energies

Article
Design of the OffWindChina 5 MW Wind
Turbine Rotor
Zhenye Sun 1 , Matias Sessarego 2 , Jin Chen 1 and Wen Zhong Shen 2, *
1 State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China;
zhenye_sun@163.com (Z.S.); chenjin413@cqu.edu.cn (J.C.)
2 Department of Wind Energy, Fluid Mechanics Section, Technical University of Denmark, Nils Koppels Allé,
Building 403, Lyngby 2800, Denmark; matse@dtu.dk
* Correspondence: wzsh@dtu.dk; Tel.: +45-4525-4317

Academic Editor: Lance Manuel

Received: 5 March 2017; Accepted: 30 May 2017; Published: 3 June 2017

Abstract: The current article describes the conceptual design of a rotor for a 5 MW machine
situated at an offshore site in China (OffWindChina). The OffWindChina 5 MW rotor design
work was divided into two parts between the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and the
Chong Qing University (CQU). The two parts consist of the aeroelastic and structural design phases.
The aeroelastic part determines the optimal outer blade shape in terms of cost of energy (COE),
while the structural part determines the internal laminate layup to achieve a minimum blade mass.
Each part is performed sequentially using in-house optimization tools developed at DTU and CQU.
The designed blade yields a high energy output while maintaining the structural feasibility with
respect to international standards.

Keywords: wind energy; wind turbine blade design; aeroelastic blade design; finite-element analysis;
site-specific design

1. Introduction
China is the largest overall wind energy market in the world since 2009 [1]. In 2015, China
added 30.8 GW of new wind power capacity to the grid, the highest annual added capacity for any
country [2]. China has abundant wind resources both onshore and offshore [3]. The most abundant
offshore wind resource is in the southeastern coast of China [4], but the cost of offshore wind energy is
more expensive than that of onshore wind energy. In addition, the coastal wind conditions in China,
where one such typical condition is the tropical cyclone typhoon, are different from the rest of the
world [5,6]. Offshore wind energy has many advantages over its onshore counterpart, such as a higher
relative inflow velocity and lower inflow turbulence [7], and the low requirement of noise and visual
pollution controls [8]. For more detailed characteristics about offshore wind energy, the reader is
referred to the publications [9–11].
The design of wind turbine blades consists of aerodynamic/aeroelastic design and structural
design, and there are many publications in the literature about blade design. Chehouri et al. [12]
provided a comprehensive review of the performance optimization techniques applied to wind turbine
design. As these two aspects are tightly coupled, the optimization objective should be the cost of
energy (COE), which is defined as the ratio between the annual energy production (AEP) and the
total cost. The total cost includes the capital cost, balance of station and operational costs. For site
specific design, AEP is calculated by the site specific wind speed probability distribution and the
turbine specific power versus speed distribution. For a given site, where the wind speed probability
distribution is fixed, AEP only relates to the turbine specific power curve. When considering a same
rated power (for example 5 MW) and neglecting the energy losses, the wind turbine power relates

Energies 2017, 10, 777; doi:10.3390/en10060777 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2017, 10, 777 2 of 20

to the rotor radius square and the rotor power coefficient. The power coefficient relates to the airfoil
shape, chord and twist distributions, and the rotor radius. From the rotor structural side, the rotor
mass increases cubically or sub-cubically with the rotor radius [13]. Thus, the rotor radius is very
important for COE and should be considered as a design variable. Fuglsang et al. [14] pointed out that
the rotor diameter is more important than the aerodynamic shape. Wang et al. [15] optimized the chord
and twist distributions of several turbines with the objective of minimum COE. Richard [16] optimized
the airfoils together with the blade chord and twist distributions with minimum COE. However, they
did not optimize the rotor radius. Moreover, they used the power production load cases with a steady
wind in both aerodynamic and structural calculations. However, the structure should be examined
under various load cases, which should not be limited to the power production loads. Fuglsang and
Thomsen [17] optimized 1.5–2.0 MW stall-regulated wind turbines with the aim of minimum COE and
considered the load cases including the normal production and a fault condition (error in the yawing
mechanism). They only optimized the overall wind turbine parameters, such as rotor diameter, rated
power and hub height, etc.
There are many publications demonstrating different methodologies for blade structure
optimization. Barnes et al. [18] optimized the blade structure with variations of internal geometry
configuration, such as the shear webs span-wise location and chord-wise location of spar. The single
shear web design is also investigated and their results show that the single web configuration
has a smaller torsional deflection with almost the same mass reduction as that of the two webs
configuration. Jureczko et al. [19] optimized the shell thickness, web thickness, number of stiffening
ribs and arrangement of stiffening ribs. They mentioned that the spar should be twisted rather than
straight. The twist distribution of the spar was optimized in [19]. Buckney et al. [20] utilized topology
optimization techniques on a 45 m wind turbine blade and found that the trailing edge reinforcement
and the offset spar cap topology are very important for maximizing stiffness and minimizing stress.
The optimized spar has a position offset from the point of maximum thickness and the upper spar
cap (suction side) moves towards the trailing edge. A similar spar position offset can be seen in [21].
These findings also convinced the authors of the current article to optimize the twist distribution of
the spar.
The current article aims to design wind turbine blades under offshore conditions in China.
Researchers and academics who have designed wind turbine blades in China include Liu et al. [22,23],
Gutierez [24], and Zhu et al. [25]. Liu et al. redesigned rotor blades for a 600 kW [22] and for
a 1.3 MW [23] stall-regulated wind turbines situated on Nan’ao Island in Guangdong Province.
Gutierez [24] designed a 2 MW variable-speed variable-pitch wind turbine in collaboration with Ming
Yang Wind Power for a site in Guizhou Province in the southwest of China. Zhu et al. [25] redesigned
a 1.5 MW turbine for inland China using an integrated aerodynamic and structural multi-objective
optimization code.
The present article describes the work performed in a Sino-Danish collaborative project on
reducing the cost of offshore wind energy by designing optimal wind turbines under the prevailing
offshore wind conditions in China. The project involves the extension and application of the existing
computational aerodynamic and structural design tools for wind turbine blade design at the Technical
University of Denmark (DTU) and Chong Qing University (CQU) in China. The purpose of this
research collaboration between the Danish and Chinese experts in wind turbine aerodynamics,
structures, optimization and control, is to develop an integrated approach to capture optimally the
offshore wind energy resources in China. Due to the nature of the project, the wind turbine designed
in the current study is named as OffWindChina 5 MW. The current article is organized as follows: first,
the aeroelastic component of the blade design is presented, which includes a description of the wind
site data, optimization problem, numerical tools and results. This part is used to determine the optimal
outer blade shape in terms of COE, with a simple structural design tool. The second part is the detailed
structural design component utilizing the finite element method (FEM) and contains a description of
Energies 2017, 10, 777 3 of 20

the structural layup, optimization problem, numerical tools, and results. Finally, conclusions are given
to summarize the obtained results.

2. Aeroelastic Design
The present section on the aeroelastic design of the OffWindChina 5 MW rotor consists of
four subsections: (1) Wind Site Data, (2) Problem Formulation, (3) Numerical Tools, and (4) Blade
Design Results.

2.1. Wind Site Data

The wind turbine rotor is to be designed for an offshore site on the southeastern coast of China near
the city of Shanghai and Jiangsu Province. Reference [26] contains normal and extreme wind conditions
data at 12 coastal locations along China’s coastline: Changhai, Xingcheng, Changdao, Chengshantou,
Qingdao, Lüshi, Shengshi, Dachendao, Pingtan, Nanao, Shangchuandao, and Xisha. Reference [26]
contains a figure that depicts the 12 locations within a geographical map of China’s coastline.
The data contained in the reference are based on daily meteorological data measured at 10 m
height above ground for periods of 40–62 years. The reference also contains a statistical analysis on
the data. For example, Weibull and lognormal probability distributions were applied to fit the yearly
wind speeds. Reference [26] contains a table with Weibull parameters for the 12 coastal locations as
well. The coastal location of Shengshi was chosen for the present wind turbine rotor design study,
since it lies the closest to Shanghai and does not experience typhoons as much as the southern coastal
locations in China.
The probability density function of wind speed is a function that describes the relative likelihood
for wind speed to take on a given value. The probability density function f (v) of the Weibull
distribution is:
k  v  k −1
   
v k
f (v) = exp − (1)
c c c
where v is the wind speed in meter per second, k (>0) is the dimensionless Weibull shape parameter,
and c (>0) is the scale parameter in meter per second. The Weibull distribution for Shengshi is shown
in Figure 1. The cumulative distribution function of the Weibull distribution is:
   
v k
F (v) = 1 − exp − (2)
c

Since the Weibull parameters from [26] are based on measurements from 10 m above ground,
an extrapolation is required to estimate the Weibull parameters for a turbine hub height of
approximately 90 m. Inverse transformations sampling with Equation (2) are used to extract the
wind speeds. Next, the wind speeds are extrapolated to 90 m using the logarithmic law:

ln(h2 /z0 )
v2 = v1 (3)
ln(h1 /z0 )

where v2 is the estimated wind speed at the hub height h2 . The wind speed v1 is obtained from the
inverse transformation sampling and h1 is the reference height of 10 m. A roughness length of z0 = 0.001
is selected, which corresponds to the roughness length scale on sea surface [27]. The wind speed v2
is placed into bins of width 0.5 from 0 to 25 m/s. A Weibull probability distribution is then fitted to
obtain the Weibull parameters k = 2.4694 and c = 9.4925 at h2 , see Figure 1.
Energies 2017, 10, 777 4 of 20
Energies 2017, 10, 777 4 of 20

Figure
Figure 1. 1. Measured
Measured and
and estimated
estimated Weibull
Weibull probability
probability distributions
distributions at Shengshi
at Shengshi at heights
at heights of and
of 10 m 10 m
90and 90 m, respectively.
m, respectively.

Theaverage
The averagewind
windspeed
speedofofthe
thesite,
site,V Vavg, ,isiscomputed
computedas:
as:
avg

VavgZ  f (v)v dv (4)

Vavg = f (v)v dv (4)
which results in an average wind speed of 8.4194 m/s for the Weibull probability distribution at
which results
Shengshi. in an
Based onaverage windm/s,
Vavg = 8.4194 speed
andofbecause
8.4194 m/s foristhe
the site Weibull
offshore probability
and distribution
the turbulence atis
intensity
Shengshi. Based on V
low compared to onshore
avg = 8.4194 m/s, and because the site is offshore and the turbulence intensity
cases, a Class IIC turbine from IEC 61400-1 [28] is selected for the rotoris
low compared to onshore cases, a Class IIC turbine from IEC 61400-1 [28] is selected for the rotor design.
design.

