0
research-article

Self-healing Performance Comparison between Two Promising Vascular Vessel Systems of Wind Turbine Blade

[+] Author and Article Information
Rulin Shen

LUSHAN South Road Changsha, China 410083 China shenrl@csu.edu.cn

Ryoichi S. Amano

115 E. Reindl Way Glendale, WI 53212 amano@uwm.edu

Giovanni Lewinski

115 E. Reindl Way Glendale, WI 53212 giovanni@uwm.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Energy Resources Technology. Manuscript received January 18, 2019; final manuscript received April 29, 2019; published online xx xx, xxxx. Assoc. Editor: Hameed Metghalchi.

ASME doi:10.1115/1.4043655 History: Received January 18, 2019; Accepted April 29, 2019

Abstract

Hollows produced by wires and borosilicate tubes are two significant approaches to storage and transport healing agent for wind turbine blade self-healing. To compare the performance of two approaches, sheet samples, and prototype blades were molded with VARTM to evaluate the max flexural strength before and after the self-healing process. Dicyclopentadiene was used as a healing agent and Grubbs' first generation catalyst was used to initiate the polymerization. To obtain the same structure of the tube, the Lost-wax method was applied twice to form hollows with 1mm outer diameter and 0.5mm inner diameter. Since the samples may be heated to form hollows, the effect of the heating process on flexural strength was investigated. The flexural strength of the samples enhances with the accompany of the heating process. Meanwhile, the toughness of the samples is weakened. With the heating process, the initial and self-healing flexural strength between samples with tubes and samples with hollows has little difference. The recovery percentage of samples with tubes is 81.55%, while that of samples with hollows is 81.92%. Without heating process, the initial and self-healing flexural strength between samples with tubes and samples with hollows also has no significant difference. The recovery percentage of samples with tubes is 89.52%, while that of samples with hollows is 89.46%, almost the same.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In