Subcontract Report 

NREL/SR-500-43391 

December 2008 

COE Reductions through Active 

Aerodynamic Control of Rotor 

Aerodynamics and Geometry 

August 10, 2004 – May 31, 2007 

D.A. Griffin and T.J. McCoy 

Global Energy Concepts 

Kirkland, Washington 
COE Reductions through Active 

Aerodynamic Control of Rotor 

Aerodynamics and Geometry 

August 10, 2004 – May 31, 2007 

D.A. Griffin and T.J. McCoy 

Global Energy Concepts 

Kirkland, Washington 

NREL Technical Monitor: Scott Schreck 

Prepared under Subcontract No. YAM-4-33200-08 

Subcontract Report 

NREL/SR-500-43391 

December 2008 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC 

Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

This publication received minimal editorial review at NREL 

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... iv 

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... v 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

Background ....................................................................................................................... 2

Scope and Approach ......................................................................................................... 3

Baseline Turbine ............................................................................................................... 3

Baseline Blade Aerodynamic Design ............................................................................. 4 

Baseline Blade Structural Design ................................................................................... 9 

Power Performance ....................................................................................................... 11 

Controls ......................................................................................................................... 13 

Load Calculations and COE.......................................................................................... 13 

Retractable Blade Rotor ................................................................................................. 15

Blade Structural Design ................................................................................................ 17 

Tip Retraction Mechanism Modeling ........................................................................... 22 

Controls ......................................................................................................................... 23 

Loads and COE Results ................................................................................................ 24 

Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 26 

Active Aero Devices ........................................................................................................ 30

Device Review .............................................................................................................. 30

Generic Aerodynamic Properties (Camber Modification) ............................................ 35 

Controls ......................................................................................................................... 36 

Load and COE Results .................................................................................................. 42 

Loads and COE Summary ............................................................................................ 43 

Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 47 

Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 48

References ........................................................................................................................ 49

Appendix A: AEP Calculations ................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B: COE Calculations ................................................................................... B-1

COE Calculation for RBR Configuration 12 .............................................................. B-2 

COE Calculation for IBP Plus Full Active Aero ........................................................ B-3 

Appendix C: MATLAB Script Example..................................................................... C-1

Appendix D: Abbreviations and Coordinates for Load Cases and Loads .............. D-1

Load Cases .................................................................................................................. D-2 

Loads ........................................................................................................................... D-2 

iii 
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Airfoils used for baseline blade model ............................................................................ 5

Figure 2. Aerodynamic data for scaled S818 airfoil (near-stall AOA) ........................................... 6 

Figure 3. Aerodynamic data for scaled S818 airfoil (extended AOA) ........................................... 7 

Figure 4. Aerodynamic data for scaled S825 airfoil (extended AOA) ........................................... 7 

Figure 5. Aerodynamic data for scaled S826 airfoil (extended AOA) ........................................... 8 

Figure 6. Architecture of baseline structural model ........................................................................ 9 

Figure 7. CP-TSR curve for baseline 2.5-MW rotor ..................................................................... 12 

Figure 8. Baseline turbine power curve at sea level ..................................................................... 12 

Figure 9. Energy trends for candidate RBR configurations .......................................................... 16 

Figure 10. RBR blade profile for configuration 6......................................................................... 17 

Figure 11. RBR blade profile for configuration 12....................................................................... 17 

Figure 12. RBR power curve for configuration 12 ....................................................................... 17 

Figure 13. Clearance between RBR tip and inner-blade profile for configuration 12 .................. 22 

Figure 14. Comparison of RBR tip profile with inner-blade spar for configuration 12 ............... 22 

Figure 15. RBR operation in moderate winds .............................................................................. 24 

Figure 16. Change in peak loads relative to baseline for RBR ..................................................... 25 

Figure 17. Change in fatigue loads relative to baseline for RBR ................................................. 25 

Figure 18. CAD modeling of tip aerodynamic profile .................................................................. 27 

Figure 19. Aerodynamic effect of S826 shape modification (constant inset) ............................... 28 

Figure 20. Effect of S826 shape on rotor efficiency for RBR configuration 12 ........................... 28 

Figure 21. Vortex generators (counter-rotating array) .................................................................. 31 

Figure 22. Lift curve changes resulting from boundary layer modification ................................. 31 

Figure 23. Nominal operating points on the lift curves for selected spanwise locations.............. 32 

Figure 24. Lift curve changes resulting from increased effective camber .................................... 34 

Figure 25. Microtab devices ......................................................................................................... 34 

Figure 26. Morphing trailing-edge shape...................................................................................... 34 

Figure 27. Lift and drag for the S825 airfoil with generic camber modification .......................... 35 

Figure 28. Aerodynamic derivatives versus wind speed for turbine operating variables ............. 38 

Figure 29. Aerodynamic derivatives versus wind speed for camber modification devices .......... 39 

Figure 30. Plant and closed loop eigenvalues at 14 m/s ............................................................... 40 

Figure 31. Comparison of load reduction at 14 m/s using (from top to bottom) the PI, IBP, and 

aero controls for a step change in wind shear occurring at 100 s ......................................... 41 

Figure 32. Active aero device groupings ...................................................................................... 42 

Figure 34. Change in fatigue loads relative to baseline for IBP and active aero control.............. 44 

Figure 35. Blade pitch activity comparison .................................................................................. 45 

Figure 36. Active aero and RBR COE comparison ...................................................................... 45 

iv 
v 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Baseline Turbine Description ........................................................................................... 3 

Table 2. Airfoil Shape Modifications (Baseline Blade) .................................................................. 5 

Table 3. Planform Description for Baseline Blade ......................................................................... 8 

Table 4. Baseline Structural-Shell Definition ................................................................................. 9 

Table 5. Summary of Baseline Blade Material Properties ............................................................ 10 

Table 6. Structural Layout for Baseline Blade............................................................................. 11 

Table 7. Calculated AEP for Baseline Blade ................................................................................ 11 

Table 8. Baseline Control Parameter Settings .............................................................................. 13 

Table 9. Selected Set of IEC Load Cases ..................................................................................... 14 

Table 10. Candidate RBR Configurations (highlighted in yellow) .............................................. 16 

Table 11. Assumed Carbon Spar Material Properties ................................................................... 18 

Table 12. Tip/Tower Clearance Margins, Baseline ...................................................................... 19 

Table 13. Tip/Tower Clearance Margins, RBR 12 ....................................................................... 20 

Table 14. Summary Structural Layout for RBR Configuration 12 ............................................... 21 

Table 15. RBR Tip Mechanism and Control Description ............................................................. 23 

Table 16. Load Cases for Maximum Loads: RBR versus Baseline .............................................. 25 

Table 17. COE Results for RBR ................................................................................................... 26 

Table 18. Losses Used for Net AEP Calculations ........................................................................ 26 

Table 19. States for Linear Control Design Model ....................................................................... 40 

Table 20. COE results for Active Aero Control ........................................................................... 46 

Table 21. Load Cases for Maximum Load: Active Aero versus Baseline.................................... 46 
Introduction 

Under contract with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Global Energy 

Concepts, LLC (GEC) conducted research on using active aerodynamic (“active aero”) control to 

reduce loads on commercial wind turbines. The overall objective of this study was to support the 

Low Wind Speed Turbine (LWST) project goal of identifying means for reducing the cost of 

energy (COE) for wind energy projects in areas with low wind speeds. 

The concepts evaluated in this study fall into two distinct categories. First are devices or methods 

that can be used to actively alter the local aerodynamic properties of the rotor blade. These 

devices would typically have response times on the order of, or faster than, a full-span, variablepitch system. Here, COE reductions are realized through reduced system loads. An actively 

controlled retractable blade rotor (RBR) is the second concept, for which increased energy 

capture is the primary advantage. In this case, mitigating cost increases associated with increased 

loading and added mechanical systems is the engineering challenge. In contrast to the active aero 

control, the response and actuation time for varying diameter is expected to be slow relative to 

pitch control. 

Substantial research has been done on active aero modifications, and to a lesser extent, on RBRs. 

No systematic study of the performance gains and loads is available, though, in the public 

domain. GEC’s study is intended to yield detailed performance and load data for a range of 

parameters for active aero and geometry controls. This study, which incorporated the most 

current control, material, and mechanism technologies, was conducted at a rating consistent with 

the current market for utility-scale turbines. The performance and load results are used with COE 

models to determine how much such systems could add to the cost of a wind turbine without 

increasing the COE. These results will permit researchers and turbine designers to efficiently 

determine the degree to which using these devices is likely to reduce the COE. 

1
Background 

In the Wind Partnership for Advanced Component Technologies (WindPACT) Rotor Study 

(Marshall and Hansen 2003), researchers evaluated a wide range of turbine rotor configurations 

for potential COE reductions. A major result from that study was an illustration of the difficulty 

of achieving substantial COE improvements through component cost reductions alone. The same 

study predicted an 8.2% reduction in COE for a rotor that had the combined features of a slender 

planform with flap-twist coupling. About 2% of the COE benefits were attributed to the twist 

coupling and the remaining 6.2% of improvements were thought to result from other design 

features. A key aspect of this rotor configuration is that the design combined blade cost 

reductions with aeroelastic behavior that reduced governing loads throughout the turbine system 

and allowed corresponding cost savings on the tower and other major system components. 

RBRs have been proposed in the past to solve the problem of obtaining high production in low 

winds while minimizing the loads penalties associated with a large rotor in high wind conditions. 

Clipper Windpower and Energy Unlimited are both interested in developing such technology to 

achieve COE reductions. To date, however, no publicly available information has presented the 

performance gains achievable with this approach. 

Prototype turbine designs have been developed using classic aerodynamic control surfaces (e.g., 

flaps and ailerons), and passive boundary-layer controls (e.g., stationary vortex generators) have 

been widely used for many years (Rueger and Gregorek 1991; Griffin 1996; Stuart, Wright, and 

Butterfield 1996; Perivoralis and Voutsinas 2001; Timmer and van Rooij 2003; and Janiszewska, 

Gregorek, and Lee 2003). Recent developments in control, sensor, and microelectromechanical 

(MEM) technologies have motivated new research into the benefits possible from active control 

(Yen Nakafuji et al. 2001; Yen Nakafuji et al. 2002; vanDam et al. 2004). No comprehensive 

study has been available, however, to quantify the extent to which these devices could reduce the 

COE through load mitigation. 

The fact that blades represent a relatively modest fraction (10%–20%) of the turbine system’s 

initial capital cost (ICC) cuts both ways. A 10% reduction in blade cost, which could be achieved 

by implementing more efficient materials or structures or by mitigating blade self-loading, will 

reduce ICC by only 1%–2%. COE reductions will be even smaller. On the other hand, a 

substantial increase in the cost of blades or other systems could be justified if the energy capture 

improvements are sufficiently high. In this study, GEC has built on all the model development 

and results of the WindPACT study (Malcolm and Hansen 2003), and has investigated the range 

of potential COE reductions available via active systems designed to mitigate loads throughout 

the turbine system. 

2
Scope and Approach 

For this study, GEC conducted analytical studies of the COE benefits of active aerodynamic 

control of wind turbine rotors. This type of analysis typically includes the following: 

• Blade structural and aerodynamic properties 

• Performance and load predictions 

• COE predictions based on loads and material costs. 

Because this is a concept study, many assumptions were made, including the following: 

Detailed engineering of the devices was not considered 

Sensors and actuators required for control are assumed to exist 

To calculate turbine loads, the investigators used MSC-ADAMS, a general purpose, 

commercially available simulation code, combined with the aerodynamic force calculation 

subroutines found in Aerodyn (Windward Engineering 2002). The Aerodyn inputs were 

modified for this project to reflect the RBR and active aero control effects. These loads were 

then used to size the major turbine structural components, material costs were applied, and a 

turbine capital cost was supplied to the COE calculation. The WindPACT rotor study gives a 

detailed description of the methodologies used for costing based on loads results (Malcolm and 

Hansen 2003). 

Baseline Turbine 

To enable comparisons, the researchers chose a baseline turbine design. The design was initially 

based on the work done in the WindPACT rotor study (Malcolm and Hansen 2003)., in which 

the primary baseline turbine was rated at 1.5 MW. Because the technologies being examined are 

more likely to show benefits at a larger size, though, a larger turbine was chosen for this study. 

The primary architectural details of the virtual design used for the baseline follow: 

• Three-blade, upwind, 90 m in diameter, 2.5-MW, variable-speed, pitch-to-feather 

configuration 

• Eighty-meter hub-height tube tower, fiberglass reinforced polyester (FRP) blades, and a 

3-stage gearbox with doubly fed generator 

• Torque speed curve controls to follow optimum tip speed ratio (TSR) in low wind and a 

proportional-integral (PI) controller from rotor speed to collective pitch in high wind. 

Table 1 gives a detailed description of the baseline turbine. 

Table 1. Baseline Turbine Description 

Feature Description 

General Turbine Configuration 

Manufacturer and model Virtual WindPACT design 

Orientation Upwind 

Rotor diameter (m) 90.0 

3
Feature Description 

Hub height (m) 80.0 

Performance 

Rated electrical power (kW) 2,500 

Rated wind speed (m/s) 12.0 

Cut-in wind speed (m/s) 4.0 

Cut-out wind speed (m/s) 25.0 

Extreme 50-year wind speed (m/s) 59.5 

Blade 

Manufacturer, model of blades WindPACT design 

Length (m) 43.5 

Material Fiberglass

Mass (kg) 9,391 

Radial distance of center of mass from root face (m) 16.19 

Upwind distance of center of mass from plane of rotation (m) 0.00 

Coning/prebend None 

Rotor 

Number of blades 3 

Swept area (m2) 6,362 

Rated rotational speed (rpm) 15.90 

Rotor hub type Rigid 

Effective hub diameter (m) 3.0 

Coning angle (°) 0.0 

Tilt angle (°) 5.0 

Direction of rotation (looking downwind) Clockwise 

Rotor mass including blades (kg) 53,174 

Hub centerline to yaw axis distance (m) 4.20 

Rotor mass imbalance, fraction of radius 0.001 

Blade pitch imbalance ascribed to Blades 2 and 3 (°) ±0.3 

Drivetrain 

Gearbox ratio NA

Effective low-speed shaft (LSS) diameter (m) 0.600 

Effective LSS length (m) 2.400 

Drivetrain torsional stiffness (in LSS frame) 0.38E6 kNm/rad 

Generator inertia (in LSS frame; kg • m2) 100,000 

Nacelle (not including rotor) cg distance from yaw (m) 1.22 upwind 

Nacelle mass (kg) 80,000 

Control/Electrical System 

Overspeed control Full-span pitch 

Tower 

Tower type Tubular steel 

Height (m) 78.0 

Top outer diameter (m) 3.000 

Top wall thickness (mm) 9.0 

Bottom outer diameter (m) 5.000 

Bottom wall thickness (mm) 21.5 

Tower head mass (kg) 133,174 

Tower mass (kg) 131,022 

Baseline Blade Aerodynamic Design 

The airfoils used in this study are based on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s 

(NREL) S-series (Tangler and Somers 1995). In the work of Griffin (2001), the S818/S825/S826 

family was identified as having desirable aerodynamic properties, but the airfoils were deemed 

4
too thin for efficient application to large blades. In that work, a more structurally suitable set of 

airfoil shapes was derived by scaling the S818/S825/S826 foils and by adding a finite-thickness 

trailing edge. The modified shapes and locations of airfoils along the blade are summarized in 

Table 2; the resulting shapes are shown in Figure 1. Two-dimensional aerodynamic properties 

(lift-and-drag curves) for the modified shapes were calculated using the Eppler Design and 

Analysis code (Eppler and Somers 1980). 

Table 2. Airfoil Shape Modifications (Baseline Blade) 

Airfoil Radial Station

(% radius)

Original

Thickness 

(% chord)

Scaled

Thickness 

(% chord)

Trailing-Edge 

Thickness 

(% chord) 

S818 25 24 30 1.3 

S825 75 17 21 1.0 

S826 95 14 16 0.75 

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

x/c

y/c

Scaled S818 Scaled S825 Scaled S826

NREL S-series airfoils 

(scaled) with finite 

thickness trailing edge

Figure 1. Airfoils used for baseline blade model 

Stall-delay effects were added using the AirfoilPrep code (Hansen 2007), which uses the DuSelig model for corrections to lift (Du and Selig 1998), and the drag adjustment per the model of 

Eggars, Chaney, and Digumarthi (2003). Input data to the stall delay model include the spanwise 

location and chord length for each airfoil, as well as the inflow wind speed and rotational speed 

of the rotor. For example, for the S818 (located at 25% span), a chord dimension of 3.9 m was 

assumed along with a wind speed of 7 m/s and a rotational speed of 15.9 rpm. Three-dimensional 

(3-D) stall delay is a strong function of rotor spanwise position, with the largest effects seen in 

the inboard region and diminishing effects seen in the outboard region. Based on previous 

modeling experience, GEC assumed that the 3-D effects could be neglected outboard of the 75% 

radial station. 

Figure 2 shows the aerodynamic data for the scaled S818 at near-stall angles of attack (AOA). 

The figure shows that the stall-delay effects result in a large increase in both lift and drag relative 

to the two-dimensional (2-D) values. Figures 3 through 5 show the aerodynamic data for the 

S818, S825, and S826 airfoils, respectively, over an extended AOA range. Data for intermediate 

5
locations along the blade span were generated by linearly blending the lift-and-drag data from 

the three primary airfoils. 

