatigue for PTF versus FSS.7. be it connected by discrete or flexible elements: [M ] x + [Caero ] x + [Cstructure ] x + [K] x = F (t) ¨ ˙ ˙ (3.1 Dynamic Motion Since Putnam’s original flapping blade machine in the 1940’s [8].7. 3. aerodynamic and structural damping and stiffness matrices. 51. A number of researchers have examined two and three-bladed machines with individual discrete flapping hinges [7. In a stiff structure.30 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme (see §7. the velocities and accelerations are non-negligible. in the same way as hinges are required for successful helicopter designs [69]. displacements are relatively small. but this drives up the cost when used in large quantities.7 Adapting Structures Structures incorporating Degrees of Freedom (DOF) are able to undergo conformational change. This has the effect that the ultimate stress/strain capabilities of the material are underutilized and the structure may be overly heavy and expensive. the stiffness requirement is reduced. [Caero ]. will be reacted more by the mass and damping of the . 68]. In turn.1. As a result.2). However. Raben et al. [Cstructure ].1) where [M ]. only the Carter machine has achieved any widespread deployment in the past. What forces are imparted. 70–73] or combined flexible hinging and teetering [74. motion of the blades has been proposed to alleviate dynamic system loads. 66.

All act to dynamically change the angle of attack at the blade sections by configurational change.3 Soft Approach The concept of an adaptable machine has been pursued in a number of machines and design approaches. Kelley et al. further reducing blade weight and cost.7.2a) (3. Lighter. 77] have highlighted the effectiveness of flapping blades in this respect. but the reverse in low winds.2c) . For example. ideally leaving only an axial tension load.7. 3.2 Load Matching Any variably coned rotor also benefits from a static matching of thrust and centrifugal loads.7. Evidently the bending and coning at high winds alleviates loading in high winds. rather than stiffness. Discrete hinges near the root of the blades avoid the complexity and stringent manufacturing tolerances of flexible blades or hinges.2b) (3. [76] in examining the Wind Eagle (a derivative of the Carter machine). most notably in the blades themselves. flapping flex-beams [9]. and Quarton [75] from monitoring of a Carter 200/300. Aerodynamic blade loading may be tailored with soft structures. such as bend-twist coupling [60]. but suffers from a lack of pre-cone (from centrifugal opening) in low winds. have highlighted the loads seen in practice from imbalance in flexibility and mass between blades in a flexible approach. Kelley et al. the fundamental mode of the tower may be tuned relative to the blade passing frequency BΩ: ftower > BΩ Ω < ftower < BΩ ftower < Ω stiff-stiff stiff-soft soft-soft (3. Obviously.7. The trend towards dynamization is one line of technical evolution in TRIZ [49]. The steady out-of-plane bending moment carried along the blade is reduced. 3. Recent commercial efforts [70] and research studies [71. In addition to the rotor itself.7 Adapting Structures 31 structure. or by discrete flapping/teetering hinges [71]. other aspects of the machine may adopt a stiff or soft approach.3. so that negative feedback of load is achieved. [76] has noted that the Wind Eagle has reduced loading at high winds relative to conventional rotors. any design with significant flapping or coning must have a downwind orientation in order to avoid tower strike. cheaper blades then feed back to reduced edgewise gravity-dominated loads.7.

Firstly. (3. The longer blades are made possible by coning to appreciable angles (20–35◦ ) as rated power is reached. to standard induction. conventional rotors will always remain susceptible to 3D turbulence-induced limit loading while shutdown. this adaptive rotor acts on the power/energy Eq. evolution of the concept in the physical domain is explored.1 Historical Context Adaptable machines are typically much more difficult to design. given their dynamic nature. The coning rotor is further differentiated from a flapping rotor by two other operational characteristics. The generator may also incorporate flexibility. to maximize energy capture from a larger rotor area. via the capture area π/4D2 . The goal is the same as the coning rotor. These choices lead to the concept explored in more detail in Part III. to have similar loading to conventional rotors at that load-critical point.8 Function to Form Having examined the functional aspects of an ideal wind turbine. Secondly. the COE’s denominator is increased by enhanced energy capture in partial load conditions. As the limits of aerodynamic performance (power coefficient CP ) are reached by conventional designs.8. This creates an adaptive rotor with large area in low winds and smaller area in high winds. longer blades are possible [80]. Indeed. 3. by utilizing relatively long blades. thereby inherently benefiting from the static and dynamic load alleviation just mentioned.32 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme where B is the number of blades. variable resistance (slip) induction and doubly-fed induction through to fully-variable synchronous generators. The parasitic power loss and bearing life effects associated with aggressive continuous pitch actuation schemes have also yet to be quantified. Softer designs yield lower mass (cost) towers.7. 3. 3.2.2) in the most direct way. With reduced operational loading. In contrast to coning rotors though. it is partially the increased design challenge. associated with a lack . 79] are aimed at load mitigation. extending the range of coning angles (gross coning up to 85◦ ) avoids storm loading when shut down. from direct-connected synchronous. Conventional PTF machine developments towards individual pitch control [78.4 Coning Rotor Adaptation The coning rotor concept at its heart employs flap-hinged blades.

as previously discussed in this section. the more detailed analysis also seems to typically lead the designer towards a two bladed configuration. Both blade roots incorporated flex-beams to provide stiffness to a pivoted joint. The Risø Soft Cone concept used no shear webs so as to be lightweight and offer the possibility of adaptable airfoil geometry. When a soft design approach is adopted. The WTC machine employs independent hydraulically-damped discrete hinges. The MS-4 machine also employed flex-beams which turned out to be difficult components to design . which in itself is not desirable from a stress point of view. This is presumably for reasons of economy and simplicity when designing systems for load alleviation. as a result the prototype suffered from flutter. Coning Coning is usually used in a fixed sense. Past experience is important. due to potential tower-shadow problems. The Cone-450 concept machine was to use a central hydraulic cylinder to collectively cone the three blades. to yield the following principles: Blade Count The proclivity for two blades is a testament to the fact that soft designs require by their very nature more advanced analysis and design to be successful operationally. Blade Flexibility The H¨tter-Allgaier machine opted for a low-solidity rou tor. The Risø Soft Rotor and Carter machines separated the coning and teetering functions. Scale Early machines attempted to jump into the multi-megawatt scale in order to prove themselves on a conventional utility scale.1. A common theme is to consider the bending moment supported by the blade. This approach . Downwind Orientation The majority of machines use a downwind configuration. relying on the inherent changes in effective coning angle resulting from blade flexibility. although not universally. that has limited the success of a soft approach. This implies a clear requirement for the blades to teeter/flap so as to alleviate aero and structural loads. with dampers incorporated into the control links.8 Function to Form 33 of adequate design tools. Blade Articulation The only machine not employing articulation is a 3bladed one. In order to flex (in bending) to any large degree requires large bending moments. so that the slender fibreglass blades were quite flexible.3. and is garnered here from a review of past machines in Table D. It was the only one to use gross coning to adjust capture area for power control.

2 Topology The nominal layout of the rotor under consideration in this study is shown in Fig. building on past experience.8.8 Coning rotor schematic layout (Only symmetric half of nacelle and inboard part of one blade shown) A central hydraulic actuator was envisaged for the CONE-450. 3. The lightweight carbon fibre blades under consideration required this configuration to reduce the aerodynamic hinge moment and obtain reasonable free-coning angles (≈ 30◦ ). with conventional blade materials and mass tuning. . 3. The rest of the time the actuator was simply a means of applying damping (alleviating the loss of aerodynamic damping in stall) with relief values to assure free-coning from just below rated. A more conventional compact cast hub is preferable from a complexity perspective. with the actuator active only during very light winds to hold the rotor more open with minimal bending moment. to impose equal moments about the flapping hinge. In the CONE-450 original work [66]. The more successful machines to date have been much smaller.34 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme was an almost universal and unmitigated failure. and during fully coned shut-down. Figure 3.8. with links out to the blade roots that extended inboard of the hinge points. the blades were hinged on a space-frame with the hinge axis significantly away from the rotor axis. This is also echoed by the evolution of the Danish concept that has matured by growing in size. The basic operational principle was for collective coning action.

to closely couple a Permanent Magnet Generator (PMG) into a simple rotor. This is a reflection of the need for some individual blade motion found in previous work. Experimentation with blade flexibility was found effective in reducing blade loads.3.6. Both employ PTF (see §3. The two-bladed Wind Turbine Company (WTC) [84] prototype machines use independent dampers on individual flap hinges. To alleviate this loading. Garrad Hassan and Partners (GH) 2004 .2). flexible damped links were incorporated into the model. instead of the WTC -5◦ to 15◦ . This was determined to be a result of the proximity of the 3P frequency range and the first blade flapwise mode (this is a fundamental result. The failure of the WTC prototype from tower strike. A more conventional compact hub with the actuators acting outboard of the hinge line on moderate weight. see §4. The coning rotor operates well away from any stops in a range of coning from 5◦ to 85◦ . Pierce [77] investigated a machine with an actuator between two otherwise freely flapping blades. and for a cleaner practical implementation. A three-bladed rotor is used in the present work.8 Function to Form 35 In the original coning work. for a number of reasons: • Public acceptance and aesthetic studies have indicated this preference [36] • Lower optimal tip-speed ratios for on-shore siting issues • Aerodynamic performance loss for two-bladed rotors is significant [51] • Two blades are not necessarily cheaper than three when size (solidity) and loads are accounted for1 • Cyclic rotating imbalance-type hub loads [71] should be less in a three-bladed rotationally symmetric flapping rotor 1 Personal communication with Peter Jamieson. but individual flapping was required to alleviate overturning moments. highlighted this risk. achieving a type of teeter.3. The physical implementation of the dampers was never discussed in the reports. A more integrated design approach is also being pursued. for enhanced reliability and cost effectiveness. the rigid links from the central actuator to the blades resulted in excessive dynamic overturning moments at the tower head.3) and therefore maintain small cone angles. This approach is being pursued on conventional machines with “standard” generator designs [81. presumably after stop impact. solving the problem in the simulations. mass tuned blades is also adopted. In the current work. A big problem with conventional teetering and these concepts is hitting stops. 82] and also using extremely large-diameter bearings for the generator [83].8. which re-introduces large loads. the focus is on three independent actuators for three blades.

Using the decomAnother concept is an inner member with flap hinge allowing rotation of an outer shell. An additional method of pitch control is possible by passively coupling pitch angle γ to flap angle β by inclining the hinge axis by an angle δ3 in the plane normal to the rotor rotation axis.3 Pitch Control Chapter 6 will discuss the requirement for pitch control of some kind on a coning rotor. However. At larger cone angles. as is done for tip-brakes on some FSS machines. The coning rotor must positively cone with rising winds. The CONE-450 used fixed pitch and VSS. WTC [85] 1 . In any case. The latter study also suggested high tip-speeds to maintain a relatively flat rotor (to keep energy capture high) with the potential for attendant dynamic instability resulting from the low-solidity rotors required.8. aerodynamic feedback).8.36 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme The imbalance loads were not mentioned as significant in the original coning rotor work but were in the two-bladed flapping study [71]. 3. MS-4. most pitch action occurs near β = 0◦ . so +δ3 is inappropriate.1) Helicopters and teetered rotors use +δ3 to pitch towards feather with flap angle. 3. The non-linear relation is: ∆γ = ∆β cos β tan δ3 (3. dynamically it would exacerbate stall instabilities.1 Pitchable tips could be used instead. The attraction of VSS is elimination of a set of actuators and the possibility of integrating the hinges into the blades without requiring a circular root. gross “in-plane” (azimuthal) movement of the blade axis would further complicate matters (rotating imbalance. reducing loads. Note that the coning rotor uses longer blades and hinge moment bias to effect even greater energy capture than a completely planar rotor. while it is only required at larger β near and above rated power. While −δ3 would achieve this objective.9 Coning Rotor Challenges and Opportunities The preceding sections of this chapter have outlined the rationalization for the important functional and physical elements of the coning rotor. e. the mechanisms are difficult to integrate structurally and can pose maintenance issues being located at the blade extremities. The rotor must stall (either VSS or PTS) to move away from the tower.g.

the coning rotor shares many elements with conventional machines. as have the fundamental reasons for adopting stall-limited (VSS or PTS) high-wind operation of the coning rotor.4. but with important differences. This configuration affords reductions in both parked high-wind loads and operational blade bending moments. a negative effect not encountered with conventional machines but which must be mitigated for downwind machines. to yield lower COE relative to conventional machines. The coning rotor exploits these load reductions by employing relatively longer blades. both in steady state and dynamically. BEM theory is extended here. as covered in Part II. The inclusion of non-linearities in the structural model (frequently linearised for conventional machines) are also found to be important when considering a coning rotor. has been identified as a key driver for load reduction. The analysis tools required will therefore be similar to those currently used and validated. The theory on which almost all wind turbine design tools are founded. as detailed in §4. They also must resist larger steady bending moments during operation.9 Coning Rotor Challenges and Opportunities 37 position approach of design theory.5 MWe has been identified as the optimal basic approach. to facilitate dynamic simulations and optimization on a design relevant time-scale. Based on fundamental arguments. allowing the blades to sweep out a cone and to park in the streamwise direction in high winds. minimum COE has been identified as the core function of a wind turbine. given the potentially large benefit in reduced COE. requiring modified . the non-flapping blade roots of these concepts fundamentally remain more susceptible to high-wind parked loads. which is already complex in stalled unconed rotors. The required downwind orientation of the coning rotor may lead to LFN. Finally.3. As a conceptual approach to extracting energy from the wind. a lift-based. The coning rotor therefore appears a viable alternate approach worthy of more detailed consideration in Part III. The qualitative steady state and dynamic ramifications of control strategy have been discussed. Although advanced “conventional” PTF machines (for example with independent pitch actuation) may also increase blade length by reducing loads. with nominally constant cost. The key physical aspects of the coning rotor are flapping hinges at the blade roots. BEM. The notion of an adaptive machine to tailor and mitigate loading. HAWT of around 1. rather than employing a higher order model. the solution of the optimization and control problem is complicated by the presence of the flap hinges. The primary area of uncertainty is in the aerodynamics. requires modification to handle the geometry of the coning rotor.

Motivated by the qualitative potential benefits of the coning rotor. this question may only be answered with any certainty after building confidence in the design tools employed. In turn. The ultimate question to be answered is the permissible increase in blade length. . which will in turn determine the COE advantage of the concept. and applying design tools to examine the quantitative performance of such a rotor. validating.38 Chapter 3 Variations on a Theme approaches and due consideration of the attached generator. the remainder of this thesis is focused on developing. with due appreciation for any shortcomings in the implemented analysis methods.

Part II Analysis .


3).1).1).1 Throughout this work.Chapter 4 Analytic Development This chapter develops the theory validated in Chapter 5 and used later in Part III for design studies. emphasis is placed on extending engineering-level models.14). Most of the models are implemented in a common software program. A number of analytical models are required. and derivation of a FEM approach to the centrifugally stiffened beam problem in §4. an industry-standard reference code is introduced (§4.4). with sheets to define the blades. including sectional property computations (§4. etc. loads integration (§ and structures (§4.4.3). The implementation of a low-frequency acoustic model is presented next in §4.9) are presented. 1 41 . Finally. to facilitate rapid optimization and for incorporation into dynamic simulations while retaining reasonable runtimes. The presentation is motivated by the unique configuration of the coning rotor described in Chapter 3. in addition to an overall coordinate system (§4. principally a novel BEM method capable of properly analysing a coned rotor (§4.8) and cost model (§4. Before any of these models are presented. Structural modelling methods are presented next in §4.6. required for evaluating the “tower thump” noise associated with downwind rotors.2) and performance metrics for the coning rotor (§4. steady-state and dynamic control scheduling methods are presented in §4.6) related. dynamic EOM for the flap-hinged rotor (§4.2).5.4. Using these components. to facilitate later work. ExcelBEM. a generator (§4. most principally aerodynamic (§4.6. rather than more complex full-field simulations. The name ExcelBEM derives from the fact that Microsoft Excel is used as a graphical user interface. Matlab m-files and compiled C functions are used for computations and interaction with Excel. which violates some of the assumptions in standard models.6.6. equally applicable to other highly flexible concepts and extensible to yawed rotors and dynamic inflow (§4. structure.

as are dynamic. BLADEDTM is a program frequently used in industry for turbine design and certification. developing a full commercial-grade code is a large undertaking. All section twist and pitch angles are about the zaero axis. making accurate coupling between aerodynamic loading and structural deformation critical for accurate performance prediction. yn ) and rotational (ψnod . h. ψroll . fully aero-elastic computations including offshore wave loading and controllers. fully aeroelastic time-domain wind turbine simulation programs are quite complex. 4. industry standard. l) Hub Shaft tilt ψt about y and rotation θ about x (positive rotation clockwise when looking downwind). ψyaw ) motion. distance from coning hinge to blade root shub and section distance along blade axis s. Post-processors are available for data reduction and visualization. well beyond the scope of an individual thesis. These codes therefore adopt some modal or discretized description of the flexible components of the system. controllers. drive train. and wind/wave inflow. A large quantity of data must be properly input describing the machine. Preprocessor modules can create turbulent wind histories and compute modal properties. They have been developed over many years and certified by regulatory bodies. and state-space model linearisation. a common Coordinate System (CS) is developed to describe the machine. including the blades. including extreme and fatigue load computations.2 Coordinate Systems Prior to embarking on topical development. in that order Nacelle Offsets from the yaw-axis (o. operation and conditions.42 Chapter 4 Analytic Development 4. 4. Steady-state aerodynamic and power curve analyses are possible. These DOF are sufficient for the current purposes which focus on rigid-body motion.1 that define the position and orientation of the following components: Tower Top-head translational (xn . The BLADEDTM software from GH is used throughout this thesis as a comparison industry-level code. . A set of DOF are shown in Fig. and offset Rhinge of the coning hinge axis Blade Cone angle β (positive coning downwind). positive towards feather. Wind turbines are inherently flexible structures. Taken together. incorporating many useful features for detailed analysis and design. tower.1 Industry Standard Comparison (BLADEDTM ) Modern.

4. as do the load calculations in §4. Any structural velocity. Throughout the following development.4.1(d)). is included in the aerodynamics. The various CSs associated with the components are also detailed in Fig. The most general transformation from blade .1. any off-axis position is ignored. For the purposes of aerodynamics.1.1 Coordinate systems It is important to point out a further simplification that is made with respect to any flexibility of the blades. and the blade pre-bend defined in Fig. resulting from flexibility. however.4 take into account the pre-bend. both of which move the section chordline off the pitch axis (zaero axis in Fig.6. The structural calculations in §4. 4. (a) Earth-tower-nacelle Figure 4.2. the transformation matrices defined in Appendix A are used to relate CSs. as it will be small compared with other dimensions.29.2 Coordinate Systems 43 but which contain enough generality that extension to flexible components should be straight forward.6. 4. as any mass offset from the pitch axis will have an important effect.

while for upwind rotors o is negative. .1) shub + s     1 For anti-clockwise rotor rotation. h) . yn . the tower is assumed rigid throughout this thesis (i. ht ) R y (ψnod ) R x (ψroll ) R z (ψyaw ) T (0. (4.e.2. the sign of θ is negative in Eq. Rhinge ) R y (β) (4. Also. .1).) aerodynamic axes xaero –yaero –zaero to earth (fixed) xe –ye –ze is:   x     y = T (xn . l. .1 Coordinate systems (cont.2. Unless otherwise stated.44 Chapter 4 Analytic Development (b) Nacelle-shaft (downwind) (c) Nacelle-shaft (upwind) (d) Shaft-blade Figure 4. xn = yn = ψnod = ψroll = 0). for downwind rotors ψt is negative. 0. z      1 e    0      0 R y (ψt ) R x (θ) T (0.

Secondly. Numerous tools have been developed based on three basic formulations: Blade Element Momentum (BEM). The first was that even in its unmodified original form.4. thrust CT and power CP coefficients.3 Coned Rotor Performance Metrics A variable-area rotor introduces an ambiguity into the conventional definitions for tip speed ratio λ.3.1b) (4.g. with prescribed wake geometry. accurate predictions of the aerodynamic forces and derived quantities (e. For a coning rotor of blade length S. It should be noted at this point that an initial attempt was made by the author to modify a computationally efficient1 vortex code provided by Dr. to handle the coned rotor. they are defined as: Ractual = Rhinge + S sin(β) Rref = Rhinge + S ΩR λ= U P CP = 1/2ρU 3 πR2 T CT = 1/2ρU 2 πR2 (4. This rendered it unsuitable for later design work.1c) (4. 87]. rotor power.1d) (4. Navier-Stokes actuator line and disk [88.1e) 4.5). including lifting-line [86. potential flow (vortex filaments/lifting-line). Coton [87]. coned) or reference (unconed) tip radius R = Rref .3. Each may be based on either the actual R = Ractual (real.3. it became apparent that the underlying equations would require extensive reformulation to account for a coned rotor geometry.3. This formulation involved the least possible computations. in both steady and dynamic conditions. To properly design a blade.3. principally evaluations of some form of the Biot-Savart law (see §4.4. Advanced aerodynamic analysis techniques for wind turbines are in principle available to handle the aerodynamics of the coning rotor concept. aerodynamics lies at the heart of energy extraction from the wind.1a) (4. the analysis of a single steady case took on the order of minutes to compute. This approach was abandoned for two reasons. 1 .4 Aerodynamic Modelling Clearly.3 Coned Rotor Performance Metrics 45 4. torque) are required. and fullfield solutions of the Navier-Stokes (NS) equations. This formulation splits the wake into a near and far part. 89] and full-field simulations [90].

1 and used to correct the model in later sections. §4.4. not the planar disc nor the independence of streamtube assumptions discussed later. its underlying assumptions and history are elucidated in §4.11 and §4. and inclusion of radially induced velocity. to make it applicable to the analysis of coning rotor concepts.3. using potential flow theory. Bearing in mind these constraints and discussions of the inherent contradictions in BEM [92]. then to blade element forces in §4. implementations of BEM theory. The BEM approach is much less computationally demanding than any other approach.14 to a time-domain formulation handling dynamic and yawed inflow. The validation presented in §5. a key requirement for analyses taking into account inherent and important coupled elastic behaviour.2. with additional wake geometries in §4.4. not as badly as might be expected. practical design codes retain.4. although on closer examination and with the proper corrections. Building on the same fundamental insights. Proper consideration of the relative placement of the wake. It has of course been acknowledged that more advanced aerodynamic models are required for better understanding of many wind turbine phenomena [91].4.9. it has nevertheless proven to be quite adept at adequately predicting performance for standard rotors.4.4. Highly coned rotors violate some of the underlying assumptions of standard BEM theory.7. at their core. In light of BEM’s relevance to wind turbine design. A model for centrifugal pumping is selected in §4.1 demonstrates that the main limitation of BEM theory in application to coned and yawed rotors is in the assumed wake position. . The reader is led from a description of the flow field in §4. Finally. before introduction to the derived correction factors in §4. The postulate is that the critical limitation of BEM is the usual assumed relation between disc and far wake induction. Chapter 4 Analytic Development In any case. but currently available resources prevent these approaches from being beneficial in design practice and optimization.10 presents the final corrected BEM equations.12.4.5 through §4. before synthesizing a spanwise flow stall delay model in §4. yields the corrections to the BEM method. through momentum equations in §4. The revised BEM method is first derived for the steady case to illustrate the fundamental concepts. the revised BEM method is extended in §4. on a time scale relevant for design iterations.

The details of the far wake field will be discussed further in §4.4. The situation at the rotor for a single stream-tube is expanded in Fig. These were based on linear momentum balances. passing through the rotor at station 1. It is this 60 year old presentation which has lent the insight required to extend BEM to account for coned rotors.11 as they relate to modelling at high induction factors. The incident flow at station 0 is taken as constant at all radii. the axisymmetric flow through a generalized coned rotor is shown in Fig. it is necessary to go back and consider separately the momentum and blade element components.1 Back to Basics The lineage of BEM theory dates back to Rankine [93] and Froude [94].3. The radial component of the flow (normally neglected) is shown. which has remained virtually unchanged in modern BEM. to far down-stream at station 2.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 47 4. 2D vectors V0 and V2 in (ˆ. together with the aggregate rotor/blade Note that this aerodynamic coordinate system differs from §4.2. z ). arising from work done in the 1940’s and 1950’s on helicopter rotors [101–103]. The equations were originally derived for comparison to Mikkelsen [89] who used the CS used in this section. axisymmetric analysis until §4. In order to properly derive a modified BEM theory appropriate for coned rotors. 4. and were extended by Betz [95] in the 1920’s to include wake rotation. The effects of inflow turbulence.4. The idea of using blade elements to predict forces on the blades was originally developed by Froude [96] and Drzewiecki [97].14. except for the thin shear layer at the boundary of the wake. yaw and wind shear are all ignored in the present steady. The approach taken is somewhat analogous to recent extensions for skewed rotors [100]. 4. 4. 99] provides a useful discussion of the marrying of momentum theory to blade element theory by 1940 and the subsequent history of accounting for finite numbers of blades. Both far-field velocities.4.2. as a function of the calculated loading. 1 .1 Inviscid flow is assumed throughout. The flow is implicitly assumed to mix back to the free stream velocity in the very far wake downstream of station 2.2 Flow Field Kinematics In keeping with the standard set-up for BEM.4. are taken to have zero radial component. from far up-stream conditions at station 0. Glauert [98. The downstream velocity varies radially between streamtubes. This can only be done after properly defining the flow field through the rotor. who before 1900 developed uniform actuator disc models. the former’s magnitude r ˆ being an input variable and the latter an output of the simulation.4.

and there could therefore be no induced velocity parallel to the rotor blades. erroneously assumed wn to be parallel to Fn . For a real rotor imparting azimuthal forces as well. there is radial flow and it is simply a modelling deficiency that the radial flow is conventionally . Figure 4.3 Kinematics at rotor for single stream-tube Note that the radial velocity component modifies Vn only for coned rotors. Mikkelsen [89] presented a BEM method (in addition to the CFD results discussed in §5. there is also an azimuthal velocity component at the disc wθ and wθ.48 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Figure 4.2 Kinematics setup generated forces acting on the flow through the individual stream-tube. The proposed rationalization was that BEM governing equations only consider axial momentum. both pointing into the page. Critically. but as will be shown later. The forces are either reactions of the lift and drag forces on the blades. this is a description of the generalized velocity components of the true net flow field through the rotor. In fact. and affects the predicted velocity relative to the 2D airfoil. or hypothetical idealized pressure forces.1) which accounted for the radial velocity component.2 in the far field.

5. or as the induced effect of the vorticity bound on the blades and trailed in the wake. The latter approach will later prove quantitatively expedient in §4. 62].1 Axial Momentum An axial momentum balance for a control volume enclosing a single stream-tube between station 0 and station 2 yields: ¯ BFz = − V2 − V0 ∆m ˙ ∆m = ρ [(V0 − wz ) cos β − wr sin β] 2πr∆s ˙ (4. The net flow field can be rationalized by momentum considerations to be the result of the effects of the local loading of the disc (retardation of the flow in the stream-tube. . All of these common simplifications are adopted here. Later.1 The standard relations between the axial a and tangential a induction factors and induced velocities wz and wθ are retained in the present analysis for convenient comparison to the standard BEM equations: wz = aV0 wθ = a rΩ Note that these are the induced velocities at the disc. when pressure and friction effects between stream-tubes are neglected.4.4.2. proportioned via the flow model to give the true net flow vector at the disc. 2 A variable area/expanding stream-tube will have non-zero integrated pressure forces on the streamwise sides. which must result in flow expansion and hence radial flow).4.3 Momentum Balances Momentum theory was the basis of Froude’s early analysis of a uniformly loaded disc. yielding induced velocities u.4. the induced velocity components w are the orthogonal increments from the free stream velocity at the rotor.1a) (4. and u is used in reference to the results of vortex theory. although Mikkelsen [89] showed these to be negligible.3. (4.4. 49 In the present method.4 Aerodynamic Modelling unaccounted for. station 1 in Fig. that afford radially varying induction at the disc.4.2) (4. as shown by Glauert [98]. p. 4. the disc was divided into annular tubes.3) 1 Note that for clarity w is used in the momentum equations.2 Pressure drop in the wake owing to rotation is also ignored in assuming a pressure of p0 at station 2 [16. 4.1b) 4.4.4. Assuming wake rotation to be small compared to Ω also greatly simplifies the following momentum equations.

Figure 4.2 = 2wθ (4.3. With no wake expansion (r1 = r2 ).2 ˙ ¯ (4. Considering the reference frame fixed to the blade section shown in Fig. 4. the basic theory essentially ignores wake expansion and assumes an infinite number of blades.4.50 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Note that the mass flow is calculated as the dot product of V1 and area normal vector dA = 2πr∆s. Both formulations overestimate the mass flow which is relatively reduced for a non-zero β.2 Tangential Momentum The tangential velocity imparted to the flow as a torque reaction is calculated from a tangential momentum balance: BrFθ = ∆mr2 wθ. since there is no tangential velocity upstream of the rotor.4. due to the radial inclination of the flow.2 azimuthal velocities downstream. The standard BEM formulation assumes equivalently wr = 0 or stream-tube cross-sectional area of 2πr∆s cos β perpendicular to the total flow at station 1 (V0 −wz ).2 r2 ⇒ wθ. conservation of angular momentum yields: 2 2 2wθ r1 = wθ.4 Flow relative to airfoil section 4.4. As with the rest of the method development.5) .4) The notation wθ refers to azimuthal velocity at the disc and wθ. the average tangential velocity wθ through the rotor is half the tangential exit velocity 2wθ .4.

unsteady turbulent mixing occurs with the flow outside the bounding streamline downstream of the rotor.6a) (4. Prantl’s model should strictly use the helix angle at the tip.2 ¯ This accounts for the average momentum transferred to the bulk fluid relative to the uniform flow produced by an infinite number of blades.model .4. because Prandtl’s derivation requires an infinite series of discs which is not a good approximation in the near wake. BLADEDTM uses a not aF in the mass flow term.2 ¯ 2 B R−r cos−1 exp − π 2 r sin(φ) = F wz.3 Finite Length Blades 51 A finite number of blades B will produce distinct helical vortex sheets all moving downstream with the same velocity.2 are then predicted from complex-variable flow analysis around ¯ the discs. For finite numbers of blades. to satisfy mass continuity (i. p.4. the velocity at the blades (the velocity of the wake sheets) is higher than the average flow between the sheets near the edges. the stream-tube axial momentum balances are modified by empirically derived thrust coefficients CT. rather than a continuous volume of vorticity. This is not convention1 [104. In reality.55] or done here.4. φtip .6c) wθ. Note that some authors may also invert the definitions of a and aF by defining a as the averaged quantity. in the form of a correction factor F to the far-field velocities: F = wz. For the coned rotor. spacing the idealized discs at the pitch distance of the helical sheets. φ should be the wake helix angle in a plane tangent to the rotor axis. so φ at each section normal is used. Again.2 (4. 1 .4 Aerodynamic Modelling 4.4.6b) (4.4. To account for this effect. 4.e. The average velocities in ¯ the wake V2 and wθ. Thought of another way. the velocity cannot be zero in the wake as predicted by basic momentum theory). Some researchers have therefore also applied F to the induced velocity at station 1 in the mass flow term (as a circumferentially averaged quantity).4 High Induction The BEM model breaks down for high a values (occurring equivalently at high λ and low V0 for fixed Ω). this detail is lost in the overall approximation.3.4.2 = F wθ. determined experimentally from aggregate values for complete rotors. not normal to the blade pitch axis.3. Prandtl [98] developed a simplified wake structure model idealized as semi-infinite discs moving downstream at speed V2 .

However. for comparison to the ‘CT Spera’ results using the Spera model [15].4 0.0 0.Spera (ac = 0. for which results are labelled ‘CT Bladed’.model model behaviour Again. Results presented later obtained from runs of the commercial code are labelled ‘BLADED’.Glauert (ac = 0.1 0.0 0.7c) The first CT. when the induction factor in the plane of the rotor tip adisc exceeds ac : CT.5 0. one must be careful in comparing data as some authors choose a and others aF .5 0.889 (4. 3.4.0 CT 1. As in §4. The same thrust model is used internally in the implementation of the current work.143)2 − 0.4.52 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Three existing models (referred to later as thrust models) that have been fitted to experimental data are used here.8 0.2 0.5 1.0203 0.3. The behaviour of the three models is compared in Fig. which will become relevant later.2) = 4 a2 + (1 − 2ac ) adisc c + 0.5. for the unconed rotor these models should strictly use adisc = aF not adisc = a to account for the average velocity at the disc. this is again not done to follow convention [16. 93]. is quite similar to the Glauert model [17]. implemented in BLADEDTM . plotted with the original data Glauert used to derive his model [15].5998 + 0.4.Bladed (ac = 0.3 0.6427 CT.3539) = 0.6 0.5 Thrust CT.4.7a) (4. .0 0.9 1.0 a Momentum Glauert NACA MR No L5009 BRC R&M 885 BLADED Spera NACA TN 221 Figure 4.Bladed model. 4.4) = (adisc − 0.78a2 disc CT. p.7b) (4. as the data was gathered based on an average velocity.61adisc + 0.3.0 2.5 2.7 0.

The AOA is then α = φ − γtot .8b) (4. Prior to an understanding of the induced velocities produced from 3D wake structures. in a misguided attempt to account for the actual 3D flow effects. γset the fixed pitch offset. 4. due to the curvature of the flow relative to the airfoil. it will serve to further force the un-modelled 3D boundary layer and may exacerbate stall-delay effects from spanwise boundary layer migration [105] (see §4. Lindenburg [104.4. given the spatial resolution of the BEM method. each differing in the aspect ratio of the blade. 2D airfoil data can be used to calculate the loading imparted to the stream-tube in the momentum equations. Spanwise flow cannot be directly modelled by BEM.9) with γtwist the blade twist.4 is considered.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 53 4.8a) (4.8c) (4. the generalized flow relative to a blade section shown in Fig. and γpitch any active pitch angle. cd ) dependent on AOA α and Reynolds number Re: 2 ρVrel c cos β 2 ρV 2 fθ = cθ rel c 2 cn = cl cos φ + cd sin φ fz = cn (4. p.4.4. Lifting line methods can now of course explicitly account for the velocities induced at the blade by the vorticity trailed downstream.4.8d) cθ = cl sin φ − cd cos φ The total angle of the section γtot is found from: γtot = γtwist + γset + γpitch (4.4. using the predicted induced velocities at the rotor.4. This effect is ignored here however. . The aerodynamic forces fz and fθ per unit length of blade are predicted from 2D airfoil test data (lift/drag coefficients cl . For now.4 Blade Elements Momentum theory alone cannot predict the forces imparted by a blade with particular airfoil cross-section profiles.e. The closure of this problem is left to the next section.4. The effects may be included by referencing the AOA to the 3/4c point on the section and modifying the AOA–cm relation. there was great debate as to the flow conditions at the rotor suitable for determining the aerodynamic forces [98]. However. However. assumed unaltered V0 velocity at the blades) were used with apparently heuristically derived airfoil datasets. 57] notes that the effective camberline of an airfoil section on a coned rotor will be modified. Blade element methods which ignored any inflow effects (i.9).4.

vortex rings and filaments will be shed to fill the entire downstream volume with helical sheets.4. standard BEM behaves as if the calculations are done in a radial plane through the blade tip. To exploit the computational efficiency of BEM. as shown in Fig. but this is overly computationally intensive for design purposes. The bound vortices on the disc also merge into a single axial root vortex joining from downstream at the blade roots. together with the bound vortices on the disc. As previously mentioned.7 that the axial filaments on the wake cylinder and at the root.1 Wake Decomposition The simplest case is obtained by restricting attention to the uniformly loaded rotor (constant pressure exerted on the flow by the disc) with an infinite number of blades.5 Wake Analysis The momentum equations must be closed by relating the far field velocities to those at the disc. as has been noted in full flow field studies [88. Note that in general as the loading along the blade changes for a real rotor. This is normally done via Bernoulli’s equation. 4. It is of course possible to dispense with the momentum equations altogether.4.54 Chapter 4 Analytic Development 4. relating the difference in static pressure just before and after the rotor (equivalent to Fn /dA) to the upstream and downstream velocities. by modelling the blades and wake as bound and free vortex filaments to determine the flow at the rotor (bound vortex). the helical vortex sheets shed into the wake can be decomposed into rings and axial filaments extending infinitely far downstream. 106]. yawed turbines [100] and helicopter rotors [102].6. An alternative approach to closing the equations is to examine the wake structure in more detail using potential flow theory. In essence they are. Essentially. it is shown later in §4.4. since information about the relative stream-wise position of the stations along the blade is absent. the streamwise (axial) [100] and radial . As in other works. 4. This again neglects wake rotation and expansion.4. Vorticity is continuously shed only at the blade tips to form a single sheet of vorticity. induce only second-order velocities. the detailed flow at the disc is required to compute the aerodynamic forces developed by the section. but more importantly is the root of an inability to predict coning effects.10) Using this formula. The Biot-Savart law is used to compute the induced velocities u for a vortex filament of strength Γ and length dl with vector r to the point of interest: du = Γ dl × r 4π |r|3 (4.5. analogous with fundamental wake studies [107].

swirl is irrelevant to the solution of the uniformly loaded disc. For a coned rotor.6 Wake decomposition into rings and filaments induction effects are of primary importance here.4.10) over the surface of the cylinder with vortex strength per unit . In summary. The net effect is that the azimuthal induction is changed less than 1% over the length of the blade for a coned rotor relative to an unconed rotor (see §4. The swirl is of course treated in the conventional manner. 4. The axial and azimuthal equations are uncoupled and the latter uniformly zero. (4. since only the axial momentum equation is solved.5. it can be shown that the bound vortices on the disc do not contribute to the induced velocities on the disc in the case of an unconed rotor.2 Evaluation of Correction Factors Focusing back on just the vortex cylinder comprising the wake. due to a lack of azimuthally applied pressure. z0 is found from integration of Eq. as for the unconed rotor.4.7 for further details).7 at point x0 .4.11a) vortexsheet θ wθ. inclusion of the swirl correction factor for coning θ will have zero effect for a uniformly loaded rotor and a second order effect for a real rotor.11b) In any case.4. the induced velocity from the cylindrical vortex sheet in Fig. the axial and bound filaments only induce azimuthal velocity. The correction factor is defined from the vortex filament results as: θ = uθ.2 2uθ (4. Again using lifting line theory. For a real rotor.4. by the azimuthal momentum equation. 0. Provision for further treatment is provided by the inclusion of θ in the final set of equations.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 55 Figure 4.4. the loading (including an azimuthal loading) will of course depend on φ. 4. since the lift and drag depend on the angle of attack which is determined by φ together with the blade twist and pitch.2 = 2a Ωr (4.

which can be arbitrary here.4.12).4.56 area γ = Γ/dzRdθ: π ∞ Chapter 4 Analytic Development u=2 0 γR 4π z0 ˆ z cos θˆ + z sin θˆ + (R − x0 cos θ) k i j x2 − 2Rx0 cos θ + R2 + z 2 + (δc R)2 0 3 2 dzdθ (4.4. (4. δc R. 1 .1%R. The inner z portion of the integral is easily evaluated.4.12) The point is x0 units radially off the centreline and z0 units upwind from the end of the vortex tube.7 Vortex ring geometry Correction factors in the far wake: z z and r are calculated using the induced velocities from Eq.13a) (4. avoids a discontinuity as the sheet is approached. numerical integration. computed for each section radius at a point on the coned disc and = r uz.2 2uz vortexsheet ur = uz vortexsheet (4. The z limits of integration may be set to ±∞ to evaluate the induced velocity in the far wake. (4. The vortex core addition to the formula. Figure 4.12). however the azimuthal component requires either elliptical integral functions or as is done here.13b) The division operations cancel the vortex sheet strengths γ in Eqn. leading to various models to describe the induced velocities as the core is approached [108]. with minimal effect on the results below this value. Eq. Viscosity has important effects near the centre of the vortex.1 The core size δc R is taken as 0.4. It should be possible to bypass the use of the momentum This is a numerical artefact of the mathematical model.

This method would amount to a prescribed wake vortex approach.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 57 equations.0 Figure 4. the far field velocity may now be related to that at the disc for closure of the momentum equations and definition of the induced velocities.5 0. and was not explored here as the purpose was to provide small corrections to well known and trusted BEM codes. The r is always greater than zero and bounded to approximately 4 near the wake sheet (depending on vortex core size).6 Relating Disc to Far Field Using the vortex filament results ( z and r) at each section along the blade. unity at the plane and less than unity downstream.0 -0.0 1.0 0. Figure 4.e.4.5 z -1.0 r 0. An unconed rotor is shown.8 Velocity field around vortex cylinder 4. The vectors show the induced velocity from the vortex sheet. Only a single cylindrical vortex is shed at the tip . The following equations define .5 1.8 shows the vortex sheet predictions for a unit radius rotor operating at a = 1/3. 2. but the same diagram will exist for a unity radius rotor with coning (i.0 1.5 -2. and the ellipses centred on the tip are isolines of the induced radial velocity. rather than the induction factors. the grey streamlines the overall flow. a longer blade).4. The axial correction factor radial correction factor z is greater than unity for points upstream of the tip-plane.5 0.0 -1. by continuing the vortex analysis and computing the sheet strengths.

2 = 2wz .15a) (4.4.9 are responsible for all azimuthally induced velocities.4.4. however. the magnitude of Γ must be determined for a given operating condition consisting of free-stream velocity V0 . is non-zero for the wake and root filaments for an unconed rotor. This is consistent with the usual assumed result from Bernoulli’s equation. Considering each of the three contributors in turn.4. using the right-hand rule to determine the directionality of the induced velocities. axial induction . 4.4.15b) (4.2 = 2wz = 2aV0 wr = wz r (4.15c) 4.4. The azimuthal contribution.4.4. the velocity vector increments at the blade induced by the filaments can be worked out graphically. the induced velocity may be calculated from: u= (|r1 | + |r2 |) (r1 × r2 ) Γ 4π |r1 | |r2 | (|r1 | |r2 | + r1 · r2 ) + δ 2 (4.7 Azimuthal Induced Velocity The axial filaments on the wake cylinder sheet.14a) (4. The inclusion of a radial component in the flow modifies the velocity normal to the blade in calculating the lift and drag coefficients. the vortex calculations yield a unity axial correction factor z. Qualitatively. the root streamwise vortex.16) The δ factor again ensures that the formula converges near the vortex core. Additionally. wz.10). it can be demonstrated that the net streamwise and radial induced velocities are zero for each set. the bound vortices have a net contribution for a coned rotor.58 the induced velocities in terms of z Chapter 4 Analytic Development and r: z z wz. defining r1 and r2 as vectors from the tail and head of the filament to the point of interest respectively. For any straight vortex filament of strength Γ. and the bound vorticity on the blades shown in Fig. independent of cone angle. In order to quantify the induced velocities. The normal velocity seen by the blade section can now be defined using the radial correction factor: V1 = V0 (1 − a)2 + (a r )2 Vn = V1 cos (β + δ) δ = arctan a r 1−a 1/2 (4. The error associated with ignoring the details of the azimuthal induction can be quantified using the Biot-Savart law Eq. (4.14b) For an unconed rotor.

9 Axial.4. in the far wake this induces a ˆ uniform axial velocity of γ k. (4.19) where at is the tangential induction factor at the tip. so by definition of at and Eq.4. which from geometry may be determined from: tan φt = 1−a λ(1 − at ) (4.17) The angle φt is the flow angle at the tip. For the unconed rotor. This induction is equal to 2aV0 from classical theory.4. As will be shown later. For an infinite number of blades. over one revolution of the wake the sum Γs of all the trailing vortex filaments will be distributed over a distance 2πRsinφt perpendicular to the filaments. yielding: Γs = 4πV02 a(1 − a) Ω(a + at ) (4.4.20) .4 Aerodynamic Modelling 59 Figure 4. this gives an areal density of vortex strength of: γw = Γs 2πRsinφt (4.16): at = Γ 4πR2 Ω (4. root and bound vortex filaments a and tip-speed ratio λ. Considering the wake cylinder opened flat. only the root vortex of strength Γ = Γs contributes to the tangential velocity. as done by Burton et al.18) The vortex density γ normal to the streamwise direction is a component of γw from geometry.4. [16]. γ = γw cos φt .4.

“spanwise pumping” and “radial pumping”. Lindenburg [104. the influence of the root vortex is increased.4. with δ = 0. Eq.4. than would be predicted by 2D section data.16). The dip at the tip is due to the vortex core model. As will be shown.21) This may be solved for at for the given flow condition.4. As expected. to higher cl (up to double) and αstall .60 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Combining Eqs.19) and (4. the contributions to the net induced velocity at any point in the flow may be determined. For these results.2. For the upwind coned rotor. However. Section 4. as the blade now “sees” more of the vortex.4.1 first gives an overview of the experimental challenges in studying stall delay. only the root vortex has any influence at the disc for β = 0◦ .4.4.2] provided an excellent review of the relevant studies that have examined this effect.8.4. For the downwind coned rotor. Given Γ and using Eq. it is variously referred to as “centrifugal pumping”. the above relations for Γ are assumed valid for a coned rotor. 100 blades are used for the numerical calculations. and then substituted into Eq. The net effect in both cases is that the azimuthal induction is changed less than 1% between the coned and unconed cases.10 are for a typical case of a = 0. the effects are reversed. (4. §4. The tip radius is the same for the coned and unconed cases. As the effect has only been observed on rotating blades. These results lends credence to the decision to ignore the details of the azimuthal induction in the coning BEM theory. The results shown in Fig. It has also been noted that a much more benign and opposite effect appears to exist near the tips.20) we obtain a quadratic for at : at + at − 2 a(1 − a) =0 λ2 (4.8 Stall Delay and Centrifugal Pumping It has long been recognized that propeller and wind turbine blades behave as if sections near the root of the blades have delayed stall. 4. (4. 4.20) is minimally in error due to the additional influence of the bound vortices on a coned rotor.22) where uθ is azimuthal induced velocity and R the tip radius.4. The tangential induction factor at points along the blade at radius r can be computed from: at = uθ R rV0 λ (4. the bound vortex has an influence in opposition to that created by the root vortex. followed by a comparison of the various theories that have been proposed to . (4. (4.4.3 and λ = 6.19) to yield Γ.001R.

6 0. §4.4. and the angle of attack must be computed in some manner for decomposing .6 0.3 selects and presents the best existing model for use in this thesis. Unfortunately.4 0.8. Based on this background.10 Azimuthal induction along blade explain the phenomenon in §4. the spatially resolution is fairly coarse.2 0.8.4 0.2 0. Measurements of aggregate shaft torque/power mask the details of any spanwise variation.2 0.1 Experimental Investigation Post-processing experimental data to validate the occurrence of the phenomenon is complicated [109]. A common method of investigation is to employ pressure taps at sections along the blade.4 0.4.8 1 r/R (c) β = −40◦ Figure 4.6 0.4.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 4 3 2 bnd cyl root total 4 61 3 2 a’ 1 0 -1 0 0. 4.4.8 1 a’ 1 0 -1 0 0.2.8 1 r/R (a) β = 0◦ 4 r/R (b) β = 40◦ 3 2 a’ 1 0 -1 0 0.8.

Corten [105] disagreed with a number of assumptions in the reduction. no stall delay is predicted for c << r. so that the separated boundary layer is thick and velocities negligible. The theoretical examination of the boundary layer equations predicted a trend with (c/r)2/3 . fundamentally whether the use of the boundary layer equations was justified in stall. 4. This reference should be consulted for more information on the following discussion. whereby gross separation is delayed and stall avoided. various researchers have employed the NS equations in an attempt to tease out the underlying mechanism of stall delay. Drela at MIT .8.62 Chapter 4 Analytic Development the normal cn and tangent ct force coefficients into conventional aerodynamic cl and cd ones. at its most reduced. Emphasis was placed on a separation point existing on the blade surface. A revised analysis was framed in a cylindrical CS rotating with the blade. Snel [111] employed this technique [112]. some data reduction (and models in §4.8. To avoid the latter ambiguity. There is no doubt. The final result is a prediction that stall delay effects are proportional to c/r. Others make use of full vortex analysis models to back-out the angles of attack and thereby decompose the measured pressures into lift/drag coefficients. without the boundary layer assumption. the radial flow creates a positive chordwise pressure gradient. however the calculations found a relation of (c/r)2 . which sets up a radial flow. Based on this. In the former. In fact. it is a centrifugal pressure gradient owing to the rotation. particularly as some studies note an increase in cd while others find a decrease.4.2 Mechanisms for Centrifugal Pumping Stall delay is clearly a boundary layer effect. embedding the equations into X-Foil1 to solve for enhanced lift characteristics. More recent efforts. owing to Coriolis acceleration in the rotating reference frame. This has produced conflicting results. as detailed and expanded on by Corten [105]. The earliest collection of efforts [110] reduced the equations to their laminar boundary layer form. At issue between the two methods is the underlying mechanism. that the effect is real and particularly pronounced at the root. however. but neglecting viscosity (reduction to the Euler equations).2) present the data in terms of cn [104]. This reduces the adverse pressure gradient and hence delays stall.4. have emphasised the use of order-of-magnitude analysis for eliminating terms in the NS equations. Corten [105] on the other hand. In turn. finds that 1 2D coupled inviscid-viscous boundary layer code by Dr.

