8th International DAAAM Baltic Conference
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
19-21 April 2012, Tallinn, Estonia
MODEL VALIDATION AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF A
SMALL WIND TURBINE BLADE
Pabut, O.; Allikas, G.; Herranen, H.; Talalaev, R. & Vene, K.
Abstract: The goal of this study was to
develop and validate a simplified finite
element analysis (FEA) model for a glass
fibre reinforced plastic (GFRP) wind
turbine blade. A 3D virtual model of the
blade was built up in ANSYS Workbench
software with corresponding load cases
and boundary conditions. Data for the FEA
was obtained from tensile tests of GFRP
laminates. Experimental validation of the
virtual model was performed on
manufactured blade subject via bending
tests and modal analysis.
Key words: wind turbine blade, GFRP,
finite element analysis, modal analysis
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the most important components of a
wind energy converter is the rotor together
with blades. Structural design and
performance analysis of wind turbine blade
is an important part of the design theory
and application of wind turbines [1-2].
Manufacturing costs of a small horizontal
axis wind turbine (SHAWT) blade can
reach about 20% of the turbine productions
costs. Therefore, possible profits resulting
from a better structural model and use of
suitable composite materials refer to a need
of multi-criteria optimization and refined
modeling techniques [3]. These statements
are furthermore reinforced by the fact that
for a cost effective wind turbine solution,
the blades must achieve a very long
operating life of 20-30 years [4].
For SHAWT blades, only few full scale
blades are normally physically tested
during the design process as a confirmation
of general structural integrity. By utilizing
computational technology and various
design approaches, information from these
tests can be taken into account in a rational
way in order to speed up the design process
and increase structural reliability of blades
[5].
In this paper, validation of a full scale
single layer lay-up SHAWT blade 3D FEA
model is performed. The virtual model is
validated through experimental bending
test and modal analysis. The proposed
model allows effective consideration of
GRFP material properties, large
dimensions of the structure and rapidly
changing geometrical variables [6-7].
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
2.1 Blade structure
The SHAWT blade subjected to analysis
consist of three main structural components
that are presented in the Figure 1.
A
B
C
Fig. 1. GFRP blade: geometrical layout
GFRP skin material is denoted by A, resin
based connection part by B and metallic
root tube by C. The blade has an overall
length of 2850 mm and a maximum width, manner where calibrated weights were
at the widest chord length, of 465 mm. attached to a designated point at the blade
The manufacture skin laminate consists of tip. The deformation was acquired with a
following E-Glass fiber materials: laser measurement device as a vertical tip
- one layer of Gelcoat GS with 0,4 displacement from initial position. The test
mm thickness. was carried out until a full loss of blade
- one layer of 600 g/m2 Chopped structural integrity occurred. Results of the
Strand Mat (CSM) with 2 mm experimental test are presented in Table 1.
thickness; The applied force is weighed against
- four layers of 600 g/m2 balanced vertical deformation of the blade tip.
stitched biaxial roving mat 0º/90º
with 4×0,5 mm thickness. Nr. Load Load Def.
The fibers were impregnated via hand lay- [kg] [N] [mm]
up with polyester resin (413-568). This 1 20 196,2 86
resulted in a 4,4 mm thick shell structure, 2 25 245,3 116
after being post-cured at a room 3 30 294,3 141
temperature. The skin in this case is the 4 35 343,4 169
main load bearing element as it is subjected 5 40 392,4 196
to aerodynamic thrust loads. 6 45 441,5 234
The connection part B consists only of 7 50 490,5 261
polyester resin which is formed in a 8 55 539,6 293
separate mold. It is mainly used as a load 9 60 588,6 322
transferring unit from the skin to the root 10 65 637,7 364
tube element. The root tube C is made of 11 70 686,7 402
conventional S355 steel and acts as a fixing
12 75 735,8 483
unit.
13 80 784,8 failure
Table 1. Experimental results of the
2.2 Goals of model validation
stiffness and strength analysis
In order to achieve preliminary safety of
the blade structure, it has to possess
properties that do not lead to catastrophic
failures under ultimate loads. Therefore, it
becomes necessary to be able to predict
following properties of the blade:
maximum allowed loads, bending stiffness
and natural frequencies [8, 9].
The natural frequencies are important as
the blade is of an elastic structure and the
load on it is of stress alternation and
random variability. This could lead to
coupling modes and often to direct
malignant structure damage and failure [9]. Fig. 2. Broken test subject

3. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY At a load of 784,8 N the test specimen