2.2.
2.2.Problem
ProblemFormulation
Formulation
The
Thedesign
designobjective
objectiveisistotominimize
minimizeCOE:
COE:
COE COE
minimize COEref
minimize
x
subject to
x x ∈ RCOE
n,
ref
(5)
subject to  0, n ,
gc (x)x≤ (5)
xkL ≤ xk ≤ xU
g c  x   0,
k , k = 1, ..., n

where the subscript ref denotes the reference (or  xk  xkU ,blade.
xkL baseline) k  1,...,The
n vector x contains a total of
n
n variables that are real numbers, R . The design variables, x = [ x1 , x2 , ..., xn ], are control points
where
(CPs) thedefine
that subscript ref denotes
the chord, twisttheandreference
relative (or baseline)
thickness as blade. The vector
a function contains
of bladex span, see aFigure
total of2.n
B-splines
variables[29]
thatare
areused
real to ℝ𝑛 . The
parameterize
numbers, thedesign
chord variables, 
and twist distributions, 
x  x1 , x2 ,...,while
xn , are
a linear
control interpolation
points (CPs)
isthat
useddefine
for the relative thickness distribution. Only four CPs for the chord,
the chord, twist and relative thickness as a function of blade span, see Figure 2.two CPs for the twist, and
B-splines
two CPs for the relative thickness distribution are optimized. The total number of variables is then
[29] are used to parameterize the chord and twist distributions, while a linear interpolation is used
eight. In relative
for the Figure 2,thickness
the CPs for chord varyOnly
distribution. vertically
four CPs (i.e.,for
increasing/decreasing
the chord, two CPs for chord)
the and
twist,are fixed
and two
radially, except for the first CP in the root region. The first CP varies radially but is
CPs for the relative thickness distribution are optimized. The total number of variables is then eight. not fixed vertically.
The chord value
In Figure 2, thefor
CPstheforfirst CP vary
chord is equal to the minimum
vertically chord value needed
(i.e., increasing/decreasing to achieve
chord) and area fixed
dimensional
radially,
thickness
except forsimilar to the
the first CP baseline
in the root blade.
region.CPsThe
forfirst
the CPtwist varyradially
varies verticallybutand are fixed
is not fixed vertically.
radially and The
vice-versa
chord valuefor for
thethe
relative
first CPthickness
is equalCPs.to theThe upper (U)
minimum andvalue
chord lowerneeded
(L) notations,
to achieve xkL a≤dimensional
xk ≤ xU k ,
are the upper and lower limits of the CPs, while the non-linear inequality constraint,
thickness similar to the baseline blade. CPs for the twist vary vertically and are fixed cradially and g ≤ 0, is to
promote monotonically decreasing chord, twist, and relative thickness at the outboard of the blade.
vice-versa
The boundary forand
the non-linear
relative thickness
inequalityCPs. The upperare
constraints (U) and lower
required (L) notations,
to ensure xkL  designs.
feasible blade xk  xkU , are
the upper and lower limits of the CPs, while the non-linear inequality constraint, gc  0 , is to
promote monotonically decreasing chord, twist, and relative thickness at the outboard of the blade.
The boundary and non-linear inequality constraints are required to ensure feasible blade designs.
Energies 2017, 10, 777 5 of 20
Energies 2017, 10, 777 5 of 20

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. (a) Chord; (b) twist; (c) relative thickness; and (d) thickness fitted to the NREL 5 MW baseline
Figure 2. (a) Chord; (b) twist; (c) relative thickness; and (d) thickness fitted to the NREL 5 MW baseline
wind turbine [30], where r/R is the normalized blade radius.
wind turbine [30], where r/R is the normalized blade radius.
A reference blade is required for the blade design and the one from the National Renewable
Energy
A Laboratory
reference blade(NREL) 5 MWfor
is required [30]the
wasblade
chosendesign
for thisand
purpose.
the oneOnlyfrom
the blade span-wiseRenewable
the National chord,
twist, and relative thickness distributions from the NREL 5 MW rotor
Energy Laboratory (NREL) 5 MW [30] was chosen for this purpose. Only the blade span-wise chord, are used as reference values.
Figure 2 depicts the chord, twist and relative thickness distributions of NREL 5 MW as well as best-
twist, and relative thickness distributions from the NREL 5 MW rotor are used as reference values.
fit curves using B-splines denoted as “Baseline” and “Fit”, respectively.
Figure 2 depicts the chord, twist and relative thickness distributions of NREL 5 MW as well as best-fit
The airfoils used for the blade design is comprised of DTU airfoils (DTU and DTU-LN2xx), the
curves using B-splines
DU-W-405LM denoted
airfoil [30], andas a“Baseline”
cylinder for and
the“Fit”, respectively.
root section. Figure 3 depicts the airfoil profile
The airfoils used for the blade design is comprised
coordinates used in the blade design. The lift and drag coefficients of DTUfor airfoils (DTUwere
the profiles and computed
DTU-LN2xx),
the DU-W-405LM
using the quasi-three-dimensional unsteady viscous-inviscid interactive code (Q UIC) airfoil
airfoil [30], and a cylinder for the root section. Figure 3 depicts 3 the profile
[31], see
coordinates
Figure 4.used in the blade
A smoothing design.
spline The liftonand
was applied the drag coefficients
lift and for thetoprofiles
drag coefficients removewere computed
the jagged resultsusing
3UIC computations. Then, as shown in Figure 4, the 3
in the stall region from the Qunsteady
the quasi-three-dimensional viscous-inviscid interactive code (QViterna extrapolation
UIC) [31], see Figure 4.
[32] was performed
A smoothing spline was to applied
obtain theonliftthe
and
liftdrag
andcoefficients for −180°–180°
drag coefficients anglesthe
to remove of attack.
jaggedThe airfoilin the
results
data was then suitable
3 for use in the aeroelastic tools described in the next
stall region from the Q UIC computations. Then, as shown in Figure 4, the Viterna extrapolation [32]sections.
was performed to obtain the lift and drag coefficients for −180◦ –180◦ angles of attack. The airfoil data
2.3. Numerical Tools
was then suitable for use in the aeroelastic tools described in the next sections.
Following [13], COE is calculated as:
2.3. Numerical Tools FCR  (TCC+BOS)  AOE
COE  (6)
Following [13], COE is calculated as: AEP
where FCR is the fixed charge rate, TCC is the turbine capital cost, BOS is the balance of station, AOE
FCR ∗ (TCC + BOS) + AOE
is the annual operating expenses, COE and
= AEP is the annual energy production. FCR, TCC, and BOS are (6)
obtained from the NREL Wind Turbine Design Cost and AEPScaling Model [13]. Note AOE was neglected
wherebecause
FCR isitthe
gives an charge
fixed incentive to reduce
rate, TCC isAEP, see underlying
the turbine capital equations
cost, BOSinis [13]. FLEX5 [33]
the balance and the AOE
of station,
Weibull probability distribution at Shengshi are used to compute AEP, while a code based on the
is the annual operating expenses, and AEP is the annual energy production. FCR, TCC, and BOS are
classical laminate theory called PreComp [34] to compute the blade stiffness and mass distributions.
obtained from the NREL Wind Turbine Design Cost and Scaling Model [13]. Note AOE was neglected
The contribution of the three blades in the rotor mass was computed from PreComp instead of the
because it gives
scaling law inan incentive
[13] to TCC.
to estimate reduce AEP, see underlying equations in [13]. FLEX5 [33] and the
Weibull probability distribution at Shengshi are used to compute AEP, while a code based on the
classical laminate theory called PreComp [34] to compute the blade stiffness and mass distributions.
The contribution of the three blades in the rotor mass was computed from PreComp instead of the
scaling law in [13] to estimate TCC.
Energies 2017, 10, 777 6 of 20
Energies 2017, 10, 777 6 of 20
Energies 2017, 10, 777 6 of 20