Lindenburg [104] compared the available models based on the preceding analyses. • A linear reduction between r = 0.2. The lift increment is then taken as proportional to the chordwise extent of the separation region.8.8.non−rot + 3. It is expressed as a cl increment from the static non-rotating coefficient cl. so this model cannot be used in BLADED runs. relative to the experimental data. 1 .4.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 63 radial convection is the underlying mechanism. BLADEDTM can only accept static corrections to airfoil tables computed a priori. A new model was also proposed by Lindenburg [113]. The other models propose modifications to cl . Based on the accuracy of the predictions in that report. cd and cn in various forms. to enable analysis during start-up and shut-down. the Snel model also appears the most physically based.non−rot : cl.1 The linear reduction (rather than a sharp cut-off) is required to avoid numerical difficulties in optimization as sections pass the cut-off radius under DV manipulation. based on the separation point at the TE.2). The cos2 φ local tip-speed ratio λr dependency was introduced after the original derivation.4. Ultimate resolution of the theoretical discrepancy will depend on more experimental data becoming available. This would arise both from a chordwise pressure differential. the modified form of Snel’s model is used in the current work. . the linear lift curve.75 . If a stall region extends from the TE. since separation is the mechanism of airfoil stall.1 cos2 φ c r 2 (2π(α − α0 ) − cl. A number of additional features of the model implementation are given in the following list: • The maximum lift increment is limited so that cl. 4.4. A related phenomenon predicted by the latter approach is a helical flow outwards in the separated region near the TE.rot = cl.1 was obtained empirically.23) The factor of 3.rot never exceeds 2π(α − α0 ). As outlined in §4. then a drag increment should be more evident in the results. together with a set of assumptions about fully-developed spanwise flow at the TE creating a Coriolis acceleration.8 to zero limits the spanwise extent of the model to be consistent with experiments.non−rot ) (4.3 Modelling Centrifugal Pumping In an attempt to match analysis to experimental data for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment (UAE) experiment (see §C. . 0.4. and energy input to the large volume of separated flow. It seems somewhat duplicitous to simultaneously assume a separated region of flow and delay of stall.

12(a)) and the other power limiting (Fig. a finite number of blades will reduce this large increase seen over the last 5% of the radius. Two operating points are shown. so the only limit on induced velocity close to the tip is the vortex core size. Consequently the effective sweep angle is found to rise sharply towards the tips. a coning rotor will encounter a velocity component Vs along the spanwise axis. The effective sweep angle Λ over the blade is shown in Fig.5. Due to the flow expansion predicted by the vortex model. 4. 4.4. In reality. 4.64 Chapter 4 Analytic Development • The model is only applied for α > α0 . The induction factor corrections have been computed for an infinite number of uniformly loaded blades. consistent with experimental evidence. 4. for a range of coning angles β at zero yaw. This ensures stall occurs at some point over that range.12. even . the angles are quite small.4. In this case though.9 Spanwise Flow By virtue of its geometry. even an unconed blade will experience some degree of spanwise flow.11. Any rotor operating in yaw or flow non-parallel to the shaft will also experience spanwise flow. one representative of optimal operation (Fig.2. It is also linearly tapered to zero over 30◦ < α < 50◦ . as shown in Fig.12(b)). Figure 4.11 Skewed flow velocity vectors and boundary layer profiles The induced velocities (axial and radial) have been computed using the correction factors developed in §4. 4.

4 0. the increasingly large Λ seen over the blade length.8 1 0.9. Conversely. before referencing experimental evidence in §4. computed as V cos Λ. It is assumed that the lift and drag of the section may be predicted solely from Vrel and α.9.2 r (a) a = 1/3. and so would not have much of an effect based on the experimental evidence to follow.4. 4.6 0.1.1 Independence Principle Almost universally.2 to show that the common assumptions break down in stall.4. then the flow around the wing is uniquely determined by the cross-sectional profile normal to the spanwise axis. can be expected to influence the stalling behaviour of the rotor.3 that is used to modify the 2D airfoil characteristics to account for spanwise flow.4. the spanwise flow component is ignored when computing the aerodynamic properties of the section. This section first examines the common assumptions regarding spanwise flow in §4. particularily towards the root as the cone angle β increases. If the wing is now assumed to translate along its own axis.4 r 0. of constant cross section. Consider an infinitely long wing (unbounded zaero ).9. the lack of friction means that the external flow is unaltered from the original . To deal with the conditions of the coned rotor.12(b). λ = 7 (b) a = 2/3.6 0. If the flow is at right angles to the wing axis (Λ = 0).9. immersed in a frictionless flow. This approach is justified by the independence principle [114]. λ = 3 Figure 4.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 40 30 Λ (deg) Λ (deg) 20 10 1 10 2 8 65 40 30 20 10 6 18 1 6 14 12 1 0 8 6 0 40 20 β (deg) 4 2 0 40 0.4. a model is developed in §4. and which may be rationalized by the following thought experiment. also applied to swept wings and helicopter rotors. 4.8 1 20 β (deg) 0 0 0.2 0.4.12 Effective sweep angle with coning for typical operating conditions in the stalling condition Fig.

and the other with twist and a non-symmetric airfoil [115]. lift curve slope clαΛ and lift coefficient cl. It is also equivalent to an effective yaw angle Λ being experienced by the wing. a fuselage was also present at the root of the wing.Λ = cl cos2 Λ (4. 4. the non-dimensional areas are equal for both un-swept (chord c. i. and recognising that c s = cΛ cos Λ b/ cos Λ = cΛ b. 4. the validity of the independence principle has been confirmed for real wings. Figure 4.1 The effect is to alter the linear lift-curve slope differentially along the span. The rest of the mid-span pressure taps were located along chords perpendicular to the swept wing axis. when the boundary layer is no-longer thin and separation (stall) begins to occur. sweep angle and yaw angle (in an aircraft sense) Λ are synonymous with each other. with a greatly exaggerated dimension normal to the airfoil surface.13 shows a typical set of 2D lift curve data (i. i. The various lift curves are labelled by the section percentage location along the span. for sections perpendicular to spanwise axis). 4. The tests were also carried out for Re ≈ 108 .9. Another set of 2D lift data shown in Fig. and the pressure taps at the most inboard and outboard locations were orientated in the free-stream direction.Λ for a section in the streamwise direction. to the analogous parameters in the section normal to the span axis.4. span b perpendicular to free-stream) definitions. decomposing the rotation vector α lying along the spanwise axis into a component normal to the freestream. 1 . The data is somewhat complicated by the induced velocities from the finite wing length. The laminar boundary layer profiles ([see 110]) before stall are illustrated in the upper right corner of Fig.4.2 Experimental Evidence Experimentally.24a) (4.24c) These formulae can be derived from the geometry of Fig. clα and cl : αΛ = α cos Λ clαΛ = clα cos Λ cl.e. derived from a 3D yawed wing test. as well as shift the zero-lift AOA for the non-symmetric wing. length s) and swept (chord cΛ . Secondarily.e. 4. at least before 2D results would predict stall.11.66 Chapter 4 Analytic Development condition. one without twist and employing a symmetric airfoil. The thought experiment of course breaks down when the viscosity of the flow becomes important.24b) (4. In the set of swept wing test data to follow.4.11. α.e. Simple wing sweep theory simply relates angle of attack αΛ .4.14 has been measured from pressure taps on two swept wings.

Based on data such as this.15(a) for the NACA study was obtained from full-wing CL data. it has been found that a yawed wing will follow the 2D linear lift curve well past the 2D un-swept stall angle and lift coefficient cl. The predictions are not shown in Fig.4 2.max and αstall are given in Fig. 4. where used to compute estimated lift curves based on the simple sweep theory given in Eq. Of course. (4.14. (4. energy is The additional data in Fig. scaled using Eq.4.2 0.8 0.max (Λ = 0).4. 4. 4.13 Experimental 2D lift curves for varying yaw angle (data from Harris [110]) Experimental 2D lift curves for Λ = 0.max (Λ) and stall AOAs.14 for simplicity. A Weissigner lifting-line method was then used to compute linear lift-curve slopes which were then used to adjust the 2D curves. Furthermore. 1 .4 0.4. shown as the dashed lines in Fig. but suffice it to say that the linear portions matched well. The boundary layer is therefore able to continue to navigate the adverse pressure gradient without separation for much higher 2D AOAs α.0 0 0° 35° 30° 15° 40° 75° 60° 45° 67 cl 10 20 30 40 50 AOA (deg) Figure 4.1 The proposed mechanism for the observed stall delay is a thinning and energization of the boundary layer by the spanwise flow.max . Data points taken from a number of studies for cl.6 1.0 1. 4. not the sectional angle of attack α. increasing in effect inboard.24).4 Aerodynamic Modelling 2. but the predicted stall behaviour was akin to the 2D curve in terms of stall AOA and cl.24c). delaying stall to much higher lift coefficients cl. The measured data therefore shows significant stall delay. Note that AOA is the overall wing angle of attack for this dataset.15 illustrating this behaviour. it has been found experimentally that the 2D drag and moment coefficient curves are basically unaffected by Λ.

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 10 20 2D 0.815 0.167 0.383

Chapter 4 Analytic Development
1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 -0.2 -5 0.0 5 15 25 0.383


0.167 0.545 0.707 2D 0.815 0.924





AOA (deg)
(a) Plain wing

AOA (deg)

(b) Twisted wing

Figure 4.14 Wing section lift curves for 45◦ swept wing (data from [115])

being put into the boundary layer to avoid 2D stall, and so increased drag is present, but in the spanwise direction.
3.0 2.8 2.6 Harris Harris 2 NACA cos^1.5 cos^1 cos^0.75 45 40 35

cl,max(Λ)/cl,max Λ=0

2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0 10








30 25 20 15 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Sweep angle (deg)

Sweep angle (deg)

(a) Maximum lift

(b) Stall angle

Figure 4.15 Stall delay behaviour for 2D sections in yawed flow (data from [110, 116])

It should be noted that this spanwise drag component is quite important for helicopter rotors [110, 117], since it translates into an additional power requirement for forward flight. Helicopter blades experience continually varying yaw with azimuth

4.4 Aerodynamic Modelling


angle, owing to the relative component of the free-stream in forward flight (greater angles towards advancing side, [see 110, Figure 2]). In aircraft applications [118, pg. 252], stall is generally avoided, so only the linear theory (below stall) is presented. Further comments are usually directed towards the mitigation of tip stall (washout, vanes), resulting from outboard migration of the boundary layer on swept wings, which precipitate dangerous pitch-up and loss of roll control. This migration results from a spanwise pressure gradient developed between sections normal to the free-stream [116], since the airfoils in those planes are displaced relative to each other in a streamwise sense. Assuming the pressure profiles are identical, there will therefore be a pressure differential between sections. Another important effect with relevance to aircraft is vortex lift. As noted by Furlong and McHugh [116] in an overview report of spanwise flow, much larger cl improvements are found for airfoils with sharp Leading Edges (LEs), which stall from the LE, rather than TE for airfoils with more rounded LE. The mechanism is a stable vortex [118] created over the upper surface, near the LE. The lift increase associated with this flow structure was included as a safety factor in the original CONE-450 study [66] for parked calculations. It is not clear whether or not such enhanced vortex lift would in fact develop, given the “negative sweep” angle formed by the thinning chordwise distribution.1 No prediction of effects from spanwise flow in operation was included in the original study. For wind turbines, it is the enhanced lift and delayed stall effects that are critical. Predictions in yaw above stall remain within the realm of experiment, defying an easy analytic solution [110]. Boundary layer theory can be applied to the chordwisespanwise coupled problem, but is only valid to the lower limit of stall initiation2 and available in closed form only for laminar flow. Most data obtained for aircraft design has looked at wings with relatively low aspect ratio (average turbine blades (approaching

A = 5) [116].

More experimental effort to explore these effects for the very high aspect ratio wind

A = 25) is required for validation. It is expected that

the effects may be even more pronounced, given the larger span absent of tip-effects, over which the spanwise flow can develop.

1 This is opposite to the conventional delta wing that increases in span (wind turbine blade chord) in the flow direction. 2 The same is true for predicting the stall delay effects of centrifugal pumping discussed in §4.4.8.

70 Spanwise Flow Model

Chapter 4 Analytic Development

Below the point of 2D stall, sectional data may be used in the BEM method with some confidence. There is clearly no fully satisfying analytic method available for predicting the 2D properties beyond the 2D stall point when spanwise flow is present. In the face of this uncertainty, Harris [110] originally proposed a simple approach, beginning with the assumption that a section in the streamwise direction will stall at approximately the same αΛ,stall as a 2D section without sweep αstall . This was rationalized from transforming Fig. 4.13 to a free-stream definition, and noting that the clΛ,max values were somewhat close (0.85 . . . 0.95 up to Λ = 45◦ ) and the lift curves linear to 11 . . . 12◦ . From Fig. 4.15(a), curves were fit through the single data point marked with a triangle (1/ cos0.75 Λ and 1/ cos1 relations). The first was postulated as relationship for cl,max (Λ) for turbulent conditions, and the latter for laminar conditions, both being somewhat consistent with the original assumption. The theory is then left for further investigation, and based on the sparse dataset in that study the curve fits were not overly accurate. Moreover, what is required is some prediction of the airfoil behaviour over the complete range of α found in a BEM simulation. To that end, new curve fits for 1/ cos1.5 Λ are shown in Fig. 4.15, for both lift coefficient and 2D stall angle. This relation fits the available data better, even if no better theoretical basis can be offered. By scaling both cl and α by the same ratio, the linear portion of the lift curve is left un-altered. This is important, as it is known that performance in this region is in fact unaltered by spanwise flow. The scaling for spanwise flow is therefore implemented as given by Eq. (4.4.25): α(Λ) = α0 + (α − α0 )sf cl (Λ) = cl sf sf = r r + 1− Rtip Rtip cos−n Λ (4.4.25a) (4.4.25b) (4.4.25c)

The exponent n is taken as 1.5 based on the experimental data presented in § The effect is tapered based on radius towards zero at the tip. Using the experimental data for Λ = 0◦ given in Fig. 4.13 and Eq. (4.4.25), corrected data up to Λ = 45◦ is shown as dotted lines in Fig. 4.16. The full set of experimental data from Λ = 0◦ is also shown as solid lines. The scaling seems reasonable, at least up to 30◦ . Beyond this angle, the delay in stall angle prediction degrades, although cl,max is predicted well. A much more involved model would be

4.4 Aerodynamic Modelling


required for a better prediction, but with such a limited dataset would be hard to synthesize in a generic and computationally simple manner.
2.0 1.6 1.2 45°


40° 35° 0° 15° 30°

0.8 0.4 0.0








AOA (deg)

Figure 4.16 Sectional data corrected for spanwise flow

With no direct experiments available, it is unclear whether it is valid to simultaneously apply spanwise flow models for both sweep effects and the centrifugal pumping discussed in §4.4.8. Both produce similar effects, one from a direct velocity component and the other owing to a rotating reference frame. Since the underlying mechanisms both energize the boundary layer, albeit from different sources, it stands to reason that there is at least some degree of synergy and additive effect. Furthermore, it is conservative from both an overall force and power limiting capability perspectives to analyse the effect of considering both simultaneously. Dynamic Spanwise Flow It is important to remember that helicopter rotors and wind turbine blades experiencing yawed flow will experience dynamically changing sweep Λ and AOA (see §4.4.14). These dynamically changing flow conditions can be expected to deviate from the steady-state behaviour just discussed [117]. Based on some experimental evidence, Leishman [119] concludes that the normal force coefficient cn for a swept wing in oscillating pitch does not attain a larger maximum, but does produce a higher average value with the eventual dynamic stall delayed to larger AOAs, compared to an un-swept wing. The net effect is an increase in rotor thrust with sweep angle.


Chapter 4 Analytic Development

Leishman [117] concludes that although applying the static corrections just discussed is predicated on different fundamental mechanisms, the net result is representative of the experimentally observed behaviour. Fortuitously, purely coned rotors in a uniform un-yawed flow experience a constant sweep angle and so the assumption of constant sweep angle is more accurate. Of course, the spanwise velocity will vary along the span and is thus different than the swept wing case.

4.4.10 Closed Equations
Combining the developments of previous sections, the momentum-derived thrust coefficient CT,mom (from Eq. (4.4.2)) and the coefficient obtained from blade element forces, CT,loc may be derived: CT,mom = 4aF CT,loc [(1 − a) − a r tan β] Vn = σcn 2 2 V0 sin φ

(4.4.26a) (4.4.26b) (4.4.26c)

= σcn

cos2 (β + δ) (1 − a)2 + (a r )2 sin2 φ

The manipulation from Eq. (4.4.26b) to Eq. (4.4.26c) is possible by vector geometry visible in Fig. 4.4. Together with the tangential momentum balance Eq. (4.4.4), the final set of equations is: anew = c1 (1 + c2 ) + c3 1 + c1 σcn H cos2 (β + δ) c1 = sin2 φ 4F z c2 c3 σ (a r )2 = 1−a a2 r tan β = (1 − a) Bc = 2πr  1  = 4a(1 − a) − 4a2  z  CT,model (4.4.27a) (4.4.27b) (4.4.27c) (4.4.27d) (4.4.27e) adisc ≤ ac


tan β

adisc > ac


anew =

2 Vrel σcθ 4F V0 [(1 − anew ) cos β − anew


sin β] Ωr


The set of equations is now closed and allows an iterative solution to be obtained using fixed-point iteration to determine anew = f (a, a ) and anew = f (a, anew , a )

4.4 Aerodynamic Modelling


from the current estimates a and a .1 To handle parked and very low induction cases, a and a are blended to zero over local tip speed ratio λ(r) = 1.5 . . . 0.5, after limiting a and a to −1 . . . 1. The deviations from the standard BEM are in the



terms calculated

a priori with vortex theory, and the inclusion of proper induced velocities in the various equations. As mentioned before, the details of swirl as predicted by vortex theory are ignored in the present work, so

is set to 1.

Some authors [16] argue that the cd term should be zero in computing the induction factors. The rationale is that as only pressure drag contributes to the velocity deficit in the overall flow, the velocity deficit owing to shear on the airfoil is confined to the wake sheet. This argument breaks down for the stalled airfoil, and so cd is generally included in modern codes and ExcelBEM. The velocity in the tip-plane adisc =

derives from the vortex results for the

wake geometry discussed thus far, and is assumed valid in the modifications considered in the following sections. The induction in the tip-plane is used as the criteria, rather than the induction on the blade, to be consistent with the definition of the original experimental data. As the CT,model equations no longer intersect the momentum-derived CT,mom function curve, a smooth blending function over a = ±0.05 around ac is used to transition between the momentum and experimental CT models. It was found in some cases (equivalently high a, CT or λ) that convergence of the fixed point iteration was problematic. This was found to be a result of Eq. (4.4.14), which ties radial to axial induction and in these specific cases computed unrealistically large flow angles δ. The flow angle will never physically reach extremely large angles, as the vortex wake state will be entered, instead of the ever expanding wake diameter predicted by a simple non-recirculating mass flux analysis. For this reason and to aid convergence, δ has therefore been limited to ±60◦ by modifying condition only ever found near the tip in any case.


4.4.11 Expanding Wake
In reality, any induction must expand the flow through the rotor to satisfy continuity. Figure 4.8 demonstrates that the expansion is non-negligible for the common Betz limit operating point (a = 1/3) and standard assumed wake geometry. The vortex
Moves are limited to half that predicted by Eqs. (4.4.27) and (4.4.28) to facilitate convergence.

To approximate this condition.12)). joining a cylinder wake at 5Rtip . After each BEM solution.29) . (4. Rearranging this relationship yields: γcyl = V0 − m/ρ ˙ 2 πRf ar (4. z and r are recomputed based on the deformed wake geometry and a new BEM solution is obtained.17 Expanded wake profile The wake is initialized to have constant radius Ri = Rtip and γi = γcyl .74 Chapter 4 Analytic Development wake tube should strictly follow the tip streamline. since free vortices must strictly convect with the flow. Figure 4.4. alternate induced velocity equations were derived for a cone shaped vortex sheet (i. The strength of the sheets γi are constant over each individual cone. each wake segment is updated sequentially downstream by comput- ing the induced velocity at the mid-point and modifying the slope of the segment to align it with the flow. The coincident edges of the cones are positioned in a cosine distribution downstream. The wake could then be approximated as a series of N cones with the mid-side of each cone (dots in figure) aligned with the local flow. The former is an integration of the mass flow in Eq. The convergence condition was a movement of the wake end-points between wake iterations of less than 0. to put more points in the high-curvature near-field region.3) and the latter the result that at the centre of an infinitely long cylinder.001Rtip . 4. Convergence was obtained after approximately 10–20 wake iterations for the cases presented in §5. Eq.4. The wake sheet strength γcyl of the far-wake cylinder is determined from mass continuity and vortex theory. as shown in Fig.17. radius R a linear function of z in Eqn. After all segments are updated. the induced velocity is uniform across the cross-section and equal to the vortex sheet strength.e. (4.4.1.

consisting of a single tube at some fractional radius towards the root. the results are shown for N = 10 wake segments. Circumferentially. with the cumulative vorticity shed at the tip. This would entail dramatically more computational effort and is not pursued here. so that γ = γ(Vz ). Here the tube is shed at 20% of the tip radius. The strength of each wake segment γi is then simply: γi = γcyl Vz.12 Additional Wake Geometries Two additional wake geometries are developed for comparison. . Likewise.f ar Vz. therefore. the vortex lines simply stretch as the local wake radius increases. To crudely model this. the loading along the blades varies. vorticity must be continually shed along the span. It would be possible to include a second induction factor iteration loop. Variation of the length had minimal effect on the results compared in §5. varying only in the streamwise direction due to the ‘bunching up’ of vortex filaments as they slow down.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 75 The wake strength is not strictly constant (as assumed in the classic result wz. but maintaining the same path integral (circulation) around them. Note that γ is an area density of vorticity. changing the core size.4. since it must convect with the flow. as the point at which expansion is considered complete.5 D) is a commonly used value in wind farm wake models [120].1 for the expanded (Ex) and unexpanded (Unex) wake geometries. The correction factor z is calculated from the vortex system at each radial position.2 = 2wz ) for either the cylindrical or conical wake geometries.4. For any real blade. approximately where the cuff of the blade profile greatly reduces the lift on the blade (large change in vorticity).i (4. The first geometry is similar to that in [100]. additional stream-tubes joining points along the blade from downstream are considered. a straight cylindrical sheet is assumed. In all cases.4. The second wake geometry consists of equal strength vorticity tubes joining the blade at 10 equally spaced radial stations. to adjust the vortex sheet strengths according to fed back changes in loading along the blade using the multiple vortex tube model. The vorticity density must therefore increase.30) The wake length used (2. The circumferential direction of the vorticity of these sheets is opposite to the one shed at the tip to reflect this directionality. 4. as increasing N had little effect on accuracy. is found from: ∂Cθ = 0 = a (− cos β − ∂a r sin β) + ∂a [(1 − a) cos β − a r sin β] ∂a (4. To define the optimum. it is assumed that cd = 0 and F = F (λ. in particular the AOA αclcd. [16].4.4.76 Chapter 4 Analytic Development 4.4.33) with (1 + a ) ∼ 1 in the above yields: = a= 1 (1 + 3 r tan β) (4.13 Aerodynamic Analytic Optimum An analytic optimum blade shape (chord and twist distributions) can be derived from the BEM equations. ( .33) λ2 µ2 (1 + a ) To find maximal power output.31a) (4. µ) in Eq. so the stationary a = point of the right-hand-side of Eq.max for maximum lift-to-drag cl /cd ratio.4. structural and other considerations (circular blade root) will require further optimization to produce a smooth and realistic blade shape. so the equations equating momentum and element forces can be non-dimensionalized as: 2 BVrel ccl cos φ cos β = [(1 − a) cos β − a r sin β] 8πF a z µ RV02 2 BVrel ccl sin φ = [(1 − a) cos β − a r sin β] 8πF a λµ2 RV02 (4. It will turn out that CT is below the critical point. To derive an analytic optimum. (4. (4. the analytic optimum can only serve as an initial blade design. the optimum is well-defined by the analytic solution. This is also true if the airfoil varies along the blade.4.4. Likewise.4. for a real blade.34) Using Eq. For fixed-speed and coning rotors. the airfoil must be selected. producing non-smooth geometry. For conventional variablespeed rotors operating at a fixed λ. the torque must be maximized.31b) for axial and azimuthal momentum respectively. using λ = ΩR/V0 and µ = r/R to follow Burton et al. Next. This problem is treated in §6. which sweep through λ and β. (4.6a) for convenience. An analytic optimum is only possible for fixed values of λ and β. Likewise with Eq. the two balance equations are divided and combined with the geometric formula for tan φ to relate a and a : ((1 − a) − a r tan β) a z (4.6a):    2 B 1−µ 3λµ F = cos−1 exp −  1+ π 2 µ 2   (4.32) 2 where it is assumed from later calculations that a = 1/3.

4.) and the free-stream wind velocity.4. a “blade parameter” σcl λ may be found from the blade element half of Eq.4.36) define the optimal blade shape with twist angle from: γtwist = φ − αclcd. tower shadow.4. (4.max . Eq. tilt. and best cl at αclcd. The current method thus contrasts to previous treatments of the subject that are not able to compute a general unsteady solution. and skewed flow all alter the conditions at the blades and in the wake. (4.4.4 Aerodynamic Modelling which agrees with other analyses for β = 0◦ [16]. 4. Given a set of operating conditions (λ.4.14 Dynamic BEM In reality. (4. A final solution iteration scheme is outlined last. temporal variation. section location µ.36) The blade parameter may be thought of as a non-dimensional chord. indicating a rotor optimized for non-zero β will differ from that optimized for a planar rotor. 4.33) and Eq.31b): σcl λ = 4F a λ2 µ2 (λµ (1 + a )) + ((1 − a) cos β − a r sin β) 2 2 (4. etc.4. β). wind turbines never operate in a uniform inflow.35).14. to derive a unified BEM applicable to a generalized yawed. Wind shear.4. five main elements must be considered: • The induction effects of a skewed wake • Proper projections of the incident velocities • The 2D airfoil properties must include dynamic AOA changes • The transport equations’ method of dealing with yaw • Some accounting of the time-delay associated with temporal changes in induction These are treated sequentially in the following sections. To account for these effects.max (4. 77 Finally. . Eq.1 Skewed Wake Analysis The wake may be skewed relative to the rotor shaft of the rotor by the aggregate effects of structural deflection (yaw. (4. coned rotor in unsteady flow. Note that the following derivation leads to dynamic equations that do not require azimuthal iteration [16] or assumed induction [100] for yawed rotors.37) The new set of optimum equations include the correction factors of the revised BEM theory.4.

4. As the blades sweep through a yawed flow. zw = px − xw .39a) (4.39c) (4.4. sin θ.38a) (4. r y .4.10) can be evaluated by first defining the following quantities: dl = rring × ˆ idθ = R 0. Extending the analysis of §4. − sin θ dθ r = p − R 0.4. Point p is the point of interest. the root filament is responsible [16]. −rx sin θ. Nevertheless. it is found that the axial filaments will induce both azimuthal and axial velocities that vary with skew and cone angles. −rx cos θ dθ 2 2 2 |r|3 = (rx + ry + rz + (δc R)2 )3/2 (4. assuming again second order effects [100]. py − R sin θ − yw . The coordinate system is the shaft-aligned x –y –z axes from Fig. pz − R cos θ − zw = rx .7 to include skew.4. r z dl × r = R rz cos θ + ry sin θ.6.4. the axial filaments are again ignored by setting θ = 1.39g) . located a vector r away from the integration point on the vortex cylinder. 4. the AOA and hence lift and shed vortex strength will continually change with azimuth.4.4. 4. The wake axis tracks the point xw . that the constant strength tip-wake cylinder dominates.39d) (4. (4. The vortex rings lie in planes parallel to the y –z plane with their common centreline at a skew angle χ from the x axis.4.1(d).39b) (4. as before. The integral for the skewed wake induction is set up with reference to Fig.18. cos θ + xw .78 Chapter 4 Analytic Development The wake vortices may be decomposed as before in Fig.4. related to the tangent of the skew angles csy and csz projected in the x –y and x –z planes respectively: yw = csy xw zw = csz xw (4. 4.39f) (4. yw . For β = 0◦ . while for β = 0◦ the bound vortices also contribute. The wake is assumed to develop as a skewed elliptical cylinder of strength γ and constant radius R. in this case assuming the plane of the ring elements remains parallel to the tip-plane plane of the rotor as they migrate downstream. is therefore not strictly valid.39e) (4.4. cos θ. zw .38b) The Biot-Savart integral of Eq. The assumption adopted here. yw . The simplification from varying strength helical sheets to tip cylinder is however consistent with the previous analysis.

Evaluating at points f (p) → u and f (xw = 1000R) → uf ar (at same radial distance from skew axis as p) yields the following correction factor relations:1 z uy uz 1 ux.18 Skewed wake integral Equation (4. dxw (as a result of Eq.41c) Note that the z and x axes are swapped for the skewed wake formulation relative to the simple coned formulation in §4. yw and zw are a function of xw ) and dθ become the variables of integration.2.5.4. The final integral that must be computed for the wake from xw = 0 .4 Aerodynamic Modelling 79 Figure 4. uy .4.38). to be consistent with the global CS of §4.4.f ar 2ux uy =− ux uz =− ux = (4. uz . the axial dxw portion of the integral may be analytically solved. 4.4. As before. .41b) (4.41a) (4.4. ∞ is: 2π ∞ γ u= 4π 0 0 dl × r dxw |r|3 (4.39g) adds the same cut-off model as used previously in Eq.2 Correction Factors The induced velocity u now has 3 components ux . . The correction factor z definition is kept as before. (4.14.4. .4. (4. while the dθ part of the integral is solved numerically.12).40) When this integral is expanded.

42b) (see Eq. (4. π/2 and xtab = − tan βmax .98 to avoid numerical difficulties with the vortex singularity. .44) These correction factors are used later. For p = xp .1(d).13)) is then: r = ur ux (4. . not the axial uθ ux θz = (4. θtab ]. −r cos θ. . as in §4. to place more near the rotor tip axially and near θ ± π/2 in the regions of maximum u gradient.80 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Note that the previous result that |uf ar | = −γ is not correct for the skewed wake.6.20. . In order to use the table.4. . rtab .43) A new azimuthal correction factor filaments as for θ ): θz (owing to the vortex rings. as shown in Fig. the table need only cover χtab = 0 . to relate the induction a at the section to the far-field induction.4. As shown in Fig. tan βmax . radial and azimuthal induced velocities was computed. Utilizing symmetry. the table may be entered with the An excessive numerical quadrature tolerance was required to accurately compute u past this radius. a 4D table of axial.19. The maximal value of χtab is set to 80◦ as a practical limit.4. . xtab . varying with β. π/2. .4. 1 . . To reduce the on-line computational burden of evaluating the integrals at each time-step. the coordinates of the actual points on the blade sections ps must be transformed into the table coordinate system. the radial and azimuthal velocity components are: ur = −uy sin θ + uz cos θ uθ = uy cos θ + uz sin θ The previous radial factor r (4.4. and rtab is bounded by 0. θtab = −π/2 .4. r sin θ . 4.1 The points are distributed using cosine spacing. 1 (R = 1). 2 The tip-plane for each blade is computed independently.42a) (4. The skew axis is assumed to pass through the shaft axis a distance xw0 away from the y –z plane. 4. and is the maximal cone angle with Rhinge = 0 the table can completely cover (outside the axial range the edge value is used). The table is computed with the skew axis in the x –y plane. the skew axis in general lies in a plane rotated κ = arctan csz /csy around the x (shaft) axis of Fig. and to the radially and tangentially induced velocity components. The angle βmax is set to 60◦ .2 Using the azimuthal angle θs and local radius rs . rtab = 0 . 4. The points are referenced by [χtab . corresponding to the tip-plane.

4 Aerodynamic Modelling 81 0.6 z 0. the factors are computed from the interpolated induced velocities.46) Finally.2 0 0 0. allowing the table to only cover positive χ values. requiring a change of sign for |θtab > π/2|.2 0 -0.4. and finally computed as: θtab   θtab   = π − θtab    − π − θtab − π/2 ≤ θtab ≤ π/2 θtab > π/2 θtab < −π/2 θz (4.4 0. The is the only non-symmetric component. .4 0.45d) Note that κ is signed. The angle θtab is bounded to ±π by adding/subtracting 2π as appropriate.2 0.8 0.5 0 -1 0 1 y (a) y–z grid points r x (b) x–r grid points 0.19 Grids for following coordinates: xtab = s sin β − xw0 rtab = Rhinge + s cos β θtab = θs − κ χtab = arctan table (4.45b) (4.4.6 y 0.4 0.45a) ( 0.5 0.45c) c2 + c2 sz sy (4.6 0.8 1 x (c) Skew axis (χ) range Figure 4.5 0 0.4.

making interpolation on a χ1 relatively less accurate.14.14.4. x. (4. As ux → 0. 4. The wind velocity given in Eq. These vectors are all in the global earth CS of Fig. relatively coarse grid of numerical issues. Vtot = Vind + Vwind + Vrot + Vstr (4. The total velocity seen by the blade section is given by Eq.4.4.47) The induced velocities are left to §4. wind Vwind . modified by the velocity increments owing to wind shear ∆Vshear . introduced later in §4. The other factors.20 Skewed wake table transformation is practically bounded to ±10.1(a).48) is composed of the turbulent wind at the section location. Vturb (t. as only a subset are affected by the induction factors. tower shadow ∆Vshadow .4. including the induced velocities Vind . (4. 4. Storing u instead of z The axial factor z was preferand χ2 .3 Wind Vectors → ∞. rotational velocity Vrot = rΩ.4. y. able for accurate interpolation.47).6.82 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Figure 4. z).4. are computed and stored directly as they avoid these The aerodynamic velocity vectors for the fully dynamic set of equations must be carefully composed from their components. .14.4. and structural velocity Vstr owing to the dynamic motion of the section.

x. y) with h = z in Eq.4. 4. (2. x. The wind shear increment ∆Vshear is defined according to the standard exponential model of Eqs. y. Only the components of wind in the xe –ye plane of Fig.tow fv (uˆ + vˆ i j) (4. z) is in general obtained from a probability function [121]. (4.tow. according to ∆Vshear (x.y /Vturb.4.4. x. the wind vector Vturb. the velocity increment is calculated from: ∆Vshadow = Vw.tow.49).tow.e.1.4 Aerodynamic Modelling and velocity deficits or turbulence from up-stream turbines Vupwind turb .49) The tower shadow model accounts for the retardation (or acceleration) of the flow due to the presence of the tower. ztow ) at the centreline of the tower at time t and height z is found. Dropping the primes on the transformed coordinate notation. x. The model smoothly blends a potential flow model upstream of the tower [122]. z) + ∆Vshear + ∆Vshadow + ∆Vupwind turb (4.x . turb is not explored further in the current The fully turbulent wind Vturb (t. with a wake deficit model downstream [123–125]. ytow . y.tow = 2 2 Vturb.1(a) (i.x ) with the wind magnitude Vw.49).y + Vturb.e. for a region of space extending in the streamwise direction a length equal to the mean wind speed times total simulation time.tow (t. y position of the blade section) is translated to the (x –y ) CS with R z (−θ). y) = (1 − fws )Vturb (t. This wind field then passes through the rotor over the run of the simulation.50) . The presence of the rotor is assumed to have no effect on this volume of velocities. The local angle θ is therefore found from arctan(Vturb. defining interpolated velocity vectors for any position in the field corresponding to the coned and rotating blade sections (or tower sections). The point of interest (i. A fully 3D block of wind vectors is synthesized over the plane of the rotor. xtow .4. 83 Vwind = Vturb (t. Again. parallel to ground plane) are scaled.4. the model is only applied to the velocity components in a plane parallel to the ground plane. V = Vref h href αws = fws (4.1) and (4.4. To apply the model.tow.48) The upwind turbine contribution ∆Vupwind work.

4.52a) The upwind equations are the solution for inviscid flow around a cylinder.4.52d) (4.4.84 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Figure 4.4.4. based on a cosine curve distribution for the velocity deficit.52c) (4. The wake width ww and downstream distance lw define the location and extent of the specified deficit.51c) and downwind ud .52e) (4. with a drag correction term. both non-dimensionalized by the tower diameter 2Rt . vd :  ∆  − √ cos2 πy w x ¯ ud =  0 vd = 0 x x= ¯ 2lw Rt √ w = 2ww Rt x ¯ r d= 2 Rt |y| ≤ w/2 |y| > w/2 (4.4.52b) (4.21 Tower shadow model The velocity increments u and v are computed separately upwind uu .51a) (4.4. An alternate formulation for ud that only depends on cd (with less investigative . The downwind equations are empirical. vu : uu = − 2 Rt (x2 − y 2 ) cd Rt x + 4 r 2π r2 2 xy R cd Rt y vu = −2 t 4 + r 2π r2 r = x2 + y 2 (4.51b) (4.4. The wake deficit ∆ is non-dimensionalized by the free-stream.

based on cd .4. It was discovered that BLADEDTM does not do this blending which resulted in severe derivatives when performing noise calculations (see §4.5.53b) (4.2).4. the latter was chosen and implemented as:  1   1 π(z − ztop ) fv = cos +1  lblend 2   0 z ≤ ztop ztop < z ≤ ztop + lblend z > ztop + lblend (4. Figure 4.22.4. the flow disturbance is of similar magnitude.55) The blending length lblend is taken as the diameter of the tower at the tower top. Note that the inclusion of a drag-dependent term in the inviscid upstream formulation produces a stagnation region upstream of the tower.4. this formulation provides an estimate of ww and ∆. for typical parameters (see §5.1 For points above the tower top.54c) An example complete flow field is shown in Fig.4. The influence of the tower on upwind rotors is typically assumed minimal.3).22 shows that within Rt of the tower surface. 1 . The tower cylinder is superimposed on the field. 4. It is also necessary to blend the tower wake model smoothly from the top of the tower.54b) (4. the blend can either be azimuthal or vertical.53a) Although not used directly here. The upwind and downwind models are smoothly blended in the x –y plane using a cosine function:  x≤0  uu   0 < x ≤ Rt u = fa uu + (1 − fa )ud    ud x > Rt  x≤0  vu   0 < x ≤ Rt v = fa vu    0 x > Rt fa = 1 2 cos πx Rt +1 ( Aerodynamic Modelling flexibility) has been proposed [122]:  c   − √d cos2 d ud =  0 d= r2 2 Rt 85 πy √ 2Rt d |y| ≤ |y| > √ d √ d (4. indicating its significance to all rotor orientations.54a) (4. while it is recognized as critical to downwind rotors.

Figure 4.22 Example total velocity tower shadow flow field (1 + u)2 + v 2 (Rt = 1.4.8 0. a number of components can be computed with reference to Fig. tangential and spanwise sectional velocities Vw.7 0. ww = 2. lw = 3. cd = 1. normal to the unconed plane of the rotor.3 0. Vw.25) 4.6 0. 4. t and s respectively.3. This vector corresponds to V0 in the steady BEM formulation in Fig.5.OP = ˆ Vwind · OP .4 0. Vw. 4.2 0. It is effectively the shaft-aligned free-stream velocity.1 Figure 4.4 Wind Vector Decomposition Having defined the various velocity components.5 0.86 3 Chapter 4 Analytic Development 2 y’ 1 0 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 x’ 0.s are computed as the dot product of Vwind with n.9 1 1.n .t . These are the wind ˆ ˆ ˆ velocities that the section sees without any induction.23 Dynamic wind vector decomposition The normal.2. The first is the out-of-plane velocity Vw. ∆ = 0.14.23. The computation of the .1 0.

4.4. Vrel is defined with reference to Fig. x.s − aVw.24 Dynamic flow relative to airfoil section (velocity vectors scaled for clarity.24 are components of the axial. the generalized skew angle. 1 . y. radial and tangential induction velocities. The aerodynamic force vectors are the same as in Fig. The distinction between out-of-plane/in-plane and normal/tangential velocities.4.t shown in Fig.t + rΩ 1 + a + aVw.56c) Vθ = Vw. 4. acting on the out-of-plane VOP and in-plane rΩ component velocities respectively. The total velocity that the 2D section sees.1 Vn = Vw. z) vector used for computing the wake skew vector is determined at BLADEDTM computes induction based on total section velocity. not indicative of relative magnitudes) The final element is the computation of χ. 4.4. however the axes and velocity vectors are modified.6.t cos β) + Vstr.OP Vs = Vw.n and Vstr. whereas NREL’s AeroDyn is similar to the present derivation acting only on the wind vectors. and which velocities are “induced” constitutes one source of discrepancy between analysis codes.56a) (4.n and Vind. 4.OP (sin β − r + Vstr. The Vturb.4.t respectively.56b) (4.OP (cos β + r sin β) + Vstr.3 and decomposed to normal and tangential components Vstr.24 and Eq.n θz (4.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 87 structural velocity term Vstr is defined later in § (t. These represent the proper induced velocities.56).4.n − aVw.s Figure 4. (4. The induced components Vind.

[16] provides a formula approximating the “proper” skew angle χcorr derived from vortex theory: χcorr = (0. Governed by the rapidity of AOA variation. Outside of the linear lift regime. the airfoil can achieve much higher lift coefficients (approaching the linear 2πα) well past AOAs for which stall would have occurred in a steady flow.88 Chapter 4 Analytic Development the centreline of the tower-top. Burton et al. This formula assumes that the wake convects far downstream along the velocity vector at the centre of the disk.6a + 1) χyaw (4. The former is further differentiated into an inner and outer problem. More advanced theories recognize that changes in lift and drag do not develop instantaneously. The effects are separated into lift-dependent (circulatory) and added-mass (non-circulatory) effects. Thought of another way.14. It also implies a dependency on a requiring further solution iteration. thereby increasing the skew angle. no correction for wake self-induction is made to χ in the current formulation. The simplest method is to adopt the quasi-steady model. the thrust force (directed normal to the rotor) on the flow is directed upwind and in the direction of aerodynamic yaw γyaw . Eventually the airfoil does progress to full-stall. 4. which assumes that the airfoil behaves according to steady 2D lift curves. with wind shear but without tower shadow. so that separation (leading to stall) takes time to develop. and does so in a much . It is assumed that the wake convects downstream in-line with this vector.57) where χyaw is the geometric skew angle without induction. which is also not strictly true. the flow around the airfoil must change over a finite period of time. This is possible because the boundary layer only changes relatively slowly. In order for the aerodynamic force system to change. In reality. Two DOF are important: pitching and heaving. owing to vorticity on the airfoil and in the wake respectively [126]. the wake will self-induct and tend to increase the skew angle [16].4. dynamic stall behaviour has been observed experimentally. Both dynamically alter the angle of attack and the latter the incident velocity as well. For these reasons.4.5 Unsteady Sectional Aerodynamics There are two basic approaches to modelling the 2D aerodynamics of an airfoil in dynamic situations. There is therefore some lag introduced in the tracking of the steady AOA-cl /cd /cm curves. especially near the rotor.

. and essentially maps the airfoil between two curves as the AOA α changes. .st curve around 30◦ . a hysteresis effect is observed. wherein the fully stalled condition is maintained as the AOA is reduced.sep = curve (G → 1 away from α = α1 ).sep (α) A0 G = (1 − A0 ) + [1 + tanh (B0 (|α − α0 | − α1 ))] 2 (4.3 and 10) are used in the remainder of the current work. The dynamic airfoil behaviour only returns to the steady characteristic once the airfoil is well back into the linear regime. only considers changes in cl .5. which also incorporate better dynamic effects below stall.58) where the suggested constant values are A0 = 0. with the parameters A0 and B0 varied for cl.59b) (4. The model adopted here was chosen for its relative simplicity and for comparison with Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) results [89] in §5. curve for fst = 0. defined by: cl. .59a) (4. The three separate curves are given in Fig.61) This curve is a rough approximation.4. presented by Mikkelsen [89].3 . For each time step i. Once the airfoil has fully stalled.4.25 for an example airfoil.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 89 more violent manner (and over a smaller AOA range) than in the steady case. The upper curve is the linear one. A number of models have been proposed to account for the dynamic stall phenomenon [89. 126. this equation defines the steady cl. Accurate stall prediction is difficult even for much more advanced models [126]. B0 = 5 . The present method. . The tanh function smoothly blends the assumed fully-separated cl. The nature of the stall (from LE or TE) is largely a function of thickness. the value of fst (α) is computed with Eq.4.4.sep curve1 to the cl. 0.lin (α) − cl.sep . The movement between the curves is determined by a fractional function fst (α): fst (α) = cl. The zero lift angle of the airfoil is α0 . 127]. 15 and α1 is the first stall angle of the steady lift curve data defined by curve slope near α0 and joining the cl.lin = 2π(α − α0 ) and the lower curve is the fully-separated curve: cl. A simple lag equation is then i used to compute the fraction fst to use for the current step: i−1 i−1 i fst = fst + fst (α) − fst 1 ∆t τdyn stall (4.4.4. with approximately half the cl.sep (α) (4.60).60) Clearly. (4. The mid values for the fit constants ( (α) − (α). 4.4.

low l.4.sep (α) ( l. the current lift coefficient is computed by interpolation: i i cl (α) = fst cl.25 Dynamic stall parameters (low to high values for A0 and B0 are [0. changing locally with chord c but using a fixed average Vrel of 30 m/s.sep. and τdyn stall the lag time step. The first.5 Chapter 4 Analytic Development 1 cl 0.14. .62) To test the implementation.5 c -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -40 30 40 α (deg) Figure 4. based again on considering averaged conditions over an idealized uniform disc [16].5 c c l. For the yawed rotor.5] and [5.sep.1 to ascertain the valdity of the assumptions.1 Finally.lin l. as desired. is shown in Fig. 0.26. un-yawed case. an example hysteresis loop was run.90 1.6 Governing Equations Implicit in the following discussion is the continued validity of the stream tube independence assumption and to varying degrees azimuthal averaged effects. both 1 It was found that varying Vrel with operating condition led to numerical difficulties. assumes the thrust (pressure) force of the disc creates average induction a at the disc and 2a in the far-field. The model displays a smooth behaviour and predicts a lift increment into stall. 4. 4. 10. 0.4.4.high 0 c c -0. The suggested value of 4c/Vrel is used. They are first adopted pragmatically and the results compared to other predictions and measurement in §5.mid l. termed Axial Momentum Theory (AMT). these assumptions are even less rigorous than the steady. 15] respectively) where ∆t is the time since the last computation.3. There are three possible departure points for deriving the momentum equations.sep.lin (α) + (1 − fst )cl.

sep c l cl 1. [16] proposed a third model based on averaged vortex theory. The induced velocities at rotor centre and downstream are used in the Bernoulli equation to derive the thrust equation for the disc.8 1.6 1. .26 Dynamic stall hysteresis loop for cyclic α (α = [5◦ .4 Aerodynamic Modelling 1. and so this theory is employed here with those caveats. and Glauert the thrust (highest CP (Λ)) [16]. The axial momentum equation is formulated in the same perpendicular direction.3 1. The key difference to AMT is that the transport velocity through the disc area is the total velocity at the disc. 20◦ ] at 1 Hz) perpendicular to the disc. by comparing the autogiro downwash system to that of a highly yawed wind turbine rotor. .2 1. The vortex theory produces results intermediate to these theories for CP .7 1. Notice that Glauert attributes some lift force to thrust.9 0. . analogous to a wing or autogiro rotor at an cl.1 1 0. ignoring unbalanced pressure forces that also contribute to the wake skew.4 c c 91 l.5 1. It is observed that AMT will predict power most accurately (lowest CP (Λ)).lin l.8 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 α (deg) Figure 4. Burton et al. not that perpendicular to the disc. and as this is perpendicular to the velocity.4. Glauert proposed the second theory. This allows a component of the thrust force to create an effective lift force on the rotor. BLADEDTM and most other codes uses AMT. cannot extract work from the flow.

with dA = dsrdθ and θ from Fig.67b) .1(d): ∆s 2π (4. Vw.2).4. 4. .4.65) The tilde over a and are used to emphasize that these quantities vary during za integration with θ.4.4. Vw. (4. 4.63a).OP : ¯ ˙ ∆(momentum) = − V2 − Vw. .4. Vw.63c) ∆m = ρ ˙ 0 V1 · d A The definition of dA varies with the AMT or Glauert assumptions: ˆ dAAM T = dA cos βˆ + sin β sin θˆ − cos θk i j dAGlauert = dA V1 V1 The transport velocity at the section V1 includes the section wind velocity Vwind = Vw.66) 1 = 2π 0 2π 1 z dθ 2π uz z (4.64a) (4.z + Vw.1) momentum equation is derived as before in Eq.OP ∆m = (2F a z Vw.OP ˙ 0 0 cos β (1 − a) + Vw.67a) χ2 1 = 2π 0 cos θ − uy z 1 sin θ dθ = 2π 0 r z dθ (4. Now z = f (θ). Since the induction in the wake af ar = 2F a z Vw.4. the mass-flow term becomes. a) = f (θ) in the velocity change term of Eq.63b) (4.4.64b) ∆m = ρVw.4.4. the local a and a may be related as = z a. For a temporally and spatially uniform inflow (assumed approximately valid in dynamic flow as well). Performing the integrals while noting the components that evaluate to zero over θ = 0 .OP r∆s2π [cos β (1 − a ˙ where 2π χ1 z χ1 ) −a χ2 sin β] (4.z will also be invariant in θ.OP sin β uy a uz a cos θ rdsdθ (4.x .y . x –y –z CS of Fig.OP )∆m ˙ ∆A (4. with V0 replaced by Vw. Adopting AMT.92 Chapter 4 Analytic Development The axial (shaft-aligned.OP is constant over θ. whereas ( z . 2π yields: ∆m = ρVw.63a) (4.4.4.OP sin θ − Vw.y + Vw.y and Vw.z and the induced velocities. (4.

