ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr.

Vahdat Vahedi

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

Abstract
The objective report is to design a suitable material and geometry for wind turbine tower and blades. A limits of constraints are set for the design of material. The tower and blades must be resistant to UV, function temperature must be between -40oC to 40oC in a marine environment. In order to find the optimum shape and dimensions, an excel spreadsheet is established to aid in this process. A few possible dimensions is inputted to compare the effects on design stress, elastic modulus and cross-section area. The material index based on stiffness-limited applications and strength-limited applications are worked out by deriving equation 1, equation 2 and equation 3 stated under Task 1. Top 3 materials are chosen respectively for tower and blades using CES EduPack. Eco-Audit process is carry out to determine the energy use for each material from manufacture to end of life. The optimum shape and dimensions obtained is hollow circle section with outer diameter 4.5m and inner diameter 3.5m. The top 3 materials for tower are silicon carbide, alumina and silicon nitride. While the top 3 materials for blades are cast Alalloys, age-hardening wrought Al-alloys and non-age-hardening wrought Al-alloys. After analyzing the suitability of top 3 materials for both tower and blades, silicon carbide and cast Al-alloys are chosen as the best materials for both tower and blades respectively. The minimum weight of the tower calculated by multiplying the density of material, cross section area selected for best geometry and height of tower is 1, 558, 184kg and the construction cost calculated by multiplying the weight and price is RM71, 209, 008.80.

Introduction
In the past few years, people are becoming more concern about environmental issues such as increase in greenhouse gases, air pollution and global warming. The major contributor to these issues is the usage of fossil fuels. To solve this problem, renewable energy resources such as wind energy are being explored to replace fossil fuels. Therefore, the importance of offshore wind farms as a source of renewable energy has drastically increased. The growing importance of wind energy drives the wind industry to develop larger, lighter, and cheaper wind turbine towers and blades. The design is always a matter of constant tradeoff between demands of lower cost, better energy productivity, increased lifetime, reliability and durability. In order to acquire an optimum design of wind turbine, we have to take into considerations of the shape and parameters of turbine tower, the durability of material and also the cost of material. The process of manufacturing and building the wind turbine and its effect to environment is also taken into consideration. CES EduPack is used to choose the best material for tower and blades according to certain requirement and constraints. The function, constraints, objectives and free variables are determined before choosing the optimum material and shape.

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Student ID: 24731706 Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm DESIGN FACTORS OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE TOWER FUNCTION To support the turbine generator CONSTRAINTS Function temperature :-40oC to 40oC in a marine environment Resistant to UV Resistant to corrosion Must not fracture in brittle manner Must not buckle Deflection at top < 5cm Fixed tower height : 80m Longest Edge of Cross Section Area < 5m FREE VARIABLES The material used Diameter of turbine tower (within 5m) Geometry of tower Cross-section area of tower OBJECTIVE To design a low density, cost and strong turbine tower
Table 1: Design factors of offshore wind turbine tower

DESIGN FACTORS FUNCTION CONSTRAINTS

FREE VARIABLES OBJECTIVE

OFFSHORE WIND TURBINE BLADE To carry their own weight To take loads exerted on them by the wind Function temperature :-40oC to 40oC in a marine environment Must be stiff, strong and light Resistant to UV Resistant to corrosion Minimum fracture toughness : 15MPa1/2 Fatigue strength criterion of 100MPa at 107 cycles Fixed width and length of blades The material used To design a low density, cost and stiff turbine blade

Table 2: Design factors of offshore wind turbine blade

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

Task 1
The wind turbine tower has the function of supporting the turbine generator. It will also be exposed to UV and corrosive nature of marine environment. Therefore it is important to choose a suitable geometry and material that can overcome these problems. 4 types of uniform cross section of pillars (Figure 1) are taken into consideration in choosing the most efficient geometry. The most efficient geometry should have the minimum E, y and cross sectional area A to reduce cost and weight. The 4 types of uniform cross section are solid circle section, hollow circle section, solid square section and hollow square section. Different possible dimensions are used to compare the effect on cross sectional area A, minimum required modulus E and minimum design stress . The optimized shape and dimensions with the highest geometry performance index is chosen. The minimum required modulus E and minimum design stress are obtained by rearranging equation 1 and 2. The failure load F which is the wind load and height of tower L is fixed. The equation for I and ym is as stated in Figure 1 and the max deflection is fixed at 0.05m.