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

-30 -15 0 15 30 45 60

Angle of Attack (degrees)

Lift Coefficient

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

Drag Coefficient

2-DLift 3-D Lift 2-D Drag 3-D Drag

Scaled S818 (25% span)

Figure 2. Aerodynamic data for scaled S818 airfoil (near-stall AOA) 

6
-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

-180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135 180

Angle of Attack (degrees)

Lift Coefficient

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

Drag Coefficient

2-DLift 3-D Lift 2-D Drag 3-D Drag

Scaled S818 (25% span)

Figure 3. Aerodynamic data for scaled S818 airfoil (extended AOA) 

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

-180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135 180

Angle of Attack (degrees)

Lift Coefficient

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

Drag Coefficient

2-DLift 2-D Drag

Scaled S825 (75% span)

Figure 4. Aerodynamic data for scaled S825 airfoil (extended AOA) 

7
-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

-180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135 180

Angle of Attack (degrees)

Lift Coefficient

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

Drag Coefficient

2-DLift 2-D Drag

Scaled S826 (95% span)

Figure 5. Aerodynamic data for scaled S826 airfoil (extended AOA) 

The baseline blade aerodynamic design was developed using the PROPID inverse-design code 

(Selig and Tangler 1994). Following the methodology described by Griffin (2000), the nearoptimal chord distribution from PROPID was linearized over the outer portion of the span. 

Table 3 describes the baseline blade planform. The TSR at maximum rotor power coefficient 

(the design TSR) is 7.5 at a blade pitch angle of 1.5°. 

Table 3. Planform Description for Baseline Blade 

r/R c/R Twist R (m) Chord (m) Airfoil t/c 

0.05 0.0500 9.93 2.25 2.250 Cylinder 1.000 

0.15 0.0650 9.93 6.75 2.925 Hybrid 0.650 

0.25 0.0800 9.93 11.25 3.600 S818 0.300 

0.35 0.0675 5.59 15.75 3.038 Hybrid 0.282 

0.45 0.0552 3.11 20.25 2.485 Hybrid 0.264 

0.55 0.0455 1.60 24.75 2.049 Hybrid 0.246 

0.65 0.0407 0.63 29.25 1.832 Hybrid 0.228 

0.75 0.0359 0.00 33.75 1.615 S825 0.210 

0.85 0.0311 –0.29 38.25 1.398 Hybrid 0.185 

0.95 0.0263 –0.42 42.75 1.181 S826 0.160 

8
Baseline Blade Structural Design 

Following the methodology in Griffin (2004), the blade structural design was developed using 

the ANSYS finite element analysis (FEA) code with a NuMAD preprocessor (Laird 2001). The 

EBEAM code (Malcolm and Laird 2003) was used to determine blade local mass and stiffness 

properties. 

A baseline structural architecture was selected as representative of current commercial blade 

designs. The primary structural member is a box-spar, with webs at 15% and 50% chord and a 

substantial buildup of spar cap material between the webs. The exterior skins and internal shear 

webs are both of sandwich construction with triaxial fiberglass laminate separated by balsa core. 

Figure 6 depicts this arrangement. 

Table 4 lists the layers in the baseline structural shell and describes the material contained in 

each. Cores for the leading and trailing edge panels were approximately 0.5% and 1.0% of chord, 

respectively, with triaxial facings of 1.4 mm thickness. 

Figure 6. Architecture of baseline structural model 

Table 4. Baseline Structural-Shell Definition 

Layer

Number Material Thickness 

1 Gel coat 0.51 mm 

2 Random mat 0.38 mm 

3 Triaxial fabric 1.40 mm 

4 

0.15c – 0.50c Spar cap mixture As needed 

5 Triaxial fabric 1.40 mm 

The skins and spar cap are E-glass/epoxy laminate. The triaxial fabric is designated as CDB340, 

and has a 25%, 25%, and 50% distribution of +45°, –45°, and 0° fibers, respectively. The spar 

cap is composed of alternating layers of triaxial and uniaxial (A260) fabric. This stacking 

9
sequence results in spar cap laminate with 70% uniaxial fibers and 30% off-axis fibers by 

weight. 

Investigators at Montana State University (MSU) determined the characteristic material 

properties for the baseline blade lamina using a combination of test data and laminate theory 

calculations. 

Table 5 summarizes the mass and stiffness properties for each material. Characteristic values for 

static strain were 2.2% and 1.05%, respectively, in tension and compression. The combined 

material partial safety factors were 2.90 for peak loading, and 1.93 for fatigue. 

Table 5. Summary of Baseline Blade Material Properties 

Property A260 CDB340 Spar Cap

Mixture 

Random

Mat Balsa Gel 

Coat 

Fill

Epoxy 

Ex (GPa) 31.0 24.2 25.0 9.65 2.07 3.44 2.76 

Ey (GPa) 7.59 8.97 9.23 9.65 2.07 3.44 2.76 

Gxy (GPa) 3.52 4.97 5.00 3.86 0.14 1.38 1.10 

νxy 0.31 0.39 0.35 0.30 0.22 0.3 0.3 

vf 0.40 0.40 0.40 — N/A N/A N/A 

wf 0.61 0.61 0.61 — N/A N/A N/A 

ρ (g/cm3) 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.67 0.l44 1.23 1.15 

GEC selected the composite material data used for the baseline blade laminate to be consistent 

with the data used in the earlier WindPACT blade (Griffin 2001) and rotor (Malcom and Hansen 

2003) studies. The laminate properties are characteristic of woven fiberglass fabrics with epoxy 

resin in a hand-layup (open-mold) process. When the earlier WindPACT studies were conducted, 

this process represented a significant percentage of blades in commercial production. 

In recent years, the manufacturing of megawatt-scale blades has shifted almost entirely to 

processes using either vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (VARTM) or preimpregnated 

fibers (prepreg). As a result, the modeled baseline blade mass is toward the upper end of 

commercial designs of similar length. GEC expects, though, that this study will still realistically 

characterize the incremental change in loads, structural cost, and COE for the active aero control 

technologies evaluated. 

The blade spar was dimensioned at several spanwise locations, based on simulations of 

International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC) load cases, and design properties for the FRP 

material assumed for the baseline blade structure. Considerations for the blade structural design 

included static and fatigue strength, as well as tip-tower clearance. 

In performing the blade structural calculations, the spar cap dimensions were not required to be 

integer multiples of the selected material lamina thickness. GEC chose this approach to avoid the 

need for step-jumps in the model definition and results. The investigators assumed that a suitable 

fabric (or combination of fabrics) could be identified that would be a near match to the 

dimensions and fiber content modeled for each blade. 

10
Table 6 presents the structural layout and distribution of mass and bending stiffness for the 

baseline 2.5-MW blade. Note that the mass distribution includes a factor of 1.09 to account for 

non-structural mass contributions that are not included in the FEA models. 

Table 6. Structural Layout for Baseline Blade 

Blade Station Spar Cap Thickness Section EI (N–m2

) Mass

r/R (%) (m) (% t) (mm) Flap Edge (kg/m) 

5 2.25 N/A N/A 1.40E+10 1.40E+10 1731 

7 3.15 N/A N/A 2.66E+09 2.66E+09 305 

25 11.25 4.0 43.2 7.52E+08 1.96E+09 296 

50 22.5 13.4 72.1 1.44E+08 4.80E+08 256 

75 33.75 7.4 25.1 2.62E+07 1.53E+08 126 

95 42.75 4.7 8.1 1.41E+06 2.42E+07 27 

Blade structure = 10,361 kg 

Root connection = 253 kg 

Total blade = 10,614kg 

Power Performance 

The WT_PERF code was used to calculate rotor power coefficient (CP) versus TSR for the 

baseline blade. Researchers used a spreadsheet calculation to convert from CP-TSR to a power 

curve, accounting for variable-speed operation and drivetrain efficiency. Power losses resulting 

from wind turbulence and controller effects were not included in the power curve calculation. 

The baseline turbine CP-TSR curve is shown in Figure 7 and the power curve is shown in 

Figure 8 for sea-level air density. 

Annual energy production (AEP) calculations were made using the steady power curve as 

predicted by WT_PERF. AEP was calculated for two wind speed distributions. Table 7 lists the 

reference and hub-height wind regimes, as well as the calculated baseline turbine AEP for each. 

Appendix A gives details of AEP calculations in tabular form. 

Table 7. Calculated AEP for Baseline Blade 

Wind Class 

Reference Turbine Hub 

Height 

(m) 

Average Wind Speed

(m/s) 

Height

(m) 

Average Wind Speed 

(m/s) 

Gross AEP

(MWh) 

4 10 5.8 80 7.8 8,724 

6 10 6.7 80 9.0 10,708 

11
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 5 10 15

Tip Speed Ratio

Rotor Cp

Figure 7. CP-TSR curve for baseline 2.5-MW rotor 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Wind Speed, m/s

Net Electrical Power, kW

Sea Level Power

Curve

Figure 8. Baseline turbine power curve at sea level 

12
13

Controls 

The controls for the baseline turbine include a PI loop from rotor speed to blade pitch for 

revolutions-per-minute regulation in high winds and a torque speed curve for tracking optimal 

TSR in low winds. In addition, feedback of tower fore-aft acceleration was used to dampen 

tower vibrations via a low pass filter. The blades were pitched collectively. 

Although the pitch actuator is modeled as a fast servo (16-Hz bandwidth), the pitch demand is 

filtered with a first-order filter with a 1-Hz cutoff frequency. No rate or acceleration limits are 

applied to the pitch motion; however, the filter typically limits the pitch rate to about 10°/s and 

the acceleration to about 50°/s2

. Table 8 gives the control parameters. 

Table 8. Baseline Control Parameter Settings 

Parameter Value Units 

Controller update rate 0.050 seconds 

rpm normal operating set point 15.9 (1.67) rpm (rps) 

rpm PI proportional gain 3.35 degrees/rpm 

rpm PI integral gain 0.422 degrees/rpm-s 

rpm PI minimum pitch 1.50 degrees 

rpm PI maximum pitch 90.0 degrees 

rpm PI low pass filter time constant 0.15 seconds 

Tower damping filter gain 4.3 degrees/(m/s2) 

Torque-speed gain (LSS) 410.7 kNm/(rad/s)2

Maximum generator torque (LSS) 1619.0 kNm 

Power max for torque reduction 3000 kW 

Load Calculations and COE 

Turbine structural loads were calculated using ADAMS for a selected set of IEC load cases. 

Table 9 lists these load cases. 

The formula used to calculate the COE was prescribed in the NREL request for proposals (RFP) 

and is given here: 

COE = {(FCR × ICC) + LRC + O&M}/ AEPnet 

where 

COE = Levelized cost of energy (dollars per kilowatt-hour) 

FCR = Fixed charge rate (11.85% per year was used) 

ICC = Initial capital cost, including turbine and balance of station (dollars) 

LRC = Levelized replacement cost (dollars per year) 

AEPnet = Net annual energy production (kilowatt-hours per year) 

AEPgross = Adjusted for availability, array losses, and soiling, among others 

O&M = Operations and maintenance cost (dollars per year) based on dollars per 

kilowatt of rating. 
14

Table 9. Selected Set of IEC Load Cases 

IEC 

Load 

Case 

Number 

Load Case Name Description, 

Wind Speed Conditions Load 

Type 

Load 

Factor Comments 

1.1 06...24ms1..6 NTM 

Vin<V<Vout 

Normal 

operation 

Extreme 1.35 6 x 10 min of 

turbulent flow at 

each wind speed 

1.2 06...24ms1..6 NTM 

Vin<V<Vout 

Normal 

operation 

Fatigue 1.0 Same as above 

1.3 ECD(P|N)R ECD(P|N)R-2* 

ECD(P|N)R-4* 

ECD V=Vr 

NWP 

As defined in 

IEC code 

Extreme 1.35 120-s simulation 

for each case 

1.6 EOG50(R|O) EOG50R-2* 

EOG50R-4* 

EOG50 

V=Vr or 

V=Vout 

50-year gust Extreme 1.35 120-s simulation 

for each case 

1.7 EWSV(R|O) 

EWSH(P|N)(R|O) 

EWSVR(-2|-4)* EWSHPR(-

2|-4)* EWSHNR(-2|-4)* 

EWS V=Vr 

or V=Vout 

Extreme wind 

shear, vertical, 

and horizontal 

(in both 

directions) 

Extreme 1.35 120-s simulation 

for each case 

1.8 EDC50(P|N)(R|O) 

EDC50(P|N)R-2* 

EDC50(P|N)R-4* 

EDC50 V=Vr 

or V=Vout 

Extreme 

direction 

change in both 

directions 

Extreme 1.35 120-s simulation 

for each case 

1.9 ECGR ECG(R-2|R-4)* ECG V=Vr Extreme 

coherent gust 

Extreme 1.35 120-s 

simulations 

6.1.1 EWM011..3 EWM (1 

year) 

Vmax (3 s) 

=44.6 m/s 

Stationary 

rotor, pitch to 

operate, 

(minimum 

radius RBR) 

Extreme 1.35 Brake on 

3 x 10 min; 

Vmean = 33 m/s 

6.1.1 EWM013..6 EWM (1 

year) 

Vmax (3 s) 

=44.6 m/s 

Stationary 

rotor, pitch to 

feather 

(maximum 

radius RBR) 

Extreme 1.35 Brake on 

3 x 10 min; 

Vmean = 33 m/s 

6.1.2 EWM501..6 EWM (50 

year) 

Vmax (3 s) 

=59.5 m/s 

Stationary 

rotor, fully 

feathered 

(minimum 

radius RBR) 

Extreme 1.35 Brake off 

6 x 10 min; 

Vmean = 44 m/s 

*These runs made for the RBR only. 

Notes: (P|N) = positive|negative for directions and shear; (R|O) = rated wind speed|cut-out wind speed; (R-2|R-4) = 

rated wind – 2m/s | rated wind – 4 m/s. 
Retractable Blade Rotor 

Blade Aerodynamic Design 

An aerodynamic trade study was conducted to determine an appropriate diameter range for the 

RBR. The study assumed that the fixed inboard portion of the blade would have the same profile 

as the baseline blade. The extendable outboard section of the blade would be a constant-chord, 

constant-twist section sized to fit within the inboard section at the cut-off radius. 

The performance calculations assumed that the maximum generator torque would be maintained 

at the same level as the baseline but that the rotor rpm could increase as the diameter decreases 

below nominal in high winds. This approach maintains the same maximum tip speed but allows 

the rated power to increase. Performance and annual energy results were calculated for several 

cut-off radii and several maximum lengths as indicated in Table 10 and Figure 9. Tip-chord 

fraction refers to the chord of the tip relative to the chord at the cut-off radius. The minimum and 

maximum radii refer to the corresponding radii of the rotor that can be achieved by fully 

retracting or extending the blade tip section. 

Based on the amount of predicted energy capture, and on assumptions about the feasibility of 

accommodating different blade tip lengths within the blade, GEC chose configuration 6 as the 

first candidate for simulation in ADAMS. This configuration is depicted graphically in 

Figure 10. The solid black outline shows the baseline blade chord dimensions. The blue line 

indicates the cutline at 90% of the original radius, and the dashed lines indicate two possible 

locations for the extended RBR tip. Figure 11 depicts the chord schedule for configuration 12. 

The steady power curve for configuration 12 is shown in Figure 12. The steps in the power curve 

result from the discrete steps in rotor radius used for the WT_PERF analysis. 

15
Table 10. Candidate RBR Configurations (highlighted in yellow) 

Configuration 

 Number 

Tip 

Cut-off 

Radius 

(%R)* 

Tip Chord 

Fraction†

(%) 

Minimum 

Radius 

(m) 

Maximum 

Radius 

(m) 

Maximum 

Power 

(kW) 

Wind 

Class 4 

AEP 

(MWh) 

Δ

AEP

(%)

Wind 

Class 6 

AEP 

(MWh) 

Δ

AEP

(%)

0 N/A N/A 45 45 2,500 8,724 0.0 10,708 0.0 

1 95 85 45 50 2,500 9,660 10.7 11,592 8.3 

2 95 85 45 55 2,500 10,402 19.2 12,267 14.6 

3 90 85 45 50 2,500 9,657 10.7 11,590 8.2 

4 90 85 45 55 2,500 10,412 19.4 12,280 14.7 

5 90 85 42.75 50 2,632 9,836 12.7 11,871 10.9 

6 90 85 42.72 55 2,632 10,591 21.4 12,560 17.3 

7 85 85 45 50 2,500 9,644 10.5 11,579 8.1 

8 85 85 45 55 2,500 10,395 19.2 12,265 14.5 

9 85 85 40.5 50 2,778 9,965 14.2 12,102 13.0 

10 85 85 40.5 55 2,778 10,716 22.8 12,788 19.4 

11 90 80 42.75 55 2,632 10,577 21.2 12,546 17.2 

12 90 75 42.75 55 2,632 10,547 20.9 12,519 16.9 

13 90 70 42.75 55 2,632 10,505 20.4 12,477 16.5 

*Percentage of baseline rotor radius 

†Percentage of local blade chord at cutline 

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Configuration Number

Radius, m

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

AEP Change From Baseline

Wind Class 4

Wind Class 6

Min radius

Max radius

 Tip section chord = 0.85*cut line chord Decreasing tip sect. 

chord: 0.8, 0.75, 0.7

Figure 9. Energy trends for candidate RBR configurations 

16
0.0

2.0

4.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Chord (m)

Baseline RBR at 42.75m

RBR at 50m RBR at 55m

90% R Tip

Figure 10. RBR blade profile for configuration 6 

0.0

2.0

4.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Chord (m)

Baseline RBR at 42.75m

RBR at 50m RBR at 55m

90% R Tip

Figure 11. RBR blade profile for configuration 12 

Sea Level Power Curves

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Wind Speed (m/s)

Power (kW)

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

Radius (m)

RBR

Baseline

Radius

Figure 12. RBR power curve for configuration 12 

Blade Structural Design 

The approach to the blade structural design is necessarily linked to that of the aerodynamic 

design. In a fully optimized RBR system, design objectives for aerodynamics and structure could 

be considered in an integral fashion. For the purposes of this conceptual study, though, 

17
simplified assumptions were made. GEC developed the RBR designs described here according to 

the following guidelines: 

• The RBR outer mold line (OML) shape is the same as the baseline blade, up to a 

specified spanwise location at which a cutline is introduced to accommodate the 

retractable tip. 

