Revised Attachment 1 - Statement of Work (Topic Area 1)-2.pdf

Revised Attachment No. 1

STATEMENT OF WORK

Topic Area 1. High-Reynolds Number Airfoil Aerodynamics Validation Datasets

March 6, 2025

1.0 BACKGROUND

The Aerodynamics for Large Turbines (ALTius)) project seeks to fill a knowledge gap in the development of large, multi-megawatt wind turbines (>10 MW), which are deploying offshore and will be relevant for the future of onshore wind farms. The power, lifespan, and operability of a wind turbine is predicted through advanced engineering system design processes that start with a detailed aerodynamic design and performance optimization of the rotating blades. The accuracy of these engineering models depends on airfoil performance data developed and validated through extensive wind tunnel testing in aviation1 and through bespoke test campaigns for the wind industry at relatively smaller scales2. As wind turbines have become larger, the dimensional size and scale of modern utility-scale turbine blade designs has begun to exceed the applicability limits of existing aerodynamic performance data. Optimized designs may not meet the actual field performance expectations because they rely on data that are insufficient to resolve modern turbine scales. Further, inaccurate structural load predictions gleaned from inaccurate aerodynamic modeling could place the final turbine design at risk.

Figure 1. Reynolds numbers landscape with International Energy Agency (IEA) reference turbine operational regimes

Predictive accuracy requires similarity between the actual field application conditions and the test data used to create and validate the models. The most critical engineering scaling parameter needed to ensure such similarity is the Reynolds number—an engineering parameter that accounts for the balance between inertial and viscous fluid forces. The latest modern offshore wind turbine designs, due to their physical size and scale, operate in a Reynolds number range that can exceed 25 million. In this range, the lack of validation data, for airfoils and blade designs of interest to the wind industry, creates a fundamental challenge.3

1 Abbott, I.H., and A.E. von Doenhoff. 1949. Theory of Wing Sections. New York: Dover Publications.

2 Wind Energy Technologies Office. 2023. “Airfoils, Where the Turbine Meets the Wind.” U.S. Department of Energy.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/airfoils-where-turbine-meets-wind.

3 Veers, P., C.L. Bottasso, L. Manuel, J. Naughton, L. Pao, J. Paquette, A. Robertson, et al. 2023. “Grand Challenges in the Design, Manufacturer, and Operation of Future Wind Turbine Systems.” Wind Energy Science 8(7): 1071–1131.

https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1071-2023.

https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1071-2023

2.0 OBJECTIVE – TOPIC AREA 1

The objective of this work effort is to address the need for open, high-quality datasets on modern airfoils at high Reynolds numbers to validate or develop/improve models that can be used to accurately predict aerodynamics in the above-mentioned regimes. As such, please be aware that all data delivered and/or generated under this project, including airfoil shapes, will be made publicly available by DOE’s Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO) and/or NREL. For proprietary airfoil shapes proposed as test articles, NREL will work with awardees to limit their access to non-commercial, research purposes only.

Most open/publicly available relevant datasets are several decades old, from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) airfoil development series. These datasets were extensively validated in wind tunnel tests to Reynolds numbers of 9 million and are used in commercial aviation wing design.

Having a complete complement of continuous 2D performance data for airfoils used in modern turbine designs is rare, with thick airfoil cross sections being the least common. One 21% thick airfoil designed by Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) was tested to a Reynolds number of 15 million,4 but again, no thicker airfoils in that series were tested at that Reynolds number. While the tested TU Delft airfoil is well known, has open datasets, and is used in many research efforts, it has a lower camber (curvature) and design lift coefficient than many slender modern blades in use today. Even the most modern wind tunnels designed and used by the wind industry, e.g., including the Technical University of Denmark’s PLC tunnel, are unable to reach the high Reynolds numbers in question. Therefore, this effort from NREL/WETO aims to create fundamental datasets that the wider R&D community can use and a foundation to build on to advance the state of the art in high Reynolds number aerodynamics.