Figure Airfoil
3. 3.
Figure Airfoilprofiles
profilesused
used for
for the bladedesign
the blade designconsisting
consistingofof
thethe DTU
DTU series,
series, DU-W-405LM,
DU-W-405LM, and and
a
Figure 3. Airfoil profiles used for the blade design consisting of the DTU series, DU-W-405LM, and a
a cylinder.
cylinder.
cylinder.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 4. (a) Airfoil lift; and (b) drag data computed from Q33UIC. A smoothing spline and Viterna
Figure 4. (a) Airfoil lift; and (b) drag data computed from Q UIC. A smoothing spline and Viterna
extrapolation
Figure were lift;
4. (a) Airfoil applied
and on
(b)the airfoil
drag datadata.
computed from Q3 UIC. A smoothing spline and Viterna
extrapolation were applied on the airfoil data.
extrapolation were applied on the airfoil data.
FLEX5 was selected as the aeroelastic tool to design the outer blade shape of the OffWindChina
FLEX5 was selected as the aeroelastic tool to design the outer blade shape of the OffWindChina
5 MW rotor because FLEX5 is computationally inexpensive in comparison with other codes such as
5 MW
FLEX5rotorwasbecause
selectedFLEX5 is computationally
as the aeroelastic tool to inexpensive
design theinouter comparison with other
blade shape of thecodes such as
OffWindChina
FAST [35] and HAWC2 [36]. Although aeroelastic tools such as FLEX5, FAST, and HAWC2 use nearly
FAST
5 MW [35] and HAWC2
rotoraerodynamic
because FLEX5 [36]. Although aeroelastic
is computationally tools such as FLEX5, FAST, and HAWC2 use nearly
identical modelling methodologies,inexpensive
the computational in comparison
cost varieswithdue other
to the codes such
different
identical
as structural aerodynamic
FAST [35]modeling
and HAWC2 modelling methodologies, the computational cost varies due to the different
fidelities and programming implementations. For example, FLEX5 uses theuse
[36]. Although aeroelastic tools such as FLEX5, FAST, and HAWC2
structural
nearly modeling
identical fidelitiesmodelling
and programming implementations. For example, cost FLEX5 uses thethe
modal analysisaerodynamic
as a computationally methodologies,
effective way to analyze the computational
wind turbine structural varies due to
dynamics,
modal
different analysis
structural as a computationally
modeling effective
fidelitiesapproach way
and programming to analyze wind turbine structural dynamics,
while HAWC2 uses a finite-element involving aimplementations.
higher number of degreesFor example, FLEX5
of freedom uses
[37,
while HAWC2 uses a finite-element approach involving a higher number of degrees of freedom [37,
the38].
modal analysis as a computationally effective way to analyze wind
Despite using nearly identical modelling approaches, FLEX5 was found to be computationallyturbine structural dynamics,
38]. Despite using nearly identical modelling approaches, FLEX5 was found to be computationally
while HAWC2
cheaper thanuses
FAST a finite-element approach
[39], which suggests thatinvolving a higher number
the programming of degreesbetween
implementations of freedomthe [37,38].
two
cheaper than FAST [39], which suggests that the programming implementations between the two
Despite
codes using
might nearly
differ. identical
Using an modelling
inexpensiveapproaches, FLEX5
aeroelastic tool wasafound
allows highertonumber
be computationally cheaper
of design variables
codes might differ. Using an inexpensive aeroelastic tool allows a higher number of design variables
in the
than FASTblade design,
[39], whichsince increasing
suggests the programming
that the number of variables also carries an
implementations increasethe
between in computational
two codes might
in the blade design, since increasing the number of variables also carries an increase in computational
cost in
differ. the optimizer.
Using Similarly,
an inexpensive PreComp
aeroelastic was
tool selected
allows for thenumber
a higher structureofdue to itsvariables
design low computational
in the blade
cost in the optimizer. Similarly, PreComp was selected for the structure due to its low computational
cost compared
design, since to more advanced
increasing the number structural
of analysis
variables tools
also such as
carries an BECAS
increase[40]inand VABS [41]. cost in
computational
cost compared to more advanced structural analysis tools such as BECAS [40] and VABS [41].
As notedSimilarly,
the optimizer. by Ning [42], a blade was
PreComp design based purely
selected for theon aerodynamic
structure due to optimization gives multiple
its low computational cost
As noted by Ning [42], a blade design based purely on aerodynamic optimization gives multiple
solutions
compared tothat produce
more the
advanced same AEP,
structural but with
analysis different
tools suchmasses.
as To
BECAS reduce
[40] COE
and as
VABSmuch as possible,
[41].
solutions that produce the same AEP, but with different masses. To reduce COE as much as possible,
both
Asthe aerodynamic
noted and astructural
by Ning [42], characteristics
blade design based purely of the on rotor must be considered
aerodynamic optimization and should
gives be
multiple
both the aerodynamic and structural characteristics of the rotor must be considered and should be
optimized
solutions thatsimultaneously.
produce the same Therefore,
AEP, buta simple optimization
with different tool To
masses. to design the internal structure of
optimized simultaneously. Therefore, a simple optimization tool to reduce
design theCOE as much
internal as possible,
structure of
Energies 2017, 10, 777 7 of 20

both the aerodynamic and structural characteristics of the rotor must be considered and should be
optimized simultaneously. Therefore, a simple optimization tool to design the internal structure of
large wind-turbine blades was added in the rotor design framework. The simple structural design
tool is used solely as means to take into account some aspect of the structural design in the aeroelastic
design optimization of the blade’s outer shape. The final structural layup of the blade is determined
using the detailed structural design procedure presented in Section 3.
The simple structural design tool uses a combination of PreComp to compute blade structural
properties, a finite-element code to compute the blade coupled mode shapes, BModes [43], the
Euler-Bernoulli beam theory to compute blade deflections and strains [44], and FLEX5 to compute
the design load cases (DLCs). There are a total of five DLCs considered, see [45]. The objective is
to minimize the blade mass subject to a number of boundary and non-linear inequality constraints
based on blade natural frequency, allowable tip deflection, ultimate tensile and compressive strain,
and buckling. The design variables are the spar-cap thickness and web layup. The spar-cap thickness
distribution is defined by eight CPs, while the web layup is defined by the chord-wise locations of
the span-wise endpoints for each web (i.e., four CPs for a two-web layup are performed here). Linear
interpolation is performed to obtain values between the CPs. Upper and lower bounds of the spar-caps
and webs are used to prevent them from merging into each other and into different sectors of the
cross-section, as well as becoming negative. Details regarding the simple structural design tool are
available in reference [45].
To reduce the number of variables that work directly on COE, a two-level optimization approach is
used. The first and outer level is a surrogate-based optimization code developed by the authors [45,46]
to solve Equation (5) in terms of blade chord, twist and relative thickness distributions. The second
and inner level is the structural optimization routine described above which is performed for each
candidate blade design from the first/outer level. The second and inner level involves the MATLAB
optimizer, fmincon [47], which minimizes the blade mass up to at least a local minimum and also
satisfies all the constraints. The second and inner level does not work directly with COE, but rather
indirectly through the minimum blade mass which it computes. A flow diagram is available in
reference [45].

2.4. Blade Design Results

The blade design for the OffWindChina 5 MW rotor was performed using seven different values
of rotor radius. An increment/decrement of one meter was used relatively to the reference value of
63 m from the NREL 5 MW rotor: 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 and 66 m. The effect on COE by increasing
or decreasing the rotor radius is shown in Figure 5. Evidently, COE decreases when the rotor radius
increases. The reduction in COE for the optimized blade design (Optimum) relative to the baseline
(Baseline) is nearly the same for each rotor radius, however this trend is not seen for the AEP, maximum
flap-wise root-bending moment experienced in the DLCs, and blade mass in Figure 5. Two possible
theories might explain the variability in the root-bending moment and blade mass results in Figure 5.
The first is that the variability in the root-bending moment is due to the changes in loading conditions
between the different blade designs in the structural optimization routine. The worst-case loads for
one design might be one particular DLC, while a different DLC for another. The abrupt change in
the worst-case DLC is propagated in the minimum blade mass optimization. The second theory is
related to the two-level optimization approach used. The first level is a global optimizer, while the
second inner level is a local optimizer and is susceptible to local minima. Contrary to the second inner
level, the number of iterations used in the first and outer level is set based on the maximum computing
time available to the user and is not determined based on whether or not the results have converged.
The variability in the root-bending moment and blade mass might be caused by non-convergent blade
designs from the first level, local minima found in the second level, or a combination of the two.
Based on the results shown in Figure 5, a rotor radius of 65 m was selected. The optimum
rotor with the 65 m radius produces the lowest COE and does not produce a flap-wise root-bending
Energies 2017, 10, 777 8 of 20

moment greater than the baseline design. The blade mass is also lower than the mass of the rotor with
radius = 63 m, 64 m and 66 m. Figure 6 depicts the optimized blade design for the 130 m diameter rotor.
Note that the blade span-wise pitch-axis distribution in Figure 6 is defined from the leading-edge and
Energies 2017,
10, 10,
777777length. The pitch-axis is computed using 0.5 c at the blade root 8and of820
is relative to
Energiesthe
2017,chord of 0.375
20 c at
the blade tip,
edge where the values 0.5 and 0.375 were selected based on a CAD model of the NREL 5 MW
edge andand is relative
is relative to to the
the chordlength.
chord length.The
Thepitch-axis
pitch-axis is
is computed
computedusing
using0.5
0.5c catatthe blade
the bladeroot and
root and
blade [48].
0.375 c at the blade tip, where the values 0.5 and 0.375 were selected based on a CAD model of the of the
The
0.375 cchange in
at the blade pitch axis
tip, where towards
the values the root
0.5 and region
0.375 were is calculated
selected based
based on a CAD on the
model curvature
of the
chord inNREL NREL
that 5 MW blade [48]. The change in pitch axis towards the root region is calculated based on the
5same
MW location
blade [48].using a MATLAB
The change in pitch script from [49].
axis towards the root region is calculated based on the
curvature of the chord in that same location using a MATLAB script from [49].
curvature of the chord in that same location using a MATLAB script from [49].

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 5. (a) Cost of energy; (b) annual energy production; (c) flap-wise blade root-bending moment;
(c) (d)
Figure 5. (a)
andCost of energy;
(d) blade (b) rotor
mass versus annual energy production; (c) flap-wise blade root-bending
radius. moment;
and (d) Figure
blade 5. (a) Cost
mass of energy;
versus rotor (b) annual energy production; (c) flap-wise blade root-bending moment;
radius.
and (d) blade mass versus rotor radius.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(c) (d)

Figure 6. Cont.
Energies 2017, 10, 777 9 of 20
Energies 2017, 10, 777 9 of 20
Energies 2017, 10, 777 9 of 20

(e)
(e)
Figure 6. Final blade design results for the OffWindChina 5 MW rotor with a radius of 65 m. (a) Chord;
Figure 6.(b)Final blade
twist; design
(c) relative results for
thickness; the OffWindChina
(d) thickness; 5 MWfrom
and (e) pitch-axis rotor with
LE. The apitch
radius
axis,ofx,65 m. (a) Chord;
is defined
Figure 6. Final blade design results for the OffWindChina 5 MW rotor with a radius of 65 m. (a) Chord;
(b) twist; (c) relative
from the leadingthickness;
edge (LE) (d)
andthickness;
is relative toand length, c. from LE. The pitch axis, x, is defined
(e) pitch-axis
the chord
(b)
fromtwist; (c) relative
the leading edge thickness;
(LE) and (d) thickness;
is relative andchord
to the (e) pitch-axis
length, c.from LE. The pitch axis, x, is defined
from theFigure
leading edge (LE) and is relative to the chord length, c.
7 depicts the aeroelastic performance of OffWindChina 5 MW against the reference (or
baseline) for a wind sweep between 4 and 24 m/s. The NREL 5 MW performance is included for
Figure 7 depicts
comparison theFigure
as well. aeroelastic
7 shows performance of OffWindChina
that the optimized design produces 5 MW against the(top-
reference
Figure 7 depicts the aeroelastic performance of OffWindChina 5 more
MW electrical
against power
the reference (or
(or baseline) for aless
wind sweep between 4 and 24 m/s. The NREL 5 MW performance is included
baseline)right)
for aand
wind thrust
sweep (bottom-right)
between 4 thanandthe24baseline
m/s. Thedesign.
NREL 5 MW performance is included for
for comparison as well. Figure 7 shows that the optimized design produces more electrical power
comparison as well. Figure 7 shows that the optimized design produces more electrical power (top-
(top-right) and less thrust (bottom-right) than the baseline design.
right) and less thrust (bottom-right) than the baseline design.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(c) (d)

Figure 7. Cont.
Energies 2017, 10, 777 10 of 20
Energies 2017, 10, 777 10 of 20

(e) (f)

Figure 7. OffWindChina 5 MW performance (Optimum) compared to the baseline and the NREL 5
Figure 7. OffWindChina 5 MW performance (Optimum) compared to the baseline and the NREL 5 MW
MW for an increasing and a decreasing wind speed simulation. (a) Wind speed at hub height; (b)
for an increasing and a decreasing wind speed simulation. (a) Wind speed at hub height; (b) electrical
electrical power; (c) rotor speed; (d) pitch angle; (e) tip distance to tower center; and (f) shaft thrust.
power; (c) rotor speed; (d) pitch angle; (e) tip distance to tower center; and (f) shaft thrust.

However, the horizontal distance between the blade tip pointing closest towards the ground and
However,
the tower centerthe horizontal
(tip distance distance
to towerbetween
center) isthe blade tip
smaller for pointing closestdesign
the optimized towards thethe
than ground and
baseline
the tower center (tip distance to tower center) is smaller for the optimized
between 10 and 12 m/s wind speeds (600–1000 and 3200–3600 s). Given that the tower radius isdesign than the baseline
between 10 and
approximately 2.612
mm/s
fromwind speeds
[30], the blade(600–1000
tips are atand
least3200–3600
5.4 m away s).from
Given thatstrike.
tower the tower radius is
Nevertheless,
aapproximately
more detailed2.6 m from design
structural [30], theisblade tips are
presented in at
theleast
next5.4 m away
section, fromwill
which tower strike.the
address Nevertheless,
structural
a more detailed structural design
feasibility of the blade with more rigors.is presented in the next section, which will address the structural
feasibility of the blade with more rigors.
3. Structural Design
3. Structural Design
Based on the aerodynamic blade shape obtained in Section 2, the present section focuses on the
Based on the aerodynamic blade shape obtained in Section 2, the present section focuses on the
detailed blade structural design. The section consists of the following four subsections: (1) Design
detailed blade structural design. The section consists of the following four subsections: (1) Design
Variables, (2) Problem Formulation, (3) Numerical Tools, and (4) Blade Design Results.
Variables, (2) Problem Formulation, (3) Numerical Tools, and (4) Blade Design Results.
3.1. Design Variables
3.1. Design Variables
A typical structural configuration of a blade cross-section is adopted in the present structural
A typical structural configuration of a blade cross-section is adopted in the present structural
design, see Figure 8. The first ply or skin (marked as SK in Figure 8) of the blade is made of gel-coat,
design, see Figure 8. The first ply or skin (marked as SK in Figure 8) of the blade is made of gel-coat,
whose main function is to keep a smooth blade surface. When erosion occurs, the gel-coat skin can
whose main function is to keep a smooth blade surface. When erosion occurs, the gel-coat skin can
be repaired to keep the blade continually smooth. Due to the lack of ultimate strength data and the
be repaired to keep the blade continually smooth. Due to the lack of ultimate strength data and
negligible effect that the gel-goat has on the overall blade strength, the strength of the gel-coat is not
the negligible effect that the gel-goat has on the overall blade strength, the strength of the gel-coat
examined. Tri-axial (TA) plies are used as skin reinforcements and are marked as SKR in Figure 8. In
is not examined. Tri-axial (TA) plies are used as skin reinforcements and are marked as SKR in
this paper, the SKR contains two TA plies. Surrounding the inner side of the blade shell,
Figure 8. In this paper, the SKR contains two TA plies. Surrounding the inner side of the blade shell,
unidirectional (UD) glass, UD carbon, TA and foam are laid out according to local requirements. The
unidirectional (UD) glass, UD carbon, TA and foam are laid out according to local requirements.
combination of caps and shear webs carries the main structural loads. As the cap (shown as CAP in
The combination of caps and shear webs carries the main structural loads. As the cap (shown as CAP
Figure 8) resists most of the blade bending moments, UD carbon plies are heavily layered there.
in Figure 8) resists most of the blade bending moments, UD carbon plies are heavily layered there.
To design a blade as light as possible while maintaining structural feasibility requirements, the
To design a blade as light as possible while maintaining structural feasibility requirements, the
optimization of composite layers is of paramount importance. The span-wise distribution of the
optimization of composite layers is of paramount importance. The span-wise distribution of the
number of UD carbon layers is defined by three variables: N1, N2 and Lcap. The rotor radius is 65 m
number of UD carbon layers is defined by three variables: N1, N2 and Lcap. The rotor radius is 65 m
with a hub radius of 1.5 m. Two CPs located at the span-wise locations of r = 14 m (with the maximum
with a hub radius of 1.5 m. Two CPs located at the span-wise locations of r = 14 m (with the maximum
chord) and r = 42.5 m (around 0.6 R), where r is the radial distance to the hub center. The two span-
chord) and r = 42.5 m (around 0.6 R), where r is the radial distance to the hub center. The two span-wise
wise locations are denoted as R1 and R2, respectively. The number of UD carbon plies in the span-
locations are denoted as R1 and R2, respectively. The number of UD carbon plies in the span-wise
wise range from r = R1 − Lcap/3 to r = R1 + 2Lcap/3 is constant and is labeled as N1 in Figure 9. The
range from r = R1 − Lcap/3 to r = R1 + 2Lcap/3 is constant and is labeled as N1 in Figure 9. The number
number of UD carbon at R2 is N2. Linear interpolation is performed to obtain values between R1 and
of UD carbon at R2 is N2. Linear interpolation is performed to obtain values between R1 and R2.
R2. Moreover, the arc length of the cap is selected as an optimization variable and is denoted as Wcap.
Moreover, the arc length of the cap is selected as an optimization variable and is denoted as Wcap.
The design variables are listed in Table 1.
The design variables are listed in Table 1.
Energies 2017, 10, 777 11 of 20

Energies 2017, 10, 777 11 of 20

Figure
Figure8.
8.Typical
Typical structural
structural configuration
configuration of
of aa blade
blade cross-section.
cross-section.

The web, also called shear web, resists the flap-wise shearing force. The shear web is designed
The web, also called shear web, resists the flap-wise shearing force. The shear web is designed to
to increase the rigidity of the blade and prevent local instability. As shown in Figure 8, the shear web
increase the rigidity of the blade and prevent local instability. As shown in Figure 8, the shear web
consists of bi-directional (BD) laminates in the outer part of the web and foam in the inner part of the
consists of bi-directional (BD) laminates in the outer part of the web and foam in the inner part of
web. The foam is marked as FM in Figure 8. The connection points between the leading-edge web
the web. The foam is marked as FM in Figure 8. The connection points between the leading-edge
and the cap equally split the arc length Wcap. Therefore, a rotation of the webs also leads to a rotation
web and the cap equally split the arc length Wcap. Therefore, a rotation of the webs also leads to a
of the cap. As discussed in Section 1, the spar location should be twisted along the blade span. The
rotation of the cap. As discussed in Section 1, the spar location should be twisted along the blade span.
twisting causes the web to become a curved surface rather than a plane. In the current article, the
The twisting causes the web to become a curved surface rather than a plane. In the current article, the
angle between the local web section and the tip chord decreases linearly from the root to the tip. At
angle between the local web section and the tip chord decreases linearly from the root to the tip. At the
the blade root, the angle of the leading-edge shear web is L1 with its origin aligned with the pitch
blade root, the angle of the leading-edge shear web is L1 with its origin aligned with the pitch axis
axis of the blade. L1 = 0 is normal to the tip chord and in the down-wind direction, and L1 > 0 is in
of the blade. L1 = 0 is normal to the tip chord and in the down-wind direction, and L1 > 0 is in the
the clockwise rotation of the web. The angle of the shear web at the blade tip is set to be zero. The
clockwise rotation of the web. The angle of the shear web at the blade tip is set to be zero. The angle
angle of the trailing-edge web is equal to the angle of the leading-edge web. The perpendicular
of the trailing-edge web is equal to the angle of the leading-edge web. The perpendicular distance
distance between the two shear webs, L2, is chosen as an optimization variable, which is also shown
between the two shear webs, L2, is chosen as an optimization variable, which is also shown in Figure 8.
in Figure 8.
The leading- and trailing-edge reinforcement panels are abbreviated as LRP and TRP, respectively.
The leading- and trailing-edge reinforcement panels are abbreviated as LRP and TRP,
They are designed to resist the lead-lag (edgewise) bending moments. In [20,50], topology
respectively. They are designed to resist the lead-lag (edgewise) bending moments. In [20, 50],
optimizations of blade structure showed that the presence of trailing-edge reinforcement leads to a
topology optimizations of blade structure showed that the presence of trailing-edge reinforcement
more structurally efficient blade. UD glass plies are laid at LRP and TRP to withstand the bending
leads to a more structurally efficient blade. UD glass plies are laid at LRP and TRP to withstand the
moments. In the span-wise range from r = R1 − Lcap/3 to r = R1 + Lcap/3, the number of UD glass
bending moments. In the span-wise range from r = R1 − Lcap/3 to r = R1 + Lcap/3, the number of UD
plies at LRP and TRP are N3 and N4, respectively. Linear interpolation is performed to obtain values
glass plies at LRP and TRP are N3 and N4, respectively. Linear interpolation is performed to obtain
in the whole span-wise range.
values in the whole span-wise range.
The leading- and trailing-edge panels are abbreviated as LEP and TEP, respectively.
The leading- and trailing-edge panels are abbreviated as LEP and TEP, respectively. The
The sandwich-like structure with foam being the core is used here to keep the aerodynamic shape and
sandwich-like structure with foam being the core is used here to keep the aerodynamic shape and
provide buckling resistance. The foam thickness is chosen as another optimization variable and set to
provide buckling resistance. The foam thickness is chosen as another optimization variable and set
a multiple of 5 mm. In the range from r = R1 − Lcap/3 to r = R1 + 2Lcap/3, the foam thickness at LEP
to a multiple of 5 mm. In the range from r = R1 − Lcap/3 to r = R1 + 2Lcap/3, the foam thickness at LEP
and TEP are set to be T1 and T2, respectively. The thickness at TEP just after r = R1 + 2Lcap/3 is still T2,
and TEP are set to be T1 and T2, respectively. The thickness at TEP just after r = R1 + 2Lcap/3 is still
as shown in Figure 9, has no conflict with the above definition because the thickness is interpolated to a
T2, as shown in Figure 9, has no conflict with the above definition because the thickness is
multiple of five. The same rule is used for LEP. The number of plies shown in Figure 9 is set arbitrarily
interpolated to a multiple of five. The same rule is used for LEP. The number of plies shown in Figure
just to demonstrate the optimization variable. However, T2 is set to be twice of T1 in the optimization
9 is set arbitrarily just to demonstrate the optimization variable. However, T2 is set to be twice of T1
so that only one optimization variable T2 is added in Table 1.
in the optimization so that only one optimization variable T2 is added in Table 1.
Energies 2017, 10, 777 12 of 20
Energies 2017, 10, 777 12 of 20

Figure 9. Design variables NC1, NC1, Lcap, NR1, Nr2.

