REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CERTIFICATION

OF ROTOR BLADES

Gerd Wacker
Germanischer Lloyd WindEnergie GmbH
Steinhoeft 9
20459 Hamburg, Germany


ABSTRACT

In Germany, Denmark and India a wind turbine has to have a valid certification to get a
building permission. In The Netherlands and most of the other European countries, in USA,
Canada, Australia etc. investment groups and banks require a certification of the turbines.
And this includes the certification of the rotor blades.
The blades are highly stressed and are to be designed to withstand extreme loads, mainly the
50-year gust and fatigue (service live 20 years). In the following an overview is given of the
necessary analyses and documentation as well as a comparison of the relevant standards and
regulations.


KEY WORDS: Certification, Applications-Energy, Structural Analysis


1. INTRODUCTION

For the certification of the rotor blades of wind turbines the stiffness, strength, stability and
design life of the blade shall be proofed by analysis and verified by full-scale tests of the
blade. In addition tests of special details may be required.

The calculations and test results shall be sufficiently well documented to demonstrate the
strength, stiffness and durability of the blade. Special investigations shall be performed for the
load introduction parts, e.g. adhesively jointed thread inserts, tip brakes.

The most important regulations and standards for certification on the international level are
the Regulations for the Certification of Wind Energy Conversion Systems of Germanischer
Lloyd (1) and IEC WT 01 IEC System for Conformity Testing and Certification of Wind
Turbines Rules and Procedures(2), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC
WT 01 refers to IEC 61400 series of standards for wind turbines. For the certification of rotor
blades the most important standards herein are IEC 61400-1 Wind turbine generator systems
Part 1: Safety requirements (3) for the load assumptions and safety, IEC TS 61400-23
Wind turbine generator systems Part 23: Full-scale structural testing of rotor blades (4)
and IEC TR 61400-24 Wind turbine generator systems Part 24: Lightning protection (5).

To get a building permission for Germany, the biggest market for wind turbines with an
installed capacity of over 11,000 MW by end of November 2002, the Regulations for Wind
Energy Convertors (in German), German Institute for Civil Construction (6) shall be
fulfilled. This set of regulations covers the civil structures only and not the machinery,
therefore it is common to use the GL-regulations for the blades.

In Denmark the turbine shall have a valid certification according to the Technical Criteria for
the Danish Approval Scheme for Wind Turbines (7). In this approval scheme the general
requirements are stated and for details the document refers to other standards and regulations.
The Danish Standard DS 472 Loads and Safety of Wind Turbine Construction (8) describes
the requirements for the load analysis and for the safety system. Recommendations for design
documentation and the testing of wind turbine blades are given in document (9) with the same
name. Further the Recommendations for Fulfilling Requirements in the Technical Criteria
(in Danish) (10) is also valid and in some parts more detailed than (9).

Last but not least the Dutch pre-standard NVN 11400-0 Wind Turbines Part 0: Criteria for
Type-certification Technical Criteria (11) shall be mentioned. This standard contains the
load assumptions, safety aspects, lightning and the requirements for the design analysis based
on IEC 61400-1 and the former NEN 6096 (19) and shall be used for wind turbines which are
erected in The Netherlands.


2. STRENGTH CALCULATIONS

In general the strength of rotor blades is to be proven by ultimate and fatigue analysis.
Components or parts of the rotor blade which are loaded under compression are to be checked
for stability (buckling and wrinkling). The strength analysis is to be carried out at least at an
adequate number of cross-sections of the rotor blade. The number of cross sections to be
examined depends on the type and the size of the blade, but as a typical number for a 30m
pitch blade (rotor blade without a tip brake) 8 cross sections are to be analyzed. Additional
verification of cross sections could be required in case there are some discontinuities in the
lay-up or in the thickness of the core material used.

The strength verification shall be based on characteristic values. The characteristic values
shall correspond to a survival probability of 95% and a confidence level of 95% (GL (1, 12),
IEC (2), NVN (11), DS (8)). It is to be proven that the stresses from the design loads do not
exceed the design strength of the material. The design strength is the characteristic value
divided by the partial safety factor of the material. For fiber reinforced plastics (FRP) the
partial safety factor of the material is a product of a safety factor and factors which consider:
aging,
temperature,
attack of moisture and
production method.