3.0 SCOPE OF WORK

The primary scope of work the Subcontractor shall perform entails the following:

• Collect and disseminate modern, benchmark airfoil aerodynamic data to validate and improve the tools/models that assure the performance of large wind turbine blades in high Reynolds number operational regimes.

• Inform the wind research community and industry with data and physical insights that advance modeling capabilities to minimize the risks and costs of future large wind turbines.

Airfoil aerodynamic performance data primarily mean the force coefficients (lift, drag, moments), the characteristics of key behaviors (e.g., transition to turbulence, separation), and detailed flow characterization (of surface pressure distributions, boundary layers, wakes, inflows) necessary for validation and simulation model development. These data are to be acquired at low to moderate Mach numbers (incompressible, i.e., below or around 0.3). Additional quantities of interest to measure are:

• Performance with leading-edge erosion or soiling simulated, to fill data gaps at Re. Nos. > 10 million.

• Sensitivity of performance to turbulence boundary conditions like inflow intensity and length scales so that scaling methods can be developed and validated by the research community

• Performance outside “design polar” range (-20 < AoA < 20) that can get into deep-stall range.

Achieving the necessary model scaling parameters (including Reynolds number) while simultaneously supporting the necessary instrumentation needed for high-fidelity datasets is a challenge for wind tunnels

4 Schepers, J.G., O. Ceyhan, K. Boorsma, A. Gonzalez, X. Munduate, O. Pires, N. Sørensen, et al. 2016. “Latest Results From the EU Project AVATAR: Aerodynamic Modelling of 10 MW Wind Turbines.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 753(2): 022017. https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1071-2023.

https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-1071-2023 and testing teams. Beyond test section dimensions and velocity, criteria such as model aspect ratio and mounting methodologies, inflow turbulence, instrumentation systems, flow calibration, blockage effects, and inflow quality, among others, must all be considered in determining the viability of a test facility/plan for attaining the desired aerodynamic performance measurements.

Figure 2. (left) National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex flow-path schematic; (right) 40-foot x 80-foot test section

The National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex (NFAC), a 40-foot by 80-foot wind tunnel facility owned by the federal government and operated by the U.S. Department of Defense, has been selected to host the primary high Reynolds number testing. A recently published characterization of the facility’s capabilities5 will be useful to understand capabilities and constraints. The first-of-its-kind nature of this effort implies that the Subcontractor team’s expertise, testing experience, agility, and ability to execute such a program in collaboration with NFAC and with oversight from NREL will be a key factor.

4.0 TASK EXPECTATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

The major technical considerations and requirements that the Subcontractor shall address in their planning and execution are described and detailed next:

A. Airfoil selection (or) design B. Primary high Reynolds number testing C. Integrated project planning and execution with NFAC D. Secondary wind tunnel testing and research E. High Reynolds number test expansion including proprietary test articles (optional)

The Subcontractor is expected to provide a preparatory phase leading up to a Go/No-Go pre-test readiness review for both primary and secondary wind tunnel testing. A notional schedule/task list with minimum expected critical reviews and workshops is included below for guidance.

5 Lukacovic, K.S., and E.L. Sayles. 2024. "Summary of National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex 40- by 80-foot Wind Tunnel Flow Characterization Study Methods and Results." AIAA 2024-0734. AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum.

https://www.arnold.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/409302/national-full-scale-aerodynamics-complex/ https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2024-0734 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2024-0734

4.1 Airfoil Selection or Design

The airfoil thickness-to-chord ratio range of interest for this RFP is 21%–30%, as it accounts for most of the rotor-swept area (outboard) in modern offshore turbines. The minimum airfoil set that the Subcontractor shall test at the primary facility would be of three designs: one will be a reference airfoil for calibration with past international high Reynolds number aerodynamics research (the DU00-W-212, whose coordinates6 and test data are already publicly available7), and the other two are expected to be modern airfoils of 21% and 30% thickness-to-chord ratios of the subcontractor’s choice. For the purposes of this SOW, a “modern airfoil” is defined as one that meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. The airfoils are shown to have been used in a utility-scale wind turbine (>2 MW) in a product released in the year 2015 or later – defined by an initial public announcement or new product offering communications. In this scenario of confirmed usage in industrial products, the subcontractor is also allowed to replace the “Modern Airfoil 1” 21% t/c airfoil with a “Modern” 24 or 25% t/c airfoil.