y = E=
Geometry performance index Failure load F Height of tower L

1x106N 80m

Figure 1: Four different cross-section shapes for Tower design selection

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

An Excel spreadsheet is established to aid in choosing the most efficient geometry. The change in cross sectional area A, minimum required modulus E and minimum design stress is observed by inputting different possible dimensions (T, D, d, t). Safety factor of 2 is used to find design stress. Types of Geometry Solid Circle Section Hollow Circle Section Solid Square Section Hollow Square Section Failure Load 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06 Tower Deflection height 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 D/T (m) 5 4.5 4 5 4.5 4 5 4.5 4 5 4.5 4 d/t (m) 0 0 0 4 3.5 3 0 0 0 4 3.5 3 Ym (m) 2.5 2.25 2 2.5 2.25 2 2.5 2.25 2 2.5 2.25 2 Cross-sectional Area (m^2) 19.63495408 15.90431281 12.56637061 7.068583471 6.283185307 5.497787144 19.63495408 15.90431281 12.56637061 7.068583471 6.283185307 5.497787144

Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Types of Geometry Solid Circle Section Hollow Circle Section

Index

Second Moment of Area, I 30.67961576 20.1288959 12.56637061 18.11324514 12.76272016 8.590292412

Design stress, (MPa) 1.30E+01 1.79E+01 2.55E+01 2.21E+01 2.82E+01 3.73E+01

Elastic modulus, E(GPa) 111.2573691 169.5737983 271.6244362 188.4440533 267.4455987 397.3477467

Geometry Performance Index 7.39E+01 1.91E+02 5.50E+02 5.89E+02 1.20E+03 2.69E+03

1 2 3 4 5 6

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi 52.08333333 Solid 7 Square Section Hollow Square Section 8 9 10 11 12 34.171875 21.33333333 30.75 21.66666667 14.58333333

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm 7.68E+00 65.536 2.56E+01 1.05E+01 1.50E+01 1.30E+01 1.66E+01 2.19E+01 99.88721232 160 111.00271 157.5384615 234.0571429 Maximum= 6.62E+01 1.91E+02 2.04E+02 4.17E+02 9.34E+02 2.69E+03

Table 3: Possible geometry and dimension and effect on area, elastic modulus and design stress

From the excel sheet above, the 6th geometry has the highest geometry performance index which is 2.24E+04. However, it has a relatively highly high Youngs modulus which is 397GPa which only a few materials can achieve that value. Thus the 5th geometry with the second highest geometry performance index is chosen. Therefore the optimized shape and dimensions obtained is hollow circle section with outer diameter 4.5m and inner diameter 3.5m. In strength-limited applications, deflection is allowable as long as the component does not fail and strength is the active design constraint. While in stiffness-limited applications, elastic deflection is the active design constraint. To work out the material performance index (MI), the equation below is necessary.

F= =

----- (Equation 1)

----- (Equation 2)

m = *A*L ----- (Equation 3)

Where F = Failure Load, I = Second Moment of Area, y = yield strength, ym = Distance between neutral axis of the beam and its outer most surface L = Height of tower, m = Mass of Material = Density of Material, A = Cross-section Area = Deflection, E = Elastic Modulus

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

In order to work out the material performance index (MI) based on strength-limited application, Equation 1 and Equation 3 is needed. The uniform cross-section area is assumed to be a solid square. Safety factor S is applied. = S*y where is the design stress. Workings to find material index: Sub I = and ym = into the equation (1)

F= F= ----- (1)

Sub A = T2 into the equation (3)

M = * T2*L T=
Sub (2) into (1)

----- (2)

F= 6FL MI =
Design guidelines:

Log (MI) = Log Log (MI) = Log Log Log

= Log + Log (MI)

Compared to y = mx + c

Slope, m =

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

By using CES EduPack, the top 5 materials with the highest performance index is chosen with certain constraints. The constraints considered include functional temperature of -40oC to 40oC, high durability towards salt water and excellent durability towards marine environment and UV radiation. Minimum elastic modulus and design stress obtained in task 1 from the best geometry is also set as limits. Yield strength is plotted against density*price as cost and weight of material is considered. The material with highest performance index is silicon carbide, followed by alumina, silicon nitride, boron carbide and tungsten carbides.

Figure 2: CES EduPack material selection results

Among the 5 selected materials, silicon carbide is the best option. This is because silicon carbide has lower density*price value and yet has a similar yield strength to the other four materials.

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

Task 2
The most important material criteria of turbine blades is to be stiff, strong and light. This is because turbine blades have to carry their own weight on the same time take loads exerted on them by the wind. It is also better if the material requires less maintenance as maintenance process of turbines is hard. Thus, a more expensive material with longer lifespan can be chosen if it cuts down on maintenance. In order to work out the material performance index (MI) based on stiffness-limited application, Equation 2 and Equation 3 is needed.