3.1 Stiffness and strength analysis
For an experimental study, the blade
subjects were manufactured according to
previously mentioned parameters. Stiffness
and strength analysis was performed in a
experienced a full loss of structural
integrity as the bottom side of the skin
collapsed under compressive load (Figure
2). Also opening of the two skin halves
due to shear forces was noted during the
failure incident.
3.2 Modal analysis
The experimental modal analysis was
performed in a form of calibrated impulse
hammer (Model AU01) test. The test
specimen was mounted with soft restraints.
Predefined measurement points were
excited to acquire the frequency response
functions (FRF). Results were recorded
with SigLab Model 20-22A.
Fig. 3. Experimental modal analysis
The measurement data was processed in
STAR Modal software. The obtained FRFs
where iteratively curve fitted with
polynomial method to identify the modal
parameters (Figure 4). Results of first five
natural frequencies are presented in Table
2.
Mode Frequency, Hz
1 16,6
2 46,8
3 82,1
4 95,4
5 125,7
Table 2. Results of experimental analysis
Fig 4. FRF of a 10th measurement point
4. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
4.1 FEA model
ANSYS Workbench software was utilized
for numerical analysis. For the skin
hexahedral shell elements (SHELL181)
with four nodes were considered. These are
well-suited for linear, large rotation, and/or
large strain nonlinear applications [10].
Due to the complex and irregular geometry
solid tetrahedral (SOLID187) elements
were considered for the connection part.
The root tube was meshed with solid
hexahedral (SOLID186) elements. Three
different element side lengths were
considered according to the general
importance of the objects. Skin was
meshed with 10 mm element side length,
connection part with 20 mm side length
and root tube with 6 mm side length
(Figure 5).
Fig. 5. Mesh for FEA
For the connector and root tube linear
isotropic material models were used
(defined by elastic modulus E and
Poisson’s ratio υ). Linear orthotropic
material model was used to define the skin
properties (defined by elastic modulus E,
Poisson’s ratio υ and shear modulus G).
The skin lay-up was depicted as one layer
to simplify the model and reduce
calculation time. Properties of the 4,4 mm
layer were determined via tensile test with
a servo hydraulic test machine Instron
8800. Material properties were calculated
according to methods mentioned in
previous studies [11].
 E-Glass singel layer lay-up, GPa achieve a more refined solution. However,
Ex 14500 it must be noted that the usage of large
Ey 14500 deformation mode increases considerably
Ez 1800 calculation time and effort.
υ xy 0.11 Results of the stiffness and strength
υ yz 0.30 analysis are presented in Table 4. The
υ xz 0.30 applied force is weighed against resulting
G xy 2800 vertical deformation of the blade tip and
G yz 1500 maximum stress on the skin. Each load
case can be traced by corresponding
G xz 1500
number.
Table 3. Mechanical properties of GFRP
laminate
Nr. Load Stress Def.
[N] [MPa] [mm]
4.2 Stiffness and strength analysis
1 196,2 33 86
Boundary conditions for the strength and
stiffness analysis were selected according 2 245,3 40 107
to the test setup. The principle scheme of 3 294,3 46 128
the stiffness and strength analysis is 4 343,4 53 149
presented in the Figure 6. 5 392,4 60 171
6 441,5 66 195
7 490,5 73 220
8 539,6 79 248
9 588,6 89 285
10 637,7 139 337
11 686,7 221 410
12 735,8 336 503
13 784,8 447 607
Table 4. FEA results of the strength and
stiffness analysis

4.3 Modal analysis

Fig. 6. Boundary conditions for the
stiffness and strength analysis
In Figure 6 the fixed support of the root
tube is denoted by A. The tube is supported
along 200 mm area, starting from the free
end of the tube. Acting force is denoted by
B and applied to a 50 mm area, measured
2675 mm from the free end of the root
tube. Standard earth gravity (9,806 m/s2) is
denoted by C.
During the simulation force magnitude was
incrementally raised to generate a force-
displacement curve. Due to the relatively
large deformations compared to the initial
bounding box, ANSYS large deformation
mode was used. This enabled to include
non-linear material effects and utilized
multiple time step iterations in order to
The essence of modal analysis is solving
the vector of the modal equations with a
finite number of degrees of freedom under
the non-damping and non-external load
condition. The impact of structural
damping to the modal frequency and the
vibration mode is so small that it is ignored
[9].
Modal analysis with two different sets of
boundary condition was carried out.
Firstly, a free body analysis without
supporting fixtures was conducted. This
method allows to discard the stiffness of
restraints and therefore exhibits fewer
degrees of uncertainty.
Secondly, a fixed body analysis was
carried out to predict the natural
frequencies of the blade in its working
position. In this configuration the end of
the root tube had all degrees of freedom
removed (Figure 7).

Fig. 8. First natural mode of the blade

5. RESULTS

The obtained FEA deformations are in

Fig. 7. Boundary conditions for fixed body good correlations with the experimental
modal analysis results. The maximum difference of 16,8%
occurs during load case 6 (Figure 9). The
Results of the modal analysis are presented stress figures predict structural failure of
in Table 5. It has to be noted that for a free the blade already at load case 12, as the
body analysis the first six natural obtained stress is above the yield strength
frequency modes are always 0. These of the skin element (Rm=250 MPa). This
represent the unfixed 6 degrees of freedom can be explained by a rapid change of the
of a rigid body. blade geometry that leads to a singularity
effect which results in a higher stress
Free body anal. Fixed body anal. concentration factor.
Mode Freq., Hz Mode Freq., Hz
1 0,0 1 7,2 500
2 0,0 2 21,4
Displacement, mm

400
3 0,7E-03 3 27,1
4 0,9E-03 4 54,8 300
5 0,2E-02 5 77,3 200 Exp…
6 0,2E-02 FEA
7 15,5 100
8 43,2 0
9 78,2 150 350 550 750
10 82,3 Force, N
11 91,1 Fig. 9. Deformation comparison of FEA
Table 5. FEA results of the modal analysis and experimental anlysis

For the fixed body analysis the first natural
mode is found at 8,3 Hz. It is a bending
mode of the blade tip and is depicted in
Figure 8.
The obtained FEA modal frequencies
provide satisfactory correlation of the
result for first three frequencies with a
differences of 7%, 8% and 5%
respectively. However, for higher
frequencies the deviation also increases.
This can be explained by the fact that
higher frequencies are more influenced by
structural deviations. In current study the
higher frequencies are not of concerne as
their influence for structural vibrations is
relatively low and usually for turbine
blades only first and second natural
frequencies are of interest. Therefore, in
general it can be concluded that the FEA
model is validated against experimental
results.
6. CONCLUSION
FEA model validation of a single layer lay-
up GFRP wind turbine blade has been
performed. Experimental bending test and
modal analysis have confirmed the results
achieved in the ANSYS model. It can be
concluded that:
a) Simplified representation of the
skin layout in FEA can be used to
study the stiffness, and strength
characteristic of the blade.
b) Simplified representation is suitable
to study the lower natural
frequencies of the blade.
In future studies different connections
interfaces have to be examined in greater
detail. It is planned to develop design
principles for the root tube-resin and skin-
glue interfaces. Also a study of fatigue
properties of the blade shall be carried out.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Song, F., Ni, Y., Tan, Z. Optimization
Design, Modeling and Dynamic
Analysis for Composite Wind Turbine
Blade. International Workshop on
Automobile, Power and Energy
Engineering, 2011, 16, 369–375.
[2] Ronold, K.O., Cristensen, C.J.
Optimization of a Design Code for
Wind-Turbine Rotor Blades in
Fatigue. Engineering Structures, 2001,
23(8), 993-1004.
[3] Jureczko, M., Pawlak, M., Mežyk, A.
Optimization of a Wind Turbine
Blades. 2005 Int. For. on the Adv. in
Mat. Proc. Tech, 2005, 167(2-3), 463-
471.
[4] Kong, C., Kim, T., Han, D., Sugiyama
Y. Investigation of Fatigue Life for a
Medium Scale Composite Wind
Turbine Blade. The Third Int. Conf. on
Fat. of Comp., 2006, 28(10), 1382-88.
[5] Toft, H.S., Sorensen, J.D. Reliability-
based Design of Wind Turbine Blades.
Structural Safety, 2011, 33(6), 333-
342.
[6] Pohlak, M., Majak, J., Küttner, R.
Multicriteria Optimization of Large
Composite Parts. Composite
Structures, 2010, 92, 2146-152.
[7] Kers, J., Majak, J. Modeling a New
Composite From a Recycled GFRP.
Mechanics of Composite Materials,
2008, 44(6), 623 - 632.
[8] Chen, C.P., Kam, T.Y. Failure
Analysis of Small Composite
Sandwich Turbine Subjected to
Extreme Wind Load. The Proc. of the
20th East Asia-Pacific Conf. on Str.
Eng. and Const., 2011, 14, 1973-981.
[9] Yanbin, C., Lei, S., Feng, Z. Modal
Analysis of Wind Turbine Blade Made
of Composite Laminated Parts. Pow.
and En. Eng. Conf., 2010 Asia-Pacific,
2010, 1-4.
[10] ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS 14.0, Manual,
2011
[11] Herranen, H., Pabut, O., Eerme, M.,
Majak, J., Kers, J., Saarna, M.,
Allikas, G., Aruniit, A. Design and
Testing of Sandwich Structures with
Different Core Materials. Jour. of Mat.
Scn. of Kaun. Un. Of Tech, 2011,
17(3), 276-281.
8. ADDITIONAL DATA ABOUT
AUTHORS
MSc. Ott Pabut
TUT, Department of Machinery
Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
Phone: 372+51 644 57,
E-mail: ottpabut@hotmail.com
http://www.ttu.ee