2. Performance targets summarized in Table 1 below, based on analysis of existing open-data airfoil families (the FFA, DU, Risoe-A, -P, -B, and the US S-series) and a postulated improvement. For the newly allowed 24-25% t/c ratio airfoils, please use the following targets: At Re #: 15 million; L/Dmax,clean > 162 (computational = 190) while other metrics stay the same as in the Table.

The Subcontractor can bring existing airfoils or design their own airfoils as part of the proposed project;

the ability to meet these targets and demonstrated industrial buy-in will be used to differentiate offers.

The Subcontractor can use experimental data from a laminar wind tunnel at Reynolds numbers > 3 million to prove they can match these targets (or) justify the same using their computational tools matched up against the computational targets (where different from the experimental ones.

Another option is to use open-source airfoils being developed at Sandia National Laboratories8 to serve the needs of reference turbine designs of the wind research community. The airfoil Release Candidate coordinates, their performance and more elaboration of the metrics in the Table above are summarized in Appendix A.5 and the geometry will be made publicly available.

7 Ozlem, C., P. Oscar, and M. Xabier. 2017. “AVATAR High Reynolds Number Tests on Airfoil DU00-W-212.” [Dataset] Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.439827.

8 Karcher, C.J., D.C. Maniaci, C. Kelley, A. Hsieh, N. deVelder, and A. Gupta. 2025. “Design of a Preliminary Family of Airfoils for High Reynolds Number Wind Turbine Applications.” AIAA 2025-0840.AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum.

TOPIC AREA 1

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Task Activity Kickoff Meeting Monthly meetings and quarterly reviews Updated SOPO, Project Mangement Plan with NFAC Airfoil design/selection, Science Plan Review Primary Testing - crtitical design review Pre-Test Readiness Review High Re # Test Matrix Completion Test Results Review Test Design and Science Plan development Pre-Test Readiness Review Test Execution Results/Analysis and Lessons Learned Workshop Final Report

Coordination

Data Analysis & Delivery

High Re # Testing

Secondary Testing https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.439827

Table 1. Target metrics for “modern” airfoils to be used for airfoil testing

In all these new airfoil scenarios, the availability of datasets from high-quality wind tunnel testing that validates the postulated aerodynamic performance of the airfoils is essential. In the absence of such data, the subcontractor will need to include testing (for both laminar and tripped conditions at low turbulence inflow and relevant Reynolds number, ideally >3 million) as a prerequisite to a Go/No-Go decision point before the high-cost primary testing is conducted. Note that this testing could serve as, or integrate with, the required aspects of secondary testing in a low turbulence wind tunnel, with the schedule different than that shown above. Note that if proprietary airfoils are proposed, the shapes and data from this project will need to be made available for research use; the original intellectual property right owners can, however, continue to retain all their original commercial-use rights. For more detail on this issue, please refer to Appendix C.

4.2 Primary High Reynolds Number Testing

The primary objective is for the Subcontractor to design and execute a test campaign with the three airfoils identified in the previous section, for which NREL has established a high-level Minimum Test Matrix, in Table 2; it establishes the minimum dataset that is expected to be created and placed in the public domain. The range of angles of attack, Reynolds numbers, and surface boundary layer conditions (clean, tripped, and with leading-edge roughness applied) are organized in test configurations; each test configuration subset contains nominally four different Reynolds numbers (and a repeat option) at which data are to be collected through an angle of attack sweep from at least -20o to +20o(the “design polars”).