Figure 9. Design variables NC1, NC1, Lcap, NR1, Nr2.

The blade root experiences large bending and torsional moments, and additional reinforcement
laminatesblade
The root experiences
are needed large bending
here. Normally, these and torsional
laminates startmoments,
from the andbladeadditional
root andreinforcement
extend to
laminates are needed here. Normally, these laminates start from the blade
locations near R1 (the ending point is chosen as R1 − 0.5 m here). Commonly, the blade root root and extend to locations
contains
near
UD, BDR1 (the
and ending
TA plies. point
TheisBDchosen
plies as R1 − 0.5
provide m here).toCommonly,
resistance the torsional themoments.
blade rootSince contains
the TA UD,plies
BD
and
workTA plies. The
similarly as theBDcombination
plies provide resistance
of UD and BDtoplies,the torsional
the BD plies moments.
are not usedSinceinthe TA to
order plies work
facilitate
similarly as the combination of UD and BD plies, the BD plies are not used
the design and manufacturing process. First, many layers of the UD&TA laminates (consisting one in order to facilitate the
design and manufacturing process. First, many layers of the UD&TA laminates
UD ply and one TA ply) are laid in the outer part of the shell. The number of UD&TA laminates, (consisting one UD ply
and
shownoneby
TAtheply) are laid
solid yellowin the
lineouter part of9,the
in Figure shell.be
should The number ofThen,
optimized. UD&TA laminates,
the plies shown
extended by the
from the
solid yellow line in Figure 9, should be optimized. Then, the plies extended
outboard regions (LRP, LEP, CAP, TEP, TRP) are laid following the trends as shown in Figure 9. from the outboard regions
(LRP, LEP, CAP,
Afterwards, many TEP,
UD&TATRP) are laid following
laminates the trends
are laid again with as theshown in Figure
same number as 9.
thatAfterwards,
of the outermostmany
UD&TA laminates are laid again with the same number as that of the outermost
UD&TA laminates. Finally, many TA plies are laid in the inner part of the shell, which is represented UD&TA laminates.
Finally, manyred
by the solid TAline
pliesinare laid 9.
Figure in The
the inner
number partofofTAtheplies
shell,iswhich is represented
set to be by the solid
N5 at the cylindrical red root
blade line
in
andFigure 9. The
changes number
to N6 of m.
at r = 4.5 TAThepliesnumber TAN5
is set toofbe at the
plies cylindrical
is set to be fiveblade
times root
that and to N6 at
changeslaminates
of UD&TA
rin=this
4.5 m. The
paper. number of TA plies is set to be five times that of UD&TA laminates in this paper.

Table 1. Description of design variables.

Table 1. Description of design variables.

Variable
Variable Description
Description Boundary
Boundary
N1 N1 Number of UD carbon plies at
Number of UD carbon plies at cap cap (r(r= =R1
R1−−Lcap/3
Lcap/3totor r==R1
R1++2Lcap/3)
2Lcap/3) 100–140
100–140
N2 N2 NumberNumber
of UD of UD carbon
carbon plies
plies at at
capcap(r(r==R2R2m)m) 95–135
95–135
Lcap Lcap Span-wise
Span-wise lengthlength
withwith
a samea same number
number ofofUD
UDcarbon
carbon plies
plies 15–30 m m
15–30
Wcap Arc length of the cap 0.4–0.9 m
Wcap Arc length of the cap 0.4–0.9 m
L1 Installation angle of shear webs −10–15 degree
L1 L2 Installation distance
Perpendicular angle ofofshear webs
the two shear webs −10–15mdegree
0.6–1.0
L2 N3 NumberPerpendicular distance
of UD glass plies at LRPof(rthe= R1two shear to
− Lcap/3 webs
r = R1 + Lcap/3) 0.6–1.0 m
30–50
N3 N4 Number
Number of UDof UD
glassglass plies
plies at at
LRP TRP R1−−Lcap/3
(r(r= =R1 Lcap/3totor r==R1
R1++Lcap/3)
Lcap/3) 20–4030–50
N5 Number of TA plies of root reinforcement (r =1.5 m to r =3 m) 20–40
N4 Number of UD glass plies at TRP (r = R1 − Lcap/3 to r = R1 + Lcap/3) 20–40
N6 Number of TA plies of root reinforcement (r = 4.5 m) 5–20
N5 T2 Number of TA plies
Total thickness of root
of foam reinforcement
at TEP (r = R1 − Lcap/3(r =1.5
to rm to r+ =3
= R1 m)
2Lcap/3) 20–10020–40
mm
N6 Number of TA plies of root reinforcement (r = 4.5 m) 5–20
T2 Total thickness of foam at TEP (r = R1 − Lcap/3 to r =R1 + 2Lcap/3) 20–100 mm
3.2. Problem Formulation
For the blade
3.2. Problem structural design, the design objective is to minimize the blade mass. The constraints
Formulation
are on material strength, blade natural frequency, and blade rigidity. The strength of the blade is
For the blade structural design, the design objective is to minimize the blade mass. The
constrained such that the composite materials must not fail when the blade endures the extreme
constraints are on material strength, blade natural frequency, and blade rigidity. The strength of the
blade is constrained such that the composite materials must not fail when the blade endures the
Energies 2017, 10, 777 13 of 20
Energies 2017, 10, 777 13 of 20

extreme loads. The failure criterion of Tsai-Wu was utilized which requires the failure factor, ftsw, to
be smaller
loads. than one:
The failure criterion of Tsai-Wu was utilized which requires the failure factor, ftsw , to be smaller
than one:
12  2 122  1 1  1 1 1 2
ftsw2  2  2

2 
  1      2  1 (7)
2
X t Xσc 2 Yt Ycτ12 S 1X t X
σ1 1c   Yt 1 Yc 1 X t X cYσt Y
1σ
c2
f tsw = + + 2 + − σ1 + − σ2 − √ <1 (7)
Xt Xc Yt Yc S Xt Xc Yt Yc Xt Xc Yt Yc
where  1 ,  2 and  12 are the three in-plane stress components in the local orthotropic ply axis,
where
and Xσt1,, σX2 cand 12 areYcthe
, Yt τand arethree in-plane stress material
the corresponding components in the local
strengths, whichorthotropic
are directly ply axis,from
taken Xt ,
and the
X c , Yt
uniaxial and Y
load are the corresponding material strengths, which are directly taken
c experiments. The skin of the blade is used to keep the smoothness of the blade surface from the uniaxial load
experiments.
and its strength Theisskin
notofexamined.
the blade Theis used to keep
foam is usedtheto smoothness
keep the blade of theshape
blade and
surface
the and
force itsisstrength
mainly
is
resisted by the other laminates. Therefore, the foam is not examined by the Tsai-Wu failurethe
not examined. The foam is used to keep the blade shape and the force is mainly resisted by other
criterion
laminates.
and also due to the lack of ultimate strength data. Concerning the rigidity, the distance betweenlack
Therefore, the foam is not examined by the Tsai-Wu failure criterion and also due to the the
of ultimate strength data. Concerning the rigidity, the distance between
blade tip and the tower must not reach 70% of the distance between the hub and the tower. Therefore, the blade tip and the tower
must not reach 70%
the maximum of thetip
flap-wise distance betweenwas
displacement the hub and the tower.
constrained Therefore,
to be below 7.1 mtheinmaximum flap-wise
order to ensure an
tip displacement was constrained to be below 7.1 m in order to ensure
adequate tower clearance. Moreover, the natural frequency of the blade should be constrained to an adequate tower clearance.
Moreover, the natural frequency of the blade should be constrained to avoid resonance.
avoid resonance.
To
To yield aa blade
yield blade capable
capable of of withstanding
withstanding the the extreme
extreme conditions
conditions duringduring 20 20 years
years lifespan,
lifespan, the the
design loads should cover all the extreme conditions. To shorten the optimization
design loads should cover all the extreme conditions. To shorten the optimization time, five DLCs time, five DLCs were
used
were by FLEX5
used in Section
by FLEX5 2 to obtain
in Section the design
2 to obtain loads.loads.
the design In this
Insection, the commercial
this section, the commercial software GH
software
Bladed was used instead to calculate the extreme loads under more
GH Bladed was used instead to calculate the extreme loads under more DLCs. The span-wise DLCs. The span-wise distribution
of ultimate bending
distribution of ultimatemoments
bending was extracted
moments from
was all GH from
extracted Bladed all calculations. The DLCs considered
GH Bladed calculations. The DLCs
are
considered are DLC1.1, DLC1.3–DLC1.5, DLC2.3, DLC3.2, DLC3.3, DLC4.1, DLC4.2,DLC6.1,
DLC1.1, DLC1.3–DLC1.5, DLC2.3, DLC3.2, DLC3.3, DLC4.1, DLC4.2, DLC5.1, DLC5.1,DLC6.3,DLC6.1,
DLC7.1 and DLC8.1. Detailed settings about the DLCs follow the standard
DLC6.3, DLC7.1 and DLC8.1. Detailed settings about the DLCs follow the standard IEC 61400-1 [28]. IEC 61400-1 [28]. A positive
flap-wise
A positive bending
flap-wisemoment causes
bending a compression
moment causes aoncompression
the suction side on and a negative
the suction sideedgewise bending
and a negative
moment causes a compression at the trailing-edge. Then, the
edgewise bending moment causes a compression at the trailing-edge. Then, the normal normal and tangential (with respect
and
to the local chord) moments were transformed into Mx (parallel to the
tangential (with respect to the local chord) moments were transformed into Mx (parallel to the chord chord line at tip) and My
(perpendicular to the chord line at tip). The span-wise distribution of
line at tip) and My (perpendicular to the chord line at tip). The span-wise distribution of Mx and My Mx and My are shown in
Figure 10.
are shown in Figure 10.