• The retractable tip is the same airfoil as that at the cutline, but scaled in a self-similar 

fashion so that it fits into the main blade at the cutline. 

• The OML shape of the retractable tip is constant over its span. 

• Structural laminate for the main blade must be sized so that sufficient space exists to 

accommodate the OML of the retractable tip. 

• Changes to the baseline laminate materials and processes are acceptable to achieve the 

necessary blade stiffness. 

As with the baseline blade, the RBR structural designs were developed using the ANSYS FEA 

code with the NuMAD preprocessor and the EBEAM postprocessor. Mass and stiffness 

contributions from the bearings and reaction points were not rigorously modeled in this study 

because they depend greatly on the details of the mechanism design. Some added mass elements 

and features of the load transfer at the interface between the tip and main blade were 

approximated in the ADAMS models. 

For the baseline blade model, the primary load-carrying spar is assumed to be a box-beam (refer 

to Figure 6). The internal structure of the blade, however, would need to be modified to 

accommodate the RBR tip in the retracted position. As a result, blade stations that require 

clearance for accepting the RBR tip were modeled as monocoque without shear webs. This 

approach is suitable only for preliminary estimation of the RBR laminate weight. These models 

did not include details of the nesting design such as hard points for bearings and actuators and 

buckling support for the blade in both the retracted and extended positions. 

Material Properties 

During the RBR modeling, it was immediately apparent that achieving adequate stiffness would 

require the baseline fiberglass spar cap to be replaced with carbon fiber laminate. For the initial 

set of configurations, investigators assumed that the carbon fiber spar would be produced using 

the same process as the baseline blade (i.e., wet layup). Although that might be convenient from 

a manufacturing standpoint, the process would typically result in low fiber volume fractions and 

stiffness properties that fall significantly below the capability of carbon fibers. 

As the project progressed, the need for stiffer carbon materials became evident. As a result, later 

versions of the RBR assumed the use of prepreg carbon for the spar material. Table 11 lists the 

laminate properties used for RBR configurations 6 and 12. 

Table 11. Assumed Carbon Spar Material Properties 

RBR Fiber Volume Laminate Stiffness (Gpa) Density Laminate

Config. Fraction (uf) EX EY GXY (kg/m3

) Cost ($/kg) 

6 0.45 105.4 6.82 3.32 1430 $20.00

12 0.60 139.4 8.69 4.35 1520 $22.50

18
As Table 11 shows, increasing the fiber volume from 45% to 60% resulted in a stiffness increase 

of about 33% for a density increase of only 6.3%. Characteristic values for static strain were 

0.75% for both tension and compression. These numbers are conservative for prepreg carbon 

fibers, but this became a moot point because the structural design was strongly dominated by 

stiffness requirements to avoid tower strikes. Additional information on the design and 

manufacturing aspects of these materials is given in the following section. 

Note that the laminate cost assumptions are for the completed blade structure (including 

materials and labor). The underlying cost models were selected to be consistent with the earlier 

WindPACT studies to facilitate comparisons with technologies evaluated in those studies 

(Griffin 2001; Malcolm and Hansen 2003). At the time of the earlier WindPACT studies, though, 

carbon fiber was at an all-time-low price of about $16.50/kg. 

The price of carbon fibers has risen sharply and availability has been limited in recent years. A 

trend toward end users entering into multiyear purchase agreements with carbon fiber suppliers 

has also been seen. In the past year such agreements have been announced by the Boeing 

Company (Toray fibers for the 787 commercial airplane) and Vestas (Zoltek fibers for the V90 

and V92). Although such agreements are expected to help stabilize the price and availability of 

carbon fibers, the details of these agreements are not public. As a result, it is difficult to establish 

with certainty an accurate price for the carbon fibers needed to develop and commercialize RBR 

technology. At the time this report was written, a better estimate might be closer to $20/kg, but 

pricing is subject to either upward or downward fluctuation. 

Structural Modeling of RBR Configurations 

The most significant results from the RBR modeling are the importance of blade stiffness and the 

challenges associated with achieving the required stiffness within the available structural 

envelope. 

Table 12 lists the tip/tower clearance margins for the baseline blade and Table 13 shows the RBR 

12 configurations. Note that for deterministic load cases such as an extreme coherent gust with 

direction change (ECD), an azimuth window of ±15°was used to filter tip displacements. This 

window was not applied to results from stochastic load cases. Note also that a margin of 0% 

indicates a passing design but with no reserve margin. 

Table 12. Tip/Tower Clearance Margins, Baseline 

Clearance 

Contribution 

Clearance 

Available 

(m)

Displacement 

Term 

Displacement 

(m) 

Load case ECD at rated (with 

azimuth window) 

Hub-yaw axis 

overhang 

4.20 Maximum elastic displacement* 4.333 

5.0° tilt 3.92 Load factor 1.35 

Blade coning 2.00 Material factor 1.10 

Tower radius –2.00 Design displacement 6.435 

Total clearance 8.12 Margin = (clearance/design displ – 1)*100% 26.2% 

*Tip displacement is measured from the unloaded tip position in the downwind direction. 

19
Table 13. Tip/Tower Clearance Margins, RBR 12 

Clearance 

Contribution 

Clearance 

Available (m)

Displacement

Term 

Displacement

(m) 

Load case Normal operation at 8 m/s (no 

azimuth window) 

Hub-yaw axis 

overhang 

4.20 Maximum elastic 

displacement* 

5.430 

5.0° tilt 5.27 Load factor 1.35 

Blade coning 2.50 Material factor 1.10 

Tower radius –2.33 Design displacement 8.064 

Total clearance 9.15 Margin = (clearance/design 

displ – 1)*100% 

13.4% 

*Tip displacement is measured from the unloaded tip position in the downwind direction. 

The more important observation is the change in governing load case for the maximum tip 

deflection. For the baseline rotor the tower clearance is governed by an ECD. For the RBR, 

though, the maximum out-of-plane deflection occurs under normal operation at a wind speed of 

8 m/s. Figure 12 shows that this falls in the middle of the range of wind speeds for power 

production at full blade extension. A speed of 8 m/s is also close to the mean wind speed for the 

sites used for AEP calculations. Therefore, mitigating the tip deflections by reducing the rotor 

diameter would significantly reduce the AEP benefits from this technology. The alternative, 

which the investigators pursued in this study, is to determine the structural layout necessary to 

achieve the required stiffness. GEC encountered significant challenges with this approach. 

Using the blade geometry and laminate properties assumed for RBR configuration 6, GEC was 

able to hypothetically achieve an adequately stiff blade. On further review, however, researchers 

determined that the structural design was not feasible because the laminate thickness required for 

the inner blade did not leave sufficient room for the RBR tip to be retracted. As a result, 

configuration 12 was developed using a reduced chord dimension for the retractable tip and 

increased laminate stiffness as shown in Table 11. 

Table 14 shows the mass and stiffness distribution for RBR configuration 12 and offers a 

comparison with the baseline blade. The table indicates a substantial stiffening of the inner blade 

relative to the baseline. As noted earlier, the blade sections were dimensioned in such a way as to 

achieve the necessary blade stiffness, and also to attempt to leave a feasible clearance between 

the inner blade structure and the retractable tip. Even with the revised assumptions, this proved 

difficult, and some aspects of this preliminary structural design are far from optimal. 

Review of the calculated blade deflection curves indicated that the largest bending occurred over 

the outer half of the extended RBR. Consequently, GEC found that the greatest improvement in 

clearance margin (per unit carbon fiber) could be achieved by stiffening the outer blade stations. 

The result of this is evident in Table 14, which shows that the increase in EIFlap becomes much 

greater with increased radial location. 

20
Table 14. Summary Structural Layout for RBR Configuration 12 

RBR Configuration 12 Baseline Blade

Station R (m) Blade Mass (kg/m) EIFlap Mass EIFlap Difference

Total Carbon (kN-m) (kg/m) (kN-m) Mass EIFlap

5% of baseline R 2.25 1731 0 1.40E+10 1731 1.40E+10 0.0% 0.0%

7% of baseline R 3.15 305 0 2.66E+09 305 2.66E+09 0.0% 0.0%

25% of baseline R 11.25 136 29 9.20E+08 296 7.52E+08 -54.1% 22.3%

50% of baseline R 22.50 131 74 3.50E+08 256 1.44E+08 -48.9% 143.1%

75% of baseline R 33.75 97 66 9.61E+07 126 2.62E+07 -22.8% 266.8%

90% of baseline R 40.50 95 73 3.87E+07

Inboard end of tip 40.50 75 56 1.30E+07

Outboard end of tip 55.00 47 28 8.40E+06

Even though this structural layout achieves acceptable stiffness, the spanwise distribution of spar 

thickness is problematic. As currently dimensioned, the carbon spar caps at 25% span are 

relatively thin. At 50% span, they are quite thick. Although adding spar cap plies between 25% 

and 50% can be done, this is uncommon in commercial blades. This “double-taper” of the spar 

cap could be eliminated by dimensioning the 25% station to match the thickness of the 50% 

station. This would result, though, in a relatively small contribution to the clearance margin 

relative to the weight and cost of carbon fibers used in doing so. Also, the 75% span station spar 

cap thickness is lower than the adjacent stations. While this feature would not be desirable in a 

final spar design, the dimensional difference in this region is not large and so should not present 

significant problems.

Achieving acceptable clearance for the RBR tip and associated mechanisms remained 

challenging for configuration 12. Figure 13 depicts the OML profiles for the retractable tip and 

inner blade at the cutline. The gap between the two profiles represents the maximum theoretical 

clearance to accommodate structural laminate and whatever bearings or hardware would be 

required at the interface. Figure 14 shows the same profiles, along with a representation of the 

spar cap dimensions assumed in the structural model of configuration 12. As the figure indicates, 

achieving acceptable clearance is feasible, but would still present practical challenges. 

Review of these figures also reveals that the assumption of self-scaling the airfoil at the cutline 

complicates the challenges associated with clearance and bearing mechanisms. Specifically, the 

wall thickness between the inner and outer profiles varies significantly. The gap, which 

represents the available envelope for structural laminate, is largest in the aft portion of the highpressure surface and smallest at the trialing edge of the RBR tip. This trend is not conducive to a 

structurally efficient spar for the inner blade. 

Having identified some of these practical challenges, GEC decided that configuration 12 was 

close enough to feasibility to proceed with detailed modeling and COE calculations. Practical 

issues and challenges will be addressed further in Section 0. 

21
-500

-250

0

250

500

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500

X (mm)

Y (mm)

Outer Blade Shell (90% span)

RBR Tip

Figure 13. Clearance between RBR tip and inner-blade profile for configuration 12 

-500

-250

0

250

500

0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500

X (mm)

Y (mm)

Outer Blade Shell (90% span)

Carbon Spar in

ADAMS Model (red)

RBR Tip

(pink)

Figure 14. Comparison of RBR tip profile with inner-blade spar for configuration 12 

Tip Retraction Mechanism Modeling 

A rack and pinion with a servo motor was selected as the (virtual) mechanism to drive the 

extendable/retractable blade tip. This mechanism has a desirable property in that the motor 

inertia, when geared down to obtain low speeds of blade tip extension, acts as a large inertial lag 

on the deployment of the tip. As a result, a control algorithm design can be used that can 

maintain a tight tolerance on the blade tip extension length without requiring very high gain. 

Table 15 lists the properties of the mechanism. 

22
Tip Servo Control 

The tip position demand is calculated as a function of wind speed that has been filtered with a 

low pass filter. The position demand is corrected in a command generator that imposes a rate 

limit, then fed to the servo motor control. The tip servomotor is controlled with a state-spacetype controller with an appended integral on the position error. The state-space model is a simple 

rigid body model of the tip mass plus servo motor inertia. The motor torque is the control input. 

The gains were selected using the linear quadratic regulator (LQR) function in MATLAB. Table 

15 lists the controller parameters. 

Table 15. RBR Tip Mechanism and Control Description 

Parameter Value 

Total mechanism mass per blade (kg) 520.0 

Motor inertia (kg • m2) 0.00225 

Motor to pinion gear ratio 1000:1 

Pinion radius (m) 0.15 

Tip extension rate limit (iter#1, iter#2; m/s) 0.10, 0.02 

Wind speed filter time constant (s) 30.0 

Wind speed to tip retraction function R = 37 m – 4.2*wind speed

Time constant for tip retraction command generator (s) 50.0 

Tip extension position state gain (N • m/m) 382.3 

Tip extension velocity state gain [N • m/(m/s)] 486.3 

Tip extension position error integral gain [N • m/(m • s)] 150.0 

ADAMS Model 

The ADAMS model of the RBR is a modification of the model for the baseline turbine. The 

blade has been altered to incorporate changes to the structural properties. The tip section is 

attached to the inboard blade sections via a linear translational joint. 

One drawback to the ADAMS model is that the bearings for the tip mechanism are not modeled 

with complete accuracy. For example, ADAMS cannot track the changing contact locations for a 

linear bearing. As a result, the bearing reaction forces are not applied in the correct locations if 

the tip has changed position from its initial definition. This has implications for the load transfer 

between the tip spar and the shell of the inboard part of the blade. As an approximate fix, GEC 

placed spring elements in the model to assist in the load transfer between tip spar and blade shell. 

Controls 

The standard turbine controls were modified to include a torque speed curve that is dependent on 

both rotor radius and rpm and a PI control for speed regulation with blade pitch. Figure 15 

depicts an example of operation in moderate winds. 

23
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Time (sec)

Wind Speed (m/s)

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Radius (m)

Wind Speed

Radius

Figure 15. RBR operation in moderate winds. 

Loads and COE Results 

Using the modified model, GEC ran a selected set of IEC load cases in ADAMS for the baseline 

turbine. These cases included load cases 1a and 1b for normal operation in turbulence, extreme 

50-year return wind speed with turbulence, and most of the extreme deterministic gust cases. 

Specifically for the RBR, many of the extreme gust cases were run at a range of wind speeds to 

accommodate the range of diameters at which the turbine can operate. Figures 16 and 17 

compare the loads to the baseline. The load cases that result in the maximum values for specific 

loads are compared in Table 16. Appendix D summarizes IEC coordinate definitions and 

abbreviations used for load cases. 

The added component cost and associated AEPnet are input to the COE model for the selected 

configurations. Table 17 shows the results. 

The net AEP is based on the gross AEP calculated from the power curve shown in Figure 12 

minus the losses prescribed by the National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) COE model plus 

the losses from control and turbulence effects. The O&M increase is the amount above the 

baseline O&M cost of $25/rated kW/year that is assessed for the RBR (and was prescribed in the 

NREL RFP). 

The baseline and RBR power curves are ideal quasi-static curves based on WT_PERF 

calculations. Investigators used the results from the ADAMS simulations to estimate control and 

turbulence losses. The losses applied to the gross AEP results from Tables 7 and 10 are detailed 

in Table 18. The control and turbulence losses for the RBR configuration are considerably higher 

than for the baseline because of the averaging effect on the rotor diameter. Because the rotor 

diameter is constrained to be a maximum, all deviations are downward in wind speeds below 

about 10 m/s. In wind speeds above 10 m/s the diameter can be either side of nominal and so 

average out. In high winds the turbine power output is regulated with pitch despite the diameter. 

24
Control and turbulence losses, then, extend into wind speeds that are lower than just the “knee” 

of the curve. 

