Part I: Blade Design Methods and Issues James L.

Tangler
Senior Scientist
National Renewable Energy Laboratory National Wind Technology Center Steady-State Aerodynamics Codes for HAWTs Selig, Tangler, and Gigure August 2, 1999 NREL NWTC, Golden, CO

Outline
Survey of Steady-Aerodynamics Codes Blade Design Trade-Offs and Issues Wind Turbine Airfoils Noise Sources and Tip Shapes Stall-Delay Models

Survey of Steady-Aerodynamics Codes

Historical Development of BEMT Performance and Design Methods in the US Summary Year Codes Developers

1974
1981 1983

PROP
WIND Revised PROP PROPSH WIND-II PROPFILE

Wilson and Walker

Snyder Hibbs and Radkey Tangler Snyder and Staples Fairbank and Rogers

1984

Year
1986 1987

Code
NUPROP PROPPC

Developer
Hibbs Kocurek

1993
1994 1995 1996 1998 2000

PROP93
PROPID WIND-III PROPGA WT_PERF PROP98

McCarty
Selig Huang and Miller Selig and Coverstone-Carroll Buhl Combs

New PROPGA Gigure

 Some details of each code 1974 PROP

Fortran 77

1981

WIND
Based on PROP code Accounts for spoilers, ailerons, and other airfoil modifications

1983

Revised PROP
Windmill brake state Wind shear effects Flat-plate post-stall airfoil characteristics

1983 continue

PROPSH
Rotor shaft tilt option Dimensional outputs

WIND-II
Empirical axial induction models 2D airfoil data Energy computation

1984

PROPFILE
PC version of PROPSH

1986

NUPROP
Dynamic stall Wind shear Tower shadow Yaw error Large scale turbulence

1987

PROPPC
PC version of PROP

1993

PROP with graphical outputs Programmed in C

PROP93

1994

PROPID
Inverse design method Airfoil data interpolation Improved tip-loss model

1995

WIND-III
PC version of WIND-II Accounts for various aero breaking schemes

PROPGA
Genetic-algorithm based optimization method Optimize for max. energy Uses PROPID

1996

WT_PERF
Improved tip-loss model Drag term in calculating inplane induced velocities Fortran 90

1998

PROP98
Enhanced graphics Windows Interface

2000

New PROPGA
Structural and cost considerations Airfoil selection Advanced GA operators Multi objectives

 Types of Steady-State BEMT Performance and Design Methods Analysis Inverse Design Optimization PROP PROPID PROPGA WIND Revised PROP PROPSH WIND-II PROPFILE NUPROP PROPPC PROP93 WIND-III WT_PERF PROP98
10

 Features of Selected Performance and Design Codes

CODES Features Development Date Airfoil Data Interpolation 3-D Stall Delay Glauert Approximation Tip Losses Windspeed Sweep Pitch Sweep Shaft Tilt Yaw Angle Tower Shadow Dynamic Stall Graphics Program Language Other Cost PROPPC WT-Perf AeroVironment NREL 1987 no no yes yes yes yes yes no no no no Fortran free NUPROP AeroVironment 1986 no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no Fortran turbulence free PROP93 AEI 1993 no no yes yes yes yes yes yes no no yes C hub ext. $50 PROPID Univ. of Illinois 1997 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no Fortran Inverse design free

11

 Glauert Correction for the Viscous Interaction less induced velocity greater angle of attack more thrust and power

12

 Prediction Sources of Error Airfoil data

Correct Reynolds number Post-stall characteristics

Tip-loss model Generator slip RPM change

13

 How Is Lift and Drag Used? Only lift used to calculate the axial induction factor a Both lift and drag used to calculate the swirl a

14

 Designing for Steady-State Performance vs Performance in Stochastic Wind Environment Turbulence Wind shear Dynamic stall Yaw error Elastic twist Blade roughness

15

Blade Design Trade-offs and Issues

Aerodynamics vs Stuctures vs Dynamics vs Cost The aerodynamicists desire thin airfoils for low drag and minimum roughness sensitivity The structural designers desire thick airfoils for stiffness and light weight The dynamicists desires depend on the turbine configuration but often prefer airfoils with a soft stall, which typically have a low to moderate Clmax The accountant wants low blade solidity from high Clmax airfoils, which typically leads to lower blade weight and cost

