Lightning strike evaluation on composite and biocomposite vertical-axis wind turbine blade using structural health monitoring approach
Source abstract
Abstract
Lightning damages to wind turbine blades increase as the size of wind turbine becomes larger. The damages are quite serious since it contributes to high cost of repairs and loss of electric power production. Since natural plant fibres receive attention nowadays due to low density and high specific strength, the usage of natural fibre to replace synthetic fibre in fabricating the turbine blade will promote a green renewable material. As the application of biocomposite for wind turbine blade has been explored, the effect of lightning strike damage has been required for further test investigation. This article explores the comparative results of performing lightning strike damage testing on composite (fibreglass) and biocomposite (flax fibre) wind turbine blades with protective metal mesh materials. The damage assessments were performed using visual non-destructive inspection methods and piezoelectric sensor as part of structural health monitoring. From the result, it is found that fibreglass blade experienced larger damage area compared to flax fibre blade based on the visual test conducted.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Plant Surface Properties and Treatments · Textile materials and evaluations
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
Institute of High Voltage and High Current (IVAT), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
Funding
Universiti Putra Malaysia
References (21)
Show source-provided references
1. Babu KS · 2006
2. 10.1515/secm-2014-008810.1515/secm-2014-0088 ↗
3. Caithness Windfarm Information Forum (2005) Wind turbine accident data to December 31st 2005. Available at: www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk
4. Caselitz P · 1994 · 1
5. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2012.08.00210.1016/j.engfailanal.2012.08.002 ↗
6. 10.1088/0957-0233/19/12/12200110.1088/0957-0233/19/12/122001 ↗
7. Complexes M · Journal of Composite Materials · 2015 · 44 · 2887
8. 10.1002/we.4410.1002/we.44 ↗
9. Gardiner G · High-Performance Composites · 2006 · 14 · 44
10. 10.1016/S0167-6105(99)00132-410.1016/S0167-6105(99)00132-4 ↗
11. Inoue K · 2006
12. Kithil R (2008) Case Study of Lightning Damage to Wind Turbine Blade No. (4608). Louisville, CO: National Lightning Safety Institute, pp. 1–6.
13. 10.1163/092430410X50421510.1163/092430410X504215 ↗
14. 10.3390/s14040731210.3390/s140407312 ↗
15. 10.1201/978143989120910.1201/9781439891209 ↗
16. Peesapati V, Cotton I (2002) Lightning protection of wind turbines: a comparison of real lightning strike data and finite element lightning attachment analysis, pp. 1–7, https://community.dur.ac.uk/supergen.wind/Phase1/docs/Peesapati%20,%20Cotton-SupergenNanjing2009_2.pdf10.1109/SUPERGEN.2009.5348122 ↗
17. Peesapati V · 2009 · 1 · 260
18. 10.1016/j.pecs.2004.04.00110.1016/j.pecs.2004.04.001 ↗
19. Sorensen TS · 2008 · 1
20. 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.03.01410.1016/j.matdes.2014.03.014 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.08.01410.1016/j.compositesb.2013.08.014 ↗