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

B1RtMx

B1RtMy

B125Mx

B125My

B150Mx

B150My

B195Mx

B195My

LSSMx

LSSMy

LSSMz

yawMy

yawMz

twrBaseMx

Load / Baseline Load - 1

Figure 16. Change in peak loads relative to baseline for RBR 

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

B1RtMx

B1RtMy

B125Mx

B125My

B150Mx

B150My

B195Mx

B195My

LSSMx

LSSMy

LSSMz

yawMy

yawMz

twrBaseMx

twrBaseMy

Load / Baseline Load - 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

SN curve slope

Figure 17. Change in fatigue loads relative to baseline for RBR 

Table 16. Load Cases for Maximum Loads: RBR versus Baseline 

Load 

Baseline

Load Case for 

Maximum 

RBR

Load Case for 

Maximum 

B1rtMx ECDPR 22ms3 

B1rtMy ECDPR ECDNR_10ms 

B125Mx EOG50R 22ms3 

B125My ECDNR 8ms4 

B150Mx ECDPR 22ms3 

B150My ECDPR 8ms4 

B195Mx ECDPR ECGR_10ms 

B195My ECDPR ewm015 

lsshubMx 24ms4 24ms6 

lsshubMy ECDPR ECDNR_10ms 

lsshubMz ECDPR ECDNR_10ms 

yawbrgMy 22ms5 22ms1 

yawbrgMz 20ms1 24ms5 

twrbaseMx ewm501 ewm506 

25
Load 

Baseline

Load Case for 

Maximum 

RBR

Load Case for 

Maximum 

twrbaseMy ewm013 ewm013 

Tip deflection ECDPR 8ms4 

Table 17. COE Results for RBR 

Configuration Mechanism 

Cost ($, total)

O&M Cost 

Increase (%)

COE ($/kWh) % Change from 

Class 4 Class 6 Baseline 

Baseline 0 0 0.0513 0.0493 0.0 0.0 

RBR 12 300,000 10 0.0418 0.0416 –3.9 0.6 

Table 18. Losses Used for Net AEP Calculations 

Item Value for Baseline Value for RBR 

Soiling losses 0.035 0.035 

Wake losses 0.050 0.050 

Controls/turbulence 0.005 0.022 

Availability 0.980 0.980 

Total 0.106 0.121 

Discussion and Conclusions 

As this discussion has described, numerous challenges must be overcome in implementing the 

RBR technology. A primary issue is achieving the required stiffness within the limits of costeffective materials and manufacturing processes. Using the baseline blade OML as the available 

structural envelope, the structural modeling conducted in this study indicates that achieving the 

needed stiffness is feasible, but that optimizing for structural and manufacturing efficiency will 

present difficulties. 

The laminate properties used for structural modeling of configuration 12 (see Table 11) assume a 

carbon-spar fiber-volume fraction that is characteristic of many aerospace applications, but 

higher than typical for current commercial wind turbines. Although this is not an insurmountable 

issue, it does imply that some advancement in blade manufacturing processes may be required to 

facilitate the cost-effective manufacture of blade structure with very stiff laminate. 

The scaling and fit of the retractable tip is another issue to consider. Figure 13 illustrates that 

self-similar scaling of the airfoil at the cutline does not result in a favorable shape to nest with 

the inner blade. GEC investigated this issue by using CAD modeling to create an airfoil shape 

with a near-constant surface normal offset. The results are depicted in Figure 18, which indicates 

two significant changes in the aerodynamic shapes. First, there is a noticeable reduction in the 

“reflex” at the trailing edge, which will reduce the effective camber of the tip airfoil. Second, 

there is an approximate 1.8° rotation of the chord line toward a lower AOA. Decambering and 

reduced AOA would have a compounding effect because each would tend to reduce lift. 

26
Figure 18. CAD modeling of tip aerodynamic profile 

GEC used the XFOIL code (Drela 2001) to evaluate the effect of the shape modification on the 

S826 aerodynamics. The results are shown in Figure 19. As expected, the decambering results in 

a downward shift of the lift curve at a given AOA. Note that XFOIL overpredicts the maximum 

lift coefficient, which is typical for viscous-inviscid interaction codes. For this study, though, the 

most important effect is the reduction in lift in the pre-stall region of the lift curve, which is 

reliably modeled with XFOIL. Also note that XFOIL predicts an unrealistically low drag value 

for the modified airfoil. This was ignored in the following calculations (i.e., the baseline S826 

drag was assumed). 

WT_PERF analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of these airfoil modifications on RBR 

performance. The resulting CP-TSR curves are shown in Figure 20. The WT_PERF models 

include both the effects on the aerodynamic coefficients (as seen in Figure 19) and the change in 

effective twist of approximately 1.8°. 

The reduction in rotor performance is meaningful. Using the original S826 shape, the peak CP is 

nearly 0.49. With the shape modified to reflect a near-constant inset, the peak CP is reduced to 

slightly above 0.45, a reduction of about 7.5% in peak efficiency. Note that the comparison of 

Figure 20 was generated for RBR configuration 12 with the tip fully extended, and that the effect 

of the S826 shape modifications on rotor efficiency would diminish as the blade was retracted. 

Taking the various operating regions into account, if the S826 shape modifications of Figure 18 

were implemented, GEC estimates that the reduction in AEP would be in the range from 3% to 

4%. 

Because WT_PERF (and all blade element momentum [BEM]-type analyses) assumes 

independent annuli in the rotor disk, the actual performance loss for the geometry considered 

would be larger than the estimates described in this section. The reduced chord dimension, the 

decambering of the airfoil shape, and the step changes in twist angle all combine in the direction 

of reduced blade loading. The discontinuity in loading would in turn result in a shed vortex, 

which would generally be undesirable because it would lower power performance and raise 

aeroacoustic noise. 

The aerodynamic impact of the shape changes required to obtain good “nesting” characteristics 

for the S826 is significant enough to motivate the consideration of alternative airfoil shapes. In 

27
particular, an optimized RBR design might employ a purpose-designed family of airfoil shapes 

to facilitate structural nesting while mitigating unfavorable aerodynamic effects. 

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

Angle of Attack (degrees)

Lift Coefficient

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

Drag Coefficient

Lift, S826 Lift, Inset S826 Drag, S826 Drag, Inset S826

Figure 19. Aerodynamic effect of S826 shape modification (constant inset)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 5 10 15 20

Tip Speed Ratio

Rotor Power Coefficient

Original S826 Modified S826

Figure 20. Effect of S826 shape on rotor efficiency for RBR configuration 12. 

28
The bearing and actuation mechanisms also present major challenges for successful 

implementation of RBR technology. Integration of these mechanisms includes the design of the 

hardware and hard points for attachment, along with consideration of the load transfer between 

parts. The bearing/sliding mechanism would need to operate without binding under load 

conditions varied by human operators. The internal structure of the inner blade part would need 

to accommodate the tip section when it is fully retracted and adequately support the tip when it is 

fully extended. To minimize associated noise, the interface between the two parts would also 

need to be smooth. 

Addressing the bending compliance of the two nested parts is closely related to designing 

appropriate bearings. The bending stiffness of the tip and the inner blade would have differing 

magnitudes and spanwise variations. In general, the inner blade would be substantially stiffer 

than the retractable tip and would have a different shape for given bending loads. When the RBR 

tip is retracted, bending of the main blade structure would tend to bend the nested tip as well. 

The extent of this bending and shape under load will depend on the design of the 

bearing/reaction points. This mismatch in bending compliance and associated load transfer will 

need to be accommodated at every position in the tip extension/retraction range. 

The modeling of configuration 12 indicates that the RBR technology holds some promise for 

enabling meaningful COE reductions. This conclusion, however, is highly dependent on the 

development and demonstration of the associated structure, mechanisms, and control strategies. 

The COE benefits of this technology would depend heavily on the impact of O&M costs and 

turbine availability. Although GEC expects that the 10% O&M increase used in the current 

modeling would be achievable, the complexity of this system introduces risk for higher penalties. 

This modeling indicated that achieving sufficient stiffness while allowing the integration of the 

RBR tip and the main structure presents significant technical challenges. Realizing a 

commercially optimal RBR would likely be facilitated by a design approach that integrates 

aerodynamic, structural, and mechanism design considerations from the start instead of trying to 

retrofit an RBR into an existing blade profile. A fully optimized RBR might require that new 

purpose-designed airfoils be developed to facilitate structural nesting while mitigating 

performance losses. 

29
Active Aerodynamic Devices 

GEC’s work in this area evaluated devices or methods that can be used to actively alter the local 

aerodynamic properties of the rotor blade. Recent technological advancements in controls, 

sensors, mechanisms, materials, and manufacturing motivated this new look at general concepts 

that are under consideration for aerospace and other applications. These devices would typically 

have response times on the order of, or faster than, a full-span variable-pitch system. 

Device Review 

Early in the study, GEC performed an extensive literature review to identify candidate devices. 

In addition, GEC continued to review and evaluate alternative control technologies throughout 

the duration of the project, both by keeping up with the literature and by having discussions with 

numerous developers and vendors of active control technologies. 

Although a wide range of technologies is available, GEC considered aerodynamic control 

mechanisms that fall mainly into two categories: boundary layer control and effective camber 

change. 

Boundary Layer Control 

A major mechanism for aerodynamic control is boundary layer modification, which can be 

achieved with vortex generators (Figure 21), leading-edge slats, trip strips, or other methods for 

adding or removing kinetic energy to the boundary layer. The effect of this control method is 

shown in Figure 22, which indicates a general trend of increasing CL,Max with boundary layer 

“augmentation.” This presumes that the modification delays the onset of trailing-edge separation 

and subsequent stall. An opposite effect on lift curves might be realized with boundary layer 

tripping. Although the effect of vortex generators and boundary layer tripping is wellestablished, the application to commercial designs has so far been passive (i.e., use of fixedgeometry vortex generators). 

GEC investigators considered the feasibility of using active boundary layer modification of local 

airfoil sections to control turbine loads. The technologies that fall under this heading include 

leading edge slats, active vortex generators, plasma actuators (Post and Corke 2004), and 

boundary layer suction/blowing. Circulation control technology does not strictly fit in the 

category of boundary layer control, but it has similar effect on lift characteristics (Trevelyan et 

al. 2001). Figure 22 is a generic representation of the effect of boundary layer control devices on 

the lift coefficient. Note that these devices do not have a significant effect on the linear portion of 

the lift curve. 

Modern variable-speed, pitch-to-feather wind turbines tend to operate predominantly in the linear 

region of the lift curve. Figure 23 shows the nominal steady operating points on the lift curves 

for the baseline blade design for several spanwise locations. At each spanwise location, points 

are shown on the lift curves for wind speeds from 4 to 24 m/s in 1 m/s increments. Note that at 

low wind speeds the points are on top of each other because the turbine is operating at a fixed tip 

speed ratio and blade pitch. As wind speed increases, the pitch moves to feather to regulate 

power. The arrows indicate the trend of the points with increasing wind speed. These trends are 

generally monotonic. 

30
31

Except for the most inboard sections, as wind speed increases, the operating points trend toward 

lower angles of attack and hence move farther from the region of the lift curve affected by 

boundary layer control. This occurs because the pitch changes toward feather dominate angle of 

attack changes toward stall because of increasing wind speed (RPM is constant once the 

operating point is above rated power). This is a necessary effect to realize power regulation in 

increasing wind. At the 25% span, the low value of the velocity vector caused by rotation causes 

the angle of attack to move to stall faster than the pitch changes compensate. In general, the 

airfoils will operate near these nominal points except where large wind speed transients are 

present. The baseline blade design is representative of typical industry practice. 

Figure 21. Vortex generators (counter-rotating array) 

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15

Angle of Attack (degrees)

Lift Coefficient

Increasing

boundary layer 

augmentation

Figure 22. Lift curve changes resulting from boundary layer modification 
r/R = 0.25

-0.6-0.4-0.2

0

0.20.40.60.8

1

1.21.41.61.8

2

2.22.42.6

-10 0 10 20 30 40

AOA, degrees

Lift Coeff.

Increasing WS

WS = 4 m/sPitch = 1 deg

WS = 24 m/sPitch = 25 deg

r/R = 0.55

-0.6-0.4-0.2

0

0.20.40.60.8

1

1.21.41.61.8

2

2.22.42.6

-10 0 10 20 30 40

AOA, degrees

Increasing WS

WS = 4 m/sPitch = 1 deg

WS = 24 m/sPitch = 25 deg

r/R = 0.75

-0.6-0.4-0.2

0

0.20.40.60.8

1

1.21.41.61.8

2

2.22.42.6

-10 0 10 20 30 40

AOA, degrees

Increasing WS

WS = 4 m/sPitch = 1 deg

WS = 24 m/sPitch = 25 deg

Figure 23. Nominal operating points on the lift curves for selected spanwise locations 

32 
Although the properties and trends described here do leave open some opportunity for loads 

control, exploiting these opportunities would be quite challenging. Most control design and 

implementation approaches require the system to exhibit reasonably linear behavior, particularly 

in the neighborhood of the system’s nominal operating point(s). Using boundary layer 

modification devices to control loads would require highly nonlinear control analysis and 

implementation. It would also likely require accurate measurement or estimation of the 

instantaneous aerodynamic state of the airfoil. Any control algorithm would have to detect 

increases in the angle of attack that are sufficiently within the range of effect of the control 

devices. 

The control techniques that are currently being researched by the wind industry are still mostly 

based on design methods that require linear behavior. These approaches will not accommodate 

actuators that do not have a linear effect near the nominal operating point of the turbine. 

A possible alternative might enable better exploitation of these aerodynamic devices for loads 

control—redesigning the blade so that the operating points are closer to stall. This strategy, 

however, poses its own risks. A blade designed in this way would likely be less than optimal 

from a performance standpoint. In addition, operation near stall is likely to result in a less wellbehaved aerodynamic response and possibly in reduced energy capture. 

Camber Modifications 

A change in effective camber can be achieved with conventional control devices such as flaps, 

ailerons, Gurney flaps, and trailing-edge wedges (Kentfield 1993, 1994). Figure 24 illustrates 

typical changes in airfoil lift curve characteristics resulting from changes in effective camber. In 

general, increased camber will reduce the angle for zero lift and increase the maximum lift 

coefficient (CL,Max). The general behavior shown in Figure 24 is representative for a wide range 

of devices. Changes to the lift-drag polar (i.e., effect on magnitude of, and angle of incidence for, 

maximum lift/drag), though, will depend strongly on both the original airfoil characteristics and 

details of the camber modification method. 

Figure 25 shows “microtab” devices that can be used to achieve effective camber changes. 

Aerodynamically, the devices act in the same way as a Gurney flap. A tab protruding from the 

lower (high-pressure) surface would cause an effective increase in airfoil camber, and a tab 

protruding from the upper (low-pressure) surface would result in decreased effective camber. 

Significant work has been done to evaluate the potential use of microtabs for aerodynamic 

control, using MEM-based technology to actively extend and retract the devices (Yen Nakafuji et 

al. 2001; Yen Nakafuji et al. 2002; vanDam et al. 2004). 

Another method for achieving active change in camber falls under the category of “shapemorphing” technologies. This is illustrated conceptually in Figure 26. The aerodynamics of this 

method are essentially the same as those of an airfoil trailing-edge flap. But morphing 

technologies may offer the promise of eliminating the hinges and gaps associated with 

conventional flaps, which in turn would maintain smoother aerodynamic surfaces with reduced 

drag. These technologies might also be smaller, with associated benefits of greater ease of 

integration into the blade structure, faster deployment, and reduced actuation forces. 

33 
Kota and coauthors (2003) discuss the development of compliant mechanisms for use in shape 

changing of wings. Risø National Laboratory has also been investigating the potential for load 

reductions via variable trailing-edge geometry (Buhl, Gaunaa, and Bak 2005). 

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

-5 0 5 10 15

Angle of Attack (degrees)

Lift Coefficient

Increasing

effective camber

Figure 24. Lift curve changes resulting from increased effective camber 

Figure 25. Microtab devices 

Figure 26. Morphing trailing-edge shape 

34 
Generic Aerodynamic Properties (Camber Modification) 

Because many of the aerodynamic devices considered have very similar effects on the lift curves, 

GEC decided to model these effects generically. After an extensive literature review, GEC 

manually developed a set of lift-and-drag curves to represent the camber modification class of 

devices. An example of these lift and drag curves is shown in Figure 27 

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

Angle of Attack, deg

Lift Coefficient

Zero Deployment

Full + Deployment

Full - Deployment

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Angle of Attack, deg

Drag Coefficient

Zero Deployment

Full + Deployment

Full - Deployment

Figure 27. Lift and drag for the S825 airfoil with generic camber modification 

Developing these curves presented some challenges. Modern commercial wind turbine airfoils 

tend to be designed to achieve a relatively high lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio, which is realized by 

maintaining low drag at the design lift condition. The extent to which additional drag is 

introduced depends on the specific mechanism used to effect the camber change. For devices that 

mimic a Gurney flap (e.g., microtabs), a drag penalty is inevitable. In theory, morphing trailingedge shapes could be achieved with little or no drag penalty. Although some of the literature 

reports increasing L/D by using devices such as Gurney flaps, GEC concluded that this was 

primarily found for airfoils that began with low values of L/D. 

After reviewing the literature for candidate devices, GEC established the following guidelines 

for developing the generic aerodynamic curves: 

• A camber change that increased lift was accompanied by an increase in drag. 

• A change that decreased lift was accompanied by a decrease in drag, but of smaller 

magnitude than the drag change associated with lift increase. 

35 
• For the region above L/D = 100, increased lift was not allowed to result in an L/D higher 

than the original airfoil. In practice, this was implemented by first introducing the lift 

increment, then calculating the associated drag such that the L/D constraint was enforced. 

This approach was intended to represent the broadest class of devices under consideration, and to 

remain consistent with the known properties of current wind turbine airfoil designs. Note that in 

terms of this study, the load mitigation effects are strongly dominated by lift. GEC took great 

care in modeling drag, primarily to ensure that the airfoil characteristics were realistic. In 

addition, note that the baseline airfoil modification curves, as shown in Figure 27, assume 

relatively high aerodynamic authority (i.e., magnitude of lift change) for the size of device under 

consideration. To investigate this issue, though, GEC has also performed simulations with 

reduced aerodynamic authority. 

Note that in Figure 27 the imposed limit for lift over drag (L/D = 100) was reached at about 3°

angle of attack. At this point, the incremental change in drag becomes noticeably larger. For 

negative values of angle of attack, the limit (–L/D = 100) was never reached, and so the baseline 

drag increment was held constant. 