OP . Temporally varying inflow can be handled in five ways [16. The solutions may either be formulated generally by including multiple assumed functions for the pressure distribution on the disc. and coning cannot be accounted for [122.4. 125. The dynamic inflow is preferred here.loc = 2 V2 Bc cz Vrel = σcn 2rel 2 2πr cos β Vw. most primary and simple assumption. The induced velocities aVw.4. empirical CT. As before in §4.10. Wake rotation is not explicitly included in the theory. BLADEDTM adopts the latter.OP 2πr∆s cos β. For χ = 0. in increasing order of complexity: Frozen wake This method assumes that the wake is frozen after the first time step.OP and a rΩ do not change thereafter.3. that change. Notice that it is the induced velocities aVw.4. even though it will vary with θ as the conditions at the blade change (i. 130]. for comparison to BLADEDTM . 129].4.OP (4. non-dimensionalized 2 by 1/2ρVw. Equilibrium wake This method assumes that the wake changes instantaneously with loading . or in a reduced form containing terms for aggregate thrust and moment. at every time step.14. . CFD The full-field simulation of the Euler or NS equations simply include temporal effects when implemented in their unsteady forms. these equations reduce to the un-yawed ones in §4. that only thrust is affected. 128.model values are used for adisc = a z > ac to introduce an H factor into the momentum equation for CT. modifications are required for the high a levels of wind turbines.4.4.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 93 These factors are evaluated with trapezoidal integration from the table quantities stored in §4.e. A steady code could iterate on this to achieve uniform a z over θ by using the averaged element forces.loc applies to the whole annulus.2.OP Vw. The former uses acceleration potential methods based on asymptotic solutions of the Euler equations to model the flow. The solution is computed anew from the steady equations. The blade element CT. not induction factors a.loc equation remains unchanged as: CT. Vortex filaments The wake is evolved as time-dependent vortex strengths and paths. 89. Dynamic inflow The most realistic assumption is that the wake will evolve with some time-lag relative to loading changes.68) It must be assumed that CT. Vrel ). however a dynamic code does not have this luxury.

a solutions.69) (4. however this turns out to be fortuitous.dyn = k d (aVw.OP z ) dt 3 3 16 r2 − r1 k= 2 2 3π r2 − r1 (4. Therefore.1 Each blade is computed independently (i.70) The far-field induction term wz.71b) is used here. In fixed-point iteration. .4. etc.OP .OP 4F z c2 = z χ1 (4. the appropriate added mass term mA for a disc of radius R is 8/3ρR3 [16.26c) are no longer applicable. The choice of iterate equation is constrained by the condition that |f (a)| < 1 to converge.72b) (4. and Eq.4.4. From potential theory. To initialize the dynamic inflow equations.e.4.) assuming the equations valid for the entire annulus.72) violates 1 The difference was found to be minimal. the axial momentum equation is rearranged for fixed-point iteration as: anew = f (a) = c1 1 − ac2 V2 H + a2 c1 = σcn 2rel Vw. Equation (4. as no information is available about the change in induction from relative wake position with θ.mom + CT. BLADEDTM is used to emphasize that it is the and standard theories can only use the value at the blade aVw.72c) The geometric relations used to derive Eq. but also apply a force to temporally change the induction velocity of the flow. (4. Neglecting this subtlety would tend to over-predict the dynamic inflow changes.4. the forces applied by the blades on the flow must not only balance the steady momentum change of the flow.4.4.71a) (4.dyn mA z.4. and for the frozen and equilibrium wake cases.dyn where CT.f ar /2 = aVw. (4.f ar dt = 2 1/2ρVw. for an annulus from r1 to r2 : CT.94 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Essentially.OP far wake induction that changes.72a) χ2 z tan β (4. This is handled by an additional term in the momentum equation: CT = CT. 125].71b) BLADEDTM simply sets k = Rtip . it the iterate equation with minimal f (a) that is the fastest [131]. different β.OP dA z d(w /2) (4.4.4.

Structural positions and velocities are obtained either deterministically. the axial iterate equation is: d (aVw. so the updates are limited as: anew = 1/c2 − ξ anew c2 a − 1 < ξ or anew > 1/c2 − ξ anew ≤ 1/c2 − ξ (4.4.1 .OP ) 1 = dt K z 2 σcn Vrel H 2 − 4 z Vw.OP dt (4. (4. so that the wake evolves smoothly over the next wake time step.75) A simple Euler scheme is used to advance the solution and obtain the fixed-point iteration equation for the dynamic wake: anew = (aVw. The induction factor is finally linearly interpolated based on t between the values at told.74) Including the added mass term in CT for the dynamic inflow model.01 to avoid the discontinuity. It was evident from the decreased solution iterations required that f (a) for this formulation is smaller than that of Eq.6. typically 0. New solutions are only computed when t − told.4) to yield: anew = σ cθ 4F θ rΩVw.OP a (1 − ac2 ) − a2 F z χ2 tan β (4. 4.75).1 + d (aVw.73) The offset ξ is set to 0.66) in Eq.73).6.1 exceeds a set “dynamic wake time step”. The tangential equation uses the dynamic mass-flow term of Eq.4.4.7 Computational Procedure For clarity.4. (4.OP )old. Solutions above this limit are not viable in any case.OP )old.4.1 ) Vw.76) The estimate of anew is bounded as in Eq. or computed as part of the time-marching solution of structural equations (see §4.OP is then stored as (aVw.4 Aerodynamic Modelling 95 this near a = 1/c2 where f (a) → ∞.02 s for a large machine [125].4. All steps are carried out for each section on each blade in turn.4. after updating the previous value of (aVw. (4.4.14. (4.74).OP 2 Vrel (cos β (1 − a z χ1 ) −a χ2 z sin β) (4. 1. thereby introducing aerodynamic lag.27).3. The new value of aVw. with coupling to the structural model of §4.2 ← (aVw.OP ) −1 (t − told.4. (4.2 . .3).1 and told.4.4. but is lagged from its dependency on Eq. (4.OP )old.OP )old. the overall ordering of computations in the general case is given in the following procedural list.4.1 . The tangential update equation is unchanged from Eq.

1 − (aV0 )old. The wind vectors.4. the induction values are interpolated: t − told.9) and dynamic stall (see §4.6.4. (4.4. (aVw.1 fdyn = (4.1 .2 .2 are the previous estimates computed at time told.3 and §4.14.i and (a rΩ)old. The full dynamic flow velocities are computed from the relations in §4.14.2).OP )old. Structural noise can arise from the following sources [132]: .8 and 4.4.72). including the effects of stall delay (see §4.2 and (a rΩ)old. 5.75) for all subsequent time-steps when new inductions factors must be computed ((t − told. This is done in all cases for the first time-step and for the equilibrium wake model using Eq.5 Acoustic Modelling The noise created by wind turbines can be separated into two main areas: aerodynamic and structural.1 ) < τdyn .4 are computed based on the position and orientation of the blade sections. 6. introducing the aerodynamic lag.4.1 and (a rΩ)old. 7.1 − (a rΩ)old.77c) rΩ The induced velocities (aVw. Induction factors are updated if required.4.1 ) ≥ τdyn .5). The dynamic stall fractions fst are updated.2 ) (4.4 and the induction factors. 3.1 − told.3 and a = 0 Frozen Previous values Equilibrium Default values Dynamic If (t − told. The various aerodynamic values are recorded and loads computed (see §4.77b) a= Vw.14.96 Chapter 4 Analytic Development 2. If (t − told. a new dynamic solution is computed. as are the dynamic wake induced velocities (aVw.OP (a rΩ)old.2 + fdyn ((aV0 )old.14.2 (aV0 )old.4.2 ) a = (4.77a) told. The interpolation function fdyn therefore allows the new induction to fully develop over the time span τdyn . Steps 4–6 are repeated to convergence of the induction factors.4.1 ) ≥ τdyn ). Induction factors a and a are initialized according to the unsteady induction model: Initial Timestep/New Dynamic Solution a = 0. The tip-loss factor F and turbulent wake H parameters are also computed. 4. as described in §4.i . The aerodynamic forces are computed.2 + fdyn ((a rΩ)old. The dynamic wake model uses Eq.OP )old. (4.4. 4.OP )old.1 are the most recent estimates computed at time told.4.4.

Next.4.5. sound is equivalently a pressure or density (condensations and rarefactions) wave travelling at a characteristic speed c0 .1) where pref is a standardized pressure of 20 µP a corresponding to the limits of human hearing.1 Aerodynamic Noise At a fundamental level.3 then introduces LFN. it has a defined frequency/amplitude response that influences the perception of sound. Since the ear is a dynamic mechanical system. The nuances of building the theory into an accurate prediction code are however not present in the literature in a unified manner. Physically.4.2 overviews the modelling approaches and mathematical background of noise prediction. and 4. Humans experience sound as pressure fluctuations acting on the ear drum. the primary mechanism of concern for the coning rotor.3. Section 4. 4.5. aerodynamic sounds (noise if an undesired sound) are acoustic waves travelling through the air. Section 4. and the amplitude as volume level.5.1 first introduces the metrics and mechanisms of noise. The units of Lp are decibels (dB).2. The sound power level LP and intensity .1. facilitated by relatively well understood physical mechanisms.5 Acoustic Modelling • Transmission (gear meshing. depending on the ambient fluid temperature and composition (343 m/s at 20 ◦ C and 1 atm for air).5. theory is available in the literature to model LFN from first principles. presented in §4. The frequency of the wave is experienced as tone. Sound Pressure Level (SPL) Lp is measured on a logarithmic scale: Lp = 10 log10 p2 prms rms = 20 log10 2 pref pref (4. Fortuitously. 4. §4. and so are discussed last in §4.1 Intensity To account for the human response to noise. acoustic treatment of the nacelle.5.5. The focus of the noise analysis presented currently is therefore on aerodynamically generated noise. bearings) • Coolant systems • Electrical components 97 Structural noise on modern wind turbines has largely been eliminated by careful design of components.

5. Each defines a filter function over the range of human hearing (20 Hz–20 kHz) to attenuate sound at the high and low ends of this range.2 Frequency Spectrum At the most basic level of characterization.2a) (4.5.2b) where Pref is 10−12 W and Iref is 10−12 Wm−2 . lower and upper frequencies for each bin i. termed 1/1 and 1/3 octaves respectively. The power is a constant function of the acoustic source.4).5. To obtain finer frequency resolution. FFT analysis can be performed on data discretely sampled from the continuous pressure signal (see §4.i (4.bin by summing the FFT Lp.i fl. Octave analysis divides the frequency spectrum into bins defined by: fc.3c) where fc .bin = 10 log10 j=a 10Lp.5. Two methods are used to resolve specific frequency content of sound.5. In practice.3a) (4.j in each bin: b Lp. To account for the frequency response of the human ear. while the pressure and intensity both decrease with distance r from the source. By international standard. three weighted sounds levels (A. LI and Lp will decay as rms r2 as the sound is spread over a spherical surface centred at the source.4) . SPL may be computed by sampling the entire frequency spectrum.i = 2(1/2n)fc. 125 Hz is a centre frequency (the others may be derived from the above equations). 4. Commonly referred to as dBA sound levels. The B and C weightings are more appropriate for low-frequency sounds [132].5.j /10 (4.i = 2−(1/2n)fc. octave and Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis. C) are used.1. I is proportional to p2 . Most analysis is done for n equal to 1 or 3.i fu. In free-space. this denotes a sampling with the A filter suitable for most situations.i+1 = 21/n fc. It is possible to convert from FFT results to octave bins Lp. sound meters use multiple analogue filters tuned to these frequency ranges to sample the sound and obtain Lp for each bin. fl and fu are centre.5.3b) (4.5.98 LI may also be defined: Chapter 4 Analytic Development LP = 10 log10 LI = 10 log10 P Pref I Iref (4. B.

TE . Turbulent Inflow The eddies present in the turbulent inflow incident on the rotor interact with the LE of the airfoils to radiate noise. Blunt TE Depending on geometry. The strength of the vortex is determined by the shape of the spanwise load distribution and can be mitigated from this perspective.1. . noise is radiated from the entire suction surface as as result of these large eddies and can dominate the TE source.Turbulent Boundary Layer The turbulent boundary flowing over the trailing edge of an airfoil will radiate noise from both suction and pressure surface TEs. Tip Vortex Unlike all of the other noise sources which are predominantly 2D phenomena. while the latter also moves the tip surfaces upwind of the tip-vortex spiral.3 Noise Mechanisms The minimisation of aerodynamic noise from wind turbines remains a challenge. The interaction between the shed tip-vortex and the blade surfaces create an important highfrequency noise source. but by careful design can be minimised. Separated Flow Progressive stall from the TE increases the boundary layer thickness and size of coherent eddies passing over the TE. coherent vortices are shed creating tonal noise. into coherent vortex shedding. 4.5 Acoustic Modelling 99 where a and b are the lower and upper indices of the FFT results in that bin. it has been found that parabolic tips.Laminar Boundary Layer This tonal noise is created by amplifica- tion of Tollmien-Schlicting waves via vortices shed at the TE. The former tailors the spanwise loading. The first step is to identify the individual aerodynamic noise mechanisms [133]: TE . The magnitude of the noise is larger when the ratio of turbulence length scale to LE radius is large.5. and others with cut-away TEs reduce tip noise. The above equation is only valid for incoherent (different frequency and phase) noise sources. especially for thick and blunt TEs. The Reynolds number must be small enough for laminar flow to develop and so this source is more important for small machines. Also.4. the former ranging in size from 1 mm to 100 m. this origins of this source are 3D. not the Lp values. In full stall. Note that is it the sound intensity I that must be summed. The phenomenon is analogous to the von Karman vortex street behind bluff bodies.

such as those in the NREL FAST code [134]. They typically are parametrised in terms of generic quantities such as rotor diameter. The latter is a design choice.3. the time-lag due to propagation from spatially distributed sources. They consider the noise mechanisms separately to synthesize the overall acoustic signature. tip-speeds may increase substantially in the future. Class II models are the current state-of-the-art. sharp trailing edges and tip-shape selection. stalled rotors and those with high tip-speeds produce relatively more noise. either in terms of deterministic forces or scaling laws from non-dimensional 2D airfoil analyses. These models are based on fundamental theory. The primary source of LFN is from the blade passing through the tower wake creating rapidly fluctuating forces. reflection off terrain and buildings.2 Modelling Approaches Three classes of model may be used to model aerodynamic noise [132]. The first Class I models are empirically based on measurements from existing machines.5. typically limited to 70 m/s on-shore. The noise heard by an observer will be modified by two factors. rated power and tip speed to give an overall dBA sound level. LFN is created by the blades sweeping out a volume of air and also fluctuating sectional aerodynamic forces acting on the fluid and moving relative to the observer. but not detailed spectral information or accurate quantitative predictions.3.100 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Low-Frequency Noise (LFN) Described further in §4. All but the last of these noise sources can be alleviated by clean airfoils. but nevertheless is important as it is “felt”.5. Both Class II and III models are capable of . LFN will be discussed further in §4. They are also supported and validated by experimental work [135].5. where noise is less of a constraint. Directionality modifies the sound perceived by the observer owing to the relative position (directivity of the sound) and motion of the sound source. They can give an overall indication of noise production. and rely on more detailed information about the machine. Operationally. Off-shore however. this source is typically at or below the threshold of human hearing. leading to cost-reduction through reduction of torque/forces and hence material usage. and the non-uniform properties of the atmosphere. 4. The propagation of the sound from source to observer will also introduce artefacts owing to attenuation. directionality and propagation. and convection of the noise with the free-stream.

Equation (4. and hence frequency content and overall noise levels. These approaches typically solve the NS equations in either compressible or incompressible form (see [136] for a dis- cussion of the relative merits). Lighthill developed his “acoustic analogy” [138]. and hence pressure via the isentropic relation p = a2 ρ at the observer position 0 .5) where δij is the Kronecker delta function.5. Large Eddy Simulation (LES). This inhomogeneous wave equation (acoustics) is the “analogy“ to the full fluid-dynamics equations. This can be reduced somewhat by employing the acoustic analogy discussed next.5.5. t) = ρ(x.6) 2 ρ= ∂ 2 Tij ∂xi ∂xj (4. Class III models rely on detailed description of the geometry within the context of a full-field time-domain simulation. it is essentially a re-arrangement and combination of the continuity and momentum equation resulting in a single compact equation: ∂2ρ − c2 0 ∂t2 where Tij . Without delving into the mathematical details. and due to cost is not used to any great extent in practice. and σij are the viscous stresses (usually ignored as second order). forced by source terms (right-half).e. To overcome this limitation. the full set of equations requires fine spatial and temporal resolution for accurate predictions. xi and ui are position and velocity components.5) can be solved for the small disturbance density ρ(x. Together with the continuity equation. Clearly the underlying NS solution is quite expensive [137]. t)− ρ0 . The predictions must be accurate for separated flow.2. the Lighthill stress tensor is: Tij = ρui uj + (p − ρc2 )δij + σij 0 (4. so Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) (steady solution) and Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (URANS) (excessive numerical dissipation) are inadequate.5. This equation is a hyperbolic partial differential describing a wave travelling at speed c0 in a quiescent medium (left-half).5 Acoustic Modelling 101 providing time-domain predictions of acoustic pressure. aerodynamic noise. This precludes the use of fine grids extending from a wind turbine to observer. Unfortunately. 4. i.4. these equations fully describe the generation and prorogation of acoustic signals. Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) or Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) simulations are required.1 Acoustic Analogies Mathematically. acoustic sound is governed by the NS equations.

t) = ∂ {[ρ0 vn + ρ(un − vn )] δ(f )} − ∂t ∂ ∂2 {[∆Pij nj + ρui (un − vn )] δ(f )} + ˆ [Tij H(f )] (4. δ(f ) is the Dirac delta function. dipole and quadrupole elementary acoustic sources [132].7) ∂xi ∂xi ∂xj where un and vn are the fluid and boundary surface velocities normal to the boundary surface f = 0. and examples for each (in brackets) are as follows: Monopole A point source with radial symmetry (radially pulsating sphere surface). the process of computing noise is separated into two distinct tasks. as just described. (4. fluctuating sources of mass (siren). Lighthill originally developed the theory for jet noise. moving lift force (rotating blade) Quadrupole A pair of dipoles (small deforming sphere). a detailed computation is made of the flow conditions within a volume bounding the important noise generating mechanisms. The addition of a moving boundary allows the bounding surface to be a real (on the blade surface) or an imaginary surface located in the flow field but conveniently co-rotating with the blades. The abstract and physical nature of each source.2. Using these results. The flow-field conditions are therefore know a priori for the second step. and ∆Pij is the compressive stress tensor jump across the surface.2 Mathematical and Physical Noise Sources The three source terms in Eq. turbulent flows.7) are mathematically monopole.102 Chapter 4 Analytic Development x. It also includes an integral of pressure over the same bounding surface.5. introducing two additional terms into the solution [136]: 2 p (x. 4. Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings extended the analogy to include moving boundary surfaces.5. using a stationary boundary. fluctuating Reynolds stresses (eddies from stalled flow over wing) .5. Using this mathematical result. The final solution involves an integral of the stress tensor through a volume bounded by a fixed surface enclosing the noise generating regions. the far-field noise signature is then obtained by integrating the detailed solution. varying lift (airfoil angle of attack change). moving volumes (propeller blades) Dipole Fluctuating and/or translating forces exerted on fluid (oscillating sphere). First. at each time-step.

derived mainly from the increased TE length of the relatively longer blades. The MOD-1 had a heavy-weight truss-type tower with 4 major structural elements creating a downstream wake with 2–4 distinct velocity deficits (depending on yaw) and a broad wake. Missing from this earlier study was a treatment of LFN.3 Low-Frequency Noise This section presents the relevance (§4.5. The modest increase that was observed.5.1) heard (and felt) at the blade passing frequency.3.5. The overall findings were that the coning rotor concept did not create noise levels much in excess of a conventional machine. Wind turbines are typically placed in a complex environment.3. That study only included two noise mechanisms.3 Advanced Analysis 103 Although the Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings (FW-H) equations are conveniently compact. The WECS machine had a more conventional cylindrical tower. To perform a detailed simulation of atmospheric absorption and terrain effects.5.2 and 4. 4. they assume sound radiation into an unbounded domain. However.3). Both were large ( Ø80 m rotors) prototype downwind machines with 2 bladed rotors. Both experimental efforts generated complaints from neighbours due to the characteristic “tower thump” (LFN described in §4.5. 4. The variable-speed coning rotor presumably also better matched noise production to background levels compared to the constant speed reference machine.3. the linearised Euler equations may be used with clever computation of the Green’s function [136].1 Relevance A noise study was commissioned during the course of the original work on the coning rotor concept [139]. While this noise source does not have a large component of A-weighted noise levels.1).4.3. this level of complexity is beyond the scope of the current work.3.4) for analysing the LFN of the coning rotor. it is very important for public acceptance. theory (§4.5 Acoustic Modelling 4. and implementation nuances (§4. 140] and in Sweden with the WECS Maglarp machine [141]. . This is based on practical experience in both the US with the MOD-1 [15. The rotor was also completely rigid. turbulent inflow and TE . Mention was also made of using cut-away TEs tips to limit tip-noise and sharp trailing edges (< 3 mm) to avoid vortex shedding noise.5.5.5.turbulent boundary layer interaction.2.

and it termed the thickness noise. the driving mechanisms of LFN are monopole and dipole sources (see §4.7) typically contain inconvenient spatial derivatives that may be re-cast as time derivatives. as the rotor must be downwind of the tower. The dipole source can be divided into two distinct mechanisms. as no quadrupole sources (turbulence) are important for LFN. LFN can be treated relatively easily using a development of Eq.4). They also contain integrals over a bounding volume and surface. the monopole and dipole sources may be evaluated as discrete sources on the blade.3. This approach is commensurate with the BEM method (see §4. Both are created by the aerodynamic forces (lift and drag) developed by the blade.5. 4. The monopole source is created by the moving volume of the blades as they move through the air. 98]. The volume integral may be ignored. p. rather than requiring integration over the actual blade surface.5.7). as they are exerted on the fluid. This development is outlined by Wagner et al. Owing to the fact that LFN can travel long distances before being attenuated. [132. (4. The surface integrals may be conveniently considered as acoustically compact for frequencies below 50 Hz. . Some comfort may be taken from other downwind concepts that have been built and did not suffer unduly from LFN: H¨tter’s machines of the 1950/60s.5.2. LFN is not necessarily a fundamental constraint on the concept. but must be carefully considered if the coning rotor is to be publicly acceptable. (4.5. LFN is an important aspect of the coning rotor design.104 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Clearly then. it will be important for both on-shore and near to mediumoffshore concepts. It is assumed here that the forces are located on the pitch axes of the blades.2 Theory Utilizing a number of simplifying assumptions. citing detailed work by Succi and Farassat and is described here. For wind turbines operating at low Mach numbers. and the Wind Turbine Company’s prototypes. The first source is created by a constant magnitude force moving relative to the observer and is termed near-field noise. This can be visualized as the blade temporarily displacing a volume of air in a given region as the blade sweeps through it.2). Using this assumption. which provides position and loading output for sections along the blade. vectorially opposite to those experienced by the blade. The solutions to Eq. the MS-4 u machine in the UK. The second source is developed by a temporally varying force vector (magnitude and direction) and termed far-field noise.

This formula approximates the airfoil as a half-ellipse for the first pc length of blade. yi ) = ¯ pf ar.5. The other parameters in Eq.10b) (4. .5.9b) For simplicity. c the chord length and p ∈ 0 . yi ). Note that all input quantities are known a priori from the BEM simulation for all i = 1 . using the timedependent aerodynamic force vector fi in units of force per unit-length of blade. the sectional volume V0 .10a) (4.35 throughout this work). yi ).5.5.i (τ.i (τ. 1 a parameter determining the fractional chord wise location of maximum thickness (taken as 0. yi ) = ¯ pnear. thickness pthk.8a) (4.5.11) (4. the sectional volume is computed with the following formula: π t ¯ V0 = tpc + (1 − p)c 2 3 (4.i (τ.i (τ. yi ) pressures are per unit span (denoted by the overbar). yi ) = ¯ ¯ 1 ∂ ρV 0 4π r(1 − Mr ) ∂τ r2 (1 1 − Mr )2 1 ∂ 1 − Mr ∂τ 1 1 − Mr (4. . ¯ Likewise.5.5. . .8) are the unit vector from source to observer ri and the distance between source and observer ri : ˆ ri = |x − yi | x − yi ri = ˆ ri the source Mach vector and its derivative: 1 ∂yi c0 ∂τ ∂ Mi 1 ∂ 2 yi = ∂τ c0 ∂τ 2 Mi = and the relative Mach number: M r = r i · Mi ˆ (4. ns stations on ib = 1 . and far ¯ ¯ pf ar.8c) 1 4π ri · fi ri · 1 − Mi · M i − fi · Mi 1 − Mr ri · ∂ Mi ∂τ 1 4π 1 c0 r(1 − Mr )2 ∂ fi ri · fi + ∂τ 1 − Mr These equations are applied at each spanwise element of each blade.4. and a triangle for the remaining length.i (τ.12) where t is the section thickness. B blades.9a) (4. .5.i (τ. . The position of ¯ each blade section is yi (τ ).5 Acoustic Modelling 105 The final formulas governing the time dependent pressures created at observer location x produced by the three sources are as follows: pthk.5. near pnear.5. (4.8b) (4. .

3. For wind turbines.i (t) value to a common tobs time computed ¯ as: t0 = max [min [ti (0)]] obs tn+1 = tn + dtobs t ≤ min [max [ti (τmax )]] (4. which will modify the transmission velocity from source to observer. yi ): ¯ psrc.5. .4).15) (4. ns − 1 p ¯ (4. The pressures in retarded time psrc.8).5.j (t. the three components are first evaluated for each section in retarded time τ (the original simulation time corresponding to the time when the noise is generated). First.j (t.5. the acoustically compact approach is carried one step further. Practically. by assuming that the forces on the blades can be lumped at one spanwise point (e. yj ) from pressure per unit span psrc.j (t.1c0 and is typically ignored. t) = ib =1 j=1 pthk.3 Simplified Theory It should be noted that an even more simplified approach is possible [132].i (τ ) are therefore converted to observer pressures psrc. .14) (4.j (t. yj ) + pnear.5.106 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Returning to Eq. The observer time ti (time at which the pressure disturbance reaches the observer) may then be computed for each segment from: ti (τ ) = τ + ri (τ ) c0 (4.j ) j ∈ 1 .j (t. this velocity differential is less than 0. yj ) = (sj+1 − sj )(¯src. ¯ ¯ The next step is to properly assemble the pressure signals from each source and location i. yj ) (4.i (t).i (t.g.i (t) according to arrival time at ¯ the observer. The . yj ) + pf ar.5. this is accomplished in the implementation used for this thesis by linearly interpolating each psrc. (4.5.16) The choice of dtobs will become important for proper FFT analysis (see §4.5. This is done by sorting each pressure psrc.18) 4. The final step to compute the overall pressure timehistory at x is to sum the contributions from each source and panel: B ns −1 p(x.17) These pressure sources therefore effectively originate at the mid-point of the spanwise segments located at yj (τ ). The penultimate step is to integrate over the span of the blade(s) to obtain physical pressures psrc.j+1 − psrc.5.5.13) Implicit in this equation is a disregarding of the free-stream velocity. 72–75% radius).

various finite-difference formulas with varying degree f (n) .5. (4.5.5. The formula depends only on the Fourier coefficients of overall rotor thrust and torque (derived over one rotor rotation period).g.8). 4. either physical artefacts of sampling a real system. and derived quantities.5. It has been applied in the study of noise from rotating forces (Gutin propeller noise) and wind turbines [141]. velocity and position). Consequently. as the equations are dependent on first and second order derivatives of position.5 Acoustic Modelling 107 loading is then assumed to move in a circle. the numerical procedure for obtaining these derivatives becomes important. The current work uses the more accurate and complete formula of Eq.5. Typical formulae for the first and second derivatives of a function f (x) with error terms are [142]: f (xi+1 ) − f (xi−1 ) 2h f (xi−1 ) − 2f (xi ) + f (xi+1 ) f (2) (xi ) = h2 f (1) (xi ) = 1 + h2 f (3) (ξ) 6 1 − h2 f (4) (ξ) 12 (4.4 Nuances Equation (4. loading. these formulas may depend on very small differences between large numbers. and error O(h) may be derived from either interpolating polynomials or Taylor series expansion.5.1 When only zeroth degree data is available.8). that may in fact be noise rather than signal.5. an analytic formula for the nth harmonic of RMS pressure at the observer location may be derived. (4. This procedure avoids the noise amplification associated with computing numerical derivatives of data.8) is relatively compact and straight-forward to implement. . or numerical noise in simulations. derivatives are avoided if possible in data-gathering. but care must be taken with the input data. Using these additional assumptions.4. as well as for issues associated with post-processing (see §4.19a) (4. sampled data invariably contains some noise component. This leads to cancellation and rounding errors and in 1 It does of course introduce the new problem of integrator drift error. acceleration) and then integrated to yield lower-order quantities (e. Ordinarily.g. and the rotor is assumed to rotate at constant speed.19b) Unfortunately. Data is gathered for derivative values directly (e. location of the centre point. as is the case for Eq.4). Moreover.3. Specifically. any dynamic blade motion is ignored. The timestep used in the original simulation must also be sufficiently small to accurately determine the derivatives. data samples only possesses a certain level of accuracy. number of included points.

8]. (4. To build the filter. the sampled data f (x) = y(x) may be assumed to follow a linear relationship y = mx + b over a limited interval. Since a least-squares fit is a linear operation. The summations are carried out over n data points around xi . the cn a set of weights. yi ). etc.5. Chap. In the case of simple data-smoothing.5. centring of the other data points relative to the current one (i.21) where fi is the smoothed estimate. this would produce an exact result. and the degree of the polynomial n. One approach to this problem is to construct a moving average estimate of the derivative [143]. For derivative computation. but for higher order variation would be in error. a polynomial function of a given order is fit to the data.5. The mathematical details of the filter derivation are left to the interested reader. only the slope m is important. 1 . the most basic constant coefficient would be cn = 1/(nL + nR + 1) (moving window averaging). in a least-squares optimal sense. the various moments1 of the data are preserved or not. Using linear regression. applied to a set of points nL and nR to the left and right of the current data point xi [144.108 Chapter 4 Analytic Development turn to highly inaccurate derivative estimates. In fact.e. The zeroth moment is the area. depending on the weights. yielding the following formula for the derivative: mi = n( xi yi ) − ( xi ) ( yi ) n x2 − ( xi )2 i (4. the problem is even worse owing to a double-use of first derivative formulas.20) is a type of low-pass digital filter. nL = nR potentially for data near start and end of sampling). the “fit” procedure only has to be done once and thereafter applied to a moving set of data as a digital filter. For constant or linearly varying data. Savitzky and Golay [145] developed a set of filters referred to as Savitzky-Golay Smoothing Filters (SGSF)2 that preserve the higher moments up to some degree. In application to Eq.5. 2 Also referred to as a least-squares smoothing and differentiating filter. 14. The parameters for the fit include: the total number of points to use (ns = nL + nR + 1). To analyse chemical spectra. more generally defined by: nR fi = n=−nL cn f (xi+n ) (4.20) where mi is the derivative estimate at data point (xi . (4.8a). 1st i moment location in x. Mathematically. Eq. The implementation of the filter weights used in the current work was obtained Moment of order e µe defined as µe = i xe f (xi ).

Tsinghua University. the SGSF filters used to evaluate the acoustic equations use n = 3 and ns = 20. . 4. luojw@ieee. 148]. Department of Biomedical Engineering.4. there are a number of aspects to consider: proper units. The polynomial interpolation approach readily yields a set of weights that directly lead to the derivatives of the sampled data.4 Post-Processing The final output of the analysis procedure outlined above is a pressure-time history at an observer position. defined here by the following equations: +∞ X(jω) = −∞ N x(t)e−jωt dt (4. and number and centring of data points. China.5. The xi are the N sampled points. This topic is covered in the literature [147. uniform spaced in time at dt = 1/fs . e-mail: luojw@bme. One-sided filters are used for the first and last ns data points.tsinghua. PhD Candidate.5 Acoustic Modelling 109 as the Matlab function sgsdf_gram_poly. The choice of of n and ns effects the characteristics of the Essentially. the pressure signal p(x. [144] and parametric variation.22b) where j is here √ −1. the Source code from Jianwen Based on guidance given by Press et al. In order to obtain accurate quantitative results. k = 1 .5. derivative degree. and binning. Beijing 100084. . P. but at the expense of decreased noise 1 . More points and higher polynomial degree better preserve data peaks. sample rate. but elucidation of the nuances involved can be hard to find [149]. R. N . t) is transferred to the frequency domain using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis. 4.1 FFT Units The Fast Fourier Transform Xk is the discretely-sampled (and computationally efficient) analogue of the continuous-time Fourier transform X(jω). The order of the derivatives s must of course be less than or equal to n and a sufficient number of data points used.22a) Xk = i=1 xi e− 2πj (i−1)(k−1) N (4. implemented in an efficient recursive algorithm and containing parameters for polynomial degree.5. In order to evaluate the noise characteristics. corresponding to a sampling frequency of fs .1 The code came pre-validated against other data [146]. windowing.

5.5. with each Xk acting as a filter of bandwidth ∆f . 1 Note that some canned functions may return the power spectrum. zero frequency component first followed by positive then negative frequency components.24)  |Xk | 2 k = 2 . . returning the amplitude and phase of each component as a complex quantity.5.23a) (4.26) This allows definition of the signal frequency components on the Decibel scale as: dB = 10 log10 Ak. N/2 N Since the FFT amplitudes represent sinusoidal components of the signal. phase information is available from the complex vectors Xk . The Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) replaces the continuous integrals with discrete summations. peak √ 2 k>1 (4.5.110 Chapter 4 Analytic Development FFT computes the frequency components of a signal. . .25) The power spectrum is defined as: S k = A2 k. The achievable frequency resolution and range both depend on the original sample frequency and number of sample points according to: ∆f = fmax fs N fs = − ∆f 2 (4. the following relation is used:   |X1 |  k=1 N Ak. 1024). the RMS values of the (non-zero frequency) components may then be found from: Ak.23b) Matlab’s fft function was used here. 2 Both ± frequencies are returned.1 The theory derives from the Fourier series. The FFT is simply an efficient way of computing the DFT. To convert from the computed spectrum values to amplitude Ak for the positive frequency components. N must be a power of two N = 2n (typically 256.5. RMS (4.27) Additionally.5. The FFT may be thought of as frequency bins. which implements the above equations and returns a two-sided spectrum2 of complex values. RMS = Ak. plus a constant term. In order for the FFT algorithm to work. The Fourier transform (integral) extends this to non-periodic signals. peak = (4. RMS Sk = 20 log10 Sref Aref (4. whereby any periodic signal may be decomposed into an infinite summation of sines and cosines of increasing frequency. not amplitude spectrum.

The peaks and troughs of the signal are sampled at points spaced too far apart which then appear as an entirely different frequency waveform. anti-aliasing filters are used before the analog-to-digital converter to clean the signal.5.23). As an explanation. where fs < 2f ∗ . for m = 1. will suffer from an effect called aliasing. 2. The numerical integration schemes (e. If the analog signal cannot be assured to have frequency components below fs /2. Examples include the usual coupled dynamic equations for a BEM-structural simulation of a flexible wind turbine.4.e. (4. This in effect creates a false signal at an alias frequency fa = ±(f − mfs ) if f ≥ fs /2. This approach is not possible for numerical simulated systems.4. or prescribed airfoil section (or blade) motion to solve dynamic aerodynamic equations (e. simple first-order Euler equation used for dynamic inflow equations has poor accuracy due to local truncation error..g. the time-step may be discretionary (i.5 Acoustic Modelling 4. .5. . dynamic stall). stability easily satisfied) but still requires a sufficiently small time-step to attain reasonable accuracy. There are essentially three types of numerical simulation that may be encountered in the present context: Partial Differential Equations (PDEs) Equations1 solved using a field method (e.2 1 2 Hyperbolic or parabolic in this context. but also in accurate decomposition of the signal. Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) Solved to yield positional and force quantities over time. The temporal discretization method must satisfy von Neumann stability criteria. . In physical measurements. and defines the permissible lower bound on the sampling frequency. finite difference/element) to yield solutions in position and time. It turns out [148] that a digitally sampled signal. In the latter case.g dynamic inflow. E. such as the current LFN computations.2 Sample Rate and Aliasing 111 The sample rate fs is important not only for determining the spectral range in Eq. this problem is avoided by employing a high sample frequency. RungeKutta) must satisfy the von Neumann stability criteria. . and the spatial discretization the Courant limit. An example is the solution of the NS equations. the digital sampling is not occurring frequently enough over the period of the signal 1/f .g. The quantity f ∗ is the Nyquist frequency. given a maximum frequency content f in the sampled signal.g.

this condition will never be true.46 cos 2πfi It is actually impossible not to use a window.92 1. will ensure that the computational sample frequency fs is sufficiently fast to capture the frequencies for the relevant phenomenon.112 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Prescribed Time A deterministic system of equations with known analytic solution for all t is sampled at discrete time intervals. The definitions and characteristics of a number of common windowing functions are given in Table 4. As an example.3 Windowing Implicit in the FFT algorithm is that the signal is sampled for an integral number of periods.5. Unless the sampling is triggered to be synchronous with the process (enabling capture of an integral number of cycles).42 1. the sampled data is windowed [150]. Every window has a peak centre lobe (0 dB) with side lobes of decreasing magnitude (towards −∞ dB). The application of the window to the signal can be viewed as a convolution of the signal frequencies with the frequency characteristic of the window.75 0. or the signal decays to zero over the sample time.1 Windowing functions Window Uniform Hann Hamming Point Weight 1 1−cos 2πfi 2 Coherent Gain 1. gradually reducing them to zero.54 − 0.4. In each of the cases. as it is not present in the numerical simulation.1. where fi = (i − 1)/(N − 1) is the fractional position of each data point i in the sample. This avoids sampling non-integral numbers of periods. A window is a digital filter that modifies the tail regions of the data sample. without specifically applying one. as no higher frequency component can exist in the signal. To understand the artefacts introduced by windowing. a signal with a single frequency. the Uniform window is applied. The Nyquist criteria will therefore be satisfied.36 Worst-Case Amplitude (dB) 3. sampled for integral number of periods. This sampling-introduced artefact is termed spectral leakage.54 Noise Power Bandwidth 1. it is useful to consider the frequency spectrum of the window.0 0. and that the signal is infinitely repeated in time. or sufficient prescribed temporal resolution. Table 4. satisfaction of the stability criteria. 4. In order to mitigate these effects. The centre lobes are located at the frequency components of the true signal content.50 0.00 1. will produce .50 1.

representation of the noise.4.4). Once a window is applied.4 Ensemble Averaging To improve accuracy.1 as the noise power bandwidth. sections of signal. The Hann window is used here. possible overlapping from 0–100%. important for resolving closely spaced frequency content. To account for this. multiple FFTs may be performed on a given signal. effectively increasing the bandwidth ∆f of each FFT bin. Doing so provides a more coarse. but concise and standardized. (4. and in general not contemporaneous with an integral number of periods. the phase information embodied in the Xk is lost. The second effect is that the windows spread the frequency content.1 (all < 1). 4.5. The true peak amplitude is then the sum of the adjacent powers. The factor increase is given in Table 4.5 Binning Deriving octave binned frequency spectra from FFT results is accomplished with Eq. The first is to reduce the overall amplitudes of the signal. the minimum width of the centre lobe is limited by increased spectral leakage as the energy content of the side lobes increases with decreasing main lobe width.1 a frequency-weighted average of power over ±3 adjacent peaks can be used. since the starting point of each sample is different. For estimating the true peak frequency for a component of a non-continuous spectrum.23).5 Acoustic Modelling 113 an exact FFT result. If sampled for a non-integral number of cycles. obvious from the applying the point weights of Table 4. the centre lobe of the window is shifted away from the true signal content. (4. However. Viewed another way.5. as it has good frequency resolution with minimal spectral leakage.5. In these cases. the FFT process views the convolved spectrum through a set of slits at the frequencies defined by Eq. 4. divided by the noise power bandwidth.5. The total overall noise level may also me computed by the 1 This procedure is not valid for continuous spectra .4. are ensemble average to yield a better estimate of the Xk . the final Xk are divided by the coherent gain of the window.4. The last sample may be padded with zeros to fill a complete set of N samples. this is called the “picket fence” effect. it introduces two effects. The side lobes therefore appear in the FFT results. if the signal’s length is long enough (N < Ns ). Of course. The width and magnitudes of the lobes determine the spreading of frequency content between adjacent Xk .

The primary quantities of interest for beam theory are the mass/unit length mps and area moments of inertia I. Internally. leaving flexible body dynamics to the commercial code (BLADEDTM ) with proper modes from the FEM method. the primary emphasis is on the modelling of the rotor (blades).1).1. The first contains the aerodynamic properties.2).6. including drive-train (shaft(s). The approach adopted here is similar to the one the author has used in the past [152]. It is recognized that the overall dynamics of the complete machine. the profiles are interpolated when loaded to yield profiles with a uniform number and location of chordwise spacing.114 Chapter 4 Analytic Development same formula. Structural Modelling A wind turbine is an inherently aeroelastic structure.1 Layup Definition For each airfoil defined for a blade. distributed load integration (§4.4). 4. yaw mechanism and tower are all critically important for a final complete analysis in future studies.6. sequential aspects of the structural modelling are developed: a general beam-section model (§4. In this section. either for the entire spectrum or a specific sub-set. Only the EOM for the rigid rotor are derived here.6. The definition of the composite layup is different however. This is standard practice. a rigid-body model of an independently hinged rotor (§4. 4. and finally a FEM method for the blade modes(§4. especially for large scale multiMW machines.3). even though it is arguable in some cases whether blade crosssections are well approximated as slender beams [151]. The section properties are used in later derivations as inputs to describe the dynamic loads and motion of the blades. transmission and generator). which must be computed for sections made up of many composite layers.6. two input sheets are required in ExcelBEM. The steady X0 component is disregarded throughout these calculations. 4. Commensurate with the scope of this thesis. and the other the airfoil profiles.1 Sectional Modelling Wind turbine blades (and towers) are typically treated as linear beams. to speed . There is therefore a need for an accurate model of the structure for combination with the aerodynamic models discussed in §4. These profiles are defined at various percent thicknesses covering those used in the blade for (linear) interpolation. obtained here from direct user-entry rather than being CAD-based.

4.6 Structural Modelling


computation. The same chordwise cosine spacing is used for the upper and lower surfaces, which are input separately to accommodate a range of data sources. The layup of blade sections is defined on a separate sheet. Every station may be defined, or only a subset which is kept constant for intermediate sections. The input sheet for the definition of an example single section is shown in Fig. 4.27, and the resulting section shown in the left-half of Fig. 4.28.
1 Upper Surface c (%) 0.00 t (m) 0.0005 0.0004 0.0009 0.0050 0.0009 0.0005 0.0004 0.0009 0.0100 0.0009 0.0005 0.0004 0.0009 0.0100 0.0009 0.00051 0.00038 0.00089 0.0005 0.0004 0.002 0.0009 t (m) Mat'l Gelcoat Random mat CDB340 Balsa CDB340 Gelcoat Random mat CDB340 Spar cap mix CDB340 Gelcoat Random mat CDB340 Balsa CDB340 Gelcoat Random mat CDB340 Gelcoat Random mat TE spline CDB340 Mat'l Gelcoat Random mat CDB340 Balsa CDB340 Gelcoat Random mat CDB340 Spar cap mix CDB340 Gelcoat Random mat CDB340 Balsa CDB340 Gelcoat Random mat CDB340 Mat'l CDB340 Balsa CDB340 CDB340 Balsa CDB340



0.85 0.99

Lower Surface c (%)





0.0005 0.0004 0.00089 0.005 0.00089 0.00051 0.0004 0.00089 0.01 0.0009 0.00051 0.0004 0.00089 0.01 0.0009 0.0005 0.0004 0.0009


c (%) 0.18:0.12 0.53:0.47

t (m)

0.0015 0.0100 0.0015 0.0015 0.0100 0.0015

Figure 4.27 Section definition

The definition is split into three, one for each of the upper and lower surfaces, and a third to define the webs. For the upper and lower surfaces, fractional chordwise section divisions are input, starting with 0. The definition is assumed to continue to the TE, at c(%) = 1, so a minimum of one chordwise region must be defined


Chapter 4 Analytic Development

for both skins. These define the locations of lay-up transitions along the skins. In this example, there are 5 lay-up definitions for the LE, spar cap, balsa-core TE, skinned TE and finally a TE spline. The last two columns define the lay-up for each section, defined by layer thickness and material. The material definitions are named and defined on a separate sheet (density, moduli, cost, etc.). The web section may be blank, or contain an unlimited number of shear web definitions. To allow for angled webs, the chordwise locations may be defined as colon separted pairs, defining the fraction chordwise locations of the web intersection with the upper and lower surfaces respectively. The layup defintion for the web(s) is identical to the other surfaces. It is assumed that the thickness of the web projects towards the TE. Section Computations Using the layup of the section’s structure, together with the airfoil profiles, the relevant quantities may be computed as follows: 1. The relevant airfoil profiles are interpolated and scaled to the proper chord length. For thicknesses outside the defined range, simple scaling of thickness is used.1 2. The normals ni shown in Fig. 4.28 are computed for each point on the airfoil ˆ surfaces using: ni = ni,upper ˆ ni,lower ˆ 1 yi−1 + yi+1 2 xi+1 − xi−1 ni = |ni | ni =− |ni | (4.6.1a) (4.6.1b) (4.6.1c)

where x, y are the airfoil profile coordinates. 3. Points and normals are linearly interpolated to place points exactly on chordwise layup transition points. 4. The upper and lower surfaces are processed by defining each layup thickness block as two triangles, and processing each triangle. The derivation of section properties for the triangular elements is included in Appendix B. The computation proceeds along each interval of the surfaces, and through the layup thickness along the normals. 5. The web is processed in a similar manner, using normals defined by the x, y coordinates of the web termination points on the airfoil surfaces.
More properly, the camberline should be extracted from the thickness profile, the thickness profile scaled and then recombined with the camberline [52].

4.6 Structural Modelling


The formulas for overall section properties (xCG , mps , EI, etc.) from the triangular element aggregatrations are also included in Appendix B.

Figure 4.28 Blade section triangulation Common Confusions and Assumptions It is important at this point to clarify two issues, as they are commonly misconstrued. The first is that the torsional constant GJe is not in general the same as the shear modulus weighted polar moment of area, computed here as GJ about xEA . They are equal only for axisymmetric circular bars [151]. The computation of the effective polar moment of area Je is more involved than computing J, utilizing either thin shell theory (shear flow) or more generally Prantl’s membrane analogy. These two quantities are however often used interchangeably, but may be in significant (nonconservative) error, especially near the root [153]. Related to this is the definition of the shear centre, which is not in general co-located with the Neutral Axis (NA) (xEA ), although it is commonly assumed so. Likewise, the centre-of-mass (xCG ) and
NA are not in general co-located (the circle and cross in Fig. 4.28 respectively).

In any case, the pure torsional modes of blades are not typically used in wind turbine analysis. Notwithstanding a wealth of research [61, 154], there has never been any evidence of flutter1 in practice. Flutter can be avoided in any case by ensuring the section xCG lies between the shear centre and the LE. Deliberate flaptwist coupling has also been investigated, and so provision for input of these coupling values is provided in commercial codes (e.g. BLADEDTM ). The investigations are usually performed in terms of either an arbitrary coupling coefficient [61], or derived from more detailed FEM analysis [155]. Another confusion surrounds the definition of flapwise and edgewise/chordwise, the relation to Out-of-Plane (OP) and In-Plane (IP) and structural twist [80]. This confusion also extends into aerodynamic modelling. To clarify the definitions, a

Flutter is caused by the coupling of bending and torsional modes


Chapter 4 Analytic Development

general blade section with various coordinate systems is shown in Fig. 4.29. The section is viewed looking in inboard along the blade (i.e. towards −z direction). The blade is translating to the right of the page, and the wind vector is nominally up the page, modified by the cosine of the cone angle.

Figure 4.29 Definition of section coordinate systems

At the LE is the x, y CS used for structural computations.1 The next coordinate system is on the chordline, at the star symbol c1/4 from the LE. This is the point where aerodynamic coefficients (cl , cd , cm ) are defined. The next coordinate system is lcx away from the LE on the chordline. The inclined set of vectors define the flapwise and edgewise bending moment directions. The horizontal-vertical axis located pb (pre-bend) off the chordline defines the pitch axis location. All other analysis (aerodynamic and structural) compute forces decomposed into the (xaero , yaero ) directions.2 These are the OP and IP directions, for β = 0◦ . Stress/Strain Computation Wind turbine blades are usually governed structurally by direct normal stresses, rather than shear forces; the latter are therefore ignored in the stress calculations. The location of maximum stress (or strain) is usually checked at a number of points around the periphery of the section. In general, given combined loading, the curved
1 Standard airfoil coordinates take the LE as 1, 0 and TE as 0, 0 , so these must be reversed in x here. 2 The aerodynamic axes usually fall on the chordline (pb = 0). The pre-bend is included here to be comparable to BLADEDTM load results.

4.6 Structural Modelling


geometry and variable layup material properties (both stiffness and strength allowables), the location of extreme stress is not known a priori. Therefore, the current analysis checks all grid-points computed in §, using the following formula: yp (Mx EIy + My EIxy ) − xp (Mx EIxy + My EIx ) Fz + 2 EA EIx EIy − EIxy



The strain formulation is used to accommodate heterogeneous stiffnesses of the layers. The stress is of course found from σ = E using the layer’s Young’s modulus E, although composites are frequently characterised in terms of strain rather than stress. The loads (Fz , Mx and My ) must be translated from their definition on pitch axis (from other calculations) to xEA . The test points xp , yp are defined in the x, y LE coordinate system of Fig. 4.29 as vectors from xEA to the test point in the layup. Fatigue calculations (e.g. rainflow counting) may proceed from the resulting stress or stain time-history, in the case of dynamic loading. Although fatigue tends to dominate many wind turbine components, static loads are used throughout this thesis to provide initial structural designs for later dynamic simulations of fatigue loading. Skin buckling could also be incorporated in the current framework, and should also be checked in a final design [153, 156].

4.6.2 Kinetostatics
The key elements of aerodynamic force prediction and the mass properties of the blades have been developed in §4.4 and § respectively. The current task is twofold: to compute the moments required for equilibrium operation (see §4.7.1) and power production, and secondly to compute the loading in the blade for dynamic operation (§4.6.3) and as input for structural load calculations (§ The loads are computed on the pitch axis (zaero in Fig. 4.1(d)), for each section on the blade lying in the xaero –yaero plane. Three sources of loading are considered, aerodynamic (faero , maero ), gravitational (fgrav , mgrav ) and inertial (facc , macc ), comprising the total forces f and moments m per unit length. The loading is developed with reference to Fig. 4.30, which is consistent with Fig. 4.29. D’Alembert’s method is used to handle the inertial accelerations.