The NFAC team has confirmed “baseline” characterization capabilities for surface (steady and unsteady) pressures, infrared thermography, Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) or wake surveys, unsteady fast response probes etc., and relevant acquisition/post-processing; these are summarized in Appendix A.2.

Within this matrix’s framework, the subcontractor shall have room to customize and optimize testing strategies to best meet the project objectives and align their research intent. This baseline Minimum Test Matrix’s facility testing costs—including tunnel operations, support team, and model installation—are going to be covered by DOE/WETO directly at NFAC via an Intergovernmental Agency Agreement (IAA) as a supplement to the RFP award. For this, WETO has planned an outlay of approximately $3 million in funding based on current cost estimates provided by NFAC, which are also included in Appendix A.3. The testing cost does not include the cost of the model, which is the responsibility of the subcontractor to design and build in close coordination with NFAC and NREL as explained in the next section.

Table 2. Nominal minimum test matrix and available NFAC instrumentation capabilities

4.3 Integrated Test Planning and Execution With NFAC

Since this is a first-of-a-kind experimental campaign, the Subcontractor shall execute a collaborative effort with the NFAC and NREL teams in the design and development of the test articles, their facility integration concepts, and subsequent installation/experimental protocols to be implemented within the facility. The Subcontractor should anticipate extensive interaction and coordination with the wind tunnel facility and operations teams, especially immediately when starting this work; key things to account and plan for include:

• Executing the testing campaign at NFAC will require the Subcontractor to understand, and be compliant with, all design and required design constraints and safety protocols required by the facility operation team. NFAC provides and uses a Test Planning Guide (TPG, Appendix A.4) as a standard but will accept and work with alternate engineering risk assessment and test planning processes/systems that other mature engineering organizations may have internally.

• After initial collaboration and negotiations, the NFAC team will develop a Statement of Capabilities document that will lay out definitions of roles and responsibilities, interfaces, work-splits, terms and conditions, etc., that the Subcontractor shall be expected to sign; this Statement of Capabilities will become a governing mechanism for high Reynolds number test execution at NFAC through the course of the project.

• Test articles to be developed in coordination with experienced model fabricators capable of meeting facility requirements (via design specifications, as-built configuration drawings, instrumentation plans, etc.); fabrication and delivery to NFAC will be the Subcontractor’s responsibility.

• An integrated project plan that updates timelines accounting for expected design and test approval reviews (with NFAC and NREL teams) and design analysis requirement milestones expected in the TPG will be expected from the Subcontractor as a deliverable within six months of the project kickoff.

Figure 3. Notional installation concept (with options; vertical(left), horizontal(right)

The NREL/WETO and NFAC teams have worked together to define an initial installation concept to provide a starting point with some feasibility assessments completed and to provide cost estimates for proposal planning. This concept envisages airfoil test articles mounted vertically in the 40-foot by 80-foot test section on a turntable (see Figure 3) and PIV or wake-rakes being used for wake surveys; preliminary cost estimates for articles of 3.3-m chord and ~10-m span are summarized in Appendix A.2. NFAC will also provide mechanical and instrumentation interface descriptions for test article planning and estimation.

Note that horizontal mounting of (potentially larger span) test articles were also discussed, which might offer a simpler operation at the cost of more up-front design/analysis to manage end effects.

The Subcontractor will need to refine or replace this concept with NFAC collaboration; creative problem-solving capabilities are expected to be tested in this test-design effort to ensure the Subcontractor can meet the validation data fidelity and sufficiency needs. Additional expected work includes:

• Optimization of installation and integration concepts: the Subcontractor shall assess and correct for potential adverse effects (end effects, blockage, separation, interference, etc.) and/or optimize the placement of instrumentation for data density and quality. If the subcontractor has strong drivers and ideas to switch to a horizontal mount concept, they are allowed to do so within the constraints of budget and expected and proposed deliverables.

• There is an ongoing DOE effort to build CFD simulation models of the NFAC facility that can be leveraged if the subcontractor uses CFD methods for such work. These will be made available to the Subcontractor after award decisions are made.

• The Subcontractor shall coordinate, procure, and provide as necessary any instrumentation, data collection, and storage capabilities that are not provided by the facility or model developer that are needed to support the experiment.

• The Subcontractor shall discuss the method to be used to benchmark expected results against existing tunnels and datasets viewed as standards in the wind (and aerospace, where relevant) communities.

4.4 Secondary Wind Tunnel Testing and Research

The Subcontractor shall design and execute a secondary wind tunnel experimental campaign(s) to create datasets that provide critical comparisons or complements to the primary data. The Subcontractor should describe the facility or facilities chosen to test, the rationale for their selection, and how the proposed efforts meet the topic area goals. The mandatory requirement is to, for all airfoils in the base airfoil set:

1. To bridge and complement measurements from the NFAC facility that have the risk of high turbulence intensities affecting transition mechanisms, experiments designed with variations in inflow turbulence at a lower Reynolds number range, laminar wind tunnel are desired; they should include at least one dataset that reaches consistent turbulence levels as measured in the NFAC facility and will be made available to the Subcontractor. These experiments will need to maintain the same flow, model, and instrumentation quality standards as described in the previous section.

Other ideas to enhance research value and hence competitiveness of proposals are invited, for example:

2. Full “360-degree polars” for the base airfoil set that would complement the design polars measured at NFAC and potentially the secondary airfoil testing above; testing for the deep-stall regime (see e.g., zones E, F in Figure 4) is of particular interest.

3. Any other complimentary experiments and analysis/modeling to drive turbulence modeling improvements that would contribute to achieving Reynolds number scaling accuracy in simulation.

Figure 4. Separation of regimes in a 360 degree airfoil polar (courtesy SGRE)

4.5 High Reynolds Number Test Expansion Including Proprietary Test Articles (Optional)

The Subcontractor can propose expanded experimentation beyond the minimums described so far to make their proposals more compelling, e.g., specific flow diagnostics to extend the validation or modeling guidance value of the datasets, aerodynamic add-ons, more or different leading-edge treatments, repeats of configurations to improve quality or provide uncertainty quantification, etc. Note that:

1. The tunnel operations for this expansion will then need to be funded out of the RFP awards or subcontractor cost share.

2. The cost estimates are provided to normalize cost estimates and facility interactions and are not fixed-firm-price offers from NFAC. Appendix A.3 includes broken-out estimates for each test element viz., configuration, AoA sweeps, etc., to facilitate budget estimation.

Also, the Subcontractor can add test articles that reflect proprietary airfoils, or add-ons can also be added to the base airfoil set (three airfoils) and minimum test matrix; their inclusion must be accounted for in the budget justification. Note that the Subcontractor team will need to negotiate and conclude a separate commercial agreement with NFAC to cover all testing costs including operations; however, those costs can also be claimed as being part of the subcontractor team’s (in-kind) cost share. This additional testing must meet the following requirements vis-à-vis the baseline part of the minimum airfoil and test matrix:

• Same or better instrumentation necessary to support aerodynamic performance validation of high-fidelity modeling and design tools.

• Same development, design, and safety requirements required by the wind tunnel.

5.0 REVIEW MEETINGS AND TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS

• There will be virtual (monthly, quarterly) and in-person meetings where necessary (e.g., annual) throughout the duration of the project, which will include Subcontractor teams, NFAC leadership, and the technical management team (NREL, SNL, WETO).

• Travel will be necessary to the NFAC facility both in preparation for primary testing— three (3) trips at a minimum—and during testing. Key technical reviews, e.g., the Critical Design Review and Pre-Test Readiness Reviews, will likely be held at the NFAC facility at NASA Ames.

• For other testing, travel and reviews at the project site can be anticipated on an as-needed basis, e.g., for secondary testing, and will include the technical management team (NREL, SNL), WETO stakeholders, and participants throughout the duration of the project.

• Domestic and international travel should be planned to present results at conferences and may include DOE, lab technical representatives, and participants.