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Span-wise distribution of: (a) Mx; and (b) My.
Figure 10. Span-wise distribution of: (a) Mx; and (b) My.
3.3. Numerical Tools
3.3. Numerical Tools
In the present design, the finite element model in the ANSYS commercial package with Shell181
In
(4-node)theelements
present isdesign,
used, the finite element
in which model
the material in the ANSYS
properties, commercial
thickness package
and fiber align with
angleShell181
of each
(4-node) elements is used, in which the material properties, thickness and fiber
layer are modeled. To construct the blade shape, 25 blade sections are used with sections align angle of each layer
densely
are modeled. To construct the blade shape, 25 blade sections are used with sections densely
placed near the blade tip and the root transition zone. Airfoils are modeled with a blunt trailing-edge.placed near
the
Theblade tip and
element sizethe roottotransition
is set zone.than
be no bigger Airfoils
0.1 mare modeled
[51] in orderwith
to aadequately
blunt trailing-edge. The
capture the element
structural
performance. The mesh near the tip is dense to avoid a large aspect ratio, which can cause numerical
Energies 2017, 10, 777 14 of 20

sizeEnergies
is set2017,
to be10,no
777 bigger than 0.1 m [51] in order to adequately capture the structural performance. 14 of 20

The mesh near the tip is dense to avoid a large aspect ratio, which can cause numerical difficulties to
difficulties to FEM calculations. The degree-of-freedom is fixed at the nodes of the root connection.
FEM calculations. The degree-of-freedom is fixed at the nodes of the root connection. The tip deflection
The tip deflection and the stress and strain on every node can be extracted and used in the
andoptimization
the stress and strain on every node can be extracted and used in the optimization process.
process.
MATLAB
MATLAB andANSYS
and ANSYSare are combined togethertotoautomatically
combined together automatically model
model the the blade
blade of composite
of composite
materials
materialsandandevaluate the the
evaluate objective
objectiveandandconstraint
constraint functions.
functions. TheThe blade structural
blade optimization
structural optimizationprocess,
depicted
process, in depicted
Figure 11, in was performed
Figure 11, was utilizing
performed a particle
utilizingswarm a particle optimization (PSO) algorithm
swarm optimization (PSO) [52].
Thealgorithm
particle swarm
[52]. Theneeds to be
particle randomly
swarm needs initiated
to be randomly withininitiated
the design boundaries
within the designshown in Table 1.
boundaries
Theshown
variablesin Table
from 1.theThe
PSOvariables
population fromare thesaved
PSO population
in a specificare savedformat
output in a specific
through output formatBased
MATLAB.
through
on the bladeMATLAB.
shape from Based on the
Section bladethe
2 and shape
PSOfrom Sectionthe
variables, 2 andfinite theelement
PSO variables, the finite
(FE) model element
of the blade was
(FE) model of the blade was constructed using the ANSYS Parametric
constructed using the ANSYS Parametric Design Language (APDL) macro files. Then, the design loads Design Language (APDL)
weremacro files. Then,
interpolated the the
onto design
FE loads
mesh.were interpolated
Afterwards, theonto the FE mesh.
FE models were Afterwards,
solved using thestatic
FE models
and linear
were solved using static and linear analyses. The results are outputted to an external file that
analyses. The results are outputted to an external file that MATLAB reads to examine the objective
MATLAB reads to examine the objective and constraint functions. In the PSO algorithm, the velocity
and constraint functions. In the PSO algorithm, the velocity of each particle is adjusted during the
of each particle is adjusted during the optimization process:
optimization process:
Vi 1  wV
Vi+1 = wi Vi i+i crand,1
crand ,1c1,iVpbest ,i  crand ,2 c1,iVgbest ,i
c1,i Vpbest,i + crand,2 c1,i Vgbest,i (8) (8)
where is the particle velocity of the next generation, is the particle velocity of the current
where Vi+V1i is1 the particle velocity of the next generation,Vi Vi is the particle velocity of the current
generation,
generation, wi w is the
isi the inertia
inertia factorrepresenting
factor representing the theinertial
inertialeffects from
effects fromcurrent
current generation, V pbest V
generation, ,i
pbest,i
is the
is the single
single particle'sbest
particle's bestknown
known velocity
velocity from
from the thegenerations
generations until i, i,
until Vgbest is the
Vgbest,i
,i
swarm’s
is the best best
swarm’s
known
known velocity
velocity from from
thethe generations
generations until
until i, ci,1,i cand
1,i
and
c2,i are arelearning
c2,i the the learning factors
factors that that control
control the
the learning
process of the
learning particles,
process and
of the crand,1 and
particles, and crand,2
crand ,1 are
and two random
crand ,2 are numbers
two random between
numbers one and
between zero.
one The
and PSO
algorithm
zero. Theused PSOhere employsused
algorithm adaptive
here weighting
employs adaptive and learning factors
weighting andthat are different
learning factorstothat
thosearein the
standard PSO
different algorithm
to those in the [52]:
standard PSO algorithm [52]:


 wi =wiwmax wmax−((wwmax
max − )  tanh(( ) 2 ) )2 )

 ww
minmin ) · tanhi / MaxIter
(( i/MaxIter
c1,i=c1,i c c1,max−((cc1,max −
c c )  )tanh( pi / MaxIter )
(9)
1,max 1,max 1,min1,min · p tanh(i/MaxIter ) (9)
 c =
 c  c2,min+((cc2,max −c2,min )  ) tanh(
· tanh i / MaxIter )
(i/MaxIter )
2,i 2,ic2,min 2,max c2,min
where the upper and lower bounds of the weighting factor are controlled by w  0.8 and
where the upper and lower bounds of the weighting factor are controlled by w max = 0.8 and
max

w  0.05 , and the bounds of the learning factors are controlled by

wmin min= 0.05, and the bounds of the learning factors are controlled by c1,max c  1.2
= , c1,min  0.3 ,
1.2, c1,min = 0.3,
1,max
c
c2,max
2,max  1.2 and c
= 1.2 and c2,min  0.3
2,min = 0.3.
.

Determine the objective function,

variables and constraints

Initialize the particle swarm

Airfoil data,
Adjust the APDL
distribution of
PSO modeling
chord and twist
parameters

Calculating the objective

Design
function and examine the
loads
constraints

No Yes
Satisfy the end
Output
criterion

Figure11.
Figure 11. Flow
Flow chart
chartof
ofthe
thestructural
structuraldesign procedure.
design procedure.
Energies 2017, 10, 777 15 of 20

Energies 2017, 10, 777 15 of 20

3.4. Blade Design Results
3.4. Blade Design Results
3.4.1. Baseline Blade Description
3.4.1. Baseline Blade Description
A baseline blade is constructed to compare with the following optimization results. The design
variables for the baseline
A baseline blade modelto
blade is constructed are listed inwith
compare Tablethe2. following
The distribution of the materials
optimization along
results. The the
design
blade span in the initial blade design is depicted in Figure 12. Beside the design variables
variables for the baseline blade model are listed in Table 2. The distribution of the materials along the listed in
Table
blade2,span
otherinless
the important distributions
initial blade are shown
design is depicted in Figure
in Figure 12. 12, suchthe
Beside as design
the number of UD-glass
variables listed in
plies
Tableof2,LEP
otherand TEP,
less and thedistributions
important thickness of are
the shown
foam atinthe leading-
Figure (web1)
12, such andnumber
as the trailing-edge webs
of UD-glass
(web2).
plies ofThe
LEPweight
and TEP, of the
andconstructed FE blade
the thickness of themodel
foam at is 17,787 kg, which
the leading- is close
(web1) and to the 17,700 kg
trailing-edge of
webs
the 61.5 m
(web2). The5 MW
weightreference wind turbine
of the constructed FEblade
blade[51].
modelTheismaximum
17,787 kg, out-of-plane
which is closetiptodisplacement
the 17,700 kg is
of
7.0876
the 61.5m,mwhich
5 MW nearly reaches
reference windtheturbine
maximum allowable
blade [51]. Thetip deflectionout-of-plane
maximum of 7.1 m. tip displacement is
7.0876 m, which nearly reaches the maximum allowable tip deflection of 7.1 m.
Table 2. Description of design variables.
Table 2. Description of design variables.
Variable N1 N2 Lcap Wcap L1 L2 N3 N4 N5 N6 T2
Variable
Initial N1
135 N2 27.00
125 Lcap
m Wcap
0.6000 m L1
8.50 degree 0.8000 mL2 35 N330 N4 30 N5 10 N6 60 mm
T2
Initial
Optimized 135
100 125 23.00
126 27.00mm 0.7885
0.6000m m 9.99
8.50 degree1.0000
degree 0.8000
m m50 3527 30 20 30 8 10 2060 mmmm
Optimized 100 126 23.00 m 0.7885 m 9.99 degree 1.0000 m 50 27 20 8 20 mm

The Tsai-Wu failure factors, ftsw , are smaller than one. A modal analysis was performed to
The Tsai-Wu failure factors, ftsw, are smaller than one. A modal analysis was performed to
determine the natural frequency of the initial blade with a fixed root. The obtained natural frequencies
determine the natural frequency of the initial blade with a fixed root. The obtained natural
for the first six modes are compared with those of the reference blade [51] in Table 3. The natural
frequencies for the first six modes are compared with those of the reference blade [51] in Table 3. The
frequencies between the baseline (or initial) and reference blades are close to each other, which shows
natural frequencies between the baseline (or initial) and reference blades are close to each other,
the similarities of the blade properties.
which shows the similarities of the blade properties.

Figure 12.Layup
Figure12. Layupof
ofcomposite
compositematerials
materialsof
ofthe
theinitial
initialblade.
blade.