The strength verification can be performed by a stress or a strain analysis.

2.1 Ultimate strength analysis The actual safety shall be documented by stress or strain
analysis and by stability analysis using failure hypothesis for anisotropic materials that is
recognized in literature. In strength analysis according to GL (1, 12), a separate verification is
required for rupture in and between the fibers. Within the ultimate strength analysis at least
the simultaneous acting of the edge
*
- and flatwise
**
moments together with the shear force
acting in flatwise direction shall be applied.

In table 1 the results from the different regulations and standards are compared. The loads are
multiplied with the safety factors for the different codes and normalized to the GL/DIBt
values. For the material factor
m
according to DS (8) the normal safety class which is
commonly used, has been chosen. Further it was assumed that the laminate will be produced
by prepregs with unidirectional and continuous fibers and the blade will be post-cured. All
material factors are valid for a stress or strain analysis in fiber direction. To get a more
realistic overview the comparison includes the loads. The loads were calculated by the author
for a common 2 MW wind turbine and type class II or equivalent. The maximum wind speed
was between 55,6 m/s (DS) and 59,5 m/s (NVN IIA and IEC IIA).

TABLE 1 - Comparison of results from the different regulations and standards at blade root
applying flatwise loads
Extreme loads GL-II/DIBt III NVN IIA IEC IIA DS class 0 to 3
blade root flatwise (1) (11) (2) (8)
4092 5173 4306 3755
1,50 1,35 1,35 1,30
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
2,45 1,75 1,10
1)
1,70
15038 12221 14242
2)
8299
1,00 0,81 0,95 0,55
Mx *f*n*m [kNm]
Relative
Mx [kNm]
f
n
m

1) Not accepted by the major certification bodies for FRP
2) For this comparison m as in GL (1) has been chosen


TABLE 2 - Comparison of results from the different regulations and standards at blade
middle section applying flatwise loads
Extreme loads GL-II/DIBt III NVN IIA IEC IIA DS class 0 to 3
blade middle flatwise (1) (11) (2) (8)
899 918 800 753
1,50 1,35 1,35 1,30
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
2,45 1,75 1,10
1)
1,70
3304 2169 2646
2)
1664
1,00 0,66 0,80 0,50
Mx *f*n*m [kNm]
Relative
Mx [kNm]
f
n
m

1) Not accepted by the major certification bodies for FRP
2) For this comparison m as in GL (1) has been chosen

Edgewise: direction that is parallel to the local chord (4)

Flatwise: direction that is perpendicular to the local chord (4)

TABLE 3 - Comparison of results from the different regulations and standards at blade root
applying edgewise loads
Extreme loads GL-II/DIBt III NVN IIA IEC IIA DS class 0 to 3
blade root edgewise (1) (11) (2) (8)
1249 1901 1901 1712
1,50 1,35 1,35 1,30
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
2,45 1,75 1,10
1)
1,70
4590 4491 6288
2)
3784
1,00 0,98 1,37 0,82
My *f*n*m [kNm]
Relative
My [kNm]
f
n
m

1) Not accepted by the major certification bodies for FRP
2) For this comparison m as in GL (1) has been chosen

TABLE 4 - Comparison of results from the different regulations and standards at blade
middle section applying edgewise loads
Extreme loads GL-II/DIBt III NVN IIA IEC IIA DS class 0 to 3
blade middle edgewise (1) (11) (2) (8)
238 315 315 269
1,50 1,35 1,35 1,30
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
2,67 1,75 1,10
1)
1,70
954 744 1135
2)
594
1,00 0,78 1,19 0,62
My *f*n*m [kNm]
Relative
My [kNm]
f
n
m

1) Not accepted by the major certification bodies for FRP
2) For this comparison m as in GL (1) has been chosen

Tables 1 to 4 show that GL requires the highest safety factors for ultimate stress or strain
analysis. The IEC standard does not differentiate between metal and FRP for m and the
safety factor is obviously too low for FRP. Because of this and because of a lack of further
detailed requirements for the certification of structures and components of wind turbines most
of the IEC certifications will be a mixture between IEC 61400-1 (for loads and safety system)
and GL-regulations (for structures and components).

