NREL{I'P-257-4510 UC Category: 261 DE92001157

Dynamic Stall Wind Turbine

Blades

C.P. Butterfield
a.&.. L ..L.L.l.U'-".1..1.
.L
U'lnn

D. Simms
G. Scott

Prepared for Windpower '91 Conference

and Exposition, Palm Springs, California,
September 24-27, 1991

t , 15=1
- . ., -

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(formerly the Solar Energy Research Institute)
1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, Colorado 80401-3393
A Division of Midwest Research Institute
Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy
under Contract No. DE-AC02-83CH10093

December 1991
On September 16, 1991, the Solar Energy Research Institute was designated a national laboratory, and Its name was changed
to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

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, com
pleteness, 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 con
stitute 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.

Printed in the United States of America

Available from:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161

Price: Microfiche A01

Printed Copy A02

Codes are used for pricing all publications. The code is determined by the number of pages in the publication. Information pertaining to the pricing codes
can be found in the current issue of the following publications which are generally available in most libraries: Energy Research Abstracts (ERA); Govern
ment Reports Announcements and Index ( GRA and I); Scientific and Technical Abstract Reports (STAR); and publication NTIS-PR-360 available from NTIS
at the above address.
 DYNAMIC STALL ON WIND TURBINE BLADES

C.P. Butterfield (NREL*)

A.C. Hansen (University of Utah)
D. Simms (NREL)
G. Scott (NREL)

* National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),

formerly the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI)

Presented at the Windpower 91' Conference

Palm Springs, CA.
September, 26-28, 1991

Abstract

Dynamic loads must be predicted accurately in order to estimate the fatigue life of wind turbines operating in turbulent environments. Dynamic stall
contributes to increased dynamic loads during normal operation of all types of horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWTs). This reports illustrates how dynamic
stall varies throughout the blade span of a 10 m HAWT during yawed and unyawed operating conditions. Lift, drag, and pitching moment coefficients during
dynamic stall are discussed. Resulting dynamic loads are presented, and the effects of dynamic stall on yaw loads are demonstrated using a yaw loads
dynamic analysis (YAWDYN).

Tenninology

Lift Coefficient
Pressure Drag Coefficient
Pitching Moment Coefficient
Normal Force Coefficient
Tangent Force Coefficient
Maximum Lift Coefficient
Angle of Attack (degrees)

Introduction

Wind turbines are subjected to dynamic loading from a variety of different sources. Wind shear and turbulence cause time-varying inflow that results in
unsteady airloads. Tower shadow, upwind turbine wakes, and yaw angles also introduce unsteady inflow to wind turbine rotors. Wind turbine designers
must predict these loads in order to adequately design blades, hubs, and the remaining support structure to achieve a 30-year life. Structural analysts have
not been able to predict mean or dynamic loads accurately enough to predict the fatigue life of major wind turbine components with confidence. Part of
the problem is due to uncertainty in the stochastic wind environment as mentioned earlier. Another important part of the problem is the lack of basic
knowledge of rotary wing airfoil stall performance. The helicopter industry has invested significant research time in understanding dynamic stall on helicopter
blades but has ignored steady stall because helicopters avoid operating conditions that would result in large-scale steady stall. Wind turbines commonly
operate in steady stall as a means of regulating peak power and loads. It has been discovered by Butterfield et al. [1] and many others [2,3] that airfoils
do not stall on rotating wings as they do in wind tunnel tests. Butterfield et al. [4] also discovered that dynamic stall can exist on wind turbine blades during
normal operating conditions. There is mounting evidence that dynamic stall may be related dynamic loads that are greater than predicted. Wright [5] and
Hansen [6] show improved accuracy in predicted dynamic loads and yaw loads when dynamic stall is introduced into their dynamic analyses.

In order to develop static and dynamic stall models for wind turbines, a data base of measured dynamic stall characteristics must exist for comparison and
validation of new codes. Helicopter experience and codes may be applicable but must be validated using measurements from operating wind turbine
measurements. The Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), has conducted a series of experiments
that will supply this basic data. The experiment is c8ned the Combined Experiment and is described by Butterfield et al. in two references [7,8]. This paper
describes dynamic stall measurements at four blade spanwise stations of a rotating wind turbine blade. Loads are correlated with the measured airloads.
Finally, dynamic stall is related to increased yaw moments.

