Composite Materials for Wind Blades - Sandia...
Transcript of Composite Materials for Wind Blades - Sandia...
Composite Materials for Wind Blades:Current Performance and Future DirectionsCurrent Performance and Future Directions
Sandia National Laboratories · 2010 Wind Turbine Blade Workshop · July 20-21 2010Presented by Juan Camilo Serrano · PPG Industries Inc.
OUTLINE
1 PPG Wind Energy1. PPG Wind Energy2. Evolution of wind blade materials 3 The current state –performance review3. The current state performance review4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades5. The future state - long term goals and new5. The future state long term goals and new
developments
PPG Wind Energygy
1 PPG Wind Energy
• Offering a multitude of products for wind turbines
1. PPG Wind Energy
Offering a multitude of products for wind turbines– Fiber glass for blades, nacelles– Coatings for blades, towers
• World leader in fiber glass• World leader in fiber glass– Established in wind energy for 15+ years– Production and sales from 3 major continents
Hybon® 2002/2001 recognized product in wind– Hybon® 2002/2001 recognized product in wind energy blades
• Specified in blades from most major manufacturers around the world
– Continuing to develop new products that will enhance wind energy production for the future
PPG Wind EnergyFiber Glass Product Historyy
1 PPG Wind Energy
Hybon® 2002/2001
1. PPG Wind Energy
Tensile Flexural Short Beam FWF
• Specified and used at most wind turbine companies• Designed for multiple resin compatibility
TensileStrength
Flexural Strength
Short Beam Shear Strength
FWF
Units MPa MPa MPa %
Method ISO 527-5 ISO 14125 ISO 14130
Hybon® 2026• Multiple resin compatibility• Enhanced processing
h Sample Prep
A A B
Hybon® 2002
1107 1221 64 74.8
characteristics• Improved strength
and fatigue lifeHybon® 2026
1148 1339 67 75.6
A – Unidirectional infused panels, Hexion RIM 135 epoxyB - Filament wound cylinders per ASTM D 2291
Blade PerformanceNano scale to Mega Watt
1 PPG Wind Energy
g
1. PPG Wind Energy
Fiber design at the nano-scale level drives performance through the value chain
Infusion fatigue weightFiber/Fabric Processing
1nm 1μ 1mm 1m 100m
Infusion, fatigue, weightFiber/Fabric Processing
Evolution of wind turbineblade productionp
2 Evolution of wind blade materials2. Evolution of wind blade materials
Input materials• Core materials (balsa PVC PU etc )
ATP/AFP
Improved Processing
& Performance
• Core materials (balsa, PVC, PU, etc.)• Skin materials (multiaxial fabrics NCF)• Spar materials (UD, multiaxial fabrics NCF)• Root materials (roving, multiaxial fabrics)• Resin systems (DGEBA, VE, PE, …)
V
Hand layup Prepreg
ATP/AFP• Dry fiber• Impregnated
tape
Performance
Wet layup
Vacuum Infusion
y pWet winding
Performance review
3 The current state – performance review3. The current state – performance review
• SNL/MSU/DOE databasePPG / DOE database
• SNL/MSU/DOE database• Optidat Database• PPG internal test data
Static Properties
Fatigue Properties
• Other public information
Material forms
3 The current state – performance review
• Prepreg based materials
3. The current state – performance review
• Prepreg based materials– UD, Biax
f dAPPLICATION/
REINFORCEMENT UDBIAX
0/90 – 45 TRIAX ROVING• Infusion grade
materials
R INFORC M NT U 0/90 45 TRIAX ROVING
WEBSPARCAP
– UD, Biax, Triax SKINROOT
Electronic Database
UD Prepreg Static Propertiesp
3 The current state – performance review
1767
2504
202017502000225025002750
h (M
Pa)
Uni-directional PrepregTensile Strength
3. The current state – performance review
1767
126411051182
250500750
1000125015001750
Tens
ile S
tren
gth
Carbon-Epoxy
E-Glass Epoxy
122.1129.7139.3
120.0
140.0
GPa)
Uni-directional PrepregTensile Modulus
0250
0 0.5 1 1.5
Epoxy
41.5
47.745.1
20 0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Tens
ile M
odul
us (G Carbon-
Epoxy
13591250
1500
MPa
) Uni-directional Prepreg Compressive Strength
0.0
20.0
0 0.5 1 1.5
E-Glass Epoxy
790966
774
934879
500
750
1000
50
ress
ive
Stre
ngth
(M
Compressive Strength
Carbon-Epoxy
E-Glass Epoxy
0
250
0 0.5 1 1.5
Com
p Epoxy Epoxy
Double bias Prepreg Static Propertiesp