Chapter 4 Analytic Development

Figure 4.30 Section layout for kinetostatics

Figure 4.31 Kinetostatic offset vectors The lengths in Fig. 4.31 define the position of P , which represents either the aerodynamic (da ) or mass centre (dm ). da = c (pA − 1/4) dm = c (pA − CG ) lx = −pb − d sin γtot ly = −d cos γtot where lx and ly apply for either the aerodynamic or mass centre with subscript a or m respectively. The applied forces will then generate moments according to: mof f = (lxˆ + ly ˆ × f i j) (4.6.4) (4.6.3)

from this offset. The sectional mass is assumed concentrated at the CG , so no direct moments are produced from gravitational and inertial forces, only the mof f moments. Point masses are included as increments to the defined mass per unit length on the blade (mps ), computed to preserve the 1st moment about the flap hinge, by distributing the mass over two adjacent sections. The sectional forces and

aero ˆ i j As discussed in § = q (cl cos φ + cd sin φ) fy.i = fgrav.2. j.4.6 Structural Modelling 121 moments (per unit span) are now outlined in §4.6.3 Inertial Loading The inertial loading is determined by the acceleration vector from facc = −mps a. ˆ section loading along each axis is then: fgrav.6.5b) (4. any shear force normal to the section.6.6. in the column notation of Appendix A. the unit vectors uaero.2. (4.1 through 4.aeroˆ + fy.i = R z (yaw) R y (ψt ) R x (θ) R y (β)ui ( = −q (cl sin φ − cd cos φ) faero = fx. It only remains to decompose the vectors appropriately and include the effect of the offset section in the moment calculations. 4. is considered insignificant as a direct force.4.e = −mps g k. followed by the integrated quantities in §4.2. owing to the viscosity of the spanwise flow.5d) fx.4.4).1 Aerodynamic Loading The aerodynamic forces follow directly from the aerodynamic characteristics presented in §4.i describing ˆ the axes xaero –yaero –zaero are first found from: uaero.6.6. 4.6. In order to compute the loading in the section CS. The pure moment contribution is found from: ˆ maero = (qccm ) k which will be in addition to the moment found from Eq.5a) (4. The i.4.6.i ˆ (4.8) 4.6. The determination of the acceleration vector a is found from the kinetics of the .6.e · uaero.2. The 2D aerodynamic applied forces are: 2 q = 1/2ρVrel c (4.6) where ui are the unit vectors ˆ ˆ k. (4.5c) (4.4.2 Gravitational Loading ˆ The gravitational force on the section is easily found from fgrav.6.2.

e.6.2 and 4. and the derivatives x and x ˙ are not included here for brevity.6. the Coriolis accelerations associated ˙˙ ˙ with the rotating reference frames (θβ). The full form of this equation. Figure 4.32 illustrates the blade as a beam.4 Integrated Loading The loading from each source may now be integrated to yield shear loads and bending moments along the blade. and the centrifugal acceleration terms (θ2 ˙ and β 2 ). The sectional applied forces f and moments m per unit length in §4. the azimuth θ and cone angle β. located si from the blade root and extending by ∆s = (si+1 − si ) outboard to section si+1 . Rhinge ) R y (β)  s      1 (4.6.10a) ¨ x=s ¨ ˙ β cos β − β 2 sin βˆ ˆ i i+ ¨ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ¨ θ cos θ cos β + θ2 sin θ cos β + 2θβ cos θ sin β + β 2 sin θ cos β + β sin θ sin β ˆ j+ ¨ ˙ ˙˙ ˙ ¨ ˆ −θ sin θ cos β − θ2 cos θ cos β + 2θβ sin θ sin β − β 2 cos θ cos β − β cos θ sin β k (4. 4.122 Chapter 4 Analytic Development active DOF discussed in §4.2.3 requires only the integrated aerodynamic hinge moments. as the dynamic model in §4. 4.10b) Equation (4.10a) contains the velocity terms owing to azimuthal rotation and flapping.3 are assumed to vary linearly with s. 0. .m x = R x (θ) T (0.6. as are the sectional forces. The position vector x of the section (on the pitch axis) relative to the centre of the hub (i. for each section.3.2.6. A set of reduced and easily verifiable equations is obtained with lx = ly = Rhinge = 0: ˙ x=s ˙ ˙ ˙ j− β cos βˆ + β sin θ sin β − θ cos θ cos β ˆ i ˙ ˙ ˆ θ sin θ cos β − β cos θ sin β k (4. Equation (4.6.m      ly.1. again decomposed through θ and β.2. 4.6.1(b)) is found from expanding the following:   lx. in x –y –z CS of Fig. where section i is of interest. Both shear and moment loading are integrated from tip (constraint and force free) to hub.6. decomposed onto the coordinate axes. The properties of the blade are assumed to vary linearly between sections.10b) contains the direct acceleration motions in azimuth and flap.9) ¨ where s = shub + s.6.6.6. Each contribution is computed separately.2.

y My. 4.y ∆s − 2 mi+1. or just the aerodynamic forces (for §4.3).12b) (4.12a) (4.hinge = M1.y + Vi+1.6.11) The moment components of Mi are also found by integration and from outboard shear forces as: Mi.z + mi+1.z = Mi+1.y + mi.y + Mi. The hub loads in the x –y –z CS of Fig.6.z (4.x Mz.2. either summed over all sources.x + Mi.6.5 Transformed Loading The final step is to transform the shear and bending load from the most inboard section to the flap hinge and hub centre.32 Integrated loading The orthogonal axial and shear forces Vi is easily obtained from integration over the section: Vi = Vi+1 + fi + fi+1 ∆s 2 (4.x + 6 3 ∆s2 ∆s2 (4.6 Structural Modelling 123 Figure 4.6.x = Mi+1.13b) (4.x ∆s + 2 mi+1.hinge = M1.z ∆s 2 fi.12c) 4.13a) (4.y + 6 3 fi.1(c) .6.6.x fi+1.x − shub V1.x + mi.y fi+1.6. The important hinge loads are found from: Mx.6.13c) My.4.z + mi.x − Vi+1.hinge is the critical coning moment.6.y + shub V1.hinge = M1.y = Mi+1.

An alternative is an FEM model.16)) or Kane’s method may be used to directly synthesize the EOM in terms of assumed modes.14b) Mx. either as beam elements or lumped mass/force fields. Energy-based methods permit more general DOF and a scalar formulation to realize more compact EOM. Alternatively.15b) (4.6.6. (4. In the former case.z sin β Summing the hub loads for each blade.6.15c) (4.hub = V1. Lagrange’s equation (Eq. all deriving fundamentally from a Newtonian force or energy approach (Hamilton’s principle). modal representations of the flexible structures are typically used.15d) 4.hub . power Vx. the modal method being preferred for compactness.6. To reduce the DOF to be included at run-time. The modal approaches use either true normal modes. a Galerkin method may be used to reduce the PDE from a Newtonian formulation.hub = Mx.6. The EOM may be further reduced by substituting the flexible component mass and stiffness (including rotational stiffness) terms with modal shape and frequency .hinge cos β + Mz. the PDEs are directly converted to ODEs by substitution of the modes (usually up to second or third modes).hinge sin β − Rhinge V1.6.15a) (4. or approximate modes consistent with imposed boundary conditions and with reasonably accurate mode shapes (e. The EOM may be derived by numerous methods. Newtonian methods tend to be more laborious. In the latter case.6.124 are: Chapter 4 Analytic Development Mx. Both serve to reduce the partial differential equations to ordinary differential equations amenable to solution.y Vx.hub . the driving torque is τ = P = τ Ω and the rotor thrust T = flapwise and edgewise directions: Vf lap = Vx cos γtot − Vy sin γtot Vedge = −Vx sin γtot − Vy cos γtot Mf lap = Mx sin γtot + My cos γtot Medge = Mx cos γtot − My sin γtot B B (4.g. The moments and shears for each section can also be easily transformed into the (4.x cos β + V1.4) [69].6.3 Dynamic Modelling Wind turbines are described by multiple DOF. §4.6. as they require explicit vectorial consideration of each loading mechanism.14a) (4. both rigid and flexible (blades and tower).

4. but including more discussion of non-linearities. In short. The generalized forces on the system are 1 The terms of the homogeneous PDEs used to find the modes are also present in the full non-homogeneous PDEs (see [69.1 Equations of Motion A full and detailed accounting of the all DOF in Fig. Unfortunately. gravity. no coupling of modes).6. The total kinetic T and potential U energy of the system are obtained from kinematic analysis of the various DOF xi . 4.1 is quite involved. Lagrange’s equations are used to define the EOM [69]. the rotation speed Ω must be constant and the stiffness linear (it will be non-linear for large continuous bending or flapping deflections). In most cases. 387]). with individual blade coning βj and rotor azimuth θ as the DOF.1 This is only correct for normal mode shapes (i. p. The post-processing of loads (see §4. assuming the last non-linear considerations small.6 Structural Modelling 125 terms.2 This will allow examination of the fundamental flapping motion of the coning rotor. use in-plane and out-of-plane assumed mode shapes. Moreover. only a rigid body set of EOM is developed.3. for example BLADEDTM .4. but as will be seen in §5. 4.3. The method followed is similar to that in the original CONE-450 report [66]. It is also the same number of DOF adopted by other authors studying flapping blades [77]. Numerous couplings are introduced by the various rotating and translating reference frames. Even then. Others. tilt angle. flexible body simulations. Some authors adopt this simplification. a full simulation has had to be relegated to future work (see §8.6.2) further burdens the process of writing a full simulation code. this can lead to large errors. 2 Note that the blade-dependent azimuth angle θj is offset from the rotor azimuth angle θ by (j − 1)2π/B.3). which vary with pitch angle.3. and independent flapping. yielding obtuse sets of equations. commercial time constraints have hindered implementation of the aerodynamic refinements appropriate to the coning rotor. . Here.4. as illuminated in §5. especially when flexible elements are incorporated. it appears the structural model internal to BLADEDTM will require modification as well. so that with twist inplane/out-of-plane motion is coupled but the modes themselves are normal and invariant with pitch angle (to first order). flapwise/edgewise mode shapes are used. BLADEDTM was therefore targeted as an eventual platform for full.e.

4. blade mass Mb .17b) The blade moment of inertia about the hinge axis Iβ . The moment of inertia of the blades about the CG shaft varies with cone angle βj as: S Irj = s0 2 r2 dm = Rh Mb + 2Rh Mb sCG cos βj + Iβ cos2 βj (4. IH is the inertial moment of the hub about the rotation axis. defined relative to the hub centre: hj = sCG (− sin(ψt ) sin βj + cos(ψt ) cos θj cos βj ) + Rh cos(ψt ) cos θj (4. Lagrange’s approach was chosen as it is quite straightforward to apply and generates reasonable compact equations.20a) . L=T −U ∂ ∂t ∂L ∂ xi ˙ − ∂L = Fi ∂xi (4.19) The tilt angle ψt here is positive for an upwind rotor.126 Chapter 4 Analytic Development contained in Fi (forces for linear DOF and moments for rotational DOF). the following expressions are obtained for T and U : 1 ˙ T = IH θ2 + 2 B B j=1 1 ˙2 1 ˙ 2 Irj θj + Iβ βj 2 2 (4. Applying the method to the reduced set of DOF used for dynamic analysis. as defined in Fig.16b) The resulting equations are equivalent to those obtained by kinetostatic analysis (Newton’s Law) or Kane’s equations.6. 4. It is also implicit in the dynamics formula that the masses are on the pitch axis (pb = 0 and pA = CG in Fig. The moment of inertia about the centre of mass ICG of an individual blade yields Iβ = ICG + Mb s2 .30).6.6.17a) U= j=1 Mb ghj (4.6. The final set of 1 + B equations is derived as:   B B IH + j=1 ¨ Irj  θ − j=1 B ˙˙ θβj (2Rh Mb sCG sin βj + Iβ sin 2βj ) = Qaero − Qr − j=1 [Mb g (Rh cos(ψt ) sin θj + sCG cos(ψt ) sin θj cos βj )] ( and negative for a downwind rotor. although any internal forces must be obtained by post-processing.18) The potential energy term U needs a height hj . and centre of mass distance sCG are assumed constant and equal for all blades (no imbalance).16a) (4.

ranging from 0. this additional compliance can be very important. βj β . thereby introducing spring and damping action dependent on the aerodynamics.6. The moment Qr is the reaction torque from the generator. θ. The second term in Eq. damping ratio ζ.20a) represents the azimuthal DOF and Eq. are dependent on the state variables ˙ ¨ ˙ ¨ θ. Equation (4.20b) Equation (4.6 Structural Modelling ˙ θ2 ¨ ˙ Iβ βj + HactD βj + (2Rh Mb sCG sin βj + Iβ sin 2βj ) = 2 Haero − Hact + Mb gsCG (cos(ψt ) cos θj sin βj + sin(ψt ) cos βj ) 127 for j = 1 .20) is first rewritten in state-space form.6. ignoring gravity and hinge moments (both aerodynamic and actuator): Rh Mb sCG ˙2 ¨ β+ 1+ θ βj = 0 (4. the gravity terms introduce cyclical forces with π/2 phasing between the DOF. using the OutputFcn facility of ode45. (4. (4.4. implementing a 4th or 5th order Runge-Kutta method ¨ ˙ with variable step size. The time steps are specified in terms of azimuth angle.6.20a) is a damper developed as a result of flapping motion. after the EOM equations have converged to sufficient accuracy based on the previous aerodynamic values. θ. taking ψt = 0. natural frequency ωn and damped natural frequency ωnd for an under-damped and un-forced If a flexible shaft(s) is used with a gearbox. (4. 1 . assumed to transmit its torque through an infinitely stiff structure.1 The second term in Eq.6. θ is set to zero for a constant θ rotation speed.20b) about βj = 0.20) represents the full non-linear set of equations that describe the system. The aerodynamic calculations are only run at specified time steps. A damping element HactD and actuator moment Hact are also introduced. The state variables are time-stepped according to the internal solver algorithm. .6. The aerodynamic moments. which in the rotating reference frame of the rotor is manifest as a torque from Coriolis acceleration. (4.20b) contributes the centrifugal stiffening of the rotor.3.20b) the B independent (in general) flapping DOF.6.21) Iβ Recall that the standard definitions of critical damping cc .6. βj . B (4. .2 Linearised Equations of Motion Equation (4.6. In both equations. The model is then solved with Matlab’s ode45 solver. A degree of further insight may be gained by linearising Eq. 4. Without a controller.5◦ –5◦ . however a closely coupled direct-drive machine will be less sensitive to this assumption. Qaero and Haero about the rotor and flap axes respectively.6.6.

21) and is a metric of equilibrium coning angle.23) Finally. since it employed very light carbon fibre blades.22a) (4.3.128 Chapter 4 Analytic Development dynamic system described by displacement x are: m¨ + cx + kx = 0 x ˙ ωn = k m cc = 2mωn c ζ= cc 1 − ζ2 (4. examination of Eq.21) yields the following insights: • The centrifugal stiffening effect is increased with Rh .6. • Lk may also be defined to include the full stiffness term in Eq. As the change in aerodynamic force is proportional to clα .2.22e) ωnd = ωn A non-dimensional number relevant to the current discussion is the Locke number. the damping of the system ˙ ˙ may be estimated by further assuming that Haero = Haero θ.24) indicating that Rh again increases the stiffness and hence frequency.22b) (4.6. without requiring a separate map of Haero with β. V0 − sef f β cos β [66]. HactD . which is a partial reason for why the CONE-450 employed a space-frame. and any aerodynamic damping that may ˙ be present in Haero (developed by relative AOA changes with flapping motion β). the ratio of aerodynamic to inertial forces is termed the Locke number and defined as: Lk = ρcclα R4 Iβ (4.6. active damping imposed by active control of Hact .3 System Damping The sources of damping in the system are the embedded hinge damper. β.6. aerodynamic damping becomes critical (see §7. The length sef f along the blade is an effective moment arm where the aerodynamic forces are assumed to act.22d) (4. (4. In the absence of an active actuator moment. 4. • The un-damped natural frequency of the system is found to be ˙ ωn = θ 1+ Rh Mb sCG Iβ (4.6. A value .6.6.1. (4.22c) (4.6. In the absence of any direct hinge damping.6.1). This accounts for aerodynamic flapping mo˙ ˙ ments created by β.6.

the actuator damping must be positive to balance any negatively sloping aerodynamic hinge moment curve. Eq. With this linearising assumption.28) which derives from the analytic solution to Eq. The logarithmic decrement δd is based on the following equation: δd = 1 x0 ln = N xN 2πζ 1 − ζ2 (4.6. if ωn and m are known for the mode. this equation depends on an equilibrium value of xinf = 0. but requires accurate ωn . . (4.29) where xi are now the Np extrema (positive and negative).6. where x0 and xN are peak positive displacements N cycles apart. Np −1. This is typically associated with negative Lk (negative clα ) found in stalled conditions.4. The non-linear damping of the system may be studied using the full simulation code as well. 137] in free vibration from a non-equilibrium start point.22).6. generalized system identification methods [125].6 Structural Modelling 129 of sef f = 0.6. Critically. Finally the damping ratio ζ is obtained from Eq.6. where m is the least-squares fit to the yi points at indices i = 1 .28) and damping constant from Eq. 1 .6.22a).6. Other possible approaches include utilizing the Hilbert transform [158].6. (4.6. or work equivalence1 [159]. damping may be computed via measurement of the logarithmic decrement [157. The damping ratio is then computed as: ζ= HactD + sef f ∂Haero ∂V0 2Iβ ωn (4. or dealt with implicitly by computing: yi = ln |xi − xi+1 | (4.21) can be expanded to include aerodynamic forces as: 1 ∂Haero ˙ 2 ¨ βj + HactD + sef f βj + ωn βj = 0 Iβ ∂V0 by incorporating ∂Haero ∂Haero ˙ ∂Haero ˙ ∆θ + ∆βj + ∆V0 − sef f βj (4.7S has been found appropriate [66]. A good estimate of δd is then obtained as δd = −2m. p. . In this case.27) To achieve a certain minimum positive damping factor ζ. (4. located in the displacement time history with a peak-finding algorithm. (4. however these methods are more complex than is required here. The work equivalence method is quite useful in determining the damping of individual flexible-body modes.26) ˙ ∂β ∂V0 ∂θ ˙ and taking the steady-state case where ∆θ = ∆V0 = 0 and ignoring the added ∆Haero = stiffness term ∂Haero ∂β (4.25) in ωn . The offset can be explicitly removed from the data (if known) [158].

6.6. Linear theory is used throughout this derivation.e.130 Chapter 4 Analytic Development 4. forces (f ) and moments (m) ˆ The shape functions define the displacement v as: ˆ   d1y  ˆ    ˆ  φ1 ˆ d2y      φ  ˆ2 ˆ v = N d = N1 N2 N3 N4 ˆ (4. A beam element is shown in Fig.30a) . 4.1 Finite Element Formulation The specific approach taken to this derivation is the minimization of potential energy πp = U + Ω. The centrifugal stiffening and linear variation of beam properties are somewhat non-standard and are therefore developed here. natural frequencies (stationary and rotating). described by their mode shapes. p. 4. without centrifugal stiffening). There is no built-in facility in BLADEDTM for computing freely hinged modes. 56] where standard beam equations are presented (constant properties. both in displacements and material properties (i. σ = E ). BLADEDTM uses some form of iterative technique [157] on the beam PDE for conventional fixed-root blades.4 Centrifugally Stiffened Beam In order to include flapping in BLADEDTM which incorporates flexible blades. Figure 4. The approach taken to this problem is to model the blades with an FEM representation. and assumed damping factors for each mode. rotations (φ). using Eq.33 Beam element coordinate system (ˆ–ˆ). BLADEDTM takes as input a defined number of in-plane and out-of-plane modes.6.33.4. a method was required to compute the mode shapes of hinged blades.8). following the general approach and notation of Logan [160. (B. The modes are computed by transforming the structural stiffness through the section twist and pitch angles. displacement (ˆ) and nodal x y v ˆ ˆ ˆ displacements (d).

4. Substituting ˆ the above constituent quantities yields: L L 1 U= 2 0 A 1 E(ˆ.6.6. 6ˆL − 2L2 x x x x L3 (4.36) where the usual integral for the moment of inertia is used: EI(ˆ) = x A E(ˆ. Euler-Bernoulli beam.e. y )ˆ2 dA x ˆy (4.6. y ) = −ˆ B d y ˆ (4.6.6. 6ˆL − 4L2 .6 Structural Modelling 1 2ˆ3 − 3ˆ2 L + L3 x x L3 1 x x N3 = 3 −2ˆ3 + 3ˆ2 L L N1 = 1 x3 L − 2ˆ2 L2 + xL3 ˆ x ˆ L3 1 N4 = 3 x3 L − x2 L2 ˆ ˆ L N2 = 131 (4.6. Direct axial strain (owing to displacement u) is also ignored in this derivation. −12ˆ + 6L. y ) x ˆ x (4.34) 1 σx x dV 2 (4. y ) = dˆ v dˆ x (4.6.30b) The strain may be defined from its definition and the deformed geometry of the beam with axial extension u (see Logan [160]): ˆ u = −ˆ ˆ y x ˆ x (ˆ.38) .6. y )ˆ d B B dAdˆd = x ˆy xˆ 2 T 2ˆ T 0 T EI(ˆ)d B T B dˆd x ˆ xˆ (4.32) ˆ where B is the second derivative of N with respect to x: B = 1 12ˆ − 6L. not Timoshenko beam).35) by neglecting shear stress (i.31b) dˆ u d2 v ˆ = −ˆ 2 y dˆ x dˆ x Using the shape functions N . the strain is found as: x ˆ x (ˆ.6.37) and the product EI in general varies over the length of the beam: EI(ˆ) = (EI)1 + x (EI)2 − (EI)1 x ˆ L (4.6.33) The stress is simply defined as: σx = D The strain energy U is found to be: U= V x = E(ˆ.31a) (4.

An additional term is required to account for “centrifugal stiffening”.6. § 3. k cent .1 + x Equation (4.2 − mps. It was found that using constant EI values (average of end section values) produced significantly different results to this exact equation. yields the elemental ˆ stiffness matrix k stif f : L ˆ k stif f = 0 EI(ˆ) B T B dˆ x x (4.6. As the fibre is strained from length dS to ds = ((dS + dˆ)2 + dˆ2 )1/2 .40a) may be obtained from virtual work or D’Alembert’s principle (see Logan [160] for the derivation). defined “consistently”1 as: m = ˆ V L ρ N T N dV (4. The latter is presented here. 4. as it is more general (e.6. . and using the first three terms of the x binomial expansion of the (.132 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Evaluating Eq. .40a) = 0 mps (ˆ) N T N dˆ x x mps. vibrating tensioned string). The same was found for the mass matrix.42) 1 A lumped-mass formulation was found inadequately accurate. Two approaches are possible to account for this: body forces (Ω term) or pre-stress (U term).6.39) the expanded matrix form of which is omitted here for brevity.34. (4.41) −1 In keeping with linear theory.3]: x = = ds − dS ds = −1 dS dS dˆ u 1+2 + dS dˆ u dS 2 + dˆ v dS 2 1/2 (4. u v the strain developed is [161.1 x ˆ L (4.40b) (4.6. dS ≈ dˆ. mps (ˆ) = mps. as shown in Fig.36) and differentiating for each DOF of the four beam variables and setting each equal to zero (minimum energy condition). essentially increased stiffness. The starting point is to consider a general strained fibre in the beam.g. .)1/2 term above yields: x = dˆ 1 u + dˆ 2 x dˆ u dˆ x 2 + dˆ v dˆ x 2 (4.

6. this reduces to: L 1 U= 2 0 F dˆ v dˆ x 2 dˆ x (4.47) . and integrating over the volume.42) into the above yields Eq. Substituting the first term of Eq.4.43) obtained from the work of internal forces on a differential volume dU = σx d x dV (see [160]). The second term in Eq.46) where N x is the first derivative with respect to x of the shape functions N (see ˆ Eq.6.34 Strained fibre The origin of Eq.30a)).35) is now relevant: x U= V 0 E x d x dV (4.6.44) Equation (4. (4.6.45) where F is the force on the cross-section. This latter term may be integrated by noting that it is a constant (= f ( x )) to yield: U= 1 2 V σx dˆ v dˆ x 2 dV (4. The centrifugal “stiffness matrix” kcent is obtained by taking the derivative as before: L ˆ k cent = 0 F N T N x dˆ x x (4. The equation may be vectorized as: L 1 U= 2 0 ˆ x ˆ F d T N T N x d dˆ x (4.6.44) is the strain energy for the beam bending problem. (4.6.6 Structural Modelling 133 Figure 4. leaving the third non-linear v displacement ˆ term.6. (4.6. substituting σx = E x .42) is ignored as higher order. (4. owing to prestress σx .6.6.6. (4. With an assumed uniform stress over the cross-sections.35).

2 Assembly and Master-Slave Method The overall stiffness matrix ( K ) and mass matrix ( M ) are assembled by superˆ position (direct stiffness method [160]) of the the various element matrices ( k stif f . ˆ k cent and m ). Assuming that external forces perfectly balance the centrifugal forces in the y direction.6. The radius r = Rh + (s1 + x) cos β depends on the hub. (4.6.48) where F2 is the aggregate of the outboard forces and mps varies as in Eq.35 as: L F = F2 + Ω cos β x ˆ 2 mps rdx (4. The Master-Slave method [162] is used to couple the blade root nodes to the central nodes. The general method begins by partitioning the matrix in master nodes u m .1 A ˆ central hub node (with displacement and rotation) is also included. 1 . slave nodes u s . The only exception is for a hub with known stiffness. and “uncommitted” No symmetry is in general present to allow reduction in DOF (in-plane symmetric/antisymmetric modes. and Rh = Rhinge cos β for centrally flapping and teetered roots. The final integrated matrix form of Eq. Note that all rotational DOF φ are the same direction.e. not using general rotated elements). by matching DOF for each blade section element and blade.6.35 Element centrifugal force 4. ˆ the centrifugal axial force is found with reference to Fig.4. teetering.6.134 Chapter 4 Analytic Development It only remains to define the section force F that varies over the blade length.47) is quite large and therefore omitted. and the displacements are normal to the un-deformed blade axes (i.40c). Figure 4. 4. (4. in which case the hub stiffness matrix is simply assembled as above. as Rh = Rhinge for fixed and outboard flapping hinges.

u = T u M = T K = T T T (4. to map the complete set of original DOF to a reduced set u containing u u and u m . g is zero and no external forces are present.4. and solving for u s defines the matrix T : u s = − A −1 A m u m + A −1 g = T u m + g s s which finally yields a reduced system of equations: T (4. .6 Structural Modelling nodes u u :  k uu kT um kT us k um k mm kT ms     fu k us  u u  k ms  u m =  f m    k ss us fs 135 (4.55) ( A global T matrix is assembled in the same manner as the mass and stiffness matrices by superposition.51) T k uu kT um T T k um T k mm T f u − k us g uu = um f m − k ms g (4.6.6. starting with T = I .6.54b) (4.6. a mass matrix is also required.53) The T matrix is augmented from the general formulation. giving: ¨ M u + K u =0 (4.54a) (4.54c) M T K T Two couplings are used between the hub and blade root nodes to define T : • Rigid link of length L     1 0  v1       φ1 0 1  v1  ˆ = ˆ  v2  1 L φ1     φ2 0 1 • Hinge at end of rigid link of length L     1 0  v1  v1 ˆ φ1 = 0 1  ˆ   φ1 v2 1 L (4.49) The constraint equation prescriptively couples DOF with infinite stiffness: Amum + Asus = g Rearranging.6.6.50) (4.52) In this application.

The detailed execution of the task is left for future work. Hinge at Rhinge No rotation of hub.6. In all cases the displacement of the hub node is zero. Before solution. including extraction of a suitable dynamic model for the task. (4.4. For IP modes: Brake Applied (Fixed) No rotation of hub and rigid coupling of blade roots to hub node. Central Hinge No rotation of hub and hinged coupling of blade roots to hub node.7. the modes are sorted from lowest to highest frequency.2 then provides a brief introduction to the synthesis of a dynamic controller. 4.53).4. Teetered Rigid connection between blade roots and hub node.4 Modal Solution The mode shapes are obtained from the eigenvalues (λn ) and vectors ( x n ) returned from Matlab’s eig function. complete with equilibrium coning of the coning rotor. by assuming a solution form of the form u = x exp(iλn t) to yield the standard eigenvalue problem λn M x n = K x n .7 Control This section describes the solution of the wind turbine control problem. . For OP modes: Rigid No rotation of hub and rigid coupling of blade roots to hub node. (4. Free-Hub Rigid connection between blade roots and hub node. the displacements normalized to a maximum of 1 for the largest tip deflection. Section 4. This solves Eq.7.1 presents the derivation and implementation in ExcelBEM of an optimal steady-state control scheduling algorithm. 4.6. Section 4. as only constant speed rotors and fixed applied hinge moments are considered in this thesis.136 4. Eq. The free-body (zero frequency azimuthal rotation) in-plane mode for the free-hub is also discarded.3 Boundary Conditions Chapter 4 Analytic Development The boundary conditions and coupling are specific to the hub.6. After solution.6. no translation of blade roots.53) is further reduced by removing zeroed DOF.

1 Cone Angle Equilibrium The aerodynamic loading on the blade will change with cone angle. since there is no closed-form solution to the operating condition problem. The definition of the control is also different.11 also require iteration in a loop outside the induction factors.2. 4. BLADEDTM includes steady-state power curve calculations. In ExcelBEM. creating a non-linear system. as well as optimal energy capture and power limiting control schedules. Alternatively.7 Control 137 4. requiring the same torque–speed relationships used as target schedules in dynamic simulations. or as fullydefined control schedules. but does not include provision for a flap hinge in this mode. as does free-hinging operation. The wake iterations presented in §4. The challenge of optimal operation for the coning rotor is discussed further in §6. The following equation is solved for the net moment about the hinge: Maero (β) + Mcentrif ugal (β) + Mactuator = 0 (4. The latter are used to define operational target control schedules over the complete wind speed range. steady solutions are required for variable geometry (equilibrium coning). In the present work. a secant method [131] is run as an iterative loop outside the induction factor solution. and rotor speed may also be defined. The latter two may be used either as initial conditions for the optimum and limiting schemes. The solution iterations are confined to the aerodynamics (a and a ). as will the centrifugal stiffening forces.7. These must be provided by the user as either look-up tables or constants defining a generic curve.4.4. Defined schedules with wind speed for applied actuator hinge moment.4. cone angle.1. BLADEDTM does not have a capability within its steady calculations to model this effect.1 Steady State Operation BEM programs typically solve for steady state conditions with a fixed geometry and flow conditions.7. Only static pre-cone may be specified. dynamic simulations may be run to steady state. another level of iteration is required. possibly including yaw correction factors which require azimuthally averaged and iterated values.1) .7. When searching for an operating point defined in the torque/speed plane.

. which may occur on the bounds. Switches for limiting (“Limiting?”) and optimization (“Optimizing?”) specify the output quantity for iteration f (xi ) at iterate xi . Optimal solutions for Ω are found with a modified Golden Section search algorithm [163].138 Chapter 4 Analytic Development The algorithm is initialized with the value of β in memory and a second cone angle 10% larger (or 2◦ for zero intial cone angle).1. The unconed λ is limited to less than 15 at Ωmax by limiting Ω. bounded by the limits on rotation speed. limiting may be with xi = Ω or xi = γpitch . if a free hinge is defined. so at each step of the algorithm the f values on the bounds (Ωmin .37 illustrates the speed windows ∆Ω defining the operational envelope of the rotor. Ωmax ) are compared to the f (x1 ) and f (x2 ) values on the interior of the standard algorithm. Point A represents the upper speed limit at a low wind speed. This was done to avoid numerical problems associated with free hinging and negative power (propeller mode). The function f (xi ) in general has multiple local minima. for two wind speeds. The f (xi ) are either power or torque. 4.7. 4. over the Region II range below rated. Contraction of the search domain then occurs towards the absolute minimum. The “Run BEM” steps include the β iterations of §4. A solution termination tolerance of 0. Each of the scheduling steps is only done if a schedule is defined.001Ωmin and 0. and B the optimal solution for that wind speed. For optimization. the change in variables (Ω or γpitch ) must be less than 0. Robust search algorithms are used to guarantee proper solutions in what is a highly non-linear problem. The algorithm is initialized with bounding values Ωmin and Ωmax . the pitch angle is assumed saturated at its upper or lower limit for PTS and PTF control respectively. in addition to user-input generator rotation speed bounds.1◦ is used on β between iterates. otherwise nominal values are used. Figure Optimizing is only done in xi = Ω.5% change in the limit and nominal values respectively. The overall flow of these calculations is shown in Fig.1◦ respectively.2 Optimal Energy Capture and Limiting Operation The operating point algorithm computes either deterministic performance over the wind speed range. together with solution lagging after 25 iterations. The limiting and optimization iterations are converged to 0. produced aerodynamically or electrically (including parasitic losses).1. or an optimal control schedule (Region II) with or without limiting (Region III).

. . . or until the other bound is reached. The starting point x1 is Ωmax for VSS. This line search is necessary to accommodate all potential shapes of power/torque curves (e. If the other bound is reached. rather than the slower Regula Falsi method [131].max for PTS and PTF. .4. Ωmax and by γpitch. γpitch.7 Control 139 Figure 4. negative slopes).max for PTS and γpitch. The algorithm is bounded for VSS rotors by Ωmin . the algorithm is terminated and limiting is impossible. the modified secant algorithm is used with x1 and x2 as starting points. Otherwise.g. .min for PTF. γpitch. by stepping towards the opposite bound. An initial line search is performed in the variable to locate x2 where f (x1 )f (x2 ) < 0.36 Operating point solution flow chart The limiting iterations are done with a bounded secant method.min .

In reality. these are pathological cases in any event. Point E is an appropriate choice. since the rotor can eventually use pitch when required to limit. the xi step is bounded to the variable limits. Eventually. The wind speed is large enough in these cases that the dimensional power (or torque) exceeds the limit value. The correct choice depends on the operating strategy.37 Speed windows for optimal and limiting operation At each step. and will only be encountered if the upper rotor speed limit is unrealistically high. but would make a controller very hard to design. This step is required in some cases when the speed window is straddling the peak of the power curve. there is usually some constant speed mode near rated to smooth controller mode switching and/or limit tip-speed. since the stall half of the curve is to be tracked past rated power. For the pitch controlled rotor. ideally point C’ would be located. Tracking D would yield lower drive-train torque. 4.140 Chapter 4 Analytic Development Figure 4. For VSS. .37 by point C. In these cases. This is only one possible choice. a drastic speed reduction would be required at higher wind speeds to move from the drag-limited right half of the CP curve to the left stalllimited range. The feedback path from optimized solution to limiting operates only on Ω. but this would require a more costly multi-dimensional optimization. as shown in Fig. as they both correspond to the CP for limiting. the choice is taken to track point D. both D and E are valid solutions. In general.

loop shaping. [164] detailed the controller design for the CONE-450 to effect the steady-state control reference targets developed along the lines of §4. a whole host of controller synthesis methods may then be applied (e. The focus here is on the magnetic circuit. Using the standard representation of the system thus developed. By then taking the Laplace transform of the equations. state-space). can be conducted at various levels. This is a relatively new approach for wind turbines.8 Generator Modelling 141 4. computed at the linearisation point. including any flexible body modes. in that case a single central actuator (i. similar to the aerodynamic and structural analyses presented earlier. the constant terms of the linearisation disappear. They contain parameters dependent on the mass properties of the system. 4. An alternative approach would be to numerically linearise the system directly from a full dynamic simulation. A relatively standard PI-type was used.1. The equations are expressed in perturbation variables of the linearising parameters. PID.7. this approach may prove expedient.4. βj ˙ and βj ). Connor et al. and may be carried out in BLADEDTM . θ. In the original work [66]. The latter gradients are determined numerically from maps of the aerodynamic performance.8 Generator Modelling Generator analysis. The output is a state-space model described by internal state variables and control outputs. taking due care of ˙ the equation parameters that are functions of the linearising parameters (θ.6. Of course. The most detailed . and will certainly be more accurate. Bode plot transfer function shaping was used.7. If pitch control is to be considered in a revised coning rotor design. with estimators for aerodynamic torque and consideration of control-mode switching. lying at the heart of the generator and driving the cost.g. controller synthesis techniques may then be applied for a set of operating points from start-up through shut-down.e. as they have been for standard wind turbines. and a set of 1 + B coupled equations result. The design of the controller was carried out by linearising the EOM for the 2 DOF system. Equa- tion (4.2 Dynamic Control The purpose and time-frame of the current project has precluded any detailed work on a dynamic controller for the coning rotor. β flapping) and rotational θ DOF. A similar approach may be taken on the decoupled flapping concept. and the gradients of the aerodynamic driving (θ direction) and coning (β direction) torques.20) is first fully linearised around an operating point.

Clearly. this level of analysis is well outside the requirements of the current work. Section 4.1 computes representative values for the simplest shear stress model. Concepts employing free convection are quite limited relative to actively cooled designs. an actively cooled 1.2 MW [81] direct drive machine. what is required is a mix of a very simple model using basic parameters. σag can be used to estimate an overall size: τgen = 2πRlσag of air-gap radius R and length l. rather than the machine power rating [166]. Instead. (4.1 kPa [167]. Of course. the design is driven by the torque requirement.2) . the Vensys 1.8. This is because the magnetic fields must be quite strong to develop sufficient torque according to: τgen = Pgen Ωgen (4. To that end.8.8. Considerations of rotor and stator geometry and thermal management serve to further limit the maximum value that σag can attain.1 Shear Stress Generator Model For electrical machines with low rotation speed.1) The magnetic forces developed by the interaction of magnetic fields (created by the magnets and energised windings) manifest themselves as an effective shear stress σag in the air gap between rotor and stator. while §4. For comparison. 4. Backing out the value of σag for a freely cooled design. the following two models are considered. there are trade-offs in complexity and additional cost of the cooling system.5 kPa. The shear stress is itself fundamentally limited by the magnetic flux density that can be accommodated in the iron core and magnets. over the operating conditions of the machine.142 Chapter 4 Analytic Development analysis required for final design work includes FEM simulation of the magnetic flux and temperatures through the rotor and stator. and a more involved parametric analytic model.8. Once the general concept of the generator is determined. the generator requirement does not become unrealistic.8. Both will be required in Part III to place bounds on the generator capacity.9. The thermal management in particular has a large effect. so that together with the costs given in §4. yields approximately 14.2.5 MW design uses a value of 42.2 briefly introduces a parametric model developed by Dubois [165].

and current I of an electric circuit.2 Analytic Magnetic Circuit Generator Model The equations governing magnetic fields may be integrated over the cross-sectional area and average path lengths of a magnetic device. to yield a system of equations analogous to electric circuits [168.4.9 Cost Modelling 143 4. An additional constraint for σag < 25 kPa as also imposed in the present work. equivalent to the voltage V . The basic elements are the magnet M M F and winding nI “motive forces”. The level of detail of the cost model . a diameter D and rotation speed Ω are specified as parameters. 169].1) where cref is the cost of the reference machine/component and µ the percentage of the cost assumed to vary with metric v (e. 4. All parameters are given realistic limits. through aggregated mass dependent cost functions for individual components. to further investigate parametric variation of the generator design parameters in Part III. The only modification to the model that has been made is to change the dimensioning variables to describe an outer rotor (magnets) and inner stator (windings).9 Cost Modelling Obviously an accurate measure of the cost of any new concept must be developed and compared to the existing state-of-the-art in order to definitively demonstrate an economic advantage. That model has been implemented in a spreadsheet analysis by the current author. an the ratio of stator length to diameter Krad . and efficiency η as a constraint (95%).9. The DVs are then pole pitch τp .8. The details of the model can be gleaned from the original thesis. Cost models vary greatly for various scoping studies. and flux Φ. Using Excel’s solver. no-load flux density in the air-gap Bg . mass m). it has been possible to optimize for a specified power or torque requirement. For optimization purposes. resistance R. Dubois [165] has constructed this type of model for sizing of a radial-flux generator. Mass dependent models [16] typically incorporate a fixed and variable component: c = cref (1 − µ) + µ v vref (4. ranging from simple functions of diameter and power. current density J. reluctance R.g. rotor area πR2 . The refinement of the cost model should be commensurate with the level of engineering analysis and stage in the design process. Constraints are also included for field saturation and shortcircuit currents. tooth/slot length ratio in the stator bt /bs . and ultimately vendor tenders for fullydefined components.

The attempt here is therefore to examine the performance trade-offs of various design choices. This should make mass a fairly consistent and reliable measure of cost-effectiveness when comparing the coning rotor to a standard rotor. The costs include both raw material and assembly into a generator. and more quantifiable estimates for the magnetic material costs (§4. 4. leaving to more detailed future studies the task of determining economic optimality. engineering study stage. Even cost estimates for bulk quantities of material can vary widely.9. parts such as the coning actuators and hub are unique to the concept. Ultimately. 4. although reliability may be of concern.1). The CONE-450 report [66] presented a detailed accounting from manufacturers of the costs of major components. Given the resources and focus of the current work. They clearly cover a large range.2 Magnetic Materials Cost One component that has been examined in more detail is the generator.1) will be quite high for the active materials used. Based on the original work. overviewed in §4. The current approach is a proxy cost metric.9. this level of cost detail is inappropriate and beyond the current scope. However.9. this activity is better tackled by a commercial design study. especially those specific to the coning rotor. (4.9.2). the value of µ in Eq.1 Proxy Cost Metric In Part III. As already mentioned. This level of detailed cost is appropriate at a highly refined. material mass. they should not drive the cost of the concept to any great extend. (4. Some notion of the installed costs of these materials has therefore been collated in Table 4. For the most part. This approach is viable. This approach effectively sets µ = 1 and v = m in Eq. in current market conditions. making a fundamental comparison difficult. cost is only accounted for by a proxy metric. For a generator. confused .144 Chapter 4 Analytic Development will also dictate the confidence that can be placed in any optimization results. so that conventional materials and techniques can be compared on a like-for-like basis. any revised coning concept must be accounted for in a similar manner to the original study.1.9. as the rotor blades are the primary component under consideration. depended on market conditions and international exchange rates. and hence will require more detailed work in the future.9.2. the strictly technical merits of the concept are of primary focus. for reasons that will become clear in Chapter 6.

Delft University of Technology. Table 4.4. Laboratory of Electrical Power Processing.2 Active magnetic specific material costs Item Copper Iron Magnet a Dubois [170] (e/kg) 6 6 40 Polindera(e/kg) 10–25 3 20 WindPACT [167] ($US/kg) 13 5 50 Data from personal communication with Dr. The magnet costs are representative of rare-earth materials (NdFeB most common). The Netherlands. Polinder. temporal supply/demand variation affecting cost.9 Cost Modelling 145 further by currency conversion. September 2004 . and the details of the generator design (winding layout. fabrication techniques). Delft.


a uniformly loaded theoretical rotor is examined numerically (§5. Wind tunnel test data for a large rotor is then compared to ExcelBEM predictions in §5. Very large wind tunnels are therefore required.1.1 Aerodynamic Validation Aerodynamic validation is done for three increasingly complex cases. Atmospheric testing is troubled by the non-uniform inflow that cannot be input exactly into simulations for comparison. Finally. The acoustic model is checked next in §5. The aerodynamic behaviour in dynamic inflow conditions is then compared to BLADEDTM in §5.4). 5.1. to exclude blade shape and airfoil effects. λ and geometric similarity. against externally available CFD and experimental results.7. It should be noted that experimental results for wind turbines are quite sparse.5. numerical predictions are compared for a yawed rotor in §5. First. In §5.5. The results in this section are identified by the following labels and unless otherwise noted. doubly so since the wake must freely expand. is the requirement for large models to simultaneously match Re.Chapter 5 Validation In order to have confidence in the analysis methods of Chapter 4 for use in the design work of Part III.1. indicate results from the modified BEM method of §4. as opposed to say aircraft.4.3. they must be validated to the extent possible. a brief verification of the generator model is made in §5. Finally.4 (ExcelBEM): 147 . and the NREL UAE in §C.1. for both coned and unconed rotors.1. The primary problem in turbine testing.8.6.2 is virtually the de facto standard comparison dataset. the former for both idealized and real geometry. Secondly.1. the outputs of BLADEDTM are investigated to ascertain the modifications required to properly analyse the coning rotor. The aerodynamic models are validated first in §5. numerical simulations are compared for a real rotor in §5.1. followed by the structural sectional and beam models in §5.1–§5. demanding tunnels much larger than the rotor.2. to include airfoil effects.

“Unex” is implicit unless otherwise stated.n = CT ρV02 2 Power output is calculated from: R (5.3). Mikkelsen et al. but only the axisymmetric portion of the work is relevant here. the vortex model geometry should be an almost exact representation of the flow conditions. regardless of cone angle β or CT . . For the applied loading to be perpendicular to the coned rotor surface. No airfoil data is used.11).1.5. 5. Standard BEM formulations predict a constant induction a along the blade. avoiding any ambiguity associated with stall delay. With constant loading. as well as real rotor performance. etc.1) P =− 0 1 V1 · fu. vorticity is only shed at the tips. The unit area axial loading fu.n at the set coning angle is found from: 1 fu. At low induction factors with an infinite number of blades. in both axisymmetric and fully 3D actuator line formulations.1 Uniformly Loaded Rotor The classic uniformly loaded rotor (with no tangential loading fθ ) provides a valuable check on the modified BEM method. • “BLADED” indicates BLADEDTM code results. but covered upwind and downwind coning. the normal unit loading fu.2) Note that the CFD studies define cone angle in the opposite sense. Mikkelsen only looked at straight rotors. winglet equipped and curved blades.148 Chapter 5 Validation • “CT Bladed” and “CT Spera” indicate the thrust model used in ExcelBEM (see §4. The power and thrust coefficients are also constant when referenced to the coned disc area.z = fu. • “Unex” and “Ex” indicates unexpanded and expanded wake geometries in ExcelBEM (see §4.1. Madsen’s study investigated only downwind coning on straight. [88] and [89] adopted a vorticity-swirl-streamline model.z of the disc is specified according to the desired thrust coefficient CT .4. a irrelevant).1. to be considered in §5.n 2πrds (5. The numerical results from two full-field CFD studies were used for comparison1 : Madsen and Rasmussen [106] used an axisymmetric Navier-Stokes model with volumetric body forces representing the blade loading.4. • “Madsen” and “Mikkelsen” indicate CFD study results. No swirl is present for the purely axially loaded rotor (i.e.1.

etc.1 Aerodynamic Validation 149 Numerically this equation is evaluated between each blade section assuming linear variation in velocities (induction factors.4 to 1.2.8 1.0 in Fig.0 r/Rtip Figure 5. the induction factor near the tip of the disc grows in both the CFD results and the corrected BEM method with wake expansion.).1. predicts a uniform induction. The thrust model is also observed to have a large effect on the results.35 CT_Bladed.2). the CFD method.1.40 0. Ex Madsen Mikkelsen az 0. CT = 0.20 0.2.15 0.2. illustrating that even a full-field method is subject to considerable uncertainties in this simplest of cases.0 0. 5. 5.1. 4. 5. The current method with no wake expansion predicts uniform induction.4 0.25 0. Ex CT_Spera.1.1.45 0.5.2 Uniform Loading Results The unconed rotor is examined first in §5.1 Unconed Rotor The most basic case of the unconed rotor is presented first in Fig.2 0.30 0.89) At low induction factors. .5. . with the Spera model giving lower a as expected from Fig. Unex CT_Bladed.2. as per the standard theory. 0. 5. Note that Mikkelsen’s CFD results deviate from Madsen’s. like BEM without expanded wake geometry (the light grey horizontal lines in Fig.2. Unex CT_Spera.1.50 0. followed by the coned rotor in §5. With the inclusion of wake expansion however. 5. the correct trend in induction (increasing towards tip) is predicted.1 Uniformly loaded axial induction (β = 0◦ .6 0. As CT rises from 0.

CT_Bladed 0.1 Induction factors normal to the blade an follow similar trends to the axial ones a = az and are not discussed further.4 respectively.5. the Spera model has a lower adisc . as shown in Figs. for reasons elicited later.1.45 0.25 0.15 0. This is still true in the downwind case.50 0.4 Mikkelsen 0.2.89 CT_Bladed 0. for the same CT .2 Uniformly loaded axial induction as a function of loading CT (β = 0◦ ) 5.8 1. 5. Returning to the flow field picture in Fig.2 Coned Rotor The present formulation is able to predict the correct induction factor trend for both upwind (−β) and downwind coning (+β). 0.3 and 5. away from the disc.150 Chapter 5 Validation Again.4. Near the centre of the disc.40 CT = 0.60 0.6 0. as outboard sections see more influence from the proximal shape of the sheet.89 Mikkelsen 1.5. this is predicted qualitatively by the vortex model.55 0.0 CT_Bladed 1. 5. The downwind results of primary interest are better predicted.8 CT_Bladed 0.35 0. while the reverse is true for negative coning angles.30 0. for positive coning.0 Mikkelsen az 0. In order to balance the momentum equations in Referring to Fig. 4.20 0. the induced velocity is reduced as the wake moves outboard. The variation over a wider range of cone angles excluding wake expansion is shown in Fig.4 0.2 0.0 r/Rtip Figure 5.8. 1 .10 0. the disc is sitting in a region of reduced influence from the wake cylinder. from the definition of adisc . The somewhat unintuitive result that the CT Spera induction factors are higher at the centreline than the CT Bladed ones in this case owes to the adisc indexing of the the thrust models. 4.8 Mikkelsen 0.0 0.