16

 Low-Lift vs High-Lift Airfoils Low-lift implies larger blade solidity, and thus larger extreme loads Extreme loads particularly important for large wind turbines Low-lift airfoils have typically a soft stall, which is dynamically beneficial, and reduce power spikes High-lift implies smaller chord lengths, and thus lower operational Reynolds numbers and possible manufacturing difficulties Reynolds number effects are particularly important for small wind turbines

17

 Optimum Rotor Solidity Low rotor solidity often leads to low blade weight and cost For a given peak power, the optimum rotor solidity depends on:
Rotor diameter (large diameter leads to low solidity) Airfoils (e.g., high clmax leads to low solidity) Rotor rpm (e.g., high rpm leads to low solidity) Blade material (e.g, carbon leads to low solidity)

For large wind turbines, the rotor or blade solidity is limited by transportation constraints

18

 Swept Area (2.2 - 3.0 m2/kW) Generator rating Site dependent Blade Flap Stiffness ( t2) Airfoils Flutter Tower clearance

19

 Rotor Design Guidelines Tip speed: < 200 ft/sec (61 m/sec ) Swept area/power: wind site dependent Airfoils: need for higher-lift increases with turbine size, weight. & cost ~ R2.8 Blade stiffness: airfoil thickness ~ t2 Blade shape: tapered/twisted vs constant chord Optimize cp for a blade tip pitch of 0 to 4 degrees with taper and twist

20

Wind Turbine Airfoils

Design Perspective The environment in which wind turbines operate and their mode of operation not the same as for aircraft
Roughness effects resulting from airborne particles are important for wind turbines Larger airfoil thicknesses needed for wind turbines

Different environments and modes of operation imply different design requirements The airfoils designed for aircraft not optimum for wind turbines

21

 Design Philosophy Design specially-tailored airfoils for wind turbines

Design airfoil families with decreasing thickness from root to tip to accommodate both structural and aerodynamic needs Design different families for different wind turbine size and rotor rigidity

22

 Main Airfoil Design Parameters Thickness, t/c Lift range for low drag and Clmax Reynolds number Amount of laminar flow

23

 Design Criteria for Wind Turbine Airfoils Moderate to high thickness ratio t/c
Rigid rotor: 16%26% t/c Flexible rotor: 11%21% t/c Small wind turbines: 10%-16% t/c

High lift-to-drag ratio Minimal roughness sensitivity Weak laminar separation bubbles

24

 NREL Advanced Airfoil Families

Blade Length (meters) 1-5 5-10 5-10 5-10 10-15 10-15 15-25 15-25 Generator Size (kW) 2-20 20-150 20-150 20-150 150-400 150-400 400-1000 400-1000 Thickness Category thick thin thin thick thick thick thick thick S815 S815 S808 Airfoil Family (root--------------------------------tip) S823 S804 S807 S821 S814 S814 S818 S818 S801 S805A S819 S809 S812 S816 S825 S822 S803 S806A S820 S810 S813 S817 S826

Note: Shaded airfoils have been wind tunnel tested.

25

26

27

28

29

 Potential Energy Improvements

NREL airfoils vs airfoils designed for aircraft (NACA)

30

 Other Wind Turbine Airfoils University of Illinois

SG6040/41/42/43 and SG6050/51 airfoil families for small wind turbines (1-10 kW) Numerous low Reynolds number airfoils applicable to small wind turbines

Delft (Netherlands) FFA (Sweden) Ris (Denmark)

31

 Airfoil Selection Appropriate design Reynolds number Airfoil thickness according to the amount of centrifugal stiffening and desired blade rigidity Roughness insensitivity most important for stall regulated wind turbines Low drag not as important for small wind turbines because of passive over speed control and smaller relative influence of drag on performance High-lift root airfoil to minimize inboard solidity and enhanced starting torque

32

Noise Sources and Tip Shapes

Noise Sources Tip-Vortex / Trailing-Edge Interaction Blade/Vortex Interaction Laminar Separation Bubble Noise

33

 Tip-Vortex / Trailing-Edge Interaction

34

 Tip Shapes Sword Shape Swept Tip

35

 Effect of Trailing-Edge Thickness at the Tip of the Blade

36

 Thick and Thin Trailing Edge Noise Measurements

Thick Tip trailing Edge

Thin Tip Trailing Edge

37

Stall-Delay and Post-Stall Models

Stall-Delay Models Viterna Corrigan & Schillings UIUC model

38

 Corrigan & Schillings Stall-Delay Model Simplified equations

39

 CER blade geometry

40

 Examples CER1 Constant chord/non-twist blade

CER1 r/R 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 c/R 0.0911 0.0911 0.0911 0.0911 0.0911 0.0911 0.0911 0.0911 0.0911 0.0911 c/r 1.822 0.607 0.364 0.260 0.202 0.166 0.140 0.121 0.107 0.096 K 0.1026 0.2807 0.4483 0.6101 0.7680 0.9230 1.0756 1.2260 1.3752 1.5227

cl max cl zero
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2

K*/0.136 (n=1) 10.2 1.3749 3.8 10.2 1.2537 2.6 10.2 1.2011 2.1 10.2 1.1676 1.7 10.2 1.1432 1.5 10.2 1.1241 1.3 10.2 1.1084 1.1 10.2 1.0952 1.0 10.2 1.0837 0.9 10.2 1.0737 0.8

41

 CER3 tapered/twisted blade

CER3 r/R 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 c/R 0.0442 0.0510 0.1465 0.1364 0.1263 0.1162 0.1061 0.0960 0.0859 0.0758 c/r 0.886 0.341 0.586 0.390 0.281 0.211 0.163 0.128 0.101 0.080 K 0.1987 0.4769 0.2902 0.4216 0.5695 0.7388 0.9357 1.1692 1.4519 1.8029 cl max 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

cl zero
-1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2

K*/0.136 (n=1) 10.2 1.2941 3.0 10.2 1.1943 2.0 10.2 1.2499 2.5 10.2 1.2078 2.1 10.2 1.1750 1.8 10.2 1.1473 1.5 10.2 1.1227 1.3 10.2 1.1000 1.0 10.2 1.0784 0.8 10.2 1.0572 0.6

42

 S809 Deflt 2-D data without/with stall delay

1.4 0.6

1.4

0.6

1.2 r/R=0.35 r/R=0.35 1.0

Drag Coefficient

1.2 r/R=0.35 r/R=0.35 1.0

Drag Coefficient

0.4
Lift Coefficient

0.4
Lift Coefficient

0.8

0.8

0.6 0.2 0.4

0.6 0.2 0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18

0.0 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18

Angle of Attack, degrees

Angle of Attack, degrees

43

 CER1 airfoil data without/with stall delay

1.4 0.6

1.4

0.6

1.2

1.2
r/R=0.35 r/R=0.55 r/R=0.75
Drag Coefficient Lift Coefficient

r/R=0.35 r/R=0.55 r/R=0.75 r/R=0.35

Drag Coefficient

1.0
Lift Coefficient

1.0
0.4

r/R=0.95 r/R=0.35 0.8 r/R=0.55 r/R=0.75 r/R=0.95 0.6

r/R=0.95 0.8 r/R=0.55 r/R=0.75 r/R=0.95 0.6

0.4

0.2 0.4

0.2 0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18

0.0 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18

Angle of Attack, degrees

Angle of Attack, degrees

44

 CER3 airfoil data without/with stall delay

1.4 0.6
1.4 0.6

1.2

1.2

r/R=0.35 r/R=0.55 r/R=0.75

Drag Coefficient

r/R=0.35 r/R=0.55 1.0 r/R=0.75 r/R=0.95

Lift Coefficient

1.0
Lift Coefficient

r/R=0.95 r/R=0.35 0.8 r/R=0.55 r/R=0.75 r/R=0.95 0.6

0.4

0.4
Drag Coefficient

r/R=0.35 0.8 r/R=0.55 r/R=0.75 r/R=0.95 0.6

0.2 0.4

0.2 0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18

0.0 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18

Angle of Attack, degrees

Angle of Attack, degrees

45

 CER1 and CER3 predicted power without/with stall delay

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 Wind Speed (m/s)
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 Wind Speed (m/s)

Rotor Power (kW )

cer1sd 7 deg. cer1 7 deg. 15 20

Rotor Power (kW )

cer3tt 5 deg. cer3tt 5 deg. 15 20

46

 UIUC Stall-Delay Model Easier to tailor to CER test data than Corrigan & Schillings model More rigorous analytical approach Results in greater blade root lift coefficient enhancement than Corrigan & Schillings model

47

 Conclusions on Post-Stall Models The Corrigan & Schillings stall delay model quantifies stall delay in terms of blade geometry Greater blade solidity and airfoil camber resulted in greater stall delay Tapered blade planform provided the same % peak power increase as constant-chord blade with lower blade loads Predicted CER peak power with stall delay was 20% higher Peak power increases of 10% to 15% are more realistic for lower solidity commercial machines

48