Test Description

A 10-m, three-bladed, downwind horizontal-axis wind turbine (HAWT) was used as a test platform. Molds were made to high tolerances so that airfoil
coordinates would be accurately transferred to the test blades. The SERI S809 airfoil was used because extensive wind tunnel data were available for it.
1bis airfoil is one of a family of airfoils designed specifically for wind turbine use.
Tangier and Somers [9,10) describe the airfoil as a 2I% thick, laminar-flow airfoil
with low roughness sensitivity.

Two blades were made with no instrumentation and a third was constructed with I24
pressure taps installed inside the blade. Butterfield et al. [7] describe the installation
technique and the pressure measurement instrumentation. Measurements were made
at four chordwise pressure distributions located at 30%, 47%, 63%, and 80% blade boom

spans. Pressure taps were located at 4% chord and 36% chord on the suction side of
the airfoil for six additional spanwise locations. Figure 1 shows the wind turbine and
basic statistics. Figure 2 shows the pressure tap spanwise locations on the blade and
the tap chordwise locations on the airfoil for each of the four spanwise locations.

Four ESP-32 pressure transducers were installed inside the test blade near the
10 Meter diameter
chordwise-distributed taps. Stainless-steel tubes were fabricated into the blade skin
20 Kilowatt
to carry the surface pressures to each of the transducers. The tube lengths ranged 72 RPM
from 4 em to 7.4 em and had a I-mm inside diameter. A microprocessor-based Constant chord
Zero twist
controller was used to electrically scan each of the transducers at a tap-to-tap S809 airfoil
frequency of 16,672 Hz. Thus each pressure channel was sampled at 52I Hz. Analog Pitch control
Down wind
filters, set at I00 Hz, were used to prevent aliasing. Transfer functions were measured
for each pressure channel to determine the electrical and acoustical dynamic Figure 1. TEST TURBINE DESCRIPTION
characteristics. In all cases the dynamic response was flat in the region of interest.

The same pressure tap locations and instrumentation were used in wind tunnel tests
at the Ohio State University (OSU) [11] and Colorado State University (CSU) [12]
wind tunnels. By keeping the instrumentation, pressure tap location, and airfoil
identical between wind tunnel tests and rotating blade wind turbine tests, differences
in the results would be more likely attributable to real differences in airfoil
performance caused by three-dimensional and rotating-blade effects.

Dynamic pressure and local flow angle were measured at each of the four pressure 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Chord (18-in. chord)
distributions. Dynamic pressure was measured using a total pressure probe with an
internal angle of 45 degrees. This probe was tested in the CSU wind tunnel and found
to give accurate total pressure measurements for angular misalignments up to 40
Indicates full
degrees. The flow angle probe was also tested in the wind tunnel while mounted on distribution
the airfoil. Upwash due to circulation effects causes local flow angles to deviate from of taps

the geometric angle of attack. In this test the deviations were measured and used to ======= Indicates 4%
correct the rotating-blade measured angles. Butterfield et al. [4,I] describes these and 36%
taps only
corrections as well as dynamic response tests performed on the probe.

Data Case Descriptions

Two data cases were chosen for analysis. The frrst case spanned 20 seconds of time
during 30-degree yaw angle operation and wind speeds of 13.5 mls. The compass
yaw angle of the turbine was 300 degrees while the wind direction was 270 degrees.
The turbine rotates clockwise when viewed from a downwind location looking into
the wind. The instrumented blade is pointing up when in the zero degree azimuth
position.

The second case spanned IO seconds of time during zero yaw error in wind speeds of
I5 m/s. These two cases are compared in Table I and were chosen to illustrate the
conditions which cause dynamic stall.

The yawed case is typical of conditions that normally occur during rapid wind
direction changes for yaw-driven or free yaw HAWTs. Yaw-driven wind turbines
respond to wind direction changes at yaw rates less than one to five degrees per
second. The low yaw rates are cliosell to limit gyroscopic loads on the main shaft,
which are far greater than unsteady aerodynamic loads if allowed to yaw freely. Wind
0
direction changes occur at much higher rates and result in 30- to 40-degree yaw errors
while the turbine is catching up with the wind direction change.
Figure 2. BLADE LAYOUT

Free yaw machines with ridged rotors respond at higher yaw rates but will experience
yaw errors during yaw overshoot. Free yaw machines with teetered or soft rotors will respond to wind direction changes at lower yaw rates that are over
damped. This damped response still results in yaw errors, but yaw rates are reduced, which results in reduced gyroscopic loads.
 TABLE 1

