Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EM 2013.021
Dr. T. Ashuri
Ir. E.A. Ferede
Professor:
Prof.dr.ir. F. van Keulen
Specialization: Engineering Mechanics
Type of report: MSc thesis
Date:
2013-08-04
Report No:
Coaches:
Towards
HIGH FIDELIT Y AEROELASTIC
analysis of
WIND TURBINES
ABSTRACT
The design of wind turbines is a multidisciplinary process. Most of the
codes currently used in industry and academia use low fidelity models, which are not suitable for detailed design. This thesis describes the
development of an aerostructural model for wind turbines with a high
fidelity structural solver.
This is done by coupling an existing high fidelity structural solver
with an aerodynamic solver. Coupling is done by interfacing the components in Python. The aeroelastic solution is computed using the
non-linear block Gauss-Seidel method. The code makes it possible to
do steady-state analysis of a wind turbine blade. A high-fidelity model
is created based on a Sandia National Labs model detailing the design
of a 5 MW turbine.
Results from a comparative study between a low fidelity model and
the developed model of this work show that the structural torsion has a
significant effect on the performance of large wind turbines. Torsional
degrees of freedom are not included in most low fidelity models. This is
a clear indication that current aeroelastic codes have severe limitations
when used to design flexible blades. The developed model makes it
possible to model bend-twist coupling due to composite layups as well
as geometry. Future work will focus on time-domain simulation of the
aeroelastic response and high-fidelity optimization.
CONTENTS
Abstract
Contents iii
List of Figures
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Background 1
Motivation 2
Research questions 3
Research method 3
Thesis outline 4
Theoretical background
2
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
iii
4.6
4.7
pyAeroDyn functions 55
Modeling an aeroelastic problem 65
Conclusions
6
Conclusions 81
Future work 82
Bibliography 85
Appendices
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
vi
Deformed plate. 69
Relative error between TACS and ANSYS for test case. 70
Deformation results for a variety of mesh sizes. 72
Mass distribution along the span of the blade with interpolation. 73
Power curve with FAST control settings. 73
Pitch angle effect on power coefficient. 73
Pitch angle setting of "tuned" TACS vs FAST controlled
model. 74
Power output of "tuned" TACS compared to other models.
74
x-direction deflection [m]. 76
y-direction deflection [m]. 76
z-direction deflection [m]. 76
x-rotation [deg]. 77
y-rotation [deg]. 77
z-rotation [deg]. 77
LIST OF TABLES
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
vii
NOMENCLATURE
Mathematical notation
a
Scalar
a
Vector
A
Matrix
Latin symbols
A
Area
a
Axial flow induction factor
a
Angular induction factor
B
Number of blades
C
Stiffness matrix
c
Chord length
CD
Drag coefficient
CL
Lift coefficient
Cp
Power coefficient
CT
Thrust coefficient
D
Orientation matrix
d
Distance from aerodynamic center to LE/TE
E
Youngs modulus
E
Tolerance
F
Tangential force
FL
Lift force
G
Shear modulus
g
Gravitational acceleration
h
Height
h
Laminate thickness (Chapter 3)
I
Mass moment of inertia
L
Angular momentum
Lelm Length of element
M
Mass (Chapter 2)
M
Moment per unit length (Chapter 4)
m2
Pa
m
m
Pa
N
N
Pa
9.80665 m/s2
m
m
kgm2
Nms
m
kg
Nm/m
ix
m
N
ni
nshaft
p
p
p
pcent
Q
Q
Qhub
Qtip
R
R
r
Rhub
S
S
t
T
taf
u
U
v
W
w
yac
yoff
Mass flow
kg/s
Force per unit length
N/m
Position vector of node i
m
Shaft direction vector
m
Pressure
Pa
Momentum (chapter 2)
kgm/s
Element position vector (chapter 4)
m
Spanwise location of the center of the element
m
Reduced transformed stiffness matrix
Reduced stiffness matrix for unidirectional lamina
Hub correction factor
Tip correction factor
Rotation matrix
Rotor radius
m
Local radius
m
Hub radius
m
Planform area
m2
Compliance matrix
Pa1
Torque exerted by blade
Nm
Torque
Nm
Airfoil thickness
Nm
Deflection in x-direction
m
Wind velocity
m/s
Deflection in y-direction
m
Effective wind velocity
m/s
Deflection in z-direction
m
y-direction relative position of the aerodynamic center
y-direction offset of blade
-
Greek symbols
Angle of attack
Angle of inflow
Strain
rad
rad
rad
rad
rad
rad
rad
rad
rad
kg/m3
Pa
Pa
Pa
rad
rad
rad
rad
rad
rad
rad
rad/s
rad/s
Subscripts
0
Undeformed
Upstream
1
In the 1-direction (Chapter 3)
2
In the 2-direction
3
In the 3-direction
BA
Blade attached coordinate system
d
At the disk
EL
Element coordinate system
GL
Global coordinate system
mc
Moment correction
mtr Mean traction force
R
Root-side of the element
T
Tip-side of the element
w
In the wake (down-steam)
x
In the x-direction (Chapter 3)
y
In the y-direction (Chapter 3)
z
In the z-direction (Chapter 3)
Superscripts
+
Front of the actuator disk
xi
Abbreviations
BEM Blade element momentum method
CAD Computer aided design
GFRP Carbon-fiber reinforced polymer
CK
Coupled Krylov method
CLT Classical lamination theory
CNK Coupled Newton-Krylov method
ECN Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland
FEA Finite element analysis
FF
Full-field turbulent flow
FRP Fiber reinforced polymer
FSDT First order shear deformation theory
GFRP Glass-fiber reinforced polymer
HAWT Horizontal-axis wind turbine
HH Hub height
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
LBGS Linear block Gauss-Seidel
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NLBGS Nonlinear block Gauss-Seidel
NREL National Renewable Energy Lab
NuMAD Numerical Manufacturing And Design Tool
NWTC National Wind Technology Center
SWIG Simplified Wrapper and Interface Generator
TACS Toolkit for the Analysis of Composite Structures
xii
PREFACE
This thesis was written between fall 2012 and summer 2013. The majority
of the work was done at the University of Michigan. I was also fortunate
enough to be spend two weeks of my research at National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) of the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL)
in Colorado.
I would like to thank Prof. Joaquim Martins for hosting me during
my stay at the University of Michigan. The funding for my research was
made possible by the Justus & Louise van Effen research grant. I am very
thankful to Prof. Fred van Keulen for supporting my application to this
grant.
In addition to this I would like to thank my supervisors, Turaj Ashuri
and Etana Ferede. They were very supportive of my research and were
always available for questions. My office mates, Gaetan Kenway and
Marco Ceze, who were always up for discussing things on my mind. A
thank you to Prof. van Bussel who made my stay at NREL possible. And
of course Jason Jonkman, who hosted me during my stay at NREL. He
was very helpful in making me feel welcome, discussing options and
inviting me to developmental meetings.
And let me not forget my friends and family, both in the US and
in the Netherlands. In particular my parents, who supported me going
abroad for over 7 months. Douglas Leavy and family, who hosted me in
Colorado, and proofread my thesis. The lunch group in Michigan always
provided a welcome diversion during the day and featured stimulating
conversation.
xiii
INTRODUCTION
1.1
background
The trend the last few years has been to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
This is done by creating an energy mix which consists of multiple fuel
sources. Wind energy is promoted by many countries through subsidies
(Saidur et al., 2010). The usage of wind energy has rapidly increased over
the last few years. This is illustrated in Figure 1.1. Renewable sources
are expected to produce more energy than natural gas sources by 2016
(Goossens, 2013).
Rapid increase in population, expected by 2040, as well as emerging economies in Asia and Africa, will lead to a significant increase in
global energy usage. Other green alternatives, such as nuclear fusion
and wave energy are at the proof of concept stage (Tokimatsu et al., 2003;
Ashuri et al., 2012). The finite supply of fossil fuels combined with the
environmental impact of their usage warrant an increase in the usage
of renewable energy (ExxonMobil, 2013). This is reflected in the global
annual spending on renewable energy (REN21, 2013, p. 15).
Wind energy production will increase greatly over the next few
decades. There are plans in the US to increase wind energys contribution
Figure 1.1: Cumulative wind energy usage. Figure from WikiMedia Commons,
source of data is from Global Wind Energy Council (2012).
1.2
motivation
This means its results are somewhat questionable. His aerodynamic code
is also oversimplified.
This thesis uses AeroDyn, a wind turbine aerodynamic solver. It
is coupled with TACS, a high fidelity structural solver. The resulting
aeroelastic code is compared and verified with a lower fidelity code.
The resulting code will be used for future research in e.g.
Time domain analysis.
(Multi-fidelity) optimization.
1.3
research questions
1.4
research method
After becoming familiar with the basic theories, the AeroDyn interface is investigated. This is done by learning Fortran, studying the
manual (Laino and Hansen, 2002; Jonkman and Jonkman, 2013) and
learning to write Fortran test programs.
Once familiar with AeroDyn and its interface at the Fortran level,
research is done into wrapping the code to the Python level. This is
achieved by learning Python and learning to wrap Fortran codes using
F2py. Once familiar with wrapping simple codes AeroDyn is wrapped.
With a functional Python-wrapped AeroDyn interface, research is
done into the existing codes and how they can be interfaced. This is
done by talking to people from the MDOlab and studying code examples.
The existing AeroDyn wrapper is then incorporated into these codes
allowing for aeroelastic analysis.
Once generated, the code must be verified against an existing code.
Applicable models were discussed while visiting NRELs NWTC in
Golden, CO. The model is then created using the tools developed by the
MDOlab (when possible).
The verification model is then compared to the results. Any differences found between the codes are to be analyzed and physically
explained.
1.5
thesis outline
Chapter 2 starts the literature research with an overview of the aerodynamic effects of wind turbines. It also gives a derivation of BEM, with
an emphasis on the implementation of BEM in AeroDyn.
The structural considerations of wind turbines are reviewed in Chapter 3. This chapter concerns the structure of wind turbine blades and
how they are affected by certain variables. The section also gives a review
of the classical lamination theory which is used in composite analysis. It
also briefly discusses other composite models.
Chapter 4 discusses the interface of AeroDyn and the method in
which its coupled to TACS. It also includes a brief overview of the aeroelastic solver and its convergence criteria.
Chapter 5 compares the composite model of TACS to ANSYS and the
aeroelastic response with that of FAST. In order to analyze multi-lamina
composites, certain additions were made to TACS and pyTACS to get the
constitutive class working. The rest of the chapter discusses the choice
4
PART I
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
WIND TURBINE
AERODYNAMICS
This chapter discusses the aerodynamic design of wind turbines. The
first part of the chapter discusses the aerodynamic considerations of
wind turbines. The final part of the chapter discusses Blade Element
Momentum (BEM). BEM is the method used in this thesis to calculate
the aerodynamic loads acting onto the structure.
2.1
2.1.1
The site
2.1.2
Number of blades
The more blades a design incorporates, the less each blade has to extract.
This means that the loads on the blade are smaller and the rotation speed
is lower. This reduces structural loads and allowing for lighter blades.
9
2.1.3
Blade design
Since Airfoil
the drag is in the downwind direction, it may seem that it wouldnt matter for a
wind turbine as the drag would be parallel to the turbine axis, so wouldnt slow the rotor
axis
wind
turbines
energy
from
windaxis
through
down.Horizontal
It would just
create
thrust
, the(HAWT)
force that extract
acts parallel
to the
turbine
hence
has notorque
tendency
to speed from
up or slow
down
the rotor.
Whenthis
the torque
rotor is stationary
generated
airfoils.
HAWT
extract
by utilizing
(e.g. just
start-up),
is indeed
the case.
blades own
thebefore
lift force
of anthis
airfoil,
this allows
theHowever
turbine the
to extract
moremovement
energy
through
the
air
means
that,
as
far
as
the
blade
is
concerned,
the
wind
is
blowing
from
than drag-based devices. These airfoils have a shape which is similar
to
a different
angle.
This
is
called
apparent
wind.
The
apparent
wind
is
stronger
than
the
that of airplanes. The lift generated by the airfoil generates a component
true wind but its angle is less favourable: it rotates the angles of the lift and drag to
which is translated to a torque. This is shown in figure Figure 2.2. More
reduce the effect of lift force pulling the blade round and increase the effect of drag
information can be found in (Johnson, 2001, ch. 4)
slowing it down. It also means that the lift force contributes to the thrust on the rotor.
Apparent
wind
Figure
2.1:angles
Torque extraction through lift, from Gurit (2013).
The result of this is that, to maintain a good angle of attack, the blade must be turned
The ideal airfoil shape is very thin, about 10-15% of the chord length
further from the true wind angle.
10
Twist
The closer to the tip of the blade you get, the faster the blade is moving through the
air and so the greater the apparent wind angle is. Thus the blade needs to be turned
The angle of attack for the airfoil is relative to the apparent wind speed
further at the tips than at the root, in other words it must be built with a twist along its
whichTypically
is a combination
of the10-20
incoming
wind
motiontooftwist
the
length.
the twist is around
from root
to tip.and
Thethe
requirement
wind
turbine
blade.
the blade has implications on the ease of manufacture.
Blade
twist
Figure
2.2:
The apparent wind speed at sections of the blade, from Gurit (2013).
the motions
means
that
the apparent
wind direcApartThe
fromcombination
the twist, windofturbine
blades have
similar
requirements
to aeroplane
tion differs
the length
of the based
blade.onThis
is usually
inshapes.
the range
wings,
so theiralong
cross-sections
are usually
a similar
family of
In of
10-20.the
It best
should
be noted
that thearetwist
of the
significantly
general
lift/drag
characteristics
obtained
by blade
an aerofoil
that is fairlyaffects
thin:
its
might be only
10-15%
of its chord length (the length across the blade,
thethickness
manufacturing
costs
of a blade.
in the direction of the wind flow).
Planform shape
To get the most out of the incoming air flow it is necessary to slow down
the air as uniformly as possible across the annular area. Having air slow
down too much will cause turbulence which leads to wasted energy. Not
slowing it down enough reduces the converted energy.
The tip of the blade passes through more volume of air compared to
the root of the blade. The apparent air speed at the tip is also a lot higher.
In order to get a uniform slowing down of the air it is necessary for the
Typical aerofoil shapes offering good lift/drag ratio
11
Because the tip of the blade is moving faster than the root, it passes through more
volume of air, hence must generate a greater lift force to slow that air down enough.
Fortunately, lift increases with the square of speed so its greater speed more than
allows for that. In reality the blade can be narrower close to the tip than near the
root and still generate enough lift. The optimum tapering of the blade planform as it
tip outboard
of the blade
tocalculated;
extract more
energy
than
root
of the
goes
can be
roughly
speaking
thethe
chord
should
be blade.
inverse to the
radius. So if the chord was 2m at 10m radius, it should be 10m at 1m radius.
2 . Itshape
This relationship
breaks
close to thetoroot
where the
optimum
The lift force
isdown
proportional
theand
airtip,
velocity
squared
is also
changes
to
account
for
tip
losses.
proportional to the chord length. This translates to an optimal tapering
In reality a fairly linear taper is sufficiently close to the optimum for most designs,
is shown in figure Figure 2.3. Most designs use a linear approximation
structurally superior and easier to build than the optimum shape.
Optimum
blade
planform
Figure 2.3:
Typical
planform shape of turbine blade, from Gurit (2013).
Rotational
speed
2.1.4 Rotational
speed
The speed at which the turbine rotates is a fundamental choice in the design, and is
The rotational
chosen
forblade
a design
is characterized
thespeed
wing(i.e.
tip
defined
in terms ofspeed
the speed
of the
tips relative
to the free by
wind
before
wind
slowed
by the
turbine).
called
speed
ratio.free
ratio.the
This
isisthe
ratiodown
of the
velocity
of This
the is
wing
tipthetotipthat
of the
wind speed.
High tip speed ratio means the aerodynamic force on the blades (due to lift and drag)
is almost parallel to the rotor axis, so relies on a good lift/drag ratio. The lift/drag ratio
A high tip speed ratio implies that the lift and drag are nearly parallel
can be affected severely by dirt or roughness on the blades.
to the rotor axis. This makes the turbines efficiency highly dependent
on its lift/drag ratio. It also makes the blades efficiency sensitive to dirt
or other roughness on the blade.
Nevertheless, a high tip speed ratio is preferred over a low tip speed
ratio. This is due to a number effects3 :
The torque generated onto the turbine
an equal
and opposite
WEhas
Handbook2- Aerodynamics
and Loads
effect on the wind. The air swirls around in the direction opposite
that of the blades. The swirl represents lost potential energy. A
low tip speed ratio means higher torque, and therefore larger swirl
losses4 .
Another effect is called tip losses. These are caused by incoming air
escaping around the blade tip. As described in the previous section
the optimal chord length at the tip depends on the apparent wind
speed. Which itself depends on the rotation speed. A low tip
12
2.1.5
Power control
2.2
42
air (wind) into useful mechanical energy. This causes the wind to lose
some of its energy, resulting in a reduced airspeed. Assuming that the
3.2air passing
The Actuator
Disc Concept
through the rotor disc stays separate from the air that does, it
possible todescribed
draw theabove
boundary
layer
these
two airofflows
as energy
a steambut in
Theismechanism
accounts
forofthe
extraction
kinetic
turbine
as shown
Figureto2.4.
is toitsay
that
the
diameter
no way
explains
what in
happens
thatThis
energy;
may
well
beair
putflow
to useful
work but
some
may be spilled
back into
turbulence
andlayer
eventually
be dissipated
increases
downstream
of the
the wind
rotor.asThe
boundary
expands
after
as heat.
candisc
begin
an analysis
the aerodynamic
behaviour
goingNevertheless,
through thewe
rotor
because
the airofspeed
has decreased.
The of
wind turbines without any specific turbine design just by considering the energy
decrease is not instantaneous, as shown in Figure 2.5. As air gets closer
extraction process. The general device that carries out this task is called an actuator
the actuator
discto
(Figure
3.2). disc the pressure increases and the air slows down. After
passing through
thethe
actuator
disc theres
sudden drop in
pressure,
Upstream
of the disc
stream-tube
has aacross-sectional
area
smallersince
than that
of the
and an area
largerafter
than
discdisc
downstream.
expansion
of the
the disc
atmospheric
pressure
thethe
rotor
is the sameThe
as in
front of it,
stream-tube
is
because
the
mass
flow
rate
must
be
the
same
everywhere.
The
the boundary layer is further expanded and the air speed is decreasedmass
of air which passes through a given cross section of the stream-tube in a unit length
even more.
of time is rAU, where r is the air density, A is the cross-sectional area and U is the
6.
Since the velocity decreases it is possible to state that from conservation of mass and Figure 2.56 :
m = A U = Ad Ud = Aw Uw
In which denotes the conditions upstream, d at the disc and w far
into the wake (downstream).
14
43
Stream-tube
Velocity
p
Pressure
p+d
Velocity
Ud
Pressure
p
Uw
Actuator disc
3.2and
Anvelocity
Energythroughout
Extracting Actuator
and Stream-tube
Figure 2.5:Figure
Pressure
the steamDisc
turbine.
From Burton et al.
(2011), used with permission.
flow velocity. The mass flow rate must be the same everywhere along the streamtube and so
Linear momentum
Ud U1 (1 a)
(3:2)
As mentioned in the previous section the air speed decreases after pass7
ing through
the actuator
7. f = dp
, in which p is the mo3.2.1
Momentum
theorydisc. Using Newtons second law , the associated
dt
mentum p = Mv. M is an absolute
force can be calculated by calculating the change in momentum per unit
Theofair
that
time
(Mpasses
= m). through the disc undergoes an overall change in velocity, quantity of mass [kg].
U1 Uw and a rate of change of momentum equal to the overall change of velocity
times the mass flow
rate: in momentum = (U Uw ) A d U d
Change
(2.3)
m
Rate of change of momentum v
(U1 Uw )rA
d Ud
(3:3)
The force causing this change of momentum comes entirely from the pressure
to the pressure difference between the front
and back
of the actuator
difference across the actuator disc because the
stream-tube
is otherwise completely
+
disc. This
in Figurepressure,
2.5 as pwhich
pd . Combining
this
with
surrounded
byisairshown
at atmospheric
zero net force.
Therefore,
d and gives
( p
d pd )Ad (U1 Uw )rAd U1 (1 a)
(2.4)
(3:4)
p
is
possible
by
using
theofBernoulli
equation
whichequad
d
rately to the upstream
and
downstream sections
the stream-tube;
separate
states:
1 2
U + p + gh = constant
2
The Bernoulli equation represents an energy balance within the fluid,
the assumption is made that under steady conditions provided no work
is done by or on the fluid the energy does not change. The balance
upstream can be written as:
1
1
2
U
+ p + gh = d Ud2 + p+d + d ghd
(2.5)
2
2
15
1 2
U + p+d
2 d
1 2
Ud + pd
2
(2.6)
(2.7)
(2.8)
(2.9)
This shows that half of the axial loss of speed takes place upstream of
the actuator disc, and half downstream.
Combining Equations (2.4) and (2.9) allows the following expression
for the force on the actuator disc:
2
Fx = (p+d pd )Ad = 2Ad U
a(1 a)
(2.10)
This expression can be used to calculate the thrust caused by the change
of momentum in the air. The unknowns have been reduced to the axial
induction factor a.
Angular momentum
The torque exerted by the wind turbine generates an equal and opposite
torque on the passing air. This causes the air in the wake to rotate in
the direction opposite of that of the rotor. This means that the air gains
angular momentum, and therefore has a velocity component which is
tangential to the rotation along with its axial component. This is shown
in Figure 2.6. The increase in kinetic energy that is associated with this
wake is compensated by a lower pressure downstream (Burton et al.,
2011, p. 47).
The tangential force component on an annular (ring-shaped) element
can be described by first recounting that the following equations are
16
also be that the axial induced velocity is not the same. To allow for variation of both
induced velocity components consider only an annular ring of the rotor disc which
is of radius r and of radial width r.
The increment of rotor torque acting on the annular ring will be responsible for
Figure 3.4
Figure 2.6: Notation of rotating annular stream as well as trajectory of air particle.
Reused with permission from Burton et al. (2011)
9.
I Moment of inertia [kg m2 ]
I = Mr 2
L = I
dL
T=
dt
dI d(Mr 2 ) dM 2
T=
=
=
r
dt
dt
dt
M Mass [kg]
Wake rotational velocity [rad/s]
T Torque [Nm]
L Angular momentum [Nms]
(2.11)
(2.12)
(2.13)
(2.14)
(2.15)
2.2.3
Since power equals force times velocity it is possible to use Equations (2.10)
and (2.10) to get to the following expression:
3
Power = FUd = 2Ad U
a(1 a)2
(2.17)
17
An abrupt acquisition of tangential velocity cannot occur in practice and must be gradual.
Figure 3.5 shows the flow accelerating in the tangential direction as it is squeezed between
the blades: the separation of the blades has been reduced for effect, but it is the increasing
2a'Wr
pd -_ _21 (2a'Wr)2
U(1a)
pd +
a'Wr
U(1a)
U (1a)
Wr
Rotor motion
Power
3
1
2 U A d
(2.18)
The denominator represents the power available in the air in the absence
of the actuator disc. Combining Equations (2.17) and (2.18) C p can be
represented as:
C p = 4a(1 a)2
(2.19)
The Betz limit
It is not possible to transform all of the kinetic energy contained in
the air into mechanical energy. The air has to flow to do work on the
turbine, this is why a wall does not generate energy. To find out what the
maximum energy, is a maximum has to be found for C p . This is done by
taking the first derivative of Equation (2.19) and checking whether its a
maximum by taking the second derivative.
dC p
= 4(1 a)(1 3a) = 0
da
d2 C p
= 8(3a 2) < 0
da 2
(2.20)
(2.21)
Equation (2.20) has the solutions a = 1 and a = 31 . Checking these solutions in Equation (2.21) it is clear that only a = 31 is a local maximum.
18
16
The corresponding value for C p,max = 27
0.593. This is the theoretical
maximum achievable power coefficient. It is named after the German
aerodynamicist Albert Betz who first derived this limit in 1919 Betz
(1966).
27
2.2.4
not affect the result. The overall performance characteristics are determined by summing up all of the individual rings.
To find the correct lift and drag force it is necessary to compare the
flow to that of experimental data. Most airfoils are tested stationary in
wind tunnels. To use this data on the wind turbines blades it is necessary
to calculate the relative air flow. To estimate the flow at the turbine the
average speeds of the upstream and downstream are used.
Prior to the air entering the turbine it is not rotating, after passing
through the air is rotating at the rotational speed . The average rotating
speed is therefore 2 . The blade itself is rotating at a rotational speed .
The average tangential velocity the blade experiences is therefore equal to
r + r2 = r(1 = a ). This is shown in Figure 2.9. From Equations (2.2)
and (2.15) and fig. 2.9 it is clear that:
r
= r(1 + a )
2
r(1 + a )
tan =
U (1 a)
U (1 a)
W=
cos
r +
(2.22)
(2.23)
(2.24)
The value for the angle of inflow () will vary per element. By introducing
the local tip speed ratio r defined as:
r =
r
U
(2.25)
20
r (1 + a )
1a
(2.26)
U(1-a)
r
2
blade rotation
r
r
wake rotation
Figure 2.9: Flow onto turbine blade, slightly modified from Ingram (2011).
L
Fx
Figure 2.10: Forces acting on the turbine blades, slightly modified from Ingram
(2011).
21
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
CL or CD
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
CL
0.1
CD
0
-0.1
0
10
20
30
40
incidence / [degrees]
Figure 2.11: NACA 0012 lift and drag coefficients, from Ingram (2011).
Forces on blades
The forces on a blade element can be calculated as:
dF = dL cos dD sin
dFx = dL sin + dD cos
(2.27)
(2.28)
(2.29)
(2.30)
The lift and drag coefficients are based on experimental data, an example
of lit and drag coefficients of a NACA 0012 are shown in Figure 2.11 The
figure shows that at an angle of attack of around 14 stall occurs. This
indicates that the flow across the airfoil becomes increasingly separated,
reducing lift and increasing drag.
Combining Equations (2.27) to (2.30) it is possible to write:
1
dFx = B W 2 (C L sin + C D cos )c dr
2
1
dF = B W 2 (C L cos C D sin )c dr
2
(2.31)
(2.32)
(2.33)
(2.34)
Bc
2r
(2.35)
dFx =
(2.36)
(2.37)
These expressions can be used to calculate the force and moment acting
on an element. The only unknown in this equation is the axial induction
factor.
2.2.5
2
dFx = 4QrU
a(1 a) dr
dT = 4Qa (1 a)V r 3 dr
Qtip =
(2.38)
(2.39)
(2.40)
2
cos1 e ,
B(r R hub )
2R hub sin
(2.41)
Glauert correction
When the induction factor a is greater than 0.4 the BEM theory is no
longer valid. This occurs when the turbine operates at high tip speed
ratios (low wind speed, constant speed turbine). At this point the turbine
enters the turbulent wake state (a > 0.5). When this happens the wake
flow starts to propagate upstream, this is not physically realistic and
violates BEM assumptions. What actually happens is that air enters from
outside the wake and generates more turbulence.
A correction for this effect was developed by Glauert (1935), it is
based on experimental measurements done on helicopter rotors under
high induced velocities. It was originally adapted to correct the thrust
of an entire rotor, but has been adapted for use on the local coefficients
of the individual blade elements used in BEM.
Since the occurrence of a turbulent wake is often accompanied with
a large tip loss due to the induced velocities being high. There are a number of empirical correction methods available such as Burton et al. (2011);
Manwell et al. (2002). These methods have a problem with numerical
instability when used in conjunction with tip loss correction. This is
why a new model has been developed by Buhl (2005). This model takes
into account the deviation from the momentum theory when a > 0.4.
As shown in figures in Buhl (2005); Moriarty and Hansen (2005)
the model with this Glauert correction corresponds a lot better to the
empirical data. It should be noted that this correction was not originally
intended to be used for this purpose, it is used BEM because no better
model exists.
24
Figure 2.12: Definition of the coordinates used in the skewed wake correction model.
Taken from Moriarty and Hansen (2005).
15r
tan cos )
32R
2
(2.42)
The definitions of and can be seen in Figure 2.11. The wake skew
angle can be calculated as:
tan =
U (sin a tan 2 )
U (cos a)
(2.43)
(2.44)
This method scales the local axial induction factor with that of the average induction factor of the rotor disk. This is an engineering method,
and is based on experimental results.
The limitations of this approach is the assumption that the wake is
cylindrical in shape. This is only a valid assumption for rotors under a
25
light load. There us also no theoretical basis to use this with BEM theory.
Research papers Xudong et al. (1988); Snel et al. (1995) have shown
a better correlation with measurements using this approach, though
some suggest that the effect is overly compensated Eggers (2000). It is
safe to say that despite its limitations it can be empirically stated that it
improves results.
Other factors
There are a number of factors not taken into account in the current
version of Aerodyn, these include (Moriarty and Hansen, 2005):
The blade thickness in the local angle of attack.
Cascade effects for high solidity wind turbines.
Span wise gaps used in partial span pitch control.
The first two can have a significant effect on in-plane yaw forces near the
hub. Hints are made in the Aerodyn documentation that corrections for
these effects may be added in a future version (Moriarty and Hansen,
2005, p. 9). Spanwise gaps are not included because wind turbines dont
tend to use partial span pitch control.
2.2.6
Angle of attack =
Which gives an estimate (Moriarty and Hansen, 2005, eq. 20):
a=
1
(2 + r 4 4r + 2r (8 + ))
4
U (1 a) + v eop
r(1 + a ) + v ei p
tan =
(2.45)
Thrust coefficient
CT =
Tip losses
B(Rr)
2
(
)
cos1 e 2r sin
Qtip =
Hub losses
Qhub =
(2.46)
(2.47)
B(rR hub )
2
(
)
cos1 e 2R hub sin
(2.48)
Total losses
Q = Qtip Qhub
(2.49)
The next step depends on the load of the element. If the coefficient of
thrust C T > 0.96 the element the axial induction factor is calculated
using the modified Glauert correction described in Section 2.2.5. If this
is not the case standard BEM theory is used.
, C T > 0.96Q
36Q 50 1
a=
2
4Q sin
(1 +
) ,
C T < 0.96Q
(C
cos
+ C D sin
L
(2.50)
The tangential induction factor a is calculated using:
4Q sin cos
a = (1 +
)
(C L sin C D cos )
(2.51)
With the final correction being for the skewed wake of Equation (2.42):
askew = a (1 +
15r
tan cos )
32R
2
27
This process is repeated from Equation (2.45) until the results converge to a final value for a and a (and through blade element theory,
the forces and moments). The options in Aerodyn to e.g. not take tip
and hub losses into account are small modifications to the algorithm
above. In the aforementioned case Q = 1 would be used.
11. Dynamic stall describes the
latency of the lift coefficient to respond to a changing angle of attack.
This means that the coefficient becomes a function of in addition to
.
28
3.1
structural design
As described in Chapter 2, the forces on the blade are the highest at the
tip of the blade and are reduced proportionally with the radius.
The bending moment at the tip is zero, it increases to its maximum
which is located at the root of the blade. It is therefore necessary for the
root of the blade to be the strongest part of the blade while the blade
tip can be relatively weak. This is fortunate from an aerodynamic point
of view as this allows for a thin blade at the tip, resulting in a relatively
small amount of drag at the part of the blade responsible for the most
converted energy. The wind speed at the hub is a lot lower than that at
the tip. This means that the blade near the root has to be designed to
generate the lift at a relatively low apparent air speed. This is usually
done by increasing the thickness of the blade (which increases the lift),
as increasing the chord length is usually considered too costly.
In general the thickness needed for structural reasons is greater
than that needed for aerodynamic reasons. This means that the use of
materials with a high tensile strength can directly influence the potential
efficiency of a turbine blade.
3.1.1
Box structure
The structure of a blade consists of a thin shell airfoil. The airfoil itself
is compressed downwind and elongated in the upwind direction. To
give the blade some stiffness, shear webs are included in the center of
the airfoil. These are connected to spar caps which are bonded to the top
29
and bottom of the airfoil. This is similar to the design of a steel I-beam.
There are two common ways in which this is constructed:
1. The spar caps are built as part of the shell and a separate shear
web is bonded between the caps.
2. The spar caps and shear web are built together and bonded onto
the shells.
A turbine blade created using the latter method is shown in Figure 3.1.
Laminate orientation
Turbine blades are usually made using fiber reinforced plastics (FRP).
Wind turbine blades are very suitable for the use of fiber reinforced
materials because the direction of the stresses are fairly predictable.
Stresses in the shells tend to be in the root-tip direction. Stresses in the
shear web are at a 45 angle to the chord direction. These directions are
generalized. Ideal fiber orientation depends on exact blade geometry
and load distribution.
3.1.2
Fatigue
Load variations originate from wind shear, gusts, yaw error1 and turbulence. The fatigue life depends on the amplitude of the load variations.
Turbine blades are considered to be a component which should last the
30
3.1.3
Blade shell
The main function of the shell is to give the blade an airfoil shape. Though
the shell also gives the blade a lot of its torsional stiffness. The blade does
have a small amount of contribution in the flap-wise stiffness, though the
main contribution of the shells fiber reinforcement is the the edgewise
direction.
The center of gravity of the blades is near the root of the blade. This
means that the edgewise bending stress is also the highest near the root.
Extra reinforcement is often added to the trailing edge to strengthen the
structure to be able to withstand the extra bending stress.
FRP sheets only needs to be a few mm thick to get the the necessary
strength for its structural requirements. The large surface areas make
the stiffness of the shells an issue. To increase the in-plane shell-stiffness,
two layers of FRP are usually glued together with a honeycomb structure
or low density foam.
3.1.4
Stiffness
Most HAWT turbines have the blade upwind. This is done because the
support structure (usually a tube-shaped tower) generates a turbulent
airflow behind the tower which reduces the aerodynamic efficiency. Its
also less likely to suffer from fatigue loads caused by the osculations in
loads that are associated with this phenomenon.
One of the consequences of an upwind placement of the wind turbine
blades is that the blades deform towards the tower. A minimum tower
clearance of 30% of the undeformed configuration is usually considered
31
the minimum when designing a wind turbine. This is particularly challenging when upscaling the blades dimensions. The clearance as well as
the stresses have to be kept similar to smaller scales (Capponi et al., 2010).
One trick often used when designing wind turbines is to give the unloaded some prebending or coning. The blade then straightens out when
under operating loads. This "trick" does increase the manufacturing cost
of a blade. It can also reduce the aerodynamic efficiency at low wind
speeds.
3. An integer multiple of the rotational frequency.
Care should be taken to avoid engine orders3 being the eigenfrequencies of the blade. This can be done by a smart distribution of mass and
stiffness along the blade.
3.1.5
Fiber
The two most common types of fibers used in turbine design are glass
and carbon fibers. The latter is much stronger, but also much more expensive. This means that carbon fiber usage tends to be limited to large
turbine design and localized to high stress areas in which its properties
are of most use.
It can be approximated that the mass increases with the third power
of the length while the aerodynamic performance only increases with the
second power. From this fact it is easy to see that it is not economically
sound to create the largest possible wind turbine. The exact optimum
size evolves with the development of new technologies and the use of
materials such as carbon fiber reinforcement.
3.1.6
The dominant force experienced by the blade is the lifting force. This
force can be estimated fairly accurately using methods such as BEM
explained in Chapter 2. The structural design starts by the design of
the spar caps and shear web. The aerodynamic efficiency lowers at large
thicknesses which may be required structurally. The design process is
therefore a combination of material and manufacturing costs and aerodynamic efficiency.
3.1.7
3.2
mechanical analysis of
composites
There are several methods that can simplify the anisotropic properties
of composites and reduce it to a set of comparable isotropic properties
(Ashuri et al., 2010a). It is still necessary to use a theory which can be
used to analyze the stiffness of the composite materials and its deformation to a random load in an accurate way.
This section introduces classical lamination theory. This is a widely
used theory used to analyze thin composite structures. Its based on the
Cauchy-Poisson-Kirchoff-Love plate theory. It also briefly discusses the
first order shear deformation (FSDT) theory, the method used in TACS.
3.2.1
Hookes law
(3.1)
(3.2)
[1 2 3 1 2 3 ] = C [1 2 3 23 31 12 ]
[1 2 3 23 31 12 ] = S [1 2 3 1 2 3 ]
33
Isotropic material
It can be easily shown that for an isotropic material these 36 constants
reduce 3 according to:
1
= S22 = S33
E
(3.3)
(3.4)
(3.5)
And all others being zero, there is no coupling between axial strain and
shear strain.
Anisotropic materials
Anisotropic materials require more coefficients to accurately describe
the material. It can easily be seen that due to symmetry of the C and S
matrices (Jones, 1999, p. 57-63) the number of independent coefficients
reduces to 21.
Monoclinic material
A monoclinic material is a material that has a plane of symmetry. The
symmetry allows a number of terms to be canceled out. If for instance.
a material is symmetric on a plane on the center of the material the
stiffness matrix can be written as:
C11
C
12
C
C = 13
0
C16
C12
C22
C23
0
0
C26
C13 0
0
C23 0
0
C33 0
0
0 C44 C45
0 C45 C55
C36 0
0
C16
C26
C36
0
C66
Orthotropic material
A material is orthotropic when it has three axis of symmetry. In this
case a stiffness matrix can be reduced to:
C11 C12 C13 0
0
0
C C C
0
0
0
12
22
23
C=
0
0 C44 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 C55 0
0
0
0
0
0 C66
34
(3.6)
C C
12
22 C 23
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.2.2
0
0
0
C 22 C 23
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C55 0
0 C55
Unidirectional lamina
Working under the assumption that the the thickness is very small when
compared to the other dimensions and no external forces work on the
surface it can be assumed that the lamina is under plane stress. Plane
stress is the state in which stress in the direction normal to the plane
equal zero. This allows for the three dimensional stress analysis to be
reduced to two dimensional stress-strain equations.
A unidirectional lamina can be considered an orthotropic material,
using Equation (3.6) it is easy to derive:
3 = S13 1 + S23 2 ,
23 = 31 = 0
(3.7)
And stiffness:
1 Q11 Q12 0 1
2 = Q12 Q22 0 2
12 0
0 Q66 12
Which has the reduced stiffness coefficients:
S22
S11 S22 S122
S12
Q12 =
S11 S22 S122
S11
Q22 =
S11 S22 S122
1
Q66 =
S66
Q11 =
(3.8)
(3.9)
(3.10)
(3.11)
(3.12)
35
Two-dimensional lamina
Laminae tend to have its fiber reinforcement at angles due to low stiffness and strength. This is done by using a local coordinate system with
coordinates 1 and 2, at an angle from the global coordinate system x-y.
As is shown in (Kaw, 2005, Appendix. B) the relationship is:
x
1
2 = T y
(3.13)
12
x y
2
2
x
1
y = T1 2
(3.14)
x y
12
In which the transformation matrix T equals:
cos2
sin2
2 sin cos
2
2
cos
2 sin cos ,
T = sin
2
cos2
sin
2 sin cos
1
2
2
cos
2 sin cos
T = sin
1 0 0
0 0 2
1
[ ] = RTR t
(3.16)
12
x y
Combing this expression for the local strains with Equation (3.15) allows
for the relationship between the global stresses and strains:
x
x
1
1
y = T QRTR t
(3.17)
x y
x y
Q
In which Q is the reduced transformed stiffness matrix. The expressions
for the terms are not listed here, but can be found in many reference
books such as (Kaw, 2005, p. 112) or (Jones, 1999, eqn. 2.85).
36
3.2.3
Laminate materials
A real structure will not consist of a single lamina, as previously mentioned, they have a thickness of just 125 m. The failing stress along the
fibers of a glass-epoxy lamina is around 130 MPa. For transverse loads
this is much less. To maximize the strength to weight ratio it is necessary
to optimize the ply orientation of the laminae.
When discussing laminate materials it is normal to use laminate code
to describe the layers. For example a laminate with the following order
of orientations:
0
45
90
90
60
0
Has the laminate code of [0/-45/902 /60/0]. There are further shorthand
notations for symmetry and alternating ply directions:
0
30
90
90
30
0
Has the laminate code of [0/-30/90]s . Similarly for an uneven amount
of layers:
0
30
90
30
0
Has the laminate code of [0/-30/90]s .
MA
MB
MB
MB
MB
MA
0
30
30
30
30
0
Has the laminate code of [0MA/ 30MB ]s . Notice how / describes the
order and superscript the material type.
37
at any point in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. At any point other than
the midplane, the two displacements in the xy plane will depend on the
axial location of the point and the slope of the laminate midplane with the
x and y directions. For example, as shown in Figure 4.4,
uo
h/2
Mid-plane
z
h/2
wo
A
z
Cross-section
before loading
Cross-section
after loading
Figure
FIGURE3.2:
4.4 Displacements and their relationship to the midplane. From Kaw (2005),
reproduced
with
Figure showing
thepermission.
relationship between displacements through the thickness of a plate to
midplane displacements and curvatures.
3.2.4
This section describes the behavior of laminates to axial forces and bending/twisting moments. Classical lamination theory makes the following
assumptions:
A line perpendicular to the center remains so during deformation
( xz = yz = 0).
The laminate is thin and under plane stress (z = xz = yz = 0)
All displacements are small and continuous.
The lamina are elastic.
No slip occurs between lamina interfaces.
A diagram of displacements in shown in Figure 3.2. From this it can
easily be seen that:
=
w0
x
(3.18)
u = u0 z
v = v0 z
38
u = u0 z
w0
y
w0
x
(3.19)
(3.20)
(3.22)
(3.23)
(3.24)
0y
0x y ]T ) and mid-
2 w0
u0
x 2
x
v0
2
y +z yw20
2 w0
u0 v0
y + x
2 xy
(3.25)
(3.21)
[ 0x
0y
0x y ] T
[ x
x y ]T
Combining this with Equation (3.17) it is possible to separate the individual contributions to the stress:
0
x
x
x
0
y = Q y + zQ y
(3.26)
0
x y
x y
x y
This shows that the stress distribution within a lamina is linear. The
stress distribution across the entire laminate depends on the orientation
and composition of the laminae which comprise the laminate.
Consider a k layer laminate. Its lamina thickness is t k , the total
thickness:
n
h = tk
k=1
(3.27)
Measuring from the center of the plane, with down being positive the
top of the laminate has the coordinates h0 = h2 , similarly the bottom
has of the top lamina has the distance h1 = h2 + t1 . For a graphical
representation see Figure 3.3.
Integrating the stress across a cross section should give the resulting
forces per unit of length in direction i (N i ):
Ni =
h
2
h2
i dz
(3.28)
Similarly the moment (M i ) can be calculated across the laminate thickness as:
h
Mi =
h2
i z dz
(3.29)
39
326
1
2
3
h0
h1
h2
h/2
h3
Mid-plane
hk1
hk
k1
k
k+1
tk
h/2
hn1
hn
FIGURE 4.6
Figure 3.3: Coordinates of the composites plies.
Coordinate locations of plies in a laminate.
4.3.4
Force
Related
Midplane
N x and nMoment
x
x Strains
n
hto
h k Resultants
k
0
Curvatures
and
N y = Q y dz + Q y z dz
(3.30)
unknowns for nding the lamina strains and stresses. However, Equation
and similarly:
(4.18)
gives the stresses in each lamina in terms of these unknowns. The
stresses in each lamina can be integrated through the laminate thickness to
0 (or applied forces
and
n
hk
hk
the midplane
forces and
beQ
known,
0y a laminate
= applied
y zso2 dz
M ymoments
Q to
z dz + will
(3.31)
strainsand plate
curvatures
can
then be k=1
found.
relationship
between
h k1
h k1This
0
k=1
h k1
k=1
h k1
h =x tk .
(4.19)
N y = A12 A22 A26 0y k=1 + B12 B22 B26 y
(3.32)
N x y A16 A22 A66 0x y B16 B22 B66 x y
Then, the location of the midplane0is h/2 from the top or the bottom surface
M x B11 B12 B16 D11 D12 D16 x
laminate.
The z-coordinate
ofx each
and bottom) is
of the
ply k surface (top
M y = B12 B22 B26 0y + D12 D22 D26 y
(3.33)
given by
0
M x y B16 B22 B66 x y D16 D22 D66 x y
Ply 1:
k=1
n
h0 =
1
[Q ]k (h 2k
B i j =Group,
LLC
2006 by Taylor & Francis
2 k=1 i j
1 n
D i j = [Q i j ]k (h 3k
3 k=1
j = 1, 2, 6
(3.34)
h2k1 ),
i = 1, 2, 6;
j = 1, 2, 6
(3.35)
h3k1 ),
i = 1, 2, 6;
j = 1, 2, 6
(3.36)
(3.37)
1. Find the reduced stiffness matrix Q for each lamina using the
material properties and Equations (3.9) to (3.12).
2. Determine the transformed reduced stiffness matrix using the previous result. This can be done through e.g. (Kaw, 2005, eqn. 2.104,
2.137-2.138).
3. Determine the coordinates of the top and bottom of each ply.
4. Using the results of the previous two steps determine A B D matrices.
5. Use these matrices and applied forces to calculate the strains and
curvatures on the mid-plane using Equations (3.32) and (3.33).
6. Global strains can be found using Equation (3.26).
7. Find associated global stresses using Equation (3.17).
8. Find the local strains using Equation (3.13).
9. Find the local stresses using Equation (3.14).
3.2.5
(3.38)
(3.39)
(3.40)
41
P1: TIX/XYZ
JWST092-03
P2: ABC
JWST092-Carrera
44
13:1
Figure Figure
3.10 3.4:Undeformed
and deformed
geometries
a plate from
according to
Kinematic assumptions
in first order
shear theory,of
reproduced
(Carrera et al., 2011a)
with permission.
the ReissnerMindlin
hypotheses.
The hypotheses of FSDT are clearly shown in Figure 3.10. The displacement field of FSDT has five unknowns (there were three for CLT): the
midsurface displacements (u 0 , v0 , w0 ) and the rotations of a transverse normal
around the x- and y-axes ( y , x ). In the case of CLT, the rotations coincide
with the derivatives x = w0 / x and y = w0 / y. Only strain zz is
zero, therefore stresses x z and yz are different from zero. Figure 3.11 shows
42
PART II
IMPLEMENTATION OF
AEROELASTIC FRAMEWORK
4.1
The aerostructural framework consists of a combination of various different codes. Their relationship is illustrated in Figure 4.1. At the heart
of the framework is pyAeroStruct. This code controls the processes of
the coupled codes. Through a combination of standardized functions,
the structural and aerodynamic solver are instructed in their calculation,
displacements and other measures. For this thesis the coupled codes are
pyTACS and pyAeroDyn. Sections 4.3 and 4.5 discuss these "modules".
They both are Python level function-standardized interfaces for programs written in a lower-level programming language1 . The emphasis
is on pyAeroDyn since that has been written especially for this thesis
by the author. This is why Section 4.6 goes into further details on the
implementations these functions.
4.2
pyaerostruct
2. The Non-linear block GaussSeidel method is considered the traditional and intuitive way of solving
an aerostructural problem (Martins
et al., 2005).
All of these methods are described in (Kenway et al., 2012). The results
in this thesis were produced using the Non-Linear block Gauss Seidel
method 2 . This method runs the analyses sequentially, passing the loads
to the structure and passing the deformations to the aerodynamic loads
to the structure until the convergence criteria are met. pyAeroStruct is
built in a modular way. It uses classes for its solvers and uses functions
within a class to, for example, get forces or displacements. This makes
it relatively easy to implement new codes into the pyAeroStruct framework. The functions used for the coupling of AeroDyn are described
in Section 4.5. The relation of pyAeroStruct to TACS and AeroDyn is
shown in figure Figure 4.1.
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.3
TACS is a C++ code. To get a python interface to the C++ code, a wrapper
is created with the use of SWIG5 . To use this code with pyAeroStruct it
was necessary to create an additional interfacing level between TACS
and pyAeroStruct. This level is referred to as pyTACS and it consists of
two files:
pyTACS.py This file contains everything needed to define a linear analysis. This includes load transfer, coordinate transfer etc.
pyTACS_Mesh.py This file contains the configuration of the structural
model. This includes the mesh, material assignments etc.
As part of this project pyTACS_Mesh.py was modified to work with
composite materials. The original implementation only allowed for
isotropic materials.
47
4.4
aerodyn interface
4.4.1
Wind
The first input to AeroDyn discussed is the wind. There are two types of
wind files: the steady flow at hub height (HH) and full field turbulent
flow (FF).
Hub height steady flow
Steady flow at the hub height (HH) uses data at certain time periods with
intermittent data being interpolated from those points. An example file:
1
2
3
4
5
! S t e a d y wind f i l e
! Time Wind
Wind
!
Speed
Dir
0.0
5
0
630.0
20
0
Vert .
Speed
0
0
Horiz .
Shear
0
0
Vert .
Shear
0
0
LinV
Shear
0
0
Gust
Speed
0
0
4.4.2
The configuration is described through a series of markers. These markers contain the position and orientation relative to the global coordinate
system as well as their first derivative in time. The global coordinate system is defined from the undeformed tower center line with the XY plane
being the ground6 . X points downwind, Y to the left of the positive X direction and Z points up against gravity. Markers are defined in Fortran as:
1 TYPE , PUBLIC
2
REAL ( ReKi )
3
REAL ( ReKi )
4
REAL ( ReKi )
5
REAL ( ReKi )
6 END TYPE Marker
: : Marker
: : Position (3)
: : Orientation (3 ,3)
: : TranslationVel (3)
: : RotationVel (3)
The orientations are in the form of a rotation matrix from the global coordinate system to the markers rotated coordinate system. The rotation
matrix has the inherent property of DDT = I.
4.4.3
Initizalising AeroDyn
! Name o f t h e AeroDyn i n p u t f i l e
! Root name o f AeroDyn o u t p u t f i l e s
! W r i t e an AeroDyn summary f i l e ?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TYPE , PUBLIC
TYPE ( Marker ) , ALLOCATABLE
REAL ( ReKi )
TYPE ( Marker )
TYPE ( Marker )
TYPE ( Marker )
TYPE ( Marker )
TYPE ( Marker )
TYPE ( Marker )
TYPE ( Marker )
: : AeroConfig
: : Blade ( : )
: : BladeLength
: : Hub
: : RotorFurl
: : Nacelle
: : TailFin
: : Tower
: : Substructure
: : Foundation
49
11 END TYPE A e r o C o n f i g
The description of the type shows that the initial configuration is defined
by the position and orientation of a number of points on the turbine.
These points are:
Blade The position of the intersection of the blades pitch axis and the
blades root. The y-axis pointing towards the trailing edge of the
blade and the z-axis pointing towards the tip of the blade.
Bladelength The total length of the undeflected blade from the root to
the tip.
Hub This marker is located in the apex of rotation of the hub and rotates with the hub. It is oriented so that the x-axis is pointing in
what would nominally be the downwind direction and the z-axis
perpendicular to the hubs centerline with the same azimuth as
the first blade.
RotorFurl The rotorfurl defines the position of the teeter pin for two
blade rotors, or the apex of rotation for three-bladed rotors. It
does not rotate with the rotor but does move with the tower. It
also yaws with the nacelle and furls with the rotor.
Nacelle The nacelle marker is located at the intersection between the
towers yaw axis and the yaw bearing. it is oriented with the x-axis
pointing downwind and the z-axis pointing up.
Tailfin This is not currently used in AeroDyn.
Tower The tower marker is fixed to the base of the tower. Its position
is on the intersection of the tower-base centerline and the towerbase connection to the substructure. The orientation is defined
with the x-axis being nominally downwind and the z-axis being
upwards.
Substructure This is not currently used in AeroDyn.
Foundation This is not currently used in AeroDyn.
The last input is an integer referred to as ErrStat. This integer returns
a non-zero ErrStat code if an error occurs during initializing. If the
initialization went correctly ErrStat remains zero.
AD_Init outputs the positions of the markers in the local coordinate
system in the AllAeroMarkers type of format. AeroDyn needs the
markers to be relative to the global coordinate system.
50
Element
Blade
Element location
(RELM)
Blade root
(Hinge or hub center)
(DR)
Element
Span
Aerodynamic
center
blade node.
Figure 6.1Figure
Sketch4.2:
of Location
the bladeof
element
geometry and nomenclature.
Calculating loads
calculate loads
it isData
necessary
7.0 TheTo
Hub-Height
Wind
File to first set the markers in the AllAeroMarkers
type to the global coordinate system. The AllAeroMarkers type is deIn order to run a simulation using AeroDyn, a wind input file is required. There are 2 types of wind input
fined as:
files. This section will discuss hub-height (HH) wind files. Section 8.0 addresses full-field (FF) turbulence files.
The ,wind
file name
1 TYPE
PUBLIC
: : appears
A l l A eon
r oline
M a r8kof
e rthe
s aerodyn.ipt file. The name can be up to 100 characters long.
2
TYPE ( Marker ) , ALLOCATABLE : : B l a d e ( : , : )
3
TYPE ( Marker ) , ALLOCATABLE : : Hub ( : )
The HH
option
in AeroDyn
is flexible in that :it: allows
parameters to be updated
4 wind file
TYPE
( Marker
) , ALLOCATABLE
R o t oseveral
r F u r l different
(:)
throughout
theTYPE
simulation,
though
5
( Marker
) , re-programming
ALLOCATABLE is required
: : N a cto
e l exercise
l e ( : ) some of these. How to repro6
TYPE ( Marker ) , ALLOCATABLE : : Tower ( : )
7
TYPE ( Marker ) , ALLOCATABLE : : T a i l ( : )
8 END TYPE A l l A e r o M a r k e r s
AeroDyn Users Guide, Version 12.50
13
Blade The blade markers now describe the position of the node located
in the center of the blades annular element. The location is illustrated in Figure 4.2. The markers are oriented so that the z-axis
is towards the blades tip and the y-axis along the chord towards
the trailing edge. The other items are placeholders. The current
version of AeroDyn is only able to calculate the loads on the blades.
The calculation of loads on other components is planned for future
releases of AeroDyn.
The loads
The loads are organized in an AllAeroLoads type. This is defined in
Fortran as:
1 TYPE , PUBLIC : : A l l A e r o L o a d s
2
TYPE ( Load ) , ALLOCATABLE
3
TYPE ( Load ) , ALLOCATABLE
4
TYPE ( Load ) , ALLOCATABLE
5
TYPE ( Load ) , ALLOCATABLE
6
TYPE ( Load ) , ALLOCATABLE
7
TYPE ( Load ) , ALLOCATABLE
8 END TYPE A l l A e r o L o a d s
::
::
::
::
::
::
Blade ( : , : )
Hub ( : )
RotorFurl ( : )
Nacelle ( : )
Tower ( : )
Tail ( : )
: : Force ( 3 )
51
3
REAL ( ReKi )
4 END TYPE Load
4.5
: : Moment ( 3 )
pyaerodyn, the
aerodyn-pyaerostruct
interface
This section describes the development of a python interface for AeroDyn. Section 4.5.1 describes some of the background behind the development of the wrapper. Section 4.5.2 discusses the relationship between
pieces of codes and how they fit together. It also gives a general overview
of the pyAeroDyn code. Section 4.6 discusses the implementation of
the various functions used by pyAeroStruct and the assumptions made
during their implementation.
4.5.1
Development of wrapper
4.5.2
Structure of pyAeroDyn
AeroDyn is accessed by pyAeroStruct through functions inside pyAeroDyn. These functions call functions in the wrapped python level interface of AeroDyn. pyAeroStruct manages the different processes and
makes the calls to both pyAeroDyn and pyTACS which are then passed
to their wrapped codes.
Overview of functions in pyAeroDyn
During the aerostructural analysis there are a number of functions that
pyAerostruct calls from the aerodynamic solver (pyAeroDyn). The ones
currently implemented in pyAeroDyn are:
Initialization During initialization:
Options are loaded into memory.
The intermediate mesh is generated.
Rotation matrices are generated for blade orientation, shaft
tilt and blade pre-cone.
Arrays are allocated.
Initialization markers are calculated.
AeroDyn is initialized.
Solve During a solve step:
The time is updated9 .
Positions, orientations and velocities of each element are
calculated.
Forces and moments acting on each element are calculated
by AeroDyn.
Centrifugal forces are added10 .
The forces in the global reference frame are calculated in
order to calculate the moment generated by the aerodynamic
forces.
getForces The getForces command returns the traction force per node.
It does this by:
Determining the distance from the aerodynamic center to
the leading and trailing edges.
53
4.6
pyaerodyn functions
This section goes into detail on the methods and procedures behind the
functions in pyAeroDyn. It can be used to understand the pyAeroDyn
code or to simply understand the methods pyAeroDyn uses.
4.6.1
Initialization
The spatial coordinates of the intermediate mesh have been calculated to give it the same position as the structural mesh. This is illustrated
in Figure 4.4.
Each aerodynamic element is represented by four shell elements.
The intermediate shells representation of an aerodynamic element can
be found in Figure 4.5.
Orientation
4
x
5
z
~xloc = R
6
Y
The undeformed position of nodes 4-5-6-7 is the same as nodes 01-2-3 with the addition of the element length in the z-direction. The
56
m~
! (~
! ~r)
pcenter Lelem
2
taf cos (yac yoff )c sin
2
pcenter Lelem
2
(1 yoff )c sin
pcenter Lelem
2
taf cos (yac yoff )c sin
2
pcenter Lelem
14. In which:
yoff y-direction offset (sweep)
(4.1)
(4.2)
(4.3)
Twist of element
taf Airfoil thickness (assumed 0.5
m)
c Chord length
pcenter Spanwise position of the
center of the element.
Lelem Length of element.
(4.4)
The parameters are also illustrated graphically in Figure 4.6. The mesh
is stored as an n 3 array containing the node coordinates and an m 4
array containing the connectivity of the shell elements15 .
Figure 4.6: Graphical representation of the dimensions used for mesh generation.
Rotation matrices
As described in Section 4.5.2 pyAeroDyn uses multiple coordinate systems. The coordinate system used internally by pyAeroDyn is the blade
attached coordinate system. AeroDyns markers have to be passed in
the global coordinate system. This means that the markers have to be
transformed from the local to the global coordinate system.
The position of the origin of the coordinate system can be offset by
adding the hub height of the z-component in the position vector. The
other elements of the marker require a set of rotation matrices to take
the change of orientation into account.
Four different types of rotation are taken into account in pyAeroDyn.
Blade azimuth angle () (x-rotation)
Shaft tilt angle () (y-rotation)
57
cos 0 sin 1
0
0 cos 0 sin cos sin 0
1
0 0 cos sin 0
1
0 sin cos 0
R = 0
s (c c c s s )c s s
s (c c c s s ) c s s c s c c s
c s
c c + s s s
c s
c (c s + c c s ) c s s s (c s + c c s ) c c s s s c c c
(4.6)
4.6.2
Before node forces can be calculated its necessary to first calculate the
forces per aerodynamic element.
58
Time update
The first step is to update the time17 . pyAeroDyn is set up to automatically
increase the analysis time by 0.025 s per solving iteration.
Marker calculation
Orientation
4
x
1
Position
Orientation
5
z
~xloc = R
6
Translational velocity
Rotational velocity
m~
! (~
! ~r)
These are calculated from the node positions of the intermediate mesh
at every calculation. This means that mesh deformations are taken into
account making this a coupled analysis.
The position is calculated using the average position of the aerodynamic center nodes18 . This position is then premultiplied with the
rotation matrix R defined in Equation (4.6).
The orientation are defined in AeroDyn as a rotation matrix19 :
19. In which:
xel The element attached coordinate system.
y
y
x
x
z
z
7. x is calculated as x = y z
59
(4.7)
These results are then rotated to compensate for the shaft tilt angle:
vt,GL = R vt,BF
(4.12)
(4.13)
(4.14)
fcfgl = mel cos( + el ) 0 0 pel,BA
(4.15)
0
0
The cos term is added to take into account the effect of the pre-cone angle
on the amplitude of the force. These forces are in the body-attached
reference frame, which is the same reference frame used to apply forces
to the structure.
60
(4.16)
These forces are then used to calculate the moment on the blade with
the equation:
nelem1
(4.17)
The moment acting on the shaft of the turbine is then calculated as23 :
tshaft = t nshaft
(4.18)
Figure 4.8: Process used to determine the traction forces applied to the nodes.
This process is illustrated in Figure 4.8 and further elaborated in the rest
of this section.
The first step taken is to calculate the distance from the aerodynamic
center (where the moment is applied) to the leading and trailing edge.
The distance is calculated using a vector equation derived in Weisstein
(2013). Using this method the shortest distance d between a point x0
and a line defined by two x1 and x2 can be found as:
d=
(x2 x1 ) (x1 x0 )2
x2 x1 2
(4.19)
(4.20)
(4.21)
(4.22)
(4.23)
For the undeformed configuration the root and trailing edge distance is
the same. They are calculated separately to allow for variations in the
traction force application for chord-wise deformation.
fmean,x
AC
62
2
dLE
d2
TE )
2
2
(4.24)
getForces
y
fm,i
di
(4.25)
Fm,i =
fm,
AC
fm,
The moment of the aerodynamic center to either edge is the M2 . The net
force fm,i,x caused by the moment force distribution can easily derived
as:
M
=
y f i,x dy
2
d i y2
d2
fm,i,x dy = i fm,i,x
=
di
3
0
3
fm,i = 2 M
2d i
(4.26)
(4.27)
(4.28)
(4.29)
2
2
This only equals zero if dLE = dTE , which is equivalent to having the
aerodynamic center in the center of the blade.
The final step in the node force calculation is to compensate for the
net-force applied Equation (4.29). For the limited force distribution
thats possible with the limited amount of nodes in the intermediate
mesh, theres a unique solution to apply the correcting force without
applying a moment27 . By stating that:
2
dLE
d2
fmc,2 TE = 0
2
2
dLE
dTE
fmc,2
= fmc,1
2
2
M = fmc,1
f M,y
(4.30)
(4.31)
63
getForces
fm,1 =
Fm,i =
~
3M
2di
fm,2 =
2 f M,y
d2
LE
dLE + dTE
2 f M,y
dTE +
2
dTE
dLE
(4.32)
(4.33)
di^2
fmc,
AC
fmc,
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Point-LineDistance3-Dimensional.html
fm,1 fmc,1
fn0,EL = fmean 0 + 0
0 0
fn1,EL = fmean
fm,2 fmc,2
fn2,EL = fmean + 0 + 0
0 0
fn3,EL = fmean
(4.34)
(4.35)
(4.36)
(4.37)
The final step is to rotate these forces to the body attached reference frame
(used by TACS). This is done by simply rotating it with Equation (4.8):
T
fn,BA = DBAEL
fn,EL
AC
(4.38)
4.7
modeling an aeroelastic
problem
32. .tin files are that native geometry format used by ICEM
33. The main focus of the MDOlabs
structural optimization lies in
the wingbox. The trailing edge
of an aircraft has limited structural contribution to stiffness.
Wind turbine blades tend to
be thicker and dont have control surfaces at the trailing edge.
34. A mesh generation tool developed by ANSYS.
More details on the wind input file can be found in Laino and Hansen
(2002, ch. 6.0). The choice of the element distribution and shape has to
be done strategically since this directly affects the performance characteristics of the turbine blade. The filename of the AeroDyn input file is
one of the initialization options when initializing pyAeroDyn.
The wind input file is loaded by AeroDyn during its initialization. It
is used to determine the wind velocity of a given point during calculation. More information on the different kinds of files can be found in
Section 4.4.1 or Kelley and Jonkman (2007); B.J. Jonkman (2012).
The previous two files are used directly by AeroDyn. In addition to
these pyAeroDyn also uses an input file. This file specifies points which
are used later in the analysis to specify the markers or forces. They are:
Numbl The number of blades used in the analysis.
Nelem The number of elements in one blade.
Hh The hub height [m]
Hubradius The radius of the hub [m]
Bladelength The length of a blade (root-to-tip) [m]
The rotational speed of the blade [rad/s]
Adata The adata file is loaded into an array.
The adata file contains a parsed array with the geometry used to
create the intermediate mesh (Section 4.6.1). The points in the adata file
are in the same order as files generated using NuMAD (Berg and Resor,
2012). This is because pyAeroDyn was developed with a test model
generated in NuMAD in mind. It also contains the mass of each element
per unit length [kg/m].
67
VERIFICATION OF DEVELOPED
CODE
This chapter discusses the results of verification done on the aeroelastic
code developed. Section 5.1 starts off by doing a simple verification to a
composite plate using ANSYS as a reference. This is done because prior
to this project, the constitutive object had never been used from the
Python level, and never with multi-lamina composites.
Section 5.2 discusses the choice of the model used to verify the aeroelastic
code and how it was created. The results of the aeroelastic analysis are
presented in Section 5.3.
5.1
5.1.1
Results
The max. deformation results are found in Table 5.2. The values are very
close to each other. When the relative error is calculated and plotted it
is clear that the values converge when the mesh gets finer (Figure 5.2).
This indicates that they tend to converge to the same exact solution.
Thickness
[mm]
10 mm
20 mm
40 mm
TACS
16 16 32 32
795.9
797.2
100.1
100.3
12.7
12.7
64 64
798
100.3
12.7
ANSYS
16 16 32 32
798.4
798.5
100.4
100.4
12.7
12.7
64 64
798.6
100.4
12.7
70
70
4.5
4.5
3.2
0.3
2810
GPa
GPa
GPa
GPa
GPa
kg/m3
Table 5.2: Deformation results for the composite plate test case [mm].
69
0.4
10 mm
20 mm
40 mm
0.35
% difference
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Figure 5.2: Relative error between TACS and ANSYS for test case.
5.2
5.2.1
Choice of model
There arent a lot of detailed turbine blade models publicly available. The
only production blade that has publicly available steady-state data is from
an old report (Hand et al., 2001) of a wind turbine test done by NREL
at NASA Ames. This blade is relatively small and very stiff, making it a
poor candidate for aeroelastic code verification. The lack of suitable data
means that the choice was made to do pure model-to-model verification.
The most popular reference model used in academia and other noncommercial wind energy research centers is the NREL 5 MW blade
(Jonkman et al., 2009). The structural properties of which are based on
the LM-Glassfiber LMH64-5. The sectional blade properties are published by ECN as part of the DOWEC project (Lindenburg, 2002). The
ECN report only mentions sectional properties of the LMH-64-5 blade,
as the composite layup is proprietary information.
Sandia National Lab has reverse engineered a shell-model based on
70
5.2.2
Creation of model
Despite the fact that the model has an ANSYS output option, it was not
possible to simply remesh the output model to an all quad mesh3 . To get
the geometry for the mesher the entire blade was remodeled with the
procedure described in Section 4.7.
The only difference between the Sandia model and the model used
in TACS is the use of a straight spar. Spars used in wind turbines are not
twisted. The spar in the NuMAD model is twisted due to limitations in
the NuMAD. The blade design should not be sensitive to this change4 .
5.2.3
Mesh refinement
The constitutive relationships which govern structural elements can create discretization errors if the elements are too large. To make sure that
the discretization errors arent too large a number of simulations are run.
The simulations compare the maximum deformation using fixed aerodynamic loads5 . The results are shown in Figure 5.3. Using these results
a mesh size of 30 532 was selected for Section 5.3s results. The choice for
this mesh size was a compromise of accuracy and computational time.
5.2.4
Mass comparison
The simplest form of comparison is the mass. Table 5.3 shows a comparison of the NREL data, ANSYS model, and TACS models.
The mass is around 2.6% percent less than that of the NuMAD model
on which its based. This is most likely due to small differences caused by
remodeling the blade, such as using straight spars instead of twisted etc.
71
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Mass [kg]
One blade
NREL FAST
17 740 16 878
ANSYS TACS
17 700
17 249
Table 5.3: Mass calculation results, ANSYS and FAST models are NuMAD model
results.
5.2.5
Span [m]
1.5-4.2
4.2-7
7-9.7
9.7-13.8
13.8-17.9
17.9-22
22-26.1
26.1-30.2
30.2-34.3
34.3-38.4
38.4-42.5
42.5-46.6
46.6-50.7
50.7-54.8
54.8-57.53
57.5-60.3
60.3-63
mass [kg/m]
741.8
604.48
406.74
409.5
362.93
337.83
320.58
294.64
262.3
234.1
192.44
160.47
134.25
103.51
86.15
66.32
40.62
Mass distribution
5.3
800
Fit curve
Data point
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 5.4: Mass distribution along the span of the blade with interpolation.
6000
5000
4000
TACS
FAST
Power [kW]
3000
2000
1000
0
1000
2000
3000
10
15
20
25
Figure 5.6: Effect of blade pitch to the power coefficient as a function of the tip speed ratio. From http:
//www.mathworks.com/help/physmod/powersys/
ref/windturbine.html
Figure 5.5 shows the power curve of the FAST and TACS models. The
plot uses the rotational speed and pitch settings of the FAST simulation6 .
The plot shows that the power is slightly increased below the rated
wind speed (11.4 m/s). The power drops after reaching its peak at the
rated wind speed. To understand whats happening its first necessary to
73
get an understanding of the effect that pitch has on the power output of
a wind turbine.
Figure 5.6 shows how the pitch of the blade shifts the power curve.
For lower wind speeds the power is increased with pitch. For higher
wind speeds the power output is decreased. In some cases the power
coefficient even becomes negative7
The results indicate that the blade has less torsional stiffness than
the blade modeled by NuMAD. To confirm this the blade is "tuned" to
the performance curve of the FAST model using only the pitch control8 .
The power curve and the blade pitch angles are shown in Figures 5.7
and 5.8.
6000
25
5000
TACS
FAST
20
4000
TACS
FAST
TACS tuned
Power [kW]
3000
15
10
2000
1000
0
1000
2000
10
15
20
25
3000
10
15
20
25
controlled model.
The results show that for very low wind speeds there is no pitch. The
pitch is increased and slowly decreased at the nominal rated wind speed.
This is because the nominal maximum C p has a fairly small gradient.
Small changes in the pitch have less of an effect on the performance than
at other wind speeds.
A major source of error is the lack of blade twist degrees of freedom
in FAST (Jonkman, 2013). The forces acting on the blade are very sensitive to even small changes in the angle of attack. A change in the angle
of attack caused by twist will significantly alter the dynamic performance.
Another possible source of errors is the calculation of the structural
properties. NuMAD uses PreComp (Gunjit, 2005) to calculate the equivalent beam properties. Research done by Chen et al. (2010) shows that
the stiffness properties calculated by PreComp have an error of up to
300%. The papers conclusion states:
74
5.3.1
Displacement results
The deformation results given as an output by FAST are of a one dimensional model. The only output FAST gives are in the in-plane (y) and
out-of-plane (x) deflection. The structural twists is not an output in
FAST.
Comparing the FAST output to the TACS output for the 11 m/s load
case it is apparent that the flapwise stiffness in the TACS model is higher.
The deflection is 0.7 m compared to the 3.13 m of the FAST model. The
edgewise stiffness seems to be similar, 0.3 in TACS vs 0.24 in FAST. The
results are summarized in Table 5.5.
The lack of twist output makes it hard to directly compare the torsion.
From the results of Section 5.3 it can be assumed that the FAST model
is torsionally stiffer. The significant differences in deflection warrant
further research into verification and validation.
75
FAST
TACS
u0
3.13 m
0.7 m
v0
0.3 m
0.24 m
w0
9 mm
rx
0.4
ry
1.3
rz
2.4
Table 5.5: Deflection and twist of the blade at 11 m/s wind conditions FAST vs
"tuned" TACS.
Plots of the tuned 11 m/s load case deflected structure can be found
in Figures 5.9 to 5.14.
76
77
PART III
CONCLUSIONS
conclusions
The goal of this MSc research was to pave the road for high-fidelity
aerostructural modeling of wind turbines by modifying and adapting
the techniques used in aerospace research. This is done by coupling
AeroDyn, an aerodynamic solver, to TACS, a high-fidelity structural
solver. The coupling was not straight forward and easy. This was due to
two facts:
6.2
i
2. Velocities can be computed as dp
dt
in the unsteady case. This should
be accurate if the time step is small
enough.
future work
83
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, J. D. (2001). Fundamentals of aerodynamics, volume 2.
McGraw-Hill New York. Cited on p. 12.
Ashuri, T. (2012). Beyond Classical Upscaling: Integrated Aeroservoelastic Design and Optimization of Large Offshore Wind Turbines. Delft
University of Technology. Cited on p. 72.
Ashuri, T., Bussel, G., and Mieras, S. (2012). Development and validation
of a computational model for design analysis of a novel marine turbine.
Wind Energy. Cited on p. 1.
Ashuri, T. and Zaaijer, M. (2007). Review of design concepts, methods
and considerations of offshore wind turbines. In European Offshore
Wind Conference and Exhibition, Berlin, Germany. Cited on p. 2.
Ashuri, T. and Zaaijer, M. (2008). Size effect on wind turbine blades
design drivers. In European Wind Energy Conference and exhibition
EWEC. Cited on p. 29.
Ashuri, T., Zaaijer, M., van Bussel, G., and van Kuik, G. (2010a). An
analytical model to extract wind turbine blade structural properties
for optimization and up-scaling studies. In The science of making
torque from wind conference, Crete, Greece. Cited on p. 33.
Ashuri, T., Zaaijer, M., van Bussel, G., and van Kuik, G. (2010b). Controller design automation for aeroservoelastic design optimization
of wind turbines. In The science of making torque from wind, Crete,
Greece. Cited on p. 83.
Beazley, D. M. (2003). Automated scientific software scripting with
swig. Future Gener. Comput. Syst., 19(5):599609. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-739X(02)00171-1. Cited on p. 47.
Berg, J., Paquette, J., and Resor, B. (2011). Mapping of 1d beam
loads to the 3d wind blade for buckling analysis. Collection
of Technical Papers - AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference. cited By (since
1996)0.
Available from: http://www.scopus.com/inward/
record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84872441689&partnerID=40&md5=
55f42d1c2115fdf19cedf7aebdc12a46. Cited on p. 61.
85
92