• One or two technical workshops for sharing knowledge and results should be planned by the subcontractor during the project execution; these would ideally be co-located with R&D community events like NAWEA, Torque, or other AIAA/ASME conferences.

6.0 DELIVERABLES

Key deliverables and milestones that the Subcontractor needs to incorporate as a minimum in their project proposal are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Deliverables and milestones to incorporate in project proposal No. Associated

Task(s) No.

Deliverable Description Due Date

6.1 All Quarterly Progress Report/Summaries Throughout the project’s period of performance

6.2 4.2 Updated Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) and Project Management Plan after collaborative work with NFAC and NREL regarding installation concepts, testing plan, etc.

Q2 of project execution

6.3 4.2 Signed “Statement of Capabilities” agreement between subcontractor and NFAC (includes testing roles, responsibilities, interfaces, terms and conditions)

Before Q4 of project execution

6.4 4.1 Airfoil Design/Selection and Science Plan (for review and approval)

Before completion of Q4 of project execution

6.5 4.1, 4.2,4.3, 4.5

Primary Testing CDR: Test Articles Construction, Instrumentation and Test Plan; aligned with NFAC Technical Review Board (for review and approval)

TBD

6.6 4.1, 4.2,4.3, 4.5

Pre-Test Readiness Review Material for Go/No-Go milestone (for joint review and approval with NFAC)

TBD

6.7 4.1, 4.2,4.3,4.4

Baseline high Reynolds Number Testing - Calibration and Initial Result Quality Assessments (Report)

TBD

6.8 4.2,4.3,4.5

High Reynolds Number (minimum) Test Matrix Completion

Before completion of Q8 of project execution

6.9 4.1,4.2, 4.4

Secondary Test Design and Science Plan (for review and approval)

Before completion of Q7 of project execution

6.10 All

Results/Analysis and Lessons Learned Workshop Final quarter of the period of performance

6.11 All Validation data documentation and delivery to WETO

data hub (see more details below)

Continuous, to be completed by final quarter of project

6.12 All

Final technical reports – primary and secondary testing Completion of the period of performance

Validation Data Delivery: The Subcontractor shall develop a complete data documentation and metadata structure in coordination with the NREL and WETO Wind Data Hub9 management teams. The data archive is expected to include:

9 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. No date. “Wind Data Hub.” https://wdh.energy.gov/.

• All experimental design and analysis documentation (drawings, specifications, test protocols, analysis methods), including wind tunnel test article CAD files.

• Quality-controlled experimental data—raw and corrected—and associated post-processing/analysis codes (if developed under this project).

• Documentation of quality assurance throughout the program, including scans and analysis of as-built test articles used to ensure design intent was met in fabrication and experimental assurance of intended flow quality/state (e.g., two-dimensionality of flow for airfoil performance, correction methods accuracy).

All data will be publicly available and accessible to enable the maximum benefit for the wind industry and the research community.

DELIVERABLE ADDRESS:

The subcontractor shall clearly label all deliverables, including:

• The subcontractor’s name

• NREL’s subcontract number

• NREL Technical Monitor’s name

• Deliverable date

• Deliverable description.

Electronic deliverables (one master electronic version, including graphics) shall be sent via email to NREL personnel as follows:

*, Technical Monitor *, Project Manager e-mail: *.*@nrel.gov email: *.*@nrel.gov

Deliverable(s) shall be shipped to:

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Attn: Recipients’ Name *, Building * / Room * / Lab *

16253 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

DELIVERY OF DATA

A copy of all data (as that term is defined in this Subcontract) first produced in the performance of this Subcontract is an additional deliverable of this Subcontract and shall be provided to the technical monitor as a condition of final payment, in accordance with the Subcontract. For all deliverables, make particular note of the requirements provided in the Rights in Data clause of this Subcontract regarding data not first produced in the performance of this Subcontract.

Rights in Technical Data

All data generated under this project, including airfoil shapes, will be made publicly available by

NREL/WETO.