30 Yaw Case
30 Yaw Case
No Yaw Case 16
80% Blade Span
--
VPA Ave. Wind Speed 13.67 15.39 Static C 14
(mls) 0.9 Lrnax

12 Ci
CD
Ave. Turb. Intensity 0.14 0.06 :!::!.
0.8 -"'
0
'lii 10 (.)
as

Shear (m/s) 1.24 0.72 u
Pitch Angle (degree) 11.3 11.54 5 0.7
8 0
..!!
Cl
c
6 <
Pitch Std. Dev. (degree) 0.33 0.21.
0.6
Rotor Torq. (N-m) 1392 1976 4

0.5 2
0 90 180 270 360
Azimuth Averaged Results
Azimuth Angle (deg)

Figures 3 through 6 illustrate angle of attack (AOA) and lift coefficient

(CJ variations azimuth averaged over 25 revolutions during 30-degree Figure 3. AZIMUm AVERAGED AOA AND LIFI' COEF. AT 80%
yawed operation for 80%, 63%, 47%, and 30% blade spans. The inboard SPAN FOR 30 DEGREE YAW CASE
stations clearly reach high values of CLmax while the blade is rising at
azimuth angles of 270 degrees. Minimum values of CL occur after the
airfoil has stalled. when the blade azimuth angle is between 0 and 90 30 Yaw Case
26
degrees, on the down-wind side of the rotor. Static stall in wind tunnel 63% Blade Span
24
tests results in values of CLmax equal to 0.95. If the airfoil did not stall
and was linearly related to AOA, the CL would follow the AOA in the 1.2 22
cosine shape shown in the same figures. The difference in lift that exists 20 Ci
CD
from the upwind side of the yawed rotor (200 to 300 degree azimuth
18 :!::!.
angle) to the down wind side of the rotor (0 to 100 degree azimuth 'lii
-"'
angle) causes high yaw moments and low speed shaft (LSS) cyclic loads. 0 16 g
u
,;;;
-'
14 0
0.8
Peak-to-peak values of AOA vary from 11 degrees, at the 80% span to 12
26 degrees at the 30% span. This implies that all horizontal-axis rotors 10
would experience AOA cyclic amplitudes large enough to cause dynamic 0.6
8
staii for even modest yaw angles. Both fixed-pitch rotors and partiaiiy
feathered pitch-control rotors would experience maximum AOAs great 6

enough to cause local stailing. 0.4 .

.. 4
.180
0 90 . 270 360

Figures 7 through 10 show similar plots of CL and AOA variations Azimuth Angle (deg)
during 0 degree yaw error operation. As can be seen for this case, AOA
variations are small by comparison because asymmetrical inflow is due Figure 4. AZIMUTH AVERAGED AOA AND LIFI' COEF. AT
only to wind shear of 0.7 m/s across the rotor. Tower shadow is the 63% SPAN FOR 30 DEGREE YAW CASE
major contributor to inflow disturbances. This is obvious from the rapid
change in AOA and CL at 180 degree azimuth angle. This disturbance 30 Yaw Case
1.8 26
is large enough to cause dynamic stall as implied by the sudden rise in
CL above static staii CLmax of 0.95. . 47% Blade Span
. 24

22
Dynamic Stall Results 1.5
20
Figures 11 through 14 illustrate azimuth-averaged CL vs. AOA compared 18 Ci
'lii
0 CD
to static lift curves measured in the CSU wind tunnel tests [12). The u 1.2 16 :!::!.
dynamic stall behavior is evident in the large hysteresis loops that <

surround the static curves. At the 80% span the rotating blade CLmax
5 14 Q
values do not exceed static values significantly. Conversely, Figures 12 12
through 14 show stations 63%, 47%, and 30%, which show CLmax values 0.9
10
exceeding static values by 32% to 110% respectively. The labeled center
symbols indicate blade azimuth angle. The difference in lift at azimuth 8
..
angles of 90 degrees and 270 degrees is again obvious in these curves. 0.6 6
As the hysteresis loops grow larger, the differences increase and the 0 90
.
.. 180 270 360
resulting yaw moments increase. Azimuth Angle (deg)