In flatwise direction, the requirements according to GL (1) are the highest in tables 1 and 2.
Remarkable is the big difference between GL/IEC and the Danish Standard with a factor of
1,8. This difference results from the required wind speeds and yaw errors but also from the
different safety factors. The NVN standard is in between. The relations of the safety margins
between the different codes change over the blade length.

In edgewise direction tables 3 and 4 show that the IEC standard together with the GL material
factor leads to the highest values. These values are 37% higher at the blade root and 19% at
the blade middle section when compared to GL (1). The lowest values were found for the
Danish Standard. The NVN standard is in between and the relations of the safety margins
between the different codes change over the blade length, too.

In the new edition of the GL-Regulations (12) the loads will be harmonized with the IEC-
standard (3) in combination with the European common modifications (20) and the partial
safety factor for the ultimate strength analysis will be reduced by 10%. This reduction is
possible due to the better knowledge and understanding of the modern blade materials.

With exception of the GL (1, 12) regulations there are no other regulations or standards where
in the analysis for inter fiber failure is required. Depending on the failure hypothesis used, the
safety factor for the material m is the same as in fiber direction or less. The most favorable
failure hypothesis at the moment is the thesis according to Puck (13). This is because the
different failure modes, tension perpendicular to the fiber, combination between tension and
shear, compression perpendicular to the fiber and a combination between compression and
shear can be treated differently.

For failure modes A and B (figure 1) the safety factor for inter fiber failure (IFF)
IFF
is
between 1,35 and 1,98 and for failure mode C
IFF
is between 1,98 and 2,64. The lower safety
factors can be used in case only a single layer failed. In case more than one layer fails and the
stiffness of the element decreases more than 5% due to this failure the higher safety factors
have to be used.


FIGURE 1 IFF according to Puck (13)

Other failure criteria are acceptable, too. E.g. the Tsai-Wu criterion (14) could be used
together with the maximum stress criterion. This combination is necessary because the results
for some loading conditions the Tsai-Wu criterion is not conservative. (15).

2.2 Stability The stability (wrinkling and buckling) of parts subjected to compression and/or
shear shall be verified on the basis of the design loads. According to GL (1, 12) a partial
safety factor of 1,633 shall be applied in stability analysis to the mean values of the material
stiffnesses. According to Danish Standard (9) the safety factor for stability can be individually
selected and shall cover following aspects:
Type of instability,
Material stiffness,
Geometric imperfections,
Fiber misalignment,
Workmanship and
Calculation method.
m
a
Ma
C
ch
T
ch
mean
Mb
Ma
Mb
C
ch
T
ch
all
N
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(

+
=

2 2
The calculation method is considered in GL (1, 12), too. If stability is analyzed by application
of the linear finite element method (FEM), an additional safety factor of 1,2 shall be
considered. In case of non-linear FEM an imperfection must be considered. Details are stated
in GL (12).

To fulfill the IEC requirements (3) or NVN standard (11) it is sufficient that no buckling
occurs in the rotor blade under characteristic loads. Under design loads, only the load-
carrying parts of the blade shall not buckle. Elastic buckling of the shells may occur under
design loads (3). However, this does not mean, that no additional safety factor is necessary to
consider the a.m. imperfections und uncertainness in the calculation method.

2.3 Fatigue analysis Fatigue analysis shall be performed for all critical sections of the blade,
the blade root and the load introduction parts. The fatigue strength verification shall be based
on characteristic S/N curves established for the laminate and the load introduction parts. For
the damage calculation it is allowed to use the Palmgren/Miner rule in combination with the
Goodmann diagram. The Goodmann diagram should be applied to determine the allowable
number of load cycles at a certain stress or strain level. Equation 1 can be used for calculation
of the allowable number of load cycles N
all
.





Equation 1




with

a
= amplitude of a strain cycle,
chT
= characteristic ultimate strain, tension

mean
= mean value of a strain cycle,
chC
= characteristic ultimate strain, compression

Ma
= partial safety factor for ultimate,
Mb
= partial safety factor for fatigue
m = slope parameter of the S/N curve

FRP cannot be assumed to have a fatigue limit.

From the six load components only two components are the main drivers for fatigue, the flat-
and the edgewise bending moments. These two moments are responsible for approximately
97% of the damage in the blade. Because of this it is in general sufficient to perform the
fatigue analysis with these two moments. For the fatigue analysis it is necessary to consider
the simultaneously acting bending moments, therefore the fatigue analysis shall be performed
with time series. Figure 2 shows the residual safety factor around of the blade root. It may be
clearly seen that the minimum safety occurs between 120 and 130 degrees and 300 to 310
degrees for this blade and for GL type class II loads. In case the weight of the blade or the
turbulence intensity changes the minimum will be found under a slightly different angle. The
high effort is not needed in all cases. In case the residual safety factor in flatwise and
edgewise is larger than 1,2 no further investigations are necessary at the blade root (16).

The residual safety factor f
()
can be calculated with following equation:

m
D
f
1
) (
) (
1
|
|
.
|

\
|
=

Equation 2

with
D
()
= cumulative damage sum and
m = slope parameter of the S/N curve.

1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
90
(suction side)
60
30
0
(trailing edge)
330
300
270
(pressure side)
240
210
180
(leading edge)
150
120

FIGURE 2 Residual safety factor f
()
at the blade root

Figure 3 shows the residual safety factors for four different sections of the rotor blade. At
radius 3,5 m the blade has a transition section between the cylindrical root section and the
aerodynamic profile. There is only a minor recess at 0 (the trailing edge). The curve of the
residual safety at radius 10,8 m is quite different compared to radius 3,5 m. At 0 the curve
has a notch und there is a difference of approx. 20 % between the residual safety factor at 90
(pure flatwise loading) and under 140.

FIGURE 3 Residual safety factors for four sections of a rotor blade
For radius 15,6 m the lowest safety could be found. In the outer part of the blade the highest
residual safety factors were established in edgewise direction. All these analyses were
performed with GL-loads. In case that the residual safety factor for a separate flatwise
calculation is larger than 1,25 no further investigations are necessary at the blade section (16).

Tables 5 to 8 compare the results from the different regulations and standards. For
comparison it shall be sufficient to use so called damage equivalent fatigue loads. The load
spectrum is transformed into one block with 10 million cycles and an amplitude resulting in
the same damage as the spectrum.

The loads are multiplied with the safety factors from the different codes in the way as in
ultimate strength analysis. Afterwards the results are normalized with the GL/DIBt values.

It is very interesting that for flatwise loads GL, NVN and IEC reveal nearly the same strength
level (table 5 and 6). As in the static case the Danish Standard is more benign compared to the
other codes. The relation of the results of the different codes changes over the blade length
only in a minor way.

TABLE 5 - Comparison of results from the different regulations and standards at blade root
applying flatwise fatigue loads
Fatigue loads GL-II/DIBt III NVN IIA IEC IIA DS class 0 to 3
blade root flatwise (1) (11) (2) (8)
2514 2345 2345 1842
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
1,00 1,25 1,15 1,00
1,63 1,50 1,10
1)
1,70
4098 4397 4395
2)
3131
1,00 1,07 1,07 0,76
Mx *f*n*m [kNm]
Relative
Mx [kNm]
f
n
m

1) Not accepted by the major certification bodies for FRP
2) For this comparison m as in GL (1) has been chosen

TABLE 6 - Comparison of results from the different regulations and standards at blade
middle section applying flatwise fatigue loads
Fatigue loads GL-II/DIBt III NVN IIA IEC IIA DS class 0 to 3
blade middle flatwise (1) (11) (2) (8)
629 581 581 473
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
1,00 1,25 1,15 1,00
1,63 1,50 1,10
1)
1,70
1025 1089 1089
2)
804
1,00 1,06 1,06 0,78
Mx *f*n*m [kNm]
Relative
Mx [kNm]
f
n
m

1) Not accepted by the major certification bodies for FRP
2) For this comparison m as in GL (1) has been chosen

In edgewise direction GL and Danish Standard are on the same level at the blade root (table
7). The IEC and NVN standards are 16% higher than GL. For the blade middle section GL
increases about 4% relative to the root section in comparison to the other standards. An
explanation for this can not be given at this time. IEC and NVN are approx. 12% higher and
the Danish Standard 9% lower when compared to GL (table 8).

