A Finite Element Approach

for Aeroelastic Instability

Prediction of Wind Turbines
P.A Castillo Capponi

A Finite Element Approach

for Aeroelastic Instability
Prediction of Wind Turbines

Thesis dissertation,
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of the Master Program of Aerodynamic

Pablo A. Castillo Capponi

October, 2010

Graduation committee
Prof.dr.ir. G.J.W van Bussel
Ir. T. Ashuri
Dr.ir. J. Holierhoek
Delft University of Technology
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
Wind Energy Research Group

Contents

Nomenclature

1 Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

Wind Energy . .
Motivation . . .
Goal of the thesis
Outline . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

5
5
6
9
9

2 Literature review
2.1

2.2

13
Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.1 Aeroelastic Instability in Airplanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.1.1 Historic Approaches to Predict Aeroelastic Instabilities in Airplanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.1.2 Instability Prediction for Airplanes . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.2 Aeroelasticity Instabilities in Wind Turbines . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.3 State of Art - Aeroelastic Codes for Wind Turbines Instabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Multibody and Finite Element Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3 The Finite Element Approach for Aeroelastic Instability Prediction

3.1

3.2

Formulation of the Structural Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1.1 The Finite Element Method for Structural Components
(FEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2 Generalized Body Forces in a Non-Inertial Reference Frame
3.1.3 Mass, Damping and Stiffness Matrices for Forces due Accelerations in a Non-Inertial Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.4 Coupling the Generalized Body Forces to the FEM Method
Formulation of the Aerodynamic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i

29
30
30
31
34
36
39

ii

CONTENTS

3.2.1

3.3

3.4

Aerodynamic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1.1 Basis of the Aerodynamic Model: The Theodorsen Solution for a Flat Plate . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1.2 Drag Model for the Theodorsen Solution . . . . .
3.2.1.3 The Aerodynamic Model used in this Thesis . . .
3.2.2 The Finite Element Method applied to the Aerodynamic
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2.1 The Basis idea: Minimization of the Aerodynamic
Energy Functional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2.2 Variables Definition of the Aerodynamic Element
3.2.2.3 Deduction of the Aerodynamic Element Matrices .
3.2.2.4 Assembling of Global Aerodynamic Matrices . . .
3.2.2.5 A Non True Finite Element Matrices for the Aerodynamic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Integration of the Structural & Aerodynamic Models . . . . . . . .
3.3.1 Complete Formulation of the Aeroelastic Method . . . . . .
3.3.2 Methodology to find the First Unstable Operational Point .
Implementation of the Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Verification of the Method

4.1

4.2

Finite
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4

element model for the 5MW Reference Wind Turbine . . .

Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hub and Nacelle Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Boundary Conditions and Connection between the Blades,
Nacelle, Hub and Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.5 Pitch, Rotational and Wind Speed Control Curves . . . .
4.1.6 Parametric Model in PATRAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.7 Model summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.8 Simple Model for Stability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unstable Operational Points for the 5MW Wind Turbine . . . .
4.2.1 Static Unstable Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.2 Dynamic Unstable Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.2

Upscaling process of the 5 MW NREL wind turbine to an optimum

20MW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finite Element Model for the 20MW Reference Wind Turbine . .
5.2.1 Tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Hub and Nacelle Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.3 Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.4 Boundary conditions and connection between the blades,
nacelle, hub and tower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39
41
41
45
45
49
50
66
68
69
69
70
78

.
.
.
.

81
82
82
83
84

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

84
86
86
88
89
92
92
93

5 Application: Analysis of a 20MW Wind Turbine

5.1

39

95
.
.
.
.
.

95
96
96
97
98

98

iii

CONTENTS

5.3

5.2.5 Pitch, Rotational and Wind Speed Control Curves . .

5.2.6 Parametric Model in PATRAN . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.7 Model summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unstable Operational Scenarios for the 20MW Wind Turbine
5.3.1 Static Unstable Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.2 Dynamic Unstable Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

101
101
102
104
104
105

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1
6.2

107
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

A Appendix I: Blade layout for the 5MW Wind Turbine

111

Bibliography

115

Nomenclature

List of Symbols
A
a
b
C
Cl
Cm
D
d1
d2
Cd
Da
Dr
Ds
e1
e10
e2
e3
e30
F
Fpkm
Fr
h
H
h0
i
k
Ka

Sectional blade area

Acceleration
Diameter ratio between the upscaled and the reference blade
Theodorsen function or tensor notation
Aerodynamic lift coefficient
Aerodynamic moment coefficient
Sectional drag
Distance from the elastic axis to 1/4 of the airfoil chord
Distance from the elastic axis to 3/4 of the airfoil chord
Aerodynamic drag coefficient
Aerodynamic damping matrix
Damping matrix due the rotational frame
Structural damping matrix
Unitary vector which defines the direction of the h DOF
Lift direction without rotational speed of the blade
Unitary vector which defines the direction of the s DOF
Unitary vector which defines the direction of the DOF
Drag direction without rotational speed of the blade
Generalized force
Force acting on the node k in the direction m
Generalized force due the rotational frame
DOF defined on the lift direction
Hankel function
Value around h is linearized or plunging amplitude
Imaginary number unit
Reduced frequency or index
Aerodynamic stiffness matrix
1

[m2 ]
[m/s2 ]
[-]
[]
[]
[]
[N/m]
[m]
[m]
[]
*
*
*
*
[]
*
*
[]
*
[N ]
*
[m]
[]
[m]
[]
[]
*

2
Kr
Ks
L
m
M
Mpkm
Ma
Mri
Ms
n
p
R
R1
R2
R3
s
S
s0
t
u
uk3m
uk3m
V
x
X
x1
x2
x3
xs
y
y1
y2
y3
ys
z
z3

CONTENTS

Stiffness matrix due the rotational frame

Structural stiffness matrix
Sectional lift
Mass
Sectional moment
Moment acting on the node k in the direction m
Aerodynamic mass matrix
Equivalent mass matrix due the rotational frame
Structural mass matrix
Direction cosines
Position vector
Position vector
Lift functional
Moment functional
Drag functional
DOF defined on the drag direction
Surface
Value around s is linearized
Time or surface traction
Generalized displacements
Displacement on the node number k in the direction m
Angular rotation on the node k in the direction m
Volume domain
Coordinate x in space
External forces
First basis component of the reference coordinate system
First basis component of the second coordinate system
first basis component of the global coordinate system
x axis parallel to the wind speed
Coordinate y in space
Second basis component of the reference coordinate system
Second basis component of the second coordinate system
Second basis component of the global coordinate system
y axis parallel to the rotational wind speed
Coordinate z in space
third basis component of the global coordinate system

0.0
*
*
[N/m]
[kg]
[N/m]
[N m]
*
*
*
[P a]
[m]
[m]
[N m]
[N m]
[N m]
[m]
[m2 ]
[m]
[s], [pa]
*
[m]
[rad]
[m3 ]
[m]
[N/m3 ]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[m]
[]
[m]
[m]

Greek symbols

Angle of attack
Value around is linearized or pitching amplitude
Angular velocity

[rad]
[m]
[rad/s]

0.0

CONTENTS

Frequency or weight function

Density
Mechanical deformation
Mechanical stress

[rad/s], []
[kg/m3 ]
[]
[P a]

Subscripts
0
a
blade
e
i
j
n

ns
p
r
section
t
up
us
V

Configuration initial
Refers to aerodynamic
Complete blade domain
Element matrix
Element index, direction index
Counter index, direction index
Identification number or coordinate component of a vector
Number of sections on the blade
Pitch of the blade section
Angle of attack of the blade section
Refers to a section of the blade
Twist of the blade section
Upper side of the blade
Lower side of the blade
Wind speed

Superscripts
(1)
(2)

Hankel function of first order

Hankel function of second order

Notations
bold
()n
DOF
DOFs
||
< , >

Vector or matrix
Respect to the n coordinate system
Degree of freddom
Degree of freddoms
Determinant
Inner product

The symbol * means the vector or matrix has the unit of its contained equations.

Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1 Wind Energy
The development of the human society is influenced by the use of energy.
The energy helps the society to manage the natural resources doing easier the
adaptation to a new environments. This is the reason why managing the energy
is inevitable in any society. The development of energy resources is essential for
transportation, agriculture, waste collection and communications, which play an
important role in a developed society.
The energy consumption has been increasing since the industrial revolution
and this brought with it a number of serious problems. These problems are related to a critical damage of natural environments. One example is the global
warming which present potentially grave risks to the world.
Today the consumption per capita is 115 times higher than the energy consumption for an primitive human (See figure 1.1).
The energy becomes every day an important subject. Therefore, different types of
renewable energy are in development and under investigation, with wind energy
as one of those. Wind energy promises to be one of the affordable green alternative energies.
The mechanism of energy generation of wind turbines is the conversion of the
kinetic energy of the free streaming air to a mechanical power, which in turn can
be used to rotate a generator to produce electricity. The increment use of wind
energy to obtain electricity is presented in figure 1.2.
At the end of 2009, the energy generated by wind was 2% of worldwide electricity usage. However, still the electricity produced by other technologies is cheaper
than the electricity produced by wind. Therefore, many scientist and engineers
are attempting every day to developed technologies which decreases the costs of
5

1.2

INTRODUCTION

1000Kcal

Estimated Daily Consumption of Energy per Capita at Different Historical Points

250
Transportation
Industry and Agriculture
Home and Commerce
Food
200

150

100

50

Figure 1.1: Estimated Daily Consumption of Energy per Capita at Different Historical
Points Adapted from: E. Cook, The Flow of Energy in an Industrial Society Scientific
American, 1971 p. 135. The legend is shown in table 1.1 .

electricity produced by wind. A promissing way to achieve that is to build bigger

wind turbines which decreases the costs [1], see figure 1.3.
However, the idea of increasing the size of the wind turbines is only possible
with the application of new materials, new technologies and better design methodologies. The new approach to wind Turbine designs should be improved with
more emphasis on integrated design. This gives the possibility to do make larger
wind turbine that are lighter and more flexible.
Today one of the biggest project to find solutions for very large wind turbine
designs is the UpWind European project. This project is funded under the EUs
Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) and it looks towards the wind power of tomorrow, searching for new design of very large wind turbines between 8 to 20MW
for onshore and offshore.

1.2 Motivation
The conventional approach to study aeroelastic instabilities in Wind Turbines is to use a Multibody formulation of the Wind Turbine. A Multibody
model represents the dynamic of a body (mechanical part) with only few degrees

1.2

MOTIVATION

1
2
3
4
5
6

Technological Man
Industrial Man
Advanced Agricultural Man
Primitive Agricultural Man
Hunting Man
Primitive Man

Table 1.1: Legend of figure 1.1

Figure 1.2: World total installed wind energy capacity. The market is growing with an
exponential rate [1].

of freedom and it uses the global structural properties of it (such as mass, moment of inertia for example). Another method to analyze the dynamics of a wind
turbine is Finite Element Method, which uses many degrees of freedom and is
based on local properties of the structure.
The Multibody method has the advantage to simulate the dynamics of a body
with less degrees of freedom in comparison with Finite Element Method. When a
model has less degrees of freedom, it means that the number of equations involved
on the are smaller and it requires less time to solve it. On the other hand the Finite
Element Method gives much accurate results in comparison with the Multibody
model.
The designers of Wind Turbines usually starts with a Multibody model of the
Wind Turbine, because that model is fast to simulate and it is only based on the
global properties of the Wind Turbine. That idea is very convenient when the
designer does not know too much details about wind turbine and thus the method

1.2

INTRODUCTION

Electricity cost comparison for different Wind Turbines size.

12
Coastal site
Inland site

cEUR/kWh

10
8
6
4
2
0

95

150

225 300 500 600

kW Turbine size

1000

Figure 1.3: Total Cost of Wind Power (cEUR/kWh, Constant 2001 Prices) by Turbine
Size

is proper for conceptual and preliminary designs.

When the designer is finished with the Multibody design of the Wind Turbine
(he knows the global properties of its Wind Turbine) he needs to change his
strategy. Now he must use an accurate simulation of the Wind Turbine based
on the local properties and he should do a Finite Element Model for the wind
turbine.
The detailed designs of the Wind Turbine (The Finite Element Model) must
be in match with the Multibody model, otherwise the Finite Element Model of
the Wind Turbine will not be representative of the Wind Turbine. Thus it can
be seen that the designer should use that in detail design level, where he already
has a good understanding of the global properties of the turbine.
The entire process is time consuming because in many iterations the Finite
Element Model has to be remeshed at least in the modified areas of each iteration.
Other disadvantage is the designer has to be very intuitive to change the right
part of the Finite Element Model to achieve a desired global properties value.
The explained task turns to be more difficult when new designs are studied.
One of the problems in the new designs of Wind Turbines are the instabilities.
Tools to simulate instabilities in time domain and frequency domain exists for a
Multibody model of the Wind Turbine. The motivation of this thesis is to create a

1.4

GOAL OF THE THESIS

tool to find instabilities for a Finite Element Model of the Wind Turbine without
the necessity to pass throw a Multibody simulation and increasing the accuracy.

Real Model

Finite Element Model

Global

properties

Solver work to find instabilities

Aerodynamic Model

MultiBody Model

Good representation for the dynamics

Normal approach for instabilities study

Instabilities

Figure 1.4: Common approach to study instabilities on the industries.

1.3 Goal of the thesis

This thesis presents the development of a new method to find aeroelastic
instabilities of Wind Turbines based on the Finite Element Method. This new
method is programmed in NASTRAN and integrated as a new feature with NASTRAN. The method is automatized and it gives a capability for a user to find
the instabilities of the Wind Turbine without passing through many details. The
proposed method helps the designers to save time in his design process to find
instabilities and gives the capability to get a quick and accurate results (See figure
1.5).
This method can help the designer to analyze new innovative blade designs,
which associate the risk of increasing instability. For example designs that rely on
aeroelastic tailoring (the blade twists as it bends under the action of aerodynamic
loads to shed load resulting from wind turbulence) increases the possibility of
making the blade unstable [2].

1.4 Outline
Figure 1.6 shows the structure of this dissertation. As shown in this figure, chapters 1 and 2 deal with the state of art and the objective of this thesis. The development of the methodology is explained in the chapter 3. Chapter 4 shows the
validation of the methodology using the 5MW NREL wind turbine and chapter 5

10

1.4

INTRODUCTION

Thesis proposed approach for Instabilities study

Solver work to find instabilities
Aerodynamic Model
in Frequency Domain
Real Model

Finite Element Model

Solver for Instabilities

Instabilities

Figure 1.5: Approach proposed in this thesis for instabilities studies.

analyze the stability of a new design of a 20MW wind turbine. The conclusions
and recommendations of this presentation are showed in chapter 6.

1.4

11

OUTLINE

BACKGROUND

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00100 00 00 00 00 00 00 00n00 00 00 00 00 00 00oduc
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0on
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0L0 0 0 0 0 0 0e0 0 0 0 a0 0 0 0 0u0 0 0 0 0e0 0 0 0Rev
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00ew
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

RESULTS

PROGRAMME

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0003000 000 000 000 000 000The
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000 000 000 000 F
00 00 00 00 00 n00 00 00 00 00 00 00e00 00 00 00E
00 00 00 000 000 emen
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00App
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000oach
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00o00 00 00 00 00 00 Ae
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00oe
00 00 00 00 00 00 000 a000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 c000 000 000 000 000 000 000n000 000 000 000 000 000 000ab
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00y00 00 00 00 P
00 00 00 00 00 00ed
00 00 000 000 000 000 000 c000 000 000 000 000 000on
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 00 00100 00 00 00 00Fo
0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00a00 00 00 00 00 on
0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00S00 00 00 00 00 00 00uc
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00con
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ng
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00ne
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 mu
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 o00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 he
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 u00 00 00 00 00 a00 00 00 00 00 00Mode
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00de
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00Non
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00a00 00 00 00 00 00F00 00 00 00 00ame
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 300 00 00 00 00200 00 00 00 00Fo
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 mu
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00a00 00 00 00 00 on
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 o00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 he
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00Ae
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00odynam
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00c00 00 00 00Mode
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00300 00 00 00 300 00 00 00 00 00 00n00 00 00 00 00eg
0 0 0 0 00 00 00 a00 00 00 00 00 00 on
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 he
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S0 0 0 0 00 00 00uc
0 0 0 0 00 00 00u00 00 00 00 00a00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00&
0 0 0 0 0 0 0Ae
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0odynam
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c0 0 0 0 0Mode
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 300 00 00 00 00400 00 00 00 00 00 00mp
00 00 00 00 00 000 000 000 000emen
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000 000 000 000 000 000a000 000 000 000 000 000on
00 00 00 00 000 000 000 o000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000he
00 00 00 000 000 000 000Me
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00hod
00 00 00 00 00 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00400 00 00 00 00 00Ve
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ca
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00on
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00o00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00he
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Me
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0hod
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0u00 00 00 00 00 00 00ng
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 he
0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 005MW
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00NREL
0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0nd
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tu
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0b0 0 0 0 0ne
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00500 00 00 00 00 00App
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00ca
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00on
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00Ana
00 00 00 00 00 00 000 000 000 000 000 000y000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000o000 000 000 000 000 000 a000 000 000 000 000 20MW
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000W
00 00 00 00 00 00 000nd
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0Tu
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00b00 00 00 00 ne
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
6 Conc u on and Recommenda on

F gure 1 6 The structure o th s d ssertat on

Chapter 2

Literature review
2.1 Literature Review
The introduction on the first chapter describes the motivation and the goal
of create a tool to find instabilities for Wind Turbines using the Finite Element
Model of the Wind Turbine. This methodology gives the capability to jump one
step on the design process of a Wind Turbine and it eliminates the tedious and
difficult iteration process to match the properties between the Finite Element
Model and the Multibody model doing the design faster and more accurate. Today accuracy on the designs of Wind Turbines is really important because that
permits to build bigger Wind Turbines and decrease the cost (see figure 1.3).
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section explain how the study
of the aeroelastic stability begins in airplanes and how in the past the aeroelastic instabilities was not considering in Wind Turbine designs until the designs
become lighter and stronger. This section shown new approaches and studies in
aeroelasticity of the Wind Turbines in chronological order. The final part shown
the state of art of the codes for aeroelastic stability analysis. On the literature is
not found an idea with the same objective and methodology of the approach for
the instabilities given in this thesis.
The second section describes, explains and compares the Mutibody method and
the Finite Element Method from a theorist and practical point of views. The Multibody method is the base of the methodology for the approach which is using
today for the Aeroelastic Analysis and the Finite Element Method is the base of
the method proposed in this thesis.
A paper from Sandia Laboratories is important for this thesis [3]. This paper
shows a method between the normal Multibody approach to study Aeroelastic
instabilities with some characteristics of a Finite Element Method. Although this
13

14

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

paper does not present a validation of the results, the results are on the right
order of magnitude with comparison of similar works.
The references presented on the chapter three are used to formulate the base of
the Aerodynamic model for the work presented in this thesis. The Aerodynamic
model presents some modifications to include drag and it uses the real airfoil characteristics for the lift and moment coefficients.

2.1.1 Aeroelastic Instability in Airplanes

2.1.1.1 Historic Approaches to Predict Aeroelastic Instabilities in Airplanes
The people who designed the first airplanes on the World War I did not realize the aeroelastic instabilities on their aircraft because at that time were flying
at low speed and the aircraft structures were rigid. The phenomena appeared
early in the control surfaces of the airplanes. The first recorded flutter incident
was on a Handley Page O/400 twin engine biplane bomber in 1916. The flutter
mechanism was a coupling of the fuselage torsion mode with an antisymmetric elevator rotation mode. The elevators were independently actuated on this airplane
and the solution for this problem was to connect the elevators with a torque tube
[4]. During the first world war the control surface flutter began to appear. The
flutter for the interaction wing-aileron was encountered in many airplanes during
this time [5]. Von Baumhauer and Koning were the first people who tried to solve
this flutter mechanism, the solution was based on flying experience. They suggested the use of a mass balance about the control surface hinge line to avoiding
this type of flutter. Sometimes a flutter on the control surface were encountered
afterward and the solution for this flutter was increasing the mass balance of the
control surface. After World War I, higher airspeeds are reached and a shift from
external wire-braced biplanes to an aircraft with cantilevered have been done.
The first formal flutter test was carried out by Von Schlippe in Germany in
1935 [6]. His approach was to vibrate the aircraft at resonant frequencies at
progressively higher speeds and plot the amplitude response as a function of the
wind velocity. When the amplitude response is big means that point could be a
point with reduced aerodynamic damping and the flutter speed could occurring at
asymptote of the infinite amplitude as shown in figure 2.1. The idea was applied
successfully to many German aircraft during World War II until a Junkers JU90
fluttered and crashed during flight tests in the year 1938. When Von Schlippe
in Germany was carried its experimental method to find aeroelastic instabilities,
Theodore Theodorsen was developing a mathematic theory in United States. He
was working at the NACA facility. Theodore Theodorsen in 1935 publish a paper
named General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter
[7]. This paper is based on the potential flow equation and it shown a closed

2.1

15

Maximum response amplitude

LITERATURE REVIEW

Airspeed

Vflutter

Figure 2.1: Von Schlippes flight flutter test method

solution for the unsteady lift and moment for a flat plate. This mathematical model was the first unsteady aerodynamic model capable to predict unsteady forces.
Theodorsen explains in the paper basic applications on how to coupled this unsteady forces to an structure and find the unstable velocities for the structure.
This is the first known mathematical aeroelastic model.
The application of Theodorsen model to a real aircraft carry three main kinds
of problems at this moment. Firstly without the use of computers is hard to
obtained the structural properties of a wing. Although is possible to use a experimental way to obtain the structural properties the wing most of the wings
are tapered. The Theodorsen aerodynamic model applied for tapered wings gives
different reduced frequencies for each section of the wing and the mathematical
problem becomes very difficult to solve for that time. Secondly for each velocity
the aerodynamic model changes and is needed to solve a new problem, that means
many iteration for different velocities are needed to find the instability point and
without the computers help that was difficult. Thirdly the model neglect drag
and it is for a flat plate. The structural requirements for heavy airplanes force
the airplanes to have a big camber and the idea of a flat plate is not longer true
for those airplanes. The results of the method was not accurate and most of the
people prefer the experimental approach to find instabilities at that moment.
In the late 1950s the common approach to find instabilities was evaluate the
response of the system using excitation systems consisted of inertia shakers, manual control surface pulses, and thrusters (bonkers). The instrumentation was
improved and the response signals started to be telemetered to a ground station for further anlisis. Today in some airplanes some programs still displayed
signals of response on oscillographs in the airplane. Many people who started
to do experiments realized the real importance of adequate structural excitation
for obtaining a high signal-to-noise ratio to decrease the error associated to the
experiment. The people started to use oscillating vanes to excite the airplane
during this time.

16

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

From the 1950s until the 1970s, many aircrafts were equipped with excitation
systems. Frequency sweeps were made to identify resonances on the structure.
These sweeps were followed by a frequency quick stop at each resonant frequency
to identify possible instabilities. The analysis in flight was usually limited due
to the low computation capability in flight and the analysis was to study the log
decrement of the accelerometer to determine damping.
The traditional method of testing the flutter margins of aircraft using flight
testing only is risky due to the inherently unreliable nature of the damping. This
method has two main disadvantage, firstly each test flight needs large amount of
time to prepare it and secondly the test flights are expensive, also the expansion
of the flight envelope occurs very slowly because the flight test conditions must
be changed in very small increments to avoid unpredictable sudden changes in
instabilities which can produce a flight accident.
Thus since the 1970s, the introduction of digital computers to predict aeroelastic instabilities have significantly affected flight flutter testing techniques.
The Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) doing by the computers from the experimental data is fast and accurate. With the use of FFT is easier to analyze
the experimental data and predict the flutter speed. Today the development of
more sophisticated data processing algorithms are adapted useful for analysis of
response data from either steady state or transient excitation. Nowadays the frequency and damping are estimated with parameter identification techniques and
is also possible to do in a real-time manner.

2.1.1.2 Instability Prediction for Airplanes

Six different main group of methods to predict and analyze aeroelastic instability
for airplanes are developed:
Theodorsens method
The -method; a technology patented by NASA
The K-method
The PK-method
The P Method
State Space Methods
The first 5 methods works in frequency domain, the State Space methods works in
time domain. The next lines explain briefly each method. For more information
please go to the references of the method.

2.1

LITERATURE REVIEW

17

Theodorsens method
The Thedorsen method is based on the simultaneous solution of the real and
imaginary parts for the 2D system of equation for the wing motion (Torsion and
Bending). A quasi-steady Aerodynamic model is used, with the modification only
on the lift forces by the use of unsteady 2-D aerodynamics [8].
-method
The -method is a method for Robust Flutter Prediction in Expanding a Safe
Flight Envelope for an Aircraft Model Under Flight Test. It is a technology Patented by NASA under the Patent: US6,216,063 [9].
The NASAs method of flutter margin prediction uses a computer model of the
aircraft structure. A structured singular value, is defined using the particular
plant characteristic (in this case the structural model of the airplane), thus using
the the singular value a robust flutter speed margins are computed.
The K-method
The k-method is also known as the V-g method or the American method of flutter solution to determine the aeroelastic stability of a system. Many aerodynamic
formulations lead to aerodynamic matrices which are only valid for harmonic motion without amplitude changing on time. Using these simple harmonic loads,
and introducing an artificial structural damping factor, complex roots are obtained from the equations. The value of zero for the real part of the complex roots
means the system converged to an unstable point [10].
The PK-method
The p-k method attempts to improve upon the k-method by allowing the reduced
frequency to be complex. The equations of motion are written in a form indicating that the aerodynamic matrix is available only for harmonic motion (only
function of the frequency). The eigenvalues of this approximate system can be
solved, producing complex roots. The real part of the roots gives the unstable or
stable behavior of the system [11].
P Method
The p-method is the simplest method to understand, but perhaps the most difficult to apply. Utilizing the p-method means simply solving for the complex eigenvalues of the governing equations. The governing equations usually has many
degrees of freedom and solve the systems involves large amount of CPU time and
computing power. This approach is not normally used directly for big structures
due to the large requirement of computer power to solve the system for the eigenvalues, but it is the basis model for model reduction techniques [11].

18

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

State Space Methods

This is the only method presented on this thesis based on time domain analysis.
The basic idea of the State Space methods is to linearize the system of ordinary
differential equations and integrate on time using the discrete system of equation
for the continuous system of equations. When the system is integrated on time
and the solution is known a post-processing techniques to find instabilities are
applied. The common approach is to use the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) or a
model identification technique to find the unstable points. The solution on time
domain has the advantage to give the possibility of an easy physical interpretation
of the results but difficulties to find the instability points in comparison with a
solution in the frequency domain.
Those six methods were the precursors of the aeroelastic methods to find
instabilities for Wind Turbines. Today modifications on the Theodorsens method,
the P method and State Space Methods are the basis of the methods to compute
instabilities for Wind Turbines. The aerodynamic and the structural model is
adapted to a Wind Turbine models in order to simulate Wind Turbines instead
of airplanes.

2.1.2 Aeroelasticity Instabilities in Wind Turbines

The Aeroelastic instabilities historically has not been driving a issue in wind
turbines design. The Aeroelastic phenomena is rarely addressed in the past for
wind turbines. However, nowadays the problem started to become serious on
the design of wind turbine. A wind turbine with higher speed, lighter and softer
blades increases the chances to be unstable for different operational scenarios.
The first known electricity generating windmill operated, was a battery charging machine installed in 1887 by James Blyth in Scotland. The first windmill
for electricity production in the United States was built in Cleveland, Ohio by
Charles F Brush in 1888, and in 1908 there were 72 wind-driven electric generators from 5 kW to 25 kW. The largest machines were on 24 m (79 ft) towers
with four-bladed 23 m (75 ft) diameter rotors. Around the time of World War
I, American windmill makers were producing 100,000 farm windmills each year,
mostly for water-pumping. By the 1930s, windmills for electricity were common
on farms, mostly in the United States where distribution systems had not yet been
installed. In this period, high-tensile steel was cheap, and windmills were placed
atop prefabricated open steel lattice towers. This wind turbines never reach theirs
unstable boundaries.
The first theory to compute unsteady lift and moment on a flat plate was
proposed by Theodore Theodorsen in 1935 [7]. This theory is based on potential

2.1

LITERATURE REVIEW

19

flow and a oscillatory motion without damping of a flat plate. He did the first
aeroelastic study for instabilities when he coupled this aerodynamic model to the
structural model and he found the first operational unstable points for airplanes.
In 1981 David C. Janetzke and Krishna.V. Kaza at the NASA Lewis Research
Center in Cleveland publish the first paper directly related to aeroelasticity in
wind turbines [12]. They explore the possibility of whirl flutter and search the
effect of pitch-flap-coupling on teetering motion of a 2 blade wind turbine. The
wind turbine had 3.5 meters of diameter and they determined a unstable point
on this wind turbine at a wind speed of 77.1 m/s and angular velocity of 320 RPM.
M.E Bechly and P.D. Clausen in 1995 publish a paper called Structural design
of a composite wind turbine blade using Finite Element Analysis [13]. Although
this paper does not treat the instability problem, the paper shows the coupling
between the steady aerodynamic loads obtained from a panel code and a structural finite element model of a composite blade.
On the next years the idea to automatic adjust the pitch of a blade by doing
a pitch-bending coupling as a passive power control is developed. The studies in
this area takes into account the steady aeroelastic phenomena but the instabilities
are hardly touched. In 1998 Sandia Laboratories & National Renewable Energy
Laboratory publish the article Aeroelastic Tailoring in Wind Turbine Blade applications [2]. They used the Aeroelastic properties of the blades to increase the
cost-effective, passive means to shape the power curve and reduce loads. They
analyze the aeroelastic stability of the wind turbine using the potential energy
gains as a function of twist coupling on the blade. Other similar studies are
shown in the papers Compliant blades for wind turbines[14] and Compliant
blades for passive power control of wind turbines [15] where the articles shown
investigations about the capability of a constant speed wind turbine to automatically shed power in gust by feathering the blades.
A mathematical model of an unsteady separated flow around an oscillating airfoil is published by O.Yu.Korotkov and G.M.Shumskii on 2000 [16]. This model
uses a viscid-inviscid approach. The points of separation and the intensity of vorticity displaced to the external flow is determined using boundary layer equations
in an integral form and the mechanism of antidamping for instability is discover.
One year later is published a paper which shown the optimization of wind turbine blades based on the maximum frequency design criterion [17]. This paper
analyzed also the Aeroelastic instabilities boundaries for the wind turbine using
the Floquets transition matrix theory. This paper shows how the instabilities
boundaries of a wind turbine becomes an important issue when it is optimized.
From this time to now on publications related to find aeroelastic instabilities for
wind turbines are common.

20

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

Yoshimasa Tomonari extended the Theodorsen function to assuming a arbitrary and constant convection velocity for wake vortices in 2002 [8]. Some corrections of the Theodorsen model are based in this extension later on. The Energy
research Centre of the Netherlands ECN published in 2003 an article which showed the importance to study the aeroelastic boundaries in the next generation
of wind turbines [18]. The article presents the ECN wind energy research projects on the aero-elastic stability of rotor blade vibrations. They showed three
different investigations projects the STABTOOL-3, the DAMPBLADE and the
STABCON.
Three articles were publish on the same year about instabilities on Wind Turbines. The first is an article published by Hans Ganander, it refers to the use
of a code-generating system for the derivation of the equations for Wind Turbine
Designs [19]. This code has the capability to tuning the eigenfrequency of the
model with the measured eigenfrequencies of the real wind turbine, that gives the
possibility to match the measured static eigenfrequencies to the model eigenfrequencies, the Multi-Body approach is used in this paper. The second is an article
of the VISCEL proyect [20]. This article shows the study of a 2D airfoil stability
using two different structural and aerodynamic models, one is the classical flutter
test case and the other is the Stall-induced Flap-Lag flutter model. The third
article called The present status of the Aeroelasticity of Wind Turbines shows
the available aerodynamic 3D models at this time and the three aeroelastic modeling possibilities for the structural dynamics [21]. The three possibilities were
a Finite Element Model, a Multibody Model or a Modal representation of the
Wind Turbine. This article shown and compares the direction of vibration for the
first two modes of the LM 19.1 m blade using a Multibody model and a Finite
Element Model for the blade. The results for the direction of the vibration shows
a large difference between the models (More than 50%) for r/R <0.36.
Publications of the year 2004 shown interest to find instabilities of the wind
turbines based on the eigenvalues approach. Three papers published on this year
show the stability analysis of wind turbines based on the eigenvalue approach and
they uses the Multi-Body approach for the structural model of the wind turbine
[22], [23] and [24]. The implemented aerodynamic model were a linearized aerodynamic model in [22], a linearized structural-aerodynamic coupling equations in
[23] and the Theodorsen solution for an Oscillating Flat Plate in [24]. The article
form Risoe presents a code called HAWCStab and the results of a simulation for
the instabilities of a 600kW Wind Turbine [23]. It shows a comparison between
the computed eigenfrequencies and a measured frequency using a developed experimental tool to estimate the aeroelastic damping. The results between the
measurement and the predicted values for the eigenfrequencies are close to each
other. This is one of the first tool for find instabilities on wind turbines which
is validate in comparison with the measurement and it is obtained good agrement.

2.1

LITERATURE REVIEW

21

Don W. Lobitz on 2005 published an article called Parameter Sensitivities

Affecting the Flutter Speed of a MW-Sized Blade [3]. This paper studies the
sensitivity of two parameters on the value of flutter speed of a 35 meters wind
turbine. The parameters are the chordwise location of the center of mass and the
ratio of the flapwise natural frequency to the torsional natural frequency. The
paper shows how different values for the parameters can highly conditioning the
flutter speed. The same year The Technical University of Denmark publish a
paper where a blade of a wind turbine in steady state is simulated [25]. A Finite
Element Model for the structure of the blade is used and the distribution of the
pressures over the blade are obtained from XFOIL. This paper did not do a stability analysis but it shown how the results of the stresses computed on the blade
changes for different pressure distributions.
The mainly research objectives on the next years were to find news structural
and aerodynamic models to find instabilities for large wind turbines. The people
realized the problem of instabilities will be a critic factor for large wind turbines.
This models should have the capability to simulate large deformations (non-linear
models) with high accuracy.
A review of the wind turbine aeroelasticity is publish in 2007 [26]. This review
shown examples of simulation of wind turbines in time domain and how extract
the unstable frequency by applying a FFT. An article called Aeroelastic Stability
of Wind Turbine Blade Section [27] and Investigation into the possibility of flaplag flutter[28] were published. The article Aeroelastic Stability of Wind Turbine
Blade Section presents an stability analysis of a large wind turbine based on the
Beddoes-Leishman model. The article Investigation into the possibility of flaplag flutter concluded the flap-lag-stall instability is not likely to happen but the
negative damping of the edgewise mode is an instability that can show up in
blades.
M.H. Hansen published an article in 2008 which deals with the aeroelastic instabilities that have occurred and may still occur for modern commercial turbines
[29]. The treated instabilities are stall-induced vibrations for stall wind turbines
and classical flutter for pitch regulated turbines. The same year the aeroelastic
instability is studied for the new Floating Wind Turbine Concept [30].
Today new approaches and applications of the aeroelasticity for wind turbines
are in use to create more efficient designs of wind turbines. One example is the
Smart wind turbine rotor for load alleviation at Delft University of Technology.
The proof of this concept is shown in the paper [31]. The paper shown a proof of
the concept using two trailing edge flaps to suppress higher loads on the blades
due to vibrations. A aeroelastic model for a non-rotating blade is studied and a
control system for the trailing edge is tested. The results proof the feasibility of
this new concept in aeroelasticity for wind turbines.
Other projects in currently developing are the idea of search for aeroelastic instabilities using reduced order system identification based on flexible Multi-Body

22

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

[32], a new non-linear aeroelastic models for stall induced vibration [33], models
for unsteady aerodynamic forces on small wings [34] and stability analysis for high
angles of attack on parked wind turbine blades [35].

2.1.3 State of Art - Aeroelastic Codes for Wind Turbines Instabilities

The following softwares are available for wind turbines aeroelastic analysis.
ADAMS/WT (Automatic Dynamic analysis of Mechanical Systems - Wind Turbine)
ADAMS/WT is programmed an application and as a specific add-on to Adams
solver and ADAMS/View. ADAMS (Automatic Dynamic Analysis of Mechanical
Systems) is developed by MSC Software and it is a general multipurpose multibody body dynamics code with unlimited degrees of freedom. This code is used
also to model robots, satellites, and cars [36].
BLADED
The software is developed by Garrad Hassan and Partners, Ltd. BLADED is
an integrated simulation package for wind turbine design and analysis [37]. The
solver is in time domain.
FAST (Fatigue, Aerodynamics, Structures, and Turbulence)
The FAST code is being developed through a subcontract between National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Oregon State University. NREL has
modified FAST to use the AeroDyn subroutine package developed at the University of Utah to generate aerodynamic forces along the blade [38].
YawDyn
YawDyn is developed at the Mechanical Engineering Department, University of
Utah, US with support of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
National Wind Technology Center. YawDyn simulates the yaw motions or loads
of a horizontal axis wind turbine, with a rigid or teetering hub [39].
FLEX4
The code is developed at the Fluid Mechanics Department at the Technical University of Denmark. The program simulates turbines with one to three blades;
fixed or variable speed generators pitch or stall power regulation. The code uses
a Multi-Body formulation for the structures [40].
GAST (General Aerodynamic and Structural Prediction Tool for Wind Turbines)
GAST is developed at the fluid section, of the National Technical University of
Athens. The program includes a simulator of turbulent wind fields, time-domain
aeroelastic analysis of the full wind turbine configuration and postprocessing of
loads for fatigue analysis [41].
S4WT (SAMCEF for Wind Turbines)
SAMTECH S.A is a European specialist in computer aided engineering software
for finite element analysis and multi-disciplinary optimization. SAMCEF for wind
turbines provides access to detailed linear or non-linear analyses of all relevant
wind turbine components such as gearbox, blade and generator. This program
gives to the user the capability to use Multi-Body and a Finite Element models
for the simulations. The analysis is on time domain [42].

2.2

LITERATURE REVIEW

23

PHATAS (Program for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine Analysis Simulation)

The PHATAS programs are developed at ECN Wind Energy of the Netherlands.
The program is developed for the design and analysis of onshore and offshore
horizontal axis wind turbines. This program is based on a time domain simulation
[43].
GAROS (General Analysis of Rotating Structures)
The program is developed by Aerodyn Energiesysteme, GmbH and it is a general
purpose design code for the dynamic analysis of coupled elastic rotating and non
rotating structures with special attention to horizontal axis wind turbines. This
software is based in time domain simulations [44].
FOCUS
FOCUS (Fatigue Optimization Code Using Simulations) is an integrated wind
turbine design tool, developed by Knowledge Centre Wind turbine Materials and
Constructions (WMC), and includes modules developed by ECN. FOCUS consists
of four main modules, SWING (stochastic wind generation), FLEXLAST (calculation load time cycles), FAROB (structural blade modeling) and Graph (output
handling). A special module to compute the eigenfrequencies and eigenmodes for
the structure of the wind turbine is available [45].
HAWC2 and HAWCStab
HAWC2 and HAWCStab are developed at Riso in Denmark. The model is based
on the Multi-Body method approach. The code HAWC2 predicts the response
of horizontal axis two-or three bladed machines in time domain. HAWCStab
predict the unstable operational points of a wind turbine. It is uses the eigenvalue
approach to find instabilities directly based on the dynamics of the system [46].
DHAT
DHAT (Dynamic analysis of Horizontal Axis Turbines) originates from Germanischer Lloyd (GL) WindEnergie GmbH, which is a certifying Multi-Body for wind
turbines [47]. It is a HAWT-specific code with a similar design philosophy to
FAST.
Mostly all the codes are based in time domain solution. The only code from the
shown codes which is based on frequency domain is HAWCStab. A simulation
in time domain always needs a post-processing technique to find the unstable
operational points (like FFT or parameter identification techniques), instead from
a frequency domain simulation is possible to known directly when the system is
unstable.

24

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2

2.2 Multibody and Finite Element Method

A general mechanical system is described by a system of partial differential equation (PDE) with its boundaries conditions. The system is discretized because is
impossible to find close solutions for all the possible PDE systems in the continuum space and time with different boundaries conditions. The discretization of
the problem results in a system of equations which is possible to solve using a
computer.
The discretization of a PDE could be done using different methods. There is 4
main groups of methods:
- The Finite Difference Method.
- The Finite Volume Method.
- The Finite Element Method.
- The Multi-Body Method.
The Finite Element Method and the Multi-Body method are normally used to
analyze mechanical systems because the mechanical systems are usually described
using the Lagrange approach and the last two methods work well on PDE which
are based on Lagrange formulations.

Multibody
The Multi-Body method can be formulated using different ways. A motion can be
represented by superimposing a rigid body motion and a relative flexible motion
in multibody systems. If additionally the relative flexible motion is given in a
body fixed frame (non-inertial frame), this is the classical flexible multibody formulation, see [48] and [49]. In the classical formulation, there exist the rigid body
variables for each flexible body as unknown variables. The classical formulation
can be characterized by the superimposed motion with the rigid body variables
and a relative displacement vector given in a non-inertial body fixed frame. The
classical formulation comes from rigid Multi-Body mechanics by adding flexibility
to the bodies. Exist others variations for Multi-Body formulation but the basic
idea is the same.
The mechanical parts or bodies could be linear or non-linear and they are formulated with the idea to use a few nodes on the body and represent the behavior
of the complete body. The boundary nodes are used to connect the body to another body or impose boundary conditions on the body. The middle nodes are
used for the formulation of the body element. When a mechanical part has larger
displacements is a good idea to use more than one element per body to increase
the accuracy.
This method does not require a mesh for the body, it only required the global
mechanical properties for each body (for example mass, moment of inertia). The
mechanical structure is conform by given the position and the connection between
the boundary nodes for each of the bodies on the mechanism. The Multibody me-

2.2

MULTIBODY AND FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

25

thod is commonly used in dynamic analysis because it well represents the global
dynamics of the bodies with a few degrees of freedom. The use of few degrees of
freedom decreases the size of the problem doing it solution faster. The capability
of a fast solution for different body configurations and properties do the Multibody approach the appropriate method on the early stages of the Wind Turbine
design where a lot of iterations with different configurations has to be done.
Usually the Multi-Body formulation of a body is validate by a comparison to a
Finite Element Model of the same body (See figure 2.2).
0XOWLERG\WHVWRIWKHIRUPXODWHGPRGHO

5HDO0RGHO

5HSUHVHQWDWLYHVFHQDULRZLWKWKHERXQGDU\FRQGLWLRQV
&RQVWUDLQVDQG)RUFHVWRSURIIWKHPRGHOLVZHOOUHSUHVHQWDWLYHIRUWKHVHVFHQDULR

)LQLWH(OHPHQW0RGHO
0DQ\'2)

,QWHUSRODWLRQWR
0XOWLERG\YDOXHV
7KH9DOXHVDUHFORVHU
WRHDFKRWKHU"

0XOWL%RG\0RGHO
/HVV'2)

Figure 2.2: Multibody validation diagram.

Finite Element Method

The Finite Element Method (FEM) is a numerical technique to solve partial differential equations (PDE) by minimizing an integral error on the domain. The
solution approach is based on eliminating the differential equation completely for
steady state problems or change the PDE into an approximating system of ordinary differential equations, which can be integrated numerically using standard
techniques such as Eulers method or Runge-Kutta for example.
The idea of this method is to minimize a functional which it has the spatial model and time as a domain. When this method is applied to a solid structure the
Energy becomes the functional that the FEM minimizes. That means the method
searches for the displacements on the nodes of the body mesh which equals the
work done by the internal displacements on the body and the work done by the applied forces, the displacements must fulfilled the boundary conditions contrains.

26

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2

The FEM is used for detailed analysis and for each body is required a mesh.
Create the mesh of a body is not straight forward process although exist automatic meshers. The automatic meshers usually are designed to create tetrahedral
mesh on the bodies and they do not have the capability to create quad meshes.
A quad mesh gives higher accuracy on the FEM analysis, the disadvantage is
the user has to do the mesh manually and this process is time consuming. A
parametric mesh is created when the user has to simulate different modifications
of a mechanism or optimize a mechanism which is an iterative process. A parametric mesh decreases the time to create the mesh because the model is meshing
automatically. The first stages of a mechanism design do not require a detailed
analysis but many simulations of different mechanism configuration, that is the
reason why this method is commonly used only on the final and detailed analysis
of the mechanism.
Many methods are developed based on the FEM with the objective to find an
efficient way to use the FEM method in early stages of the design. The intuitive
approach is to use only the degrees of freedom of some nodes instead of all the
degrees of freedom on the mesh. That concept is the same as model the mechanical part with a coarse mesh, the problem is the method has large errors for coarse
meshes.
This error decreases when the right nodes on the mesh are selected to represent
the mechanism. The selection of the nodes are based on which dynamic behavior
the model represents for the specific prescribed boundaries conditions.
Three important methods were developed to reduce the size of the model. The
modal reduction techniques, the static condensation and the dynamic substructuring.
The modal reduction technique changes the problem to a frequency domain and
decoupled the system of ODEs. The result is a system of equation in which
every equation is orthogonal to the others. The system is solved by adding the
contribution of the solution for each equation separately. The idea of this reduction technique is to use only the equations which are important to describe the
system and neglect the small contributions to the solution of the other equations.
The equations are usually selected based on two criteria, the high value for the
projection of the spectral content of the excitation on the eigenmode of the decoupled equation or the excitation frequency is closer to the eigenfrequency of
the decoupled equation (Natural frequency of the model). The idea is to solve
only the important decoupled equations for the dynamic of the system doing the
solution procedure faster.
The static condensation reduces the model by using an approximate displacement for some nodes. The different variants of this method differs only in how
the method approximate the displacement in some nodes. The most common
approach of this method is the Guyans static condensation.
The Guyans static condensation method uses the static solution of the problem

2.2

MULTIBODY AND FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

27

(same as neglect the mass and damping on the system) and computes the displacement for the nodes. When is known the static displacement for the nodes
the user selects on which nodes he want to impose this displacement and then
the system is solved for the left degree of freedom. This algorithm is convenient
because the error on the solution is only because the system do not consider the
dynamical part of the solution of some nodes, from the static point of view the
system is solved exactly. The dynamic substructuring is a method to split huges
structures into smaller ones. The idea is to express the behavior of the body
based only on a few degrees of freedom. The most common method is the Craig
Bampton which uses the static solution for the boundary nodes plus the internal
vibration modes for the structure as a basis for the displacements. This method
is exact for static response of the interface nodes (Nodes to coupling different
parts).
The figure 2.3 shows an schema for the common methods used to study mechanical
systems.

6ROXWLRQ0HWKRGV

,QILQLWH'2)
'LVFUHWHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHGRPDLQ
&RQVWUDLQWV

&RPSOH[LW\
&RPSXWDWLRQWLPH
$FFXUDF\

1XPEHURI'HJUHHRI)UHGRRP'2)

5HDO0HFKDQLVP

)LQLWH(OHPHQW0HWKRG

0RGDOUHGXFWLRQ
WHFKQLTXHV

6PDOOHOHPHQWV
0DQ\'2)

0XOWL%RG\

'2)UHGXFWLRQWHFKQLTXHV

%LJJHU(OHPHQWV
)HZ'2)

6WDWLFFRQGHQVDWLRQ
*X\DQV

'\QDPLFVXEVWUXFWXULQJ
&UDLJ%DPSWRQ

Figure 2.3: Different methods to model a general mechanism.

The connection between the literature review and the work presented in this thesis
As the literature shows, there are two methods to study instabilities of wind turbines, the multibody and FEM. The main advantage of the multibody method

28

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2

is lesser computational time when compared with a FEM, which for a dynamic
response problem is of a great importance. However, for an instability problem,
the designer is only interested to know the safe envelope of operating points and
thus a frequency domain analysis is preferred. In addition, when the comparison
comes to accuracy, the FEM promises better results. The reason for that is the
usage of many degrees of freedom to discretize the domain under study, which
results in a better capture of local properties. However, this does not mean that
the designer can not use a multibody formulation in time domain to find instabilities. It is indeed rather complicated than a FEM formulation in frequency
domain. The main complexities are:
- Adding the numerical damping to the system because of time integration, if
not impossible is very difficult to do.
- An algorithm is needed to detect the unstable operational points. The numerical algorithms to detect instabilities in time domain are commonly based on
FFT or model identification which is an extra time consuming activity.
Now a question arises: Why do not create a methodology in which the designer
can directly solve the problem with a high accuracy? The method developed in
this work uses the FEM to analyze the stability of the wind turbine in frequency
domain, solving the problem of both accuracy and time together. The method
developed in this thesis has the capability to predict directly the stability of the
system based on its eigenvalues. This approach is more appropriate to predict
instabilities, than the multibody time domain formulation.

Chapter 3

The Finite Element

Approach for Aeroelastic
Instability Prediction
The literature review gives the base of the work done in this thesis. This chapter
explains how is developed the new methodology to compute the unstable operational points of a wind turbine based on its finite element model. This chapter
is divided into four sections with specific subjects. The first section is the formulation of the structural model where is explained the FEM formulation and
how it is coupled to a generalized body forces in a non-inertial reference frame,
that gives the capability to include the rotational blade stiffness on the analysis.
The second section is the formulation of the aerodynamic model. It is developed from the Theodorsen solution for an oscillating flat plate (potential flow) by
doing some modifications on the lift and moment coefficients and adding the drag
capability to the model. After that is explained how convert this model to
an equivalent complex aerodynamic mass, damping and stiffness matrices.
The third section explains the integration of the complex aerodynamic mass,
damping and stiffness matrices to the common finite element model matrices.
The integration of the aerodynamic and structural models conform the aeroelastic formulation of the proposed method. This section also explains the solution
method to find the first unstable eigenvalues for different operational scenarios of
the wind turbine. The fourth section relates the implementation of this method in
a solver. The method is implemented in a solver for the NASTRAN finite element
software. The result is a tool which predict the unstable operational points of a
wind turbine design. The solver is used in the next chapter to verify the proposed
method. The chapter fourth presents results for the 5MW baseline wind turbine
for the EU funded UPWIND project and comparison with other method to find
instabilities.
29

30

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.1

3.1 Formulation of the Structural Model

3.1.1 The Finite Element Method for Structural Components (FEM)
The dynamic behavior of a mechanical part or body is represented using the elastodynamics equations. The elastodynamics equations are composed by a system
of partial differential equations and its boundary conditions. The elastodynamics PDE for structural components and its boundary conditions is shown in the
equation 3.1.
ji
xi

+ X j 0 u
j = 0 in V0
tj = ni ij = tj on S
ij = ji
ij = Cijkl kl
u
ui
= 12 ( xji + x
)
j
uj = uj on Su

(3.1)

Where:
V (t): volume in the deformed configuration, mass density .
V0 : volume in the undeformed configuration, mass density 0 (Lagrangian descripton).
xi = [x1 , x2 , x3 ]: the cartesian coordinates.
ui (xj , t) = [u1 , u2 , u3 ]: the displacement field.
S = Su + S : the total surface of undeformed body, Su : area where the displacement are imposed ui = ui , S : area where the surface traction are imposed:
ti = ti .
X i : the applied body forces.
ti : the surface traction imposed on S .
ni : the direction cosines.
ui : the displacements imposed on Su .
A diagram of the PDE variables in shown in the figure 3.1.
When the Finite Element Method is used to solve the system 3.1 the result is
a ordinary system of differential equation which read as:
[Ms ]

d2 u(t)
du(t)
+ [Ds ]
+ [Ks ]u(t) = F(t)
dt2
dt

Where:
Ms : structural mass matrix.
Ds : structural damping matrix.

(3.2)

3.1

FORMULATION OF THE STRUCTURAL MODEL

31

ni
ui

ti
S

Su
V0

Xi

x3

x2

V (t)

x1
Figure 3.1: Elastodynamics of a continuous system.

Ks : structural stiffness matrix.

u: vector which contains all the nodes displacement in function of time.
The system of equation 3.2 represents the dynamics of the system considering
its structural properties and geometry. This thesis is not going deep on how obtained the matrices shown in equation 3.2. Many books explains deeply how apply
the finite element method to structures and obtained the system of equation 3.2
as a result, for example the reference [50] explains clearly all the procedures to
get the system of equation as shown in 3.2.
The work presented here uses the structural matrices Ms , Ds and Ks obtained
from a finite element software. This matrices contains the structural information
of the wind turbine which is used for the method to compute the instabilities.

3.1.2 Generalized Body Forces in a Non-Inertial Reference Frame

This section treats the derivation of the acceleration in an inertial reference
frame. A general movement for a differential of mass is assumed to derive the
equations for the velocity and acceleration.
The non-inertial forces are obtained by applying the non-inertial acceleration to

32

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.1

a differential of mass following the Second Newtons law. The forces are written
in terms of the displacement with respect to the non-inertial frame. The figure
3.2 shows a diagram for the notation used in this section.
Time derivative
The time derivative for a vector in a non-inertial reference frame also takes
into account the non-inertial reference frame movement.
The time derivative for a position vector p in a non-inertial reference frame is
given by:




dp(x, y, z)
dp(x, y, z)
=
+ ()2 p(x, y, z)
(3.3)
dt
dt
1
2
Where:
()1 is the derivative with respect to the inertial reference frame 1.
()2 is the derivative with respect to the non-inertial reference frame 2.
= (x , y , z ) is the angular velocity for the non-inertial reference frame respect to the inertial reference frame.
Velocity, Acceleration and Forces
The position for the point p2 showed in figure 3.2 is given by (respect to the
inertial reference frame):
p2 (x, y, z) = R1 (x, y, z) + R2 (x, y, z)

(3.4)

Where:
R1 (x, y, z) is the position for the non-inertial reference frame.
R2 (x, y, z) is the position of the point p2 with respect to the non-inertial frame.
The velocity of p2 is obtained by derived the position of p2 with respect to
time. Thus applying equation 3.3:






dp1 (x, y, z)
dp2 (x, y, z)
dp2 (x, y, z)
=
+ (p2 (x, y, z))2 +
(3.5)
dt
dt
dt
1
1
2
The acceleration of p2 is obtained by deriving the velocity of the point p2 with
respect to time. Applying the equation 3.3 to the equation 3.5 yields:


d2 p2 (x, y, z)
dt2

d2 p1 (x, y, z)
dt2

d
dt



dp2 (x, y, z)
p2 (x, y, z) +
dt
1
(3.6)

Applying equation 3.3 to 3.6:



d2 p2 (x,y,z)
dt2
1


+ p2 (x, y, z) +
1


dp2 (x,y,z)
d

p
2 (x, y, z) +
dt
dt

d2 p1 (x,y,z)
dt2

dp2 (x,y,z)
dt
2

+
(3.7)

3.1

FORMULATION OF THE STRUCTURAL MODEL

33

The last expression is rewritten as:

 2


 2
d p2 (x, y, z)
d p1 (x,y,z)
+ (p2 (x, y, z))2 + d
=
2
dt
dt (p2 (x, y, z))2 +
2
dt
1
1


 2

d p2 (x,y,z)
2
2 dp
(x,
y,
z)
+
(3.8)
2
dt
dt
2

The equivalent force acting a body of mass m due to the acceleration is obtained
by applying the second Newtons law:
F=m

d2 p
dt

(3.9)

Where m is the mass and ddtp is the acceleration.

Replacing equation 3.8 on equation 3.9 is obtained an expression for the force:

F=

Z 
V

d2 p1 (x, y, z)
dt2

d
(p2 (x, y, z))2 +
dt
1


 2
 
d p2 (x,y,z)
+
dm
(3.10)
2 dp2 (x,y,z)
dt
dt2
+ (p2 (x, y, z))2 +
2

Where V is the volume domain of the mass.

34

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

Inertial frame 1
z1
Non inertial frame 2
z2

3.1

dm
ap2

R2
y2
p2 (x2 , y2 , z2 )
R1
x2

y1
p1 (x1 , y1 , z1 )

x1
Figure 3.2: General acceleration on point p2 in a rotating and translational reference
frame 2 (Non-inertial frame) respect to the inertial reference frame 1.

3.1.3 Mass, Damping and Stiffness Matrices for Forces due Accelerations
in a Non-Inertial Frame
The interest on this thesis is apply the non-inertial forces to the finite element
matrices.
The finite element method consider the deformation of the body on the displacement variables u. Thus, applying the definitions of the subsection 3.1.2 to the
displacements, the position of the point p2 for a deformed body is given by:
p2 (x, y, z) = p1 (x, y, z) + R2 (x, y, z) + u(x, y, z)

(3.11)

Where:
R2 (x, y, z) is the position vector for the point p2 in the non-inertial reference
frame and undeformed state.
u(x, y, z) is the displacement due to the forces in the undeformed point p2 .
From this part p1 (x, y, z) and R2 (x, y, z) is defined constant over time. Thus

3.1

FORMULATION OF THE STRUCTURAL MODEL

35

the velocity and acceleration of the point p2 is given by:

dp2 (x, y, z)
du(x, y, z)
=
dt
dt

(3.12)

d2 p2 (x, y, z)
d2 u(x, y, z)
=
dt2
dt2

(3.13)

The expressions for the position (equation 3.11), velocity (equation 3.12) and acceleration (equation 3.13) for the point p2 are replaced in equation 3.10 using the
following notations for the vector components:

Fx
Fe = Fy
Fz e

x
e = y
z e

R2,x
R2e = R2,y
R2,z e

ux
ue = u y
uz e

(3.14)

(3.15)

(3.16)

(3.17)

The resultant expression for the force is expressed in terms of the element matrices
Ms e , Dr e , Kr e , Mri e and vector Fr e :
Fe = [Ms ]e

d2 u
du
d
+ [Dr ]e
+ [Kr ]e u + [Mri ]e
+ Fr e
dt2
dt
dt

(3.18)

Where:
R

[Ms ]e =

dm
0
0

R 0
dm
V
0

Me is the mass matrix of the element.

R
0
V 2 z dm
R
0
[Dr ]e = R V 2 z dm
R
2

dm
2

x dm
y
V
V

R 0
V dm
e
R

R V 2 y dm
2 x dm
V
0
e

(3.19)

(3.20)

36

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.1

Dr is the damping element matrix associated to the rotation of the frame.



[Kr ]e = C1 C2 C3 e
(3.21)
R
R

2
2

R Vdz y dm R V z dm
C1 = RV dt dm + RV x y dm
(3.22)
d
V dty dm + V x z dm e
R

R dz
VR dt dm + RV y x dm
2
2

(3.23)
C2 =
R Vdx z dm R V x dm
V dt dm + V y z dm e
R dy

R
RV dt dm + RV z x dm
x

C3 = VR d
(3.24)
dt dm + R
V z y dm
2
2
V x dm V y dm
e

Kr e is the element stiffness matrix associated to the rotation of the frame.

R
R

V Rz dm
R 0
RV Ry dm
Rx dm
[Mri ]e = R V Rz dm
(3.25)
V
R 0
R
dm

R
dm
0
y
x
V
V
e
The matrix Mri e is the element matrix for body forces due to angular acceleration of the non-inertial reference frame.

R
R
R
R

2
2
RV y x Ry dm RV y2 Rx dm RV z2 Rx dm + RV z x Rz dm
[Fr ]e = RV x y Rx dm RV x Ry dm R V z Ry dm + RV z y Rz dm
2
2
V x z Rx dm V x Rz dm V y Rz dm + V y z Ry dm
e
(3.26)
The vector Fr e contains the constant body forces due to the rotation of the
non-inertial frame.
Assembling global Mass, Damping and Stiffness matrix for forces due accelerations in a
non-inertial frame
The element matrices [Mri ]e , [Dr ]e and [Kr ]e are assembled to a global matrices [Mri ], [Dr ], [Kr ] and [Fr ]. The global matrices relates the forces for all
the elements on the finite element model to a global force vector called F. The
assemble procedure is shown in figure 3.15.

3.1.4 Coupling the Generalized Body Forces to the FEM Method

The subsection 3.1 explains how get the structural finite element model from the
elastodynamics PDE. The resultant equation which describes the structure is given by (See section 3.1):

3.1

FORMULATION OF THE STRUCTURAL MODEL

[Ms ]

d2 u
du
+ [Ds ]
+ [Ks ]u = F(t)
dt2
dt

37

(3.27)

This subsection explains how modify the equation 3.27 to include the body forces
due to the non-inertial frame shown on the equation 3.18.
Equation 3.18 is rewritten as:
[Dr ]

du
d
d2 u
[Kr ]u [Mri ]
Fr = [Ms ] 2 F
dt
dt
dt

(3.28)

Following the Seconds Newton law is possible to interpret the right hand side of
the equation 3.28 as a external forces applied to the mass in a inertial reference
frame. The forces on the equation 3.29 are changed to a internal forces of the
body. The reaction to the external forces determined the equation of motion.
Thus, the equation 3.29 reads:
F + [Dr ]

du
d
d2 u
+ [Kr ]u + [Mri ]
+ Fr = [Ms ] 2
dt
dt
dt

(3.29)

Where the right hand side contains all the internal forces for a movement of the
body.
The finite element model is described by the equation 3.27 is rewritten as:
F(t) [Ds ]

d2 u
du
[Ks ]u = [Ms ] 2
dt
dt

(3.30)

The term [Ms ] ddtu2 represent the force due to the mass acceleration.
The variable u represent the displacement due to the forces produces by the
non-inertial reference frame and the forces given from the finite element model
equation. Thus, the sum up of the equation 3.29 and 3.30 results in a equation
which couples the forces:

F(t) + [Dr ]

du
d
du
d2 u
+ [Kr ]u + [Mri ]
+ Fr [Ds ]
[Ks ]u = [Ms ] 2 (3.31)
dt
dt
dt
dt

Equation 3.31 is factorized and reorganized similarly to the finite element model
equation 3.27:

[Ms ]

d2 u
du
d
+ [Ds Dr ]
+ [Ks Kr ]u = F(t) + [Mri ]
+ Fr
2
dt
dt
dt

(3.32)

38

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.1

The system of equation has the same structure of the Finite Element Method
equations. The implementation of this model in a finite element code is easy and
straightforward. The only task is modify the structural matrices of the initial
finite element model and add the right equivalent forces. The new finite element
model reads:
d2 u
du
[Msr ] 2 + [Dsr ]
+ [Ksr ]u = F(t)sr
(3.33)
dt
dt
Where:
Msr = Ms
Dsr = Ds Dr
Ksr = Ks Kr
F(t)sr = F(t) + Mri d
dt + Fr
This thesis uses the finite element model to compute the vibration of the
model. The linear model for vibration reads :
[Msr ]

d2 u
du
+ [Dsr ]
+ [Ksr ]u = 0
dt2
dt

(3.34)

where no external forces are applied to the model.

In this presentation is assumed a constant rotational speed of the non-inertial
reference frame, thus the matrix Kr e is simplified to:
R
RV (2y + 2z )dm
[Kr ]e =
RV x y dm
V x z dm

RV z x dm

R V 2z y dm
2
V (x + y )dm e
(3.35)
The constant angular velocities are moved outside the integral terms of Dr
and Kr :

0
2 z 2 y
0
2 x me
[Dr ]e = 2 z
(3.36)
2 y 2 x
0

(2y + 2z )
y x
z x
me
x y
(2z + 2x )
z y
[Kr ]e =
(3.37)
x z
y z
(2x + 2y )
R
where me = V dm is the element mass.

R
R V 2y x dm
RV (z + 2x )dm
V y z dm

This way of coupling do not required any information of the nodes position on
the mesh, this is an advantage. Furthermore to implement the method only the
matrices of the structural finite element model are needed because the matrix Ms
contains the mass of the elements and the angular velocities are known, thus the

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

39

matrices Dr e and Kr e are easily computed. The effect of include the forces due
to the non-inertial reference frame produces changes in the stiffness and damping
of the structure.

3.2 Formulation of the Aerodynamic Model

3.2.1 Aerodynamic Model
3.2.1.1 Basis of the Aerodynamic Model: The Theodorsen Solution for a Flat Plate
The aerodynamic model is based on the unsteady lift an moment solution for a 2D
flat plate. The solution assumed potential flow and it is publish by Theodorsen
in [7]. A scheme for the solution is shown in figure 3.3.

L
, M

y
x
ba

d1

2b
z, h

Figure 3.3: Flat Plate schematic for Theodorsen solution.

The Theodorsen solution is applicable for a flat plate which simultaneously

pitching and plunging in an oscillatory fashion as described below:
h = h0 eit

= 0 eit

(3.38)

Where h0 and 0 are complex constants. The solution for the lift and the moment
are:
iC(k)
ib
2b
2 b2 a
h0 + C(k)0 + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]
0
h
+
0 ]
0
U
2U
2U 2
2U 2
(3.39)
!
iC(k)
ib
2
2U b[d1 [ U h0 + C(k)0 + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)] 2U 0 ]+
M=
2 ab2
1
2 2 b3
d2 ib
2U 0 2U 2 h0 + ( 8 + a ) 2U 2 0 ]
(3.40)
Where C(k) is the Theodorsen function and k = b
is
the
reduced
frequency.
U
The Theodorsen function is a complex valued function of the reduced frequency,

L = 2U 2 b[

40

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.2

it is given by the expression:

(2)

C(k) =

H1 (k)
(2)

(3.41)

(2)

H1 (k) + iH0 (k)

Where H denotes the Hankel function. The real and imaginary part of C are
displayed graphically in figure 3.4.

1.2

0.02
1.1
0.04

0.06

Imag(C)

Real(C)

0.9

0.8

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.7

0.16
0.6
0.18

0.5

0.2

0.4

k=

0.6

b
U

0.8

0.2

0.2

0.4

k=

0.6

0.8

b
U

Figure 3.4: The Theodorsen function.

When a harmonic movement of the flat plate is assumed 3.38 is possible to

derive the velocities and acceleration of the flat plate, Thus:
= h0 eit 2
h = h0 eit h = h0 eit i h
(3.42)
it
it
= 0 e
= 0 e i
= 0 eit 2

Replacing expressions 3.42 into equations 3.39 and 3.40 is obtained the following
expressions for the lift and moment:

h C(k)
b
b b2 a i
L = 2U 2 b
h C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]

h+

(3.43)
U
2U
2U 2
2U 2
i

h
h
b

+
2U 2 b d1 C(k)
U h + C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1i 2a)] 2U
(3.44)
M =
2
3
b
ab
1
2 b
d2 2U
2U

2 h + ( 8 + a ) 2U 2

The expression of the equations 3.43 and 3.2.1.3 are the base 2D model used
in this thesis for the lift and the moment prediction.

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

41

3.2.1.2 Drag Model for the Theodorsen Solution

The lift and the moment expressions obtained in the section 3.2.1.1 are based on
potential flow (incompressible and inviscid). This section shows how is done the
incorporation of the drag to the aerodynamic model of the 2D section.
Since is assumed the separation on the airfoil does not happened and the flow
regime is laminar, a linear relation between the drag coefficient Cd and the angle
d
of attack is assumed. The slope C
is computed by fitting a linear curve to the
Cd versus alpha curve of the airfoil using the points before the separation angle
of attack. The drag coefficient is computed using the equation 3.45.
Cd =

Cd
unsteady

(3.45)

The unsteady angle of attack unsteady is obtained from the Theodorsen solution of a Flat Plate. Equation 3.43 is rewritten with the objective to obtained
the unsteady angle of attack expression from the Theodorsen solution:
h C(k)
L
b
b b2 a i

=
2

hC(k)+[1+C(k)(12a)]

h+ 2

bU 2
U
2U
2U 2
2U
(3.46)
Replacing the unsteady angle of attack from equation 3.46 into 3.45:

unsteady =

Cd =

Cd h C(k)
b
b b2 a i
2
h C(k)+ [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]

h+

(3.47)

U
2U
2U 2
2U 2

Thus the sectional drag is:

D = U 2 b

Cd h C(k)
b
b b2 a i

hC(k)+[1+C(k)(12a)]

h+ 2
(3.48)

U
2U
2U 2
2U

This is the expression for the drag model for a 2D airfoil used in this thesis.
3.2.1.3 The Aerodynamic Model used in this Thesis

The aerodynamic model used in this thesis is a modification of the Theodorsen

solution 3.2.1.1 for a Flat Plate and the drag model explained in section 3.2.1.2.
Those 2D models are assembled over the radius of the wind turbine blade conforming the 2 dimensional model for the 3 dimensional blade.
2D model
The lift expression for the Theodorsen solution showed in the equation 3.43
l
uses a value of 2 for the C
slope, this value is right for a potential flow solution.
l
In the model used in this thesis the 2 value is replaced by the real value of C

42

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.2

l
for each airfoil. The C
slope is obtained by fit a linear curve to the points on
the Cl versus alpha curve of the airfoil until the separation angle of attack.
The resultant lift expression is:

L=

Cl 2 h C(k)
b
b b2 a i
U b
hC(k)+[1+C(k)(12a)]

h+ 2
(3.49)

U
2U
2U 2
2U

The expression of the moment shown in the equation is also modified by rel
placing 2 with the real slope of the airfoil C
, thus:

h
h
i
b
l
C
U 2 b d1 C(k)
h + C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)] 2U
+

U
i
(3.50)
M =
b
ab2
1
2 b3
d2 2U
2U

2 h + ( 8 + a ) 2U 2
The drag model is the same presented in section 3.2.1.2

D = U 2 b

Cd h C(k)
b
b b2 a i

hC(k)+[1+C(k)(12a)]

h+ 2
(3.51)

U
2U
2U 2
2U

The last three expressions for sectional lift, moment and drag constitutes the
aerodynamic model. A schema for the 2D aerodynamic model is shown in figure
3.5.

L z, h
U

, M
x
d1 ba
b

2b

Figure 3.5: Schema of the Aerodynamic model.

3.2

43

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

Blade aerodynamic model based on the 2D model

The blade of the wind turbine is thinking as a conglomerate of airfoil sections
along the radius as shown the picture 3.6

Figure 3.6: Conglomerate of 2D sections conform the blade.

The lift, moment and drag for each section are:

Lsection =

Msection

Cl
2
U b

C(k)
U h

b
C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)] 2U
+

i
2
+ b a2
2Ub 2 h
2U Asection

(3.52)

h
h
i
C(k)
b
2
l
C
U
b

d
h
+
C(k)
+
[1
+
C(k)(1

2a)]

+
1

U
2U
i
=
3
b
ab2
1
b
d2 2U 2U 2 h + ( 8 + a2 ) 2U 2
Asection

(3.53)

Dsection =

h
d
U 2 b C

C(k)
U h

b
C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)] 2U
+

i
2
+ b a2
2Ub 2 h
2U Asection

(3.54)

Where:
Asection : the area of a part of the blade. The chord is represented using a constant

44

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.2

value for each area.

Each blade section has defined their own direction for the flapwise, torsional
and edgewise degree of freedom given by the unitary vectors e1 , e2 and e3 . This
definition is given in the vector basis of the global coordinate system. (See figure
3.7).
e1 , h
e2 ,

Global system
of coordinates
z

e3 , s

y
x

Figure 3.7: Direction vectors for the flapwise, torsional and edgewise degree of freedom.

Where:
h: flapwise degree of freedom.
: torsional degree of freedom.
s: edgewise degree of freedom.
e1 : unitary vector which gives the direction of the flapwise degree of freedom.
e2 : unitary vector which gives the direction of the torsional degree of freedom.
e3 : unitary vector which gives the direction of the edgewise degree of freedom.
The complete generalized aerodynamic forces (lift, drag and moment) acting
on a part of the blade is computed by sum the generalized forces acting on each
blade section which are on this part of the blade. Thus the total lift, drag and
moment acting on the blade is:

Lblade =

Pns h Cl
j=1

h
U 2 b

C(k)
U h

b
C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)] 2U
+

i
i
2
+ b a2
2Ub 2 h
2U Asection
j

(3.55)

3.2

Mblade =

45

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

Pns h
j=1

i
b
+ C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)] 2U
+
i
i
b
ab2
1
2 b3
d2 2U
2U
Asection
2 h + ( 8 + a ) 2U 2

Cl
2
U b

d1

C(k)
U h

(3.56)

Dblade =

Pns h 2 Cd h
j=1 U b

C(k)
U h

b
C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)] 2U
+

i
i
2
+ b a2
2Ub 2 h
2U Asection
j

(3.57)

Where:
ns : total number of sections on the blade.
j: number of section.

3.2.2 The Finite Element Method applied to the Aerodynamic Model

The finite element method is applied to the Aerodynamic model represented by
equations 3.55, 3.56 and 3.57.
The purpose to apply the finite element method to the aerodynamic model is
obtain the lift, drag and moment written as the system of equation 3.58:
[Ma ]

d2 u
du
+ [Da ]
+ [Ka ]u = Fa (t)
dt2
dt

(3.58)

Where:
Ma : complex aerodynamic matrix.
Da : complex damping matrix.
Ka : complex stiffness matrix.
Fa (t): vector of generalized aerodynamic forces (lift, drag and moment) applied
to the nodes of the blade.
This subsection explains how obtained the system of equation 3.58 from the
basic aerodynamic model given by the equations 3.55, 3.56 and 3.57.

3.2.2.1 The Basis idea: Minimization of the Aerodynamic Energy Functional

The finite element method is used in this section to find an approximation for a
force by minimizing the integral, weighted by the displacement of this force, with
respect to the displacements. The idea is shown in equation 3.59.

46

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

h
i
F min < F(u), u >

Where:
F: force vector.
u: displacement vector.
< , >: inner product.

3.2

(3.59)

The inner product for continuous function is the integral over the whole domain.
Equation 3.59 reads:
Z
F min
F(u) du
(3.60)
V

The use of the right hand on the equation 3.60 to express the force has two main
advantages. P
Firstly the possibility to divide the whole domain V into small don
mains V = j=1 Vj and using the property of the integral (the integral of the
complete domain is the same as the sum of the integral for all the sub-domains) is
possible to integrate the equation using only small domains. Secondly is possible
to use different displacement approximation for the displacement vector u in each
of the sub-domains. This do the minimization process easier with the disadvantage to add a small error.

Lift, Drag and Moment functionals

The lift, moment and drag expression given in equations 3.55, 3.56 and 3.57 are
replaced into equation 3.60 to obtained an approximated expression for the lift,
moment and drag. The integral part of the right hand side of the equation is called
the functional and in this case represent the work done by the displacement due
to the generalized force F.

Lblade =min

ns h
Z X
Cl 2 h C(k)
U b
h C(k)
U
V j=1

i

b
b
b2 a i
+ [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]

h+

Asection du
2
2
2U
2U
2U
j
Mblade =min

ns h
Z X
V j=1

(3.61)

h C(k)
Cl 2 h
U b d1
h + C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]

i

i
3
b i
b
ab2
1
2 b
d2

h
+
(
+
a
)

du
section
2U
2U
2U 2
8
2U 2
j

(3.62)

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

Dblade =min

ns h
Z X
Cd h C(k)
U 2 b

h C(k)

U
V j=1

i

b
b2 a i
b

h+

Asection du
+ [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]
2
2
2U
2U
2U
j

47

(3.63)

The integral is split for the different sections:

Lblade =min

ns Z
X
j=1

h C

h C(k)
U 2 b
h C(k)

U
l

Vj

i 
b
b
b2 a i
+ [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]

h
+

du
section
2U
2U 2
2U 2
j
Mblade =min

ns Z
X
j=1

Vj

h C(k)
Cl 2 h
U b d1
h + C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]

i
i 
3
b i
b
ab2
1
2 b
d2

h
+
(
+
a
)

du
section
2U
2U
2U 2
8
2U 2
j

Dblade =min

ns Z
X
j=1

(3.64)

h
Cd h C(k)
U 2 b

h C(k)

U
Vj

i 
b
b
b2 a i

h
+

du
+ [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]
section
2U
2U 2
2U 2
j

(3.65)

(3.66)

Functionals considering the upper and the lower side of the blade.
The aerodynamic discretization of the blade is done using 2D quad element on
the skin of the blade (See figure 3.11). The aerodynamic model given in equations
3.64, 3.65 and 3.66 is defined in the sectional area Asection of the blade, not in the
skin of the blade as it needed. The proposed solution for this issue is to imagine
the work done by the lift, moment and drag independently, due to the movement
of the upper skin of the blade, is a half of the total work done by the sectional area
Asection . The work done for the lower skin is also a half of the total work produce
by the lift, moment and drag independently. The result is the work produced by
the lower and the upper skin is the same as the total work. Thus the lift, moment

48

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.2

and drag are possible to write in terms of the skin displacements.

The functionals are defined as:
ns Z
X
h C
h C(k)
1
l
U 2 b
h C(k)
Lblade = min
2

U
j=1 Vj

i 
b
b
b2 a i

h
+

du
+
section
2U
2U 2
2U 2
j us
h C
h C(k)
l
U 2 b
h C(k)

+ [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]
n

s
X
1
min
2
j=1

Vj

+ [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]

Mblade =

s
X
1
min
2
j=1

Vj

i 
b
b
b2 a i

h
+

du
section
2U
2U 2
2U 2
j us
(3.67)

h C(k)
Cl 2 h
U b d1
h + C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]

i 
b i
b
ab2
1
b3 i
d2

h + ( + a2 ) 2
Asection du
+
2
2U
2U
2U
8
2U
j us
ns Z
X
h C
h
h C(k)
1
l
min

U 2 b d1
h + C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]
2

U
V
j
j=1
i
i 
3
b i
b
ab2
1
2 b
d2

h
+
(
+
a
)

du
section
2U
2U
2U 2
8
2U 2
j ls

Dblade =

s
X
1
min
2
j=1

(3.68)

h
Cd h C(k)
U 2 b

h C(k)

U
Vj

i 
b
b
b2 a i

h+

Asection du
+
2
2
2U
2U
2U
j us
ns Z
X
h C
h
h C(k)
1
l
min

U 2 b d1
h + C(k) + [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]
2

U
V
j
j=1
+ [1 + C(k)(1 2a)]

i
i 
3
b i
b
ab2
1
2 b
d2

h
+
(
+
a
)

du
section
2U
2U
2U 2
8
2U 2
j ls

Where the subscripts us is the upper skin and ls is the lower skin.

(3.69)

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

49

The aerodynamic model formulated as equations 3.67, 3.68 and 3.69 has two
main problems. Firstly the integration is not possible because the displacement
vector u is not known, these displacements are the unknowns. Secondly under the
supposition the displacements u are known is not possible to find a close solution
for all the different domains. This difficulties are solved when a a displacement
function for the sub-domains which has a closed form solution is assumed. Thus
instead of a continuous body is used a discrete model of the body, where the body
geometry is represented using sub-domains called elements. The next parts of this
section explains how obtained the expression for the lift, moment and drag given
in equation 3.67, 3.68 and 3.69 using the discrete body geometry.
3.2.2.2 Variables Definition of the Aerodynamic Element
The following variables are used to deduce the finite element model from the aerodynamic model, all the variables can have a subindex j which represents the
section number and the subindex i which represents the element number on the
section.

Geometric variables
p13 , p23 , p33 and p43 are the names of the nodes.
Degree of freedoms variables
uk3m : Displacement on the node number k in the direction m.
uk3m : Angular rotation on the node k in the direction m.

Generalized forces variables

Fpkm : Force acting on the node k in the direction m.
Mpkm : Moment acting on the node k in the direction m.

General use variables

x3 , y3 and z3 : the basis vector of the global coordinate system.
R1 : Lift functional.
R2 : Moment functional.
R3 : Drag functional.

The variables definition on the Quad element are shown in figure 3.8.

50

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

u33z , u33z
Fp3z , Mp3z

u43z , u43z
Fp4z , Mp4z
p43 (x3 , y3 , z3 )
u43x , u43x
Fp4x , Mp4x
Global coordinate system
z3
y3
x3

3.2

u43y , u43y
Fp4y , Mp4y

p33 (x3 , y3 , z3 )
u33y , u33y
Fp3y , Mp3y
u33x , u33x
Fp3x , Mp3x

u13z , u13z
Fp1z , Mp1z

u23z , u23z
Fp2z , Mp2z

u23x , u23x
u13y , u13yFp2x , Mp2x
Fp1y , Mp1y
u13x , u13xp13 (x3 , y3 , z3 )
Fp1x , Mp1x

u23y , u23y
Fp2y , Mp2y
p23 (x3 , y3 , x3 )

Figure 3.8: Variables definition on the quad element.

3.2.2.3 Deduction of the Aerodynamic Element Matrices

This subsection shows the deduction of the aerodynamic element matrices. The
obtained expressions are very large and it is not possible to show them (could
take an entire book to show the expressions). The idea to divide the deduction
in nine steps is the reader can follows the deduction of the matrices having in
mind the expressions for the next steps are defined in the anterior step and so
on, a scheme for the steps in presented in figure 3.9. The different steps are
programmed in MATLAB using its symbolic toolbox. The expressions for the
equivalent mass, damping and stiffness aerodynamic matrices are big (around 100
pages of symbolic expression) but the evaluation is almost instantaneously when
they are compiled in MATLAB.

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

51

6WHSVRQWKHGHGXFWLRQRIWKH$HURG\QDPLF(OHPHQWV0DWUL[

/RFDOLQWHUSRODWLRQIXQFWLRQIRUGLVSODFHPHQWDQG
HOHPHQWJHRPHWU\LQORFDO'VTXDUHUHIHUHQFHV\VWHP

'HILQLWLRQRIWKHEODGHVHFWLRQRULHQWDWLRQ

u x3 ( x1 , y1 ) , u y3 ( x1 , y1 ) , u z3 ( x1 , y1 )

e1 ,e2 ,e 3

x ( x1 , y1 ) , y ( x1 , y1 ) , z ( x1 , y1 )
3

'HILQLWLRQRIWKHIXQFWLRQDOYDULDEOHVLQWHUPVRIWKHQRGHVGLVSODFHPHQW

h ( h 0 , x1 , y1 ) , h ( x1 , y1 ) , 
h ( x1 , y1 )

( 0 , x1 , y1 ) , ( x1 , y1 ) , ( x1 , y1 )


)XQFWLRQDOVGHILQLWLRQ

R 1 =

( (

L h , h , 
h , , , du 3 e1 dA 3

R 2 =

A 3 u 3 e1

R 3 =

( (

M h , h , 
h , , , du 3 e2 dA 3

A3 u 3 e2

( D ( h ,h ,h , , ,) du e ) dA

3

A 3 u 3 e3

&KDQJLQJIXQFWLRQDOGRPDLQWRD'VTXDUHUHIHUHQFHV\VWHP

R1 =

dA 3
dA1 du 3 e1
1

L ( h ,h ,h , , , ) J dA

u 3 e1 A1

R2 =

dA3
dA1 du 3 e 2
1

M ( h , h ,h , , , ) J dA

u 3 e 2 A1

dA
R 3 = D h , h , 
h , , , J 3 dA1 du 3 e3
dA
1
u 3 e3 A1

6\PEROLFLQWHJUDWLRQRYHUGLVSODFHPHQWV


)XQFWLRQDOLQWHJUDWLRQXVLQJ*DXVV/HJHQGUH'LQWHJUDWLRQTXDGUDWXUH

0LQLPL]DWLRQRIWKHIXQFWLRQDOV

&RQIRUPWKHHOHPHQWPDWULFHVIRUWKH$HURG\QDPLF0RGHO

[ F ]e = [ Ma ]e ( u )e + [ Da ]e ( u )e + [ K a ]e ( u )e

Figure 3.9: Steps to deduce the element matrices for the aerodynamic model.

52

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.2

1. Definition of the section orientation

The definition of the section orientation is given by the unitary vectors e1 , e2 and
e3 which defines flapwise, torsion and edgewise degree of freedom. The vectors
are shown in the figure 3.7. Those vectors also defines the lift, moment and drag
direction respectively.
The definition of those vector are used for all the elements along the chordwise
direction of the blade section. This vectors defines also the direction in which the
aerodynamic work due by the lift, moment and drag are taken into account.
The vector e1 , e2 and e3 are defined by the user for each of the sections along
the blade.
ys
t
r

e3

e30

V
e2
k rk

kUk

xs

e1

e10

Figure 3.10: Change on the direction of e1 , e3 vectors and angle of attack due to the
angular velocity of the blade. The wind velocities are represented by shadow lines.

Where:
xs : x axis parallel to the wind speed.
ys : y axis parallel to the rotational wind speed.
e10 : Geometrical e1 direction.
e30 : Geometrical e3 direction.
V : wind speed angle.
p : pitch angle of attack.

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

53

t : twist angle of attack.

r : angle of attack of the blade section.
The angle of attack r is given by the equation 3.70.
r =

 k rk 

t p arctan
2
kUk

(3.70)

The direction of the vector e2 is based on the position of the blade section, the
direction does not change in function of the wind speed and the rotational speed
of the blade. Vectors e1 and e3 are defined in function of the wind speed and
angular speed of the blade. The expression for those vectors are given in equations
3.71 and 3.72 and a schema is presented in figure 3.10.
(e10 (e10 e2 )e2 ) cos(r + p ) + (e30 (e30 e2 )e2 ) sin(r + p ) + e2
k(e10 (e10 e2 )e2 ) cos(r + p ) + (e30 (e30 e2 )e2 ) sin(r + p ) + e2 k
(3.71)
(e30 (e30 e2 )e2 ) cos(r + p ) (e10 (e10 e2 )e2 ) sin(r + p ) + e2
e3 =
k(e30 (e30 e2 )e2 ) cos(r + p ) (e10 (e10 e2 )e2 ) sin(r + p ) + e2 k
(3.72)
Where:
e10 : Lift direction without rotational speed of the blade.
e30 : Drag direction without rotational speed of the blade.
e1 =

2. Local interpolation for displacement and element geometry to the 2D square reference
frame
The 3D model geometry is discretize using 2D quad elements for the aerodynamic
model. The structural model could use any element topology for the mesh, the
only requirement is the nodes of the Quad elements for the aerodynamic model
must be coincident with the external nodes of the structural model. This means is
possible to use different meshes for the aerodynamic and structural models since
the external nodes of the structural model are coincident with the aerodynamic
mesh.
In this thesis the external geometry of the blade is meshed with 2D quad elements
to applied the aerodynamic model. The blade is discretize by dividing it in radial sections and meshing each of the external resultant areas with the 2D quad
elements as shown in figure 3.11. The 2D quad elements are defined in the 3D
space.
The quad elements defined in the 3D space are transform firstly to a local element
2D coordinate system and secondly to a reference coordinate system. This gives
the capability to do all the mathematics operations independent of the geometry
of the body and the reference integration domain is always constant in shape and
area (see figure 3.12).

54

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.2

From 3D coordinate system to a 2D coordinate system

The blade sections are discretize using 2D quad elements.
The quad elements on the discretize blade are in the global 3D coordinate system
for the aerodynamic mesh (the system is called system of coordinate 3). All the
elements are defined by those four nodes positions in the coordinate system 3. The
quad elements are transform from the 3D coordinate system to the 2D system of
coordinates called system of coordinates 2 (see figure 3.11) applying the following
formula for a node p3 (subindex means the number of coordinate system).
p2 = [(p3 (p13 + p23 + p33 + p43 )) x32 ,
(p3 (p13 + p23 + p33 + p43 )) y32 ]

(3.73)

Where x32 and y32 are the basis vectors of the coordinate system 2 written in
terms of the basis vectors of the coordinate system 3. Those vectors are defined
as follows:
x32 =

(y32 (e2 y32 ))

k(y32 (e2 y32 ))k

(3.74)

(p43 p13 )
kp43 p13 k

(3.75)

y32 =

Where e2 is defined in section 3.2.1.3, see figure 3.7.

Applying equation 3.74 and 3.75 to the nodes is possible to rewrite the elements
from the global 3D coordinate system (coordinate system number three) to a local
2D coordinate system for each element (coordinate system number 2) as shown
in the diagram on the figure 3.11.

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

3D discrete blade model

Quad element in 3D mesh

p43
p33

p13

p23

System of coordinate 3
z3
p43 (x, y, z)
p33 (x, y, z)
x3
p13 (x, y, z)

p23 (x, y, z)

y3
System of coordinate 2
y2
p32 (x, y)
p42 (x, y)
x2
p12 (x, y)

p22 (x, y)

Figure 3.11: From the 3D blade geometry to the 2D Quad element scheme.

55

56

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.2

From 2D coordinate system to the reference coordinate system

The quad elements are transformed from the 2D coordinate system (called coordinate system number 2) to the reference coordinate system (called coordinate
system number 1) using the bilinear interpolation functions between the corners
values of the quad elements. Thus the geometry are transformed using expressions 3.76. A scheme for the variables names and the transformation are shown
in the figure 3.12.

p2 (x1 , y1 ) =p12 w1 (x1 , y1 ) + p22 w2 (x1 , y1 )

+ p32 w3 (x1 , y1 ) + p42 w4 (x1 , y1 )

The expression on equation 3.76 contains 4 shape bilinear functions:

 


w1 (x1 , y1 ) = y1 12 x1 12

 

w2 (x1 , y1 ) = y1 21 x1 + 12

 

w3 (x1 , y1 ) = y1 + 12 x1 + 12

 

w4 (x1 , y1 ) = y1 + 21 x1 12

(3.76)

Those functions are the basis functions for the interpolation between the second
coordinate system to the reference coordinate system. Those functions are linear
independent to each others and when they are weighted by the values of the nodes
conform the local interpolation functions for values at the interior of the elements.
The shape functions are plotted in the figure 3.13.

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

57

Quad-bilinear finite element representation on the reference coordinate system

Element 2D system of coordinates

y2
p32
p42
x2
p22
p12

Reference system of coordinates

y1
(0.5, 0.5) (0.5, 0.5)
p31
p41
equation 3.76
x1
p11
p21
(0.5, 0.5) (0.5, 0.5)

Figure 3.12: Quad-bilinear finite element representation for the 2D geometry on the
reference coordinate system.

58

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

Function for node 1

Function for node 2

0.5

0.5

0
0.5

0
0.5

y 0.5 0.5 x

0.5

y 0.5 0.5 x

Function for node 3

1

0.5

0.5

0
0.5

0
0.5

y 0.5 0.5 x

0.5
0

0.5
0

Function for node 4

3.2

y 0.5 0.5 x

0.5
0

Figure 3.13: Shape functions for the bilinear quad element in the reference system of
coordinates.

3D displacements representation on the reference coordinate system using bilinear interpolation

The displacements for the 6 degrees of freedom of each node are interpolate
using the bilinear basis functions presented in 3.76 and plot in figure 3.13. The
interpolation expression reads:


1 
1
1 
1
u3 (x1 , y1 ) =u13 y1
x1
u23 y1
x1 +
2
2
2
2


1 
1
1 
1
+ u33 y1 +
x1 +
u43 y1 +
x1
2
2
2
2

(3.77)

3.2

59

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

Displacement representation using the reference coordinate system domain

Global system of coordinates

Reference system of coordinates

u33

z3

y1
(0.5, 0.5)
u41

u43

(0.5, 0.5)
u31

Equation 3.77
y3
u23

x3
u13

x1
u11
u21
(0.5, 0.5) (0.5, 0.5)

Figure 3.14: Quad-bilinear finite element representation for 3D displacements on the

reference coordinate system as a domain.

3. Aerodynamic variables definition in terms of the nodes displacement

h,
,
The aerodynamic generalized forces are dependant on the variables: h, h,
and
. Those variables are written in function of the nodes displacements using
the interpolation function for displacements 3.77 and the direction vectors used
in the definition of the section orientation figure 3.10. The obtained expressions
are:
h(x1 , y1 ) = h0 + [u31 (x1 , y1 ), u32 (x1 , y1 ), u33 (x1 , y1 )] u1
1 , y1 ) = [u 3 (x1 , y1 ), u 3 (x1 , y1 ), u 3 (x1 , y1 )] u1
h(x
1
2
3

h(x1 , y1 ) = [
u31 (x1 , y1 ), u
32 (x1 , y1 ), u
33 (x1 , y1 )] u1

(3.78)
(3.79)
(3.80)

(x1 , y1 ) = 0 + [u31 (x1 , y1 ), u32 (x1 , y1 ), u33 (x1 , y1 )] u2

(3.81)

(x
1 , y1 ) = [u 31 (x1 , y1 ), u 32 (x1 , y1 ), u 33 (x1 , y1 )] u2

(3.82)

(x
1 , y1 ) = [
u31 (x1 , y1 ), u
32 (x1 , y1 ), u
33 (x1 , y1 )] u2

(3.83)

Where:
h0 : initial distance in the ys direction from the center of the blade section to the
center of the element. This term disappeared when the functional is minimized.
0 : the steady angle of attack. This angle is defined in the definition of the

60

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.2

section orientation and its called r . The angle is shown in the figure 3.10.

4. Functionals definition
The aerodynamic model results in 3 functionals (lift, moment and drag). The
functionals are defined for blade sections because the aerodynamic forces are defined for blade section as well.
The functionals reads :
Z Z Z


h,
, ,
R1 =
L(h, h,

)du3 e1 dA3
(3.84)
A3

R2 =


h,
, ,
M (h, h,

)du3 e2 dA3

(3.85)

Z Z



h,
, ,
D(h, h,

)du3 e3 dA3

(3.86)

A3

R3 =

u3 e1

Z Z

A3

u3 e2

u3 e3

Where:
R1: functional for the lift force.
R2: functional for the torsional moment.
R3: functional for the drag.
A3 : domain of integration which is the area of the element in the coordinate
h,
,
system number 3 or global coordinate system. The expressions for h, h,

are replaced into the functional expressions. Those functional expressions are
function of the elements displacements .
5. Changing the functional domain to the 2D square reference system
The integration domain of the functionals given by the expressions 3.84, 3.85 and
3.86 are in the coordinate system 3 or global coordinate system. The explained
geometry transformation from the 3D geometry to the 2D geometry (equation
3.73) is used to change the domain of integration from the 3D to a 2D domain of
integration. The 2D domain of integration in the coordinate system number 2 is
transformed to the reference domain of integration in the system of coordinates
number 1 using equation 3.76 with the idea to have the same domain of integration for all the elements. The result are expressions for the functionals defined in
the reference integration domain A1 .
The functionals reads :
Z Z Z

  dA 
2
h,
, ,
R1 =
L(h, h,

)du3 e1 J
dA1
(3.87)
dA
1
A1 u3 e1
Z Z Z

  dA 
2
h,
, ,
R2 =
M (h, h,

)du3 e2 J
dA1
(3.88)
dA
1
A1 u3 e2

3.2

61

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

R3 =

Z Z

A1

u3 e3

  dA 
2
h,
, ,
D(h, h,

)du3 e3 J
dA1
dA1

(3.89)

Where:
A1 : reference area of integration in the coordinate system 1. The area is shown
inthe pictures
3.14 and 3.12.

dA2
J dA1 : Jacobian of the coordinate transformation from the domain in the coordinate system number 2 to the domain in the coordinate system number 1 or
reference coordinate system.
The jacobian of the transformation is given by the expression:
J

 dA 
2

dA1

x2
x1
y2
x1

x2
y1
y2
y1

(3.90)

Where: | | is the symbol for a determinant of a matrix.

6. Symbolic integration over the displacements
The functional expressions 3.87, 3.88 and 3.89 are integrate over the displacements. The integration is done exactly using the basis interpolation functions
presented in 3.76. The following variables are defined to integrate expression 3.87:
a1 = w1 e1x
a2 = w2 e1x
a3 = w3 e1x
a4 = w4 e1x

b1 = w1 e1y
b2 = w2 e1y
b3 = w3 e1y
b4 = w4 e1y

c1 = w1 e1z
c2 = w2 e1z
c3 = w3 e1z
c4 = w4 e1z

The integration reads:

R1 =

Z Z

A1

g1 J

 dA 
2

dA1

dA1

(3.91)

Where:
g1 =

Z
Z
Z
L a1 du131 + L a2 du231 + L a3 du331 + L a4 du431
Z
Z
Z
Z
+ L b1 du132 + L b2 du232 + L b3 du332 + L b4 du432
Z
Z
Z
Z
+ L c1 du133 + L c2 du233 + L c3 du333 + L c4 du433

(3.92)

The following variables are defined to integrate expression 3.88:

62

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

a1 = w1 e2x
a2 = w2 e2x
a3 = w3 e2x
a4 = w4 e2x

b1 = w1 e2y
b2 = w2 e2y
b3 = w3 e2y
b4 = w4 e2y

3.2

c1 = w1 e2z
c2 = w2 e2z
c3 = w3 e2z
c4 = w4 e2z

The integration reads:

R2 =

Z Z

g2 J

A1

 dA 
2

dA1

dA1

(3.93)

Where:
Z
Z
Z
Z
g2 = L a1 du131 + L a2 du231 + L a3 du331 + L a4 du431
Z
Z
Z
Z
+ L b1 du132 + L b2 du232 + L b3 du332 + L b4 du432
Z
Z
Z
Z
+ L c1 du133 + L c2 du233 + L c3 du333 + L c4 du433

(3.94)

The following variables are defined to integrate expression 3.89:

a1 = w1 e3x
a2 = w2 e3x
a3 = w3 e3x
a4 = w4 e3x

b1 = w1 e3y
b2 = w2 e3y
b3 = w3 e3y
b4 = w4 e3y

c1 = w1 e3z
c2 = w2 e3z
c3 = w3 e3z
c4 = w4 e3z

The integration reads:

R3 =

Z Z

A1

Where:
g3 =

g3 J

 dA 
2

dA1

dA1

(3.95)

Z
Z
Z
L a1 du131 + L a2 du231 + L a3 du331 + L a4 du431
Z
Z
Z
Z
+ L b1 du132 + L b2 du232 + L b3 du332 + L b4 du432
Z
Z
Z
Z
+ L c1 du133 + L c2 du233 + L c3 du333 + L c4 du433

(3.96)

7. Functional integration using Gauss-Legendre 2D integration quadrature

The expressions 3.91, 3.93 and 3.95 are difficult (sometimes impossible) to integrate exactly since the jacobian expression for the transformation is not linear.
The functionals are integrated over the reference domain area using the two points

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

63

Gauss-Legendre integration quadrature.

The Gauss-Legendre integration quadrature is an approximate integration method described on detail in [51].
This method represent the integral of a function f (x) in the domain [1, 1] as a
sum of the weighted values which takes the functions f for different points on the
domain. The idea is presented in equation 3.97:
Z

f (x)dx

n
X
i=1

i f (xi )

(3.97)

Where:
n: number of evaluation points.
i : weighting value.
xi : evaluation point.
The error on this method is decreasing by increasing the number of evaluated
points and choosing the right weighting values. The variants of this method are
based on the number of evaluation points and weighting values [51]. This paper
presents many variants of this method with the evaluating points and the weighting values on the interval [1, 1].
Gauss-Legendre Two-Point Rule:
The method used to integrate the functional over the area is called Gauss-Legendre
Two-Point Rule. This method uses two points and two weighting values presented
in the table 3.1. The reference integration domain is defined between [1/2, 1/2]
Points number
1
2

i
1.0
1.0

xi
1
3
1

Table 3.1: Gauss-Legendre Two-Point Rule.

in x1 and y1 . For this domain the evaluation points and weighting functions are
presented in the table 3.2. The application of the Gauss-Legendre Two-Point rule
Points number
1
2

i
2.0
2.0

xi
1

2 3
1

2 3

Table 3.2: Gauss-Legendre Two-Point Rule in domain [1/2, 1/2].

64

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.2

to a function f (x, y) defined in the reference domain is:

Z

1
2
1
2

1
2
1
2

 1 1
1
1
1
1
f (x, y)dxdy 4 f ( , ) + f ( , ) + f ( , )+
2 3 2 3
2 3 2 3
2 3 2 3
1
1 
f( , )
2 3 2 3
(3.98)

The integral expression for the functionals using the equation 3.98 to integrate
over the area are:


1
1
1
1
1
R1 = 4 g1 |( 1
+g
|
+g
|
+g
|
(3.99)
1
1
1
1
1
, )
( , )
( , )
( , )
2

3 2

3 2

3 2

3 2

R2 = 4 g2 |(

1
, 1
)
2 3 2 3

+g2 |( 1
,

+g2 |(

)
, 1
2 3 2 3

+g2 |(

1
1

,
)
2 3 2 3


R3 = 4 g3 |(

1
, 1
)
2 3 2 3

+g3 |( 1
,

+g3 |(

)
, 1
2 3 2 3

+g3 |(

1
1

,
)
2 3 2 3

)
3 2 3

)
3 2 3




(3.100)
(3.101)

Where g1 , g2 and g3 are defined in equations 3.92, 3.94 and 3.96 respectively.

8. Minimization of the functionals

The functionals have to be minimized to get the generalized forces expressions.
The functionals R1 , R2 and R3 are function of the four nodes displacements of
the quad elements. The functionals are deriving with respect to the degrees of
freedom and is obtained an expression for the generalized forces acting on the
nodes. The procedure is shown in the equations 3.102, and 3.103.
Fpkm =

(R1 + R3 )
uk3m

(3.102)

R2
uk3m

(3.103)

Mpkm =

Where k=1,2,3,4 is the node number and m=1,2,3 is the degree of freedom direction. The expression for the generalized forces are written in the vector [F] in
the following organization:
h
[F] = Fp11 Fp12 Fp13 Mp11 Mp12 Mp12 Fp21 Fp22 Fp23 Mp21 Mp22 Mp22
(3.104)
it
Fp31 Fp32 Fp33 Mp31 Mp32 Mp32 Fp41 Fp42 Fp43 Mp41 Mp42 Mp42
e

The expression for [F] is dependant on the generalized displacements, velocities

and acceleration of the nodes.

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

65

9. Element matrices for the Aerodynamic Model

The result for the expression 3.104 defines the complete generalized aerodynamic
forces acting on a quad element. This expression for [F] 3.104 is organized in
a matrices called element matrices [MA ]e , [DA ]e and [KA ]e . Those matrices
relates the complete set of degrees of freedom of a quad element with respect
to the aerodynamic forces acting on its nodes [F]e . Since the model has many
elements, many times this matrices has to be evaluated. The expression for the
element matrices is shown in equation 3.105 (the subindex e means element). The
vectors has dimension [1X24] and the matrices [24X24].
[F]e = [MA ]e [
u]e + [DA ]e [u]
e + [KA ]e [u]e

(3.105)

Where:
[F]e : the generalized forces vector acting on the nodes of the quad element. The
vector is shown in equation 3.106.
[u]e : vector which contains all the displacements degree of freedom of the nodes
on the element. The vector is shown in equation 3.107.
[u]
e : vector which contains all the generalized velocities degree of freedom of the
nodes on the element. The vector is shown in equation 3.108.
[
u]e : vector which contains all the generalized acceleration degree of freedom of
the nodes on the element. The vector is shown in equation 3.109.
[MA ]e : element matrix for the generalizes aerodynamic forces due the generalized acceleration degree of freedom. This matrix contains the terms of expression
3.104 factorized by the vector [
u ]e .
[DA ]e : element matrix for the generalizes aerodynamic forces due the generalized
velocity degrees of freedom. This matrix contains the terms of expression 3.104
factorized by the vector [u]
e.
[KA ]e : element matrix for the generalizes aerodynamic forces due the generalized
displacement degrees of freedom. This matrix contains the terms of expression
3.104 factorized by the vector [u]e .
h
[F]e = Fp11 Fp12 Fp13 Mp11 Mp12 Mp12 Fp21 Fp22 Fp23 Mp21 Mp22 Mp22
it
Fp31 Fp32 Fp33 Mp31 Mp32 Mp32 Fp41 Fp42 Fp43 Mp41 Mp42 Mp42

(3.106)

h
[u]e = u131 u132 u133 u131 u132 u133 u231 u232 u233 u231 u232 u233
it
u331 u332 u333 u331 u332 u333 u431 u432 u433 u431 u432 u433

(3.107)

h
[u]
e = u1
31 u1
32 u1
33 u1
31 u1
32 u1
33 u2
31 u2
32 u2
33 u2
31 u2
32 u2
33
it
u3
31 u3
32 u3
33 u3
31 u3
32 u3
33 u4
31 u4
32 u4
33 u4
31 u4
32 u4
33

(3.108)

66

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

h
[
u ]e = u
131 u
132 u133 u
131 u
132 u
133 u
231 u232 u
233 u
231 u
232 u
233
it
333 u
331 u
332 u
333 u431 u
432 u
433 u
431 u432 u433
u
331 u332 u

3.2

(3.109)

3.2.2.4 Assembling of Global Aerodynamic Matrices

The element aerodynamic matrices for each of the quad elements are assembled in
a global matrices. This global aerodynamic matrices represent the aerodynamic
forces over the nodes for the complete blade on the global coordinate system.
The number of the element in the global system is defined with the subindex l.
Thus for an element l the equation 3.105 is written:
[F]l = [MA ]l [
u]l + [DA ]l [u]
l + [KA ]l [u]l
The global force vector is defined in the global system as:
it

[F] = ..., [F]l1 , [F]l , [F]l+1 , ...

(3.110)

(3.111)

The global vectors which contains the degree of freedom are defined in equations
3.112, 3.113 and 3.114.
h
it
[u] = ..., [u]l1 , [u]l , [u]l+1 , ...
(3.112)
h
it
[u]
= ..., [u]
l1 , [u l ], [u]
l+1 , ...
h
it
[
u] = ..., [
u]l1 , [
u]l , [
u]l+1 , ...

(3.113)
(3.114)

The matrices [MA ], [DA ] and [KA ] are defined to satisfied equation 3.115. They
are conform from the element matrices [MA ]l , [DA ]l and [KA ]l respectively.
[F] = [MA ][
u] + [DA ][u]
+ [KA ][u]

(3.115)

The process to conform the global matrices matrices [MA ], [DA ] and [KA ] from
the element matrices [MA ]l , [DA ]l and [KA ]l is called assembling.
The local element matrix [MA ]l , [DA ]l and [KA ]l for each element is divided
in 16 parts, the column position of those sub-matrices in the global matrix are
given by the position on the degree of freedom vector in the global matrix and
the row position is given by the position of the generalized force vector for the
element on the global matrix.
The assembling procedure is repeated three times for all the elements of the
FEM model to build the sparse mass, damping and stiffness aerodynamic
matrices. The assembling procedure is showed in figure 3.15, the figure shows
how the equation form the element matrix is positioning in the global matrices
to conform the global matrix.

3.2

FORMULATION OF THE AERODYNAMIC MODEL

Element matrix
Generalized
Local
element
element
force
matrix
vector

Element
DOF vector
DOF node 1
DOF node 2
DOF node 3
DOF node 4

Forces node 1
Forces node 2
Forces node 3
Forces node 4

Equation for generalize forces

acting on second node

Forces acting
on second node
Equation for
generalize
forces acting
on second node

Generalized
forces vector

Global matrix

Figure 3.15: Global matrices assembling process.

DOF vector

67

68

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.2

The Equivalent Complex Mass, Damping and Stiffness Matrices of the Aerodynamic
Model
The resultant aerodynamic model from the assembling process is:
[Fa ] = [MA ][
u] + [DA ][u]
+ [KA ][u]

(3.116)

Interpretation of the equation 3.116:

The equation 3.116 can be interpreted as a mechanical system with a mass matrix
[MA ], damping matrix [DA ] and stiffness matrix [KA ]. The differences with
respect to the structural matrices is the aerodynamic matrices are complex and
the mass, damping and stiffness are not always positive definite matrices.
The complex values of the matrices introduces forces which are not in phase with
the generalized displacements on the nodes, this means the force response is not
in phase with the movement of the nodes.
The negatives or positive values of the eigenvalues of the aerodynamic matrices
gives the possibility to have an unstable system, this is different in comparison
with the structural matrices for a mechanical system the matrices for
3.2.2.5 A Non True Finite Element Matrices for the Aerodynamic Model
One of the advantage of the finite element method for structural systems is the
mass, damping and stiffness matrix for the elements are only dependant on the
local properties of the element, that means the element matrices needs only properties of the local element to be evaluated.
The aerodynamic matrices do not have this property. The aerodynamic matrices
for the elements [MA ]e , [DA ]e and [KA ]e developed in this thesis depends on
aerodynamic and structural properties of the complete blade section. Five dependencies are distinguished:
1. Positional: The elements matrix are dependant on the radial position of the
blade section on the blade. This position relates the angular velocity of the blade.
2. Dimension: The total chord of the blade 2b influences the elements on each of
the sections along the blade.
3. Steady angle of attack (i ): The element aerodynamic matrices depends of
the steady angle of attack of the complete blade section. All the elements which
are in the same blade section has the same initial angle of attack. This angle is
computed taken into account the structural pitch angle, the wind speed and the
angular velocity of the blade.
4. Position of the elastic axis on the blade section (a): The element matrices
changes for different distance between the middle chord point and the elastic
axis. This value is the same for all the elements which are on the same blade

3.3

INTEGRATION OF THE STRUCTURAL & AERODYNAMIC MODELS

69

section.
5. Reduced frequency (k): The reduced frequency is given by k = Ub . Although the vibration frequency is the same for the blades, the reduced frequency
changes for different blades section in function of the value for the half chord of
the blade section b and the total velocity acting on the blade section U (composed
by the wind speed and the velocity due to the blade rotation).
The physical meaning of why the local element depends on global and local properties is because the aerodynamics (represented by the aerodynamic model) depends
on global properties and local properties. On the other hand the equation 3.1 for
the structural model depends only in local properties and boundary conditions,
that is the reason why the elements matrices for the structural part only depends
on local properties.

3.3 Integration of the Structural & Aerodynamic Models

The deduced aerodynamic model, the structural model (including the rotational
forces) are coupled in this section. The obtained system of equations represents
the complete dynamic behavior of the wind turbine.

3.3.1 Complete Formulation of the Aeroelastic Method

The coupling between the structural model of the wind turbine and the body
forces in a rotational reference frame leads to the equation 3.33 which is :
[Ms r]

du
d2 u
+ [Ds r]
+ [Ks r]u = F(t)
2
dt
dt

(3.117)

The aerodynamic model leads to the system of equation 3.116 which is:
[Fa ] = [MA ][
u] + [DA ][u]
+ [KA ][u]

(3.118)

The external forces F(t) on the system of equation 3.117 are the aerodynamic
forces [Fa ] of the system 3.118.
The equation 3.118 is replaced into 3.117:
[Ms r]

d2 u
du
+ [Ds r]
+ [Ks r]u = [MA ][
u] + [DA ][u]
+ [KA ][u]
dt2
dt

The term of equation 3.119 are reorganized:

(3.119)

70

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

[Ms r MA ]

d2 u
du
+ [Ds r DA ]
+ [Ks r KA ]u = 0
dt2
dt

3.3

(3.120)

The equation 3.120 is the system of equation which represents the complete behavior of the wind turbine (aerodynamic, rotational and structural models). The
equation 3.120 is rewritten as:
[Mt ]

d2 u
du
+ [Dt ]
+ [Kt ]u = 0
2
dt
dt

(3.121)

Where:
[Mt ]: the complex mass matrix of the complete model [Ms r MA ].
[Dt ]: the complex damping matrix of the complete model [Ds r DA ].
[Kt ]: the complex stiffness matrix of the complete model [Ks r KA ].

3.3.2 Methodology to find the First Unstable Operational Point

Solve for the eigenvalues
The complex system 3.121 is solved for the eigenvalues using the the Arnoldi algorithm with spectral transformation [52]. This algorithm computes the eigenvalues
and the eigenvectors for the complex pencil shown in the equation 3.122:
([A] [B])X = 0

(3.122)

Where [A] and [B] are the complex matrices, are the eigenvalues and X are the
eigenvectors.
The second order ODE system of equation 3.121 must be transform to a system
of equation like 3.122 to compute the eigenvalues using the Arnoldi algorithm.
The transformation is done in two steps. The first step when the second order of
ODE system given by the equation 3.121 is transform to a first order ODE and
the second step when a general solution for an ODE linear system is replaced into
the first order system of equation.
The chosen transformation of the second order ODE system 3.121 to a first order
ODE results in the system of equation 3.122:
[A]V [B]

dv
=0
dt

(3.123)

Where:
V=

du
dt

(3.124)

3.3

INTEGRATION OF THE STRUCTURAL & AERODYNAMIC MODELS

[A] =
[B] =

I
0

0
Kt

0
Mt

I
Dt

71

(3.125)


(3.126)

Where 0 is a null matrix and I is an identity matrix.

The general solution for a linear ODE system u = C Xet is replaced into
equation 3.123, where C is a constant, X are the eigenvectors and are the eigenfrequencies. The resultant expression reads:
([A] [B])X = 0

(3.127)

Equation 3.127 is in the form of equation 3.122 and it is solved using the Arnoldi
algorithm with spectral transformation.

Iteration Procedure to find the First Unstable Operational Points

Static Instabilities
The algorithm searches for the smaller rotor speed at which an static instability (divergence) occurs for a given wind speed.
The first unstable operational points are computed using an iterative algorithm.
The algorithm has the following steps:
1. The user selects a wind speed and a rotor speed which he knows do not
occur instabilities.
2. A finite element model of the wind turbine is given for the selected wind
speed. This finite element model consider the pitch of the blade for the selected
wind speed.
3. The user selects different values for the reduced frequency k (that he wants to
test for instabilities). This thesis used eight values for the reduced frequency k
[0.001, 0.1429, 0.2857, 0.4286, 0.5714, 0.7143, 0.8571, 1.0000].
4. A set of frequencies are computed using the formula 3.128
=
Where:
k: Reduced frequency.

kV
b

(3.128)

72

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.3

V : Total velocity (velocity due rotational speed and wind speed) at the 75% of
the blade length.
b: Half of the chord at the section on the 75% of the blade.
5. The algorithm computes and assembles all the required matrices, for the given
wind and rotor speed, to obtain the eigenvalue problem show on equation 3.127.
For each of the selected frequencies the aerodynamic matrices changes.
6. The eigenvalue problem on step 5 is solved for all the selected frequencies
. The eigenvalue problem is solved for the first 20 eigenvalues with smaller modulus for each of the . The eigenvalue with smaller value of the imaginary part
(absolute value) is saved for each of the .
7. The eigenvalue with smaller value of the imaginary part (absolute value) is
selected from the saved values. The imaginary part of this eigenvalue is compared with the the imaginary part of the previous eigenvalue calculated for a lower
rotational speed. If the imaginary values have the same sign the algorithm come
back to step 3 with a bigger rotational speed.
8. The imaginary part of the last obtained eigenvalue has different sign. This
means the eigenvalue pass a point in which the eigenfrequency is zero. The rotational speed where the eigenfrequency is zero is computed using a linear interpolation. This point could be an unstable operational because the mode is in phase.
9. The real value for the possible unstable rotational speed is computed using
a linear interpolation. A positive value means for this rotational speed the system is unstable because the mode is in phase and the amplitude increases in time,
a negative value means only the mode is in phase and the instability do not occur,
in this case the algorithm comes back to step 3.
10. The user come back to step 1 and start the algorithm again to find the
unstable rotational speed for a different wind speed.
Note:
Sometimes the sign does not change and the computed unstable speed is higher
than the reality. This behavior is recognized when closer wind speed have very
different unstable rotational speeds. When this happens the user can see the obtained eigenfrequencies in the step 7 are very close to zero at least in two iteration
for different rotational speed. In this case, a second order polynomial fit is applied
to find the angular speed for which a zero value of the eigenfrequency is obtained.
The polynomial fit is done using the point with smaller eigenfrequency and the
two points closer to it (see figure 3.17).
A scheme for the iteration procedure is shown in the figure 3.16.

3.3

INTEGRATION OF THE STRUCTURAL & AERODYNAMIC MODELS

6HWD:LQG6SHHG
6HOHFW5RWRU6SHHG

,WHUDWLRQIRUGLIIHUHQWIUHTXHQFLHV

6HOHFWWKHUHGXFHGIUHTXHQFLHVWRWHVW
&RPSXWHWKHVHWRIIUHTXHQFLHVXVLQJVHFWLRQDO

SURSHUWLHVRIWKHEODGHDWRILWVUDGLXV
k V
=
b
$VVHPEOHWKHFRPSOHWHV\VWHPRIHTXDWLRQIRU
HDFKIUHTXHQF\
Mt

d 2u
du
+ Dt
+ tu = 0
dt 2
dt

,QFUHPHQWWKHURWDWLRQDO
VSHHGRIWKHURWRU

6ROYHIRUWKHHLJHQYDOXHVFORVHWRWKHUHDOD[LV

(A B ) X = 0

6HOHFWWKHHLJHQYDOXHZLWKWKHVPDOOHUIUHTXHQF\

,VWKHLPDJLQDU\SDUWRIWKH
HLJHQYDOXHFKDQJHVWKHVLJQ"

1R

<HV

8VLQJOLQHDULQWHUSRODWLRQLV
IRXQGWKHURWDWLRQDOVSHHGZKHUH
WKHHLJHQIUHTXHQF\LV]HUR

,VLWSRVLWLYHWKHUHDOSDUWRIWKH 1R
HLJHQYDOXHIRU]HUR
HLJHQIUHTXHQF\"
<HV

8QVWDEOH

Figure 3.16: Iteration to find the first unstable operational points (static).

73

74

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

7ZRFRQVLGHUDWLRQIRULQVWDELOLW\PRGHLQSKDVHDQGSRVLWLYHUHDOSDUWRIWKH
HLJHQYDOXH
7KHLPDJLQDU\SDUWRIWKHHLJHQYDOXHFKDQJHVLQVLJQOLQHDULQWHUSRODWLRQ

(LJHQYDOXH
LPDJLQDU\SDUW

0RGHLQ
SKDVH

5RWDWLRQDO6SHHG>530@

(LJHQYDOXH
UHDOSDUW

8QVWDEOH

5RWDWLRQDO6SHHG>530@

7KHLPDJLQDU\SDUWRIWKHHLJHQYDOXHLVVPDOOHQRXJKVHFRQGRUGHQSROLQRPLDOILW

(LJHQYDOXH
LPDJLQDU\SDUW

0RGHLQ
SKDVH

5RWDWLRQDO6SHHG>530@

(LJHQYDOXH
UHDOSDUW

8QVWDEOH

5RWDWLRQDO6SHHG>530@

Figure 3.17: Conditions for static unstable operational point.

3.3

3.3

INTEGRATION OF THE STRUCTURAL & AERODYNAMIC MODELS

75

Dynamic Instabilities
The algorithm searches for the smaller rotor speed at which a dynamic instability (flutter) occurs for a given wind speed.
The first unstable operational points are computed using an iterative algorithm.
The algorithm is the same as the algorithm to solve for static instabilities until
the step number 6.
The next steps are new for dynamic instabilities:
7. The sign of the real part of the eigenvalue with smaller eigenfrequency is
analyzed. A positive or a zero values for the real part is interpreted as instability.
If the real part is negative, that mens the response of the system is decaying in
amplitude and the system is stable, the used increment the angular speed and
come back to step 3.
8. The user found a dynamic unstable point and he come back to step 1 and
start the algorithm again to find the unstable rotational speed for a different
wind speed.
When the author of this thesis test the method, he selected a small amount
of different rotational speed to find the unstable points. This rotational speeds
are based in experience and the objective was to do faster the process to find the
different unstable points.
A scheme for the iteration is showed in figure 3.18 and the different possibilities of stability are showed in the figure 3.19 based on the eigenvalues of the
system.

76

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

6HWD:LQG6SHHG
6HOHFW5RWRU6SHHG

,WHUDWLRQIRUGLIIHUHQWIUHTXHQFLHV


  
 


 




  !"# 

k V
=
b
$VVHPEOHWKHFRPSOHWHV\VWHPRIHTXDWLRQIRU
HDFKIUHTXHQF\
2

Mt


 
  

du
du
+ Dt
+ tu = 0
dt 2
dt

6ROYHIRUWKHHLJHQYDOXHVFORVHWRWKHUHDOD[LV

(A B ) X = 0

6HOHFWWKHHLJHQYDOXHZLWKWKHVPDOOHUIUHTXHQF\

,VWKHUHDOSDUWRIWKHHLJHQYDOXHLV 

$



Figure 3.18: Iteration to find the first unstable operational points (dynamic).

3.3

3.3

INTEGRATION OF THE STRUCTURAL & AERODYNAMIC MODELS

77

7\SHVRIVROXWLRQVIRUGLIIHUHQWHLJHQYDOXHV
(LJHQYDOXH 5H,PL

5

5

6WDWLF8QVWDEOH
'LYHUJHQFH

6WDEOH
6WDWLF

5,PL

'\QDPLF,QVWDELOLW\
)OXWWHU

5,PL

'HFD\LQJ6WDEOH

,PL

5 ,PL

5HMHFW

 ,PL

5HMHFW

1HXWUDO0RWLRQ

Figure 3.19: Possibilities for unstable operational point based on the eigenvalues.

78

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION

3.4

3.4 Implementation of the Method

The pre-processing is done using the PCL code written for the parametric model
of the wind turbine.
The solver is implemented in NASTRAN using the DMAP environment with an
interface to a functions written in MATLAB.
The post-processing part is done using the GUI of PATRAN.
The implementation of the method is divided in three main steps: pre-processing,
processing and post-processing. Those three main steps are divided into ten substeps. The steps are showed in the flux diagram of figure 3.20.

Pre-processing
The pre-processing step is the substep number 1 in the figure 3.20.
A code based in a parametric model of a wind turbine is written in PCL. This
code creates the finite element model of the wind turbine efficiently. It is programmed due to the high difficulty to mesh a wind turbine. The programmed
code has the capability to draw a wind turbine, create a complete mesh of the
wind turbine using only quad elements, create and assign the properties for the
different materials or elements. The time spent to create the finite element model
of the wind turbine is reduced up to 97%. The code has the capability to change
the pitch and the blade position easily. The connection between the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades is rigid. The nacelle and rotor are modeled as a disks with
equivalent inertia and mass properties.

Processing
The processing step is divided into eight substeps. The substeps are numbering
from two to nine in the figure 3.20.

The substep two is the modification of the solver 107 for eigenvalues of NASTRAN. This solver computes the eigenfrequencies and eigenmodes of a structure
using the direct approach (solve the eigenvalue of the complete system). A DMAP
subroutine is compiled for this solver with the objective to modify the solver and
create an access to all the finite element properties that is required to implement
the method to include the aerodynamic and rotational forces due to the non inertial frame. The data of the finite element model is printed in the substep three.

The substep four until the substep eight are programmed in MATLAB. The
substep number four read the data written by the DMAP subroutine in the NAS-

3.4

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE METHOD

79

TRAN solver and its convert in MATLAB readable files. The substeps five and
six computes the aerodynamic matrices and the matrices to include the forces
due to the non-inertial reference frame. The substep seven assemble and coupled the aerodynamic and the structural matrices considering the forces on the
non-inertial reference frame. Thus it is conforming a system of equation which is
solved for the eigenvalues and eigenmodes using the Arnoldi algorithm with spectral transformation [52]. This step uses the algorithm described in the section
3.3.2 to find the unstable operational points of the wind turbine. The results for
the instabilities are sent to NASTRAN and they are printed in the step nine.

Post-processing
The post-processing is the substep number ten in the figure 3.20. The operational
unstable conditions are sent to the PATRAN GUI interface of NASTRAN. Although the complex eigenmode associated to the instability is computed, it is not
possible to see using the PATRAN GUI. PATRAN is designed for structural analysis where the modes are real and it only has the capability to show real modes.
The modes associated to the instability are complex due to the complexity of the
aerodynamic matrices, then the implementation to see the complex modes were
not possible in PATRAN.
The flux diagram of the solver is shown in figure 3.20

80

THE FINITE ELEMENT APPROACH FOR AEROELASTIC INSTABILITY

PREDICTION






    

  






  $

3.4

%  %%






   !"#

% & 

' 
 
 

M s , Ds , K s
 % %' . %(
%(

5
 ( $

M a , Da , K a

 %() % %* )

+     

 % % ' %%

+( %(

 ,  %( % 
-(% %% 

M s , Bs , K s

D12 , K 12

 %( (//

( M s M a ) X + ( Ds - Dri - Da ) X
+ ( K s K ri K a ) X = 0

%  - %

%' %%


-*% *
% ' %% 
-

9
%*  

8
,  








10
- *  %0% .
(%  

Figure 3.20: Implementation of the method using MATLAB, NASTRAN and PATRAN.

Chapter 4

Verification of the Method

The third chapter explains the theory behind the proposed approach, the development of the method and also how the method is programmed to build an
aeroelastic solver. The result is a method implemented in NASTRAN which gives
the capability to find unstable operational points for wind turbines. This chapter
shows the verification of this method using the programmed solver in NASTRAN.
The 5MW baseline wind turbine for the EU project Upwind is the selected wind
turbine. The 5MW wind turbine is selected because the available data and research studies for it. The idea is to compare the instability boundaries predicted
by the proposed method in this thesis, the instabilities boundaries obtained from
the paper [32] and a simple model which is created due to scarce information of
the unstable operational points in function of the wind speed. A parametric finite
element model of the 5MW turbine is programmed in NASTRAN. The model is
composed by the meshes of the tower and the blade. The Nacelle and hub are
modeled as a disk at the center of gravity of each component and the drive train
is simulated rigid. These disks have the same mass and inertias of each of the
components. The tower and the blade are modeled using the real geometry with
all the layers of the different composites materials and considering their different
directions. The structural tower and blade properties for the finite element model matches very close to the global properties of the turbine. The blade layout
is obtained from the report UPWIND WMC5MW laminate data [53]. This
report tries to match the global properties of the layout for the 5MW Turbine
to the global properties, although it is a serious report, the blade of the finite
element model does not match completely with the multibody model. The report
says It should be noted, that the section properties of the URT are not 100%
interconsistent. There are some differences in mass and (especially torsional) stiffness distribution [53]. The next chapter shows an application of the solver, the
instability boundaries for an optimum 20MW wind turbine.
81

82

4.1

VERIFICATION OF THE METHOD

4.1 Finite element model for the 5MW Reference Wind Turbine
The reference NREL offshore 5-MW baseline wind turbine is the wind turbine
model used to verified the method. The properties of this wind turbine are shown
in [54]. This wind turbine is a three-bladed upwind variable-speed variable bladepitch-to-feather-controlled turbine. This model was created by using the design
information from the published documents of turbine manufacturers, with especial
focus on the REpower 5M machine. Although the detailed data for the REpower
5M machine wind turbines was unavailable, it uses the public available properties
from the conceptual models in the WindPACT, RECOFF, and DOWEC projects.
The wind turbine model for this thesis is divided into 5 different subcomponents:
The tower, nacelle, drive train, hub and blades. Those components are parametric modeling using the PCL language of PATRAN. The general properties of the
5MW wind turbine are shown in table 4.1.
Wind Regime
Rotor Orientation
Control
Cut in wind speed
Cut out wind speed
Rated power
Number of blades
Rotor Diameter
Hub Diameter
Hub Height
Maximum Rotor Speed
Maximum Generator Speed
Gearbox Ratio
Maximum Tip Speed
Hub Overhang
Shaft Tilt Angle
Rotor Precone Angle
Rotor Delta3 (sweep) Angle

IEC Class 1B / Class 6 winds

Clockwise rotation - Upwind
Variable Speed
Collective Pitch
4 m/s
25 m/s
5 MW
3
126.0 m
3.0 m
90.0 m
12.1 rpm
1,173.7 rpm
97.0
80.0 m/s
5.0 m
5.0
-2.5
0.0

Table 4.1: NREL 5MW wind turbine specifications.

4.1.1 Tower
The tower is the deep support and it is modeled using the finite element method.
The geometry is shown in figure 4.1.The material is isotropic with properties given

4.1

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE 5MW REFERENCE WIND TURBINE

83

in table 4.2.
3.87m
0.0247m

Tower Top

87.6m
38.23m
0.0351m

Tower bottom
6.0m

Variable
Mudline

Figure 4.1: Deep tower. The boundary condition is applied at the tower bottom.

Youngs Elasticity Modulus

Shear Modulus
Effective Density

2.10E+11 N/m2
8.08E+10 N/m2
8500 kg/m3

Table 4.2: Structural properties of the tower material.

.
The tower is meshed using quad plate elements.

4.1.2 Hub and Nacelle Model

The Nacelle and the Hub are modeled as a disk with equivalent mass and inertia
properties in the center of mass of each component. The diagram 4.2 shows the
position of the hub and nacelle centers of mass.
The consider properties for the Hub and Nacelle are in the table 4.3.

84

4.1

VERIFICATION OF THE METHOD

Yaw axis
Nacelle

1.9m

0.21m
Shaft axis
5.01m
g
89.56m

Hub

Tower Top

Tower bottom

Figure 4.2: Nacelle and Hub center of mass.

4.1.3 Blades
The aerodynamic properties for the blade section are given in table 4.4, the airfoils
names are shown in table 4.5.
The geometry, composites layout and materials are obtained from the UpWind
report WMC5MW laminate lay-out of reference blade for WP[53]. The blade is
modeling using the quad plate composites elements available in NASTRAN. The
finite element model takes the real layout into account considering all the details
and materials on the layouts shown in the Appendix I.

4.1.4 Boundary Conditions and Connection between the Blades, Nacelle,

Hub and Tower
The boundary condition is imposed by fixing the nodes on the bottom of the
tower. That means the displacements and the rotation degree of freedom of the
bottom nodes are zero.
The blades, nacelle,hub and tower are connected by imposing a condition on the

4.1

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE 5MW REFERENCE WIND TURBINE

Hub
Mass
Inertia about the shaft axis
Nacelle
Mass
Inertia about the yaw axis

85

56.780 Kg
115.926 Kgm2
240.000 Kg
2.607.890 Kgm2

Table 4.3: Hub and Nacelle properties.

Figure 4.3: A picture of the finite element model. The rigid connectors are represented
by pink lines.

nodes which are the top of the tower, the center node of the disk which represents
the nacelle, the center node of the disk which represents the hub and the nodes
which are on the border of the blade close to the shaft. The condition is all
the nodes must have the same displacements for all the degrees of freedom, that
means have equals displacements and rotations. The result is a connection which
is rigid between the nodes. A scheme for this rigid connection is show in the figure
4.3.
The large displacements on a wind turbine are on the blades and the tower, thus
the assumption to impose a rigid connection between the blades and the tower
considering a rigid hub and nacelle is possible.

86

4.1

VERIFICATION OF THE METHOD

Radial position
[m]
0.000
4.100
6.833
10.250
14.350
18.450
22.550
26.650
30.750
34.850
38.950
43.050
47.150
51.250
54.667
57.400
61.500

Twist
[deg]
13.308
13.308
13.308
13.308
11.480
10.162
9.011
7.795
6.544
5.361
4.188
3.125
2.319
1.526
0.863
0.370
0.106

Radial distance
[m]
2.733
2.733
2.733
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
4.100
2.733
2.733
2.733

Chord
[m]
3.542
3.854
4.167
4.557
4.652
4.458
4.249
4.007
3.748
3.502
3.256
3.010
2.764
2.518
2.313
2.086
1.419

Airfoil number
[]
1
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8

Table 4.4: Distributed blade aerodynamic properties.

4.1.5 Pitch, Rotational and Wind Speed Control Curves

The control of the blade pitch and the rotational speed in function of the wind
speed is obtained from [54]. The figure 4.4 shown the curves for the blade pitch
and rotational speed of the rotor in function of the wind speed. The values shown
in figure 4.4 are the curves used to define the operational points of the wind turbine.

4.1.6 Parametric Model in PATRAN

The wind turbine is parameterized and a code is programmed using the PCL (PATRAN) language to automatize the drawing and the mesh of the wind turbine.
One of the big advantages of the programmed parametrization is for any wind
turbine geometry based on the 5MW wind turbine is possible to create automatically a quad mesh for all the parts.
A diagram for the parametric code is shown in the figure 4.5.
Mesh Requirements The only requirement to apply this method is the mesh of the
aerodynamic surfaces must be meshed with quad elements. This wind turbine is

4.1

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE 5MW REFERENCE WIND TURBINE

NFoil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Airfoil name
cylinder1
cylinder2
DU40 A17
DU35 A17
DU30 A17
DU25 A17
DU21 A17
NA64 A17

87

Normalized thickness [t/c]

100
90
40
35
30
25
21
17

Table 4.5: Airfoils for the 5MW wind turbine.

Blade Pitch [ ]
Rotor RPM

20

15

10

0
5

10

15h

Wind Speed

20
m
s

25

Figure 4.4: 5MW Wind turbine control curve.

meshed in such way that the structural model also is used to defined the aerodynamic model using the discretization of the external skin of the blade. The tower
and the blades are meshed with only quad elements. This is chosen because the

88

4.1

VERIFICATION OF THE METHOD

Input Parameters

- 2D Airfoils geometry
- Airfoil position
- Chord and twist distribution
-Spars , web and shell
dimension
-Tower dimensions
- Composite material direcction
-Composite materials
properties and plies
-Number of elements per
section of the blade
- Mass and inertia of the
Nacelle and Hub
-Number of elements for the
tower

PCL Code

Operation Point

Draw Geometry

- Blade Pitch
- Angular position of
the blades around shaft
axis

Mesh geometry
(Quad elements)

Rigid conection between

nacelle, hub, tower and
blades

Impose boundary
conditions on the tower

Structural Wind Turbine Finite

Element Model

Figure 4.5: Diagram for the parametric wind turbine model in PATRAN

quad elements gives better results since the element integration on the reference
frame has less error although do a mesh with only quad elements is harder. The
geometry and the mesh of quad elements is parameterized.

4.1.7 Model summary

The summary of the finite element model for the 5MW wind turbine are show in
the table 4.6:

4.1

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE 5MW REFERENCE WIND TURBINE

Material properties (Plies laminate and directions)

Number of element (CQUAD4)
Number of nodes
Number degrees of freedom (s-set)

89

53
4650
4455
26136

Table 4.6: Summary of the 5MW finite element model.

4.1.8 Simple Model for Stability Analysis

A simple model is proposed to study the instabilities and compare the order of
magnitude for the instabilities boundaries. The model is two dimensional and it
is located in a plan which cut the blade perpendicular at 75% of its radius. The
model has two degree of freedom, h and and it is used the structural properties
of the blade at 75% of its radius. The aerodynamic model is the Theodorsen
solution for a flate plate. A diagram of the model is presented in the figure 4.6.

y
n

y2
Kh

k r + Vk

kVk

h, L
s
a p
n

z K k rk

M ,

Figure 4.6: Simple model for stability analysis at 75% of the blade radius.

Where:
a : Wind angle of attack.
s : Structural angle of the blade at 75% of the radius.

90

4.1

VERIFICATION OF THE METHOD

p : Pitch angle of attack.

Kh : Blade flapwise stiffness.
K : Torsional stiffness of the blade.
h: Plunge degree of freedom.
: Rotational degree of freedom.
When the second Newton law is applied to the elastic axis of the blade section
(axis z) is obtained the equation of motion for the model:
X

Fy2 = m h
(4.1)
X
Mz = I
(4.2)

The equations are rewritten as:

L cos(n ) + Kl h = 0
mh

I L d cos(n ) M + K = 0

(4.3)

The lift and the moment are given by:

 C(k)
b
b b2 a 
h + C(k) + (1 + C(k)(1 2a))
h 2
(4.4)
L = 2u2 b
u
2u
2u
2u

b

M = 2u2 b d1 ( C(k)
2a)) 2u
+

u h + C(k) + (1 + C(k)(1

(4.5)
2
3
b
ab
1
2 b
d2 2u
2u

2 h ( 8 + a ) 2u2
The equation of motion are reorganized as:

+ DX
+ KX = 0
MX

(4.6)

Where the vector X and the matrices are define by:

X = [h ]t

M=

D=

m
2u2 b
ab2
2u2

ab2
2u2 cos(n )

b
2u2 cos(n )

dcos(n )( 2ub 2 cos(n ))

C(k)
u cos(n )

C(k)
u d1 +
cos(n )( C(k)
u cos(n ))

(4.7)

I
2u2 b

( 18

b3
a2 ) 2u
2+

+ +
ab2
d cos(n )( 2u
2 cos(n ))

(4.8)

b
(1 + C(k)(1 + 2a)) 2u
cos(n )
b
d2 2u

b
(1 + C(k)(1 2a)) 2u
d1 +
b
cos(n )((1 + C(k)(1 + 2a)) 2u cos(n ))

(4.9)

4.1

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE 5MW REFERENCE WIND TURBINE

K=

"

Kl
2u2 b

K
2u2 b

C(k)cos(n )
C(k)d1 + d cos(n )C(k)cos(n )

91

(4.10)

This method is implemented in the 5MW and 20MW wind turbines assuming
the structural frequency to compute the reduced frequency is constant for all the
different wind speed. The values assumed are 0.20 Hz for the 5MW wind turbine
and 0.11 Hz for the 20MW wind turbine. Those values are the eigenfrequency
obtained from the finite element model of the wind turbines with 4% of structural
damping.
Sectional property
Chord [m]
Mass [kg/m]
Momentum of Inertia [kgm]
Flapwise stiffness [N/m2 ]
Torsional Stiffness [N ]
Radial position [m]

5MW
2.7
138.9
27.7
2.7E3
3.5E5
47.7

20MW
8.0
709.8
149.8
8.5E3
2.4E6
109.5

The wind turbines are pitch regulated and their pitch control curves are shown
in the figures 4.4 and 5.5.
The first unstable angular velocity of the blade for a range of wind speed is showed
in the figure 4.7
The unstable speeds are highly dependant on the reduced frequency value.
Although that means this model is not accurate, it is in the right order of magnitude [32]. This model is used as an estimation of the instabilities for different
wind speed and obtain a guess for the instabilities of the 20MW wind turbine.

92

4.2

VERIFICATION OF THE METHOD

Instabilities for the simple model of 5MW Instabilities for the simple model of 20MW
36.6
28.5
28
36.55
Rotational speed [RPM]

Rotational speed [RPM]

27.5

36.5

36.45

27
26.5
26
25.5

36.4
25
36.35

10
20
Wind speed [m/s]

30

24.5

10
20
Wind speed [m/s]

30

Figure 4.7: Instabilities for the simple model.

4.2 Unstable Operational Points for the 5MW Wind Turbine

4.2.1 Static Unstable Points
The static unstable operational points (divergence) for the 5MW are plotted in
the figure 4.8.
The plot shows two types of solutions, the potential flow solution and the viscous solution.
The potential flow solution is the solution obtained with the implementation of
the methodology explained in this thesis using 2 value for the lift coefficient
without including drag. The viscous solution is the solution obtained when it
is included the real aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoils taken into account
the lift coefficients, the drag and the moment coefficient for the different airfoils
along the blade.
The viscous model predicts higher rotational speed as it is expected. This
makes sense because the drag dissipates energy from the wind turbine.

4.2

UNSTABLE OPERATIONAL POINTS FOR THE 5MW WIND TURBINE

93

Predicted unstable operational points for the 5MW wind turbine

25
Potential flow
Viscous flow

Rotational speed [RPM]

20

15

10

10
15
Wind speed [m/s]

20

25

Figure 4.8: Static instabilities for the 5MW wind turbine (divergence).

The predicted rotational speed is higher than the rated rotor speed for the 5MW
wind turbine. Thus divergence instabilities are not expected for the wind turbine.

4.2.2 Dynamic Unstable Points

The static unstable operational points (flutter) for the 5MW are plotted in the
figure 4.9.
The plot shows four types of solutions. The solution for the simple model, the
solution using the potential flow, the viscous solution and the solution from
the paper AIAA 2008-1302 which is the unstable point showed in the paper [2].
The unstable operational point for the viscous and the potential flow solution
at the rated wind speed (10m/s) surrounds the solution from the paper AIAA
2008-1302. It is possible to deduce (at least for this wind speed) the methodology proposed in this thesis to predict the instabilities is accurate.
The unstable rotational speed of the rotor predicted by the potential solution
is always smaller than the speed predicted by the viscous solution for all the
points. This behavior matches with the physics behind the aerodynamic model

94

4.2

VERIFICATION OF THE METHOD

Predicted unstable operational points for the 5MW wind turbine

35

Simple model
Potential flow
Viscous flow
AIAA 20081302

Rotational speed [RPM]

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5

10
15
Wind speed [m/s]

20

25

Figure 4.9: Dynamic instabilities for the 5MW wind turbine (flutter).

because from the energy point of view, the energy of the system should increase
when the system are in the unstable point, the lift add energy to the system
and the drag take out energy of the system, this mean when drag is added to the
system the wind turbine could rotate faster because the drag is dissipating energy.
The lower unstable rotor speed is at lower wind speed , that agrees with the
lower aerodynamic damping predicted at lower wind speed in [55].
The simple model overestimate the maximum rotational speed of the wind turbine.
The predicted rotational speed for flutter is higher than the rated rotor speed
for the 5MW wind turbine. Flutter instabilities are not expected for this wind
turbine.

Chapter 5

Application: Analysis of a
20MW Wind Turbine
The fourth chapter shows the verification of the method by testing the solver in
the 5MW baseline wind turbine for the Upwind EU project. The Upwind project
searches for new design and solutions for bigger wind turbines. This chapter
shows the analysis of the aeroelastic instabilities for an optimum 20MW wind
turbine developed using the 5MW baseline wind turbine. The parametric model
for wind turbines programmed in NASTRAN is used to create the mesh for the
tower and the blade of the 20MW turbine. The drive train is modeled as a rigid
connection between the blades and the tower, the nacelle and hub are modeled as
a equivalent disk with equivalent mass and inertia following the same idea as the
chapter 3 and 4. The analysis of this wind turbine presents a real application of
the methodology and the solver.

5.1 Upscaling process of the 5 MW NREL wind turbine to an

optimum 20MW
Comparing to traditional design methods, design search and optimization has
many advantages. It forces the design team to set up an organized approach to
solve the problem. Immediate interdisciplinary interaction instead of a sequential
interaction that goes slowly through each discipline for each design iteration is the
main advantage of multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO). This makes the
end results of a MDO globally optimum among all the disciplines, rather than the
local optimum of each discipline that does not necessarily guarantee the global
optimality of the system.
Although the MDO methodology has some significant advantages over the tra95

96

APPLICATION: ANALYSIS OF A 20MW WIND TURBINE

5.2

ditional design methodologies, there are also some disadvantages. The design
solution of a MDO methodology can be sensitive to the robustness of the analysis
codes, since an optimizer will quickly exploit any weakness in an analysis code.
Therefore, the design team should ensure that the analysis codes are valid for the
entire design space. MDO methodology also should not be viewed as a substitute for expert knowledge and engineering judgement. It is simply another tool in
the designers toolbox, which allows more efficient exploration of the design space.
Considering all the advantages and disadvantages of the MDO, it is considered as the best alternative to design the 20 MW wind turbine, since it enables
the design of the wind turbine as a complex system, which its physics involves
couplings between various interacting disciplines/phenomena. However, still the
linear upscaling approach is used to get the initial design variables of the 20 MW
wind turbine from the 5 MW NREL wind turbine.
Explaining the design optimization process of the 20 MW wind turbine is out
of the scope of this thesis, and only the final results of the multidisciplinary design optimization of the 20 MW wind turbine are used here. The interested reader
can refer to the PhD dissertation of Mr. Turaj Ashuri, Delft University of Technology. However, the usage of the optimum 20 MW wind turbine data guarantees
that the model in which the aroelastic instabilities are checked for is a realistic
model. This increases the confidence on addressing the aeroelastic instabilities
issues of larger scale wind turbines, since the results of any aeroelastic instability
study is model dependent.

5.2 Finite Element Model for the 20MW Reference Wind Turbine
The general properties of the the 20MW wind turbine are show in the table 5.1:

5.2.1 Tower
A scheme for the geometry of the tower of the 20MW wind turbine is showed in
figure 5.1. The material is isotropic with properties given in table 5.2.
The mesh of the tower for the 20 MW wind turbine is also meshed using quad
elements.

5.2 FINITE

ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE 20MW REFERENCE WIND TURBINE

Wind Regime
Rotor Orientation
Control
Cut in wind speed
Cut out wind speed
Rated power
Number of blades
Rotor Diameter
Hub Diameter
Hub Height
Maximum Rotor Speed

97

IEC Class 1B / Class 6 winds

Clockwise rotation - Upwind
Variable Speed
Collective Pitch
4 m/s
25 m/s
20 MW
3
142.11 m
6.0 m
161.9 m
6.31 rpm

Table 5.1: 20MW wind turbine specifications.

Youngs Elasticity Modulus

Shear Modulus
Effective Density

2.10E+11 N/m2
8.08E+10 N/m2
8500 kg/m3

Table 5.2: Material properties of the tower for the 20MW wind turbine.

5.2.2 Hub and Nacelle Model

The Nacelle and the Hub are modeled as a disk with its center in the center
of mass of each component. Those point have the equivalent mass and inertia
properties of the components. The diagram 5.2 shows the position of the hub and
nacelle center of mass.
The consider properties for the Hub and Nacelle are in the table 5.3:

Hub
Mass
Inertia about the shaft axis
Nacelle
Mass
Inertia about the yaw axis

264.371 Kg
2.160.000 Kgm2
936.800 Kg
82.860.699 Kgm2

Table 5.3: Hub and Nacelle properties for the 20MW wind turbine.

98

APPLICATION: ANALYSIS OF A 20MW WIND TURBINE

5.2

7.96m
0.0528m

Tower Top

157.1m

0.0986m

Tower bottom
16.0m

Variable
Mudline

Figure 5.1: Tower for the 20MW wind turbine. The boundary condition is applied at
the bottom of the tower.

5.2.3 Blades
The blade is modeled using the parameterized model written in PCL. The exact
composite layout of the wind turbine is unknown, then it is necessary to do
a model of the wind turbine with some assumptions to came up with a finite
element model of the wind turbine. The blades were model with the structure
shown in the figure 5.3, using the equivalent materials properties given in table
5.6 is possible to compute and equivalent thickness of the layers showed in the
table 5.5. This properties are obtained form the phd work....(). Each layer is
modeled with quad plate elements using the equivalent thickness and material
properties. The values between the defined radial positions on the table 5.4 are
linear interpolated, this task is done using the PATRAN software.

5.2.4 Boundary conditions and connection between the blades, nacelle,

hub and tower
A rigid connection between the blades, nacelle, hub and tower are used. The rigid
connection is the same used for the 5MW wind turbine and it is explained in
subsection 4.1.4.
The boundary condition is imposed on the nodes at the bottom of the tower.
Those nodes have zero displacements in all the degrees of freedom.

5.2 FINITE

ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE 20MW REFERENCE WIND TURBINE

Radial position
[m]
0.000
2.771
7.390
12.009
16.628
21.247
25.880
30.499
35.118
42.053
55.924
69.781
83.651
97.508
111.379
125.250
132.171
135.639
139.106
142.119

Chord
[m]
9.000
9.000
9.000
9.312
9.999
10.686
11.000
10.992
10.969
10.903
10.659
10.256
9.685
8.936
8.000
3.028
0.525
0.120
0.120
0.120

Shell thickness
[m]
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.070
0.051
0.041
0.041
0.041
0.042
0.042
0.043
0.045
0.047
0.048
0.050
0.050
0.041
0.032
0.023
0.015

Web thickness
[m]
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.011
0.011
0.013
0.015
0.018
0.020
0.021
0.022
0.019
0.016
0.013
0.010

Spar thick
[m]
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.018
0.024
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.026
0.026
0.024
0.022
0.019
0.017
0.014
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010

Table 5.4: Structural properties of the 20MW wind turbine blades.

99

100

APPLICATION: ANALYSIS OF A 20MW WIND TURBINE

Radial position
[m]
0.000
2.771
7.390
12.009
16.628
21.247
25.880
30.499
35.118
42.053
55.924
69.781
83.651
97.508
111.379
125.250
132.171
135.639
139.106
142.119

Twist
[deg]
13.308
13.308
13.308
13.308
13.308
13.308
12.265
10.252
8.919
8.335
7.559
7.116
6.773
6.300
5.464
3.542
2.157
1.412
0.655
0.000

Distance(1)
[m]
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.460
0.420
0.390
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.375

5.2

Airfoil
[]
Cylinder1
Cylinder1
Cylinder1
Cylinder2
Cylinder2
XDU00W401
XDU00W401
XDU00W401
XDU00W350
XDU00W350
XDU97W300
DU91W2250
XDU93W210
NACA64618
NACA64618
NACA64618
NACA64618
NACA64618
NACA64618
NACA64618

Table 5.5: Aerodynamic properties of the 20MW wind turbine blades. Distance (1) is
the distance from the leading edge to middle of the airfoil normalized by the chord.

Shell
Web
Spar

E11
[GP a]
10.37
10.37
27.1

E22
[GP a]
10.37
10.37
27.1

G12
[GP a]
4.5
4.5
4.5

nu12
[]
0.3
0.3
0.3

Density
[ Kg
m3 ]
643.3
676.7
1700

Table 5.6: Properties for the materials of the 20MW wind turbine blades.

5.2FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE 20MW REFERENCE WIND TURBINE

101

Yaw axis
Nacelle

3.8m

3.5m
Shaft axis
10.0m
g
161.9m

Hub

Tower Top

Tower bottom

Figure 5.2: Nacelle and Hub center of mass for the 20MW wind turbine.

5.2.5 Pitch, Rotational and Wind Speed Control Curves

The control of the blade pitch and the rotational speed in function of the wind
speed is shown in the figure 5.5.
The values shown in figure 5.5 are the curves used to define the operational
points of the wind turbine when is search for unstable operational points.

5.2.6 Parametric Model in PATRAN

The model for the properties explained in section 5.2.3 for the blades is used. All
the other components are modeled in the same way as the 5MW wind turbine
with different values for the distances and properties.
The wind turbine is meshed with the same PCL program as the 5MW wind
turbine.

102

APPLICATION: ANALYSIS OF A 20MW WIND TURBINE

Spar

0.15c

5.2

Web
Shell

0.5c

Figure 5.3: Structural diagram for the sections of the 20MW wind turbine.

Figure 5.4: Picture of the finite element blade for the 20MW wind turbine, the colors
represents different properties on the PCL program.

5.2.7 Model summary

The finite element model for the wind turbine model used in this thesis is done by
the code written in PCL. The model summary of the model 20MW Wind turbine
finite element model are summarize in the table 5.7

5.2FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR THE 20MW REFERENCE WIND TURBINE

18
16

103

Blade Pitch [ ]
Rotor RPM

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
5

10

15
h i

Wind Speed

20

25

m
s

Figure 5.5: 20MW Wind turbine control curve.

Material properties (Plies laminate and directions)

Number of element (CQUAD4)
Number of nodes
Number degrees of freedom (s-set)

4
4650
4455
26136

Table 5.7: Summary of the 20MW Finite Element Model

104

5.3

APPLICATION: ANALYSIS OF A 20MW WIND TURBINE

5.3 Unstable Operational Scenarios for the 20MW Wind Turbine

5.3.1 Static Unstable Points
The unstable operational points for divergence of the 20MW wind turbine are
shown in figure 5.6.
Predicted unstable operational points for the 20MW wind turbine
14
Potential flow
Viscous flow

Rotational speed [RPM]

12

10

10
15
Wind speed [m/s]

20

25

Figure 5.6: Static Instabilities for the 20MW wind turbine (divergence).

The plot two types of solution, the potential flow solution and the viscous
solution.
The potential flow solution is the solution obtained with the implementation of
the methodology explained in this thesis using 2 value for the lift coefficient
without including drag. The viscous solution is the solution obtained when it
is included the real aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoils taken into account
the lift coefficients, the drag and the moment coefficient for the different airfoils
along the blade.
The predicted values of the unstable rotor speed are higher than the rotational speed of the wind turbine, this means instabilities on the wind turbine are

5.3UNSTABLE OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS FOR THE 20MW WIND TURBINE

105

not expected.
The maximum rotational speed predicted for the viscous solution is higher
than the values predicted using the potential flow solution, this is because the
drag take out energy of the wind turbine.
The unstable rotor speed is lower in comparison with the 5MW wind turbine.
A lower rotor speed is expected because the natural frequencies of the wind turbine decreases linearly with respect to the linear upscale factor.

5.3.2 Dynamic Unstable Points

The unstable operational points for flutter of the 20MW wind turbine are shown
in figure 5.7.

Predicted unstable operational points for the 20MW wind turbine

30

Rotational speed [RPM]

25
Simple model
Potential flow
Viscous flow

20

15

10

10
15
Wind speed [m/s]

20

25

Figure 5.7: Dynamic Instabilities for the 20MW wind turbine (flutter).

The plot showed two types of solution, the solution for the simple model, the

106

APPLICATION: ANALYSIS OF A 20MW WIND TURBINE

5.3

potential flow solution and the viscous solution.

The simple model overestimate the unstable angular velocity of the rotor.
The worst scenario for the wind turbine is for lower wind speed, this conclusion
is the same for the 5MW wind turbine, this agrees with the lower aerodynamic
damping predicted at lower wind speed in [55].
The viscous solution predicts higher rotational speed than the potential solution .
Flutter instabilities are not expected on the wind turbine at the rated rotor speed.

Chapter 6

Conclusions and
Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
Parametric Model. A complete detailed finite element model for the structure
of the wind turbine is done. The parametric model works correctly in PATRAN
and it reduced considerably the time of drawing and meshing the wind turbine.
It meshes a three blade wind turbine with only quad element and it has the capability to include orthotropic composites materials in different directions. The
time using the parametric model is reduced from one month of meshing task to a
couple of days (for the 5MW wind turbine).
Methodology. A method to couple the structural finite element model of a
wind turbine to an aerodynamic model to find instabilities using the eigenvalues
approach is deduced. One of the advantages of this method in comparison with
a time domain method is this method does not required post-processing tools to
find the unstable points. The aerodynamic model is represented by complex aerodynamic matrices equivalent to a mass, damping and stiffness properties.
The aerodynamic matrices are band matrices with almost the same band profile as
the structural matrices. This means the complexity to solve this problem should
not increment when the aerodynamic model is coupled to the structural model.
On the other hand there is an issue, the aerodynamic matrices are complex and
the structural matrices are real, this increases the difficulty to solve the problem
and the time spent by the computer to find the eigenvalues increases considerably
as well. The aerodynamic matrices are function of local and global properties,
this is a difference in comparison with the structural finite element method where
the structural matrices only depends on local properties.
The eigenmodes obtained from the coupled system of structural and aerodynamic
107

108

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1

matrices are complex. This means the shape of the modes are not constant in time.
Implementation. The method is implemented in DMAP/MATLAB works stable.
Although the part of the program in DMAP was difficult to implement due to
the low language level it is runs fast.
The methodology takes into account the changes in the stiffness and damping of
the wind turbine blades due to the rotational speed based on the mass, damping
and stiffness matrices of the finite element model of the wind turbine. This is
implemented using only the structural model of the wind turbine doing the algorithm fast.
The equivalent mass, damping and stiffness matrices for the aerodynamic
model are complex, non-symmetric, sparse and band. The computer do not require large amount of memory to save them.
The complex character of the matrices when the aerodynamic and structural model are coupled increases the difficulty to solve the eigenvalue problem. Although
the matrices were sparse and band the computer spent long time to solve the system of eigenvalues using the Arnoldi method with spectral transformation. This
part of the algorithm is the part in which the computer spent more time to process.
Results. The obtained flutter solutions are accurate. The predicted unstable
rotational speed have fluctuations because the algorithm to find the unstable
points. The algorithm do not test for all the possibilities of reduced frequencies,
in this thesis is used eight values between zero and one for the reduced frequency.
The aerodynamic damping predicted by the model based on the Theodorsen solution for a flat plate is highly dependant on the reduced frequency. Therefore
when there is a small change in the reduced frequency the Theodorsen function
changes considerably its complex value. These changes have a big effect on the
damping which is performed by the aerodynamic model of the complete model of
the wind turbine (aerodynamic and structural model) and when not all the possibilities of values for the reduced frequencies are tested, the small fluctuations for
the predicted unstable points appears.
Other authors in the academic world have also observed this high dependency of
the flutter speed which is in its turn depended on the reduced frequency. Work
performed by the Sandia Laboratories [24] has showed this high dependence when
they computed the flutter speed of a 1.5 MW wind turbine. The results of this
flutter speed at 10 m/s decreased almost 45% when on the solution of the Theodorsen function the imaginary part is neglected.
The predicted unstable rotational speed for the 5MW and 20MW is higher when
the drag model is implemented in the aerodynamic model. This behavior match
with the reality in the sense the drag take out energy form the wind turbine and
it becomes unstable at higher rotational speed.
The unstable angular velocity for the 5MW wind turbine predicted in the pa-

6.2

RECOMMENDATIONS

109

per [32] is 19.1 RP M . This rotational speed its bounded by the values of 19
RP M and 21 RP M predicted by the potential and viscous model respectively for the unstable operational points at the same wind speed. This is the only
unstable operational point found in the literature and it match close to the values
predicted by the method deduced in this thesis.
The predicted unstable rotational speed for the 20MW wind turbine is lower
than the rotational speed predicted for the 5MW wind turbine. This match with
the expected behavior where the frequency is reduced linearly respect to the upscale value in the linear upscaling. The 5MW and the 20MW wind turbine have
unstable rotational speed higher than the operational rotational speed, thus aeroelastic instabilities are not expected for these wind turbines.
Although the accuracy of the static solutions is unknown they are in the right
order of magnitude. In general the rotational speed predicted for the divergence
is slightly higher than the speed predicted for flutter. This result depends on the
position of the center of mass of the blade respect to the elastic axis.

6.2 Recommendations
Improve the estimation of the reduce frequency. The same methodology
showed in this thesis could be used with a more accurate aerodynamic model to
predict instabilities. The value of the reduced frequency highly affects the results
and this turns the solution slightly oscillating in a narrow band. The value of the
reduced frequency could be determined using other approaches different than test
a possible values for it. An algorithm which has the capability to catch the right
eigenvalue of a desired mode could be implemented. This algorithm is not easy
to develop due to the complex eigenmodes of the solution for a complex system of
ordinary differential equations. The complex eigenmodes does not have the physical interpretation of a constant shape like the real eigenmodes and that do the
problem more difficult. Interpretations for the complex eigenvalues of the mode
shapes could be developed to have more control in how to interpret the unstable
solution.
Including axial and rotational induction factors. The aerodynamic model used in this thesis neglects the rotational and axial induced factors of the
wind turbine. Those factors have an influence on the angle of attack and in the
wind speed acting on the blade sections. Those factors change the reduced frequency as well.
Numerical algorithm to find eigenvalues of a band complex system.
A better numerical algorithm could be developed to find the eigenvalues for the
particular complex system of ordinary differential equations generated by the pro-

110

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.2

posed method. The Arnoldi algorithm with spectral transformation takes long
time to find the eigenvalues and when one applies this method to complex matrices and the accuracy can be low.
Solve directly for the unstable points. Another different method to find
the unstable speed can be implemented. The method used in this thesis is not
a true solver for the instabilities, that means it is only for the eigenvalues. In
fact different values for the reduced frequencies are tested. A new idea could be
developed in the sense to create an algorithm to iterate and find the unstable operational scenarios without testing different scenarios. This idea should increase
the accuracy of the method and improve the computation time.
Extend the method for systems not marginally stable. The aerodynamic model assumes the system is marginally stable. This means the aerodynamic
model considers only the oscillatory part and neglects the damping of the modes.
A new aerodynamic model could be developed considering the damping terms,
thus the real part of the solution for the eigenvalues can show better the stability
of the wind turbine.
Possibility of model reduction. The time spent by the solver to find the
unstable point could be smaller if a reduction technique is applied to the coupled
structural and aerodynamic model. Although this idea is difficult to perform because the matrices are complex and many of the reduction techniques for the finite
element models are based in physical behaviors (not complex), this can decrease
the time spent by the solver and it can be the base to develop fast algorithms to
find stability boundaries for a wind turbine based on the eigenvalues of the system.
Changes in the wake velocity. The Theodorsen solution used in this thesis assumed the wake shedding by the airfoils of the blade has the same velocity
of the free stream velocity [7] . In the reality this is not true and the difference
on the wake velocity could be very important especially on the tips of the blade
where the freestream velocity and the wake velocity have big differences. This
effect can be included according to the paper [8]. This paper explains how to add
a term to the Theodorsen solution and modify this velocity. Although the implementation of this idea is simple and straightforward, it is difficult to determine
the real wake velocity. This is the reason why this modification is usually not
used until the velocity of the wake is known.

Appendix A

Appendix I: Blade layout for

the 5MW Wind Turbine
This appendix showed the layout properties for the 5MW wind turbine used in
this thesis. All the information is from the upwind report WMC5MW laminate
lay-out of reference blade for WP [53] which defines the layout for the wind
turbine as a reference for further studies.

OD OB
U D45R
R4545
SKIN F OAM
W EBP S

E11
[M P a]
38887
24800
11700
256
25

E22
[M P a]
9000
11500
11700
256
25

G12
[M P a]
3600
4861
9770
22
12

nu12
[]
0.249
0.416
0.501
0.3
0.3

density
[kg/m3]
1869
1826
1782
200
45

Table A.1: Material properties.

111

UTS
(mean)
[M P a]
810
436
180

UCS
(mean)
[M P a]
507
349
144

112

APPENDIX I: BLADE LAYOUT FOR THE 5MW WIND TURBINE

Layer ID

Material
name

TRIAX-1
TRIAX-1
TRIAX-2
TRIAX-2
TRIAX-2
TRIAX-2
TRIAX-2
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD
UD T E
UD T E
UD T E
UD T E
UD T E
SKINFOAM
SKINFOAM
SKINFOAM
SKINFOAM
SKINFOAM
TRIAX-3
TRIAX-3

UD45R
UD45R
UD45R
UD45R
UD45R
UD45R
UD45R
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
U D OB
SKINFOAM
SKINFOAM
SKINFOAM
SKINFOAM
SKINFOAM
UD45R
UD45R

Label

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA

Radius
[m]
2
63.5
2
2.3
2.8
3.6
11
3.5
9
14
19
24
29
34
39
44
49
54
60
3.5
7.5
11
14
47
3.5
7.5
43
57
60
2
63.5

Layers
number
[]
3
3
106
106
28
28
1
1
105
205
200
186
172
153
124
99
55
21
1
1
32
45
29
1

Layer
thickness
[mm]
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47

3
3

0.94
0.94

Table A.2: Layout description.

A.0

Total
thickness
[mm]
2.82
2.82
100
100
26
26
0.94
0.47
49.26
96.33
94.05
87.37
80.94
71.77
58.37
46.45
25.81
9.99
0.47
0.47
15
21
13.6
0.47
1
40
40
6
6
2.82
2.82

A.0

113

TR IA X1
AD E

TR IA X2
F G H I J K L M N O P

UD
V

R S TU

TE_U D
W X

Z AA

SK IN FO A M

TR IA X3
.

114

APPENDIX I: BLADE LAYOUT FOR THE 5MW WIND TURBINE

trailing edge
trailing edge U D

3 * U D 45R
n *U D
3 * U D 45R

3 * U D 45R
trailing edge sandw ich panel SKIN FO AM
3 * U D 45R
chord
sandw ich shear w ebs
2 * R 4545
50 m m W EBPS
2 * R 4545

3 * U D 45R
U D spar cap n * U D
3 * U D 45R

up w ind side

dow n w ind side

3 * U D 45R
leading edge sandw ich panel SKIN FO AM
3 * U D 45R
leading edge

R adius= 2001 m m

R adius= 14001 m m

R adius= 34001 m m

R adius= 49001 m m

R adius= 3501 m m

R adius= 19001 m m

R adius= 39001 m m

R adius= 54001 m m

R adius= 9001 m m

R adius= 24001 m m

R adius= 39001 m m

R adius= 60001 m m

R adius= 29001 m m

R adius= 44001 m m

A.0

Bibliography

[1] P. E. Morthorst, Wind energy - the facts, tech. rep., Ewea, 2009.
[2] P. Veers, D. Lobitz, and G. Bir, Aeroelastic tailoring in wind-turbine blade
applications, Windpower98, Bakersfield, CA (United States), 27 Apr-1 May
1998, 1998.
[3] D. Lobitz, Parameter sensitivities affecting the flutter speed of a MW-sized
blade, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, vol. 127, p. 538, 2005.
[4] F. Lanchester, Torsional vibrations of the tail of an aeroplane, Aeronautical
Research Committee (ARC), Reports and Memoranda (R&M), pp. 457460,
1916.
[5] A. Collar, The first fifty years of aeroelasticity, Aerospace, February, 1978.
[6] B. V. Schlippe, The question of spontaneous wing oscillations (determination of critical velocity through flight-oscillation tests), NACA TM-806,
October 1936.
[7] T. Theodorsen, General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter, NACA report, vol. 496, pp. 413433, 1935.
[8] Y. Tomonari, Extended Theodorsen Function for an Airfoil with a Wake,
Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
vol. 45, no. 150, pp. 229235, 2003.
[9] M. J. B. Richard C. Lind, Online method for robust flutter prediction in
expanding a safe fligth envelope for an aircraft model under fligth test, tech.
rep., NASA, 2001.
[10] R. Bisplinghoff and H. Ashley, Principles of aeroelasticity. Dover Pubns,
2002.
115

116

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[11] R. Bisplinghoff, H. Ashley, and R. Halfman, Aeroelasticity. Dover Pubns,

1996.
[12] D. Janetzke and K. Kaza, Whirl flutter analysis of a horizontal-axis wind
turbine with a two-bladed teetering rotor, Solar Energy, vol. 31, no. 2,
pp. 173182, 1983.
[13] M. Bechly and P. Clausen, Structural design of a composite wind turbine
blade using finite element analysis, Computers & Structures, vol. 63, no. 3,
pp. 639646, 1997.
[14] A. Lee and R. Flay, Compliant blades for wind turbines,
TRANSACTIONS-INSTITUTION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
NEW ZEALAND ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL CHEMICAL ENGINEERING SECTION EMCH, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 712, 1999.
[15] A. Lee and R. Flay, Compliant blades for passive power control of wind
turbines, Wind Engineering, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 311, 2000.
[16] O. Korotkov and G. Shumskii, Calculation of dynamic stall on an oscillating
airfoil, Journal of Applied Mechanics and Technical Physics, vol. 41, no. 3,
pp. 452455, 2000.
[17] K. Maalawi and H. Negm, Optimal frequency design of wind turbine
blades, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 90,
no. 8, pp. 961986, 2002.
[18] C. Lindenburg and H. Snel, Aero-elastic stability analysis tools for large
wind turbine rotor blades, in Proceedings of the 2003 European Wind Energy
Conference and Exhibition, 2003.
[19] H. Ganander, The use of a code-generating system for the derivation of the
equations for wind turbine dynamics, Wind Energy, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 333
345, 2003.
[20] P. Chaviaropoulos, N. Soerensen, M. Hansen, I. Nikolaou, K. Aggelis, J. Johansen, M. Gaunaa, T. Hambraus, H. von Geyr, C. Hirsch, et al., Viscous
and aeroelastic effects on wind turbine blades. The VISCEL project. Part II:
Aeroelastic stability investigations, Wind Energy, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 387403,
2003.
[21] F. Rasmussen, M. Hansen, K. Thomsen, T. Larsen, F. Bertagnolio, J. Johansen, H. Madsen, C. Bak, and A. Hansen, Present status of aeroelasticity
of wind turbines, Wind energy, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 213228, 2003.
[22] V. Riziotis, S. Voutsinas, E. Politis, and P. Chaviaropoulos, Aeroelastic
stability of wind turbines: the problem, the methods and the issues, Wind
Energy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 373392, 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

117

[23] M. Hansen, Aeroelastic stability analysis of wind turbines using an eigenvalue approach, Wind Energy, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 133143, 2004.
[24] D. Lobitz, Flutter speed predictions for MW-sized wind turbine blades,
Wind Energy Vol, vol. 7, pp. 211224.
[25] T. J. Knill, The application of aeroelastic analysis output load distributions
to finite element models of wind, Wind Engineering, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 153
168, 2005.
[26] M. Hansen, J. Srensen, S. Voutsinas, N. Srensen, and H. Madsen, State
of the art in wind turbine aerodynamics and aeroelasticity, Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 285330, 2006.
[27] L. Tingrui and R. Yongsheng, Aeroelastic stability of wind turbine blade
section based on beddoes-leishman model, in Power and Energy Engineering
Conference, 2009. APPEEC 2009. Asia-Pacific, pp. 1 4, 27-31 2009.
[28] J. Holierhoek, Investigation into the possibility of flap-lag-stall flutter., in
45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 2007.
[29] M. Hansen, Aeroelastic instability problems for wind turbines, Wind
Energy, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 551577, 2007.
[30] G. Bir and J. Jonkman, Aeroelastic instabilities of large offshore and onshore
wind turbines, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 75, p. 012069,
IOP Publishing, 2007.
[31] J. van Wingerden, A. Hulskamp, T. Barlas, B. Marrant, G. Van Kuik, D. Molenaar, and M. Verhaegen, On the proof of concept of a smartwind turbine
rotor blade for load alleviation, Wind Energy, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 265280,
2008.
[32] F. Meng, M. Pavel, and M. van Tooren, Aeroelastic stability analysis of
large scale horizontal axis wind turbines using reduced order system identification based on flexible nonlinear multi-body dynamics, in 46th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada (USA), pp. 710,
Delft University of Technology, 2008.
[33] S. Sarkar and H. Bijl, Nonlinear aeroelastic behavior of an oscillating airfoil
during stall-induced vibration, Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 24,
no. 6, pp. 757777, 2008.
[34] S. Brunton and C. Rowley, Modeling the unsteady aerodynamic forces on
small-scale wings, AIAA Paper, vol. 1127, p. 2009, 2009.
[35] E. Politis, P. Chaviaropoulos, V. Riziotis, S. Voutsinas, and I. Romero-Sanz,
Stability analysis of parked wind turbine blades, 2009.

118

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[36] A. Elliott and A. Wright, ADAMS/WT: an industry-specific interactive

modelling interface for wind turbine analysis, in The Energy-Sources Technology Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, 01/23-26/94, pp. 111122, 1994.
[37] G. Hassan and P. Ltd, Bladed for windows, Theory Manual Version, vol. 3.
[38] J. Jonkman and M. Buhl Jr, FAST users guide, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Rept. NREL/EL-50029798, Golden, Colorado, 2004.
[39] A. Hansen and D. Laino, Users guide to the wind turbine dynamics computer programs YawDyn and AeroDyn for ADAMS, Mech. Eng. Dept., Univ.
of Utah, 1996.
[40] S. ye, FLEX4 Simulation of wind turbine dynamics, in Proc. 28th Meeting
of Experts, International Energy Agency, Annex XI, pp. 7177, 1996.
[41] V. Riziotis and S. Voutsinas, GAST: A general aerodynamic and structural
prediction tool for wind turbines, in EWEC-CONFERENCE-, pp. 448452,
BOOKSHOP FOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS, 1997.
[42] J. Hemmelmann, A. Heege, D. Granville, and M. Bruyneel, Towards reliable
virtual prototypes of wind turbines, Wind Directions, pp. 4849, 2009.
[43] C. Lindenburg and T. Hegberg, PHATAS-IV users manual: Program for
Horizontal Axis wind Turbine Analysis and Simulation, version IV,
[44] D. Molenaar and S. Dijkstra, State-of-the-art of wind turbine design codes:
main features overview for cost-effective generation, Wind Engineering,
vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 295312, 1999.
[45] Focus 6. Online Reader, Augost 2010.
[46] T. Larsen and A. Hansen, How 2 HAWC2, the users manual, tech. rep.,
Ris National Laboratory, 2007.
[47] M. Buhl Jr and A. Manjock, A comparison of wind turbine aeroelastic codes
used for certification, in 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
912 January 2006, Reno, NV, AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc, pp. 2006786.
[48] A. Shabana, Dynamics of Multibody Systems, Wiley, New York, 1989,
[49] W. Yoo and E. Haug, Dynamics of articulated structures: Part I, Theory.
Multibody System Dynamics14, pp. 105126, 1986.
[50] H. Kardestuncer and D. Norrie, Finite element handbook. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
New York, NY, USA, 1987.
[51] G. Golub and J. Welsch, Calculation of Gauss quadrature rules, 1967.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

119

[52] Y. Saad, Variations on Arnoldis method for computing eigenelements of

large unsymmetric matrices, Linear algebra and its applications, vol. 34,
pp. 269295, 1980.
[53] R. Nijssen, Upwind wmc5mw laminate data, tech. rep., Knowledge Centre
Wind turbine Materials and Constructions, 2007.
[54] J. Jonkman, S. Butterfield, W. Musial, and G. Scott, Definition of a 5MW reference wind turbine for offshore system development, Golden, CO:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL Report TP-500-38060 (to be
published).
[55] T. Buhl, H. Markou, M. Hansen, K. Thomsen, and F. Rasmussen, Aeroelastic stability analysis and passive instability suppression, in European Wind
Energy Conference.