3 The current state – performance review3. The current state – performance review
20.0
Double Bias Prepreg Tensile Modulus
158
200 Double Bias PrepregTensile Strength
15.0 14.7
18.216
10.0si
le M
odul
us (G
Pa)
Carbon-Epoxy
E-Glass Epoxy
123132145
100
sile
Str
engt
h (M
Pa)
Carbon-Epoxy
E-Glass Epoxy
0.0
0 0 5 1 1 5
Tens
p y
0
0 0 5 1 1 5
Tens
0 0.5 1 1.50 0.5 1 1.5
Triaxial Infusion Static Propertiesp
3 The current state – performance review
951 923
1150
MPa
)
Triax Infusion Tensile Strength
3. The current state – performance review
785867
809
923
650
900
Tens
ile S
tren
gth
(M
E-Glass Epoxy
E-Glass Vinyl Ester
R-Glass Epoxy
1000
(MPa
)
Triax Infusion Compressive Strength
4000 0.5 1 1.5 2
50.0 Triax Infusion T il d l
833
580693 670
250
500
750
mpr
essi
ve S
tren
gth
(
E-Glass Epoxy E-Glass Vinyl
24.529.034.3
30.5034.5
sile
Mod
ulus
(GPa
) Tensile modulus
E-Glass E-Glass
R-Glass Epoxy0
250
0 0.5 1 1.5
Com
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Tens
How to drive performance?p
4 Alternatives for stronger stiffer blades
1. Design/Geometrical approach (Increase Moment of Inertia – stiffness)
4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades
2. Material performance enhancements (strength and/or stiffness)1 Si i Ch i t ( t th)1. Sizing Chemistry (strength)2. Fiber Composition (strength + stiffness)3. Fiber Volume Fraction (strength + stiffness)4. Defect reduction/prevention (strength*)
*at component level
Sizing Chemistry
4 Alternatives for stronger stiffer blades:
g y
4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades: Sizing Chemistry
450
375
400
425
450
s (M
Pa) Green = HYBON 2026
325
350
375
ax F
atig
ue S
tres
s
Red = HYBON 2002
~10 % Improvement~2x on absolute scale
250
275
300Ma
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.53 3 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 5log (N - cy c les to fa i lure)
Sizing Chemistry
4 Alternatives for stronger stiffer blades:
g y
Montana State results
4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades: Sizing Chemistry
Montana State results• Vectorply E-LT 5500 using Hybon® 2026
4400TEX input in zero direction• Supports value of Hybon® 2026Supports value of Hybon 2026
Resin: EP = EPON 826Method: SBS = ASTM D2344All testing on 1984 TEX (250 Yield) rovings
Fiber Volume Fraction
4 Alternatives for stronger stiffer blades:
Advantages:
4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades: Increase FVF
g• Avenue for increasing spar cap stiffness (reduction in tip deflection)• Achievable with existing materials
Di d tDisadvantages:• Effect on long term performance of composite laminate (fatigue)?• Increase in weight• Difficulties in processing (dry spots)
Hypothetical case FVFyp
4 Alternatives for stronger stiffer blades:4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades: Increase FVF
• Circular cross section sparCircular cross section spar• Parameters include
– Outside Diameter (OD), Inside Diameter (ID)
– Spar length (L)Elastic Modulus of Fiber (Ef) OD = 0 6 m ID = 0 55 m– Elastic Modulus of Fiber (Ef)
– Fiber Volume Fraction (FVF)
OD 0.6 m, ID 0.55 mL = 60 mEf = 79 GPa (Impregnated strand tensile)FVF = 50%Modulus translation efficiency = 97%
Effect of FVF on tip deflection of spar, self weightp , g
4 Alternatives for stronger stiffer blades:
Common design space (E-glass)
4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades: Increase FVF
98
99
100
0.270
0.275
0.280
n (m
)
94
95
96
97
0.260
0.265
Spar
mas
s (kg
)
wei
ght t
ip d
efle
ctio
n
L/2
d
W
91
92
93
0.245
0.250
0.255
9% % 3% % % 9% %
Self
w
49% 51% 53% 55% 57% 59% 61%
FVF (%)
Tip deflection Mass
Effect of FVF on dynamic propertiesy p p
4 Alternatives for stronger stiffer blades:
S-N Curve Unidirectional-Infusion
4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades: Increase FVF
600
700
800
MPa
Glass Polyester (D092B) vf=39
300
400
500
m T
ensi
le S
tres
s ,M
Glass Polyester (D092D)vf=33
Glass Polyester (D092F) vf=49
100
200
Max
imu Glass Polyester (D092G)
vf=52
What happens at 60% FVF?0
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Cycles to Failure, N
60% FVF?