TABLE 7 - Comparison of results from the different regulations and standards at blade root
applying edgewise fatigue loads
Fatigue loads GL-II/DIBt III NVN IIA IEC IIA DS class 0 to 3
blade root edgewise (1) (11) (2) (8)
2429 2456 2456 2248
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
1,00 1,25 1,15 1,00
1,63 1,50 1,1
1)
1,70
3959 4605 4603
2)
3822
1,00 1,16 1,16 0,97
My *f*n*m [kNm]
Relative
My [kNm]
f
n
m

1) Not accepted by the major certification bodies for FRP
2) For this comparison m as in GL (1) has been chosen

TABLE 8 - Comparison of results from the different regulations and standards at blade
middle section applying edgewise fatigue loads
Fatigue loads GL-II/DIBt III NVN IIA IEC IIA DS class 0 to 3
blade middle edgewise (1) (11) (2) (8)
441 428 428 385
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
1,00 1,25 1,15 1,00
1,63 1,50 1,10
1)
1,70
719 803 802
2)
655
1,00 1,12 1,11 0,91
My *f*n*m [kNm]
Relative
My [kNm]
f
n
m

1) Not accepted by the major certification bodies for FRP
2) For this comparison m as in GL (1) has been chosen


3. FULL-SCALE TESTING

A full-scale rotor blade test shall be performed on the basis of the design loads by a
recognized testing body or under the supervision of the certification body. In these tests, the
areas with the maximum loading determined during the analysis shall be verified.
Furthermore the first and the second natural frequencies in flapwise
*
and the first natural
frequency in lead-lag
**
direction shall be measured. For lager rotor blades the first torsional
frequency may be of interest, too. For identification of the blade it is necessary to note blade
type and serial number and to measure the mass and the center of gravity, GL (1, 12), DS (9),
IEC (2, 4).

The blade shall withstand the static and fatigue tests without showing any damages of
significance for safety or the blades function (10).

NVN standard (11) does not require a full-scale blade test.

3.1 Static testing The blade shall be tested with a load, which is sufficiently higher than the
design load. This shall be done in order to take into account influences from temperature,
humidity and production (blade to blade variations) (9).

Flapwise: direction that is perpendicular to the surface swept by the undeformed rotor blade axis (4)
**
Lead-lag: direction that is parallel to the plane of the swept surface and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis
of the undeformed rotor blade (4)
In general the test load shall be calculated according equation 3.

Test load =
su
x
tu
x Design load Equation 3

The test load factor takes values between 1,1 and 1,21 (only for low temperatures) in the
different regulations and standards, table 9.

TABLE 9- Test load factor for the static blade test
Regulation/Standard GL (12) IEC (4) NVN (11) DS (9)
Test load factor
su

1,10 1,10
recommended
na. 1,10
Test temperature
factor
tu

1,00
1)
at 20C
1,10 at 30C
to be
considered
na.
is included in
su

1) In case the ambient temperature during the test is below 20C the factor increases to
maximum 1,10 for 30C. A linear interpolation between 20C and 30C can be made.

A part of the blade as large as possible (9) or at least 70% of the blade length (10,12) shall be
tested. If there is an aerodynamic braking device, that part of the blade incorporating this
device shall be tested, too. The test shall be carried out in a way that the blade is tested in 5
directions:
Flapwise direction from suction to pressure side
Flapwise direction from pressure to suction side
Leadlag wise direction from trailing to leading edge
Leadlag wise direction from leading to trailing edge
Torsion only stiffness distribution is determined. This test may be omitted in case that
the stiffness is not critical for the design of the blade or the wind turbine.

To avoid high shear forces in the sections of the load introduction multiple (at least two) load
introductions should be used for the test. This can be done by e.g. a wiffle tree (figure 4).
FIGURE 4 Example of a wiffle tree (4)

After each new load step, the blade shall remain in the load situation for a defined time. This
time depends on the regulations or standards used and is in the range from 10 s. according to
GL (12) up to 5 min. acc. to DS (10).

3.2 Fatigue testing The full-scale rotor blade fatigue test is required in DS (7) and IEC (2)
only and details regarding the test procedure may be found in (4, 9, 10). According to GL (1,
12) and NVN (11) only S/N curves of details, e.g. load introduction in the blade root, joint
connection of the spar are required. The S/N-curves shall have at least 4 load levels and the
samples shall fail between 10.000 cycles and 10 million cycles. In case different stress ratios
occur in the blade the most unfavorable has to be used or S/N curves for the different stress
rations have to be applied.

The blade shall be tested up to a load, which is sufficiently higher than the design load.
According to IEC (4) and Danish Standard (9) the design load shall be multiplied with a test
partial safety factor of 1,328. This load is called the test load. According to both documents
the safety factor includes the partial factor for consequence of failure (
nf
=1,15) and a blade
to blade variation factor (
sf
=1,1) and a factor for errors in the fatigue formulation (
ef
=1,05):

Test load = 1,328 x Design load Equation 4

The testing time has to be shortened for practical reasons, because no company could test 20
years to place a new type of rotor blade on the market. Therefore the load is increased and the
number of load cycles is decreased. The increase of the load depends on the decrease of the
number of load cycles and the slope parameter of the fatigue curve for the details and
materials tested. The slope parameter of the S/N curve m varies for the different materials
used in the blade (carbon and glass fiber reinforced epoxy or polyester) and for the details
(laminate, adhesive joints, bolt root connection) from m=3 to m=20. Because of this a single
representative slope has to be defined for the blade design for full-scale fatigue testing. The
number of load cycles is neither clearly stated in IEC (4) nor in Danish Standard (9) but at
least several million load cycles shall be tested in leadlag and in flapwise direction. 10
million load cycles in both directions are required in Danish Standard (10), which is valid
until 1
st
March 2003 (17).


4. TIP-TO-TOWER CLEARANCE

To ensure a minimum clearance between the rotor blade tip and the tower surface a deflection
analysis has to be performed. It is state of the art to perform a dynamic and aero elastic
deformation analysis. For this kind of analysis the maximum blade deflection in the tower
sector (approximately 10) has to be multiplied with the safety factor stated in the table
below. The value of the tip-to-tower clearance has to be greater than the blade deflection
multiplied with the safety factor.

TABLE 10 - Partial safety factor for the blade deflection
Regulation/Standard GL (1, 12) IEC (3) NVN (11) DS (8)
Safety factor 1,428 1,485 1.5
1)
Sufficient clearance
2)

1)
safety factor on the load, not on the deflection
2)
no value stated in the regulations


5. LIGHTNING PROTECTION

Even for rotor blades made from non-conducting materials, a lightening protection is
necessary and required for certification (GL, IEC, NVN). The materials used for lightning
protection shall be able to withstand the electric, thermal and electrodynamic stresses by the
lightning current. The rotor blade shall have at least one receptor at the tip in both shells. For
lager blades (30 m and more) more than one receptor for each shell is required. The receptors
shall be connected with a conductive wire, tape or solid round material with the hub. In case
of carbon fiber reinforced blades the areas with carbon fibers shall be protected with a metal
mesh in addition to the receptor. The minimum cross section for the mesh for each shell is the
same as for the down conductor.

Minimum dimensions for materials used for down conductors are listed in table 11.

TABLE 11 Minimum dimensions of down conductors
Material Required in GL (1),
IEC (2, 5), DS (9)
1)
, NVN (11)
Required in GL (12);
Recommended in IEC (5)
Copper 16 mm 50 mm
Aluminium (alloy) 25 mm 50 mm
Steel solid tape
Steel solid round
50mm
50mm
60 mm
78 mm
1)
According to Danish Standard (9) only recommended

The reason to increase the required minimum cross section for down conductors is that in case
of lightning the temperature of the material raises to 300C and more within one or two
seconds (18). This temperature could damage the fixing points and the core material.