For proprietary airfoil shapes (I.e., those not generated under this project or with other public funding) proposed as test articles by subcontractor and related data, NREL will work with selected mailto:*.*@nrel.gov mailto:*.*@nrel.gov awardees during the contracting phase to limit their access to the public for non-commercial, research purposes only.

7.0 ELECTRONIC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBCONTRACT REPORT DELIVERABLES

It is NREL’s intention to publish subcontract report deliverables containing publicly available information (e.g. non-confidential, non-protected, non-proprietary information) for distribution on the internet.

The subcontractor shall provide the final approved version of report deliverables in accordance with the electronic reporting requirements described below.

The technical monitor may specifically direct the subcontractor to provide reports in one or more of the file format standards provided below:

7.1 The subcontractor shall submit all report deliverables (including status, annual, or final reports) as electronic files in Adobe .pdf format, preferably with all graphics and images embedded within the document.

7.2 All final approved version submissions shall be delivered to NREL via e-mail to the NREL Technical Monitor.

7.3 If it is not possible to include all of the graphics and images (figures, illustrations, and photographs) in the same file as the text, NREL will accept the text in Adobe .pdf formats and the graphics and images as separate electronic graphic or image files*.

The accepted standard for page layout and graphics is the Adobe Creative Suite of programs.

*The acceptable graphic or image file formats are: .eps, .tif, .gif, .jpg, .wmf, .emf, .pct, .png, .bmp, .psd, .ai, .fh, .qif, .fpx, cdr. The preferred resolution for graphics or images is 300 dpi. Include all fonts used in creating the file.

7.4 For animation, video, or multi-media elements, CD-ROM, DVR and thumb drive are acceptable technical deliverable media.

7.5 For all calculations in support of subcontract reports that are conducted in ASPEN+, an electronic copy of INPUT, REPORT and BACKUP (if Model Manager is used) must be submitted with all reports. Additionally, if costing or sizing calculations are conducted in a spreadsheet [no process calculations (heat and material balances) in spreadsheet format are permitted], a copy of the fully documented MS Excel file shall be supplied.

7.6 A fully executed model release shall be supplied to NREL with all photographs and images, regardless of whether such photographs or images are delivered to NREL electronically or in hard copy. Such model release shall certify that the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, Management and Operating Contractor for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy is granted a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish such photographs in any medium or reproduce such photographs or allow others to do so for United States Government purposes. Model releases are required in all situations in which a reasonable person would respond in the affirmative to the question – could someone, other than the model himself/herself, recognize the person in this photograph or image? All model releases shall be provided to the subcontract associate as a condition of final payment, in accordance with the subcontract. To obtain a Subcontractor Model Release form, please contact images@nrel.gov.

mailto:images@nrel.gov

8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN SUBCONTRACTOR PUBLICATIONS

In any scientific or technical report or article, conference paper, journal article, etc. based on or containing data first produced in the performance of this subcontract and published in academic, technical or professional journals, symposia proceedings or similar works, the subcontractor shall use this acknowledgement stating, “This [article, conference paper, journal article, etc.] was developed based upon funding from the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, Managing and Operating Contractor for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy.”

9.0 COPYRIGHT PERMISSION/AUTHORIZATIONS

The subcontractor is responsible for obtaining copyright permissions and/or authorizations for all information and/or data, as applicable that is incorporated into all final technical reports.

Electronic copies of these copyright permissions and/or authorizations shall be provided to the at the email address provided below. The subcontractor shall also provide a written certification to the Technical Monitor as to such permissions and/or authorizations as a condition of final payment. The subcontractor’s (including all lower tier subcontractors, as applicable) certification shall specify that “I have obtained all necessary and legally required copyright permissions and/or authorizations for any and all information, data, graphs, images, etc., as applicable, that is incorporated into the final Technical Report titled __________________________, delivered under this Subcontract No.__________. Copies of these permissions and/or authorizations are attached.”