3.4.2.
3.4.2.Optimization
OptimizationResults
Results
As
Asshown
shownininFigure
Figure 13,13,
thethe
optimization process
optimization converges
process to a minimum
converges to a minimum mass of 15,684
mass of kg before
15,684 kg
reaching the maximum iteration number. The mass reduction relative to the NREL
before reaching the maximum iteration number. The mass reduction relative to the NREL 5 MW 5 MW blade is 2016
kg, or 11.39%.
blade Theor
is 2016 kg, optimized
11.39%. The values of the design
optimized valuesvariables are listed
of the design in Table
variables are2.listed
The distribution
in Table 2. The of
the plies and of
distribution laminates
the pliesare
and compared
laminateswith those of thewith
are compared initial blade
those in Figure
of the initial 14.
bladeTheinnumber
Figure 14. of UD
The
carbon plies of cap, in the span-wise range from r = R1 − Lcap/3 to r = R1 + 2Lcap/3,
number of UD carbon plies of cap, in the span-wise range from r = R1 − Lcap/3 to r = R1 + 2Lcap/3, has has decreased
from 135 to from
decreased 100. However,
135 to 100. the number of
However, theUD carbonofplies
number UDfrom
carbonr = plies
R1 + from
2Lcap/3 R1r += 2Lcap/3
r = to R2 is increasing.
to r = R2
The
is increasing. The arc length of the cap has increased from 0.6000 to 0.7885 m, which means getting
arc length of the cap has increased from 0.6000 to 0.7885 m, which means that the cap is that the
cap is getting wider. The angle of the shear web at the blade root is 9.99 deg, which also means that
the cap is rotated. The rotation has led to the upper spar cap (suction side) to move towards the
Energies 2017, 10, 777 16 of 20

wider. The angle of the shear web at the blade root is 9.99 deg, which also means that the 16
Energies 2017, 10, 777
cap is
of 20
rotated. The rotation has led to the upper spar cap (suction side) to move towards the trailing-edge, as
shown in Figure
trailing-edge, as 15, which
shown inisFigure
consistent with the
15, which is findings from
consistent withthethe
topology
findingsoptimization
from the from [50].
topology
The trailing-edge
optimization from
Energies 2017, 10, web moves towards the trailing-edge and reaches the upper
777 [50]. The trailing-edge web moves towards the trailing-edge and reaches limit. The number
16 ofthe
20 upper of
UD glass
Energiesplies at
2017, 10, LRP
777 has increased up to the upper boundary and that at TRP
limit. The number of UD glass plies at LRP has increased up to the upper boundary and that at TRP has slightly 16decreased.
of 20

Thetrailing-edge,
has number decreased.
slightly as shown
of root Thein Figurelaminates
number15,
reinforcement of which atisr =consistent
3 m and with
root reinforcement the the findings
thickness
laminates at of 3from
r =the mpanelthefoam
and topology
the at LEP and
thickness of
trailing-edge,
optimization from as [50].
shownThe in Figure 15, web
trailing-edge which
movesis consistent
towards with
the the findings
trailing-edge and from
reaches the
thetopology
upper
LTP reach their lower boundaries.
the panel foam at LEP and LTP reach their lower boundaries.
optimization
limit. fromof[50].
The number UD The
glasstrailing-edge
plies at LRPweb has moves towards
increased up tothe
thetrailing-edge and reaches
upper boundary and thatthe
at upper
TRP
limit.
has The number
slightly of UD
decreased. Theglass
numberpliesofatroot
LRPreinforcement
has increased laminates
up to the upper
at r = 3boundary and
m and the that at TRP
thickness of
has
the slightly
panel foamdecreased.
at LEP and The
LTP number of root
reach their reinforcement
lower boundaries.laminates at r = 3 m and the thickness of
the panel foam at LEP and LTP reach their lower boundaries.

Figure
Figure 13.
13. Optimization
Optimization process
process converging
converging to
to aa minimum
minimum blade
blade mass of 15,684 kg.
Figure 13. Optimization process converging to a minimum blade mass of 15,684 kg.
Figure 13. Optimization process converging to a minimum blade mass of 15,684 kg.

(a) (b)
(a)(a) (b) (b)
Figure 14. Comparison of the material layups between the (a) initial; and (b) optimized blades.
Figure 14.
Figure Comparison of the material layups between the (a) initial; and (b) optimized blades.
Figure 14. 14. Comparison
Comparison ofofthe
thematerial
material layups
layups between
betweenthe (a)(a)
the initial; andand
initial; (b) optimized blades.
(b) optimized blades.

Figure 15. Rotation angle of the webs.

Figure 15.
Figure 15. Rotation
Rotationangle
angleofofthethe
webs.
webs.
Figure 15. Rotation angle of the webs.
Energies
Energies 2017,
2017, 10,
10, 777
777 17
17 of
of 20
20

Table 3. Modal frequencies of the initial and optimized blades.

Table 3. Modal frequencies of the initial and optimized blades.
Mode Reference [51] Initial Optimized
1 0.87
Mode Hz, 1st flapwise
Reference [51] 0.82 Hz, 1st
Initialedgewise Optimized 1st edgewise
0.79 Hz,
2 1.06 Hz, 1st edgewise 1.02 Hz, 1st flapwise 0.98 Hz, 1st flapwise
1 0.87 Hz, 1st flapwise 0.82 Hz, 1st edgewise 0.79 Hz, 1st edgewise
3 2.68
2 Hz, 2nd flapwise
1.06 Hz, 1st edgewise 3.03 Hz, 2nd flapwise
1.02 Hz, 1st flapwise 3.13 Hz, 2nd flapwise
0.98 Hz, 1st flapwise
4 3.91
3 Hz, 2nd2.68 edgewise
Hz, 2nd flapwise 3.61
3.03Hz,
Hz, 2nd edgewise
2nd flapwise 3.13 Hz,3.77
2nd Hz, 2nd edgewise
flapwise
5 4
5.57 Hz, 3.91
2nd Hz, 2nd edgewise
flapwise 3.61
5.81Hz,
Hz,2nd
1stedgewise
torsion 3.77 Hz, 2nd edgewise
5.76 Hz, 1st torsion
6 56.45 Hz,5.57
1st Hz, 2nd flapwise
torsion 5.81Hz,
6.16 Hz,3rd
1st torsion
flapwise 5.76 Hz,6.40
1st torsion
Hz, 3rd flapwise
6 6.45 Hz, 1st torsion 6.16 Hz, 3rd flapwise 6.40 Hz, 3rd flapwise

The optimized blade satisfies all the design requirements. Table 3 presents the calculated natural
The optimized
frequencies blade satisfies
in comparison all the
with those ofdesign
the NRELrequirements.
5 MW blade Tableand3 presents the calculated
initial blades. natural
The cut-in and
frequencies
rated in comparison
rotor speeds with those
are designed to be of
6.9the
rpmNREL
and 512.1
MW blade
rpm, and initial blades.
respectively. Under theThenormal
cut-in and rated
working
rotor speeds
state, are designed
the highest to be 6.9 rpmofand
passing frequencies one12.1 rpm,
blade and respectively.
three blades Under the normal
are 0.2017 Hz andworking
0.6050state,
Hz,
the highest passing frequencies of one blade and three blades are 0.2017 Hz and 0.6050
respectively. The lowest natural frequency of the optimized blade, 0.7875 Hz is larger than the blade Hz, respectively.
The lowest
passing natural frequency
frequencies, of theresonance.
which avoids optimizedAccording
blade, 0.7875 Hz is3,larger
to Table than the and
the flap-wise bladeedgewise
passing
frequencies, which avoids resonance. According to Table 3, the flap-wise
vibrations are the main vibrations of the blade. The vibration mode shapes of the blade are and edgewise vibrations
are the main vibrations
demonstrated of the
in Figure 16. It isblade.
worth The
notingvibration
that themode shapes
rotational of the blade
vibrations do notareappear
demonstrated in
in the first
Figure 16. It is worth noting that the rotational vibrations do not appear in the
four modes, which shows a relative strong resistance to rotation. It is found that the rotational first four modes, which
shows a relative
vibrations of thestrong
NRELresistance
5 MW blade to rotation.
appear Itmainly
is found in that
the the
sixthrotational vibrations
mode. Since of the
the new NREL
blade is
5 MW blade
optimized appearamainly
without in the
limitation on sixth mode. Since
the maximum the newangle,
rotational bladethe is optimized without is
torsional stiffness a limitation
relatively
on the maximum rotational angle, the torsional stiffness is relatively smaller.
smaller.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure
Figure 16.
16. Mode
Mode shape
shape of
of the
the optimized
optimized blade.
blade. (a)
(a) First
First mode
mode shape;
shape; (b)
(b) second
second mode
mode shape;
shape; (c)
(c) third
third
mode shape; (d) fourth mode shape; (e) fifth mode shape; and (f) sixth mode
mode shape; (d) fourth mode shape; (e) fifth mode shape; and (f) sixth mode shape. shape.

The Tsai-Wu failure factors are below one. Since the first ply or skin is the gel-coat and was not
The Tsai-Wu failure factors are below one. Since the first ply or skin is the gel-coat and was not
examined, the maximum Tsai-Wu failure factors for the 2nd to 7th plies of the blade shell are listed
examined, the maximum Tsai-Wu failure factors for the 2nd to 7th plies of the blade shell are listed in
in Table 4. The failure factors near the first element (at the very end of the web near the blade root)
Table 4. The failure factors near the first element (at the very end of the web near the blade root) of the
of the trailing-edge web are influenced by the stress concentration. When excluding the elements
trailing-edge web are influenced by the stress concentration. When excluding the elements with stress
with stress concentrations, the maximum Tsai-Wu failure factors for the 1st and 2nd BD plies of the
Energies 2017, 10, 777 18 of 20

concentrations, the maximum Tsai-Wu failure factors for the 1st and 2nd BD plies of the two webs are
0.8148 and 0.8137, respectively. The failure factors for the optimized blade are listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Maximum Tsai-Wu failure factors of plies.

Ply No. 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 1st (Web) 2nd (Web)
Initial 0.52219 0.4904 0.5631 0.5192 0.5338 0.4530 0.9302 0.9118
Optimized 0.6624 0.6369 0.8927 0.6074 0.8433 0.5726 0.8148 0.8137

The maximum out-of-plane tip displacement is 7.0997 m which is close to the constrained
condition of 7.10 m. With the blade rigidity approaching the design limit, meanwhile satisfying
other design constraints, a maximum mass decrease of 2016 kg was obtained. Comparing the Tsai-Wu
failure factors, it was found that the maximum tip displacement or rigidity of the blade is the main
constraint for the further reduction of the blade mass. This implies that the mass of the blade can be
greatly reduced if a larger tip-tower clearance is allowed. Since offshore wind turbines are approaching
towards the 10 MW-scale and higher, the blade mass will increase dramatically. The increase in
blade mass for larger rotors will be one of the main obstacles for further reducing the cost of wind
energy. Pre-bent blades and other novel designs should be investigated and employed to increase the
tip-tower clearance.