Controls 

When many independently controllable aerodynamic devices are used for turbine control, a 

multi-input, multioutput control design approach must be employed. GEC used modern statespace-control design methodologies for this research to design controller gains that meet the 

objectives of load reduction. Specifically, the investigators used the linear quadratic regulator 

(LQR) method available in MATLAB extensively. 

Although the LQR methodology is both powerful and convenient, it does have limitations, and 

assumptions must be made to employ this method. An LQR controller requires a linear model of 

the system to be controlled. It also requires knowledge of the values of all states in the model at 

all times. In practice, the latter requirement is very restrictive. For the purposes of this research, 

the ADAMS simulation was able to provide the state values necessary for the LQR controller, 

and the researchers did not use any state estimates. 

The requirement for linearity is more of a challenge. The aerodynamic forces that act on the 

turbine are highly nonlinear functions of the turbine operating states (e.g., RPM, pitch, and wind 

speed). In addition, the aerodynamic devices themselves are highly nonlinear, particularly in that 

they have lower and upper bounds to their effectiveness. These bounds are fairly tight, unlike the 

blade pitch, for example, which can operate across a wide range of pitch angles. 

To deal with the nonlinearity in these aerodynamics, the operating range of the turbine was 

divided into three regions: low wind, above rated wind, and high wind to cutout. In addition, the 

low wind region was divided into two subregions: operation below maximum rpm and operation 

at maximum rpm. Controller gains were calculated in each of these regions. 

The limitation of the aerodynamic device range of effectiveness is handled by tuning the 

controller so that these limits are not typically reached during normal operation. 

State-space models to be used for control design were derived from the ADAMS model through 

a linearization procedure (McCoy 2004). In this study, this procedure was supplied with a 

36 
linearization of the aerodynamic effects that result from changes in wind speed, rotor rpm, blade 

pitch, and aerodynamic device deployment. Figures 28 and 29 show the net shaft aerodynamic 

thrust and torque derivatives for these variables.. The resulting large state-space model is 

reduced to the essential fundamental modes listed in Table 19. Additional states are appended for 

disturbances and error integrals. 

The structure of the state-space model and the tuning of the gains were designed to meet the 

following objectives: 

• Regulate rpm at least as well as the baseline PI controller. The addition of the rpm error 

integral ensures good regulation of the rpm to the specified set point. 

• Regulate tower motion at least as well as the baseline tower damping algorithm. 

• Reduce fatigue loading of the blades. For example, the vertical and horizontal out-ofplane displacement of the rotor—as expressed in multiblade coordinates—is a steady 

nonzero value in response to wind shear. This steady value corresponds to a one-per-rotor 

revolution oscillation in tip displacement on each individual blade. By appending 

integrals of the vertical and horizontal displacement to the state-space model, the 

amplitude of the one-per-rotor revolution oscillations can be regulated to zero. This, in 

turn, leads to more effective cancellation of disturbances such as wind shear. 

• Because the LQR control design methodology assumes unbounded linear behavior of the 

plant and controls, the actuation of the aero devices has a tendency to drift away from a 

mean of zero in the presence of disturbances such as wind speed. To counter this 

tendency and keep the aerodynamic devices within their active range with a mean of 

zero, integrals of device position were appended to the state model. This approach has the 

added benefit of forcing the independent blade pitch (IBP) to control the more steady 

disturbances of mean wind speed and wind shear, while the aero devices act on the more 

rapid turbulence transient disturbances. 

A plot of the plant and the closed loop eigenvalues is shown in Figure 30. 

37 
-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2

Wind Speed

Rotor Thrust per unit X, kN/X

6

RPM- RPM+

Pitch+ PitchWS- WS+

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Wind Speed

Rotor Torque per unit X, kNm/X

Delta torque for +/- 

RPM, WS, Pitch

Figure 28. Aerodynamic derivatives versus wind speed for turbine operating variables 

38 
-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2

Wind Speed

Rotor Thrust Change for full 

Deploment, kN

6

Aero 1- Inboard Aero 1+ Inboard

Aero 2- Mid Aero 2+ Mid

Aero 3- Outboard Aero 3+ Outboard

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Wind Speed

Rotor Torque Change for Full Deploy 

kNm

Figure 29. Aerodynamic derivatives versus wind speed for camber modification devices 

Appendix C contains example MATLAB code for the control gain selection. The gains 

calculated by MATLAB were used in the ADAMS simulations. In ADAMS, initial testing of 

selected controller gains looked at the response of the pitch, blade tip deflection, and RPM to a 

step change in the wind shear from a shear exponent of 0 up to 100 s to a shear exponent of 0.2 

after 100 s. Figure 31 shows a comparison of the response using the original PI controller to the 

response with IBP alone, and combined with aerodynamic devices. As intended, the aero devices 

control the initial transient response to the step in shear. The blade pitch takes over slowly 

because the shear becomes a persistent disturbance. This allows the aero device to “retract” to 

the zero deployed condition instead of having the deployed position become the stable operating 

point. 

39 
Table 19. States for Linear Control Design Model 

Plant State Eigenvalue 

(at 14 m/s) Description 

Tower –0.167 ± 2.014i Tower top fore-aft position and velocity 

Rotor out of plane –2.037 ± 5.321i Rotor asymmetric out of plane position and 

velocity in the fixed frame multiblade coordinates

Rotor out of plane –2.071 ± 6.215i Rotor symmetric out of plane position and 

velocity in the fixed frame multiblade coordinates

Rotor out of plane –2.017 ± 14.395i Rotor asymmetric out of plane position and 

velocity in the fixed frame multiblade coordinates

Rotor in plane –1.7759 + 2.9416i Rotor symmetric in plane position and velocity 

Rotor –0.182 Rotor + drivetrain rigid body 

Blade pitch –6.25 Pitch system response 

Controller States 

Wind speed –2.0 Three filtered wind speeds: mean, vertical shear, 

and horizontal shear (in multiblade coordinates) 

RPM error 0.0 Integral 

Vertical and horizontal 

rotor out of plane 

displacement 

0.0 Integral 

Aero device position 0.0 Integral 

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Real Part, rad/sec

Imaginary Part, Hz

Plant

Closed Loop

Pitch, 1 

sym and 2 

Rotor in plane sym

Rotor OoP, 1 sym 

and 2 asym

Tower 

fore-aft

RPM and

various integrals

Filtered Wind 

Speeds

Figure 30. Plant and closed loop eigenvalues at 14 m/s 

40 
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Time, seconds

Blade tip deflection, m

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Pitch, deg / RPM

Blade 1,2,3

Deflection

RPM

Blade 1,2,3 

Pitch

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Time, seconds

Blade tip deflection, m

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Pitch, deg / RPM

Blade 1,2,3

Deflection

RPM

Blade 1,2,3 

Pitch

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Time, seconds

Blade tip deflection, m 

Aero Device Deploy

-2

3

8

13

18

23

28

Pitch, deg / RPM

Blade 1,2,3

Deflection

RPM

Blade 1,2,3 

Pitch

Blade 1,2,3 

Aero Devices

Figure 31. Comparison of load reduction at 14 m/s using (from top to bottom) the PI, IBP, and aero 

controls for a step change in wind shear occurring at 100 sec 

41 
Load and COE Results 

Independent Blade Pitch 

Independent blade pitch is one of the near-term control approaches that can be used to reduce 

wind turbine loads. Any advanced control strategy is likely to include IBP as a component, 

even on a rotor that includes advanced aerodynamic control devices. Most of the 

aerodynamic control devices addressed in this study have a limited range of authority. Blade 

pitch, although likely slower, has a wide range of control authority. As a result, GEC 

assumed for this study that the primary control configuration would include IBP in addition 

to aerodynamic devices controlled independently for each blade. The first step then for this 

study was to design a controller that uses IBP only as a comparison to the primary control 

configuration that includes both IBP and aerodynamic devices. 

Both active aero devices and independent blade pitch were included in the primary control 

configuration for this study. Researchers made several assumptions about the aerodynamic 

devices: 

• Aerodynamic response would be instantaneous, although this would be tempered 

somewhat by using Aerodyn’s dynamic inflow option. 

• Linear behavior would be continuous within the defined function range of the devices. 

Specifically, any position could be achieved between the positive and negative limits. 

• The devices were grouped into three regions of each blade as shown in Figure 32. Each 

region is controlled as one unit. The regions for the primary configuration are inboard 

(12.25 m to 22.50 m); mid-span (22.50 m to 33.75 m); and outboard (33.75 m to 45.0 m). 

Active Aero Device Layout

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Blade Radius (m)

Chord (m)

Inboard

Midspan

Outboard

Figure 32. Active aero device groupings 

42 
Active Aero Only 

The list that follows briefly describes each configuration: 

• In the active aero only configuration only collective blade pitch plus aerodynamic devices 

are used (no IBP). 

• In the active aero with time delay configuration, the response of the active aero devices is 

lagged by using a first-order low pass filter with a time constant of 0.08 s (2 Hz). 

• In the active aero with reduced authority configuration, the range of authority of the 

active aero devices is reduced to half of the primary configuration shown in Figure 27. 

• In the active aero mid-span and outboard only configuration, the inboard active aero 

devices are not used. The mid-span and outboard devices are used in addition to the IBP. 

• In the active aero outboard only configuration, the inboard and mid-span active aero 

devices are not used. Only the outboard devices and the IBP are used. 

Loads and COE Summary 

For each of these control configurations, GEC performed simulations of the IEC load cases in 

ADAMS. Figures 33 and 34 compare the changes in peak and fatigue loads to the baseline loads, 

and Table 21 gives the load cases that produced the peaks. Note that each of these figures is 

shown as a different type of chart to aid in interpreting this large data set. Depending on the 

loading location, different values for the fatigue slope (shown in Figure 34) were used to 

calculate the fatigue equivalent loads. Appendix D gives abbreviations for the loads and 

associated components. 

Note that load reductions occurred primarily in the blade flapwise direction and in the shaft and 

bedplate loads. This is true for both peak and fatigue loads. For peak loads, the figures show that 

blade edgewise bending loads have gone up, in some cases considerably. These peak increases 

result from the extreme direction change with gust (ECD) inflow cases. For such a large change 

in yaw error, the control laws are not consistent with the turbine behavior and the response is 

detrimental. Pursuing alternative control strategies for these cases was beyond the scope of this 

study. 

As described in the WindPACT rotor study (Malcom and Hansen 2003), the peak and fatigue 

loads results were imported into a costing spreadsheet that applied structural sizing and other 

related functions based on the loads. Weights, sizes, and other parameters that feed into costs 

were calculated in this spreadsheet. After this costing was done for all major structural 

components and subsystems—including the balance-of-station items—these costs were summed 

to reach the ICC used in the COE model. 

43 
Peak Loads Relative to Baseline

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

B1RtMx

B1RtMy

B125Mx

B125My

B150Mx

B150My

B175Mx

B175My

B195Mx

B195My

LSSMx

LSSMy

LSSMz

yawMy

yawMz

twrBaseMx

twrBaseMy

Load / Baseline Load - 1

IBP only

IBP plus AA

IBP plus Reduced Authority AA

IBP plus Lagged AA

AA only

IBP plus AA mid/out

IBP plus AA out

Peak Loads Relative to Baseline

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

B1RtMx

B1RtMy

B125Mx

B125My

B150Mx

B150My

B175Mx

B175My

B195Mx

B195My

LSSMx

LSSMy

LSSMz

yawMy

yawMz

twrBaseMx

twrBaseMy

Load / Baseline Load - 1

IBP only

IBP plus AA

IBP pluse reduced authority AA

IBP plus lagged AA

IBP plus AA mid/out

IBP plus AA out

AA only

Figure 33. Change in peak loads relative to baseline for IBP and active aero control 

Fatigue Equivalent Loads Relative to Baseline

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

B1RtMx

B1RtMy

B125Mx

B125My

B150Mx

B150My

B175Mx

B175My

B195Mx

B195My

LSSMx

LSSMy

LSSMz

yawMy

yawMz

twrBaseMx

twrBaseMy

Load / Baseline Load - 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 SN slope, m

IBP only

IBP plus AA

IBP plus Reduced Authority AA IBP plus Lagged AA

AA only

IBP plus AA mid/out

IBP plus AA out

Fatigue Equivalent Loads Relative to Baseline

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

B1RtMx

B1RtMy

B125Mx

B125My

B150Mx

B150My

B175Mx

B175My

B195Mx

B195My

LSSMx

LSSMy

LSSMz

yawMy

yawMz

twrBaseMx

twrBaseMy

Load / Baseline Load - 1

IBP only IBP plus AA

IBP pluse reduced authority AA IBP plus lagged AA IBP plus AA mid/out IBP plus AA out

AA only

Figure 34. Change in fatigue loads relative to baseline for IBP and active aero control 

44 
An additional benefit of active aerodynamic device control is illustrated in Figure 35. This figure 

shows that use of independent blade pitch drives the pitch activity up considerably. This increase 

in duty cycle of the pitch system can be ameliorated by using aerodynamic device controls. 

These load results were used to modify the size and mass of turbine structural components 

which, when combined with material costs, were used to calculate the turbine capital. This 

capital cost was then input to the COE calculation. 

Table 20 shows the resulting COE for the different control configurations. These results are also 

plotted in Figure 36, which further compares them to the RBR results. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2

Wind Speed, m/s

Pitch Position StdDev, degrees

4

Baseline

IBP Only

IBP plus AA

Figure 35. Blade pitch activity comparison 

$0.020

$0.025

$0.030

$0.035

$0.040

$0.045

$0.050

$0.055

Baseline IBP AA IBP+AA IBP+AA

reduced

IBP+AA

lagging

IBP+AA

mid+out

IBP+AA

out

RBR

COE ($/kWh)

-6.0%

-5.0%

-4.0%

-3.0%

-2.0%

-1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

Change from Baseline

COE WC4 COE WC6 Improvement WC4 Improvement WC6

Figure 36. Active aero and RBR COE comparison 

45 
Table 20. COE results for Active Aero Control 

Configuration 

Active Aero 

System Cost 

($)

O&M Cost 

Increase

(%)

COE

($/kWh) % Change from 

Baseline Class 4 Class 6 

Baseline 0 0 0.0511 0.0416 0.0 0.0 

IBP only 10,000 0 0.0505 0.0412 –1.1 –1.0 

Active aero only 40,000 5 0.0514 0.0419 0.5 0.6 

IBP and full-blade 

active aero 40,000 5 0.0500 0.0407 –2.2 –2.1 

IBP and full-blade, 

reduced authority 

active aero 40,000 5 0.0502 0.0409 –1.7 –1.7 

IBP and full-blade 

active aero with time 

lag 40,000 5 0.0502 0.0409 –1.8 –1.8 

IBP and mid- to tipblade active aero 33,000 5 0.0498 0.0406 –2.6 –2.5 

IBP and tip active 

aero 26,000 5 0.0501 0.0408 –0.9 –1.8 

Table 21. Load Cases for Maximum Load: Active Aero versus Baseline* 

Load Baseline IBP Only 

Active 

Aero 

Only 

Full 

Active 

Aero 

Full 

Active 

Aero with 

50% 

Authority

Full 

Active 

Aero 

with Lag 

Outer 

TwoThirds 

Active 

Aero 

Outer 

OneThird 

Active 

Aero 

B1rtMx ECDPR ECDNR ECDNR ECDPR ECDPR ECDPR ECDPR ECDPR 

B1rtMy ECDPR ECDNR ECDNR 12ms5 12ms5 12ms5 12ms5 18ms4 

B125Mx EOG50R ECDPR 22ms4 ECDPR ECDPR ECDPR ECDPR ECDPR 

B125My ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR 12ms5 12ms5 12ms5 12ms5 16ms3 

B150Mx ECDPR ECDNR ECDNR ECDPR ECDPR ECDPR ECDPR ECDPR 

B150My ECDPR ECDNR ECDNR 12ms3 12ms5 12ms5 12ms5 12ms4 

B175Mx ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR ECDPR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR 

B175My ECDPR ECDNR ECDNR 12ms3 12ms3 12ms4 12ms4 12ms4 

B195Mx ECDPR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR 

B195My ECDPR ECDNR ECDNR ECDPR 12ms5 14ms5 8ms4 8ms4 

LSShubMx 24ms4 24ms1 24ms3 18ms4 22ms1 24ms3 24ms6 24ms6 

LSShubMy ECDPR ECDNR ECDNR ewm015 ewm015 ewm015 ewm015 ewm015 

LSShubMz ECDPR ECDNR ECDNR ECDPR ECDPR ECDNR ECDPR ECDPR 

YawbrgMy 22ms5 ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR ECDNR 

YawbrgMz 20ms1 ewm016 24ms6 ewm016 ewm016 ewm016 ewm016 ewm016 

TwrbaseMx ewm501 ewm501 ewm501 ewm501 ewm501 ewm501 ewm501 ewm501 

TwrbaseMy ewm013 ewm013 ewm013 ewm013 ewm013 ewm013 ewm013 ewm013 

* See Table 9 for a description of the load cases and the acronyms. 

46 
Discussion and Conclusions 

The use of active aero devices for wind turbine load reduction presented several challenges and 

required many assumptions. For the purposes of this study, GEC categorized these devices into 

two primary groups: boundary layer control and camber modification. The former approach was 

reviewed briefly and the investigators concluded that boundary layer control did not offer much 

advantage for the variable-speed, variable-pitch baseline turbine design. This is because these 

types of controls operate on the upper portion of the lift curve near and beyond stall, a region 

where the baseline turbine does not typically operate. 