Workings to find material index: Sub I = into the equation (2)

= =
M = * T2*L T2 =
Sub (2) into (1)

----- (1)

Sub A = T2 into the equation (3)

----- (2)

= =

=
MI =
Design guidelines:

Log (MI) = Log

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

Log (MI) = Log Log

2Log

= Log + Log (MI)

Compared to y = mx + c

Slope, m = 2

By using CES EduPack, the top 5 materials with the highest performance index is chosen with certain constraints. The constraints considered include functional temperature of -40oC to 40oC and excellent durability towards marine environment and UV radiation. Elastic modulus is plotted against density times price as cost and weight of material is considered. The material with highest performance index is cast Al-alloys, followed by age-hardening wrought Al-alloys, non-age-hardening wrought Alalloys, aluminum/silicon carbide composite and brass.

Figure 3: CES EduPack material selection results

After the top 5 materials is chosen, the next design consideration is against fatigue. The blades should be able to go throught an estimated 1 billion loading cycles through their lifetime. A minimum fracture toughness of 15MPam1/2 and a fatigue strength criterion of 100MPa at 107 is applied. The top 3 materials chosen with fracture toughness and fatigue strength limits are cast Al-alloys, age-hardening wrought Al-alloys and non-age-hardening wrought Al-alloys.

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

Figure 4: CES EduPack material selection results

Among the three materials, the best option is cast Al-alloys. This is because the top three materials have almost the same density*price but yet cast Al-alloys have the highest Youngs modulus.

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

Corrosion Protection for both Tower and Blade

The offshore wind turbine is exposed to marine and corrosive environment. It is possible that the wind turbine will corrode and affect its performance. Thus the type of corrosion, the cause of the corrosion and its protection measurement must be identified to protect the wind turbine. Design Object Possible Corrosion Type Uniform corrosion Responsible Environmental Condition Presence of sea water uniformly distributed around the lower part of tower Presence of crevice in tower that stores stagnant water Corrosion Protection Measurement Apply coating on material surface Use cathodic protection Use higher resistant material

Crevice corrosion Tower Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion (MIC) Erosion corrosion Fretting corrosion Erosion corrosion Blade Galvanic corrosion

Interaction between construction materials and microbial activity High flow rate of wave Constant rubbing contact between two moving metal surfaces High wind speed Presence of moisture in air Development of crack under simultaneous action of corrosion and cyclic stress due to wind load

Regular mechanical cleaning Chemical treatment with biocides to control population of bacteria Use cathodic protection Apply lubrication between contact surfaces Use cathodic protection to minimize erosion corrosion Apply coating on material surfaces Use coating or inhibitors to delay the initiation of corrosion cracks

Corrosion fatigue

Table 3: Possible type corrosion and protection measurement

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

Task 3 Eco-Audits of Tower and Blade

Table 4: Energy use and CO2 footprint for silicon carbide tower Phase Material Manufacture Transport Use Disposal Total (for first life) End of life potential Energy (J) 5.9e+12 0 4.05e+07 0 1.6e+10 5.92e+12 -5.66e+12 Energy (%) 99.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 100 CO2 (kg) 5.25e+05 0 2.87 0 1.12e+03 5.26e+05 -5.08e+05 CO2 (%) 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 100

Table 5: Energy use and CO2 footprint for alumina tower Phase Material Manufacture Transport Use Disposal Total (for first life) End of life potential Energy (J) 4.16e+12 0 4.05e+07 0 1.6e+10 4.18e+12 -3.92e+12 Energy (%) 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 100 CO2 (kg) 2.25e+05 0 2.87 0 1.12e+03 2.26e+05 -2.08e+05 CO2 (%) 99.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 100

Table 6: Energy use and CO2 footprint for silicon nitride tower Phase Material Manufacture Transport Energy (J) 9.75e+12 0 4.05e+07 Energy (%) 99.8 0.0 0.0 CO2 (kg) 3.9e+05 0 2.87 CO2 (%) 99.7 0.0 0.0

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi Use Disposal Total (for first life) End of life potential

0 1.6e+10 9.76e+12 -9.51e+12

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm 0.0 0 0.0 0.2 100 1.12e+03 3.91e+05 -3.73e+05 0.3 100

Table 7: Comparison of energy use for top 3 tower materials Top 3 tower materials Silicon carbide Alumina Silicon nitride Total energy use (For material, manufacturing, transportation and use phases) 5.90E+12 4.16E+12 9.74E+12

