This paper examines the importance of load phase angle variations on fatigue damage and evaluates the potential effects of varying the load phase angle during dual-axis constant amplitude fatigue testing. The scope of this paper is limited to results from simulated wind and dynamic loads. The operating loads on a generic three bladed up-wind 1.5 MW wind turbine blade were analyzed over a range of operating conditions, and an aggregate probability distribution for the actual phase angles between the peak in-plane (lead-lag) and peak out-of-plane (flap) loads was determined. Using a finite element model (FEM) of the 1.5 MW blade and Miner’s Rule [Miner, A., 1945, “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,” Trans. ASME, 67], the accumulated theoretical fatigue damage (based on axial strains) resulting from a fatigue test with variable phase angles using the aggregate distribution was compared to the damage resulting from a fatigue test with a constant phase angle. The FEM nodal damage distribution at specific blade cross sections were compared for the constant and variable phase angle cases. Single-node stress concentrations were distributed arbitrarily around one cross section to simulate material defects in a blade undergoing testing. Results show that the variable phase angle case results in higher damage on the critical nodes. In addition, the probability of discovering a material defect during a test was substantially increased when variable phase loading was used. The effect of phase angle sequence on the damage accumulation was also considered. For this analysis, the finite element results were processed using a nonlinear damage accumulation model. Results show that the sequence of the phase angle can have a large effect on the fatigue damage, and multiple, shorter length sequences produce higher damage than a single, long term sequence.

1.
Larwood, S., Musial, W., Freebury, G., and Beattie, A., “NedWind 25 Blade Testing at NREL for the European Standards Measurement and Testing Program,” NREL/TP-500-29103, March 2001.
2.
Wilson, R. E., Freeman, L. N., Walker, S. N., and Harman, C. R., Users’ Manual for the FAST_AD Advanced Dynamics Code, OSU/NREL Report 95-01, September 1995.
1.
Griffin, D. A., 2001, WindPACT Turbine Design Scaling Studies Technical Area 1—Composite Blades for 80- to 120-Meter Rotor;
2.
21 March 2000–15 March 2001, p. 44;
3.
NICH Report NO. SR-500-29492.
1.
Marco
,
S.
, and
Starkey
,
W.
,
1954
, “
A Concept of Fatigue Damage
,” Trans. ASME, 76.
2.
IEC 1999-02, IEC 61400-1: Wind Turbine Generator Systems, 1999.
3.
Hartin, J. R., “Evaluation of Prediction Methodology for Blade Loads on a Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine,” 9th ASME Wind Energy Symposium, 1990, New Orleans, Louisiana, 14–18 January, 1990.
4.
Miner
,
A.
,
1945
, “
Cumulative Damage in Fatigue
,” Trans. ASME, 67.
5.
Van Paepegem
,
W.
, and
Degrieck
,
J.
,
2002
, “
Effects of Load Sequence and Block Loading on the Fatigue Response of Fibre-reinforced Componsites
,” Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, 9.
6.
Van Grol, H., and Bulder, B., 1994, Reference Procedure to Establish Fatigue Stresses for Large Size Wind Turbines: A State of the Art Report, Volume I: Main Body of the Report and Annexes, Netherlands Energy Research Foundation ECN, The Netherlands.
7.
Hughes, S. D., Musial, W. D., and Stensland, T., “Implementation of a Two-axis Servo-hydraulic System for Full-scale fatigue Testing of Wind turbine Blades,” NREL/CP-500-26896, August 1999.
8.
Mandell, J., Samborsky, D., Scott, M., and Cairns, D., “Effects of Structural Details on Delamination and Fatigue Life of Fiberglass Laminates,” AIAA-98-0061.
9.
Wahl, N., Samborsky, D., Mandell, J., and Cairns, D., “Spectrum Fatigue Lifetime and Residual Strength for Fiberglass Laminates,” AIAA-2001-0025.
10.
Schaff
,
J.
, and
Davidson
,
B.
,
1967
, “
Life Prediction Methodology for Composite Structures. Part I—Constant Amplitude and Two Stress Level Fatigue
,” J. Compos. Mater., 31.
11.
Schaff
,
J.
, and
Davidson
,
B.
,
1997
, “
Life Prediction Methodology for Composite Structures. Part II—Spectrum Fatigue
,” J. Compos. Mater., 31.
You do not currently have access to this content.