45 0.1 Aerodynamic Validation 0.40 0.45 0.4 0. CT = 0.3 Uniformly loaded axial induction (β = 20◦ .0 CT_Bladed.8 1. Ex Madsen Mikkelsen 151 az 0. Unex CT_Bladed.25 0.0 r/Rtip Figure 5.50 0.15 0.8 1.30 0. Unex CT_Spera.40 0.35 CT_Bladed.2 0. Ex CT_Spera.30 0.6 0. Ex CT_Spera.89) . Unex CT_Spera.20 0.50 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.20 0.4 0.89) 0.5. CT = 0.15 0. Unex CT_Bladed.0 0. Ex Mikkelsen r/Rtip Figure 5.25 0.4 Uniformly loaded axial induction (β = −20◦ .35 az 0.

1 Uniformly loaded power coefficients (CT = 0.4 0. when a control volume bounded by the wake and far-field upstream/downstream boundaries is considered. Table 5.0 r/Rtip Figure 5.601 0.588 0.619 0.8 1.573 0.60 0.586 0. Ex CT Spera.05 0.0 0.65 0.593 0.89) CP Mikkelsen Madsen CT Bladed.152 0.50 0.40 Chapter 5 Validation -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 az 0. the induction factors must The aggregate power coefficients (based on coned area) are compared next in Table 5.615 -20 0.592 0. which for the uniformly loaded rotor is determined uniquely by the thrust level.15 0. The attendant wake structure results in identical power outputs for equally sized rotors.601 0.1.35 0.89.618 0.30 0.571 0. The invariance of CP found here and in the CFD results is explained by the wake structure.6 0.25 0.45 0.593 0.604 0.593.20 0. z respectively. The CFD models and modified BEM all predict reasonably close to this value for the straight and downwind coned rotor in all cases. At CT = 0.89. no wake expansion) light of greater than and less than unity be inversely modified. classic BEM theory predicts a power coefficient of 0. the Betz limit.2 0. Unex CT Spera. Unex CT Bladed.616 .586 0.5 Uniformly loaded axial induction as a function of β (deg) for Bladed thrust model (CT = 0.55 0.10 0. Ex 0 0.620 0.616 β (deg) 20 0.

It is instructive to consider the origin of the breakdown in the momentum thrust model. Based on the results. In fact. by neglecting the large separated region at high angles of attack.5. It is in fact the classic Bernoulli derived relation between disc induced velocity and farfield velocity that is presumptuous. as evidenced by the variation in the results with the chosen model. 4. the variation of CP with β is at the level of numerical accuracy for the modified BEM method. encountered more in the upwind case than the downwind one. the wake thickness will grow even larger before finally filling the entire wake space as unsteady large-scale eddies. the layer thickness will grow and follow the tip streamline (i. implying no expansion of the wake.3 Fundamental Model Deficiencies The results obtained demonstrate that it is too simplistic to dismiss BEM as invalid because of the stream-tube independence assumption or planar disc derivation. which from Fig.e. For convenience. there are still deficiencies in the present method. the method is strictly only valid for lightly loaded conditions. Even strongly coupling a viscous boundary larger to an inviscid outer flow is only valid up to a limit slightly beyond stall. As the loading increases. present for real rotors (and not present for the uniformly loaded rotor). inclusion of this geometrical effect is capable of resolving the bulk of the disparity between reality and the standard BEM method. even for the most basic uniformly loaded case. once a radial flow component is included and the mass flow term correctly derived. but is still represented well as a vortex sheet. the Bernoulli rationalisation is usually presented. the wake is confined to a thin shear layer. Leaving aside problems with 2D airfoil predictions. This effect provides some explanation for Mikkelsen’s and the CT Spera cases’ exceedance of the Betz limit. The Betz limit was of course derived from the momentum thrust equation. As stated. such as stall delay. The deviation is much worse for rotors with large a. which predicts ever increasing lift. For a lightly loaded rotor. 5. the key model uncertainty is in the thrust model. At still higher loadings. expand). well modelled by a thin sheet of vorticity. Clearly.1 Aerodynamic Validation 153 Within like thrust and wake expansion models. Glauert discussed the induced velocities of the shed vortex wake as the key link between momentum and blade element theory [98]. but this approach bypasses the core understanding of the physical situation required to account for coning. This is analogous to inviscid airfoil modelling.5 may be slightly low at this induction level. .1.

and hence reduces the predicted induction. eventually becoming impossible. have been tried to correct for high tip speed conditions [128. As a field method. it is capable of resolving the thickening of the wake shear layer. using the Biot-Savart equation to evaluate induced velocities. Numerical convergence problems appear and in any case they are steady formulations that are only capable of accounting for wake expansion. It was found that the turbulent wake state is in fact an unstable transition between the windmill brake state and a vortex ring or propeller brake state flow. Yet another study assumes all turbulent mixing to occur in the very far wake [176]. in the latter the wake is further from the centre of the rotor and so z is larger and a smaller. BEM’s implicit stream-tube independence assumption is therefore hard pressed to deal with either the unsteady mixing or steady-state recirculation flow fields. steady-state convergence is increasingly hard to obtain. The pitch of the wake filaments is considered. As the wake sheet thickens. which must occur for the flow to return to free-stream. Methods based solely on vortex filaments.154 Chapter 5 Validation The CFD results were obtained by inviscid steady-state formulations. The effect can also be thought of as a result of the stream-tube independence assumption. The thrust models are therefore an attempt to capture unsteady viscous behaviour within the confines of a steady inviscid method. This effect can be seen by comparing the unexpanded and expanded wake cases in Fig.89 and for low wind speeds (both high a conditions). The upwind coned case is less accurate because of geometry. as is done here.5. This in turn increases z which is below unity in this case.4. The wake state of a uniformly loaded rotor has been studied specifically using a time-marching full-field scheme to track the development of the flow field from initial uniform conditions to steady state [172]. patched onto the conventional up-stream-downstream inviscid analysis. Both the Spera and Bladed models are fits to the experimental data points in Fig. but in one approach degenerates to the momentum thrust equation [174]. and for the upwind case towards the blade. This . that as loading is increased past CT = 0. 5. Mikkelsen does report however. 4. characterized by a recirculation region through and upstream of the rotor. 173–175]. the meanline moves towards the centreline. which are most likely unsteady conditions as evidenced by their scatter and CFD results [172]. The unsteady flow is also mentioned as an upper constraint on λ in Nygaard’s Euler flow solution [171]. since turbulent mixing will bring energized flow in from the tip towards the core of the flow. and so correctly predicts the induced velocity at the disc.

6 shows the predicted radial velocity for the CT Bladed expanded wake.89) This result is best explained by reference to Fig. 4. Although the magnitude is marginally and uniformly higher than the CFD results. the radial component is almost constant in a circle about the tip. noting the radially induced velocity isocurves.6 0. Figure 5. the variation between cases is negligible. Ex 20 Mikkelsen 0.0 r/Rtip Figure 5.4 0. but is clearly required for a better understanding and prediction of high a performance.5.1 Aerodynamic Validation 155 will have a non-uniform effect on the inboard sections of an upwind coned rotor as the flow mixes in downstream of the rotor tip towards the root sections.1.4 Radial and Far-Field Flow The vortex model confirms the CFD results that the distribution of radial velocity along the blade is nearly independent of cone angle.8 1. and a wake will be shed from that point in the coned and unconed configurations. 0. 5. The straight and downwind coned cases are relatively insensitive in a inboard because of the relative position of wake and blade.3 vr/V0 0.6 Uniformly loaded radially induced velocity as a function of β (deg) (CT = 0. Ex -20 Mikkelsen 0 CT_Bladed. The result is only slightly skewed by the fact that a constant tip radius requires a longer blade for a coned rotor.0 0.2 0. Notice that Mikkelsen’s BEM .8. as the downwind case is of primary interest. As they are centred about the tip.2 0.1 0. Ex 0 Mikkelsen 20 CT_Bladed. Further prediction of this effect is beyond the scope of this work.4 0. The isocurves will therefore cross the blade at modified points.0 0.5 -20 CT_Bladed.

2 Coned Rotor The predicted induction factors are examined first in §5. No results including wake expansion corrections are shown. No 3D stall delay effects (see §4.5.5 Tjaereborg Rotor The modified BEM formulation is immediately applicable to real rotor geometries.46 m radius.1 RPM. The Bladed thrust model results are almost identical to those from BLADEDTM .1. for machine details). The induction factors shown are the product of tip loss factor F and calculated a value. The CFD results predicted uniform induction across the far-wake. The root of the blade is at 1.e. by forcing aF to zero at the tip.5. All single operating point results are for 10 m/s free-stream with a rotor speed of 22.4.8 and 4. which is considered presently (see Appendix C.1.9) were included in the CFD study. Almost identical results to the unexpanded case were obtained by including wake expansion. 1 .1 Unconed Rotor The induction factor distribution for the unconed rotor is shown in Fig.1 as the inclusion of tip loss factor F mitigates the tip-effects seen in the uniformly loaded case.4 and are of ultimate interest in performance prediction for design.1.5. since the radially induced velocity is in fact outboard in all cases. 5. The effect of the thrust model is again evident. 5. the CFD results were presented to the centreline. so spanwise flow effects were not included in the ExcelBEM runs either. inside the limiting stream-tube. unlike the more qualitative results presented by Chaney et al.7.4.3. aerodynamic force calculation) for an unconed rotor. to show the average induction. [100] for an assumed unmodified induction factor. 5. This is consistent with the vortex model which predicts a uniform induction downstream away from the leading edge of the sheet (analogous to the magnetic field in an infinite solenoid). Mikkelsen’s CFD study included results for the Tjaereborg rotor.156 Chapter 5 Validation method radially induced velocity vector (normal to blade) is in the wrong direction for upwind coning. however. Loading predictions are presented second in §5. since radial flow does not affect either the axial momentum balance or flow relative to the section (i.5. as these are good indicators of the efficacy of the aerodynamic model. lowering the curve for the Spera model results.

Results for the single inboard model are not shown inboard of 0. it predicts lower a values. This is particularly evident near the tip where aF rises for the Bladed thrust model.00 0.40 0.35 0.12) provide a marginally better prediction at mid-span.5. especially over the outer portion of the blade.20 0.0 CT_Spera CT_Bladed Mikkelsen BLADED r/Rtip Figure 5. but overall degrade the accuracy of the results.10 0. compared to the Bladed thrust model that produces results closer to the CFD ones.5.4.3 Induction Results The downwind coning case is examined first in Fig. since the values of a become quite large as .50 0.7 Tjaereborg axial induction (β = 0◦ ) 5.0 0.25 0. as it predicts zero induction ( z = 0) for r < 0. Figure 5.30 157 az 0.8 1. the BLADEDTM results are much higher than all of the other results.2Rtip . 5. as the induction factors are above ac in both models. iteration on the BEM calculated loading back into the shed vorticity calculations would have doubtlessly improved the results.2Rtip .8.9 shows the upwind coning predictions for the various models.6 0. Obviously the chosen vorticity distribution for the multiple vortex model is arbitrary. The modified BEM results for both Spera and Bladed wake models track the magnitude and trend of Mikkelsen’s CFD results quite well.4 0.1 Aerodynamic Validation 0. The Spera thrust model again predicts lower a than the Bladed thrust model. As the radial velocity component becomes important. The alternate wake geometries (see §4.2 0.05 0. that iteration would detract from the simplicity of the BEM equations.1. Unfortunately.15 0. As ac is lower for the Spera thrust model.45 0.

8 Tjaereborg axial induction (β = 20◦ ) F → 0.8.50 0.6 0.45 0.00 0. as evidenced by the increasing deviation between BEM and CFD results in Fig. 5.8 1.2 0. This may be explained by reference to Fig.15 0.10 0. .30 Chapter 5 Validation az 0. due to the variable loading along the blade length. Single CT_Bladed. 4.40 0. The cumulative influence is therefore much greater and felt increasingly towards the root.0 0.0 CT_Spera CT_Bladed Mikkelsen BLADED CT_Bladed.20 0. The modified BEM method does again follow the right trend. the entire blade is inboard and behind the forward lip of the sheets shed by the outer portions of the blade. The radial component becomes more important in the real rotor case.35 0.25 0.9 towards the root.4 0.158 0. outperforming the BLADEDTM results in the sense that BLADEDTM is invariant with the coning direction. In the upwind coned case however. as the disc loading must be predicted from the velocity relative to the blade. Mult r/Rtip Figure 5. For the downwind coned rotor. Otherwise. creating a double dependence on the radial velocity. The single vortex wake geometry moderately improves the results near to the attachment point at 20%Rtip . noting that a cylindrical vortex sheet does not produce much influence upwind and at greater radii than the sheet’s own outer radius. The predictions for β < 0◦ are generally poorer than those downwind. this means that most of the rotor is sitting in a region of reduced sensitivity to the sheets.05 0. both alternate wake geometries again generally degrade the results.

The figure is fully non-dimensional. In terms of integrated loading at s = 1.9 Tjaereborg axial induction (β = −20◦ ) 5.5.20 0.30 159 az 0.10 0.15 0. under-predicting around r/Rtip = 0.6% below the modified BEM results and bending moment 4. the CFD and BEM results agree quite well. shown in Fig. The shift with downwind coning is similar for both CFD and modified BEM method. but obtained from the same operating points as used in the CFD study. For upwind coning the loading is uniformly under-predicted.4 Loading Results The aerodynamic loading on the blade is shown in Fig. 5. The other main aggregate performance metric is the power coefficient CP (based on coned radius).11. The BLADEDTM and CT Bladed results are almost identical for the unconed rotor. the CFD results are higher but in relative agreement. When coned downwind.25 0. for β = 20◦ the shear force predicted by BLADEDTM is 6.05 0. the loading under-predictions are 3. given the initial discrepancy at β = 0◦ .45 0.6 0. under predicting the modified BEM method and CFD in all cases for r/Rtip < 0.2% respectively. Single CT_Bladed.4 0.2 0. For β = −20◦ .5.40 0.0 0.1 Aerodynamic Validation 0. which set the average pitch angle of the blade as a function of wind speed.1. BLADEDTM predicts the same distribution for ±β.8.10.35 0.9. Mult r/Rtip Figure 5. the modified BEM method tracks the CFD results fairly well.8% and 5. For the unconed case. demonstrating recovery of the standard BEM results at β = 0◦ . With no coning.8 1.00 0.50 0.46 m (the blade root location).0 CT_Spera CT_Bladed Mikkelsen BLADED CT_Bladed. The upwind coning prediction is much less well predicted by the current . 5.9% too low.

A coning rotor derives its energy capture advantage in this region. The discrepancy at β = 0◦ for both BEM methods presumably relates to the thrust model.160 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 3000 2500 2000 1500 Chapter 5 Validation Fx. which is absent from the CFD predictions. but note that the corrections are substantial down to λ = 5. controlled wind tunnel rotor test.2 0. BLADEDTM is of course only capable of a single prediction for an absolute coning angle.2 0.11. 5. the accurate prediction of root bending moment is also important. corresponding to a V0 of 14 m/s for the Tjaereborg machine. aero (N/m) 0.4 r/Rtip 0.0 0.6 0.0 Figure 5.6 0. 5. For the coning rotor. The shift in CP is much larger than either modified BEM or CFD in both cases. The modifications considered in this section all relate to a more accurate treatment of induction at the rotor. as BEM transitions from the empirical thrust curve to the momentum derived one.8 1.6 NREL UAE The UAE dataset provides a unique repository of data collected from a large-scale. This is evidenced by the increasing agreement between CFD and BEM towards lower λ. aero (N/m) -20 Mikkelsen -20 CT_Bladed 0 Mikkelsen 0 CT_Bladed 20 Bladed 0. Appendix C.8 1. This is shown in Fig.10 Tjaereborg aerodynamic loading as a function of β (deg) method.2 gives the background and relevant . so accurate prediction of power over this range is important.1. and can therefore be expected to have reduced significance at low λ (low induction). for determining operational coning angle and loading.0 Fx.0 0.4 r/Rtip 0 Mikkelsen 1000 0 CT_Bladed 0 BLADED 20 Mikkelsen 500 20 CT_Bladed 20 Bladed 0 0. due to the reasons previously discussed. This covers the critical Region II energy capture wind speed range when the rotor is tracking optimal CP up to rated power.

1 NREL UAE Baseline Before the results of the wind tunnel tests were made public. 5.35 0.6. [177.40 161 CP 0. The blade tip pitch was 3◦ .50 0.55 0.30 0.1. The second case. and a number of airfoil datasets for the blade airfoils were provided. a competition was held to predict the results of the various test sequences.35 0.11 Power coefficient map for rotor operating points as a function of β (deg) technical details of the UAE dataset.4◦ . Upon clarification with NREL. but was not examined here because it had a rigid cone angle of only 3. Sequence S has data available from 5–25 m/s and F from 10–20 m/s. The predictions were made solely on the geometric and operational parameters of the turbine. Sequence F.5. 1 .30 0.40 0.25 λ 8 10 0.20 12 4 -20 Mikkelsen -20 CT_Bladed 0 Mikkelsen 0 CT_Bladed 20 Bladed 6 λ 8 10 12 Figure 5. A variety of codes were used from BEM to full CFD.45 0. p.45 0. this comment refers to an excessive centrifugal force along the blade that is not counterbalanced by the thrust loads until higher wind speeds. is for a downwind rigid rotor coned to 18◦ . It turned out that even for the most simple. Hand et al.25 0. Sequence S.20 4 6 CP 0 Mikkelsen 0 CT_Bladed 0 BLADED 20 Mikkelsen 20 CT_Bladed 20 Bladed 0. The first is Sequence S. teeter was locked out with rigid links. Two test sequences are of immediate interest in relation to exploring coning rotor aerodynamics. 17] states that “excessive inertial loading prevented operation at lower wind speeds”. steady case.50 0.1 Aerodynamic Validation 0. the upwind baseline case with no probes installed on the baseline blade.55 0.1 Sequence C was the downwind baseline case. from among the numerous data campaigns available. and yaw angle 0◦ .

Even in the controlled conditions of the wind tunnel. [179] have used a vortex lattice method to determine the flow conditions at the blade sections (principally AOA). there was significant variation of power with azimuth angle. numerous authors have analysed the data [104.13.1 Since then.6. the outboard ones over-predict the power. 5.1. Including stall delay in ExcelBEM (“w SD”) improves the prediction markedly. presumably owing to the greater influence of the coned rotor inertia on the torque strain gauge measurements. 109]. The BLADEDTM and ExcelBEM results without stall delay (“Plain”) are in exact agreement. Note the error bars for a few points on the measured data. leading to the over-prediction and underpredictions seen respectively in lower and upper parts the power curve. focusing on the stall-delay phenomenon.12 presents predictions and measurements of the power curve and normal force coefficients (cn ) for Sequence S.2 Sequence S Figure 5. and under-predict power drastically in the stalled region. While the inboard sections under-predict cn with the stall delay model. It appears that a complicated stall region is developed on the blade. even at low wind speeds. The first point to note is the generally low induction factors in Fig.162 Chapter 5 Validation the predictions varied greatly from around stall to 25 m/s [178]. The results are fairly typical of other BEM predictions [104].1. but still with significant deviation from the measured results. Only one full CFD method was able to predict the aerodynamic behaviour with any accuracy. with the mid-section isolated by strong vortex “stall fences” inboard and outboard. to then back out the lift and drag properties from the pressure tap measurements. This means that unfortunately. the results for the coned Sequence F are given in Fig. matching very well before stall occurs.3 Sequence F Bearing in mind the difficulties of predicting even the most simple case. 5. the results are relatively insensitive to the aerodynamic coning corrections. All this is to say that all but the most advanced CFD codes have significant trouble predicting this set of data.6. The error bars on the measurement results are also much larger.13(b). Gerber et al. 5. The machine and blades were quite rigid. 1 . 5. so structural response had only a second-order effect on the results. The cn plots (obtained from pressure tap data) clearly illustrate the delay in stall of the sections.

especially around rated. Addition of the centrifugal pumping stall delay effects (with SD) improves the predictions markedly. and hopefully less complicated stall behaviour. Ultimately.63r/R (d) 0. the difference owing to the geometrics of the two solution algorithms.5 1. Finally.5.95r/R Figure 5. are required to better compare analytic . including sweep stall delay effects as well (“w C & SD & S”) improves agreement with the measurements.1 Aerodynamic Validation 12 10 3.5 1.5 0.5 Measured Excel BEM 0.5 2. Adding the coning correction factors z and r (“w C” and “w C & SD”) only slightly modifies the results without and with stall delay.0 0.5 Measured Excel BEM 0.12 NREL UAE Sequence S measurements and predictions (cn data include centrifugal stall delay) The BLADEDTM and “Plain” results are quite similar.0 Cn 0.0 163 Aero power (kW) 8 6 4 2 0 Measured BLADED Plain w SD 5 10 Cn 1.0 1.5 (b) 0.30r/R 1.0 2.0 5 10 15 20 25 Cn 0.0 Measured Excel BEM 5 10 15 20 25 Wind speed (m/s) 15 20 25 Wind Speed (m/s) (a) Power curve 1. experimental results at higher induction factors.0 5 10 15 20 25 Wind Speed (m/s) Wind Speed (m/s) (c) 0.

5. .e.164 12 10 Chapter 5 Validation 0. since it is more advanced and includes unstalled unsteady aerodynamic effects. As expected.00 5 7 9 0.04 0.02 20 Measured BLADED Plain wC w SD w C & SD w C & SD & S Aero power (kW) 8 6 4 2 0 a 5 Wind speed (m/s) 10 15 0.14 0. but required a solution tolerance on a of 10−5 for exact agreement. Both models did produce lift hysteresis loops.3) was run to obtain results for both equilibrium and dynamic wake solutions.1. Finally. and related to the solution tolerance on a. First. The BLADEDTM model exhibited this feature well below stall as well.3 0. to the extend possible (i. the same blade profile but with LS1-GH airfoils (from §C.08 0.9 r/R (a) Power curve (b) Induction factors for low wind speeds (m/s) with coning corrections and stall delay Figure 5.5 6 8 10 0.10 0. Again.7 Dynamic Inflow ExcelBEM in unsteady flow has been validated against BLADEDTM . as expected from the difference in dynamic stall models. without coning or yaw). the results were in agreement. but wind shear was added.1 0.16 0.12 0. a simple blade of uniform chord and twist and airfoils with 2πα lift curve were run with dynamic inflow solution method. No dynamic stall model was turned on. the dynamic stall models were turned on in both BLADEDTM and ExcelBEM.13 NREL UAE Sequence F measurements and predictions predictions. Again no stall delay model was used. Next.7 0. The difference in results between BLADEDTM and ExcelBEM was extremely small. the results were not exactly identical.06 0.

5. the dynamic formulation artificially introduces a time-lag.8 Yawed Flow Mikkelsen [89] also compared his CFD results to actual test data for the real Tjaereborg machine §C. The CFD results (and of course “Exp”) include a flexible structural model. The prediction improvements for the revised BEM method are most noticeable in the peaks near θ = 90◦ and 270◦ where the wake influence is greatest. 5. The “Corr” results include the terms from vortex theory. The datasets available were azimuthally binned “flapwise” bending moments (properly My ) at the blade root (r = 1. This effect.1.1 Aerodynamic Validation 165 5. they should be merely varying with local flow conditions created by a steady-state wake. The CFD results. are most likely related to the structural flexibility that is unmodelled in the BEM results.1 The wind shear exponents α and hub-height wind speed V used (based on experimental data) are noted in the figures. with the artefact that the changing blade forces and induction factors with azimuth are accelerating the flow.46 m). and the lower peak moments for ψyaw = −3◦ . relative to the dynamic inflow formulation. The formulations are not entirely equivalent. Even so. when the correction factors are included. while the “NoCorr” results use the default values that transform the equations to the standard ones in BLADEDTM .1. This is understandable. The dynamic inflow model of §4.5.14(b) is likely a structural modelling effect. In general. The reduction in the moment decrease through the tower wake of Fig. There is a relative offset of the tower effect in all cases past θ = 180◦ in the CFD and Exp results. while the rest do not.6 is used by default.4. BLADEDTM “BLADED” and predictions from ExcelBEM. 5. the other yawed cases are generally in good agreement with the Exp and CFD results.14. given that the flow is in fact steady. In fact. except for the steady (equilibrium wake) formulation for the “Corr Stdy” results.14. it appears that the corrected steady formulation is a closer match to the comparison data. 1 . The nominally un-yawed case in Fig.14(a) shows good agreement between the various BEM formulations. “Mikkelsen” in Fig. owing to the different treatments of induced and structural velocities in the iterative solution. are compared against the experimental “Exp”. Noting this un-yawed discrepancy.

31 My (kNm) 450 400 350 300 250 200 0 90 180 270 360 My (kNm) 400 350 300 250 200 150 0 90 180 270 360 Azimuth (deg) (c) ψyaw = −51◦ . V =8. α = 0. α = 0.166 750 700 650 600 Chapter 5 Validation 700 My (kNm) 650 My (kNm) 0 90 180 270 360 550 500 600 550 450 400 500 0 90 180 270 360 Azimuth (deg) (a) ψyaw = −3◦ .8 m/s.5 m/s.17 650 600 550 500 550 500 450 Azimuth (deg) (b) ψyaw = 32◦ .30 Corr Stdy Figure 5. α = 0.14 Tjaereborg root bending moments in yawed flow . α = 0.27 700 Exp 600 Mikkelsen BLADED NoCorr Corr Azimuth (deg) (d) ψyaw = 54◦ . V =7.3 m/s. V =8.6 m/s. V =8.

and dynamic wake modelling is used. conveniently giving a 3P frequency of 1 Hz.3) were computed for the upwind configuration. The rotor speed is 20 RPM. but below pitch action). as expected from the original equations (see §4. Even without tower influence. The primary source is the near-field. [132] provides figures for the WTS-4 turbine (2 MW in 12 m/s wind). The observer in all of the following is 100 m downwind in a wind of 11 m/s (rated power.3. as reference machine data was not available. [141] examined the Maglarp 3 MW machine. 1 . Barman et al. it spiked to 95 dB. downwind machines. wind shear.1 Post-processing is done for re-sampled data at 1000 Hz with a 4096-point FFT. in terms of approximate magnitude and frequency response.6 Hz either side of the peak.2 Acoustics Validation Validation of the acoustics model was hampered by a lack of experimental or computational comparison data. Both were associated with passage through the tower wake. Spatially. near-zero and high frequency components. As comparison. except below 2 Hz where instead of continuing to decrease. The predicted SPL peaks were at 75 dB at 10 Hz. and tower influence are excluded to start.12 km downwind at ground-level. the thickness noise is negligible. lobes were found up-wind and downwind for an observer 200 m away from the tower base. using ExcelBEM.15 presents pressure and SPL for the isolated rotor. whereas predictions were ±1. The SPLs given are for the summed octave bands to 50 Hz.2 Acoustics Validation 167 5.5.5 m downwind at ground level. All forms of stall delay are turned off.2). Sounds levels were found to be up to 80 dB for an observer 91. both frequency response and directivity patterns. Wagner et al.5. it is clear that the moving forces produce a pressure signature at the observer location. and again presented experimental and predictive results. The predictions followed fairly closely. Only qualitative comparison has been possible. including detailed and simplified models and experimental measurements. both for actual pressure sound level. results for the REF-1500 (see §C. Figure 5. with a peak near 5 Hz experimentally and roll-off to 65 dB at 20 Hz.6– ±3 Pa. Fortunately both sets of results are for large. The observer location was 0. the former of which is not noise and the latter inaccurately predicted by the current method. As will be seen throughout. The experimental results showed pressure spikes of ±1 Pa about a mean. This excludes the zero. decreasing to 35 dB at 50 Hz and 60 dB at 1. Shaft tilt.

Adding wind shear has fairly minimal effect on either spectral content or SPL. but bear in mind the observer is only 100 m away.4 -0.3 and ww = 2. the SPL is reduced further. The frequency content is clearly centred at the blade passing frequency.3 (above Recrit ).18 illustrates the observer pressure signature.15 Simple isolated rotor acoustic prediction Figure 5.1 6.7 -0.3 -0.16 shows the effect of including the tower influence (without tilt).2 thk near far total 50 0 -50 -100 0 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 p (Pa) -0. With the rotor downwind and taking lw = 3. Figure 5.6 -0.19 shows the energy content is shifted to somewhat higher frequency (audibility) compared to the upwind case.3 12. These are only mildly higher than the data presented in the other quoted studies.5 6 tObs (s) (a) Pressure f (Hz) (b) SPL Figure 5. Figure 5.2. The same accuracy in not evidently required for the overall SPL. Three cases are shown for increasing refinement of the aerodynamic simulation time-step. With wind shear. ∆ = . the assumed pressure around the tower causes quite large velocity fluctuations even for this upwind case. 5. 5.25. the SPL is 88.5◦ steps are required (at least near the tower. It is clear from Fig.8 0 2 4 f (Hz) SPL (dB) 50 0 -50 -100 1. reducing the SPL by 9 dB.16 that to capture 9P content and above.168 100 Chapter 5 Validation SPL (dB) 0 -0. It also shows the peak reduction by tilt.17. 0.5◦ step is used in the remainder of the results. and as shown in Fig. and then cd = 0 for the tower.6 3. A 0. The SPL still appears quite high.3 dB with tilt. this could be relaxed away from the tower).5 as typical for a cylindrical tower [87]. It is likely that the current “test” rotor is .1 -0. which typically exhibits peaks at the 3P frequency.4 dB without tilt and 85.5 -0. governed by the azimuthal step in degrees. as shown in Table 5. The tower cd is 0. Including the tilt (5◦ ) moves the blades away from the tower.

which would further modify the footprint. 5.20.7 83. followed by the FEM beam model in §5.6 proportionally closer to the tower.2 Upwind SPL predictions Case Isolated rotor Tower influence 2◦ step 1◦ step 0.5.3 77. The shift in the crossstream direction is consistent with the comparison data set [132] and is caused by the rotor advancing/retreating from the observer.6 3.2.1 73.3 Structural Validation The cross-sectional model is validated first in §5.16 SPL for upwind rotor with tower influence for varying azimuthal step size (deg) Table 5. The acoustic footprint of the rotor is given in Fig. The lobes are caused by the dominant forces being aligned with the free-stream.5 25 f (Hz) Figure 5.1.5 20 f (Hz) 100 SPL (dB) 75 50 25 0 1. .3.0 72. No account is made of acoustic reflectivity from either the ground or tower.5◦ step Tilt Tilt and wind shear Tilt and wind shear and cd = 0 SPL (dB) 17.3 12. 5.1 6.9 73.4 81.3 Structural Validation 100 169 SPL (dB) 75 50 25 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2 1 0.3.

2 -0.4 0.18 Effect of tilt on pressure signature for upwind rotor .5 p (Pa) p (Pa) 0 2 4 6 0 -0.5 9 120 100 80 20 60 40 -40 0 -20 40 z y z y (a) No tilt (b) With 5◦ tilt Figure 5.17 Effect of tilt on section out-of-plane velocity for upwind rotor (global coordinate system) 1 thk near far total 0.4 -0.6 -0.5 -1 -0.170 Chapter 5 Validation 11 11 10.8 -1.5 Vop (m/s) 10 9 8 7 120 100 40 80 60 40 -40 -20 20 0 Vop (m/s) 10 9.5 -1 0 2 4 6 tObs (s) (a) No tilt tObs (s) (b) With 5◦ tilt Figure 5.2 0 thk near far total 0.

.20 Acoustic footprint (dB) of downwind rotor with tilt and shear 5. The analytic formulae were obtained and derived from the standard analysis methods (parallel-axis theorem. etc.19 Effect of tilt on downwind rotor SPL 105° 90° 75° 120° 135° 150° 165° 90 ±180° -165° -150° 60° 45° 30° 15° 80 70 0° -15° -30° -135° -45° -120° -60° -105° -90° -75° Observer azimuth (0° downwind) Figure 5. The other shapes matched identically.) presented by Ugural and Fenster [151].2% at for 100 chordwise sections).3. refinement of the element size (arc-length) showed asymptotic convergence to the analytic value (below 0.3 Structural Validation 100 80 171 No tilt SPL (dB) 60 40 20 0 Tilt 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 f (Hz) Figure 5. box section and I-beam.1 Sectional Properties The sectional computations were verified against analytic formulas for a thin ring.5. For the circle. for all stiffness and mass properties.

and the CONE-450 blade (§5. stiffness. and flexible blade length L = 1 (§5. linearly varying mass and stiffness (both 1.2).172 Chapter 5 Validation 5.24). are given in Fig. When the frequencies are identical. Double curvature. as expected. as evident in 1 Note that lhub = Rhinge in the vernacular of §4. as were clamped and freerotation for the in-plane modes. 5.2.2. the OP modes show the blades completely un-coupled. for all but the flapping boundary condition. BLADEDTM solves for modes that typically have motion of all blades simultaneously.1–0. root– tip) with L = 1 (§5.3). 2 The differences between the two sub figures owe to the coordinate definitions. (4. representing the offset of the blade root from the rotation axis.1 and the rotation speed Ω is 100 RPM.3. The IP modes however showed some discrepancies. In the figures to follow. With flapping hinges.2.3. 5. those from BLADEDTM by crosses.21 and Fig. The results have no flap hinge and lhub = 0.1. The BLADEDTM results for this test case deviate from the FEM results for the collective IP mode shapes.6.4 for an un-hinged blade. The FEM method typically produced modes in which one blade is displaced and the others have no displacements (for clamped root conditions). The modal frequencies λn are given as e.23 shows the modes with a teetered hub. Figure 5.2 Beam Model The beam model has been checked against BLADEDTM ’s modal predictions.1). Four test cases are considered: uniform (unity) mass. For two (three) bladed rotors with freely rotating hub. the modal basis vectors describe the same eigenspace. and the rotating modes are higher frequency. the FEM results agree with Eq. The mode shapes and frequencies are identical to those from BLADEDTM . what is meant is that the modal basis vectors are equivalent. 4 Hz (5 Hz) for FEM (BLADEDTM ) results.2.6. as shown in Fig.4). which is not part of BLADEDTM ’s capability. BLADEDTM uses a positive displacement for upwind motion of all blades. with freely rotating hub.2. GH Demo blade (§5. whereas the FEM formulation couples the rotation of the hub node in teeter.2 The rigid-body modes associated with teeter are clearly present. As expected. Where it is stated that the two sets of results are same. The static and rotating mode shapes are identical in all cases.3. 5.3. Two and three bladed rotors were checked. 5.g. .22.3.3. the OP and IP modes for a rotor with three uniform blades.24. the FEM results are given by dots. every second (third) mode differed in frequency and shape.1 Uniform Blade For reference. so that positive displacement is upwind for one blade and downwind for the other.

however the BLADEDTM results were found to have some minimal displacement at the root for both OP and IP modes.5 0 -0.8 1 d r #9: 12.4 0. The IP modes were also again different for the collective modes. The discrepancies in the BLADEDTM IP results seem to indicate some finite stiffness is associated with the hub. BLADEDTM gives a zero displacement at the root.5 -1 0 r #5: 5.4 0. As the hub is free to rotate.5 0 -0.5 -1 0 0. 5.2 0.6 0. The internal details of the BLADEDTM method were not available.2 0.6 0.5 0 -0. the offset should yield some displacement at the root (ˆroot = φhub lhub for small angles).8 1 #2: 1.5 0 -0.5 -1 0 0. As will be This may also be justified by drawing the BLADEDTM modes as a rotor. The mode shapes are not shown. by increasing v lhub to 49.6 0.5 0 -0. 1 .4 0.5 0 -0.2 0.2 0.5 -1 0 0.4 0.3 Structural Validation 173 #1: 1.1 As shown in Fig.86 Hz 1 0.2 0. Further investigation.22.4 0.8 1 r #7: 12.3.5 -1 0 0. gave the results in Table 5.50 Hz 1 0.5 -1 0 0.06 Hz 1 0.8 1 r r d r Figure 5.5 0 -0. must exist for these modes. so the cause could not be definitively determined.06 Hz 1 0.5.5 -1 0 0.50 Hz 1 0.2 0.6 0. It is then obvious that a moment would have to be present at the hub for the deflections predicted by BLADEDTM to occur. Increasing lhub to 0. there should be sets of B − 1 reactionless modes and a single collective mode. 5.8 1 #3: 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0 -0.4 0.2 0.5.2 0.86 Hz 1 0.6 0.5 -1 0 r #8: 12.8 1 d r #6: 5.4 0.6 0.06 Hz 1 0.5 0 -0.8 1 d d r #4: 5.8 1 d d 0.50 Hz 1 0.6 0.8 1 d d 0.21 Uniform blade OP rotating modes the FEM results.5 -1 0 0. owing to the free hub.4 0.86 Hz 1 0.4 0. The IP modes shown in Fig. the OP modes still match.25 again exhibit the slope error just discussed.

5 0 -0.5 -1 0 0.8 0.6 -0.8 1 #2: 1.6 0.2 -0.4 0.5 0 -0.6 B2:2 0.2 0.22 Uniform blade IP rotating modes 1 0.5 -1 0 r #8: 12.5 0 -0.6 0.2 0.5 -1 0 0.174 Chapter 5 Validation #1: 1.2:3 0.4 0.8 1 d d 0.06 Hz 1 0.5 0 -0.6 0.4 0.8 -1 B1.2 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 d r #9: 19.5 -1 0 0.6 -0.6 0.6 0.5 0 -0.8 1 r #7: 12.2 -0.8 1 d d r #4: 5.2:2 B2:3 B2:1 B1.8 1 d d 0.5 -1 0 0.2 0.5 -1 0 r #5: 5.23 Uniform blade OP rotating modes for teetered hub (Blade number:mode number) .6 0.50 Hz 1 0.5 0 -0.5 0 -0.8 1 0 0.86 Hz 1 0.5 0 -0.4 0.59 Hz 1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.06 Hz 1 0.8 1 r r d r Figure 5.5 -1 0 0.85 Hz 1 0.8 1 -1 0 r/R (a) BLADEDTM r/R (b) FEM Figure 5.35 Hz 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 #3: 4.4 0.50 Hz 1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 -0.2 0.8 Normalized displacement 0.4 0.2:1 B1:2 B1.2 0.8 1 d r #6: 10.4 0.8 1 B1:1 Normalized displacement B1:3 0.5 0 -0.6 0.5 -1 0 0.86 Hz 1 0.4 -0.2 0 -0.5 -1 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 -0.6 0.

4 0.6 0.5.6 0.8 1 r/R (a) Mode 3.2 -0.5 free-hub rotating uniform blade with IP modes.25 lhub = 0.47 Hz) Figure 5.6 0.2 1.8 1 Normalized displacement 0. 4.6 0.2 0 -0.2 0 -0.8 1 1 0.01 Hz (2.2 -0.8 175 Normalized displacement 0.6 0.2 0.4 0 0.6 0 0.4 0.8 1 Normalized displacement Normalized displacement 0.50 Hz) Figure 5. FEM (BLADEDTM ) -0.6 1 -0.6 0.8 0.4 0.85 Hz (1. FEM (BLADEDTM ) .2 0.94 Hz (6. 4.4 0.4 0.4 0.86 Hz) r/R (b) Mode 6.24 Free-hub rotating uniform blade IP modes.3 Structural Validation -0.6 0.2 0 -0.59 Hz (5.4 0.8 1 1.2 -0.35 Hz) r/R (b) Mode 6. 10.4 0.2 0.2 0 -0.8 0 0.8 0.2 1.4 0.6 0 0.4 -0.4 r/R (a) Mode 3. 8.4 -0.8 0.8 1 1.2 0.2 -0.6 -0.6 0.4 -0.

64 2. and Table 5.3 DEMO Blade The inclusion of generally varying stiffness. 5.3. The OP frequencies do match in all cases.176 Chapter 5 Validation Table 5.2.71 14. and is valid for real blades.57 0.4 list the associated λn .56 0.24 14.3 and §5.64 9.56 0. In contrast to the uniform and tapered blade. as well as collective pitch and modest offset.24 14.56 0. for both a rigid 3-bladed rotor and teetered 2bladed rotor.56 0.3. The present test case is therefore a pathological example that with very small blade mass.2.24 14. . It is likely some stiffness value is used for the hub in BLADEDTM .2. stiffness and length drastically alters the usual hub–blade stiffness relationship.3.4. presumably owing to the different numerical approaches. the BLADEDTM results do not exhibit this error. for a real geometry the BLADEDTM and FEM results are in very close agreement for the collective modes.2. with the same discrepancies discussed for the uniform blade. Figure 5.56 0.56 0. Comparison with BLADEDTM results at 18 RPM.56 0.3 Uniform blade with long hub eigenfrequencies (lhub = 49) Mode # OP Static (Hz) BLADEDTM FEM 0.90 Rotating (Hz) BLADEDTM FEM 2. There were small differences in λn for higher modes (>= 6 for 3 bladed rotor). the results matched BLADEDTM . The BLADEDTM method is a pragmatic one.56 0. which is curious.56 0.56 0.2 TaperedBlade The tapered blade was compared for both lhub = 0 and 0.58 IP 1 2 3 1 2 3 shown for realistic blade properties in §5.64 2. Overall. sixth and ninth collective IP modes.5. tests all facets of the FEM method. producing odd results only for unrealistic pathological test cases.64 2. mass and twist. showed virtually identical results.26 shows the third. considering the finite deflection at the root for the BLADEDTM results.24 14. 5.64 2.3.24 22.

4 0 10 3 20 30 40 r (m) (a) BLADEDTM r (m) (b) FEM Figure 5.8 0. Jamieson [66] used a custom version of .2.8 0.37 16.24) predicts 0.4 0 10 20 30 40 -0. To achieve that status. Eq. with full Germanischer Lloyd certification and a development period of 20 years. and with the properties in §C.5.6 0.10 8. 5. the code has been stretched to allow analysis of the coning rotor.2 Normalized displacement 0. It should be noted that for the original CONE-450 work.11 8.4 6 9 6 0. which is exactly equal to the first three frequencies from the FEM code.4 Collective IP eigenfrequencies for Demo blade Mode # 3 6 9 Static (Hz) BLADEDTM FEM 3. No BLADEDTM solution is available for the OP modes.456 Hz. Throughout this thesis.2 0 -0. due to the flap hinge.2 9 0 -0.38 16. (4.6.4 CONE-450 Blade The IP modes again match as per the DEMO blade.6.26 Collective IP mode shapes for Demo blade Table 5.67 Rotating (Hz) BLADEDTM FEM 3.3.24).4 0.6 0. it has been validated against numerous machines and used successfully in many projects.72 5. Testing at Ω = 25 RPM.32 16. (4.57 3.52 3.17 8.5.2 3 -0.4 BLADEDTM Validation and Suitability BLADEDTM is commercial software.17 8.4 BLADEDTM Validation and Suitability 1 1 177 Normalized displacement 0.43 16. corresponding the three independent rigid-body flap modes. The integrated blade properties for this blade enable analytic computation of the first three flap modes (rigid body) from Eq.

and are not meant to indicate unsuitability for conventional machines. To reiterate.2. 5. while able to iterate on pitch angle or rotor speed for limiting power §4. steady-state solution including coning and VSS (§5.65) primarily in parked aerodynamics and the structural model. akin to that developed in §4.8) The issues in the following sections further added to this list of outstanding issues. The latter is presumably the determinant of the pitch/speed schedule. Unfortunately.1 An example is shown in Fig. but at increased computational effort. the issues discussed in this section pertain to the applicability of BLADEDTM to the coning rotor.4. it was discovered well into the project that a number of other aerodynamic modelling features will be required: • Smooth blending of tower shadow at tower top (see §4.2). and precluded the development of a full enhanced implementation within BLADEDTM in the available time-scale.3) • Some spanwise flow model should be included (see §4. This behaviour would have proven problematic for the optimization studies which require accurate estimates for changes in objective Interestingly the rated electrical power is constant.7. to date the work is incomplete. Likewise.7.2. no direct coning equilibrium calculation is available within BLADEDTM . The areas of discrepancy found were aerodynamics (§5.178 Chapter 5 Validation the code. however the shaft (aerodynamic) power is not.4.14.1. It would of course be possible to bypass these by utilizing the dynamic calculations with a self-tuning controller. 5. are not a feature of BLADEDTM . Unfortunately. despite the best efforts of all parties.1. in BLADEDTM have been made.1.4.2 Steady State Operation For the purposes of design optimization (Part III). 1 . and the dynamic structural model (§5. as presented in §4.1. optimal operation calculations. In addition to implementing the induction-factor corrections.7.27 for PTS operation of the REF-1500. differing from the current version (v3. It was also found that the steady-power curve calculation in BLADEDTM .4. steady-state operation points are required.3). in some cases produced non-smooth power curves.9) • A condition-dependent stall-delay model is required (see §4.4.1).4.1 Aerodynamics Efforts towards implementing the aerodynamic refinements developed in §4. This section deals with the modifications of the current version to handle the coning rotor concept.

4 0. A switch was also added to turn on/off the built-in flap restraints pre-existing in the code.27 BLADEDTM computed steady power curve for PTS function.4. Unfortunately.0 5. Pitch angle (deg) .2 1. a facility was added for the current project to allow the external controller to impose an arbitrary hinge moment.4 0 -1 -3 -4 -5 -6 0. either passive or with active control. The restraints are modelled as individual hydraulic cylinders attached at the pin-end to a point offset from the rotor axis.1 The physical geometry and hydraulic parameters (including end-stops and accumulator pressure) are used to compute an equivalent hinge-moment that is applied to the flap hinge in the simulation.4.0 Pitch angle -7 25. For generality.0 15.0 Shaft power 10. the mode shapes and natural frequencies must be provided from the FEM predictions developed in §4.8 0.0 20.0 -2 179 Power (MW) 1. To model a flapping hinge in BLADEDTM . 5. This owes to the steep derivatives of power/torque with control variable.6 1.6. To exclude 1 This modelling was added to analyse the WTC prototype.0 0. the solution tolerances for this calculation in BLADEDTM are not accessible to the user. This allows modelling of a generalized actuator.3 Flapping Hinge ˙ BLADEDTM was modified to feed flap angles βj and flap velocities βj to an externally implemented controller.5. and the rod-end to a pin on the blade outboard of the hinge axis.0 Windspeed (m/s) Electrical power Figure 5.4 BLADEDTM Validation and Suitability 1.6 0.2 0. solving accurately for power limiting with either PTS or VSS requires extremely tight termination criteria for the iteration algorithm. when the rotor is in stall. Based on the author’s experience with ExcelBEM.8 1.

6. in isolation from the aerodynamics. the “virtual flap stiffness” present in the BLADEDTM model means that equilibrium β may be in error by approximately 30%.6. which is why it is preferred during optimization over running the dynamic simulation to steady-state. The power.180 Chapter 5 Validation any complicating structural effects.20b) (non-linear) and Eq. Testing of the structural simulation. A simple external controller was defined to apply a constant moment plus some damping to each blade. 2 The solution is obtained much faster with the Steady method however. As discussed in §4. not frequencies.3. and so the embedded EOM adhere to a linearising assumption that is increasingly in error with β. • ExcelBEM solutions all match the non-linear analytic solution. in both Steady and Dynamic modes. either side of ±45◦ . 1 From the solution to these equations is also apparent that two solutions for βj are possible for a given Hact . so those predictions should be accurate in coning. • The BLADEDTM predictions do not converge to either the linear or non-linear analytic solutions with increasing numbers of sections.1. thrust and other predictions will also be affected by approximately the cosine of this error level.21) (linear) by setting βj = βj = 0. The source of the discrepancy is evident from examination of the BLADEDTM theory manual [125]. Analytic solutions are available ˙ ¨ from Eq. becoming important around 10◦ . was possible by defining airfoils with zero lift and drag.1 Using this approach. (4.2. The results are given in Table 5. The slight numerical discrepancy in the Steady results owes to the accuracy of the algorithm in §4. even though the modes used are not normal.1 was used with Rhinge = 0. Gravity was also turned off with g = 0. other than just a linearity assumption. the blade was modelling in ExcelBEM using 5 sections.7.6. The original work [66] appears to have used only mode shapes.2 • BLADEDTM results follow quite closely the analytical linear predictions. (4.5. The results were compared to BLADEDTM models with 5. the later with critical damping applied.1.3. 25 and 100 equally-spaced sections. Based on the operational profile of the coning rotor (up to β =≈ 40◦ ). . known to be rigid body rotation about the hinge. is present in BLADEDTM . BLADEDTM simplifies the EOM by assuming a known modal frequency. The last point suggests another effect. In the case of gross-coning. Only the first flap mode was input to BLADEDTM . which yield the follow insights: • The analytic results show that assuming linearity artificially stiffens the rotor. the uniform blade from §5. the modal frequencies are altered (as the centrifugal stiffening changes with β).

In general.67 27.4. linearized about β0 : ˙ ωn = θ cos(2β0 ) + Rh Mb sCG cos(β0 ) Iβ (5.34 14.87 26. rather than assuming plain stress.87 36.57 23.60 Model Analytic linear Analytic non-linear ExcelBEM Steady ExcelBEM Dynamic BLADEDTM 5 BLADEDTM 25 BLADEDTM 100 100 6. modal frequencies cannot be used directly in the dynamic simulation of the coned rotor.04 23.1) assumes a hinge moment is applied to create the equilibrium condition. approximately as cos2 β.45). This extension is left as future work. ωn is imaginary for β0 > 45◦ (for Rh = 0). The higher OP and IP modes are almost identical in shape and frequency to the unconed case. some insight is gained by ignoring these effects.94 6.61 20.74 13. To harmonize the two approaches would require including the equilibrium bending moment stress in Eq.34 13.4. Moreover.74 400 27. Equation (5. The analytic frequency of the free-body flapping mode may be computed with the non-linear form of Eq. but as assumed in the derivation of §4.85 36. .94 6.22 24. The FEM results do not agree with Eq.4. ( for the fundamental flap mode.50 36.4 Mode Shape Modification by Coning The pre-stress present in the blade owing to centrifugal loading will vary with cone angle.6. as just discussed in §5.03 23.6. whereas the FEM method assumes forces applied along the blade exactly balance the transverse centrifugal force component.67 6. predicting higher natural frequencies as β0 is increased. as the mode shapes are relatively unaffected by the assumption of β0 = 0.57 28.87 6.1) Here again. The reason for the discrepancy is the difference in boundary conditions between the analytic and FEM equations.30 14. (4.01 23.4. indicating instability.75 14.33 13.00 20.03 20.97 5.4 BLADEDTM Validation and Suitability 181 Table 5.88 6.06 28.48 20.48 26.1. the aerodynamic and inertial forces will not precisely align with the axis of the blade.34 24.24).57 28.4.63 23.6. (5.5 Steady flap angle variation with actuator moment for Ω =50 RPM β (deg) Hact (Nm) 200 300 350 13.3.88 6.

J. Comparison of the original results with the current ones indicate that the model is consistently implemented. bt /bs and Krad ) for a range of parameters (diameters D and efficiency η). The Solver built into Excel has been used to conduct multi-parameter optimization of the spreadsheet model with the same parameters and constraints as the original thesis.182 Chapter 5 Validation 5. Bg .5 Generator Model Validation Dubois [165] presented 14 optimized design variables (τp . .

Part III Design .


1 This evolution has been by incremental refinements in design and analysis within the wind turbine community. notwithstanding the industry drive to capacities exceeding 4 MW for offshore sites where economies of size are still unclear.4 then elucidates the challenges inherent in optimizing the coning rotor. 1.1. 6. Section 6. 6.1. when the original coning rotor work was done.1.1) and energy capture (§6. spurred on by cost and performance enhancements of actuators. Justification is then given in §6. the benchmark comparison machine was a 450 kW. before properly scaling up the loading results from that study in §6.2). constant-speed. The generic aerodynamic behaviour of the coning rotor is examined next in §6.5 MW variable-speed pitch regulated machine. materials. Technical evolution means that an appropriate benchmark is now a 1.1.Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization Part II focused on developing tools capable of analysing the coning rotor. compared to a conventional machine the operational concept of the coning rotor demands a somewhat different and more integrated design approach. In addition to analytical differences.3. The two main shifts relevant to the present comparison have been to substantial variable speed operation and increasingly fast. 1 185 . in terms of load (§6.1 Shifting Benchmarks In the mid-1990’s. individual blade pitch control. FSS regulated machine (REF450) [7].2. and power electronics.5.1 Initial Comparison and Updating The present section first contextualizes the original coning rotor work (§6.3 for leaving the revisiting of parked conditions to future work. a parametric study of the DVs of the coning rotor is presented in §6. This chapter first uses the results of the original CONE-450 study to predict performance relative to modern machines.1).5 MW was chosen as generic machine data was available for this size and is around the average capacity actually installed on land. Finally.

occurring for the CONE-450 at rated and for the REF-450 at cut-out (25 m/s). 6. remains a non design-driving condition for the upscaled coning rotor.1. discussed further in §6.1 were obtained by power scaling based on the reference rotor diameter Dref .5 MW pitch controlled machine (REF-1500.3) using BLADEDTM . as stalling imparts more force than pitching to feather. The loads shown in Fig.3) was based on maintaining the same maximum thrust level as the REF-450. . and highlights the differences between the pitch control and active stall/coning strategies.1 Operational rotor thrust curves for upscaled machines relative to REF-1500 The results indicate that the overall loading for the coning concept at a larger scale is reasonable. It can be expected that the parked extreme loading case. 250 200 Thrust (kN) 150 100 50 REF-1500 CONE-450 US REF-450 US 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 Windspeed (m/s) Figure 6. The design of the original CONE-450 (see §6. see §C.4. the representative operating curves from the original 450 kW machine (CONE-450) and REF-450 dynamic simulations [36] were scaled up to a 1. but stays at a relatively high thrust after rated relative to the REF-1500. Fatigue loading comparisons must be deferred to more detailed time-domain analysis in the future.186 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization 6.2 Up-Scaling CONE-450 Results As an initial scoping exercise. These are compared against the loads computed for a generic 1. in turn scaled proportionally to the square root of the rated power. The CONE450 US attains the same maximum thrust.3.5 MW machine (CONE-450 US and REF-450 US).1.

e. It was noted that the CONE-450 was designed for true Class I conditions. indicating a large static factor of safety. deterministic steady blade root bending moments are ≈500 kNm owing to gravity. varied from -15–64%. and ideally wind-tunnel testing to verify aerodynamic loading predictions for the fully-coned blades experiencing extensive spanwise flow.5 MW scale concept must revisit this issue to verify the assumption that parked loads do not dominate.2). and so the CONE-450 would in fact be more cost competitive than indicated by the figures.5 (CONE-1500). Based on this.6. whereas the reference machines were not. but lost this advantage in high winds (9–10 m/s). The REF1500 experiences a maximum of 2107 kNm overturning moment at the yaw bearing. ranging from 0. paricularily for machines of equal tower height and higher rating. The tower height increase was enabled primarily by equal tower bottom overturning moment when parked (i.3 Parked Conditions A novel aspect of the coning rotor is the parking strategy (fully coned to ≈ 85◦ ).1 The results indicated that parking did not drive the design of the CONE-450. coning rotor thrust less severe in parked extreme conditions). 1 2 The IEC standard of the day only specified steady winds for the parked case. Obtained as the root moments to hold the blades open at rated conditions. . For the blades discussed later in §6. versus 3512 kNm in extreme operation). The energy yield advantages. The net competitive advantage (in terms of COE) was positive in all cases. Against the reference machine in normal UK conditions. 6. Further validation of the 1. but also an increase in tower height from 35 m to 50 m. The models must include full turbulence. depending on machine rating and mean wind speed.4.9. Jamieson [66] examined this condition in some detail. including fully orthotropic turbulence and various delta-wing stall delay models (see §4. The blade structure design loads2 are ≈1500 kNm.2–62%. The CONE-450 was superior in low winds (5-6 m/s mean). the present work does not explore in detail this aspect of the coning rotor. A primary concern might be the overhang weight associated with a larger scale machine.1 Initial Comparison and Updating 187 The original energy yield results included not only a larger rotor for the CONE450. the CONE-450 had an 18% Net Present Value (NPV) advantage without taller tower.1. The ≈ 3 × 500 = 1500 kNm equivalent moment for the CONE-1500 is therefore not unreasonable (the extreme moment from the CONE-450 US is 913 kNm when parked. relative to other conventional machines (250–600 kW).

2(a).5 MW above.2 in Fig. Performance is compared for k = 2.188 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization 6.3). based on a typical US site [15]. while the k effect is rather subtle.4 [15]. relative to the baseline Ø70 m rotor diameter.5 V=6 V=8 V=10 0.3(a) shows the PDFs of energy capture for the machines relative to the wind speed profile. 6.).20 70 80 4000 CF 3000 2000 CF D (m) 90 100 (a) CF dependency (k = 2. a number of power curves for real 1.5 0.2 1.6 0.0 0.8 1.2 COE and CF Performance The interrelation between COE and CF.24 m/s.4 0. CF and energy E both rise with diameter. based on a realistic cost exponent with diameter (see §3.e.2 Betz limit variable area rotor performance The effect of k is shown in Fig. Three mean wind speeds are compared. and visa versa.2 shows the ideal performance of a variable area rotor.5) of 2. 6.2) (b) k dependency (Vmean =6 m/s) Figure 6.45 0.1.50 0. able to operate at CP = 0.25 0.35 0. and their use as metrics in wind turbine optimization were introduced in §3. Figure 6. COE rises quite quickly with CF.30 0.8 CF 1. As expected.40 k=1. in Fig. tower.6 1. Figure 6.3 0.7 0. To examine the impact of these design decisions.2 k=2. Low k factors (broad f curve) reduce both dependencies.3.2(b).2 0.5 E 6000 1. ideal Energy Yield (MWh) 5000 COE . Performance is shown over a range of diameters (Ø70–100 m) for a nominal site with k = 2. Tower height is assumed constant. and 1. The design choice of rating and rotor size varies between designers. 6.29 and Vmean = 8.7 k=2.2–2 MW machines were obtained from product literature. Indeed.4 0. but less so for low-wind sites. based on operation in different wind classes (see §2. 1.1 1. Based on this simple analysis.3 1.48 with full diameter up to rated. etc. generator. across the range of diameters.2.7 1. multiple rotors of varying diameter may be offered for the same nominal machine (i.

4/MWh) 5.10 0.20 0.50 P/A (kW/m2) CF 0.50 0.45 0. and a scaled power curve for the CONE450 US.40 stall control 0.6.3 Industry machine performance Figure 6.5 4.35 0.40 0.06 0.30 0.5 6.14 0. with the CONE-450 US attaining the highest peak (tightest distribution).02 0.5 5. The ideal capture is clearly weighted to higher V than both the wind and actual machine capture.45 (b) Power density (c) Cost metrics Figure 6.22 0.35 0. The machine profiles are clustered quite closely around 11 m/s.35 0. 6. fEann (s/m) U (m/s) V80 NM 72-2000 (a) Wind speed profile 6. The one PTS machine deviates somewhat from the overall trend. List prices are unavailable.4/E (m2.12 0.28 .40 D/E P/E CF 0.08 0.32 0. 0.26 0.00 0 Wind Bonus 2MW 0.0 0.2 COE and CF Performance 189 Betz limit (over entire wind speed range). but Fig.0 0.3(c) compares P/E (kW/MWh) 0.50 5 10 Ideal NM 64-1500 15 20 25 Vensys 62 CONE-450 US 0.3(b) shows that CF is in fact a linear function of the ratio of generator power to rotor area.45 D2.30 VENSYS 0.30 fV.25 0. with lower CF.0 4. as expected.24 0.04 0.

both .5 shows a set of curves for the REF-1500 non-dimensionalized by the reference tip radius.5 1 0.5).6 CT 0. Power control is clearly more direct with pitch control.190 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization two proxy COE metrics: a cost function D2.2 0.4 Performance maps for actual tip radius Figure 6. The optimal CP location moves in λ with β.3 Aerodynamic Behaviour It is instructive to examine the non-dimensionalized aerodynamic behaviour of a coning rotor.4 relationship is not altered for the coning rotor.4 0. Thrust behaviour is also seen to change with β. These trends are generally present in other rotors examined.1 4 6 8 10 0.6 0.2.5 0.3 0. and the ratio of installed power to energy captured P/E. while the CONE-450 US would have a high cost if the D2. for a range of cone and pitch angles.8 1 0. and in this case CP. The P/E ratio shows that installed generator power relative to rotor size is an almost linear function with CF.2 0 0. This mirrors the CF–P/A relationship and suggests capture area A is a dominant factor. The Vensys machine evidently achieves a superior power curve relative to the conventional machines. however the direction of shift varies.4 /E assuming cost to vary with diameter (see §3.2 0.4 0. before considering its optimization.4 0. Figure 6.4 0. mirroring earlier results in §3.max rises with β.1 0 0 20 40 0 60 2 0.8 0. The former metric results show costs rising with CF.2 0 10 20 30 6 8 10 β (deg) λ β (deg) 40 50 0 2 4 λ (a) CP (b) CT Figure 6.3 CP 0. non-dimensionalized by real rotor area.4 shows the performance maps. 6. The intent is to illustrate the extent of control possible based solely on coning versus a pitch-controlled rotor (fine or stalling pitch). 0. of the REF-1500 over a range of β and λ.

4.4.5 Performance maps for reference tip radius and control variable (β or γpitch in 5◦ increments) 6.4 0.4 Rotor Optimization Challenge 191 in terms of CP reduction with angle and the ability to change pitch directly instead of via an indirect speed-stall-cone relationship. The extremely fast decrease in CP for PTS is also evident.13 prescribe the chord and twist DV distributions for the optimal blade. the equations in §4.5 0.4.2 CP 50 CP 0. 6.2 and the approach to the problem taken by previous investigators in §6. 3.1 Conventional Rotors The modern variable-speed rotor is typically first optimized aerodynamically for a specific tip speed ratio λopt [51].1.3. and can be relatively easily computed from a knowledge of the nondimensional power curve and the equations in Fig. 0.4 5 -5 10 0.3 40 45 0 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10 λ (a) Coning angle β (γ = 0◦ ) λ (b) Pitch angle γ (β = 0◦ ) Figure 6. The optimal operational speed profile is unambiguously defined in both the rotor speed–wind speed (Ω–U ) and torque–rotor speed τ –Ω planes.4.7(b).3 0. The overall scale of the machine will modify the results .5 0 0 0.2 15 -10 0. Treating airfoil choice (both shape and percent thickness) as parameters in the optimization. followed by the challenges introduced by the coning rotor in §6.4 Rotor Optimization Challenge Attention now shifts to refining the coning rotor design by considering a viable optimization process.1 0 0. The procedure for a conventional rotors is outlined first in §6.

so Eq. or by numerically optimizing the profiles directly. FSS rotors. Aerodynamic optimality is usually the highest priority for the blade design.95c). as the mass and stiffness properties are required for the simulations. This is usually handled by designing for some simplified. Airfoil data is not smoothly varying between thicknesses. uses extreme bending loads to size the sparcap thickness at 4 spanwise locations. owing to Re variation. the blade must be further refined in a number of ways. those loads are unavailable without a defined structure. must be optimized numerically across the wind speed range. and also to optimize an internal structure. (3. albeit heavily weighted towards the aerodynamics (CP ).2) to yield the rated power desired for the machine (influenced by the results of §6. Tip deflection in a 50 year extreme gust is also checked to limit minimum thickness. Some type of numerical optimization may be easily used at this stage. with combined maximum torque and gravity fatigue loading for edgewise loads (to size a TE spline at 0. However. with constantly varying λ.2. Dynamic load simulations are required to certify a design.4. Malcolm and Hansen [51].192 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization somewhat. given that the rotor is only 10–15% of the total cost. the interplay between aerodynamic and structural considerations in fact defines a pareto front. • FSS rotors require limited lift in the tip region to control power and ensure . Additionally. Griffin [55] does likewise for the flap bending loads (yielding spar cap thickness). After this first-pass. with interpolation for intermediate sections. and/or materials is then made to satisfy the material limitations. The blade length is guided by experience and an estimate of CP in Eq. but otherwise the design is non-dimensional. Some manual refinement of thicknesses. structural concept. The most apparent is the requirement to smooth the chord and twist profiles.2). The dynamic simulations are then run. These changes may be incorporated by simply smoothing the results of the analytic equations. Paradoxically. or direct numerical optimization. the real limit and fatigue loads computed. steady load cases. constraints are imposed on the geometry by functional (a circular root for the pitch bearing) and manufacturing (maximum twist angle) requirements. while improvment of energy capture more directly impacts COE. The main competing factors are: • High performance airfoils (high lift and lift/drag ratio) yield small chords. either as interpolation functions for spar cap thickness as in the referenced studies. (4. like others [180].36) will not yield smooth profiles. and the resulting strains checked. adversely reducing section thickness and affecting structural properties [181].

including: difficulty modifying the curve directly to satisfy constraints (e. In addition to the blade profile DVs discussed in §6. following the ridge of the 3D CP –λ–β surface in Fig. The performance of the rotor can then be determined over a range of wind speeds in an iterative manner.max over β. • The aerodynamic optimum typically waists the chord around mid-span. This approach has a number of drawbacks. with reduced structural efficiency as the thickness grows towards the elastic axis. wood or glass/polypropylene) struggle to fit enough material into the section. requiring more integration of the optimization process. and many iterations are . Gigu`re et al.4. not just a max CP condition. • The airfoil shape itself influences the section stiffness. a critical area for fatigue requiring good structural properties (i.g. as material use was reduced by limiting the 50 year gust load with smaller chords. Higher strength materials (e. These effects may be incorporated into a coupled structural-aerodynamic optimization. but more typically are manually iterated. The coning rotor inherently ties β to Ω via the rotor inertia and aerodynamic hinge moment. so that below rated the optimal operation is not simply defined by λopt . The aerodynamic and structural designs are more tightly coupled for the coning rotor.4 (of course the surface must be computed for each design iteration). as coned diameter also affects power. This can be used to define a τ –Ω map in the below rated condition. 6.2. • Small airfoil percent thicknesses limit both the structural area and height in a section.1. [65] concluded in an optimization study that COE was best e for higher-lift airfoils. 6. Boxier sections place more material away from the elastic axis providing efficient use of material. optimality is not assured. with associated cost.2) [65]. the inherent complexity of the coning rotor is manifest when optimization is attempted.6. These are obviously conflicting requirements. Lower modulus materials (e. some inclusion of operational behaviour must be included either explicitly or implicitly.1. carbon fibre) can accommodate these constraints. One approach is to track the locus of CP.g. with the same speed limits and above rated operation as for the non-coning rotor.g.4 Rotor Optimization Challenge 193 smooth stall behaviour to alleviate edgewise vibrations (see §7. larger chords and thicknesses). tip-speed for noise) since the control curve is implicitly defined via the 3D performance map.2 Coning Rotor Optimization Unfortunately. but possibly to the detriment of aerodynamic properties.4.e.

are required to fully define the constant λ below rated optimal operation. to avoid the required iterations to find steady-state torque and speed.194 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization required for both definition of the control curve and solution for operating conditions. control may be defined in the Ω-U plane. using only two variables will ignore any drive train inefficiencies that may.7. With β variation as well. although a simple non-dimensional inertia is readily derivable for a centrally-hinged rotor.1 A naive approach is therefore to treat the entire curve as a function of a set of design variables.2.1. as wind speed cannot be directly measured. Analogous to using splines to describe the blade profile (see §6. The τ –Ω map can be easily constructed once the operating profile over wind speed are known. in general. the inclusion of the hinge offset complicates the definition (requiring some relationship of mass and first/second moments of inertia). For a PTS rotor the space grows to four dimensions with the inclusion of pitch. and iteration on rotor speed (or pitch angle) to limit power to rated (see §4. Vortex-lift corrections (based on delta-wing theory) were used in the coned-parked cases. The optimizer can then control the below-rated schedule.1). only two DV’s. 6.7.2). For a non-coning rotor.3 CONE-450 Approach The CONE-450 concept was developed roughly by the following steps [66]. real control strategies are posed in the τ –Ω plane. Speed optimization is then handled as a subproblem for each iterate. No stall delay or coning corrections were used in the original study. which is better defined by limits on rotor (and/or tip) speed. Ω at cut-in and dΩ/dU .4. another optimization exercise is required in the non-dimensional space to define a constant power curve.5. constraints and optimality conditions are implicitly included in the formulation rather than the optimization process itself. some DVs defining the nominally rated portion of the power curve. the most generalized approach is to remove the definition of Ω from the list of DVs. Above rated. Of course. Returning to a dimensional approach.1. For the purposes of steadystate optimization. with implicit power control above rated. the optimal track in the Ω-U plane will certainly no longer be linear. Additionally.1. Therefore. using the methods in §4. with full 3D wind loading. be non-linear and coupled with Ω via the transmission. 1 . and Re effects. This overly complicates the problem. from cut-in to cut-out wind speed.

5 and β = 0◦ .2. The chord profiles were linearised and twist adjusted to accommodate hingeline and avoid excessive energy capture degradation.5. 3.2). Rotor speed schedules were computed for maximal energy capture. Iteration on blade structure and component design. it was found that the BEM code must be run to < 10−6 precision (see §6. dynamic simulations). The CT of the REF-450 at this speed was then assumed equal to the CT of the coned rotor at rated. The blade structure was designed with steady loads. 8. Peaks near rated were removed. 4. eventually based on a steady 560 kNm applied hinge moment. power curve solution. Final speed schedules were computed with free-coning and 60 kNm hinge moment between 5–9 m/s. plus a line-search step for SQP. 2. to survive the dynamic fatigue and limit loading. and adjoint methods are unable to provide “easy” and accurate derivative information.5 Parametric Study The analytic methods developed in Chapter 4 (BEM. 7. Unlike a coupled FEM-CFD code. Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP)).g. given a prescribed β schedule. in their integrated form. Steady blade loading was computed at 11 m/s with 200 kNm hinge moment applied. complex-step [182]. 6. Detailed design of components and controller.5 Parametric Study 195 1. For example. Each optimizer step requires N calculations to compute the gradient (for N DVs). are unfortunately not readily amenable to gradient-based optimization methods (e. Chord and twist profiles were optimized on a section-wise basis for λ = 8. Finite-differencing techniques are expensive. and used to compute the rotor diameter for equal maximum thrust as the REF-450.2 m/s step-size resolution. and mass-tuned to achieve 25◦ cone angle at Vr . auto-differentiation. 5. 6. making this approach quite time-consuming when the gradients are computed accurately for the complete coupled system.6. and were found to suffer from code solution granularities. Blade structure is then computed to survive the static forces. while the power curve must be computed to less than ≈0. based on survival of computed dynamic loads. Rotor size was determined by first picking a rated wind speed (Vr =12 m/s) and rated cone angle (25◦ ). .

2. but exploration of the tradespace is considered more relevant at this stage than simply applying the optimization methods just outlined.ingber. including basis functions. blade length increase.4). Computational expense typically limits the number of DV to ≈ 5. in common with other authors [186]. simulated annealing. 183] .1 particle swarm. §6. airfoil (thickness & shape). Simplex methods [72] can be more efficient. Given the size and complexity of the design-space described by these DVs.6). genetic algorithms [65. A common element to all these areas is the impact of airfoil selection. heuristic algorithms (e. rather than pure optimization of a final solution. The primary areas explored in the following sections are: the influence of coning on optimum aerodynamic profile (§6.5. variable fidelity methods [185] switch between high and low-order codes (if available). and operating parameters.5). the specific choice of DV and parameters is given in §6. a refined SQP algorithm.g. response surfaces.5. and the optimization approach adopted here to deal with the sub-problems in §6. The optimizer then operates in this new space. which is much less expensive to evaluate and usually smoother. such as Latin Hypercube and orthogonal arrays. material structure. and Kriging. numerical optimization issues in §6.e. Before this presentation.5. The function used is Matlab’s fmincon. and also avoid the need for derivatives. best-case energy advantage of the coning rotor over conventional designs (i.3.5.196 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization Of course. 1 Adaptive simulated annealing (ASA) by Lester Ingber from http://www.1. The specific DOE approach adopted is essentially to perform full-factorial studies on sub-sets of the problem. and the influence of aerodynamic uncertainty (§6. twist. but substitute many more direct objective and constraint calculations for each iterate. approximate the true design space. and based on this experience has found the current approach more elucidatory. Another approach is to simplify the design space. often requiring close to a full-factorial search after tuning! They are of course more able to avoid local minima than gradient methods. Gradient-based (efficient) optimization is used where appropriate. Similarly. using the former to update corrections to the latter in which the optimizer operates.5.5. but at great expense. The coning rotor design space is described by the following DVs: chord.7). a parametric study approach (Design of Experiments (DOE)) is adopted here. The author has tried other DOE methods in the past. control strategy ramifications (§6. The main difficulty in these methods is obtaining a sufficient fidelity and accuracy of the reduced design space. random walk) avoid gradient computations. but are not adept in incorporating general constraints. Tuning of the algorithms is also difficult. Reduced order modelling [184].

The deCasteljau algorithm is used for computation of the polynomial coefficients. The . No tower height advantage is included in the present results. to place a section at maximum chord and with cosine spacing towards the tip. and is less likely to afford such large increases.2.6 Chord and twist profile control A 7th order Bezier curve is used to define the chord definition.4 0. Figure 6.5 Parametric Study 197 6.1 Design Variables and Parameters The coning rotor is assumed to mount onto the same generator/tower as the REF1500.1. The spanwise locations of all control points are fixed. The control method (VSS.15 0. PTS. except for the first twist point. while the DVs prescribe the chord and twist at those points. thereby avoiding oscillations in the profile.5. The control schedule is treated implicitly as outlined in §] of blade span S are active DVs for chord. 6. as the parked loading of modern rotors is more benign than the comparison rotor used by Jamieson [66].6. PTF) is treated as a parameter.7 0.4. The actual section locations move with the profile itself (not control polygon).1.4. The results are therefore only reflective of changes in the rotor itself.1 Shape Profiles The blade shape profiles are controlled to provide the realistic geometry shown in Fig. thereby avoiding the smoothing steps mentioned in §6. as they posses the convenient convex-hull property [187]. Bezier splines are chosen over cubic splines to define chord and twist profiles. Hinge radius Rhinge has been chosen as 2 m to achieve a realistic hub and blade-root structure and to accommodate actuators capable of maximum coning deflection. The outer 4 points at s = [0. positioned downwind of the rotor. 6.

1 . a limited number of DVs are required. rather than DVs to control each section.5 factor is required to achieve a cmax of 3. and the behaviour after stalling. avoiding mixed discrete-continuous optimization issues.2 m circular root (fixing the first spline point). . and is uniform outboard. The pitch axis tapers from 50% at the root to 30% at sc.5.max . The airfoil thickness is tapered linearly from 100% at the root to 30% thickness at sc. Twist is constrained by DV bounds of -10◦ –25◦ .max (not 0.8/stip m)1 and monotonic linear constraint on the DV to ensure reducing chord with s. The final blade shape thus implicitly incorporates smooth geometry and manufacturing constraints. desireable as Prantl’s F factor reduces the solution sensitivity in this area. The first control point is placed at sc. This adversely affected the optimizer sentivities to these DVs. rather than the blended root possible with a long flap hinge. rather than a discrete DV.max .6 and 6. Simultaneously. for noise mitigation. As will become apparent in §6. The second and third point’s chords are equal to the the first and fourth point’s respectively. As a parametric study.2 Airfoils Airfoil choice is treated as a parameter. and constant twist is defined inboard of sc. The chord formulation allows the cuff (maximum chord cmax at sc. the proximity of the optimum operation point (α for (cl /cd )max ) to αstall . 1.7. as sectional optimization is only effective for a single prescribed operating condition. and then linearly to 15% at the tip.8 m. Global shape control also aids the optimizer by equalizing the sensitivity between DVs.5. Optimization over the entire power curve is facilitated by this formulation. is critically important for blades incorporating particular airfoils. and covers a range of characteristics. the actual airfoil data used here is incidental. . in case a pitch actuator is required.198 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization blade shapes incorporate a Ø2.max . 6.max ) location to move spanwise implicitly. The outer 5% of the blade has a parabolic tip shape. II. An alternate to the linear constraint is to define the 5th and 6th control points relative to the 4th and 7th points. III).1. This also produceds a low optimization sensitivity. The 1. Each family defines a complete range of thickness. Twist is controlled by a 4th order Bezier curve and 4 active DVs.5 × 3. without requiring another DV. three sources have been used to define three airfoil families for this study (sets I.5.15s). It was found that chord is best bounded by DV limits (0. since the DV are spline control points of a bounding polygon.

The relative placement of elastic (shear) and mass centres discussed in §4. 21%.1) of the section are the same as that used by Griffin [55].5.4. The root airfoil for all three sets is a circle with a cd of 0. In a real-world blade design. defined for 30%. The source data covers a range of Re that do not completely cover the operational range of Re.1) and set-up (§6.8) is included in the following studies.3. A static load safety factor of 1. For thicknesses less than the covered range.2 respectively. set III uses the FX66-17AII-182 data from §C.5 and cumulative material safety factor of 2. combined with the 21%–100% data of the NACA 63-4XX data.3 was not considered here. Figure 6.2. Future refinements will likely include wood/bamboo-carbon-epoxy structural concepts.3). The layup and material values (see Table E. as each airfoil designation will produce differing performance with operating conditions. at different Re. the data is illustrative.1. the thinnest airfoil in the set is used.5. to achieve the desired performance characteristics.7 shows a typical section.6 have both highlighted the widely varying data obtainable from different sources.1. including proper DV scaling (§6. The webs join the ends of the spar caps.5 Parametric Study 199 to highlight the influence of airfoil choice.2).5.6. 6.2. and 13% thicknesses.1 and Table 6.9) is inactive until §6. 17%.4. Set I uses LS1 data from GH (same as REF-1500 in §C. Centrifugal stall delay (§4.5. Finally. It requires a number of nuances in its application.1. for ostensibly the same airfoil. To reiterate.6.2 Optimizer Tuning Optimization is not simply a “black-box” solution. The layups for the outer skins and webs are given in Table 6. Spanwise flow (§4. but is sufficient for its purposes here. Set II uses the NACA 63-4XX data given in §C. the operational Re and blade soiling levels must be carefully matched to the test data used in an aerodynamic design. Sections 3.5 for 17% thickness. .3.7.3 Internal Structural Layup A conventional glass-epoxy layup is used for this study. These airfoils were chosen to be representative of increasingly sharply stalling and high-performance (high cl /cd ) airfoils.94 (representing the standard combination of factors [55]) are used to check all computed points in the cross-section against strain allowables.6 to define a second airfoil set over 21%–30%.3 and 5.5. 6.

5.2 Web layup schedule (Adapted from [55]) Layer 1 2 3 Material CDB340 Balsa CDB340 Thickness 1 mm 0. Scaling based on the condition number of the Hessian matrix (by scaling to unity the diagonal entries of the Hessian [188]) was experimented with. but found to have minimal effect on the results.2 200 0.01c 0.5 0.0–1. The diagonal D matrix and vector c are calculated so that the scaled design vector y ∈ [−1 .89 mm 5 Table 6.0 0.1 0 -0.1 Outer skin layup schedule (Adapted from [55]) Layer 1 2 3 4 Chordwise Location 0.5–0. proving to be a red herring.9 -0.0–0. This yields gradients of the same order for each design variable and well-conditioned Hessian matrices [184].0 Material Gel coat Random mat CDB340 Balsa Spar cap mixture Balsa CDB340 Thickness 0.0–1.5 -0.1 0 Figure 6.1) .4 -0.0.7 -0.8 -0.0–1. . The Hessian was already well conditioned with the existing scaling.0 0.005c Variable 0. once the issues of solution accuracy in the following section were addressed. 1] corresponding to the limits on the dimensional design vector x.0–1.1 DV Scaling Student Version of MATLAB Linear scaling of all DVs as per Eq. .51 mm 0.2 -0.3 -0.5.1 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization -1 -0.2.01c 1 mm 6.89 mm 0.85 0. (6.15–0.38 mm 0.6 -0. x = Dy +c (6.3 0.0 0.5.7 Typical section layup Table 6.1) is used throughout the present results.15 0.

5. 1.5.2. truncation and round-off error occur respectively.6. by judicious selection of the solution tolerance tol and differencing step-size h.8 1.8 dCP/dx 0.6 0. A simple first-order forward difference formula is used throughout: f (x + h) − f (x) df (x) = + O(h) dx h (6.2 1 0. in deference to the adaptive algorithm in fmincon. structure. given the fixed parameters examined in the following .6 0. A tolerance of 1e-10 has been used to avoid solution tolerance errors.2 -14 -12 -10 -8 10 10 10 10 -6 -4 -2 10 10 10 10 10 10 h (a) tol = 1e-4 h (b) tol = 1e-10 Figure 6.4 1.8 shows the effect of the BEM solution tolerance for the axial and tangential induction factors on the computed Finite Difference (FD) approximation for chord and twist DVs.8 Finite differencing prediction for CP as a function of solution tolerance tol and step size h for chord and twist control points 6. A manual step-size of 1e-6 has been used for the FD computations.2 1 0.5. Selig and Tangler [189] also make reference to difficulties in selecting appropriate finite differencing step-sizes.4 0.2 0 -0. A closer examination reveals that the finite differencing step is quite sensitive. and operating schedule. Above and below step sizes of 1e-6 and 1e-12.3 Stepwise Optimization Approach A sequential approach is followed for determining the optimum blade profile.4 1. but tractable.2 -14 -12 -10 -8 10 10 10 10 -6 -4 -2 dCP/dx 0.2 0 -0. due to the inaccuracy of the fixed-point iteration solution.4 0.2) Figure 6.5 Parametric Study 6.2 Finite Differencing 201 Anderson [72] stated that the BEM equations are not amenable to gradient-based optimization methods.

with a point mass at the tip. The equations of §4. requiring control either via pitch (aerodynamic moment) or Ω (aerodynamic and centrifugal moments). These results did not affect the following remarks on the coning rotor. with a 400 kNm hinge moment applied from 5–8 m/s to an otherwise free hinge. the blade is mass balanced. Additional structural design variables were experimented with. The optimal operational schedule is computed. and materials (wood. A fast non-linear least-squares fit optimization determines the chord and twist DVs of §6.5. and are therefore excluded for brevity.5 m/s hub-height wind (Vmean ) is used for steady energy yield calculations.5.1.4. so that freehinging to βbalance is achieved at Vrated =11 m/s and maximum rotation speed Ωmax . including independent spar cap thickness. This is done using Matlab’s lsqnonlin function.1. . variable chordwise extent of the spar caps (both symmetric and with slanted webs allowing alignment of loading with section twist). These loads are used to numerically optimize (with SQP) the symmetric spar cap thicknesses for each section on the blade. Finally.e. with CP as the objective at Ω = Ωmax . The structural implications of the airfoils (in terms of structural shape) are of course implicitly included. with encouraging results [180.13 are used to compute initial chord and twist values for each blade section. carbon). with shape factor k = 2. 2. A 7. The directly applied moment was found to be increasingly ineffective at higher wind speeds. With the resulting finalized aerodynamic design. Weight reductions were certainly possible with more DVs. 190].15S–0. The SQP algorithm is used to finalize the blade profile with the bounds in given in §6. This is based on scaling the CONE450 60 kNm low-wind applied and (real) tip speed ratio λdesign. but the static design loads would have to be supplemented by operational fatigue simulations to verify the feasibility of the results in practice. The chord and twist optimization steps are done at a prescribed cone angle βdesign.1. 3. Recent efforts to develop “flatback” airfoils to maximize structural efficiency have taken the airfoil shape DV to an extreme.1 that best match the analytic values over 0. flapwise and edgewise bending loads are computed for a prescribed βbalance .202 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization sections.areo : 1.95S (i. ac- tively controlled section of the blade).

5 Blade Length At the heart of the coning rotor energy advantage is an increase in blade length.3.5.9(a) shows the familiar trend of increasing CP with λdesign. The aggregate result is an increase in λdesign.5 Parametric Study 203 also has a large effect on performance. mirroring the effect of increasing λdesign.4. and is grossly limited by the tolerable increase in rotor thrust at rated. 6. Figure 6. a 40. Figure 6. The bounds on Ω are varied with Stip to achieve unconed tip speeds of 45–80 m/s as proxy noise constraints and to introduce peak is somewhat more . β are more slender. the variation with βdesign. The variation of βbalance effectively varies the rated capture area. More subtle effects are also present. as in § lead to lighter for the isoperformance lines of Fig. The increasingly slender profiles with increasing λ .aero is explained with reference to Fig. It appears that for larger βdesign.9(b) also shows higher λdesign.9 shows the results of the optimization.5. As the blades are all mass balanced to equal βbalance .9(b).aero with βdesign. a range of blade designs is considered using airfoil set I. away from βbalance . As with conventional rotors. Rather than picking one design . owing primarily to reduced rotational momentum ) and different thrust behaviour affecting equilibrium coning angle over the power curves. . such as the off-design performance differences (β = βdesign. Based on the results in §6. 6. Figure 6. Figure 6. this section varies blade length Stip and βbalance .13 predicts that the optimal blade shape should vary with the βdesign. the design (real) tip speed ratio λdesign.5.15 m blade is used (same as REF-1500). Section as 8.4 Aerodynamic Optimum Some initial design point is required for the coning rotor. βbalance = 25◦ and Ω is bounded to 10–18 RPM. The higher β is chosen as 0◦ and λdesign. thereby altering the maximum . To explore the effects of varying blade . at the design point.0.9(c) illustrates the blade mass variation with design variables. Evidently increasing β also increases the efficiency of the = 0◦ . relative to β of the aerodynamic design point. The variation with β rotors to be more efficient in total energy capture.4.10. This increase cannot be unbounded.6. For this study. with the converse true at higher λdesign. blade mass grows more rapidly at lower λdesign. 6.

aero (real) λdesign.4 98 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization 8 101. aero (real) 7. annual energy yield Eann and total blade mass variation with aerodynamic design tip speed λdesign.4 0 82 .5 0. aero (deg) (c) Blade mass (relative to ensemble mean.5 6 0 8 0.51 7.5 0.5 98 96 6. 0.5 10 1 96 102 98 7 100 98 96 2 0.48 4 (a) CP (real) at aerodynamic design point 8 94 λdesign. %) 92 100 .5 100.5 30 6 0 20 5 0. aero (deg) (b) Eann (relative to ensemble mean.5 99 0.5 1 and cone angle βdesign.204 8 0.50 04 0. 2 0.514 λdesign. 0.5 10 98 99. 49 100 99.9 Power coefficient CP .5 99 98. aero (deg) βdesign. aero (real) 7.50 6 0.5 106 108 102 104 6 104 0 10 110 30 20 βdesign.4 7 6. 49 4 0.5 101 100.5 7 100 50 0. 6 20 98. 8 49 10 30 βdesign.4 88 49 49 86 2 0.5 6.5 0. %) Figure 6.4 0.

aero = 6–8 Figure 6. the blade length must also increase to maintain Eann .12(a) illustrates the generic non-linear trends of decreasing Eann with Vmean .9% for the CONE-450/REF-450 comparison at 7. both are relative to the values for the REF-1500. The difference in stall behaviour of the airfoils is also manifest by an increase in tolerable Eann with the sharpness of stall. Note that as Prated is constant.13 for the VSS rotor is evident in the Eann results. Modifying the thrust bounds either side of 100% produces relatively similar increments in Eann between the various rotors.2).6 (chosen for their equal maximum thrusts). CF will follow the same trends (see §3. 6. Figure 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 s (m) Figure 6. markedly different. For all airfoils. The PTS rotors are self-limited by higher thrust levels.12(b) shows the coning rotor performance relative to the REF-1500 at equal Vmean and constant hhub =84 m. . The superior below rated power curve of Fig.2 and §6.11 shows the overlapped contours of energy yield and maximum thrust.6. Again. A shape factor of k = 2. The achievable energy increase is.5 m/s (with tower height advantage). relative to the VSS rotors. The unbounded energy capture performance of all airfoils and control strategies is fairly similar with variations in Stip and βbalance .10 Blade chord profiles for λdesign.12 compares the REF1500 power curve to those of the set II VSS and PTS rotors considered next in §6. The blades weights obtained using the stated design condition are comparable to the REF-1500. and all rotors benefit from hhub increase relative to the nominal 84 m.5 Parametric Study 4 3 205 c (m) Increasing β 2 1 0 design.5. Figure 6. and Vmean is referenced to a nominal hhub =84 m. The coning rotors maintain an energy advantage across the range.2 was used. increasing hhub is clearly beneficial. the limit on Eann increases with βbalance . Figure 6. however. which at the upper-end is similar to the original 29. The energy yields of the rotors relative to the REF-1500 range from 0–30%.

thrust) .206 50 48 46 44 (m) 42 40 38 36 34 32 20 (m) Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization 150 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 40 32 20 25 130 125 05 1211 0 115 1000 1 95 25 30 5 110 1 1 5 90 5 10 00 8 1 5 9 0 5 9 8 35 140 135 130 125 120 115 0 10 5 1 19 0 0 105 9 85 00 5 1 9 9085 30 35 tip S S tip 10 11 11 5 0 5 40 40 115 0 11 135 145 0 14 5 13 50 48 150 145 βbalance (deg) (a) I PTS 50 48 46 44 (m) 42 40 38 36 34 32 20 tip βbalance (deg) (b) I VSS 145 50 48 46 44 (m) 42 40 38 36 34 32 20 150 150 140 5 135 11 130 125 120 115 95 0 10 9 5 1 8 105 95 30 145 140 135 130 125 120 10 105 100 1 100 25 90 35 115 10 1 105 100 15 95 1 90 110 1 85 05 100 25 S S tip 95 30 35 90 40 βbalance (deg) (c) II PTS 50 48 46 44 (m) 42 40 38 36 34 32 20 25 30 tip βbalance (deg) 145 (d) II VSS 50 48 145 140 150 150 140 135 10 130 105 15 1 1 25 0 1 10 5 120 9 90 5 8 46 44 (m) 42 40 38 36 34 40 32 20 115 110 105 100 95 90 35 85 105 100 95 90 5 8105 100 25 30 130 125 120 115 110 S S tip 95 90 85 35 40 βbalance (deg) (e) III PTS βbalance (deg) (f) III VSS Figure 6.11 Relative energy yield and maximum thrust variation with blade length Stip and balance angle βbalance ( energy yield.

VSS.ref (%) 150 100 50 0 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Vmean (a) Eann relative to REF-1500 at 7.0hhub . 1.5 m/s and hhub =84 m 200 180 Relative Eann (%) 160 140 120 100 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Vmean (b) Eann relative to REF-1500 at equal Vmean and hhub =84 m Figure 6.2hhub . REF-1500.6. 1.5 Parametric Study 200 207 Eann/Eann.12 Energy yield relative to REF-1500 varying with mean wind speed Vmean and hub height hhub ( 1. PTS) .4hhub .

5. selected from Fig. Although the PTS rotors in §6. the proximity of the angles of attack (α) for maximum lift-to-drag ratio αcl/cd.5.2. The excess torque requirement and high-wind behaviour are both directly attributable to the choice of airfoil. based on equal Dgen .13 shows curves for rotors with similar thrust and equal βbalance . Unlike a constant-speed stall controlled rotor. This clearly represents an important design consideration. as is the slope of the lift curve after stall. additional constraints are imposed by the generator. The relative impacts of the coning rotor and tower height effects are illustrated by the curves for the REF-1500. 6.13(f).5 cannot employ rotors as large as the VSS ones. 6. The slope dEann /dVmean is largest around 7. Fig. the active stall-controlled rotor can move over the map to initiate stall. as discussed in §6. Using the PMG model of §4. The blade lengths are 38 m. The set II rotor (800–1120 kNm) leads to a 60% increase. Continuing to concentrate on the steady-state operational profile. The reduction in cost with generator diameter Dgen is quite apparent for a PMG design. indicating the cost trade-offs are most acute in this range. the CF will clearly benefit for a coning rotor. More specifically. The large torque increment after the speed limit has been reached is undesirable from the generator perspective. which only benefit from hhub increase.8. A problem synonymous with VSS is the excess torque requirement to slow the rotor into stall [58.5 m/s.6 Control Strategy Impacts The dynamic implications of the control strategy have been outlined in §3. optimized for minimum cost/torque. the torque increase leads to a 40% cost increase. at discussion here are the steady torques that must be reacted to maintain control steady-state control.11. The added expense of this strategy is a generator to provide the excess torque. Recall that dynamic overloads are tolerable by both generator and power electronics.208 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization more so for lower wind speeds. Without definitive cost metrics. The low wind advantage of the coning rotors also mirror the results of Jamieson [66]. Fig.max and stall αstall are key. 6. 6. which must accept power loss above-rated from passive stalling as the CP –λ curve is traversed. For the set III rotor (800–1025 kNm). Experimentation with rotors designed with three . with the exception of 40 m for the set II and III VSS rotors.2. As all rotors have equal installed generator capacity. no precise answer can be gleaned for overall COE of the coning rotor.14 illustrates the cost variation of active material required to achieve the extreme and rated torque/speeds of Fig. 6. 59].6.

13 Operational curves for optimal rotors at βbalance = 30◦ .6.5 Parametric Study 1600 1400 1200 200 I PTS I VSS II PTS II VSS III PTS III VSS 5 10 15 20 25 Thrust (kN) 150 100 50 0 250 209 Power (kW) 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 V (m/s) (a) Power 40 35 1200 1000 V (m/s) (b) Thrust Torque (kNm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 800 600 400 200 0 β (deg) 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 V (m/s) (c) β 14 12 Torque (kNm) 10 8 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 10 V (m/s) (d) Torque λ 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 15 20 V (m/s) (e) λ Ω (RPM) (f) τ − Ω Figure 6.

The stall of the rotor is in fact too pronounced at low λ. III) has highlighted the common experience [36. 6.6RPM 1025kNm@14. Both .max and αstall (≈10◦ ) and the 17% set III the least (≈1.6 5. but at the expense of below rated performance. and the slope variation −dCP /dλ after stall. The set I rotor requires large movement in λ near rated.000 € 65. This means that for the optimized rotors operating at αcl/cd. 59] that airfoil curve characteristics are key to the steady rotor performance curves. where the set III rotor moves quickly into stall as the airfoils reach stall. but limits extreme torque by the sharp −dCP /dλ around λ = 3. somewhat complicating a simple comparison between the 2D coefficients in Appendix C. The 17% set III airfoil is also the most peaky in terms of lift-to-drag ratio change with AOA. II.15 shows the CP map for the VSS rotors just examined.max the performance is rapidly degraded offdesign.0 Figure 6. This characteristic affects the stall half of the curve to the left of CP max . with minimal angle of attack change. It has been possible to optimize the twist to reduce the excess torque requirement for the VSS rotors. 58.max point of the curves. leading to the power drop-off observed in Fig. Figure 6.000 € 85. There are two other main differences between VSS and PTS rotors: the coning angle above rated is less for the PTS rotors and the thrust levels higher.8 6.13(a) above V =23 m/s.000 € 75.4 5.000 € 45.000 € 55.2 Outer diameter (m) 5.210 € 95. The set II airfoils have the greatest difference between αcl/cd.8◦ ).8RPM Cost (Euro) 5. Note that the data includes stall-delay.000 € 35.14 Generator cost variation with diameter and torque/speed levels airfoil sets (I. heterogeneous blade lengths and blended airfoils.0 5. The aggregate effects of the airfoil behaviour are manifest in the “peakiness” of the CP.000 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization 800kNm@18 RPM 1120kNm@13.

4 211 CP 0.5 Parametric Study 0. the faster rotation speed for the PTS rotors means that the inflow angle is reduced relative to the VSS rotors and the relative velocity at the blade higher. Evidently the centrifugal stiffening force.6. proportional to Ω2 .7 Aerodynamic Uncertainty When interpreting design and optimization predications. these two aspects . keeping it more open. The issues have been discussed in various sections of Part II.6 0. In the case of the coning rotor.3 0.0 I II III 0 4 λ 8 12 Figure 6. it behoves the designer to appreciate the limitations and potential pitfalls of the modelling tools employed. In turn. but are unified here to inform future designers.15 CP − λ curves for β = 0◦ and varying airfoil set effects arise from maintaining a constant Ω above rated.5. This rotationally stiffens the rotor. The issues may usefully be divided into an “outer” problem of induction and “inner” problem of 2D section aerodynamics. the flow properties result in a higher stream wise force component and smaller torque-inducing component for the PTS rotors. increasing the thrust somewhat. Many of the issues are not unique to this concept. In the BEM model.5 0. but extend to any wind turbine. By examining the local flow and resulting forces.2 0. the primary area of modelling uncertainty is in the aerodynamics.1 0. the capture area is larger. 6. it is found that even though the lift/drag coefficients are similar. More dominating. dominates the Ω proportional thrust force in determining the equilibrium cone angle. especially those operating in stall and at high yaw angles.

the velocities seen at each section on the disc must be properly related to those in the far wake (see §4. The modified BEM method in this thesis includes both of these considerations. Practically speaking however. radial and azimuthal components.e.6) to balance the momentum equations.2). only the dominant tip vortex tube may be considered (i. within the confines of a computationally appropriate BEM method.2). This ignores the variation in spanwise loading on a real rotor which creates multiple vortex tubes. BEM theory models this effect in the momentum equations as averaged induction factors via the Prandtl F factor (see §4.4. Far Downstream For BEM.4.4. Issues with the outer problem are typically manifest at lower wind speeds. further modifying the spanwise variation of induction. this is an artefact of a finite number of finite A blades creating distinct vortex sheets. linked to coarser meshes extending well downstream into the wake.3). and are important for energy capture (Region II). The outer problem is essential that of determining the proper induced velocities which modify the incident flow as it approaches each blade section and in the wake. when power limiting (Region III).212 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization are coupled by the velocity components resolved parallel to each blade section.3. The origin of the induced velocities is the wake shed by the blades. producing improved aerodynamic and loading predictions relative to standard theory (see §5. A number of other approximations are also necessary: 3D Tip/Hub Losses The loading at the hub and tips of the blades must trend to zero. without further iterations on more complicated wake structures). . necessitating the use of BEM theory with certain caveats.1. However. they remain too expensive for application to wind turbine design work. CFD methods are theoretically better placed to avoid the issues discussed below. Fullfield CFD methods fully couple the two problems by resolving the flow with fine scale grids near the blade surfaces. Inner problem issues appear especially during stall. It includes the following aspects: Flow at the Disc The induced flow at the disc contains axial. Physically. Due to this tighter coupling and more fundamental approach. The proper prediction of all three components is important (see §4.

The thrust models of §4. the wake must expand to satisfy continuity.11). airfoils behave similarly past a critical AOA of approximately 50◦ enabling extension of available data (see Appendix C). requiring data in the proper regime. Yaw prediction has been improved with current method (see §5. Design critical points occur when the airfoils are stalled.1). for ostensibly the same airfoil [177].4 attempt to overcome this deficiency.1. but owing to the fundamental nature of the problem are unable to capture the recirculating stream tubes. even out to ±180◦ . ice formation) will modify the 2D characteristics. drag prediction in particular can lead to multiple datasets.4. Operational Changes Surface modifications during operation (e.5 Parametric Study Wake Expansion The trailing wake vorticity must strictly freely follow the streamlines. For stalling rotors.4. a yawed rotor experiences varying induction with azimuth owing to the relative position of the wake. High Induction The momentum equations are fundamentally in error. Even below stall. 4. soiling. Fortunately. large modifications to the 2D characteristics may occur owing to boundary layer transport.g. as they violate continuity. which is far outside the standard test range for an airfoil. 4. Even with perfect resolution of the outer problem. at very high induction factors. but again includes some error because a further iteration of the solution for each azimuthal blade position is not possible in the general dynamic case. Re Effects Wind turbines operate in the Re range over which airfoils undergo large performance changes. The inner problem consists of predicting lift (cl ). 213 Wake expansion is better handled by the new BEM method (see §5. In turn.4. however very high induction factor conditions remain quite challenging to predict for both coned and unconed rotors. drag (cd ) and moment (cm ) 2D coefficients based on the velocity seen at the blade (as shown in Figs. As induction increases.11). even with wake expansion.6.8). the 2D sectional problem is complicated by the following aspects: Large AOA Measurements and numerical predictions are fairly accurate in attached-flow regions (small AOA below stall). the induced velocity at the disc is modified by the modified strength and location of the vortex sheets (see §4.9) is generally valid below stall.1. which should receive more .3. Spanwise Flow The independence principle (see §4. The models used here are only a first approximation to this condition.2. Yawed Flow Akin to a coned rotor.4 and Fig.

including spanwise flow.9) will act to decrease safety margins. The modelling difficulties evident in §5. Surface roughness effects will drastically change stall behavior.e.1. centrifugal pumping (see §4. in this case by 4% in extreme value. from an energy capture perspective. Dynamic Flow The flow around a 2D section behaves differently in steadystate than dynamically. both in stalled and unstalled conditions. may only be treated with approximate models. the operational curves for the set II rotors of §6. as well as the generator torque critical for the VSS rotors. given the simplified geometry used in the study relative to most commercial blades. 6. To provide some quantitative indication of the aggregate modelling effects on the coning rotor predictions. Any form of stall delay to higher AOA (see §4. the spanwise flow effect is small around rated. as power and torque can only decrease. In fact.16. but approximately equal to the centrifugal pumping effect at Vco . These individual modelling difficulties ultimately manifest themselves in the aggregated performance predictions.8) will modify lift/drag properties. This is true for thrust. The flow responds with some lag.214 Chapter 6 Rotor Optimization detailed verification. The fundamental mechanisms remain misunderstood and only partially modelled. For the VSS rotor τ is increased by adding the stall delay models. which must be tuned to the particular airfoil section employed. even unconed) [91]. although that should be favorable from a safety perspective. varying with the stall delay model used. The general case.5. Centrifugal Pumping In addition to the spanwise flow stall delay (primarily important for coned rotors). In both cases. it is of course detrimental. It is well recognized that stall prediction is very difficult for any rotor (i. The PTS rotor predictions are in error in β. Ample control would be available from the pitch . power predictions may be erroneous by up to 30–60%. Adoption of a PTS strategy would provide a measure of design safety on the difficult stalled-flow predictions.4. and represent and upper bound on aerodynamic uncertainty. In particular. the root and tip regions will tend to undergo opposite changes (higher and lower maximum lift respectively) as the boundary layer migrates outboard. The extrema value is approximately 4% too low without any model.4. Based on these results. the verification of above rated performance for a real machine revealed a 17% under-prediction of power [58].6 are compared in Fig.4.8 and 4.6 are a pathological worstcase above stall.

16 Variation in operational curves with stall delay models for set II rotors (CP = Centrifugal pumping. This section has highlighted the various error sources.1 did yield bounds relative to a more accurate method. providing some indication of the level of error to be expected. further experimental results are required against which to valid the predictive models. in order to obtain more quantitative bounds. Ultimately however. It is difficult to place quantitative bounds on the aerodynamic uncertainty present in aerodynamic predictions for wind turbines. Until such time as these results become available. The dynamic controller design should take this possibility into account by adopting a robust approach. their domains of influence. SF = spanwise flow) system to compensate for any real world shortcomings of the model of the system.6. .5 Parametric Study 1200 1000 800 40 35 30 25 215 τ (kNm) 600 400 200 0 No Corr CP CP & SF β (deg) 20 15 10 5 No Corr CP CP & SF 0 5 10 V (m/s) 15 20 25 0 0 5 10 V (m/s) 15 20 25 (a) VSS (b) PTS Figure 6. Comparison of the modified BEM method to CFD results in §5. the designer is forced to heed past experience and the insight offered in this section to synthesize robust designs that are relatively insensitive to the modelling errors which may be present. and their conservative or non-conservative effects on design predictions.


Manwell et al. drivetrain. without complicating the picture with controllers or stochastic aerodynamic forces.1). and same type of hinge 217 . [17] presented the work of Eggleston and Stoddard [14] for a linearised model about β0 = 0.1 Dynamic Simulation This section presents an exploration of the fundamental dynamic aspects of the coning rotor. To proceed further will require full dynamic simulations of the rotor.2.1.2 respectively.Chapter 7 Design Considerations Using the initial rotor designs presented in Chapter 6. future work must extend the analysis into unsteady simulations. 7. incorporating very simplified (linear) aerodynamics. The second area of consideration is the low-frequency acoustic profile of the coning rotor (§7. the non-linear flapping response to the various forcing functions is discussed in §7.1. This chapter highlights a number of design considerations that become critical to the time-domain performance of the coning rotor.2. and a viable controller. In particular. Hopefully the basic insight offered in this section will clarify the execution of these future tasks. 7.1. including flexible blades and tower. steady yaw motion. The first set concern the dynamics of the system (§7.1. yaw mechanism.2) that must be accounted for and mitigated in the layout and operation of any potential machine.1 and 7. to further refine the design. The results of fully non-linear time-domain simulations must then be used to further refine and verify the design. followed by aerodynamic damping of the flap and edgewise modes in §7. The synergistic modal interactions of the various components will need to be checked on a Campbell diagram and/or by examination of a linearised state-space model.1.1 Fundamental Response The intent of this section is to explore the fundamental non-linear effects that will influence the loading of the coning rotor.

including the other forcing functions discussed next.3. similar to the presentation in §4. It is found that in general. Instead of applied damping or an active moment. The linearised equations were analytically examined.2 yielded basic insight into the fundamental frequencies and critical damping (§4. Releasing from β = 0.6. The analytic solution yields a “cyclic sharing” term. unsteady aerodynamics and non-linear cone angles.3. a linear spring was used to tune the response to simulate the first flap mode of a flexible blade. gravity causes a cosine response in a stiff rotor. while freely flapping blades exhibit a π/2 phase lag. dependent on the stiffness of the hinge spring.1 are examined numerically.27).3. and a constant term. In this section. with the inclusion of tilt angle. The linearised equations of motion developed in §4. With ψt = 0. Figure 7.6.6. the 0 azimuth is defined here for the 1st blade vertically upwards.6.6. and a constant rotor speed Ω is used for a downwind rotor. Constant hinge moment is used to bias the steady cone angle. both biased by the tilt angle ψt . (4.6. Therefore.1 Flap angle solution expansion terms To start with.218 Chapter 7 Design Considerations offset.20b) imposes a cosine varying loading. gravity is purely a cosine input.1. using a solution expansion of constants. cosine and sine responses.20b). (4. that stiff blades respond with little phase-lag to the input.1 (a) Constant +β0 (b) Cosine +βc at θ = 0 (c) Sine +βs at θ = π/2 Figure 7.3) of the coning rotor. determining the relative amount of cosine and sine response of the flap angle to the input. 1 ◦ . using data from the REF-1500. whereas Manwell et al.6. the aerodynamic contribution is omitted. (4. The gravity term in Eq. A critical damping coefficient HactD for ζ = 1 may be computed from Eq. and a sine response for a freely hinged rotor. cosines and sines of the rotor azimuth angle with fixed rotation speed.3. and Hact for a steady 10◦ flap angle from Eq. the non-linear EOM of §4.1 is useful for visualizing the motions as constant. [17] define it vertically downwards.

the aerodynamic moment balances the inertial centrifugal force and imposed root moments. if held in fixed in yaw. the mean cone angle and flapping magnitude is reduced.2 9. the EOM admit two steady-state solutions. both of these cyclic forcing functions therefore conspire to develop a real or “effective”2 yaw angle for the rotor.3. the moment arm of the centrifugal force increases.e. Dynamically.5 1 2 3 10 1 2 3 9.1 Dynamic Simulation 219 system quickly reaches the example cyclic responses shown in Fig. the blade angle phasing is as expected 120◦ . 7.2(b). so β continues to decrease. .4. Changing to ψt = 5◦ .2 Blade flapping without aerodynamic contribution The aerodynamic loading is now added to the equations. 2 I. and blade 1 has maximal β at 1/4 rev showing a pure sine response to gravity. as β increases. Manwell et al. For ψt = 0◦ in Fig. In the absence of gravity and wind shear.2(a). the rotor tips will not sweep out a circle centred on the rotor axis.2.7.4 9.5 3 10 9. As expected.5 2 2. Wind shear is a sine input. 7. a trivial result of both the analytic and numerical approaches is that the rotor operates at a steady cone angle. 10.8 β (deg) β (deg) 2 2. As noted in §5. Hinge offset and positive resisting moments/springs reduce the angle. the system is unstable. and therefore the response for the coning rotor is primarily a cosine one. 7. but this is overcome by the decreasing centrifugal force magnitude.1 Combined with gravity and tilt.5 3 Rotor revolutions (a) ψt = 0◦ Rotor revolutions (b) ψt = 5◦ Figure 7. symmetric about β = 45◦ . as shown in Fig.6 9. [17] have shown the effect to be worse for faster-spinning and softer 1 An active hinge moment with some component proportional to β will effectively stiffen the rotor and produce some sine response. but the phasing remains the same. for β > 45◦ .

only present for a rotor operating at mean non-zero β. Operation in yaw.5 0 -0.1(b). and the x component is zero (no aerodynamic thrust present). . will also reduce the power capture somewhat. There is also a very small mean −y component. ). offset in the +y direction from the x axis. 4. from total blade weight. 7. Cyclic flapping is superimposed on a mean cone angle (from constant Hact ). The net centre of mass of the rotor (averaging all blades) therefore tracks a circle with frequency BP . The sine and cosine inputs will balance at some steady yaw angle. either “effective” or real. Both y and z components have a small 3P component (B = 3). with ψt = 0 and yaw angle held at 0◦ . x –y –z of Fig. 7.e. the hub loads are shown in Fig. This effectively creates a rotating imbalance force Fy (θ).3 Hub loads for blade flapping without aerodynamic contribution (non-rotating CS) This behaviour may be explained with reference to Fig.3(a).220 Chapter 7 Design Considerations (no hinge spring) rotors. creating blade paths (equivalently tip paths or blade centres of mass) that are effectively yawed from the mean path by βy as the blades pass through the x –y plane.4. not rotating with blades. in fixed coordinates (i.5 1 0. The main force produced is a steady gravity force in the −z direction. This has implications for a free-yaw design in which the developed cross-flow on the rotor creates a sine input. π/2 out of phase (not visible at the figure scale). owing to the effects of advancing/retreating blades. 2 0 -2 Fx F F y z x 10 4 3 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 Rotor revolutions (a) Forces Rotor revolutions (b) Moments Figure 7. with the same hinge actuator moment and critical damping as earlier.5 x 10 5 M M M x y z Force (N) -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 0 1 2 3 Moment (Nm) 4 2 1. Removing the aerodynamic contribution again.

This illustrates the rotor torque moment developed with collective coning motion. Both were observed to increase in amplitude with fewer blades and larger mean cone angle.4 Dynamic situation with flapping blades and rotating imbalance ˙ Lagging by π/2. 7. Two-bladed teetered rotors can obviate the rotor imbalance force with an under-slung rotor. 1 .1 Dynamic Simulation 221 Figure 7.1 The net effect of both responses is the y and z cyclic forcing in the hub fixed CS. In addition. as the mean cone angle is small. to conserve rotational momentum. The effects are smaller though.3(b) show Mx increasing then decreasing as the blades flap towards equilibrium.7. to direct thrust forward and sideways for flight control. The hub moments in Fig. the sin β (radial) component of the flap velocity is non-negligible. Operating about a non-zero mean β. In this case Ω is held Note that the Coriolis force Fc = −2mω × vr is simply a manifestation of conservation of angular momentum and vice versa. the maximum flap velocity β develops as the blades pass through the x –z plane. in that the tip-path plane is tilted relative to the shaft axis. and so a Coriolis force is created. Helicopter rotors are somewhat similar. the former with a negative mean. both the sin β component of flap velocity and magnitude of centre of mass movement are smaller. The transmission of Coriolis forces to the hub are eliminated with lead-lag hinges in fully-articulated rotors. as the blades are much lighter. at the pre-coned rotor centre of mass. by placing the pivot axis on the rotation axis.

5 shows the logarithmic decrement δd (see §4. this motion can lead to destructive fatigue loading on various components. and the collective actuator both also provided damping to compensate for the loss of aerodynamic damping on the stalled rotor. as the force component is in the same direction as the velocity. . but with variable speed may be used to reduce the moment magnitude. 7. 7. as with helicopters.6. no gravity. active feedback control may be used to better tune the system response over the wind speed range. vibrations are reinforced. dynamic and centrifugal stall-delay models.3. The results include uniform wind. Provision for adequate passive damping in a hydraulic coning actuator mechanism may be readily engineered.1. and are computed at the optimal design operating points varying with V .1. In the latter case. or catastrophic divergent oscillations may develop.2 Aerodynamic Damping The motion of a body through a fluid produces forces proportional to the velocity of movement.3) for the rotors considered in §6.5. Alternatively. The flap motion is particularly prone to difficulty.6. These links.2. Jamieson [66] found that tower-top loading with rigid coning links was excessive (natural flap frequency and rotation speed too close).6. (4. Figure 7. If unchecked. It is the work of this aerodynamic force component(F (V ) · V ) that gives rise to either positive or negative damping.24)).222 Chapter 7 Design Considerations fixed. The level of aerodynamic damping loss will vary with the rotor characteristics. The CONE-450 experience of resonant excitement is therefore an intrinsic issue to the coning rotor.e. relative to the hub centre. A safety factor over the critical damping factor should avoid excessive response. as the natural flap frequency is always close to the fundamental rotor speed (see Eq. so damped links were envisaged instead. the hinge offset Rhinge imparts additional moments to the hub from the moment of the forces at the hinge location. either fatigue life is reduced. owing to the effects just discussed. If inadequately damped.1 Hinge Flapping Damping The gross motion of the blade is flapping about its hinge axis. the system was over-damped. For V below those shown. Again. All moments have a small BP alternating component. the rigid blade’s flap hinge) as well as the flexible modes of the blades [113]. obtained from the aerodynamically damped oscillation after release from β = 0◦ . Aerodynamic damping is relevant to both discrete DOF (i.

equations were derived and results presented on a sectional and whole blade-mode basis. edgewise and coupled directions (from integrated flexibility over twisted structural and geometric axes) were examined in terms of aerofoil lift/drag characteristics.2 Flexible Body Damping The problems of aerodynamic damping are present in all rotor concepts employing some type of stall control (FSS. [159]1 presented an excellent analysis of the fundamental issues associated with the effects of aerodynamic stall on the modal damping of flexible blades. §7.2 0 -0.7. both from a prediction point of view and inherent physical challenges. parallel and normal to the section chord respectively. It appears that the PTS rotors are better damped at higher V . VSS or PTS).6 0.1.4 0. The industry shift to PTF as machines grew past 1 MW was at least partially motivated by the inherent technical difficulty associated with stall.9] Edgewise and flapwise are “true” in this context.1 Dynamic Simulation 6 5 4 3 I II III 1.8 223 δd δd 2 1 0 -1 10 15 20 25 0.1.2. Airfoils with sharp stall (set I) experience lower levels of damping. [16. 7. During the period of transition from FSS to PTS.2 The influence in terms of overall power and thrust curves of the section and blade Later repeated by Burton et al. Concentrating on FSS machines. The damping coefficients in flapwise. whereas the reverse is true near rated. 2 1 .2 1 0.2 10 15 20 25 V (m/s) (a) VSS V (m/s) (b) PTS Figure 7. Petersen et al.4 1.5 Logarithmic decrement δd for flap hinge damping All rotors experience their lowest levels of damping near rated.

[159] also derived isolated section damping coefficients. • Increased chord increases negative aerodynamic damping. as well as increases stiffness and structural damping.e. with relatively large chord inboard where aerodynamic damping is less critical but edgewise stiffness is greatly enhanced. For an actively controlled rotor. to minimise the contribution of negative lift after stall. close to blade edgewise frequencies) should be avoided. • Changing the structural or geometric collective pitch angle have essentially the same effect.1) . this may be avoided.n n0 − ∂(rΩ) ∂Vn = FR − 0 cR cR θθ θn v s cR cR nn nθ (7. The forces in these two directions then have steady ˆ and damping (proportional to vs ) components:   R ∂Fθ ∂F R R R − ∂(rΩ) ∂Vθ Fθ Fθ0 v FR = −  ∂F R ∂F n  s. with PTS. The main results with applicability to the current concept may be summarized as: • A negative power/wind speed curve creates negative damping. Therefore.224 Chapter 7 Design Considerations were also considered.1. while minimally detrimental to flapwise vibration. relative aerodynamic velocities) in the θ and n directions vs. and with linearised aerodyˆ namics including structural motion (i.θ R R = FR n n Fn vs. • Structural-pitch towards feather is favourable for edgewise vibration. Dynamic stall plays a large role in modifying the behaviour. The mode shapes weight the contribution to damping as radius squared. • Sharply negative cl − α slopes after stall are detrimental. by making the shaft/nacelle structure as stiff as possible. • Low-lift (smoothly stalling) airfoils are preferred outboard. with α0 near 0◦ are preferable to minimise geometric and structural pitch towards stall. edgewise damping can be expected to decrease. The mechanism is a modification of the sectional direction of motion to increase coupling of the edgewise mode to the well-damped unstalled flapwise mode. A compromise is therefore required. Petersen et al. The equations were derived assuming zero induction factor. thereby aligning the edgewise direction favourably towards feather. making outboard sections more critical aerodynamically.e. by linearising the variation in aerodynamic force F R about operating point Vn and rΩ.n . • Highly cambered airfoils. • Edgewise mode coupling to yaw and nod modes (i.θ and vs.

4b) (7. and local speed ratio λr = rΩ/Vn of 6 below rated. [159].2c) (7. .2b) (7. The section damping cB angle θs is expressed with γstr (structural twist relative to chordline) as: x θs = γstr + γop + γtw (7. The airfoils have static twist γtw to achieve this.2a) (7. . with the signs accounting for direction of motion. A section radius r of 30 m is used. A nominal chord of 1 m is used for the set I airfoils. so varying γstr = −90◦ . . Vn ) = cρ θθ 2 Vrel 1 rΩ cR (r. 90◦ covers both.5) Edgewise and flapwise vibration directions are nominally 90◦ apart. 1 This is opposite to Petersen et al. the same as AOA α. .2d) A real section will move in a coupled direction.3) Using these equations.4a) (7. The airfoils are operated at their respective maximum cl /cd points below rated. and are actively pitched by γop above rated. Without repeating the derivation here. All twist angles are positive towards feather. Vn ) = cρ nn 2 Vrel 2 2r2 Ω2 + Vn ∂cd V 2 ∂cl cd − Vn − V cl + rΩ ∂α rΩ ∂α 2 Ω2 + 2V 2 ∂cd r ∂cl n −Vn cd − rΩ + cl + Vn ∂α rΩ ∂α 2 ∂c 2 Ω2 + V 2 V 2r ∂cl d n −Vn cd − n − cl + Vn rΩ ∂α rΩ ∂α 2 + r 2 Ω2 2Vn ∂cd ∂cl cd + Vn + Vn cl + rΩ rΩ ∂α ∂α (7.1 The sectional power and thrust per unit span are computed with: 1 P = ρcrΩVrel (Vn cl − rΩcd ) 2 1 F = ρcΩVrel (rΩcl + Vn cd ) 2 (7.1 Dynamic Simulation 225 The resulting equations yield a full damping matrix with these two DOF.1. and the other airfoils chords are scaled to achieve the same P at 11 m/s. a comparison between airfoils and control strategies can be made at the fundamental sectional level. the damping coefficients for an isolated section are: 1 rΩ cR (r. edgewise vibration is approximately in the range of γstr = 0◦ .1. 20◦ . With the integrated influence of inboard sections.4. . Vn ) = cρ nθ 2 Vrel 1 rΩ cR (r. Vn ) = cρ θn 2 Vrel 1 rΩ cR (r. but expressing the damping constants in the coordinate system notation of Fig.1.1. 4.1. so the damping constants are transformed here to an xB axis with: ˆ cB = cos2 (θs )cR − cos(θs ) sin(θs ) cR − cR + sin2 (θs )cR nn x nθ θn θθ ˆ where θs is the angle measured clockwise from θ.

. 400 300 200 0 cB (Ns/m2) x 25 20 15 10 5 V (m/s) 200 -200 -400 -600 -800 cB (Ns/m2) x 100 0 -1000 -1200 -90 -60 -30 0 30 γ (deg) 6090 str -100 90 60 30 γstr (deg) 0 -30 -60 -90 25 20 15 10 5 V (m/s) (a) PTF 25 400 200 20 (b) PTS γop (deg) or Ω (RPM) 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 5 10 15 20 25 PTF PTS VSS cB (Ns/m2) x 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -90-60 -30 5 10 0 30 60 90 15 20 V (m/s) 25 γstr (deg) V (m/s) (d) Control variables (c) VSS Figure 7. as expected.6 shows the damping achieved for the set I airfoil. as a large pitch well into stall is required. In addition.226 Chapter 7 Design Considerations Figure 7. for PTS control. Above rated. All control strategies achieve the same damping below rated. The PTS rotor is particularly affected. the behaviour is a somewhat complicated mix of factors. particularly in the flap direction. the controls utilizing stall clearly suffer from a loss of damping. active pitch re-aligns the vibration direction in a detrimental way. The 5 m/s case is quite similar and uniformly well damped in all directions.7. Moving into stall at 15–25 m/s. 7.6 Damping constant variation with control strategy for 15% thick set I airfoil (Ns/m2 ) Additional airfoils from set II and III are compared in Fig.

and most importantly. an overall detriment to damping. In the original CONE-450 study [66]. only rigid flapping and a flexible flap mode. it can be seen that there are multiple competing effects that influence damping. increasing damping (see earlier list [159]). 15 m/s.7. The set II/III damping is reduced somewhat relative to the 15% airfoils. This is the dominant factor in the highly negative levels of damping for the set I airfoils. relative to the -18◦ angle of the 15% thick airfoil. · I. owing to the smoother stall. 7. II. the pitch action shown in Fig. 200 150 100 5 15 25 cB (Ns/m2) x 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 II I III γstr (deg) Figure 7. Any potential edgewise damping issues would 1 Set III airfoil data is the same as set II data at this thickness. 7. no edgewise mode shapes were included. making airfoil choice and blade design all the more complicated. Overall. shifted in γstr from the overall pitch angle γop + γtw .7 Damping constant variation with airfoil for 15% thick airfoils and PTS ( 5 m/s.8(b).8(a) is largest for the set II airfoil. Finally. . relative to the more negatively sloping cl curve for the 21% thick data. Apparently the operation at relatively constant γop + γtw = −8◦ (above rated) for the set II/III airfoils has little positive damping effect. 25 m/s.9 shows damping data for a thicker set of airfoils. and both are much less severe than set I. III) Figure 7. the set III has the smallest chord (and set II the largest). note that the stall drop-off in cl is roughly comparable for the set II and III airfoils. owing to their similar stall behaviour.1 Dynamic Simulation 227 Firstly. The set II and III airfoils experience similar levels of damping. The vibration direction is therefore more negative. Secondly. This is explained by the second stall peak in the thin airfoil data.1 The set I damping is clearly improved across the entire range of V and γstr . over the range of AOA shown in Fig.

9 Damping constant variation with airfoil for 21% thick airfoils and PTS ( 5 m/s. 25 m/s. 15 m/s. II. III) .8 Variation of AOA α and total twist angles over wind speed range with airfoil choice (15% thick) for PTS 150 100 50 5 15 25 cB (Ns/m2) x 0 II & III -50 -100 -150 -200 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 I γstr (deg) Figure 7. · I.228 0 -2 -4 Chapter 7 Design Considerations 35 30 25 γtw + γop (deg) -6 α (deg) 25 -8 -10 -12 -14 -16 -18 5 10 15 20 I II III 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 V (m/s) (a) Total twist γ V (m/s) (b) AOA α Figure 7.

and is now relatively well understood and fundamentally limited by tip-speed (<70 m/s). The unavailability of a suitably modified version of BLADEDTM prohibited more detailed examination of these effects for a complete blade.2 Tower Thump Lowson and Lowson [139] concluded that the CONE-450 would produce only a minimal noise increment over an equally-rated VSS machine.2).3). increased trailing-edge-length was the primary culprit. so observer distance is not a influencing factor in this analysis.3 is used in this section to parametrically examine the effects of wind speed (§7. offset from the tower (§7.2 between upwind and downwind is substantial. [141].6 gives a brief outline of future directions for acoustic investigation. A complete design would be required. wake profile (§7.2. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale. indicate that 72 dB is an acceptable upper-limit on LFN (at 11 m/s and 100 m observer distance). an important effect not originally considered is “tower-thump”.4– 1.2. so the nominal 12–15 dB difference in §5. This noise has been problematic in the past for downwind machines [191]. who measured real data for a downwind turbine that caused LFN disturbance to neighbours.6 Pa. for objective quantification in terms of maximum acceptable SPL. • The nominal wind speed is 11 m/s. and rigid-body flap motion (§7.2. Tip-noise can be avoided by proper design.2. Some indications were given in § As discussed in §4.2 for an up-wind rotor (for which LFN is not a practical consideration). present for any downwind rotor passing through a tower wake. The REF-1500 rotor is used as a baseline. control strategy (§7. at ground level.2 Tower Thump 229 therefore not have been manifest in the results. 1 .5). Section 7. a quantitative indication of the effect of design parameters is sought.1 Attenuation with distance is minimal for low-frequency noise. The model of §4. with the following configuration unless otherwise stated: • The observer is 100 m downwind of the tower (0◦ azimuth). 7.1. found pressure peaks of ±1. which should be revisited in future work. It is not possible to draw absolute conclusions from the current investigations.3. Barman et al. This will be true even for nearby offshore machines.5. Rather.1). ExcelBEM predictions presented in §5.2.2. corresponding to ≈ 75 dB peaks around 10 Hz (25 RPM rotor speed). below the rated power of the machine but at maximum rotor speed.4). as would a strict measure of acceptability. Within the confines of the analysis method.

at least until rated power. The results are shown in Figs.10 SPL variation with wind speed These results confirm that the noise grows. • The dynamic inflow model is used for induction calculation.230 • Wind shear is included (α = 0. the SPL can be expected to grow with wind speed. predictions were made over the operational profile of the REF-1500.3 and width w 2. Based on this. 95 Stall delay No stall delay 90 SPL (dB) 85 80 75 5 10 15 20 25 Windspeed (m/s) Figure 7. typical values for the wake from a cylinder Wang and Coton [87]. 7. 7. given the error-bounds. only fixed cone angles (0◦ nominal) and rotor speeds (20 RPM nominal). • No tilt angle is included. including variable speed and pitch angle (for the nominal control schedule.10 and 7. • Dynamic stall delay (referred to below as simply stall delay) is turned off. [141] presents non-dimensional wake profile data over a range of wind speeds for the velocity deficit behind a tower. without stall delay). the forces remain relatively constant. both defined 3. which are fairly invariant with respect to free stream velocity. and therefore the SPL only continues 1 Effects are only important above rated.2.15). • No dynamic motion. To test this. .11.1 Variation with Wind Speed Barman et al.1 • Centrifugal pumping and spanwise flow corrections are turned off throughout.5D. Chapter 7 Design Considerations • The tower wake profile has wake deficit ∆ 0.25D downwind of the tower. With pitch action.

This is counterbalanced against reduced overall force with pitch-to-fine. at constant wake deficit ∆ = 0.1 Wake Width The SPL trend with wake width w (expressed as multiples of tower diameter D). including stall delay to grow with increasing absolute velocity deficit. 7.11 Acoustic spectrum variation with wind speed (m/s).2 Tower Thump 80 70 60 231 SPL (dB) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 5 8 15 20 25 10 15 20 f (Hz) Figure 7. resulting in fairly constant LFN above rated.2. The wake parameters are defined 3.25D downwind. circular tower produces a deep. The rotor is unconed in both cases operating at 20 RPM.2. less acoustical noise is produced. 7.3 is shown in Fig. as are the transients in negative stall (for 20–25 m/s).2. while a multi-element (truss) tower would create a lesssevere but broader wake. Hence. able to rotate with the rotor in yaw either as a complete unit or by means of a fairing around a circular tower. Another. . The influence of both are examined below. possibly costly. Even though the total deficit remains constant. Figure 7. the larger time-period means that lift variations are more sedate. A thin.7. sharp wake.12. Including stall delay effects is shown to have an important effect. 7.2 Wake Profile Influence The tower design will influence the noise significantly. since the force magnitudes are larger.13 shows that the acoustic energy is essentially constant for low-order harmonics. option would be a streamlined tower. but falls off at higher (audible) frequencies with increasing wake width.

2.4 SPL (dB) 88. Fig.5 4 0 5 10 15 20 0 f (Hz) Figure 7. broader wake from a small-element truss tower would mimic this. decreasing in 1 This was a problem on the US MOD-1 machine [15]. SPL grows with wake deficit ∆.2 88 87.13 Acoustic spectrum variation with wake width w It is worth noting that the wake is assumed uniform. The smoothed. but would create more sharp individual wakes.14 shows that as expected.4 87.5 4 w Figure 7.2 2.12 SPL variation with wake width w 100 80 SPL (dB) 60 40 20 2.2. More substantial members of a tripod-type structure would not. .5 3 3.232 Chapter 7 Design Considerations 88.5 3 3.2 Wake Deficit Holding the wake width w fixed at 2.8 87.1 7.5D. It appears that the growth is non-linear.6 87. 7.6 88.

6 0. 96 94 92 SPL (dB) 90 88 86 84 0.8 0 5 10 15 20 f (Hz) Figure 7. 7. The quick growth with ∆.7.4 0. especially of the more audible higherfrequency components makes minimization of this parameter (at the blade location) quite important. The steady pressure remains virtually constant.14 SPL variation with wake deficit ∆ 90 80 70 SPL (dB) 60 50 40 30 20 0.15.2 0. it appears that the higher harmonics grow more quickly that the lower ones. as the average forces are virtually unaltered with ∆.2 Tower Thump 233 additive effect as ∆ is increased.8 ∆ Figure 7.2 0.6 0.15 Acoustic spectrum variation with wake deficit ∆ . Examining the detailed spectrum in Fig.4 0.

[81] and Versteegh [82] present the Vensys and Zephyros direct-drive machines respectively. Even at 7D however.234 Chapter 7 Design Considerations 7. the rotor should be placed as far downwind as possible. 7. and use efficient compact-hub construction. in turn influenced by static and fatigue loading. The generator in all cases is overhung on the upwind end of the nacelle. while the direct-drive concept proposed in that report had almost zero offset to the yaw axis [66]. both of which have conventional upwind rotors. MS-4 [9. the SPL is above the 72 dB that is the nominal reduction target.1 Offset from Yaw Axis Figure 7. and a shaft transmits torque from the rotor.16 SPL variation with offset from tower o/Dtowertop . Acoustically. which has been the common solution: Carter [75]. All but the small Proven machines use gearboxes with induction generators. the acoustic effects must be quantified. Proven [193]. The CONE-450 with space-frame hub located the hinge axes ≈3 m downwind of the yaw axis. 90 88 86 SPL (dB) 84 82 80 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ratio of offset to tower top diameter Figure 7. the rotor hub is most efficiently supported near that tower centre. It is clear this is an effective parameter in mitigating tower interaction noise. and WTC [70].16 shows the SPL as the hub offset o is varied by its ratio with tower-top diameter. The generators are located on the same side as the rotor.3. One option is an elongated hub.2. In order to avoid a long shaft for a PMG coning rotor.3 Mitigation by Offset Structurally. Obviously tower diameter will directly affect any strategy. 192]. Klinger et al.2.

shown in Fig.5 m) of offset in this case. The coning hinge is at the outboard edge of the hub (1. The spectrum of the noise in Fig. The true tip-speed-ratio λ is kept constant. while the mid-range around 10 Hz is most effected. at least for the 0◦ observer azimuth (directly downwind). In fact.75 m) and the nominal 3.2.2 Cone Angle In order to obtain a fair comparison of coned configurations. the aerodynamic power of the rotor is kept constant.19 shows that noise is reduced quite strongly across the entire range.2 Tower Thump 235 Examining the spectrum in Fig.3 m offset from the yaw axis is used. 7.18.7. 10◦ of cone is equivalent to 3D (8. but is strongly dependent below this offset. Both lower (infra sound) and higher audible sounds are mitigated more effectively than with simple offset. The outer portion of the blades.17 Acoustic spectrum variation with offset from tower o/Dtowertop 7. With this set of scaled blades. so that tip noise would remain relatively unaltered. At higher harmonics.17 reveals that increasing the offset has a nonlinear effect on SPL. . This is achieved by scaling the blade sections and chords by a constant multiple. responsible for the bulk of noise. 80 70 60 SPL (dB) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 f (Hz) Figure 7. 7. 7. The 3P SPL is hardly effected. even if the TE noise would grow somewhat with blade length. moves fairly quickly away from the tower with β. is found to be even more effective than linear offset in reducing SPL. above offsets of 3D the SPL changes minimally. the acoustic variation in SPL.3.

19 Acoustic spectrum variation with cone angle β (deg) .236 90 85 80 Chapter 7 Design Considerations SPL (dB) 75 70 65 60 0 90 180 270 0 10 20 30 40 Cone angle (deg) Figure 7.18 SPL variation with cone angle β (deg) and observer azimuth angle (deg) 80 70 60 SPL (dB) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 5 10 15 20 f (Hz) Figure 7.

the location and orientation of the acoustic sources changes more than with simple offset. Both stalling strategies (PTS and VSS) exhibit reduced noise relative to the PTF machine (as mentioned in §3. It is also evident that stall delay effects are important in modifying the response. This means that although the nominal downwind observer considered here benefits.8. The trends for other observer locations in Fig.5. the control strategy is found to have a strong effect on the SPL.2 Tower Thump 237 With coning. the change in force is actually much larger for the PTF concept. With increasing cone angle. .18 show that the effects are very non-linear.21 shows that as each blade passes through the tower wake.4 Control Strategy Effects Above rated power. PTF is un-viable in any case for the coning rotor). The acoustic footprint for the rest of the variations considered in this section is relatively invariant in profile.3.20 Footprint SPL changes with variation in cone angle (β: 40◦ ) 0◦ 20◦ 7. but also the spatial lobes.2. Although the steady forces are higher (see §6. so the larger variations increase the overall SPL.6). 7. altering both the magnitude and azimuthal profile. as shown in Table 7. 120° 135° 150° 165° 90 80 70 60 50 ±180° -165° -150° 105° 90° 75° 60° 45° 30° 15° 0° -15° -30° -135° -45° -120° -60° -105° -90° -75° Observer azimuth (0° downwind) Figure 7.1. Acoustic noise is generated by changes in pressures. the upwind lobe is much larger than the downwind one. Fig. Figure 7. 7. more investigation is warranted on the directionality of the LFN. and should be considered in an acoustic evaluation of the coning rotor.7.20 makes it obvious however that the presence of coning alters not only the magnitude of the SPL.

3.8 92.1 The results given next include dynamic stall delay. Using the same lengthened blades and rotation speeds as in §7.1 84.3.0 84.5 Dynamic Motion Allowing the blades to freely flap has two potentially opposite effects.5 0.3 90. On the other hand.2.7 84.2 94.238 Chapter 7 Design Considerations Table 7. The first is that cyclic inputs (e. There is little variation found by 1 There is a slight β offset owing to the cyclic inputs.0 84.3.7 84. Given the observer azimuth dependency found earlier in §7.2.6 86.55 -40 -60 -80 0. dynamic motion of the blades.0 91.7 83.2 gives the SPL results for the same range of angles. This moment was then applied in the dynamic simulations to attain roughly the same cone angle.g.5 93. will reduce the transient aerodynamic forces and hence noise.21 Rotor thrust variation over azimuth for control strategy choice (20 m/s. wind shear. Table 7. and retaining the nominal section weights in §C. if fast enough.45 Rotor revolutions Figure 7.3 80. by creating cyclic β variation.2. wind shear and gravity. gravity).8 82. ‘s’ indicates stall delay model included) 7. steady simulations were then run at each cone angle and the root bending moment noted. .1 SPL variation with control strategy above rated Without stall delay Windspeed (m/s) 15 20 25 20 With stall delay PTF PTS VSS PTF PTS VSS 90.4 0 T .2 79.Tmean (kN) -20 PTF PTF s PTS PTS s VSS VSS s 0. increase the noise by the motion of the acoustic forces.6 82.

A comparison gross stall noise should be carried out.5 87. mountainous terrain may channel the noise.e. Conventional noise mechanisms should also be quantified. it has been postulated that this effect widens the wake [87]. although extremely flexible blades (i. Examination of the flap angle histories revealed no discernible structural response to the tower wake.0 87. Additionally. The SPL is slightly reduced upwind/downwind of the rotor.2 SPL variation with dynamic motion and cone angle Cone angle β (deg) Without flap motion 0 10 40 With flap motion 0 10 40 Observer azimuth (deg) 0 90 180 270 88. truss.2 68. These trends were observed across the frequency spectrum.2 74.6 75. The original study [139] did not include this comparison.8 64. The aerodynamic forces were therefore relatively un-altered.2 Tower Thump 239 including flap motion. and slightly increased SPL to the sides. as does tower diameter and configuration (e.4 83.9 76. 7. the cyclic flap motion of the blades has fairly minimal effect on the acoustics. Modern PTF machines operate away from stall. .7.5 88.6 85.6 76. Terrain modification of the LFN should also be investigated. especially for larger cone angles.2 68. multi-element or streamlined towers).g. no account is made of the modification of the wake by the passing blades.5 Apparently. the input tower wake profile is of critical importance. In combination with experiment. as both the REF-450 and CONE-450 operated in stall.2 85.5 75. In particular.9 83. Although it is physics-based with minimal assumptions.8 66.2 71.0 80. include modal response) may change this result.0 80. Reynolds number has a large effect on the profile.1 75. Propagation over water should also be looked at for offshore locations.7 75. to compare a stalling strategy to PTF in terms of noise production.8 71.7 74.2.6 Remaining Issues The primary requirement is for more experimental data to validate the acoustic model. Table 7.

.240 Chapter 7 Design Considerations Finally. any final design must take mitigation of tower noise into account and strive to mitigate the effects. The specific variable rotor speed schedule and turbulent winds should be checked for their effect on the noise profile of the machine.



Proposing and advancing an alternate wind turbine concept is a multi-step process, with extremely broad scope, for which this thesis can only begin to tackle fundamental considerations. Part I began in Chapter 2 with an exposition of the contextual placement and requirements of a wind turbine. Chapter 3 then approached the problem from a functional design perspective. The basic trade-offs in design choices were used to justify the coning rotor concept and describe the unique features of the concept in topological and operational terms. Its relationship to conventional and past unconventional designs was examined, with a view to exposing the critical elements requiring analysis. Throughout the remainder of the thesis, reference was made to a standard code, BLADEDTM , to identify the areas in conventional models requiring alteration to analyse the coning rotor concept.

8.1 Analytical Contributions
Part II focused first in Chapter 4 on developing the analytical tools necessary to properly design a coning rotor. Section 4.4 presented a novel BEM method developed by returning to the underlying assumptions and derivation of the theory. By considering the wake structure with vortex filaments, a new BEM method was formulated that more properly handles coned and yawed rotors in steady and dynamic flow. Importantly, the low-cost computational structure of the BEM method was retained. It is readily implementable in a fully dynamic, industry-level code incorporating aero-elastic coupling, at negligible computational cost. In §5.1, it was demonstrated that the root of errors in the BEM method lies primarily not in the planar disc assumption, but rather in a deficient accounting for the relative position of the wake. The validity of the results has been demonstrated for uniformly loaded and real rotors, with coning and yaw, by comparison with more accurate CFD models, wind tunnel and field test results. Very high induction factor and stalled conditions, however, remain difficult to predict with great certainty. 241


Chapter 8 Conclusions

Building on the aerodynamic analysis, the equations governing low-frequency acoustics were presented in §4.5. Although the equations have been developed by other authors, a number of important nuances in their implementation are presented. No quantitative comparative results were available, however parametric variation produced reasonable predictions from what is an accurate physics-based model. Structural modelling tools were developed in §4.6, beginning with a highly flexible cross-sectional property analysis. The equations governing distributed loads in the blades were then developed. Next, the dynamic equations of motion for the rigidbody coning rotor were shown to lead to analytic expressions for flap frequency and damping. Finally, an FEM approach was used to derive a centrifugally stiffened beam element with varying mass and stiffness properties, assembled to predict the modes of a complete rotor with varying boundary conditions. Analytic and numerical results from BLADEDTM were used for comparison. Combining these elements, the computation of an optimal steady-state control schedule was described, taking into account the equilibrium cone angle and applied hinge moment bias. Based on these integrated analyses, the primary assumptions requiring modification in BLADEDTM were identified. The BEM model was originally thought to be the primary difficulty, however it became evident that there are additional linearity assumptions in the structural model of BLADEDTM that are violated by the coning rotor. Simplified PMG models were introduced, based on the driving magnetic materials required. Together with cost estimates for those components, an estimation of the cost-torque sensitivity of the generator was enabled.

8.2 Design Refinements
Part III used the analytic tools of Part II to affect a study of the DVs and parameters determining the topology and operation of the coning rotor. In Chapter 6, results from the original study on the coning rotor were up-scaled to a modern equivalent machine in §6.1. A favourable comparison was made on a loading and energy capture basis. The COE/CF and non-dimensional aerodynamic performance of a coning rotor was then examined in §6.2 and 6.3. The challenge of optimizing a coning rotor, with its inherent aerodynamic-structural integration, was then contrasted to that of a conventional rotor in §6.4. Based on this complexity, and as a precursor step to a full engineering design including dynamic simulations, a parametric study was

8.3 The Next Steps


made of blade shapes, airfoil families, and control strategies in §6.5. The results illustrate the bounds placed on enhanced energy capture of the coning rotor by steady loading and generator requirements. The importance of airfoil selection was also underlined. The coning rotor range of energy capture advantage relative to a conventional reference was found to be 10-30% at equivalent tower height. Chapter 7 surveyed the areas of critical importance and uniqueness to the coning rotor. The first was the dynamic response of a flap-hinged rotor (§7.1), in the presence of aerodynamic, inertial and gravitational loading. The non-linear effects (aerodynamic and structural) were found to be important for the coning rotor in terms of modelling and cyclic loading, operating at non-zero cone angle, away from the standard linearised conditions. The aerodynamic damping inherent to the system was presented next, starting with the rigid-body flap mode which may enter regions of negative damping. In the absence of a flexible-body simulation code, sectional equations were used to examine the impacts of airfoil choice and control method on the edgewise damping mode. For a stall-controlled rotor, this mode tends to be unstable due to a lack of aerodynamic damping, and may require compensation. Section 7.2 parametrically then explored the low-frequency acoustics of the coning rotor. The effect of tower wake profile, operation and relative position were quantified, to determine the boundaries placed on the coning rotor to avoid this noise source, critical to downwind machines.

8.3 The Next Steps
As is clear from the length of this thesis, numerous technical areas must be properly integrated to advance the coning rotor concept. The work presented here is only a first step to improve the underlying theory and provide a starting point for further design. The next immediate step is to modify BLADEDTM to incorporate the BEM method and any structural modelling changes required. Additional experimental test data for coned rotor configurations should also be obtained, to further refine the aerodynamic modelling. To further advance the actual design of the concept will require a full set of dynamic simulations (to an established standard, e.g. IEC-14000) using that code. This will of course require a controller, based initially on a rotor design from this thesis. The controller and simulations will also have to revisit parked conditions and mode-switching, over the entire operational profile. Working with the dynamic simulations, the design can be further refined, to definitively size and cost a concept


Chapter 8 Conclusions

machine. Jamieson [66] also concluded that the dynamic response of the system was the critical element of the design requiring further investigation. In particular, if a PMG is to be employed, a more detailed design of the generator will be required. The detailed design of the coning actuators and hub will also require careful attention, heeding the lessons of difficulties encountered by previous flappingblade concepts. Assuming the final paper concept design demonstrates merit over conventional machines, the subsequent step should be a prototype machine of modest scale, to test the predictive accuracy of the analysis suite and design methods. Based on any required refinements, the concept may then be scaled up and implemented on a commercial scale.

The numbers after each reference are the page numbers where the reference is used. [1] International Energy Agency. “Key World Energy Statistics 2005.” International Energy Agency (IEA), 2005 1 [2] Global Wind Energy Council. “Global Statistics 2005.” Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), 2005 1 [3] Tyndall Centre. “Decarbonising the UK: Energy for a Climate Conscious Future.” Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, 2005 1 [4] Department of Trade and Industry. “The Energy Challenge: Energy Review Report 2006.” Department of Trade and Industry, UK Government, July 2006 1 [5] Elsam Engineering A/S. “Life Cycle Assessment of Offshore and Onshore Sited Wind Farms.” Elsam Engineering A/S, October 2004 2 [6] White, S. W. and Kulcinski, G. L. “Net Energy Payback and CO2 Emissions from Wind-Generated Electricity in the Midwest.” Fusion Technology Institute, Department of Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, December 1998 2 [7] Jamieson, P. and Jaffrey, A. “Advanced Wind Turbine Design.” ASME, Solar Energy Division, Wind Energy, 16: pp. 23–30, 1995 2, 30, 185 [8] Putnam, P. C. Power from the Wind. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1948 4, 30 [9] Armstrong, J. R. C. “A Lightweight 3-Bladed 600kW Wind Turbine.” In “European Union Wind Energy Conference,” Goteborg, Sweden, 1996 31, 234, D-1 [10] Cochran, J., Orrell, A., Pappas, C., and Scheer, G. “The Future of Wind Power.” In “2003 Symposium on the Global Commercialization of Environmental Technologies,” University of Washington, Seattle, USA, June 6 2003 4 245



[11] Crawford, C. “Re-Examining the Precepts of the Blade Element Momentum Theory for Coning Rotors.” Wind Energy, 9(5): pp. 457–478, 2006 6 [12] Crawford, C. and Platts, J. “Updating and Optimization of a Coning Rotor Concept.” In “25th ASME Wind Energy Symposium/44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,” Reno, Nevada, January 9-12 2006 6 [13] Crawford, C. and Platts, J. “Updating and Optimization of a Coning Rotor Concept.” ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, 2006 (In press) 6 [14] Eggleston, D. M. and Stoddard, F. S. Wind Turbine Engineering Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1987 9, 217 [15] Spera, D. A. Wind Turbine Technology: Fundamental Concepts of Wind Turbine Engineering. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1995 30, 52, 103, 188, 232, D-1 [16] Burton, T., Sharpe, D., Jenkins, N., and Bossanyi, E. Wind Energy Handbook. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 2001 24, 27, 29, 49, 52, 59, 73, 76, 77, 78, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, 143, 223 [17] Manwell, J. F., McGowan, J. G., and Rogers, A. L. Wind Energy Explained: Theory, Design and Application. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 2002 10, 52, 217, 218, 219 [18] Harrison, R., Hau, E., and Snel, H. Large Wind Turbines: Design and Economics. Wiley, Chichester, 2000 24, D-1 [19] Hansen, M. O. L. Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines. James and James Science Publishing, London, 2000 9 [20] International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61400 Wind Turbine Standards. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Geneva, Switzerland, 1999 10, 11 [21] Green, S. “Gotland: The HVDC Pioneer.” Power Engineering International, July 2004 11 [22] van Hulle, F. “Large Scale Integration of Wind Energy in the European Power Supply: Analysis, Issues and Recommendations.” EWEA, Brussels, 2005 11 [23] Heier, S. Grid Integration of Wind Energy Conversion Systems. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998 12 [24] Gull, F. Distributed generation versus centralised supply: a social cost-benefit

M. McKeogh. USA. March 1-5 1999 13 [28] Hammarlund. J. USA. E. France. “The Role of Hydrogen in High Wind Energy Penetration Electricity Systems: The Irish Case. Land Area and Storage Requirements for Wind and Solar Generation to Meet the US Hourly Electrical Demand. 2004 12 [27] Surugiu. May 18-21 2003 12 [26] Gonzalez. K.” Nice. R. 2003 13 [35] Landscape Design Associates. 29: pp. Enironmental and Social Aspects of Wind Energy.” In “American Wind Energy Association Windpower Conference. March 30 1995 13 [30] Hodos.” In “American Wind Energy Association Conference.” Renewable Energy.. “Cumulative Effects of Wind Turbines: A Guide to Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Wind Energy Development. August 2003 13 [31] Dooling. “Modelling the Feasbility of Using Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines in Remote Renewable Energy Systems. W. and Martensson. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “Minimization of Motion Smear: Reducing Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines. Canada. MSc. June 2002 13 [32] Kirby. Cambridge. and Pratt. A.” Nice.” NREL/SR-500-30844..247 analysis. “Turning to Stealth Technology. “Design as if People Matter: Aesthetic Guidelines for the Wind Industry. L. 2003 12 [25] Cotrell. May 2004 13 [34] Love. and Gallachoir. Colorado. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I.” BBC News Online. France. University of Victoria. Colorado. B. P. DC. Cambridge Working Papers in Economics (CWPE) 0336. TX.” ETSU . A.” In “European Wind Energy Conference. A. March 1-5 1999 13 [29] Gipe. “Planning for Acceptance . “MoD ’Threatening UK Energy Plans’. 471–489.” Austin. and Pparaschivoiu.” NREL/SR-500-33249. “Avian Hearing and the Avoidancee of Wind Turbines.” Power Engineering International.” Washington. A. W. “Acceptability.Windpower in a Social Landscape. March 1 2004 13 [33] Beck. CMI Electricity Project Department of Applied Economics. Victoria.” In “European Wind Energy Conference.

Conceptual Design for Engineers. and Bauert. E. London. W. W. New York. UK Department of Trade and Industry. 493–517. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. 1989 17 .. C. 1995 15.” In “ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences. J. 18 [39] Chakrabarti. P. London. N. Harwell Laboratory. Elsayed. Cambridge. 24.. 19 [48] Taguchi. 1999. “The Prospects and Cost Benefits of Advanced Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines. New York. J. McGraw-Hill. A Flexible Blade Wind Turbine for Electricity Generation. Constraint Management for Engineering Design. 210 [37] Scott. “A Tool for Capturing Design Rationale. M. Blessing. 2000 14 [36] Jamieson. 1961 16 [43] Liu. and Chakrabarti. Imperial College. Bligh. USA.. 24(5). K. N. A. Z. Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications.. 3rd edition. September 10-13 2000 17. Beitz. New York.. P.. MIT Press.. ISBN 1852330279 17 [47] Jensen. “Function Integration Explained by Allocation and Activation of Wirk Elements. and Wallace. Springer Ltd. A. F. T. PhD. and Bligh. The Principles of Design.248 Bibliography W/14/00538/REP. “Towards an ’Ideal’ Approach for Concept Generation. R. August 19-21 2003 16 [41] Suh. and Hsiang. 35. T. 2003 16 [44] Yao. A. 1996 16 [45] Suh.” In “International Conference on Engineering Design. Quality Engineering in Production Systems. UK Energy Technology Support Unit. Oxford University Press. 1990 16 [42] Paynter. 2001 16 [46] French..” Stockholm.” Baltimore. 1997 15 [38] Pahl. Springer. G.” ETSU-W–23/00355/REP. T.. 16. Wallace. 22(6): pp. Oxford University Press. T. Maryland. 2001 16 [40] Bracewell. 186. Analysis and Design of Engineering Systems.” Design Studies.” Design Studies. G. K. 1995 15. London. Y. M. PhD. Cambridge University. “A Scheme for Functional Reasoning in Conceptual Design. L. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering. N.

Guidinger. K.” SAND2002-2519.” NREL/SR-500-29950. K. 2000 17. Wayne State University. CRC Press. 73(13): pp. and Zhang. “WindPACT Turbine Rotor Design Study. PhD.. H. Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving. L. 1996 26. Colorado. Boca Raton Florida. 30. USA. 214. Wilkie. W. and Connor. “WindPACT Turbine Design Scaling Studies: Technical Area 4: Balance of Station Cost. 29. 2000 26 [58] Mercer. “WindPACT Turbine Design Scaling Studies: Technical Area 1: Composite Blades for 80-120 Meter Rotor. USA. 35.249 [49] Savansky. Bristol. December 2005 24 [55] Griffin. 1189–1212. 2000 19 [51] Malcolm. 199.” International Journal of Control. ..” ETSU W/42/00293/REP. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 116 [53] Shafer. R. A. New Mexico. Cambridge University. 2002 “Stall Regulation of Variable Speed HAWTs. “Learning Curves and Changing Product Attributes: The Case of Wind Turbines. E-1 [56] Leithead. A Comparison of Control Concepts for Wind Turbines in Terms of Energy Capture. Zellman. T. July 2001 24 [54] Coulomb.” NREL/SR-500-29492.. and Bernadett. D.” Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. R. B. Strawmyer.. 192. 192 [52] TPI Composites Inc. 73(13): pp. S. “Control of Variable Speed Wind Turbines: Design Task. Sandia National Laboratories. Germany. D. A. Conley. S. J. C-12 [59] Hoffmann. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 191.” NREL/SR-500-32495. “Parametric Study for Large Wind Turbine Blades: WidnPACT Blade System Design Studies.. Garrad Hassan for ETSU. and Connor. Colorado.” International Journal of Control. B. D. and Neuhoff. K. and Hansen. “Control of Variable Speed Wind Turbines: Dynamic Models. 2002 20. 2002 24. 1173–1188.” Faculty of Economics. W. 208. D. D. 210. 200. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2000 26 [57] Leithead. 31 [50] Yang.. “A Comparison of TRIZ and Axiomatic Design. Technischen Universitat Darmstadt. April 2001 24.

. P. 193. M.” P500-02-031F. and Veers.” Reno. 187. and Lobitz. Jensen. “Design of a 21 m Blade with Ris-A1 Airfoils for Active Stall Controlled Wind Turbines. 36th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition. Nevada.” In “19th American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Wind Energy Symposium.” Reno.. Sangill. K. 124. Princeton University Press.. 144. January 1999 28. A. and Tangler. S. 129. 125. California. “Blade Design Trade-Offs Using Lowe Lift Airfoils for Stall-Regulated HAWTs. 31 [61] Lobitz. Helicopter Theory. January 12-15 1998 27. 128. “Evaluation of the Coning Rotor Concept. 2002 27. “An Exploratory Study of . J. and Digurmarthi. Bristol. May 1996 28. 244. D. Nevada. March 2002 30. 196 [66] Jamieson.” In “European Wind Energy Conference. 234 [71] Eggers. R.” Riso-R-1374(EN). I. P.May 1 1998 27 [63] Muljadi.” SAND2002-2424. E. New Jersey. 197. O. D.250 26.” In “ASME Wind Energy Symposium. Risø National Laboratory.. 141. 31. January 10-13 2000 28 [64] Fuglsang.. Selig. 208. 1980 30. American Wind Energy Association Meeting and Exhibition. 30. Denmark. Chaney.. 2002 28 [65] Gigu`re. 69. W. Bibliography “Evaluation of Design Concepts for Adaptive Wind Turbine Blades. 210 [60] Griffin. 194.” In “ASME/AIAA Wind Energy Symposium. 29. April 28 . 180. 1992 30 [69] Johnson. F. G..” In “Windpower ’98.. Oye. California Energy Commission. 227. and Migliore. “Aeroelastic Behaviour of Twist-Coupled HAWT Blades. France...” Nice. 177. Pierce.. P. “A Conservative Control Strategy for Variable-Speed Stall-Regulated Wind Turbines. J. and Hansen. C-12. K. 125 [70] California Energy Commission. S.. Sandia National Laboratories. Petersen. 234. D.” Bakersfield. 222. 117 [62] Veers.” Garrad Hassan. “Experiences and Results from Elkraft 1MW Wind Turbine. N.. F. “Aeroelastic Tailoring in Wind-Turbine Blade Applications. P. D-1 [67] Raben. and Kretz. 208. Roskilde. 34. “The Next Generation Wind Turbine Development Project. P. Bir. P.” Reno. Nevada. and Antoniou. A. P.. March 1-5 1999 30 [68] Rasmussen. “Dynamics and Potentials for the Two-Bladed Teetering Rotor Concept.” Risø National Laboratory.

H. C. 142. J. 31.” In “43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit.” In “1999 European Wind Energy Conference. “Monitoring and Analysis of a Carter 200/300 Wind Turbine: Final Report.” In “ASME/AIAA Wind Energy Symposium. J. A. C. Quandt.Design. “Validation of a Model for a TwoBladed Flexible Rotor System: Progress to Date.” In “European Wind Energy Conference. Verification and Potentials. J. The Netherlands. and Osgood. based on local blade flow measurements. 234 [82] Versteegh. Cheney. UK. J.251 Motion and Loads on Large Flap-Hinged Rotor Blades. PhD.” TU Delft. 201 [73] Drost. and Petersen. A. March 1999 30. “Low Wind Speed Turbine Project Conceptual Design Study: Advanced Independent Pitch Control. National Renewable Energy Laboratory...” In “The Science of Making Torque from Wind. “The Next Generation of Gearless Wind Turbines Goes Into Production.. F.” Garrad Hassan. K. 35. J.. An Experimental and Theoretical Study of Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines. D-1 [75] Quarton. Madsen. 234 [76] Kelley.” (pp.. Cambridge University. 2004 32 [79] Bossanyi.” Madrid. Hansen. The Netherlands. F. A. F. and Follings. December 2004 32. Hamburg.. “Design of the Zephyros Z72 Wind Turbine with Emphasis . Nevada. T.. L. 117 [81] Klinger. 399–406).. Cambridge. “Active load reduction using individual pitch.” NREL/SR-500-36755. Golden. M. J. R. “Investigation of Load Reduction for a Variable Speed. D. Bristol. 1981 196.” Reno. C. and Balzert. Spain. 212–215). N. Rinck. 1997 31. 125 [78] Larsen. E. C. January 11-14 1999 31 [77] Pierce. “Developments in Individual Blade Pitch Control. and Thomsen. F. 35. Colorado. S. T. Nevada. Variable Pitch. G.” In “The Science of Making Torque from Wind.” (pp. VandenBosche.” Reno.. and Variable Coning Wind Turbine.” TU Delft. Lang. February 1997 30..” In “WINDPOWER: American Wind Energy Association.. and Meyer. January 2005 31. Wright. June 16-19 2003 35. T. E.” In “European Wind Energy Conference. 36 [72] Anderson. October 22-26 1984 30 [74] Rasmussen. France.. K. M. “A Soft Rotor Concept .” Nice. A. “Design and Construction of Innovative Flexible Rotor Systems. 2004 32 [80] Olsen. A.

” Wind Energy... W. 54.” Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects. M. “US Patent 5. 9–19.584. J. 1999 45 [87] Wang.. June 16-19 2003 45 [91] Coton.” Madrid. F.” Wind Energy.” NTNU Trondheim. 255–268. 168. “Modelling and Analyis of the Flow Field Around a Coned Rotor. “An Examination of Key Aerodynamic Modelling Issues Raised by the NREL Blind Comparison. Sorensen. 47. and Shen.” December 1994 35 [85] Deering.252 Bibliography on the Direct Drive PM Generator. T. 2001 45. 4(3): pp. 121–135.” In “European Wind Energy Conference.660. 148 [89] Mikkelsen. and Waernulf. R.. Mechanical Engineering. R. Sorensen. 148. S. N. 93. “On the Part Played in Propulsion by Differences of Fluid . 2004 46 [93] Rankine. 6: pp. S. T. 239 [88] Mikkelsen. 234 [83] Engstrm. June 14-16 2004 35. 7(1): pp.. “On the Mechanical Principles of the Action of Propellers. 1997 1995 36 [86] Wang. Z. Wang. R. J. M. 1865 47 [94] Froude. C. 199–212. and Coton.” 2004 35 [84] Deering. 48. 5(2-3): pp. F. C-1 [90] Bertagnolio. N.” Wind Engineering.. 2002 46. and Galbraith.527: Wind Turbine Rotor Blade Root End. 23(5): pp. “An Unsteady Aerodynamic Model for HAWT Performance Including Tower Shadow Effects. 13–30. N.” In “European Wind Energy Conference.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. M. Hansen.a New Type of Direct-Drive Generator.. Spain. Lyngby. G. Norway. “Development of NewGen . and Coton. 89(10): pp.” Wind Energy. Parkegren. 873–892. A. W. 165. and Gaunaa. Technical University of Denmark. 2003 45. R.. K. M. 230. Hernns. K. Actuator Disk Methods Applied to Wind Turbines. F. PhD. J.. E. 89. T. F. “US Patent 5. “Aeroelastic Simulation of a Wind Turbine Airfoil by Coupling CFD and a Beam Element Method.” August 26. 2001 45.655: Rotor Device and Control for Wind Turbine. 214 [92] van Kuik. “An Inconsistency in the Actuator Disc Momentum Theory..” In “NORPIE 2004. “A High Resolution Tower Shadow Model for Downwind Wind Turbines. 49. B.

and Katzoff. 1947 47 [100] Chaney. H.. 1878 47 [97] Drzewiecki.. June 1945 54 [103] Heyson. A. (pp.” NACA-TR-1184. F. 1920 47 [96] Froude. NACA. 63.” Journal of Solar Energy Engineering..” volume 4. Springer.” In Durand. 1892 e 47 [98] Glauert. “Aerodynamic Theory.” Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects. E. 62 [106] Madsen. 307– 309). H. “On the Elementary Relation Between Pitch. 1956 47 [104] Lindenburg.” NACA-TR-1319. Flow Separation on Wind Turbine Blades.). J. 78. 53.” Bulletin del’ Association Technique Maritime.” Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects. H. M. Slip and Propulsive Efficiency. 1935 47. P. 2001 53. Cambridge University Press. W. “Evaluation of the Induced-Velocity Field of an Idealized Helicopter Rotor. NACA. K. (ed. and de Leeuw. S. 290–295. 153 [99] Glauert. and Stempin. 60. The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory. W. Eggers.253 Pressure. 30: pp. Va.. 2001 47. 2nd edition. “Division L: Airplane Propellers. J. C. J. 54.” Zeitschrift Fr das Gesamte Turbinewesen. “Induced Velocities Near a Lifting Rotor with Nonuniform Disk Loading. H. Utrecht University. R. Berlin.” NACA-WR-L-126. 123(4): pp. Moriarty. 75.. C. P. W. G. 49. 390– 405. 51. Cambridge. “M´thode Pour la D´termination des El´ments M´caniques des e e e e Propulseurs H´licoidaux. “Investigation into Rotor Blade Aerodynamics: Analysis of the Stationary Measurements on the UAE Phase-VI Rotor in the NASA-Ames Wind Tunnel. A. S. 1953 47 [102] Coleman. NACA. PhD. and Holley. Langley Field. 162 [105] Corten. J. Feingold. UK. “Das Maximum der Theoretisch Mglichen Ausn¨tzung des Windes o durch Windmotoren. W. H. 77. 2003 51. 1889 47 [95] Betz. F. 156 [101] Castles.” ECN-C–03-025. “The Normal Component of the Induced Velocity in the Vicinity of a Lifting Rotor and Some Examples of its Application. “Skewed Wake Induction Effects on Thrust Distribution on Small Wind Turbine Rotors. W. 47. “The Influence of Energy Conversion and . A. 62. and Rasmussen. P. 53. ECN. 19: p.

J. 2000 68.” 1990 54 [108] Szymendera. MSc. NACA. 72 [118] McCormick. and Piers. F. September 15-18 1992 62 [113] Lindenburg.” In “European Wind Energy Conference.” NACA.. G. Pennsylvania State University. “Scaling Laws for the Boundary Layer Flow on Rotating Wind Turbine Blades. J. 68.” In “18th European Rotorcraft Forum. R. L. “Aeroelastic Analysis of the LMH64-5 Blade Concept. 67. Cambridge Aerospace Series. Inc..” In “Fourth IEA Symposion on the Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines. France. Department of Aerospace Engineering. November 20-21 1990 62 [112] Snel. “A Simple Vortex Model. T. 1995 69 . J. C-1 [110] Harris. “Sectional Prediction of 3D Effects for Separated Flow on rotating blades. 1952 66. W. John Wiley & Sons. 148 [107] Oye. Cambridge University Press. 11(3): p.” Nice. Computational Free Wake Analysis of a Helicopter Rotor. C. New York. Aerodynamics. 1990 65 [115] Hunton. 71. D. Cambridge. H. January 10-13 2005 61. W. France.. 66.” ECNC–03-020. Aeronautics. “A Summary and Analysis of the LowSpeed Longitudinal Characteristics of Swept Wings at High Reynolds Number. 2002 56 [109] Tangler. Princeton University Press. B. Houwink. “Effects of Finite Span on the Section Characteristics of Two 45 degree Swept-Back Wings of Aspect Ratio 6. 121.” Rome. J. D. C-4 [114] Jones. C. G. R. and McHugh. Nevada. H. W. “Wind Turbine Post-Stall Airfoil Performance Characteristics Guidelines for Blade-Element Momentum Methods. 162.” 1339. S. J. 1966 62. C. “Preliminary Study of Radial Flow Effects on Rotor Blades. Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics. 70 [111] Snel. 69. 68 [116] Furlong. March 1-5 1999 54.” Avignon. Energy Center of the Netherlands.” In “Third IEA Symposium of Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines. Oxford. Wing Theory.” In “43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. 2003 63. 1952 68. 222. G.” The Journal of American Helicopter Society. and Flight Mechanics.” Reno. and Kocurek. 69 [117] Leishman.254 Bibliography Induction from Large Blade Deflections.

and Hansen. Aalborg University. 2003 83. Faculty of Engineering and Science. March 2002 75 [121] Veers. R. 85. 1983 83 [124] Powles. 196–210. Department of Civil Engineering. P. 1997 94. PhD. 1985 [125] Bossanyi. R.” Wind Engineering. 2005 89 [128] Koh. and Faires.” Reno. Nonlinear Dynamics of Wind Turbine Wings. Denmark. A. PhD. Colorado. 34: pp. Department of Mechanical Engineering. 7(1): pp.” Wind Engineering. Golden. Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines. “Proceedings of the ENDOW Workshop ’Offshore Wakes: Measurements and Modelling’. 6th edition. “Three-Dimensional Wind Simulation. 1991 93. pp. G. January 2005 83. G. “The Effects of Tower Shadow on the Dynamics of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines. S.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. W. J. February 2004 93 [130] Suzuki. A. J. J. 15(4): pp. “Formulation of a Vortex Wake Model for Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines. S. 93.” Sandia National Laboratories. Bristol. S. March 1988 83 [122] Moriarty. 137. J. 26–42. University of Cambridge. Golden. 129. University of Utah. 154 [129] Tangler. 2000 93 [131] Burden. G. 93 [123] Powles. D. 94. New York. J. P.” In “21st ASME Wind Energy Symposium and the 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. G.255 [119] Leishman. and Bir. 180 [126] Leishman. and Wood. “Modeling Sweep Effects on Dynamic Stall. H. J. Nevada. A. 18–29. 95. Colorado. “GH Bladed Theory Manual. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “AeroDyn Theory Manual. C. “Evaluation of RCAS Inflow Models for Wind Turbine Analysis. Albuquerque. E. New Mexico. Risø National Laboratory. Numerical Analysis. PhD. Roskilde. L. S. R. D. Salt Lake City. Denmark. 89 [127] Larsen.” Journal of the American Helicopter Society. J. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Application of Dynamic Inflow Theory to Wind Turbine Rotors.” NREL/TP-500-35109. J.” Garrad Hassan. 1989 71 [120] Barthelmie. J. R. “Challenges in Modeling the Unsteady Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines. 139 . 2002 88.” Riso-R-1326(EN).

“Measurement of the Tower Wake of the Swedish Prototype WECS Maglarp and Calculations of it’s Effect on Noise and Blade Loading. 230 [142] Beyer. 104. R. and Shimooka. Flow Solutions Ltd. London..” In “42nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit Conference. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. V. 239 [140] Viterna. J.” (pp. Nevada. and Lowson.” Reno. October 22-26 1984 103. “Numerical Approach for Noise Reduction of Wind Turbine Blade Tip with Earth Simulator. J. S. Nevada.” 94/07. 103 [137] Arakawa. M. Hamburg.” Cleveland. 106. J. L. 98. K. Iida.. J. V. CRC Standard Mathematical Tables. and Brentner. 2. Dahlberg.. 2005 101 [138] Lighthill. 102.” Proceedings of the Royal Societry London Series A. FL. Boca Raton. January 2004 100 [135] Migliore. P. P. 1996 96.” Reno. and Guidati. Long. 102. Golden. CRC Press. “A Closer Look At The WinDaq Derivative Algorithm. 169 [133] Moriarty. and Oerlemans. 100.” Reno. January 5-8 2004 101. and Migliore. 28 edition. September 1994 103. “New Developments for the NWTCs FAST Aeroelastic HAWT Simulator. “On Sound Generated Aerodynamically. “Noise Evaluation of Coning Rotor. 229. N. Bristol.. P. “The NASA-LeRC Wind Turbine Sound Prediction Code. O. H. P.” In “Second DOE/NASA Wind Turbine Dynamics Workshop. W. G. January 5-8 2004 100 [136] Morris. S. A.256 Bibliography [132] Wagner. 229... 211: pp. Fleig. “Wind Tunnel Aeroacoustic Tests of Six Airfoils for Use on Small Wind Turbines. Nevada.” Journal of the Earth Simulator. L. February 24-26 1981 103 [141] Barman. 564–587.. S.” In “AIAA Wind Energy Symposium. Wind Turbine Noise. M. 2003 108 . 107. K.. J. M. 167.” DATAQ Instruments. L.. “An Aeroacoustic Analysis of Wind Turbines. Ohio. M. M. Bareiss. Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. 167. “Semi-Empirical Aeroacoustic Noise Prediction Code for Wind Turbines. K. C. and Meijer.” NREL/TP-500-34478.” In “European Wind Energy Conference. S. 1952 101 [139] Lowson.-A. Colorado..” In “42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. 1987 107 [143] DATAQ Instruments. M. 56–63). and Buhl. December 2003 99 [134] Jonkman.

A. R. and Vetterling. B-1 [153] Bir. and Golay. Greece. D. and Migliore. 2nd edition. New Jersey. 109 [145] Savitzky. W. September 2004 117.” Analytical Chemistry. “On the Use of Windows for Harmonic Analysis with the Discrete Fourier Transform.and Three-Blade Rotors. A. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. W.” Athens.” Analytical Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons. 1978 112 [151] Ugural. 570– 573. G. and McConnell. 2003 117 . Prentice Hall. 1993 109. L. 36: pp.. Golden. E.. P. 2003 114. W. Retrieved from National Instruments http://www. Advanced Strength and Applied Elasticity.” Reno Nevada. H. Riley.. W. Inc. Flannery. 117. and Fenster. 119 [154] Politis. and Laird. B. M. D. Cambridge University Press. Colorado. 3rd edition. Denmark. UK..257 [144] Press. An Integrated CAD Methodology Applied to Wind Turbine Optimization. May 2006 109 [150] Harris.. 1964 108 [146] Gorry.” NREL/TP-500-31486.” In “ASME/AIAA Wind Energy Symposium. J. and Tech. 2006 117 [155] Malcolm. K. F. MSc. 171 [152] Crawford. Instrumentation for Engineering Measurements. Brul and Kjr. 1995 114. S.” 2006. Teukolsky. F. B. A. C. “Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures. 1992 108. 66(1). 1979 109 [148] Dally. P. 111 [149] National Instruments. P. Cambridge. B.” In “2006 European Wind Energy Conference. 62: pp. “The Fundamentals of FFT-Based Signal Analysis and Measurement in LabVIEW and LabWindows/CVI. “Aeroelastic Stability Investigation of a Wind Turbine Blade by Coupling a 2D Navier-Sokes Solver and a Beam Element Method. G. “Modeling of Blades as Equivalent Beams for Aeroelastic Analysis. 1990 109 [147] Randall. J. J. MIT. “General Least-Squares Smoothing and Differentiation by the Convolution (Savitzky-Golay) Method. S. A. J. 1627– 1639..” Proceedings of the IEEE. “Preliminary Structural Design of Composite Blades for Two. Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN 77: The Art of Scientific Computing. E. Frequency Analysis.

Bj¨rck. PWS Publishing Company. PA. and Jamieson. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 131. 1996 142 [167] Poore. “Prediction of Dynamic Loads and Induced Vibrations in Stall. 145 . S. o H. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Theory Reference 6.” Risø National Laboratory. M. H.” Smart Materials and Structures. S. 4th edition. P.. Inc.. A. third edition. 5: pp. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Gteborg. Southpointe. New York. 225. L. Chalmers University of Technology. The Finite Element Method.258 Bibliography [156] Bir.” Exeter. A. G. “ANSYS Inc. R.” ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. S. Massachusetts. 2004 142. C. 1992 130. B. A. Proceedings of the 1996 18th British Wind Energy Association Conference. 2002 132 [162] Zienkiewicz. W. USA. 227 [160] Logan. and Lettenmaier. 224. D. Enevoldsen.. 182 [166] Grauers. 123. Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1995 129. W. and Winkelaar. “Control Design of the CONE 450 Wind Turbine. S. T. “Computerized Method for Preliminary Structural Design of Composite Wind Turbine Blades. 1996 129 [159] Petersen. Sweden. N. C. M. O. R. P.1. and Taylor. Boston. Ganander. Mechanical Vibrations. May 1998 129. 1986 138 [164] Connor. “Transient Analysis for Damping Identification in Rotating Composite Beams with Integral Damping Layers. USA.” In “Wind Energy Conversion. 134 [161] ANSYS Inc. PhD. B. 130 [158] Smith. 1993 134 [163] Pike. Delft University. Madsen. J. September 25-27 1996 141 [165] Dubois. Optimized Permanent Magnet Generator Topologies for DirectDrive Wind Turbines. 223. D. “Alternative Design Study Report: WindPACT Advanced Wind Turbine Drive Train Designs Study. Leithead... 143. R. 2001 119 [157] Rao. 133. London. August 2003 142. E. Reading.. UK.” NREL/SR-500-33196. 132. PhD. 540–550. Design of Direct-Driven Permanent-magnet Generators for Wind Turbines.. A First Course in the Finite Element Method. Optimization for Engineering Systems. R. Øye. Colorado. T. McGrawHill.” ANSYS.. and Wereley..

. H..” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 117– 120). N... J. Schreck. Fingersh. C-5 [178] Simms. Nice.. Z. R. and Fingersh. Electrical Machines. P. M. Aalborg. 73–88. H. T. Drives. 329–340.. H. W. Schreck. S... “On Wake Modelling at High Tip Speed Ratios. H. X. D.. M.259 [168] Wildi. Jager. 1992 154 [176] Corten. and Power Systems. 1983 154 [174] Munro. March 1-5 1999 154 [172] Sørensen. “Novel Views on the Extraction of Energy from Wind: Heat Generation and Terrain Concentration. France. S. 2001 161. D. 2001 154 [177] Hand.. R. Shen. pp. J. Colorado. J. J. Cambridge. June 2000 145 [171] Nygaard. 15: pp. Hand. New Jersey.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.” In “Nordic Countries Power and Industrial Electronics Conference (NORPIE)2000. Electrical Power Processing Group. A. A. 2002 143 [169] Selmon. Electric Machines and Drives. Polinder. L. S.. G. M. 1980 154 [175] Wood. and Larwood. Simms. 1998 154 [173] Miller.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. M.” In “European Wind Energy Conference. “NREL Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment in the NASA-Ames Wind Tunnel: A Comparison of Predictions to Measurements. “Three-Dimensional Euler Flow-Field Computations Through a Wind Turbine Rotor.. Denmark. L. Prentice Hall. C-4 .” In “EWEC 2001. Pearson Education Inc.” (pp. 1992 143 [170] Dubois. Golden. 1: pp. 291–303.. W.” Wind Energy. PhD. C-4. “Comparison of Generator Topologies for Direct-Drive Wind Turbines. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. M. 16(5): pp. Cotrell. D. D. Colorado. and Ferreira. 2001 162. T.. Technical University of Delft.” (pp.” Wind Engineering. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.” Copenhagen. Physics. Golden. “The Aerodynamics and Dynamic Analysis of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines. “Analysis of Wake States by a Full-field Actuator Disc Model. D. and Munduate. J. 22–26). The Production of Sound by Moving Objects.. G. 213. USA. “Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment Phase VI: Wind Tunnel Test Configurations and Available Data Campaigns.

Greece. Fluids Section. June 1999 197 [188] Willcox. J. S..” Reno. 19(2): pp. M.” SAND2003-0723. and Tangler. “The Connection Between the Complex-Step Derivative Approximation and Algorithmic Differentiation. 202 [181] Jamieson. Murray. Indiana.” Goteborg. 1996 192 [182] Martins. 1995 201 [190] TPI Composites Inc. “Innovative Design Approaches for Large Wind Turbine Blades: Final Report. VA.. “Peak and Post-Peak Power Aerodynamics from Phase VI NASA Ames Wind Turbine Data. R. W. Notre Dame. “Investigation of the Capability of a Genetic Optimization Algorithm in Designing Wind Turbine Rotors. and Kocurek. S. Academic Press. and Rawlinson-Smith. and Schepers. J. E. A. and Voutsinas.. “High Lift Aerofoils for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines. and Alonso. P. 40(4). 2001 196 [187] Samareh. E. London. D. 2005 196 [184] Gill. R.. J. 91–105. J. 2005 196 [186] Bulder.” Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN. A. “Innovative Design Approaches for Large Wind Turbine Blades. D. “Development and Application of a Multipoint Inverse Design Method for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines.” National Technical University of Athens. 2005 162 [180] TPI Composites Inc. N. B. M.” Wind Engineering. 2003 192. Tangler.” In “CEAS/AIAA/ICASE/NASA Langley International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics. University of Notre Dame. J. L.” Journal of Solar Energy Engineering. 2003 200 [189] Selig.. “Numerical Optimization for Wind Turbine Design. S. P. Petten.. J. A. G. M. J. Sandia National Labs. P. Based on Aero-Elastic Analysis. PhD. Simulation-Based Design Using Variable Fidelity Optimization. B. NV. R.” SAND 2004-0074. E. 1981 196. L. and Wright.” In “AIAA Conference. Sandia National Labs. 2001 195 [183] Belessis. Athens. P. 200 [185] Gano. 127.. Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering.” Williamsburg. H. Sturdza. J. G..” In “European Union Wind Energy Conference. May 2004 .260 Bibliography [179] Gerber. “A Survey of Shape Parameterization Techniques.” AIAA Journal of Aircraft. S. H. K. G. S. Sweden. “Simultaneous Optimization of a MultipleAircraft Family. Practical Optimization. Stamos. and Wakayama. Duque..

Sweden. M. P. Denmark. Colorado. and Dodge. M.” National Renewable Energy” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 70–85.” In “European Union Wind Energy Conference. Fluid Mechanics. Risø National Laboratory. M.. Retrieved from http:// www. 2001 C-12 . 2003 C-4 [197] White. Hand. 4th edition. and Robinson. M.” Goteborg. 1996 234. L. Colorado. and Derrick. J. J. “AWT 26 Generates Noise Complaint. F. 1998 234 [193] Proven. WCB/McGraw-Hill. 1(S1): pp. Roskilde. “Plans for Testing the NREL Unsteady Aerodynamics Experiment 10-m Diameter HAWT in the NASA Ames Wind December 2005 C-1 [195] Simms. “Wind Turbine Airfoil Catalogue.. S. 1999 C-7 [198] Bertagnolio.. P. and Fuglsang.. Pierce. Boston. K. G. D-1 [194] Hansen. 1999 C-4 [196] Jonkman. C. J.” 2005.” Year. W. N.. Johansen. Golden.. “Regulation and Application of the Proven 2kW Wind Turbine. “NWTC Design Codes: AirfoilPrep.” Wind Energy. F. “Trends in the Evolution of Wind Turbine Generator Configurations and Systems.261 202 [191] Gipe. Golden.html September 2006 229 [192] Thresher. A. R. “Modelling of the UAE Wind Turbine for Refinement of FAST AD. Fingersh.. D. Cotrell. Schreck.” Riso-R-1280(EN)..nrel. M.wind-works. Retrieved from http://wind. Sorensen. D..


Appendices .


the matrices must be premultiplied in reverse   x     y x = R z (β) R x (α) z      1 (A. ∆y. Note that translations then have zero effect. z. ∆z) =  0 0 is defined as:  0 0 ∆x 1 0 ∆y   0 1 ∆z  0 0 1 (A. y. A-1 . 1 transformation order as: T  0 0  0 1  0 0  0 1  0 0  0 1 (A. To transform a coordinate point x. The geometric translation matrix  1 0 T (∆x.Appendix A Geometric Transformations A common notation is used for the 4x4 geometric transformation matrices used throughout.1) Matrices defining a rotation θ about the x. y and z axes are defined respectively as:  1 0 0 0 C −S R x (θ) =  0 S C 0 0 0  C −S 0 S C 0 R y (θ) =  0 0 1 0 0 0  C 0 S  0 1 0 R z (θ) =  −S 0 C 0 0 0 where S = cos θ and C = cos θ.2a) (A.2c) through a rotation α about the x axis and then β about the z axis.2b) (A.3) A vector x may be transformed by setting the fourth element of the vector to zero.


local B-1 (B.2a) (B. It has been adapted from the author’s previous work [152].2b) . y to u in u. y to a convenient unit vector space u. The basic idea is to map the coordinates of the triangle from the real space x. both lying in the triangular integration region. Figure B.1 Section integral coordinate transform The mapping function ϕ may be defined as: x = ϕu = Ax By Ay By u v (B. The local and absolute centroid may be computed from: xc. v .1.Appendix B Cross Section Analysis This appendix describes the computation of cross-sectional properties for a generalized composite beam section. v .local = A+B 3 xc = O + xc. as shown in B.1) for an arbitrary vector x in x.

y (B.3b) The first (S) and second (I) moments of area for triangular domain.x xc.4a) (B. ρS.6b) (B.y c. and their contributions aggregated as modulus (EA. GJ) and density (ρA.4c) (B.4g) 2 A2 By Ay By y + + 12 12 12 Ax Bx A2 B2 + x + x + Atri x2 − x2 c.The area Atri of the element. The over-tilde indicate final aggregate quantities. ρJ) weighted sectional quantities.6c) (B.y ) + Atri (xc. The final sectional mass properties are then found from: mps = ρA xCG = [ρS y . ES.5c) where mps is the mass/unit-span of the section and the stiffness properties from: xEA = [ES y .4d) (B.y GJ = GJ − GA |xEA |2 B-2 (B.local. and an elemental area dA may be computed from: Atri = 1/2 A × B dA = |dx × dy| = |a0 a3 − a1 a2 | dudv = βdudv (B.5b) (B.x 12 12 12 Ax By + Bx Ay Ax Ay Bx By =β + + + 24 12 12 Atri (xc.y − xc.x EIxy = EI xy − EAxEA.local.x ) + Atri x2 − x2 c.x c.x − xc.y ) Jz = (x2 + y 2 )dA = Ixx + Iyy The formulas are applied to each triangular element.6e) .4f) (B. computed in the real domain.5a) (B. EI.x xEA.6a) (B. ES x ]/EA EIx = EI x − EAx2 EA.local. may then be derived from the above transformation and quantities as: Sx = Sy = Ixx = Iyy = Ixy = ydA xdA y 2 dA x2 dA xydA =β =β =β =β By Ay + 6 6 Ax Bx + 6 6 + Atri (xc.3a) (B. ρS x ]/mps Izz = ρJ − mps |xCG |2 (B.4b) (B.local.x xc.y EIy = EI y − EAx2 EA.y − xc.4e) (B.local.local.6d) (B.

and section twist.2 = EIx sin2 α + EIy cos2 α − 2EIxy sin(α) cos(α) The coordinate definition and nature of blade profiles means that the first principle axis is invariably chordwise. Given the total twist of the section γ. and the second edgewise.7c) EIprin.8a) (B. active pitch angle.1 = EIx cos2 α + EIy sin2 α − 2EIxy sin(α) cos(α) EIprin.8b) B-3 . including pitch set angle.7b) (B.The angle α and magnitude of the principle axes may be determined from: α = 1/2 arctan 2EIxy EIy − EIx (B. the OP and IP bending stiffnesses may be computed as: EIOP = EIIP EIx + EIy EIx + EIy + − EIxy sin 2γ 2 2 cos 2γ EIx + EIy EIx + EIy = − + EIxy sin 2γ 2 2 cos 2γ (B.7a) (B.


Denmark. C.1 and Fig. The relevant data for the rotor.1.3 ww = 2. as supplied by Mikkelsen [89] and used in his thesis.5 22.50 lw = 3. C.75) 56.0 (4.46 0 0.0 (4. airfoil data has been extended in AOA using NREL’s AirfoilPrep worksheet [194].25 MW m m ◦ ◦ RPM ◦ m m m m m Assumed tower wake properties C-1 . Where required.29 and an A of 10.0 (7.1 Tjaereborg Machine The Tjaereborg machine was an operational turbine in Esbjerg.Appendix C Reference Machine Specifications This appendix contains the details for the reference machines used in this thesis.1 Tjaereborg parameters Parameter Rated power Rotor diameter Rotor position Hub length (Rhinge ) Nominal cone angle Pitch set angle (γpitch.25) ∆ = 0.set ) Fixed rotation speed (Ω) Nacelle tilt Nacelle offset (o) Hub height Tower station height(diameter) Value 2 61 Upwind 1. It was built by ELSAM in 1987. which implements Viterna’s method [109] for post-stall.1 3 6. Table C.81 61 0. is given in Table C.25) 28. and decommissioned in 2001. with a max cd of 1.

1 Tjaereborg blade details C-2 Thickness (%) 8 .12 10 Chord Twist Thk 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Chord (m). twist (deg) 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 Distance from root (m) 15 20 25 30 (a) Blade geometry parameters 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 pitch Pitch (deg) 0 4 8 V (m/s) 12 16 20 24 (b) Operating profile Figure C.

2 1.6 0.0 -20 AOA (deg) -20 0 AOA (deg) 20 40 60 (c) Airfoil lift coefficient (NACA 4412) (d) Airfoil drag coefficient (NACA 4412) Figure C.2 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.) C-3 .2.8 12 15 18 21 24 0.0 15 18 21 24 0 20 40 60 cd cl 0.1 Tjaereborg blade details (cont.0 1.5 12 0.0 1.0 -0.5 -1.

The nominal blade has a tip radius of 5. The blades themselves are instrumented with pressure taps and pitot-tube probes at fixed locations. and the tunnel itself has various inflow measurements (wind speed. The wind tunnel at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Centre was used to enable testing of a large scale machine.C. without extended tip). allowing a rotor of nominal 10 m diameter to be tested without wake blockage.1) . teetering or flapping and operate upwind or downwind with full-blade independent pitch control. but may be controlled via power electronics. Telemetry provision is quite extensive. yaw angles. etc.029 m radius rotor (i. C.tip C-4 (C. The first phases of the program consisted of field trials.set is therefore: γpitch. thereby avoiding aerodynamic scaling difficulties. and can be fitted with extended or smoke tips. so only a brief description is included here and in Table C. including instrumentation for loads (blade. The pitch setting γpitch. hub. An important note when using the raw data is to correct the power reading for dynamic imbalance of the rotor. The drive-train has a gearbox and constant-speed induction generator.).). drive train and tower strain gauges/load cells/tunnel balance) and configuration (pitch. pressure taps. etc. a controlled wind tunnel experiment was conducted in phase VI.set = γpitch. The set-up for the test itself is well documented [113. Hand et al. The blade data shown in Fig. 75]. [177] provides tabular data for the extended-tip blade that must be interpolated to derive these profiles. wind shear or large-scale inflow turbulence.tip of the experiments refers to the out-of-plane angle at the (short) blade tip.tip − γtwist. Imbalance in the telemetry boom led to rotating imbalance and in turn a cyclic error in the power [177.4 m x 36.029m. The UAE machine is a heavily modified Grumman Wind Stream-33 built to allow flexible configuration. The blade pitch setting γpitch. temperature. 178. p. The data sets available are pre-corrected for the influence of the overhung rotor weight on the shaft strain gauge measurements used to compute power.2 NREL UAE Phase IV The UAE was a long-running program conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to provide experimental data to validate analysis tools. The NASA Ames tunnel test section is 24.6 m. It employs a 2-bladed rotor that can be rigid. 195. azimuth. but due to atmospheric turbulence creating inflow anomalies.2 for the 5.e.2. 177. 196].

The cd curve was smoothed around ±10◦ and extended beyond the provided data range using AirfoilPrep.2 NREL UAE parameters Parameter Rated power Rotor diameter Hub length (Rhinge ) Fixed rotation speed (Ω) Value 12 11 0.The data provided by NREL has a fairly large range in cl and cd 1 . Table C. The airfoil dataset used here is the S809 OSU data [177] with AOA data to 26◦ .508 72 kW m m RPM 1 Wake deficit and surface pressure integrations are both used for cd C-5 . for best Re fit among the various sets available. at different Re and from testing facilities.

thickness (%) .2 0.6 0. cd 0.0 0.0.2 0.4 0.5 1.5 5.0 4.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 3.0 -20 Distance from root (m) 1.5 2.2 1.4 0.8 (a) Blade geometry parameters cl.6 Chord Twist Thk 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Chord (m) 0.0 cl cd 0 20 40 60 -20 -0.5 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.2 AOA (deg) (b) S809 airfoil data Figure C.2 NREL UAE blade details C-6 Twist (deg).0 1.3 0.5 4.5 3.

It has a custom controller for variable speed operation with pitch control (PTF). The relevant parameters for the machine are given in Table C.3 REF-1500 parameters Parameter Rated electrical power No-load constant power loss Generator efficiency Rotor diameter Hub length (Rhinge ) Pitch set angle (γpitch. with zero lift and constant cd = 0.1 Table C. A 100% thick airfoil (circle) has also been defined.823/5. 298].5 15 95 70 1. The airfoil data has been modified slightly around α = 16◦ for the high Re number data to avoid extremely sharp stall in the GH data.3. The tower is linearly tapered and rotor upwind of the tower.3.3 for a cylinder at Re >1e6 White [197. C.5 MW Reference Machine (REF-1500) The REF-1500 was supplied by GH as a representative model of a current state-ofthe-art MW class machine.4–21 84 3.3 5 82 2. C-7 . and the blade details in Fig. p.663 MW kW % m m ◦ RPM m m ◦ m m 1 The original data used cd = 1.3 1.C.0.set ) Rotation speed (Ω) Hub height Hub offset Nominal shaft tilt Tower height Tower top/bottom diameter Value 1.75 1 14.

3 REF-1500 details C-8 Mass/unit length (kg/m).0 0 5 10 Distance from root (m) 15 20 25 30 35 (a) Blade geometry parameters 1. thickness (%) Chord (m) .E+06 1.5 1.5 2.E+05 1000 100 0 5 10 Distance from root (m) 15 20 25 30 35 10 (b) Blade stiffness and mass parameters Figure C.3. EIedge (Nm2) 1.E+07 1.0 0.E+09 EIflap EIedge mps pitch axis 10000 EIflap.5 0.0 2. pitch axis (%c) Twist (deg).E+08 1.E+10 1.0 Chord Twist Thk 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1.

5 -1. cd 0.0 cl.5 13 cl 17 cl 21 cl 13 cd 17 cd 21 cd 0 0.0 2. pitch angle (deg) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 RPM Pitch angle 10 V (m/s) 15 20 25 (c) Operating profile 2.) C-9 .5 -1.5 AOA (deg) 20 40 60 -20 -1.5 AOA (deg) 20 40 60 (d) Airfoil coefficients for Re = 2e6 (LS1) (e) Airfoil coefficients for Re = 4e6 (LS1) Figure C.0 -0.5 1.3 REF-1500 details (cont.0 1.5 0.0 13 cl 17 cl 21 cl 13 cd 17 cd 21 cd 0 -20 -1.30 RPM.0 1.0 cl.0 -0.5 1. cd 0.

Table C.4 Demo machine parameters Parameter Rated power Rotor diameter Hub length (Rhinge ) Value 2.C. The data relevant to this thesis are given in Table C.4 GH Demo Machine The GH Demo Machine is supplied with BLADEDTM as an example set of data.4.25 m C-10 .2 MW 80 m 1.4 and Fig. C.

pitch axis (%c) Thickness (%) .E+06 1.E+10 1.14 12 Chord Twist Thk 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Chord (m).E+08 1.E+05 1000 100 0 5 10 Distance from root (m) 15 20 25 30 35 10 (b) Blade stiffness and mass parameters Figure C. EIedge (Nm2) 1.4 Demo machine details C-11 Mass/unit length (kg/m).E+07 1. twist (deg) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 Distance from root (m) 15 20 25 30 35 (a) Blade geometry parameters 1.E+09 EIflap EIedge mps pitch axis 10000 EIflap.

5 CONE-450 Concept The details for the CONE-450 final design are given in Table C.5e6. and the 30% data from Velux.0 641 4509 45108 kW m (unconed) m kg kgm kgm2 C. C. This data is used for the “FX” blade sets in Part III.166 2.6 Coning Rotor Study The NACA 63(2)-4XX airfoil used in Part III is taken from the Risø airfoil library [198] experimental data. C.5 [66].C.5 CONE-450 parameters Parameter Rated power Rotor diameter Hub length (Rhinge ) Blade mass First mass moment (about hinge) Second mass moment (about hinge) Value 450 23.5 and Fig. but are taken from another GH report using same airfoil [58]. at an Re of 1. Some data has been smoothed to avoid sharp spikes.5(d) were not included in the original report. The airfoil coefficients in Fig. The 17%–21% data is from Abbott. C-12 . as shown in Fig. Table C. C.6.

5 1.0 0.5 0.2.0 1.5 CONE-450 details C-13 Twist (deg).5 2.E+02 Mass/unit length (kg/m) 1. thickness (%) Chord (m) .E+00 0 2 4 6 Distance from root (m) 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 (b) Blade mass parameter Figure C.E+01 1.0 Chord Twist Thk 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 Distance from root (m) 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 (a) Blade geometry parameters 1.

8 0.4 cl cd 0 20 40 60 AOA (deg) (c) Operating profile (d) Airfoil coefficients (FX66-17AII-182) Figure C.6 1.2 -0.5 1.5 AOA (deg) 20 40 60 Figure C.6 0.5 0. cd 20 V (m/s) -20 1.0 -0.4 -0.0 cl.2 0.4 0.) 2.0 -0.0 0.6 1. cd 0.35 30 25 RPM RPM 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 cl.5 -1.2 1.0 15 cl 18 cl 21 cl 30 cl 15 cd 18 cd 21 cd 30 cd 0 -20 -1.6 Airfoil coefficients (NACA 63-4XX) C-14 .5 CONE-450 details (cont.0 1.

1 has been compiled from a number of sources [9. 15. D-1 . 74.Appendix D Historical Machines Table D. 66. 18. 193].

Y = yaw control. Higher than expected cyclic loading from inadequate wind models 5 Soft tower. T = tubular. TG = guyed tubular 1 Flapping hinges adopted to combat gyroscopic loading when yawing 2 Low solidity. PSP = partial-span pitch. Spring mounted gearbox 6 Flexible spar instead of flap hinges. high aspect blades led to flutter problems 3 Only rigid stops on flapping blades.5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D D D U D D U A ? P A A P A IF T IF T Td FB T FSP FSP S PSP FSP S PSP Smith-Putnam at Grandpa’s Knob1 H¨tter-Allgaier2 u Martin Ryle (Cambridge)3 Boeing Mod-24 KKRV Sweden/Hamilton Standard (US) WTS-45 Carter6 Boeing Mod-5B7 -3◦ /6◦ 7◦ 0◦ –15◦ ? >0◦ - a b Orientation: D = downwind. Next generation machine: “Constant-coning” instead of pitch-flap coupling to provide smoother power.1 Soft machine history Date Rating (kW) Diameter (m) # Blades Orientationa Yawb Hubc Power Controld Coning Machine 1941 1960s 1980s 1980s 1980s 1980s 1987 1250 100 ≈5 2500 4000 250 3200 53. R = rigid d Power Control: FSP = full-span pitch.Table D.4 78 20 97. Tp = teeter pitch coupling. P = Passive c Hub: IF = individual flapping. C = cone e Tower: Tr = truss. S = stall. U = upwind Yaw: A = active. FB = flex-beam. T = teetering. Td = teetering with d3. Tapered untwisted blades 4 First soft design using experience and simulation.3 34 ≈5 91. PTS & variable speed 7 First variable speed machine using cycloconverter Towere Tr TG T T T T T D-2 .

fixed-speed.55–9 41/45 2 2 3 3 3/2 D U D D D P A P P P T T R IF FB S Y C.Table D. Constant-speed direct-drive generators. Low modulus blade material Hydraulic central actuator to control collective coning angle.) Rating (kW) Diamter (m) Orientationa Yawb Date # Blades Hubc Power Controld Coning Machine 30 2000 450 0. S S.1 Soft machine history (cont. counter-balanced nacelle. Broad-range speed control. laterally offset from tower to balance thrust and rotor torque component along tower from tilted nacelle (downwind end up). Zeebede flexible inclined hinge (δ3 ) allows coning of blades.6–15 600 12 ? 44 2.C Risø Test Machine1 Gamma 602 CONE-4503 Proven4 MS4-6005 1991 1992 1994 1990 1997 5◦ 0◦ /80◦ 5◦ –45◦ 8◦ static 1 2 3 4 5 Highly instrumented test machine with variable springs and dampers used on the teeter DOF.S. Experiments concerned with free yaw performance and required free-teeter angle requirements Teetering hub permits high yaw rates facilitating reliance on yaw control for power limiting. combining centrifugal force towards feather and pitch with cone angle towards stall Flex-beams allow 50% load reduction in high winds. Blades individually hinged. Ø45 m design for Class II sites Towere T T TG T T D-3 . full-span pitch towards stall. C FSP. but essentially rigid due to collective coning mechanism Range of machine sizes. 2-bladed design for offshore. self-erecting. Soft tower.

Blades not rigidly attached to teetered hub. Blade pitching is unclear. but individually supported by hinge axis inclined to give 8◦ flap/edge coupling. Hydraulically damped. hurricanes) Towere TG TG T TG1 D-4 .1 Soft machine history (cont. independent blade flapping Teetering hub with stiffness. No shear webs were used in the blades apart from the flex-beam. Novel pitch teeter coupling Tilt down for extreme storms (e.Table D.g. A composite flex-beam across the hinge axis then provides individual blade flapping stiffness. but appears to envisaged as 15◦ with active stall control in future versions.) Diamter (m) Coning Date Rating (kW) # Blades Orientationa Yawb Hubc Machine 1998 1999 2003 2003 250 15 500 275 40 12 33 30 2 2 2 2 D D U D A P A P IF T/IF Tp T FSP FSP FSP FSP WTC1 Soft-Rotor Concept (Risø)2 Windflow 5003 Vergnet4 Power Controld -5◦ /15◦ 0◦ /90◦ > 0◦ 1 2 3 4 Hydraulic dampers for semi-passive yaw. Nacelle tilt flexibility is provided Torque limiting gearbox.

and are a result of test data and laminate calculations without safety factors. Unless otherwise stated. E-1 .Appendix E Material Specifications These material values are taken from Griffin [55]. the materials are glass fibres in an epoxy matrix.

52 4.022 0.022 0.0105 0.0105 24.022 0.30 0.0105 0.140 0.0105 0.1 Section layup material specifications Density ρ (kg/m3 ) ut uc Name Elastic Modulus E (GPa) 0.37 0.30 0.0105 0.31 0.022 0.0105 0.2 31.Table E.39 0.86 1.022 0.70 3.22 Torsional Modulus G (GPa) Poisson’s Ratio ν - Ultimate Strain Tensile Compressive CDB340a A260b Spar cap mixc Random mat Gel coat Balsa 1700 1700 1700 1670 1230 144 a E-2 Triaxial fabric.65 3.1 9.022 0.07 4.44 2.0 27.97 3. 25%:25%:50% distribution of +45◦ :-45◦ :0◦ fibres b Uniaxial fabric c Alternating layers of CDB340 and A260 giving 70% uniaxial fibres by mass .38 0.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful