Fig 1.
Distribution of Reynolds number along the blade length for four typical MW-class wind turbines [7].
Fig 2.
Relative thickness distribution of airfoil profiles along the 60-m blade.
Table 1.
Design parameters for the blade.
Fig 3.
Comparison between the prediction results and the measurements.
(A) Cl of NACA64618, (B) Cd of NACA64618 (RFOIL data is multiplied by a factor of 1.09)
Fig 4.
Influence of Reynolds number on performance of the six airfoils (DU00-W2-401, DU00-W2-350, DU97-W-300, DU91-W2-250, NACA 63421 and NACA 64618).
(A) the maximum Cl/Cd vs. Re, (B) the corresponding angle of attack at the point of maximum Cl/Cd vs. Re, (C) the corresponding Cl at the point of maximum Cl/Cd vs. Re, (D) the maximum Cl vs. Re
Fig 5.
Procedure for aerodynamic design of a wind turbine blade.
Fig 6.
Pareto frontiers based on the ultimate Mxy-r and CPopt in planes of (A) Cpopt-Mxy-r and (B) Cpopt-λopt.
Fig 7.
Distributions of (A) α and (B) Cl/Cd for designs of A and B at λopt.
Fig 8.
Distributions of (A) twist angle and (B) chord length for design points of A, B, C and D.
Fig 9.
CP-λ curves of A and B (pitch angle = 0).
Fig 10.
Distributions of (A) CP, (B) axis induction factor a, (C) out-plane load coefficient CFx, (D) out-plane load Fx for designs of A and B at the rated condition.
Fig 11.
Cp-λ curves of A, C and D (pitch angle = 0).
Fig 12.
Pareto frontiers of the optimization based on ultimate Mxy-r and AEP.
(A) total view of Pareto frontier in the plane of AEP-Mxy-r, (B) partial enlarged view of Pareto frontier, (C) Pareto frontier in the plane of AEP-λopt, (D) Pareto frontier in the plane of Mxy-r-λopt.
Fig 13.
Pareto frontiers based on Mxy-r and AEP in planes of (A) Cpopt-AEP, (B) Cpopt-λopt.
Fig 14.
Distributions of (A) α and (B) Cl/Cd for designs of O, P, Q and R at the corresponding λopt.
Fig 15.
Distributions of (A) chord length and (B) twist angle for design points of O, P, Q and R.
Fig 16.
Results of the first kind of mismatched design based on the ultimate Mxy-r and CPopt.
(A) Pareto frontiers of the mismatched design and the practical operating results, (B) excursion of the practical operating Mxy-r and CPopt from the mismatched design values.
Fig 17.
Results of the first kind of mismatched design based on the ultimate Mxy-r and AEP.
(A) Pareto frontiers of the mismatched design and the practical operating assessment, (B) the partial enlarged view for design ID<30, (C) excursion of the practical AEP from the mismatched design value, (D) excursion of the practical ultimate Mxy-r from the mismatched design value.
Fig 18.
Results of the second kind of mismatched design based on the ultimate Mxy-r and CPopt.
(A) Pareto frontiers of the mismatched design and the practical operating assessment, (B) excursion of the practical operating CPopt and Mxy-r from the mismatched design values
Fig 19.
Results of the second kind of mismatched design based on ultimate Mxy-r and AEP.
(A) Pareto frontiers of the mismatched design and the practical operating assessment, (B) the partial enlarged view for design ID<30, (C) excursion of the practical AEP from the mismatched design value, (D) excursion of the practical ultimate Mxy-r from the mismatched design value.