4. Conclusions
The current article describes the conceptual design of a 5 MW wind turbine rotor with wind
conditions at an offshore site in southeastern China (OffWindChina). The OffWindChina 5 MW design
work was divided into aeroelastic and structural design phases. The aeroelastic part determines the
optimal outer shape of the blade, while the structural part determines the internal laminate layup.
Results demonstrate that the new rotor design yields a high energy output while maintaining structural
feasibility with respect to international standards. The blade mass is reduced by 11.39% with respect
to the NREL 5 MW blade. The new blade satisfies all the design requirements, with the blade rigidity
approaching the design limit. It is found that the spar cap on the suction side of the blade tends to
move towards the trailing-edge. Further optimizations should be conducted including blade pre-bend,
fatigue, and buckling.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the Danish Council for Strategic Research under the project
name OffWindChina (Sagsnr. 0603-00506B).
Author Contributions: Wen Zhong Shen and Jin Chen conceived and designed the project; Zhenye Sun and
Matias Sessarego performed the computations and analyzed the results; Zhenye Sun, Matias Sessarego, Wen Zhong
Shen and Jin Chen wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Global Wind Energy Council. Global Wind Energy Outlook 2016; Global Wind Energy Council: Brussels,
Belgium, 2016.
2. Global Wind Energy Council. Global Wind Report: Annual Market Update; Global Wind Energy Council:
Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
3. China National Development and Reform Commission. International Energy Agency. China Wind Energy
Development Roadmap 2050; Technical Report; Energy Research Institute: Beijing, China, 2011.
4. Xia, C.; Song, Z. Wind energy in China: Current scenario and future perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2009, 13, 1966–1974.
5. Sun, L.H.; Ai, W.X.; Song, W.L.; Wang, Y.M. Study on climatic characteristics of China-influencing tropical
cyclones. J. Trop. Meteorol. 2011, 17, 181–186.
6. An, Y.; Quan, Y.; Gu, M. Field measurement of wind characteristics of typhoon muifa on the Shanghai world
financial center. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2012, 8, 893739. [CrossRef]
Energies 2017, 10, 777 19 of 20

7. Mostafaeipour, A. Feasibility study of offshore wind turbine installation in Iran compared with the world.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1722–1743. [CrossRef]
8. Ochieng, E.G.; Melaine, Y.; Potts, S.J. Future for offshore wind energy in the United Kingdom: The way
forward. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 655–666. [CrossRef]
9. Colmenar-Santos, A.; Perera-Perez, J.; Borge-Diez, D. Offshore wind energy: A review of the current status,
challenges and future development in Spain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 64, 1–18. [CrossRef]
10. Breton, S.P.; Moe, G. Status, plans and technologies for offshore wind turbines in Europe and North America.
Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 646–654. [CrossRef]
11. Bilgili, M.; Yasar, A.; Simsek, E. Offshore wind power development in Europe and its comparison with
onshore counterpart. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 905–915. [CrossRef]
12. Chehouri, A.; Younes, R.; Ilinca, A. Review of performance optimization techniques applied to wind turbines.
Appl. Energy 2015, 142, 361–388. [CrossRef]
13. Fingerish, L.; Hand, M.; Laxson, A. Wind Turbine Design Cost and Scaling Model; Technical Report; National
Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2006.
14. Fuglsang, P.; Madsen, H. A. Numerical optimization of wind turbine rotors. In Proceedings of the European
Union Wind Energy Conference, Göteborg, Sweden, 20–24 May 1996; pp. 679–682.
15. Wang, X.; Shen, W.Z.; Zhu, W.J. Shape optimization of wind turbine blades. Wind Energy 2009, 12, 781–803.
16. Vesel, R.W., Jr.; Mcnamara, J.J. Performance enhancement and load reduction of a 5 MW wind turbine blade.
Renew. Energy 2014, 66, 391–401. [CrossRef]
17. Fuglsang, P.; Thomsen, K. Site-specific design optimization of 1.5–2.0 MW wind turbines. J. Sol. Energy Eng.
2001, 123, 296–303. [CrossRef]
18. Barnes, R.H.; Morozov, E.V. Structural optimisation of composite wind turbine blade structures with
variations of internal geometry configuration. Compos. Struct. 2016, 152, 158–167. [CrossRef]
19. Jureczko, M.; Pawlak, M.; M˛eżyk, A. Optimisation of wind turbine blades. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2005,
167, 463–471. [CrossRef]
20. Buckney, N.; Pirrera, A.; Green, S.D. Structural efficiency of a wind turbine blade. Thin Walled Struct. 2013,
67, 144–154. [CrossRef]
21. Pirrera, A.; Capuzzi, M.; Buckney, N.; Weaver, P.M. Optimization of Wind Turbine Blade Spars.
In Proceedings of the 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, & Materials
Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 23–26 April 2012.
22. Ye, Z.; Liu, X.; Chen, Y. Global Optimum Design Method and Software for the Rotor Blades of Horizontal
Axis Wind Turbines. Wind Eng. 2002, 26, 257–269. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/
030952402321039449 (accessed on 05 March 2017).
23. Liu, X.; Chen, Y.; Ye, Z. Optimization model for rotor blades of horizontal axis wind turbines. Front. Mech.
Eng. China 2007, 2, 483–488. [CrossRef]
24. Gutierrez, C.R. Aerodynamic and Aeroelastic Design of Low Wind Speed Wind Turbine Blades. Master’s
Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2014.
25. Zhu, J.; Cai, X.; Gu, R. Aerodynamic and Structural Integrated Optimization Design of Horizontal-Axis
Wind Turbine Blades. Energies 2016, 9, 66. [CrossRef]
26. Meng, G.; Jicai, N.; Wu, X. Normal and Extreme Wind Conditions for Power at Coastal Locations in China.
PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0136876.
27. Silva, J.; Ribeiro, C.; Guedes, R. Roughness Length Classification of Corine Land Cover Classes.
In Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference & Exhibition (EWEC) 2007; MEGAJOULE
Consultants, Milan, Italy, 7–10 May 2007.
28. International Standard IEC 61400-1: Wind Turbine—Part 1: Design Requirements, 3rd ed.; International
Electrotechnical Commission: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
29. Piegl, L.; Tiller, W. The NURBS Book, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
30. Jonkman, J.; Butterfield, S.; Musial, W.; Scott, G. Definition of a 5-MW Reference Wind Turbine for Offshore System
Development; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2009.
31. Ramos-García, N.; Sørensen, J.N.; Shen, W.Z. A strong viscous-inviscid interaction model for rotating airfoils.
Wind Energy 2013, 17, 1957–1984. [CrossRef]
32. Viterna, L.A.; Janetzke, D.C. Theoretical and Experimental Power from Large Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines;
NASA Lewis Research Center: Cleveland, OH, USA, 1982.
Energies 2017, 10, 777 20 of 20

33. Øye, S. FLEX4 simulation of wind turbine dynamics. In Proceedings of the 28th IEA Meeting of Experts
Concerning State of the Art of Aeroelastic Codes for Wind Turbine Calculations, Lyngby, Denmark,
11–12 April 1996.
34. Bir, G.S. User’s Guide to PreComp: Pre-Processor for Computing Composite Blade Properties; National Renewable
Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2005.
35. Jonkman, J.M.; Buhl, M.L. FAST User’s Guide; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO,
USA, 2005.
36. Larsen, T.J.; Hansen, A.M. HAWC2—User Manual; Technical University of Denmark: Lyngby, Denmark, 2007.
37. Hasen, M.O.L.; Sorensen, J.N.; Voutsinas, S.; Sorensen, N.; Madsen, H.A. State of the art in wind turbine
aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2006, 42, 285–330. [CrossRef]
38. Borg, M.; Bredmose, H. Qualification of Innovative Floating Substructures for 10 MW Wind Turbines and Water
Depths Greater Than 50 m. Deliverable D4.4—Overview of the Numerical Models Used in the Consortium and
Their Qualification; Technical Report DTU Wind Energy E-0097; Technical University of Denmark: Lyngby,
Denmark, 2015.
39. Sessarego, M.; Ramos-Garcia, N.; Sorensen, J.N.; Shen, W.Z. Development of an aeroelastic code based on
three-dimensional viscous-inviscid method for wind turbine computations. Wind Energy 2017. [CrossRef]
40. Blasques, J.P.; Stolpe, M. Multi-material topology optimization of laminated composite beam cross sections.
Compos. Struct. 2012, 94, 3278–3289. [CrossRef]
41. Yu, W.; Hodges, D.H.; Ho, J.C. Variational asymptotic beam sectional analysis—An updated version. Int. J.
Eng. Sci. 2012, 59, 40–64. [CrossRef]
42. Ning, A.; Damiani, R.; Moriarty, P.J. Objectives and constraints for wind turbine optimization. J. Sol.
Energy Eng. 2014, 136, 041010. [CrossRef]
43. Bir, G.S. User’s Guide to BModes: Software for Computing Rotating Beam Coupled Modes; National Renewable
Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2007.
44. Hansen, M.O.L. Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines, 2nd ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008.
45. Sessarego, M.; Ramos-García, N.; Shen, W.Z.; Sørensen, J.N. Large wind turbine rotor design using an
aero-elastic/free-wake panel coupling code. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2016, 753, 042017. [CrossRef]
46. Sessarego, M.; Ramos-García, N.; Yang, H.; Shen, W.Z. Aerodynamic wind-turbine rotor design using
surrogate modeling and three-dimensional viscous-inviscid interaction technique. Renew. Energy 2016, 93,
620–635. [CrossRef]
47. MATLAB 2014b; The MathWorks Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 10 October 2014.
48. Chow, R. Computational Investigations of Inboard Flow Separation and Mitigation Techniques on
Multi-Megawatt Wind Turbines. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA, 2011.
49. Sale, D.C. Northwest National Renewable Energy Center, Department of Mechanical Engineering. In User’s
Guide to Co-Blade: Software for Structural Analysis of Composite Blades; University of Washington: Seattle, WA,
USA, 2012.
50. Joncas, S.; de Ruiter, M.J.; van Keulen, F. Preliminary design of large wind turbine blades using layout
optimization techniques. In Proceedings of the 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and
optimization conference, Albany, NY, USA, 30 August–1 September 2004.
51. Resor, B.R. Definition of a 5 MW/61.5 m Wind Turbine Blade Reference Model; Sandia National Laboratories:
Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2013.
52. Shi, Y. Particle swarm optimization: Developments, applications and resources. In Proceedings of the 2001
Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Seoul, Korea, 27–30 May 2001; Volume 1, pp. 81–86.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).