Figure 5: Energy use comparison of top 3 tower materials

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Student ID: 24731706 Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm Table 8: Energy use and CO2 footprint for cast Al-alloys blades Phase Material Manufacture Transport Use Disposal Total (for first life) End of life potential Energy (J) 7.03e+12 4.05e+11 1.77e+07 0 7e+09 7.44e+12 -6.92e+12 Energy (%) 94.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 100 CO2 (kg) 4.23e+05 3.04e+04 1.26 0 490 4.54e+05 -4.16e+05 CO2 (%) 93.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 100

Table 9: Energy use and CO2 footprint for age-hardening wrought Al-alloys blades Phase Material Manufacture Transport Use Disposal Total (for first life) End of life potential Energy (J) 7.29e+12 3.76e+11 1.77e+07 0 7e+09 7.67e+12 -7.18e+12 Energy (%) 95.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 100 CO2 (kg) 4.48e+05 2.81e+04 1.26 0 490 4.76e+05 -4.4e+05 CO2 (%) 94.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 100

Table 10: Energy use and CO2 footprint for non-age-hardening wrought Al-alloys blades Phase Material Manufacture Transport Use Energy (J) 7.36e+12 3.4e+11 1.77e+07 0 Energy (%) 95.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 CO2 (kg) 4.6e+05 2.55e+04 1.26 0 CO2 (%) 94.6 5.3 0.0 0.0

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi Disposal Total (for first life) End of life potential

7e+09 7.71e+12 -7.25e+12

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm 0.1 490 0.1 100 4.86e+05 -4.52e+05 100

Table 11: Comparison of energy use for top 3 blades materials Top 3 blades materials Cast Al-alloys Age-hardening wrought Al-alloys Non-age-hardening wrought Al-alloys Total energy use (For material, manufacturing, transportation and use phases) 7.43E+12 7.66E+12 7.70E+12

Figure 6: Energy use comparison of top 3 blades materials

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Student ID: 24731706 Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm Materials for 100% virgin material 100% recycled material Energy difference (J) blades energy use (J) energy use (J) Cast Al-alloys 7.03e+12 8.79e+11 6.15E+12 Age-hardening 7.29e+12 1.23e+12 6.06E+12 wrought Al-alloys Non-agehardening wrought 7.36e+12 1.24e+12 6.12E+12 Al-alloys Table 12: Material energy comparison between 100% virgin material and 100% recycled material for blades As the materials for tower are all technical ceramics which cannot be recycled, there is no comparison between 100% virgin and 100% recycled material. From the table above, it is obvious that production of 100% recycled materials use less energy than production of 100% virgin materials for turbine blades.

Deficiency in Eco-Audit Process 1. 2. 3. 4. Legal requirements are not stated in the process Environmental related cost is excluded in the Eco-Audit process Choices such as transport type are limited for the Eco-Audit functions Database combination in a single analysis is not available

Conclusion
The best material to construct wind turbine tower will be silicon carbide. Although the total energy use from production to use of silicon carbide is more than alumina, its price is less than alumina and silicon nitride while its density is less than alumina. Moreover, it has a relatively high yield strength. Its yield strength and elastic modulus is higher than the minimum design stress and elastic modulus obtained from the optimum geometry. Therefore silicon carbide is more suitable than alumina and silicon nitride as material for turbine tower. Other than that, the best material for wind turbine blades will be cast Al-alloys. This is because the total energy use from production to use of cast Al-alloys is less than agehardening wrought Al-alloys and non-age-hardening wrought Al-alloys. It has a similar price and density as the other two materials while having the highest elastic modulus among them. Thus, cast Al-alloys is the best choice among the three materials. Both of the selected tower and turbine materials are functional in temperature of -40oC to 40oC, high durability towards effect of marine environment and UV radiation. The tower material selected has excellent durability towards salt water.

ENG1050 Design of Materials Report Name: Chong Jie Mee Demonstrator: Mr. Vahdat Vahedi References

Student ID: 24731706 Lab session: Thursday 11am-1pm

W.D. Callister, Materials Science and Engineering, an Introduction, 7th edition: Chapter 23. Materials Selection and Design Considerations; Chapter 24. Economic, Environmental, and Societal Issues in Materials Science and Engineering CES Edupack 2012 Webcorr 2013, Different Types of Corrosion - Mechanisms, Recognition & Prevention. Retrieved October 17, 2013, from http://www.corrosionclinic.com/different_types_of_corrosion.htm Materials Information Technology Challenges with Wind http://grantadesign.com/news/news/reports/wind.shtml. Turbine Technology,

M.F. Ashby, Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, Vols I and II, Pergamon, Oxford, 1992. F. Karpat 2013, A Virtual Tool for Minimum Cost Design of a Wind Turbine Tower with Ring Stiffeners, Energies, vol. 6, pp. 3822-3840.