For the camber modification devices, the GEC researchers created a representative set of liftand-drag curves, basing their development on the more optimistic levels of authority that these 

devices might provide as found in the literature. GEC further assumed that the devices could be 

operated in a linear continuous fashion, although this would limit the maximum authority. This 

assumption allowed control design to be simplified significantly by enabling the use of linear 

state-space-control design techniques. 

The results of this study indicate that deploying active aero devices on the blades has some 

potential for reducing rotor and turbine structural loads. The load reductions will depend on the 

assumptions made about the device behavior—specifically, the authority of the devices and their 

time-domain responsiveness. 

Keep in mind that using BEM theory to make the aerodynamic calculations in this study 

introduced a significant amount of uncertainty. Blade element momentum theory assumes 2-D 

flow conditions, but it is well understood that 3-D flow conditions exist. In addition, inherent in 

many of the results was the assumption that the aerodynamic forces developed instantaneously 

when the devices were activated. 

Beyond the development and characterization of the devices themselves, the primary challenge 

in creating controls that rely on these devices is their nonlinear behavior. If devices can be 

fashioned that have a large linear range of authority, the control design will be more 

straightforward and robust. If the devices exhibit significant nonlinear behavior, however, the 

control challenge increases considerably. 

Even though the COE improvements gained by using these devices appear favorable, researchers 

emphasize that these results are highly sensitive to assumptions about initial capital cost and 

operations and maintenance costs. Relatively small increases in O&M costs in particular can 

wipe out the benefits of the load reductions. For this study, the costs of the devices and their 

maintenance were roughly estimated, but calculated to present a realistic target for designers and 

researchers. 

47 
Recommendations 

As stated in the sections above for the RBR and the active aerodynamic controls, both of these 

approaches show promise but are not without their challenges. The challenges are wide ranging 

and include materials, structures, design, aerodynamic characterization and control algorithm 

development. Cost issues are not insignificant either, particularly costs associated with 

operations and maintenance. Any mechanism or device must be reliable and have a long life to 

avoid these costs overwhelming their benefits. 

GEC presents the following recommendations for continued R&D on the RBR concept: 

• Develop and evaluate an RBR turbine design using an approach that integrates 

aerodynamic, structural, and mechanism considerations from the outset. 

• Evaluate the potential for purpose-designed airfoils to facilitate structural nesting while 

mitigating aerodynamic losses. 

• Evaluate materials and manufacturing approaches for maximizing stiffness in a costeffective structure. 

• Conduct subscale demonstrations of key technology elements, including materials, 

manufacturing, and mechanisms. 

For continued R&D on active aero controls, GEC recommends the following: 

• Perform further detailed characterization of the effects on lift and drag including wind 

tunnel and computational fluid dynamics studies. 

• Characterize the time response characteristics in additional detail. 

• Develop devices and strategies that can linearize aerodynamic behavior. 

• Investigate ways to increase the authority of these devices. 

• Assess control methodologies that can take better advantage of the nonlinear nature of 

these devices. 

• Begin developing fabrication techniques specific to integration of these devices into wind 

turbine blade structures. 

• Begin small-scale atmospheric testing. 

In summary, both the RBR and active aero approaches show promise, but are not without wideranging challenges in the areas of materials, structures, design, aerodynamic characterization, 

and control algorithm development. Costs can also be significant, particularly for O&M. Any 

mechanisms or devices must be reliable over a long life span so that their costs do not 

overwhelm their benefits. 

48 
References 

Buhl, T.; Gaunaa, M.; Bak, C. (2005). “Load Reduction Potential Using Airfoils with Variable 

Trailing Edge Geometry.” Proceedings of the 2005 ASME Wind Energy Symposium. AIAA2005-1183. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). 

Coleman, R.P.; Feingold, A.M. (1958). “Theory of Self-Excited Mechanical Oscillations of 

Helicopter Rotors with Hinged Blades.” NACA Technical Report TR 1351. 

Drela, M. (2001). XFOIL 6.94 User Guide. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 

Du, Z.; Selig, M.S. (1998). “A 3-D Stall-Delay Model for Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine 

Performance Prediction. Proceedings of the 1998 ASME Wind Energy Symposium. AIAA 98-

0021. Reston, VA: AIAA. 

Eggars, A.J.; Chaney, K.; Digumarthi, R. (2003). “An Assessment of Approximate Modeling of 

Aerodynamic Loads on the UAE Rotor.” Proceedings of the 2003 ASME Wind Energy 

Symposium. AIAA 2003-0868. Reston, VA: AIAA. 

Eppler, R.; Somers, D.M. (1980). A Computer Program for the Design and Analysis of LowSpeed Airfoils. NASA TM-80210. Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center. 

Griffin, D.A. (1996). “Performance Augmentation with Vortex Generators: Design and Testing 

for Stall-Regulated AWT-26 Turbine.” Proceedings of WindPower ’96. Washington, DC: 

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 

Griffin, D.A. (2000). NREL Advanced Research Turbine (ART) Aerodynamic Design of ART-2B 

Rotor Blades. NREL/SR-500-28473. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL). 

Griffin, D.A. (2001). WindPACT Turbine Design Scaling Studies Technical Area 1 – Composite 

Blades for 80- to 120-Meter Rotor. NREL/SR-500-29492. Golden, CO: NREL. 

Griffin, D.A. (2004). Blade System Design Studies Volume II: Preliminary Blade Designs and 

Recommended Test Matrix. SAND2004-0073. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. 

Hansen, C. (2007). NWTC Design Codes: AirfoilPrep. 

http://wind.nrel.gov/designcodes/preprocessors/airfoilprep/. 

Janiszewska, J.; Gregorek, G.; Lee, J. (2003). “Aerodynamic Characteristics of the LS(1)-

0417MOD Airfoil Model.” Proceedings of the 2003 ASME Wind Energy Symposium. AIAA 

2003-0349. Reston, VA: AIAA. 

Kentfield, J.A.C. (1993). “A Simple, Approximate, Procedure for Predicting the Aerodynamic 

Performance of Turbine Blades Employing Gurney Flaps.” WindPower ’93 Conference 

Proceedings. Washington, DC: AWEA. 

49 
Kentfield, J.A.C. (1994). “Theoretically and Experimentally Obtained Performances of GurneyFlap Equipped Wind Turbines.” Proceedings of the 1994 ASME Wind Energy Symposium.. New 

York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 

Kota, S., Hetrick, J.A.; Osborn, R.; Paul, D.; Pendleton, E.; Flick, P.; Tilmann, C. (2003). 

“Design and Application of Compliant Mechanisms for Morphing Aircraft Structures.” 

Proceedings of SPIE 5054, 24. 

Laino, D.J.; Hansen, A.C. (2002). User’s Guide to the Wind Turbine Aerodynamics Computer 

Software AeroDyn. Salt Lake City, UT: Windward Engineering. Available at 

http://wind.nrel.gov/designcodes/simulators/aerodyn/AeroDyn.pdf. 

Laird, D.L. (2000). “A Numerical Manufacturing and Design Tool Odyssey.” Proceedings of 

AIAA/ASME Wind Energy Symposium. Reston, VA: AIAA. 

Malcolm, D.J.; Hansen, A.C. (2003). WindPACT Turbine Rotor Design Study. NREL/SR-500-

32497. Golden, CO: NREL. 

Malcolm, D.J.; Laird, D.L. (2003). “Modeling of Blades as Equivalent Beams for Aeroelastic 

Analysis.” Proceedings of the 2003 ASME Wind Energy Symposium. AIAA-2003-0870. Reston, 

VA: AIAA. 

McCoy, T.J. (2004). “Wind Turbine ADAMS Model Linearization Including Rotational and 

Aerodynamic Effects.” Proceedings of the 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. 

AIAA 2004-1370. Reston, VA: AIAA.

Perivoralis, Y.G.; Voutsinas, S.G. (2001). “A CFD Performance Analysis of Vortex Generators 

used for Boundary Layer Control on Wind Turbine Blades.” Proceedings of the European Wind 

Energy Conference. Brussels, Belgium: European Wind Energy Association (EWEA).

Post, M.L.; Corke, T.C. (2004). “Separation Control Using Plasma Actuators – Stationary & 

Oscillating Airfoils.” AIAA 2004-0841. 

Rueger, M.L.; Gregorek, G. (1991). An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Vortex 

Generators on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a NACA 0021 Airfoil Undergoing Large 

Amplitude Pitch Oscillations. SAND90-7111. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. 

Selig, M.S.; Tangler, J.L. (1994). “A Multipoint Inverse Design Method for Horizontal Axis 

Wind Turbines.” Presented at the AWEA Windpower ‘94 Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 

May 9–12. 

Stuart, J.; Wright, A.; Butterfield, C. (1996). “Considerations for and Integrated Wind Turbine 

Controls Capability at the NWTC: An Aileron Control Case Study for Power Regulation and 

Load Mitigation.” Proceedings of WindPower ’96. Washington, DC: AWEA. 

Tangler, J.L.; Somers, D.M. (1995). “NREL Airfoil Families for HAWTs.” Presented at the 

American Wind Energy Association Windpower ‘95 Conference, Washington, DC, March 26–

30. 

50 
51 

Timmer, W.; van Rooij, R.P.J.O.M. (2003). “Summary of the Delft University Wind Turbine 

Dedicated Airfoils.” Proceedings of the 2003 ASME Wind Energy Symposium. AIAA 2003-

0352. Reston, VA: AIAA. 

Trevelyan, C.; Sharpe, D.J.; Michelsen, J.A.; Infield, D.G. (2001). “Application of Circulation 

Control Aerofoils to Utility Scale Wind Turbines.” Proceedings of the European Wind Energy 

Conference 2001. 

van Dam, C.P.; Yen Nakafuji, D.T.; Bauer, C.; Chao, D.; Standish, K. (2004). Computational 

and Experimental Investigation into the Effectiveness of a Microtab Aerodynamic Load Control 

System. Sandia National Laboratories, August, 2004, https://e-reportsext.llnl.gov/pdf/243928.pdf. 

Yen Nakafuji, D.T.; van Dam, C.P.; Michel, J.; Morrison, P. (2002). “Load Control for Turbine 

Blades: A Non-Traditional Microtab Approach.” Proceedings of the 2002 ASME Wind Energy 

Symposium. AIAA 2002-0054. Reston, VA: AIAA. 

Yen Nakafuji, D.; van Dam, C.P.; Smith, R.L.; Collins, S.D. (2001). “Active Load Control for 

Wind Turbine Blades Using MEM Translational Tabs.” Proceedings of the 2001 ASME Wind 

Energy Symposium. AIAA 2001-0031. Reston, VA: AIAA. 
Appendix A: AEP Calculations 

A-1
Baseline Config. #1 95/45/50_85 Config. #2 95/45/55_85

WS Bin # of hours per year PSystem Energy (kWh) PSystem Energy (kWh) PSystem Energy (kWh)

(m/s) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s

3.0 301.2 234.2 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0

3.5 337.0 264.7 4.5 1,500 1,178 24.9 8,401 6,597 45.1 15,202 11,938

4.0 367.0 291.7 47.1 17,288 13,737 79.2 29,078 23,106 112.8 41,397 32,895

4.5 390.9 314.8 102.6 40,124 32,312 148.9 58,219 46,884 198.2 77,482 62,398

5.0 408.6 334.0 168.6 68,885 56,309 228.5 93,367 76,322 293.9 120,087 98,165

5.5 420.1 349.1 242.3 101,782 84,587 320.2 134,529 111,802 405.8 170,477 141,677

6.0 425.6 360.1 330.7 140,729 119,091 430.3 183,114 154,958 540.1 229,831 194,492

6.5 425.4 367.1 435.1 185,091 159,742 560.3 238,332 205,692 698.6 297,193 256,492

7.0 420.0 370.3 556.9 233,888 206,190 711.9 298,974 263,569 883.6 371,092 327,147

7.5 409.9 369.7 697.4 285,848 257,813 886.7 363,467 327,820 1096.9 449,617 405,521

8.0 395.7 365.7 857.9 339,472 313,737 1086.6 429,954 397,361 1337.2 529,116 489,006

8.5 378.1 358.6 1039.8 393,114 372,870 1313.0 496,401 470,838 1585.7 599,487 568,616

9.0 357.7 348.7 1244.4 445,076 433,942 1561.1 558,318 544,353 1833.7 655,844 639,439

9.5 335.1 336.4 1473.1 493,691 495,560 1815.7 608,530 610,834 2045.0 685,362 687,957

10.0 311.2 322.1 1727.1 537,420 556,265 2068.2 643,557 666,122 2068.2 643,557 666,122

10.5 286.3 306.1 1986.5 568,800 608,046 2250.0 644,246 688,698 2250.0 644,246 688,698

11.0 261.2 288.8 2248.3 587,237 649,356 2250.0 587,693 649,861 2250.0 587,693 649,861

11.5 236.3 270.7 2500.0 590,626 676,642 2500.0 590,626 676,642 2500.0 590,626 676,642

12.0 211.9 251.9 2500.0 529,785 629,805 2500.0 529,785 629,805 2500.0 529,785 629,805

12.5 188.5 232.9 2500.0 471,343 582,353 2500.0 471,343 582,353 2500.0 471,343 582,353

13.0 166.4 214.0 2500.0 415,990 535,006 2500.0 415,990 535,006 2500.0 415,990 535,006

13.5 145.7 195.4 2500.0 364,243 488,401 2500.0 364,243 488,401 2500.0 364,243 488,401

14.0 126.6 177.2 2500.0 316,451 443,084 2500.0 316,451 443,084 2500.0 316,451 443,084

14.5 109.1 159.8 2500.0 272,818 399,511 2500.0 272,818 399,511 2500.0 272,818 399,511

15.0 93.4 143.2 2500.0 233,414 358,049 2500.0 233,414 358,049 2500.0 233,414 358,049

15.5 79.3 127.6 2500.0 198,199 318,979 2500.0 198,199 318,979 2500.0 198,199 318,979

16.0 66.8 113.0 2500.0 167,043 282,498 2500.0 167,043 282,498 2500.0 167,043 282,498

16.5 55.9 99.5 2500.0 139,745 248,733 2500.0 139,745 248,733 2500.0 139,745 248,733

17.0 46.4 87.1 2500.0 116,051 217,741 2500.0 116,051 217,741 2500.0 116,051 217,741

17.5 38.3 75.8 2500.0 95,674 189,522 2500.0 95,674 189,522 2500.0 95,674 189,522

18.0 31.3 65.6 2500.0 78,304 164,026 2500.0 78,304 164,026 2500.0 78,304 164,026

18.5 25.5 56.5 2500.0 63,627 141,162 2500.0 63,627 141,162 2500.0 63,627 141,162

19.0 20.5 48.3 2500.0 51,332 120,807 2500.0 51,332 120,807 2500.0 51,332 120,807

19.5 16.4 41.1 2500.0 41,119 102,814 2500.0 41,119 102,814 2500.0 41,119 102,814

20.0 13.1 34.8 2500.0 32,705 87,020 2500.0 32,705 87,020 2500.0 32,705 87,020

20.5 10.3 29.3 2500.0 25,830 73,248 2500.0 25,830 73,248 2500.0 25,830 73,248

21.0 8.1 24.5 2500.0 20,257 61,321 2500.0 20,257 61,321 2500.0 20,257 61,321

21.5 6.3 20.4 2500.0 15,775 51,058 2500.0 15,775 51,058 2500.0 15,775 51,058

22.0 4.9 16.9 2500.0 12,200 42,283 2500.0 12,200 42,283 2500.0 12,200 42,283

22.5 3.7 13.9 2500.0 9,369 34,828 2500.0 9,369 34,828 2500.0 9,369 34,828

23.0 2.9 11.4 2500.0 7,146 28,535 2500.0 7,146 28,535 2500.0 7,146 28,535

23.5 2.2 9.3 2500.0 5,412 23,254 2500.0 5,412 23,254 2500.0 5,412 23,254

24.0 1.6 7.5 2500.0 4,071 18,850 2500.0 4,071 18,850 2500.0 4,071 18,850

24.5 1.2 6.1 2500.0 3,042 15,199 2500.0 3,042 15,199 2500.0 3,042 15,199

25.0 0.9 4.9 2500.0 2,257 12,191 2500.0 2,257 12,191 2500.0 2,257 12,191

AEP (MWh): 8,724 10,708 9,660 11,592 10,402 12,267

A-2
 Config. #3 90/45/50_85 Config. #4 90/45/55_85 Config. #5 90/42.75/50_85

WS Bin # of hours per year PSystem Energy (kWh) PSystem Energy (kWh) PSystem Energy (kWh)

(m/s) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s

3.0 301.2 234.2 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0

3.5 337.0 264.7 17.9 6,025 4,731 33.4 11,257 8,840 17.9 6,025 4,731

4.0 367.0 291.7 72.0 26,439 21,009 100.7 36,977 29,383 72.0 26,439 21,009

4.5 390.9 314.8 142.6 55,748 44,894 188.7 73,751 59,393 142.6 55,748 44,894

5.0 408.6 334.0 227.3 92,856 75,905 293.3 119,859 97,978 227.3 92,856 75,905

5.5 420.1 349.1 320.2 134,529 111,802 406.7 170,863 141,998 320.2 134,529 111,802

6.0 425.6 360.1 430.3 183,114 154,958 541.2 230,339 194,922 430.3 183,114 154,958

6.5 425.4 367.1 560.3 238,332 205,692 700.1 297,838 257,048 560.3 238,332 205,692

7.0 420.0 370.3 711.9 298,974 263,569 885.5 371,887 327,848 711.9 298,974 263,569

7.5 409.9 369.7 886.7 363,467 327,820 1099.3 450,572 406,382 886.7 363,467 327,820

8.0 395.7 365.7 1086.6 429,954 397,361 1342.1 531,074 490,815 1086.6 429,954 397,361

8.5 378.1 358.6 1313.0 496,401 470,838 1601.6 605,516 574,334 1313.0 496,401 470,838

9.0 357.7 348.7 1562.2 558,716 544,740 1859.2 664,961 648,327 1562.2 558,716 544,740

9.5 335.1 336.4 1820.5 610,116 612,426 2045.0 685,362 687,957 1820.5 610,116 612,426

10.0 311.2 322.1 2077.3 646,396 669,061 2077.3 646,396 669,061 2077.3 646,396 669,061

10.5 286.3 306.1 2250.0 644,246 688,698 2250.0 644,246 688,698 2250.0 644,246 688,698

11.0 261.2 288.8 2250.0 587,693 649,861 2250.0 587,693 649,861 2250.0 587,693 649,861

11.5 236.3 270.7 2500.0 590,626 676,642 2500.0 590,626 676,642 2500.0 590,626 676,642

12.0 211.9 251.9 2500.0 529,785 629,805 2500.0 529,785 629,805 2556.6 541,787 644,073

12.5 188.5 232.9 2500.0 471,343 582,353 2500.0 471,343 582,353 2632.0 496,230 613,101

13.0 166.4 214.0 2500.0 415,990 535,006 2500.0 415,990 535,006 2632.0 437,955 563,255

13.5 145.7 195.4 2500.0 364,243 488,401 2500.0 364,243 488,401 2632.0 383,475 514,189

14.0 126.6 177.2 2500.0 316,451 443,084 2500.0 316,451 443,084 2632.0 333,160 466,479

14.5 109.1 159.8 2500.0 272,818 399,511 2500.0 272,818 399,511 2632.0 287,223 420,605

15.0 93.4 143.2 2500.0 233,414 358,049 2500.0 233,414 358,049 2632.0 245,738 376,954

15.5 79.3 127.6 2500.0 198,199 318,979 2500.0 198,199 318,979 2632.0 208,664 335,821

16.0 66.8 113.0 2500.0 167,043 282,498 2500.0 167,043 282,498 2632.0 175,863 297,414

16.5 55.9 99.5 2500.0 139,745 248,733 2500.0 139,745 248,733 2632.0 147,124 261,867

17.0 46.4 87.1 2500.0 116,051 217,741 2500.0 116,051 217,741 2632.0 122,179 229,238

17.5 38.3 75.8 2500.0 95,674 189,522 2500.0 95,674 189,522 2632.0 100,725 199,529

18.0 31.3 65.6 2500.0 78,304 164,026 2500.0 78,304 164,026 2632.0 82,438 172,686

18.5 25.5 56.5 2500.0 63,627 141,162 2500.0 63,627 141,162 2632.0 66,987 148,615

19.0 20.5 48.3 2500.0 51,332 120,807 2500.0 51,332 120,807 2632.0 54,043 127,185

19.5 16.4 41.1 2500.0 41,119 102,814 2500.0 41,119 102,814 2632.0 43,290 108,243

20.0 13.1 34.8 2500.0 32,705 87,020 2500.0 32,705 87,020 2632.0 34,432 91,614

20.5 10.3 29.3 2500.0 25,830 73,248 2500.0 25,830 73,248 2632.0 27,193 77,116

21.0 8.1 24.5 2500.0 20,257 61,321 2500.0 20,257 61,321 2632.0 21,326 64,559

21.5 6.3 20.4 2500.0 15,775 51,058 2500.0 15,775 51,058 2632.0 16,608 53,753

22.0 4.9 16.9 2500.0 12,200 42,283 2500.0 12,200 42,283 2632.0 12,844 44,515

22.5 3.7 13.9 2500.0 9,369 34,828 2500.0 9,369 34,828 2632.0 9,864 36,667

23.0 2.9 11.4 2500.0 7,146 28,535 2500.0 7,146 28,535 2632.0 7,523 30,041

23.5 2.2 9.3 2500.0 5,412 23,254 2500.0 5,412 23,254 2632.0 5,698 24,482

24.0 1.6 7.5 2500.0 4,071 18,850 2500.0 4,071 18,850 2632.0 4,286 19,845

24.5 1.2 6.1 2500.0 3,042 15,199 2500.0 3,042 15,199 2632.0 3,202 16,002

25.0 0.9 4.9 2500.0 2,257 12,191 2500.0 2,257 12,191 2632.0 2,376 12,835

AEP (MWh): 9,657 11,590 10,412 12,280 9,836 11,871

A-3
 Config. #6 90/42.75/55_85 Config. #7 85/45/50_85 Config. #8 85/45/55_85

WS Bin # of hours per year PSystem Energy (kWh) PSystem Energy (kWh) PSystem Energy (kWh)

(m/s) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s

3.0 301.2 234.2 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0

3.5 337.0 264.7 33.4 11,257 8,840 9.5 3,199 2,512 21.6 7,281 5,718

4.0 367.0 291.7 100.7 36,977 29,383 64.0 23,492 18,667 89.0 32,677 25,966

4.5 390.9 314.8 188.7 73,751 59,393 134.4 52,525 42,299 176.4 68,950 55,526

5.0 408.6 334.0 293.3 119,859 97,978 221.9 90,657 74,107 285.6 116,685 95,383

5.5 420.1 349.1 406.7 170,863 141,998 320.2 134,529 111,802 406.7 170,863 141,998

6.0 425.6 360.1 541.2 230,339 194,922 430.3 183,114 154,958 541.2 230,339 194,922

6.5 425.4 367.1 700.1 297,838 257,048 560.3 238,332 205,692 700.1 297,838 257,048

7.0 420.0 370.3 885.5 371,887 327,848 711.9 298,974 263,569 885.5 371,887 327,848

7.5 409.9 369.7 1099.3 450,572 406,382 886.7 363,467 327,820 1099.3 450,572 406,382

8.0 395.7 365.7 1342.1 531,074 490,815 1086.6 429,954 397,361 1342.1 531,074 490,815

8.5 378.1 358.6 1601.6 605,516 574,334 1313.0 496,401 470,838 1601.6 605,516 574,334

9.0 357.7 348.7 1859.2 664,961 648,327 1562.2 558,716 544,740 1860.6 665,441 648,796

9.5 335.1 336.4 2045.0 685,362 687,957 1820.5 610,116 612,426 2045.0 685,362 687,957

10.0 311.2 322.1 2077.3 646,396 669,061 2077.3 646,396 669,061 2077.3 646,396 669,061

10.5 286.3 306.1 2250.0 644,246 688,698 2250.0 644,246 688,698 2250.0 644,246 688,698

11.0 261.2 288.8 2250.0 587,693 649,861 2250.0 587,693 649,861 2250.0 587,693 649,861

11.5 236.3 270.7 2500.0 590,626 676,642 2491.2 588,557 674,271 2491.2 588,557 674,271

12.0 211.9 251.9 2556.6 541,787 644,073 2500.0 529,785 629,805 2500.0 529,785 629,805

12.5 188.5 232.9 2632.0 496,230 613,101 2500.0 471,343 582,353 2500.0 471,343 582,353

13.0 166.4 214.0 2632.0 437,955 563,255 2500.0 415,990 535,006 2500.0 415,990 535,006

13.5 145.7 195.4 2632.0 383,475 514,189 2500.0 364,243 488,401 2500.0 364,243 488,401

14.0 126.6 177.2 2632.0 333,160 466,479 2500.0 316,451 443,084 2500.0 316,451 443,084

14.5 109.1 159.8 2632.0 287,223 420,605 2500.0 272,818 399,511 2500.0 272,818 399,511

15.0 93.4 143.2 2632.0 245,738 376,954 2500.0 233,414 358,049 2500.0 233,414 358,049

15.5 79.3 127.6 2632.0 208,664 335,821 2500.0 198,199 318,979 2500.0 198,199 318,979

16.0 66.8 113.0 2632.0 175,863 297,414 2500.0 167,043 282,498 2500.0 167,043 282,498

16.5 55.9 99.5 2632.0 147,124 261,867 2500.0 139,745 248,733 2500.0 139,745 248,733

17.0 46.4 87.1 2632.0 122,179 229,238 2500.0 116,051 217,741 2500.0 116,051 217,741

17.5 38.3 75.8 2632.0 100,725 199,529 2500.0 95,674 189,522 2500.0 95,674 189,522

18.0 31.3 65.6 2632.0 82,438 172,686 2500.0 78,304 164,026 2500.0 78,304 164,026

18.5 25.5 56.5 2632.0 66,987 148,615 2500.0 63,627 141,162 2500.0 63,627 141,162

19.0 20.5 48.3 2632.0 54,043 127,185 2500.0 51,332 120,807 2500.0 51,332 120,807

19.5 16.4 41.1 2632.0 43,290 108,243 2500.0 41,119 102,814 2500.0 41,119 102,814

20.0 13.1 34.8 2632.0 34,432 91,614 2500.0 32,705 87,020 2500.0 32,705 87,020

20.5 10.3 29.3 2632.0 27,193 77,116 2500.0 25,830 73,248 2500.0 25,830 73,248

21.0 8.1 24.5 2632.0 21,326 64,559 2500.0 20,257 61,321 2500.0 20,257 61,321

21.5 6.3 20.4 2632.0 16,608 53,753 2500.0 15,775 51,058 2500.0 15,775 51,058

22.0 4.9 16.9 2632.0 12,844 44,515 2500.0 12,200 42,283 2500.0 12,200 42,283

22.5 3.7 13.9 2632.0 9,864 36,667 2500.0 9,369 34,828 2500.0 9,369 34,828

23.0 2.9 11.4 2632.0 7,523 30,041 2500.0 7,146 28,535 2500.0 7,146 28,535

23.5 2.2 9.3 2632.0 5,698 24,482 2500.0 5,412 23,254 2500.0 5,412 23,254

24.0 1.6 7.5 2632.0 4,286 19,845 2500.0 4,071 18,850 2500.0 4,071 18,850

24.5 1.2 6.1 2632.0 3,202 16,002 2500.0 3,042 15,199 2500.0 3,042 15,199

25.0 0.9 4.9 2632.0 2,376 12,835 2500.0 2,257 12,191 2500.0 2,257 12,191

AEP (MWh): 10,591 12,560 9,644 11,579 10,395 12,265

A-4
 Config. #9 85/40.5/50_85 Config. #10 85/40.5/55_85 Config. #11 90/42.75/55_80

WS Bin # of hours per year PSystem Energy (kWh) PSystem Energy (kWh) PSystem Energy (kWh)

(m/s) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s

3.0 301.2 234.2 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0

3.5 337.0 264.7 9.5 3,199 2,512 21.6 7,281 5,718 35.2 11,861 9,314

4.0 367.0 291.7 64.0 23,492 18,667 89.0 32,677 25,966 103.2 37,885 30,104

4.5 390.9 314.8 134.4 52,525 42,299 176.4 68,950 55,526 191.1 74,714 60,168

5.0 408.6 334.0 221.9 90,657 74,107 285.6 116,685 95,383 293.1 119,747 97,886

5.5 420.1 349.1 320.2 134,529 111,802 406.7 170,863 141,998 405.8 170,477 141,677

6.0 425.6 360.1 430.3 183,114 154,958 541.2 230,339 194,922 540.1 229,831 194,492

6.5 425.4 367.1 560.3 238,332 205,692 700.1 297,838 257,048 698.6 297,193 256,492

7.0 420.0 370.3 711.9 298,974 263,569 885.5 371,887 327,848 883.6 371,092 327,147

7.5 409.9 369.7 886.7 363,467 327,820 1099.3 450,572 406,382 1096.9 449,617 405,521

8.0 395.7 365.7 1086.6 429,954 397,361 1342.1 531,074 490,815 1338.6 529,676 489,523

8.5 378.1 358.6 1313.0 496,401 470,838 1601.6 605,516 574,334 1592.5 602,051 571,047

9.0 357.7 348.7 1562.2 558,716 544,740 1860.6 665,441 648,796 1843.1 659,203 642,714

9.5 335.1 336.4 1820.5 610,116 612,426 2045.0 685,362 687,957 2045.0 685,362 687,957

10.0 311.2 322.1 2077.3 646,396 669,061 2077.3 646,396 669,061 2063.7 642,137 664,653

10.5 286.3 306.1 2250.0 644,246 688,698 2250.0 644,246 688,698 2250.0 644,246 688,698

11.0 261.2 288.8 2250.0 587,693 649,861 2250.0 587,693 649,861 2250.0 587,693 649,861

11.5 236.3 270.7 2491.2 588,557 674,271 2491.2 588,557 674,271 2500.0 590,626 676,642

12.0 211.9 251.9 2500.0 529,785 629,805 2500.0 529,785 629,805 2562.4 543,009 645,525

12.5 188.5 232.9 2617.5 493,499 609,727 2617.5 493,499 609,727 2632.0 496,230 613,101

13.0 166.4 214.0 2778.0 462,248 594,499 2778.0 462,248 594,499 2632.0 437,955 563,255

13.5 145.7 195.4 2778.0 404,746 542,711 2778.0 404,746 542,711 2632.0 383,475 514,189

14.0 126.6 177.2 2778.0 351,641 492,355 2778.0 351,641 492,355 2632.0 333,160 466,479

14.5 109.1 159.8 2778.0 303,155 443,937 2778.0 303,155 443,937 2632.0 287,223 420,605

15.0 93.4 143.2 2778.0 259,369 397,864 2778.0 259,369 397,864 2632.0 245,738 376,954

15.5 79.3 127.6 2778.0 220,239 354,449 2778.0 220,239 354,449 2632.0 208,664 335,821

16.0 66.8 113.0 2778.0 185,619 313,912 2778.0 185,619 313,912 2632.0 175,863 297,414

16.5 55.9 99.5 2778.0 155,285 276,393 2778.0 155,285 276,393 2632.0 147,124 261,867

17.0 46.4 87.1 2778.0 128,956 241,954 2778.0 128,956 241,954 2632.0 122,179 229,238

17.5 38.3 75.8 2778.0 106,312 210,597 2778.0 106,312 210,597 2632.0 100,725 199,529

18.0 31.3 65.6 2778.0 87,011 182,265 2778.0 87,011 182,265 2632.0 82,438 172,686

18.5 25.5 56.5 2778.0 70,703 156,859 2778.0 70,703 156,859 2632.0 66,987 148,615

19.0 20.5 48.3 2778.0 57,041 134,241 2778.0 57,041 134,241 2632.0 54,043 127,185

19.5 16.4 41.1 2778.0 45,691 114,247 2778.0 45,691 114,247 2632.0 43,290 108,243

20.0 13.1 34.8 2778.0 36,342 96,696 2778.0 36,342 96,696 2632.0 34,432 91,614

20.5 10.3 29.3 2778.0 28,702 81,394 2778.0 28,702 81,394 2632.0 27,193 77,116

21.0 8.1 24.5 2778.0 22,509 68,140 2778.0 22,509 68,140 2632.0 21,326 64,559

21.5 6.3 20.4 2778.0 17,529 56,735 2778.0 17,529 56,735 2632.0 16,608 53,753

22.0 4.9 16.9 2778.0 13,556 46,985 2778.0 13,556 46,985 2632.0 12,844 44,515

22.5 3.7 13.9 2778.0 10,411 38,701 2778.0 10,411 38,701 2632.0 9,864 36,667

23.0 2.9 11.4 2778.0 7,940 31,708 2778.0 7,940 31,708 2632.0 7,523 30,041

23.5 2.2 9.3 2778.0 6,014 25,840 2778.0 6,014 25,840 2632.0 5,698 24,482

24.0 1.6 7.5 2778.0 4,524 20,946 2778.0 4,524 20,946 2632.0 4,286 19,845

24.5 1.2 6.1 2778.0 3,380 16,890 2778.0 3,380 16,890 2632.0 3,202 16,002

25.0 0.9 4.9 2778.0 2,508 13,547 2778.0 2,508 13,547 2632.0 2,376 12,835

AEP (MWh): 9,965 12,102 10,716 12,788 10,577 12,546

A-5
A-6

 Config. #12 90/42.75/55_75 Config. #13 90/42.75/55_70

WS Bin # of hours per year PSystem Energy (kWh) PSystem Energy (kWh)

(m/s) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s (kW) 7.81 m/s 8.98 m/s