Drag is also subject to the effects of dynamic staii. Figures 15 through Figure 5. AZIMUTH AVERAGED AOA AND LIFI' COEF. AT
18 compare dynamic stall measurements during 30-degree yawed opera- 47 SPAN FOR 30 DEGREE YAW CASE
tion with static data from the CSU wind tunnel. The 80% span is
affected minimally, but inboard stations experience nearly double the 30 Yaw Case
drag from one side of the rotor to the other. Figure 16 shows a C 0 at
2.2 .. .. 40
270 degree azimuth angle of 0.15 and at 90 degree 0.07, more llian a 2
.
.
30% Blade Span
factor of two increase. These differences will also contribute to yaw 35
moments during yawed operation. 1.8
Ol
CD
30 :g.
Pitching moment coefficients also experience dynamic stall. Figure 19 1.6
...: .:t!
CD u
shows CPm hysteresis loops measured at the 63% blade span. as .
These
8 1.4 25 ::::
<
moments can have a significant effect on blade pitch angle if flexibility ,;;
...I 0
exists in the pitch linkage of pitch-control rotors. 1.2 CD
20 c;,
c:
<
Two-dimensional dynamic-stall tests have been conducted by Gregorek
et al. [11] in the OSU 3X5 wind tunnel. Figure 12 compares Gregorek's 15
0.8
two-dimensional dynamic-stall data with those measured on the operating
turbine during 30.degree yawed operation. Wind tunnel data show only 0.6 10
11% increases in CLmax over wind tunnel values of CLmax This may be 0 90 180 270 360
due in part to the smaller AOA amplitudes used in these tests. The OSU Azimuth Angle (deg)
data shown include three separate tests. Each test had a +/- 3-degree
amplitude with 2-degree, 8-degree and 15-degree mean values of AOA. Figure 6. AZIMUTH AVERAGED AOA AND LIFr COEF. AT
Spanwise flow effects in separated flow regions may also contribute 30% SPAN FOR 30 DEGREES YAW CASE
higher values of C Lmax measured on the rotating blade data. Future
dynamic stall tests will be run at higher amplitudes to investigate the
No-Yaw Case
cause of this discrepancy. 1.2 14
..


"J!O% Blade Span ..
. .
:
Loads
..
1.1 13
. .
.. Ol
During yawed operation cyclic airloads cause cyclic blade loads. CD
:g.
Figure 20 illustrates these blade loads correlated with airloads at the 63% 12 tl
blade span. Peak blade loads correlate with peak lift forces. Blade loads
ai
0
from all three blades sum together and result in hub loads. Any
u

imbalances in blade loads result in LSS moments and yaw moments.
:5 0.9 11
0

Figure 21 illustrates measured yaw moments during 30.degree yawed Cl
c:
<
operation. The cyclic moment is due to each blade reaching maximum
0.8 10
load at different rotor azimuthal positions. As shown in Figure 2 1 one
yaw peak correlates with the instrumented blade reaching maximum lift
force.
0.7 9
0 90 180 270 360
Blade stalling effects yaw loads because the blade reaches maximum lift Azimuth Angle (deg)
on one side of the rotor and minimum lift on the opposite side of the
rotor. Dynamic stall dramatically increases yaw loads because CLmax Figure 7. AZIMUTH AVERAGED AOA AND LIFr COEF. AT
overshoot increases the difference between maximum airload on one side THE 80% SPAN FOR NO YAW CASE
of the rotor and minimum airload on the opposite side of the rotor. This
can be demonstrated by running the YAWDYN simulation analysis with
and without dynamic stall. This analysis was developed and validated
by Hansen et al. [6). No-Yaw Case
22
.
.. .3% Blade Spa.... . ..
Figure 22 shows how predicted yaw moments compare with measured
. : . . .
- . . :
yaw moments. The three-per-revolution (3P) components of the 1.3 .. 20
predictions appear to be 75% greater than the measured 3P component. Ol
CD
They also appear to be in phase by 60 degrees. The mean values of :g.
measured loads are 30% greater than the predicted values with dynamic 1.2 18 .:t!
ai
0
u
stall included. This discrepancy may be due to the over-simplified u

dynamic stall model used in this analysis. If dynamic stall is excluded
5 1.1 16
0
from the analysis the mean yaw moment drops to one half of that CD
c;,
predicted using a simple dynamic-stall model. This difference is c:
<
dramatic, especially when considering the dynamic stall model used did
14
not include CLmax overshoot, only hysteresis. If accurate values of
CLmax were used throughout the blade span, even larger yaw moments
would be predicted. A more accurate yaw model may also explain the 0.9 '-----'----tl._.--'--' 12
discrepancy between the measured yaw moments and predicted moments. 0 90 180 270 360

Azimuth Angle (deg)

Figure 8. AZIMUTH AVERAGED AOA AND LIFT COEF. AT

63% SPAN FOR NO YAW CASE
 No-Yaw Case No-Yaw Case
22 2.5 40
47% Blade Span .
.......-q% Blade Span

.

...
.
. .

... :
. . . . ..
..
. . .
1.3
. . . ... . . 20 2.3 38
. . .
. . ..
.
.
.
Oi Oi
. CD CD
:e. :e.
1.2 18 .X 36 .X
ai
0
0 ai 2.1.
0
0 <II
0 0
5 lcJ 0 5

I+AOAI 34 0
1.1 16 1.9
CD

lcLI
Cl .!!l
c Q)
< c
<
14 1.7
I+AOAI 32

12 1.5 30
90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
Azimuth Angle (deg) Azimuth Angle (deg)

Figure 9. AZIMUTH AVERAGED AOA AND LIFf COEF. AT Figure 10. AZIMUTH AVERAGED AOA AND LIFf COEF. AT
47% SPAN FOR NO YAW CASE 30% SPAN FOR NO YAW CASE

Conclusions
Dynamic stall was shown to exist on a HAWT operating at 30-degree
yaw angle. Dynamic stall also occurs for low yaw error operation when
tower shadow, wind shear, or inflow turbulence cause large AOA
excursions. These increased aerodynamic loads cause increased structural
loading. Yaw moments are affected by dynamic stall.
Future work
Blade geometry appears to effect airfoil performance. To understand the
effect of blade twist and taper on airfoil stall performance, a tapered and
twisted blade, will be developed and tested. Results will be compared
to the existing blade which has no twist or taper.
The flow conditions adjacent to the blade but off the surface (outer flow
condition) may reveal the cause of airfoil performance abnormality.
These flow states can be tested by observing smoke flow patterns as the
blade is rotating through the smoke. Video cameras will be used to
record these smoke patterns. Video image processing will be used to
correlate the patterns with pressure distributions and other operating
conditions. This information will be used to improve stall models for
wind turbines.
2. Musial, W., and C.P. Butterfield, A Comparison of Two- and Three
Dimensional S809 Airfoil Properties for Rough and Smooth HAWT
Rotor Operation, SERifTP-257-3603, UC Category: 261, DE89009512
(ASME Jan. 1990).
3. Vitema, L.A., and R.D. Corrigan, Fixed Pitch Rotor Performance of
Large Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines, DOE/NASA Work-shop on Large
Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines, (Qeveland, Ohio), July 28-30, 1981.
4. Butterfield, C.P., Three-Dimensional Airfoil Performance
Measurements on a Rotating Wing, SERI!fP-217-3505, Solar Energy
Research Institute, Golden, CO (June 1989).
5. Wright, A., and C.P. Butterfield, The SERI Teetering Hub Rotor Code:
Final Results and Conclusions, Wind Power 91, Palm Springs, CA.
September 1991.
6. Hansen, A.C., C.P. Butterfield, "Yaw Loads and Motions of a
Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine", ASME Journal of Solar Energy,
November, 1990, Vol 112.
7. Butterfield, C.P., and E. Nelson, Aerodynamic Testing of a Rotating
Wind Turbine Blade, SERI!fP-257-3490, Solar Energy Research
Institute, Golden, CO (January 1990)

Acknowledgments 8. Butterfield, C.P., M. Jenks, D. Simms, W. Musial, Aerodynamic

This work was conducted with the support of the DOE under contract
DE-AC02-83CH10093. Many others have contributed to the success of
this program. RANN Inc. has offered guidance in the basic science of
aerodynamics. Ohio State University has offered wind tunnel testing and
instrumentation design assistance. SERI colleges have been a constant
source of guidance and assistance. Walt Musial conducted most of the
tests and has provided valuable advise. Bob Thresher has provided
invaluable support and technical guidance.
Pressure Measurements on a Rotatin2 Wind Turbine Blade, SERifTP-
257-3695, Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, CO (May 1990).
9. Tangier, J., D. Somers, Status of the Special Purpose Airfoil Families,
SERifTP-217-3264, Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, CO
(December 1987).
10. Somers, D.M., Design and Experimental Results for the S809 Airfoil,
March 1989 (to be published)

References
1. Butterfield, C.P., D.A. Simms, W.P. Musial, G.N. Scott, Spanwise
Aerodynamic Loads on a Rotating Blade, SERifTP-257-3983, UC
Category:261, DE91002101 (Wind Power 90', October 1990).
11. Gregorek, G.M. (unpublished report of OSU testing of S809 Nov.
1989).
12. Butterfield, C.P., G. Scott, W. Musial, Comparison of Wind Tunnel
Airfoil Performance Data with Wind Turbine Blade Data, SERI!fP-254-
3799, Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, CO (July 1990).
 30 Yaw Error
30 Yaw Error
2
0.8

180 1.6
0.6
a;
0
oo
u 1.2
5 0.4
:5
0.8

0.2
0.4

0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 O L_--====--
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Angle of Attack
Angle of Attack

Figure 11. DYNA:MIC STALL AT 80% SPAN Figure 14. DYNA:MIC STALL AT 30% SPAN

30 Yaw Error
30 Yaw Error 0.2
1.6

1.4
0.15 -
a;
1.2 0
u
0)

a; 0.1
0 l'!
u 0.8 ::l
Ill
,;: Ill
....
0.6 o
o

0.05
0.4
+63% Span
-CSU Data
0.2 OSU Dyn. Stall Data

.. 0
. 0 5 10 15 20
0
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Angle of Attack
Angle of Attack

Figure 12. DYNA:MIC STALL AT 63% SPAN COMPARED TO Figure 15. DRAG DYNA:MIC STALL AT 80% SPAN
WIND TUNNEL DYNA:MIC STALL

30 Yaw Error 30 Yaw Error

1.6

180 0.3
1.4 -

1.2
8
u
0.25

0)
0.2
a;
0 oo
u 0.8 l'!
::l 0.15
5 . .
II)
II>
Q)
0.6
0: 0.1
0.4
0.05
0.2
0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Angle of Attack
Angle of Attack

Figure 13. DYNA:MIC STALL AT 47% SPAN Figure 16. DRAG DYNA:MIC STALL AT 63% SPAN
 30 Yaw Case
30 Yaw Error 900 1.5

800
700 1.3
S'
e
C)
600
c 500 1.1

()
ai
Q)
aJ 400 0

0
0 300 0.9 5
200
a:
<D
'0
01
iii
100 0.7

-100 0.5
5 10 15 20 25 30
0 90 180 270 360
Angle of Attack
Azimuth Angle (deg)

Figure 17. DRAG DYNAMIC STALL AT 47% SPAN Figure 20. BLADE ROOT LOADS DURING VAWED
OPERATION

30 Yaw Case
30 Yaw Error -500 1.5

-600 1.3

-700
'E
(.)
a;
0 0.8
-BOO 1.1
(.).:::
c: ai
0
liP <D

:::; 900 -
E
Ci 0.8 0

"'
-
0.9 ::i
:t I I I
01 I

0.4 >- -1000

j .. cL 63% Spanj
0.2 -1100 ..... !Yaw Moment j
0.7

0 '--- ......:....,_; .
_________ _j -1200
0 90 180 270 360 0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Angle of Attack Azimuth Angle (deg)

Figure 18. DRAG DYNAMIC STALL AT 30% SPAN Figure 21. YAW MOMENTS DURING YAWED OPERATION

YAWDYN Predictions tor

30 Yaw Error 300
30 Yaw Case
0
100

. . . -100

(.)
a; ..().05
0 'W -300

c: e -500
CD
oo c:
:::;
E <D
0

:::; 900
-700

.
..0.1 E
0
C)
c: -

:E :t
\
..().15 -
-1100
+63% Span . -1300
.. csu Data
+YAWDYN wfo Oyn Stall
-1500 + YAWOYN wf Dynamic Stall
..0.2 Measured Yaw Moment
0 5 10 15
Angle of Attack
20 25 30
-1700
0 90 180 270 360
Azimuth Angle (deg)

Figure 19. PITCHING MOMENT DYNAMIC STALL AT 63%

SPAN Figure 22. YAW DYN PREDICTION OF YAW MOMENT