6. CONCLUSION
The GL-Regulations (1) cover all details for the certification of rotor blades for wind turbines
in a comprehensive form. The GL-Regulations contain the highest requirements for ultimate
strength analysis and are on a similar safety level as the NVN standard (11). The Danish
Standard (7) has the lowest requirements for ultimate strength analysis. The IEC standard can
only be compared with the other codes in case that a realistic material safety factor is chosen.

The comparison of the codes for the fatigue loads reveals a higher strength level for the NVN
standard compared to GL-Regulations. As in the ultimate case the requirements in the Danish
Standard are more benign than the other codes.

A full-scale static test of the rotor blade is required in GL (1), IEC (2) and the Danish
Standard (7). A full-scale dynamic test is required in IEC (2) and Danish Standard only.
Because no wind turbine manufacturer has applied for a certification of a wind turbine
according to IEC WT 01 (2) yet, all dynamic blade tests were performed to get a Danish
certificate or the blade manufacturer carry out these tests for their own purposes.

7. REFERENCES
1. Regulations for the Certification of Wind Energy Conversion Systems,
Germanischer Lloyd, Edition 1999
2. IEC WT 01 IEC System for Conformity Testing and Certification of Wind
Turbines, Rules and Procedures, Edition 2001
3. IEC 61400-1 Wind turbine generator systems, Part 1: Safety requirements, Edition
1999
4. IEC TS 61400-23 Wind turbine generator systems Part 23: Full-scale structural
testing of rotor blades, Edition 2001
5. IEC TR 61400-24 Wind turbine generator systems Part 24: Lightning protection,
Edition 2002
6. Richtlinie fr Windkraftanlagen Einwirkungen und Standsicherheitsnachweise
fr Turm und Grndung, Deutsches Institut fr Bautechnik, Edition June 1993,
revised 1995.
7. Technical Criteria for the Danisch Approval Scheme for Wind Turbines,
Energistyrelsens godkendelsesordnung for vindmller Sekretariatet VEA-118,
Denmark, Edition 2000 with Corrections of 25.11.2002
8. Loads and Safety of Wind Turbine Construction, Danish Standard DS 472,
Edition 1992
9. Recommendation for Design Documentation and Test of Wind Turbine Blades
Danish Energy Agency, Type Approval Scheme for Wind Turbines, Edition 2002
10. Rekommandation til Opfyldelse af Krav 1 Teknisk Grundlag for
Typegodkendelse og Certificering af Vindmller I Danmark, Energistyrelsens
godkendelsesordnung for vindmller Sekretariatet VEA-118, Denmark, Edition
1992
11. Dutch Prestandard NVN 11400-0 Wind Turbines Part 0: Criteria for type
certification Technical criteria, Edition 1999
12. Regulations for the Certification of Wind Turbines, Germanischer Lloyd, Edition
2003, Final Draft
13. A. Puck, Festigkeitsanalyse von Faser-Matrix-Laminaten, Carl Hanser Verlag
Mnchen Wien, 1996, ISBN 3-446-18194-6, pp. 59-80
14. S. W. Tsai and M. E. Wu, A General Theory of Strength for Anisotropic
Materials, Journal of Composite Materials,
15. A. Puck, in ref. 13, pp. 55
16. G. Wacker and A. Anders, Abschattungseffekte beeinflussen Restsicherheiten,
Erneuerbare Energien 9/2002, pp. 27-30
17. www.daWl.d|/uK/NeWs.rlr, Danish Secretariat for Type Approval, dated 03.01.2003
18. Information from Prof. Wiesinger, Universitt der Bundeswehr, Munich, Germany,
FGW-meeting, dated 08.07.1999
19. NEN 6096/2 Regulations for the Type-Certification of Wind Turbines: Technical
Criteria, Edition 1994
20. IEC prEN 61400-1 Wind turbine generator systems Part 1: Safety requirements;
Common Modifications, Edition 7/2002