3.0 301.2 234.2 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0

3.5 337.0 264.7 37.9 12,784 10,039 40.7 13,707 10,764

4.0 367.0 291.7 106.0 38,922 30,928 108.9 39,976 31,766

4.5 390.9 314.8 192.5 75,263 60,611 193.0 75,439 60,753

5.0 408.6 334.0 291.5 119,101 97,358 289.1 118,114 96,551

5.5 420.1 349.1 402.6 169,127 140,555 399.4 167,777 139,433

6.0 425.6 360.1 535.9 228,055 192,989 531.7 226,279 191,486

6.5 425.4 367.1 693.3 294,936 254,544 688.0 292,678 252,596

7.0 420.0 370.3 877.0 368,309 324,693 870.3 365,525 322,239

7.5 409.9 369.7 1088.8 446,276 402,508 1080.6 442,935 399,494

8.0 395.7 365.7 1330.8 526,600 486,680 1316.7 521,008 481,512

8.5 378.1 358.6 1575.5 595,642 564,969 1557.4 588,783 558,462

9.0 357.7 348.7 1821.7 651,526 635,229 1796.2 642,409 626,340

9.5 335.1 336.4 2045.0 685,362 687,957 2034.4 681,795 684,377

10.0 311.2 322.1 2045.4 636,459 658,776 2045.0 636,330 658,643

10.5 286.3 306.1 2250.0 644,246 688,698 2250.0 644,246 688,698

11.0 261.2 288.8 2250.0 587,693 649,861 2250.0 587,693 649,861

11.5 236.3 270.7 2496.9 589,885 675,793 2491.0 588,498 674,204

12.0 211.9 251.9 2579.7 546,672 649,880 2553.8 541,177 643,347

12.5 188.5 232.9 2632.0 496,230 613,101 2632.0 496,230 613,101

13.0 166.4 214.0 2632.0 437,955 563,255 2632.0 437,955 563,255

13.5 145.7 195.4 2632.0 383,475 514,189 2632.0 383,475 514,189

14.0 126.6 177.2 2632.0 333,160 466,479 2632.0 333,160 466,479

14.5 109.1 159.8 2632.0 287,223 420,605 2632.0 287,223 420,605

15.0 93.4 143.2 2632.0 245,738 376,954 2632.0 245,738 376,954

15.5 79.3 127.6 2632.0 208,664 335,821 2632.0 208,664 335,821

16.0 66.8 113.0 2632.0 175,863 297,414 2632.0 175,863 297,414

16.5 55.9 99.5 2632.0 147,124 261,867 2632.0 147,124 261,867

17.0 46.4 87.1 2632.0 122,179 229,238 2632.0 122,179 229,238

17.5 38.3 75.8 2632.0 100,725 199,529 2632.0 100,725 199,529

18.0 31.3 65.6 2632.0 82,438 172,686 2632.0 82,438 172,686

18.5 25.5 56.5 2632.0 66,987 148,615 2632.0 66,987 148,615

19.0 20.5 48.3 2632.0 54,043 127,185 2632.0 54,043 127,185

19.5 16.4 41.1 2632.0 43,290 108,243 2632.0 43,290 108,243

20.0 13.1 34.8 2632.0 34,432 91,614 2632.0 34,432 91,614

20.5 10.3 29.3 2632.0 27,193 77,116 2632.0 27,193 77,116

21.0 8.1 24.5 2632.0 21,326 64,559 2632.0 21,326 64,559

21.5 6.3 20.4 2632.0 16,608 53,753 2632.0 16,608 53,753

22.0 4.9 16.9 2632.0 12,844 44,515 2632.0 12,844 44,515

22.5 3.7 13.9 2632.0 9,864 36,667 2632.0 9,864 36,667

23.0 2.9 11.4 2632.0 7,523 30,041 2632.0 7,523 30,041

23.5 2.2 9.3 2632.0 5,698 24,482 2632.0 5,698 24,482

24.0 1.6 7.5 2632.0 4,286 19,845 2632.0 4,286 19,845

24.5 1.2 6.1 2632.0 3,202 16,002 2632.0 3,202 16,002

25.0 0.9 4.9 2632.0 2,376 12,835 2632.0 2,376 12,835

AEP (MWh): 10,547 12,519 10,505 12,477
Appendix B: COE Calculations 

B-1
COE Calculation for RBR Configuration 12 

COE PROJECTION SHEET

Rating (kW) 2500 2500

Baseline Projected Component Major

Component Component Percent Cost Element

Component Costs $1000 Costs $1000 Improvement % Improvement

Rotor 481 883 -83.6%

 Blades 341 443 -29.9%

 Hub 84 84 0.0%

 Pitch mchnsm & bearings 57 57 -0.5%

 RBR mchnsm & bearings 0 300 #DIV/0!

Drive train,nacelle 954 960 -0.6%

 Low speed shaft 48 48 0.0%

 Bearings 30 30 0.0%

 Gearbox 301 304 -0.9%

 Mech brake, HS cpling etc 5 5 0.0%

 Generator 130 130 0.0%

 Variable spd electronics 135 135 0.0%

 Yaw drive & bearing 21 21 2.7%

 Main frame 117 122 -3.5%

 Electrical connections 100 100 0.0%

 Hydraulic system 11 11 0.0%

 Nacelle cover 56 55 0.7%

Control, safety system 10 10 0.0%

Tower 242 259 -6.9%

TURBINE CAPITAL COST (TCC) 1,688 2,112 -25.2% -20.1%

 Foundations 78 80 -2.3%

Transportation 149 149 0.0%

Roads, civil works 117 117 0.0%

Assembly & installation 90 90 0.0%

Elect interfc/connect 191 191 0.0%

Permits, engineering 57 57 0.0%

BALANCE OF STATION COST (BOS) 682 684 -0.3% -0.3%

Project Uncertainty 270 270 0.0%

Initial capital cost (ICC) 2,640 3,066 -16.2%

Installed Cost per kW for 2.5 MW turbine 1,056 1,227 -16.2%

 (cost in $)

Turbine Capital per kW sans BOS 675 845 -25.2%

(cost in $)

LEVELIZED REPLACEMENT COSTS (LRC) 25 25 0.0% 0.0%

O&M $25/kW/Yr (O&M) 63 69 -10.0% -9.1%

Net 5.8 m/s at 10m ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION MWh (AEP) 7,838 9,476 20.9% 20.9%

Net 8.4 m/s at 50m ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION MWh (AEP) 9,620 11,247 16.9% 16.9%

Fixed Charge Rate 11.85%

COE at 5.8 m/s $/kWh 0.0511 0.0482 5.5%

COE at 8.4 m/s $/kWh 0.0416 0.0406 2.3%

Baseline Turbine: 2.5 MW - 3 Bladed Upwind/Pitch Controlled

Improved Turbine: 2.5 MW - 3 Bladed Upwind/Pitch Controlled - with Retractable Blade Rotor (RBR)

Global Energy Concepts, LLC NREL contract # YAM-4-33200-08

B-2
B-3

COE Calculation for IBP Plus Full Active Aero 

 

COE PROJECTION SHEET

Rating (kW) 2500 2500

Baseline Projected Component Major

Component Component Percent Cost Element

Component Costs $1000 Costs $1000 Improvement % Improvement

Rotor 481 445 7.4%

 Blades 341 281 17.5%

 Hub 84 73 12.6%

 Pitch mchnsm & bearings 57 51 9.4%

 Active Aero Hardware 0 40 #DIV/0!

Drive train,nacelle 954 921 3.5%

 Low speed shaft 48 42 12.0%

 Bearings 30 30 0.0%

 Gearbox 301 302 -0.3%

 Mech brake, HS cpling etc 5 5 0.0%

 Generator 130 130 0.0%

 Variable spd electronics 135 135 0.0%

 Yaw drive & bearing 21 19 11.1%

 Main frame 117 97 17.5%

 Electrical connections 100 100 0.0%

 Hydraulic system 11 11 0.0%

 Nacelle cover 56 50 10.4%

Control, safety system 10 10 0.0%

Tower 242 212 12.4%

TURBINE CAPITAL COST (TCC) 1,688 1,588 5.9% 6.3%

 Foundations 78 78 0.0%

Transportation 149 149 0.0%

Roads, civil works 117 117 0.0%

Assembly & installation 90 90 0.0%

Elect interfc/connect 191 191 0.0%

Permits, engineering 57 57 0.0%

BALANCE OF STATION COST (BOS) 682 682 0.0% 0.0%

Project Uncertainty 270 270

Initial capital cost (ICC) 2,640 2,540 3.8%

Installed Cost per kW for 2.5 MW turbine 1,056 1,016 3.8%

 (cost in $)

Turbine Capital per kW sans BOS 675 635 5.9%

(cost in $)

LEVELIZED REPLACEMENT COSTS (LRC) 25 25 0.0% 0.0%

O&M $25/kW/Yr (O&M) 63 66 -5.0% -4.8%

Net 5.8 m/s at 10m ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION MWh (AEP) 7,838 7,838 0.0% 0.0%

Net 8.4 m/s at 50m ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION MWh (AEP) 9,620 9,620 0.0% 0.0%

Fixed Charge Rate 11.85%

COE at 5.8 m/s $/kWh 0.0511 0.0500 2.2%

COE at 8.4 m/s $/kWh 0.0416 0.0407 2.2%

Baseline Turbine: 2.5 MW - 3 Bladed Upwind/Pitch Controlled

Improved Turbine: 2.5 MW - 3 Bladed Upwind/Pitch Controlled - Active Aerodynamic Devices

Global Energy Concepts, LLC NREL contract # YAM-4-33200-08
Appendix C: MATLAB Script Example 

C-1
The following script is an example to provide insight into the basic strategy used for controller 

design. 

load sysbld % mat file with state space plant model 

[Ab,Bb,Cb,Db]=ssdata(sysbld); % extract state matrices 

[nb,nb]=size(Ab); 

[qb,pb]=size(Db); 

nbst = nb; % original number of states 

CNTRLinps = [1:12]; % number of control inputs: 

[n,ncin]=size(CNTRLinps); % 3 pitch in multiblade coords + 

 % 3x3 aero controls in multiblade coords 

WSinps = [14:16]; % 3 wind speed disturbances in Coleman 

[n,nwin]=size(WSinps); 

ALLinps = [CNTRLinps WSinps]; 

pb = ncin+nwin; 

% append the wind speed disturbances as states (sym and asym) via filters 

tauw = 0.5; % low pass filter time constant 

Ab = [Ab Bb(:,WSinps);zeros(nwin,nb) -1/tauw*eye(nwin)]; 

Bb = [Bb(:,CNTRLinps) zeros(nb,nwin);[zeros(nwin,ncin) 1/tauw*eye(nwin)] ]; 

Cb = [Cb zeros(nb,nwin); zeros(nwin,nb) eye(nwin)]; 

Db = [Db(:,ALLinps);zeros(nwin,pb)]; 

% increment total number of states 

nb = nb+nwin; 

% append integrals for some state variables: asymmetric blade flap, RPM 

% and the aero controls 

% first how many are there? 

n_int_ST = 3; 

n_int_CT = 9; 

n_int = n_int_ST + n_int_CT; 

% then select them 

n_ST = [6 7 8]; 

n_CT = [4:12]; % list as specified by CNTRLinps above 

% append them to the state matrix 

Ab = [Ab zeros(nb,n_int); zeros(n_int,nb+n_int)]; 

Bb = [Bb;zeros(n_int,pb)]; 

% fill A matrix w/ appropriate states to integrate 

for nnn = nb+1:nb+n_int_ST 

 Ab(nnn,n_ST(nnn-nb)) = 1.0; 

end 

% and add to the control input matrix 

for nnn = nb+n_int_ST+1:nb+n_int_ST+n_int_CT 

 Bb(nnn,n_CT(nnn-nb-n_int_ST)) = 1.0; 

C-2
end 

% and the output matrix 

Cb = [Cb zeros(nb,n_int);[zeros(n_int,nb) eye(n_int)]]; 

Db = [Db; zeros(n_int,pb)]; 

% increment the total number of states 

nb = nb + n_int; 

% build continuous and discrete state models 

sysb = ss(Ab,Bb,Cb,Db); 

sysd = c2d(sysb,.05,'zoh'); 

CNTRLS = [1:1:ncin]; 

% assign weighting factors for the LQR 

% based on outputs, not states as this is more obvious 

Q = zeros(nb); 

Q(1,1) = 0; % pitch sym pos 

Q(2,2) = 0; % pitch asym horiz pos 

Q(3,3) = 0; % pitch asym vert pos 

Q(4,4) = 1.; % twr pos 

Q(5,5) = 0.005; % blade sym pos 

Q(6,6) = 0.005; % blade asym horiz pos 

Q(7,7) = 0.005; % blade asym vert pos 

Q(8,8) = 1.0; % RPM 

Q(9,9) = 31.6; % twr vel 

Q(10,10) = 0.1; % blade sym vel 

Q(11,11) = 0.2; % blade asym horiz vel 

Q(12,12) = 0.2; % blade asym vert vel 

Q(13,13) = 0.1; % blade edgewise "rotation" 

Q(14,14) = 2.0; % blade edgewise "rotation" rate 

Q(15,15) = 0; % WS sym Uncontrollable 

Q(16,16) = 0; % WS asym Uncontrollable 

Q(17,17) = 0; % WS asym Uncontrollable 

Q(18,18) = 4.0; % blade asym horiz error 

Q(19,19) = 4.0; % blade asym vert error 

Q(20,20) = 0.6; % RPM error 

Q(21:29,21:29) = 1.0*eye(9); % Aero control errors 

R = zeros(ncin); 

R(1,1) = 1.0; % pitch sym 

R(2,2) = 20.0; % pitch asym horiz 

R(3,3) = 20.0; % pitch asym vert 

R(4:12,4:12) = 2.0*eye(9); % aero all 

% calculate gains for continuous and discrete 

[Kb,S,E] = lqry(sysb(:,CNTRLS),Q,R); 

[Kd,S,E] = lqry(sysd(:,CNTRLS),Q,R); 

%Build closed loop models with direct (not filtered) WS inputs 

Acl = [Ab(1:nbst,1:nbst) zeros(nbst,nwin) 

Ab(1:nbst,nbst+nwin+1:nb);Ab(nbst+1:nb,:)]; 

Bcl = [Bb(1:nbst,1:ncin) Ab(1:nbst,nbst+1:nbst+nwin); Bb(nbst+1:nb,:)]; 

Ccl = Cb; 

Dcl = Db; 

C-3
C-4

sysbcl = ss(Acl,Bcl,Ccl,Dcl); 

sysdcl = c2d(sysbcl,.05,'zoh'); 

[Ad,Bd,Cd,Dd]= ssdata(sysdcl); 

syscl = ss([Acl-Bcl(:,CNTRLS)*Kb],Bcl(:,ncin+1:pb),[CclDcl(:,CNTRLS)*Kb],Dcl(:,ncin+1:pb)); 

sysclb = ss([Ab-Bb(:,CNTRLS)*Kb],Bb(:,ncin+1:pb),[CbDb(:,CNTRLS)*Kb],Db(:,ncin+1:pb)); 

syscld = ss([Ad-Bd(:,CNTRLS)*Kd],Bd(:,ncin+1:pb),[CdDd(:,CNTRLS)*Kd],Dd(:,ncin+1:pb),.05); 

 

% simulate 

T = [0:.01:20]; 

Td = [0:.05:20]; 

[Y,T,X] = step(syscl(:,1),T); 

[Yb,T,Xb] = step(sysclb(:,1),T); 

[Yd,Td,Xd] = step(syscld(:,1),Td); 
Appendix D: Abbreviations and Coordinates for Load Cases and 

Loads 

D-1
D-2

Load Cases 

ECG: Extreme coherent gust 

ECD: Extreme coherent gust with direction change 

EOG: Extreme operating gust 

EWS: Extreme wind shear 

EWM: Extreme wind model (1-year and 50-year return) 

Loads 

B1RtMx: Blade 1 root bending (Mx is an edgewise load in chordal coordinates) 

B1RtMy: Blade 1 root bending (My is a flapwise load in chordal coordinates) 

B125Mx: Blade 1 bending at 25% span (Mx is an edgewise load in chordal coordinates) 

B125My: Blade 1 bending at 25% span (My is a flapwise load in chordal coordinates) 

B150Mx: Blade 1 bending at 50% span (Mx is an edgewise load in chordal coordinates) 

B150My: Blade 1 bending at 50% span (My is a flapwise load in chordal coordinates) 

B175Mx: Blade 1 bending at 75% span (Mx is an edgewise load in chordal coordinates) 

B175My: Blade 1 bending at 75% span (My is a flapwise load in chordal coordinates) 

B195Mx: Blade 1 bending at 95% span (Mx is an edgewise load in chordal coordinates) 

B195My: Blade 1 bending at 95% span (My is a flapwise load in chordal coordinates) 

LSShubMx: Low-speed shaft bending at the hub connection (Mx is a torque) 

LSShubMy: Low-speed shaft bending at the hub connection (My is a lateral moment) 

LSShubMz: Low-speed shaft bending at the hub connection (Mz is a lateral moment) 

YawbrgMy: Overturning moment at the yaw bearing (My is the fore-aft moment) 

YawbrgMz: Yaw moment at the yaw bearing (Mz is a vertical moment) 

TwrBaseMx: Bending at the tower base (Mx is a the side-side bending) 

TwrBaseMy: Bending at the tower base (My is a the fore-aft bending) 
F1146-E(10/2008) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

December 2008 

2. REPORT TYPE

Subcontract Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

10 August 2004 – 31 May 2007 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

COE Reductions through Active Aerodynamic Control of Rotor 

Aerodynamics and Geometry 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

D.A. Griffin and T.J. McCoy 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/SR-500-43391 

5e. TASK NUMBER

WER7.0101 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Global Energy Concepts 

1809 7th Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101 

Phone: (206) 387-4200 Fax: (206) 387-4201 

www.globalenergyconcepts.com 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

YAM-4-33200-08 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NREL/SR-500-43391 

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

NREL Technical Monitor: Scott Schrek 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This study investigates potential cost of energy reductions that might be achieved by designing active systems to 

mitigate loads throughout the wind turbine system. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

wind turbine rotor design; wind energy system design; wind energy cost reductions; wnd turbine aerodynamics; 

WindPACT 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18