Reinforcement Landscape -Fiber Propertiesp
4 Alternatives for stronger stiffer blades:
Fib T E l R l S l C b
4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades: Fiber Composition
Fiber Types E glass R glass S glass Carbon
Density (g/cm3) 2.55 – 2.64 2.55 2.46 - 2.49 1.7
Young’s ModulusYoung s Modulus (GPa) 70 – 77 84-86 86 – 90 220
Pristine Strength (MPa)
3450 – 3790*2800**
4400*3900**
4590 – 4830 3800**
Failure Strain (%) 4.5 – 4.9 5.4 – 5.8 0.7
*pristine**impregnated strand per ASTM D2343impregnated strand per ASTM D2343
Edge deflection on spar modelg p
4 Alternatives for stronger stiffer blades:
As Fiber Modulus Increases, deflection is reduced but cost per lb increases…
4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades: Fiber Composition
0 25
0.30
(m) 12
12
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.28
0.23 0.25eigh
t tip
def
lect
ion
4
6
8
10
8
Cost
(x E
-gla
ss)
0.00
0.05
E-glassCarbon
S glass
0.07Self
we
0
2
E-glassCarbon
S glassR Gl
12
C
gR Glass R Glass
Composition shift E to Rp
4 Alternatives for stronger stiffer blades:
0.280
4. Alternatives for stronger, stiffer blades: Fiber Composition
0.260
0.270
on (m
)
E-glass
0.230
0.240
0.250
wei
ght t
ip d
efle
ctio
R-Glass
g
0.210
0.220Self
w
0.200
49% 51% 53% 55% 57% 59% 61%
FVF (%)
What is next?
5 The future state – long-term goals
• Faster, easier processing
5. The future state – long-term goals and new developments
Faster, easier processing– Faster wet-out for liquid molding – Reduced probability of porosity in laminates
R d d b i– Reduced abrasion
• Defect reduction– Material forms adequate for FP/ATP (process driven)– Resin specific sizing technology (innovative film former chemistry)
• Higher Tensile strength• Higher SBSS and strength retention• Improved fatigue performance
New material forms andprocess developmentp p
5 The future state – long-term goals
• ATL/FP grade materials
5. The future state – long-term goals and new developments
/ g– Equilibrium between performance and cost– Material tolerances
Paper requirements– Paper requirements– Impregnation levels and slitting
characteristics– Tack– In situ consolidation
Acknowledgement/Disclaimer
SANDEEP VENNAM JIM WATSON AND CHERYL RICHARDS f PPG Wi d
Acknowledgment: “This material is partly based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under
SANDEEP VENNAM, JIM WATSON AND CHERYL RICHARDS from PPG WindEnergy
Disclaimer: “Part of this presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of theUnited States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
l k t i li d l l li bilit ibilit f th
Acknowledgment: This material is partly based upon work supported by the Department of Energy underAward Number(s) [DE-EE0001373)].”
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for theaccuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, orrepresents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercialproduct, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarilyconstitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or anyagency thereofagency thereof.
The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the UnitedStates Government or any agency thereof.”
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION