mli 15 iie - ineel.mx › detelm › documentos › informe_aspas › 03... · document:...

Informe Brian entregable 2c 150616_final Page 1 of 15

Brian McNiff 43 Dog Island Rd Harborside, ME

04642 USA +1-207-326-7148 (o) +1-207-632-7118 (m)

Assessment of Technical Viability of Manufacturing MEM Blades in

Mexico with Augmentation of In-country Capabilities

Brian McNiff

Document: MLI_15_IIE-7b_MEM_augment_Task2c_150604.docx Contract: MCNIFF/E/NC/18165

Deliverable 2c, Rev 1.7 Date: 16 June 2015

1 OVERVIEW

This report addresses the technical viability of successfully manufacturing blades for the 1.2 MW Mexican Eólico Machina (MEM) project in Mexico. Previous memos from McNiff identified the available capabilities from Mexican research groups, universities and companies that have shown interest in collaborating on the MEM project. These capabilities were matched to a list of required skills and capabilities developed in McNiff Deliverable 2a with a relative assessment of how good the match is. There are of course gaps in this matching of local capabilities to the requirements. How to augment these local capabilities to complete the whole is fundamentally dependent on how the blade procurement process proceeds. Several different approaches to MEM blade procurement are described in this document including how to make them most viable along with an assessment of advantages, disadvantages and risks of each approach. Recommendations are provided to make the best use of each approach. Finally, an optimal approach is recommended. This report is a part (Deliverable 2c) of the McNiff review of capabilities within the MEM collaborative to manufacture MW scale wind turbine (WTG) blades in Mexico per the Terms of Reference (TDR_Rotor_Blade_Consultancy.pdf) under IIE project ME-X1011 “Promotion and Development of Local Wind Technologies”. 2 MEM PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The MEM project objectives are restated here for guidance and reference:

1. consolidate and advance skills and knowledge to design MW wind turbines 2. promote and strengthen a supply chain in Mexico for goods and services related to wind

energy


04642 USA


3. consolidate and advance local, high tech capabilities needed to manufacture, assemble, test, certify, install, operate and maintain MW scale turbines

4. support the development of a 1.2 MW turbine for distributed generation in Mexico and promote local use by small power producers.

3 APPROACHES TO MAXIMIZE THE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS OF MEM BLADE

FABRICATION

In my estimation there are four different approaches to acquiring a set of certified blades for the 1.2 MW MEM. They are as follows:

1. buy a set of commercially available blades and design the MEM around them 2. contract directly with a blade design/ fabrication group to deliver the blades 3. competitively bid the complete project (original IIE plan) to any worldwide entities 4. choose a Mexican group to lead the project organizing and utilizing interested partners in-

country that have been identified with the required skills. Write specifications for missing capabilities to supplement the skills and fill identified gaps.

Each of these options are discussed in this document with an emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages of each approach in light of utilizing the in-country capabilities identified in and discussed in previous documents in this consultancy. This will be used to distill an ideal approach to meet the project objectives. 3.1 BUYING BLADES

3.1.1 Approach and Rationale

As the name indicates, this approach is simply to buy a blade currently available from commercial production. The turbine size and topology selected in the initial MEM planning and design stages requires a blade in the range of 29-32 meters long designed for pitch control. Neither IIE engineers nor McNiff have identified a commercially available blade (in production) that meets these needs.

3.1.2 Options:

LM Wind Power, Tecsis, TPI Composites and MFG Wind may possibly contract to build these blades, but it is clear that none of these entities have blades of this size in current production. It is unclear if molds are available. I have included some notes and observations on the independent blade manufacturers in Annex A. Note that HT Blades (http://www.htblade.com/Eshop/8.htm) in Baoding, China indicates on their web site that they offer a 29 meter blade for pitch controlled Class 1 turbines (HT 29P). Unfortunately, so little information is available about this that it cast some doubt as to its authenticity. Also, its not listed as component certified by GL, DNV or TÜV, the chief certification agencies.

3.1.3 Advantages:

- Overall lower cost would be expected (no molds, tooling to be made) - simple, convenient, lowest lead time

http://www.htblade.com/Eshop/8.htm


04642 USA


3.1.4 Disadvantages:

- no blades currently in production that meets MEM design requirements - using off-the-shelf blade will result in new design loads, and this will require a redesign of

the other MEM components (gearbox, hub and nacelle structures, etc) based on these new loads – this could cause significant delays of the MEM project.

- experience in design and manufacture does not accrue to Mexican industry (key objective) - if the blade is not certified, it should be noted that component certification using both design

basis per IEC 61400-22 and blade testing according to IEC 61400-23 would have to be arranged separately – next to impossible without full cooperation of the blade designer involved since all aerodynamic and structural design details and assumptions are required and they may be reluctant to possible sharing of intellectual property.

3.1.5 Recommended Actions:

- Further investigation and questions to HT Blades and Tier 1 blade manufacturers is recommended to find out if they are interested and capable of providing a certified blade in the size range and configuration required.

- DO NOT BUY A COMMERCIAL BLADE UNLESS IT HAS BEEN COMPONENT CERTIFIED using design basis per IEC 61400-22 and testing according to IEC 61400-23.

Note: Many blades are not certified separately from the WTG they are designed for unless they are sold as a commercial product independent of the turbine. It may be the case that doing this separately may result in needlessly repeated reviews during the MEM prototype certification.

3.2 CONTRACTING DIRECTLY TO A BLADE DESIGN/ FABRICATION COMPANY


There are several companies that specialize in designing, fabricating and setting up all the necessary parts of blade manufacturing including molds, tooling and supply chain specifications. Some have a roster of available blade designs to work from that would no doubt require a use licensing arrangement. It is not always easy to separate out what each of these groups have actually done from their claims and advertisements, but there is some useful information on the web, in market reports and in conference presentations. The approach for this option would be to contact these groups directly and re-arrange the existing blade procurement to be a supply specification for the four blades. This specification (and final contract) could be modified to include:

- use of available stock blade design or some modified version of the IIE design; - require technology transfer to designated companies and research groups in Mexico for all

stages (so such knowledge accrues Mexico as per objectives); - partial or complete ownership of molds by IIE or someone in the MEM collaborative that

may have future commercial interests; - some or all of manufacturing in Mexico – e.g., tooling, molds, actual fabrication, finish - facilitate testing and certification with IIE or others to accrue experience.


04642 USA


This would be quite similar to the current TdR approach with some small modifications. - outcomes and deliverables are the same - mandate in-country effort or value-added to be maximized - require contractor to train Mexican engineers and technicians in all stages

3.2.2 Options:

In Annex B some observations are made on various blade design/ manufacturing process companies. If this path is chosen, careful research is needed for candidate groups to verify their experience and capabilities. The probability of project success is expected to be much higher with a group that has been through the design, fabrication and validation (testing and certification) more than once for MW scale blades. These entities plus the blade manufacturers in Annex A would be the recommended target audience for the statement of work.

3.2.3 Advantages:

- These companies have experience in high strength/ weight laminates, the sensitive design areas of blades and effective fabrication techniques

- They could be required to structure their plans to maximize value added in Mexico so that skill and experience of the project is gained by Mexicans – more than simply buying blades.

- Much of the risk in this approach comes from the fixed price requirement, in my estimation. Any unanticipated requirements (e.g., testing and certification have some unknowns, manufacturing fixes/ remedies also), or the like, which may cost the bidder time and money could result in a least cost approach as opposed to the best approach for the project.


- None of these groups are based in Mexico, so unless required or enticed in some way to perform in Mexico, they will probably deliver all stages in Europe or the US. Little then accrues to Mexican experience and increased capabilities (key project goal).

- No matter how this is structured - some key elements of design and manufacture experience will not accrue to Mexican industry since there is some intellectual property that will be protected as a matter of course due to the very competitive nature of this industry.


Careful research is required for candidate groups to verify the level of their experience and capabilities. The following minimum requirements are suggested:

- completed at least 2 different projects where unique WTG blades have been taken from design all they way through complete fabrication

- references from customers on blades for MW turbines, evidence of dozens of blades out of designed molds currently operating in the field

- demonstrate high level participation in the certification process for a minimum of one complete blade design

The TdR statement of work should be modified to require much more participation of IIE, CIATEQ, CIDESI and other project partners involved in all the stages, but not just as project management and oversight. It should include:

- Transfer of knowledge and technology will come from strong side-by-side involvement of Mexican engineers, technicians and factory workers involved in all stages of the process.


04642 USA


- Similar to a short duration apprenticeship or journeyman in a trade - Some thought would have to be given to how assure that this is included successfully

without excess cost or slowing the schedule 3.3 COMPETITVELY BID THE COMPLETE PROJECT


This is the current IIE approach, as I understand it, using the existing statement of work _TdR para fabricacion de Aspas.docx (TdR). Comments and recommendations were made on that document in McNiff Deliverable 2b. Essentially, in this approach, IIE manages some lead project group that either does everything within one organization or coordinates the activities of a number of complementary organizations to complete all stages of the project. The major difference with the previous approach is the possible audience for distributing the TdR. In this approach responses would be invited from all qualifying entities throughout the world as fixed price bids.

3.3.2 Options:

The blade manufacturers listed in Annex A, blade design firms in Annex B and the consultancies listed in Annex C are recommended to be included in the distribution to potential bidders. I would also add CIDESI and CIATEQ to this list. These groups all have experience in the wind industry to differing degrees, and, as noted previously, it is critical to the project success to require strong qualifications based on experience with blade design and manufacture.

3.3.3 Advantages:

- This is the baseline option. Comments were made in McNiff Deliverable 2b to adhere to international standards and maximize value added in Mexico.

- Risk is lower for IIE in that responsibility of success or failure would be on the shoulders of the winning bidder.


- Again, the risk in this approach comes from the fixed price requirement, even more so in this option due to including a wider variety of skills. Any unanticipated requirements (e.g., testing and certification have some unknowns, manufacturing fixes/ remedies also), or the like, which may cost the bidder time and money could result in a least cost approach as opposed to the best approach for the project.

- I anticipate that with such a complex set of tasks, that even experienced groups will include risk limitations in their fixed price bids. That is to say, they will limit their bid cost for various tasks or sub-tasks to an estimated amount based on some fixed and explicitly stated assumptions – IIE would then be liable for costs resulting from unanticipated delays or costs due to exceedance of those assumptions.

- This approach has less flexibility in terms of coordinating and leveraging skills of different groups with the Mexican collaborative

- The learning from the project doesn’t accrue to Mexican organizations or companies.


04642 USA



- see recommendations from clause 3.2.5 above - the comments to the TdR included in McNiff deliverable 2b assumes that this is the

approach (MLI_15_IIE-6a_MEM_bladespec_Task2b_150601.pdf) 3.4 CHOOSE A MEXICAN GROUP TO LEAD THE PROJECT


As detailed in McNiff deliverable 2a (see Table 3, Annex D), there are significant amounts of the required capabilities within the collaborative and interested industrial partners in Mexico for fabricating a set of blades for the MEM project with some observed gaps identified. This approach involves choosing a lead organization to orchestrate and coordinate those partners in-country that have the required skills and capabilities. This group would plan the whole project and subcontract for missing capabilities to supplement the skills and fill identified gaps. There are several organizations in Europe and the US that could be readily engaged to assist. The existing TdR could be restructured as the project plan for a Mexican lead organization. The collaborative partners could then agree on dividing the work to match in-country skills and defining exactly what help is needed from one or several outside entities. A draft arrangement of work division is proposed in Table 1 with a proposed list of responsibilities for each organization matching their observed in-house capabilities identified in McNiff deliverable 2a. Note that the “Item” column matches the required capability item category in Table 3. As mentioned, this is of course a draft to show what it might look like within the project plan. Detailed roles and clear lines of responsibility need to be developed by IIE as the MEM project lead to make this work properly.

Table 1 Project plan approach - Proposed division of in-country responsibilities

Organization Proposed responsibility Item

IIE Possible Project Lead; Alternatively, they could act as “customer” with critical engineering and project reviews throughtout; provide initial aerodynamic and structural design and develop initial loads; provide initial structural analysis and FEA

1a,1b, 2b, 5

CIDESI Possible Project Lead; Project management including consultants; main structural design; manufacturing system design; integration; acceptance; validation and certification oversight

5a, 5b, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7

CIATEQ Possible Project Lead; Project management including consultants; Advanced materials knowledge; materials testing; RTM or other process design; mold and tooling

5, 2a, 2c, 3, 3a, 4b,

UAQ Advanced materials knowledge 2, 3

Global Composites

Manufacturing process, skilled workers and quality systems 3a, 3b, 3c, 4

TEMACO Manufacturing process and skilled workers 3a, 3b, 3c, 4

Somerset Technologies

Manufacturing acceptance testing and inspections 6b, 6c, 6d

Dow Chemical

Material knowledge; manufacturing process advisory, quality systems 2a, 3, 4


04642 USA


A statement of work for each of the required supplementary capabilities could be developed from the existing TdR once the project plan and in-country roles and responsibilities have been defined. The supplementary capabilities in Table 2 are suggested as a starting point. I recommend you begin with the existing IIE blade aerodynamic and structural design, and not pursue a new design as put forth in the TdR. Allow for major changes if consultants can make a good case (e.g., they may have an existing design), but recognize that you have a well-developed draft design. Of course, I anticipate that the initial design will be modified once reviewed collaboratively external expertise. This may save time in the schedule without compromising the project goals.

Table 2 Required supplementary capabilities

Item Task Requirement Expertise

1a Aerodynamic design

Provide review, critical analysis and final design recommendations to the IIE draft blade aerodynamic design including independent areoelastic analysis. Work with project lead and collaborative partners to converge final design and MEM WTG design loads.

Extensive use of aero-elastic codes and standard engineering design tools (CAD, FEA). Thorough understanding of root to airfoil transitions areas

1b Structural design

Provide review, critical analysis and final design recommendations to IIE complete draft blade structural design including complete laminate schedule, internal structural elements, blade bolt retention, root stiffness transition, and lightning protection system

understanding of high strength FRP laminate design, understanding of unique elements of blade structure – root, transition, bonding, etc

3, 4 Manufacturing process

Work collaboratively with team in planning and detailing of all elements of blade manufacturing including master mold and tooling, selection of materials and process, etc

RTM manufacturing of medium to large FRP structures, closed mold assembly, blind bonding

6 Acceptance Advise team on how to assure that high quality is maintained and verified throughout the manufacturing process, contribute to developing final in-factory acceptance testing of subcomponents and complete blade to assure structural integrity and manufacture consistency

Blade specific experience

7c Certification advise team throughout the project on all elements of documentation required for certification

Experience with documentation for design certification

7a Blade structural testing

organizations that provide blade testing per IEC 61400-23 (NREL, CENER, ECN, DNV/ DTU, etc) are all experienced at this, and the approach and requirements are well defined in the standard

This is best left to an accredited blade test lab (per IEC 17025) that specializes

Lightning protection

good guidance in IEC 61400-24, but should be supplemented. Testing not required but will be soon

See recommendations in text below


04642 USA


As regards certification, assistance is needed from a group that has been through the blade component certification process at least once before. Much of the effort is in maintaining the documentation all the way through the design and manufacturing process so that it can be readily and efficiently reviewed by the certification body for the design basis certification. This will aid in reducing the possibility of unscheduled delays and costs from unanticipated requirements. Additionally, the fatigue damage equivalent loads for testing, the estimated tip deflection at extreme load and the ultimate load to failure would need to be developed for testing and validation purposes. The blade testing should be left to a competent, accredited test lab that has demonstrable MW scale blade test experience as noted in the table. Otherwise the certification agency would have to attend, inspect and witness that the test has been executed properly. Again, this could result in difficult to predict time and costs. Lighting protection guidance can be found in IEC 61400-24 for the blades as well as the rest of the WTG system. As regards expertise in lightning protection:

- Note that just the outer 3-4 meters of a blade is needed for termination system verification testing according to the standard,

o commonly this amount is cut from blades being dynamically tested (-23) for various reasons to do with loading mechanism mounts

o or might be able to make just a blade tip as a 5th item out of the molds - Dr. Joan Montanyà at the University Polytechnia Catyluna in Barcelona, Spain

o Montanyà, Joan <[email protected]> o UPC has a high voltage (HV) test lab with experience in blade testing and can

consult perhaps to guide and arrange testing at an HV lab in Mexico o Certainly the best group in Spain

- Lightning Technologies, Pittsfield, MA, USA o Andy Plummer, [email protected] o Lightning Technologies has a impressive HV lab and extensive experience in blade

and aircraft testing

3.4.2 Options:

Clearly the project management and organizational capabilities are strong in the Mexican industrial research centers – IIE, CIDESI and CIATEQ, and one of these groups would be the obvious choice to lead this approach. Selecting the right group or groups to provide the supplementary capabilities and clearly defining their roles would be key to ensuring the success of this approach. In Annex C some observations are made on various consultants specializing in blade design and manufacturing. There are of course others. Some general observations on utilizing such consultancies follow. These companies have the unique perspective of experienced 3rd parties (i.e., they are not blade supplier, not OEM, not WTG owner) that have gathered that experience from:

- consulting to others on blade design and manufacture - analyzing root causes of blade problems in existing turbine and either evaluating or

developing fixes or retrofits for OEMs, owners, banks, insurance companies, etc. - performing trade-off studies for OEM and research groups

mailto:[email protected]


04642 USA


From this work they have gained knowledge of high specific strength laminates and effective (and problematic) blade fabrication techniques along with a good understanding of the sensitive design areas of blades. It should be noted that they are commonly bound by non-disclosure agreements to not share specific protected information, patents and techniques from other customers. However, their knowledge and experience is not protected intellectual property normally accrued and kept “behind the fence” by an OEM or blade supplier, instead it is gladly shared for the price of consulting fees. There are also companies that specialize in FRP manufacturing tooling. I observed that Global Composites, UAQ and CIDESI all used direct to mold CNC routers and mills for the small and medium scale projects and manufacturing they were doing. In Annex C I have listed 2 companies in the US that have larger scale direct to mold CNC machining. This could save significant time in skipping the master plug/ master mold sequence with potentially significant improvement in cost, quality and accuracy. Such gantry mills may exist in Mexico, of course.

3.4.3 Advantages:

- This approach maximizes the use of Mexican capabilities by specifically matching in-country capabilities with the project needs at the outset (as per project objectives)

- Risks from using relatively inexperienced (to WTG) in-country organizations is well offset by hiring external expertise specific to recognized and acknowledged capability gaps

- This approach promotes significant empirically-based knowledge from the project activities to accrue to institutions and companies in Mexico (as per project objectives)

- Utilizing consultants to share their knowledge and expertise through training and education will be much more effective than any other approach since they have no reason to hold back the proprietary information kept by blade suppliers – such training can, and should, be specifically included in their work statements to advance local knowledge (as per project objectives)


- This may take longer than buying a blade (approach 1) or contracting directly with a design house (approach 2)

- Critically dependent on quality and capability of external consultants selected and contracted for supplemental expertise


- It is recommended that IIE repurpose and reformat the TdR in the form of a CEMIE-Eólico draft project plan as described in this approach including defining roles and responsibilities of all the entities in the collaborative. This can then be discussed with the collaborative as to whether it more effectively meets the MEM project goals.

- I suggest that IIE or similar entity act as the “customer” as in the current TdR , this would provide a mechanism for engineering oversight of detailed design and project performance

- I suggest CIDESI, for example, as the project leader, their group work on the CEMIE-Eólico Proyecto P02 report showed a very good understanding of the state of the art of blade manufacturing

- I suggest initially identifying two in-country groups to work collaboratively to fulfill each higher level skill required capability identified in Table 3 .


04642 USA


4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The overarching goal of this effort is to maximize the probability of success in fabricating high quality MEM blades in a 3 year time period while meeting the MEM project objectives (restated in Clause 2). The considerations of this specific report (McNiff deliverable 2c) is to: “ assess the technical viability of successfully manufacturing blades to current state of the art given the identified and reviewed team capabilities … including identifying and detailing gaps in required capabilities and methods to augment or fill these gaps.” To that end I have presented 4 possible approaches to facilitate this based on how the effort is arranged, contracted and managed. These four different approaches were described in detail and evaluated in the previous clauses based on the MEM project objectives, the observed organizational structure, and the available resources and capabilities. For each approach methods were identified and recommended to maximize the use and development of in-country capabilities, bridge in-country capability gaps and avoid possible limitations or risks to success. Key recommended actions are included in each sub-clause. Different organizations that can be utilized to augment local capabilities were listed, described and reviewed as to how they can be best utilized. These include blade manufacturers, manufacturing process designers/ fabricators and blade design consultancies. My interpretation of the key objectives of the project is to promote and improve the Mexican capabilities in wind turbines and encourage the development of local supply chain and support services for a growing Mexican wind energy industry. In light of that, I suggest that the best approach that meets the objectives is a Mexican industrial research group leading a consortium of in-country organizations supplemented by international consultancies that specialize in blade design and manufacture and large scale FRP manufacture as identified in Clause 3.4. In my estimation, this is technically viable and can be used to deliver high quality blades for the MEM. The final memo in this project will be a tradeoff analysis of fabricating the blades in Mexico versus procurement abroad.


04642 USA


ANNEX A: Blade Manufacturers:

Some observations are made on the major blade manufacturers in the wind industry listed below. Many of the major wind turbine manufacturers make some or all of their own blades (e.g., Gamesa, Siemens, Vestas, Enercon) but they do not actively sell blades as a separate product. The CIDESI team included a thorough review of current WTG blade manufacturing in the industry in a report as part of the CEMIE-Eólico partnership: “ Proyecto P03: Diseño de rotores para aerogeneradores de eje horizontal, con incorporación de una de tres opciones de innovación aeroelástica, incluyendo construcción y prueba de una sección “. LM Wind Power - (http://www.lmwindpower.com/) based in Denmark, manufacturing worldwide

- #1 blade mfg in the world, they build to designs for the big OEMs (up to 73.5 m for Alstom 6MW), and sell blade designs that they and others originate

- up to 61.5 m commercially available, in serial production - they also do custom design/ build - has a number of blade designs up to 77 m - blades of 30 m (for 1.2 MW) not available - Martin Molzen, Sr. Director, Global Sales,

Tel +45 7984 0211 , Mob +45 2323 0357, [email protected] - Ms. Dorte Kamper, North America sales, [email protected]

TPI Composites - http://www.tpicomposites.com/

- Make blades for MHI, Gamesa, GE, Acciona and a number of Chinese firms - Factory in Juarez now owned completely by TPI Composites – formerly MHI/ TPI

partnership called Vientek, also factories in China and US - Use a sophisticated dry layup, vacuum assisted RTM resin infusion process to achieve very

high glass to resin ratios (up to 70/30) - Involved in several public domain research partnerships (eg, with Sandia) - Steve Lockard – managing director, [email protected] +1.915.494.6162

Tecsis - http://www.tecsis.com.br/

- Makes blades in Brazil for GE by the thousands – blades designed by GE Wind - Not sure who else they make blades for - no indication that Tecsis has designed blades or taken them through certification process - began making 20m & 25 m blades for Zond in 1995 to designs by Zond, Garrad-Hassan

and Scaled Composites, Zond was bought by Enron who was bought by GE MFG Wind - http://www.mfg-wind.com/

- Part of Molded Fiberglass Company that has been decades in auto and boat industry - Building blades for many years - Do a lot of blade repairs and retrofits from facility in Texas, US - Not sure whose blades they make currently, if any

http://lmwindpower.com/

mailto:%25EMAIL%25

mailto:%25EMAIL%25


http://www.mfg-wind.com/


04642 USA


ANNEX B: Specialists in blade designs and providing blade manufacturing systems

EUROS - http://www.euros.de/ Euros is based in Berlin, Germany and assessment of their capabilities has been included in the CEMIE-Eólico project 2 report carried out by CIDESI. Its difficult to assess exactly how many blades or tooling sets they have manufactured themselves. The have provided complete mold and tooling sets for manufacturers in China and Germany including several sets for GE Wind. They have a factory in Poland that employs a couple of hundred. Some observations:

- Specialize in setting up manufacturing including molds and tooling & process - They have several blade designs that have been granted component certificates by DNV-

GL as indicated on the certification agency web sites - Made 2 blade sets (plus test blade) for Mitsubishi 7 MW (Japan) -- 81.6-metre and weighs

32.5 mt, one of the world's longest blades

Wind-Novation - http://www.windnovation.com/ Windnovation is based in Berlin, Germany and they separated from Euros as an engineering group about 5 years ago. They have provided complete mold and tooling sets for manufacturers in China and South Korea. SSP Technologies - http://www.ssptech.com/ SSP Technology is a Danish group that focuses on providing tooling for FRP production, and by all evidence they seem to do a good job of it. They have worked for many of the major WTG OEMs.

- designed molds for Nordex - made 83.5-metre blades for Samsung 8 MW WTG , largest in the world currently

Aeroblade – (http://www.aeroblade.com/) Aeroblade is part of a large aerospace group called Aeronnova in Spain. Aeronnova makes large FRP structures for the big aerospace companies and has a great depth of fabrication, tooling and design capabilities. Aeroblade have several blade designs that have been granted component certificates by DNV-GL as indicated on the certification agency web sites.

- designs blades and develops fabrication process including tooling, molds etc - has a number of blade designs from 37 m to 54 m - blades of 30 m (for 1.2 MW) not available - partnered with Energetx Composites in Michigan, US and I inspected that factory but

Energetx is now out of business

Aerodyn Energiesysteme - http://www.aerodyn.de/ Aerodyn engineers the whole wind turbine for customers including blades:

- blade part is mostly design, they designed 58 m blades for Areva/ Multibrid turbine - designed turbines for many new OEM entrants into the Chinese market - designed complete turbine for big German firms such as BARD Wind (bankrupt) and

Multibrid (bought by Areva)

http://www.ssptech.com/

http://www.aeroblade.com/

http://www.aerodyn.de/


04642 USA


ANNEX C: Consultants to augment blade design and manufacture:

Wetzel Engineering – http://www.wetzelengineering.com - Kyle Wetzel has been around in the US industry for many years - Deep knowledge of composites and rotating aerodynamics - Involved in IEC 61400-5 wind turbine blade manufacturing standard as a US expert - Has been involved in failure analysis of many issues that have arisen in the field - Very capable, has built a competent team of engineers - have blade designs for license from 38 m - could do complete oversight of this or selected parts as part of a team in Mexico - not convinced he would do the whole project lead as a fixed price – too much risk

MDZ Consulting - Mike Zutek - +1(281) 814-1967 (m) [email protected] - has been designing blades and boats for many decades - composite engineer and very capable aerodynamicist, not just blades - based in Texas, might be functional in Spanish

Dayton Griffin, DNV GL–Energy, Senior Principal Engineer, Renewables Advisory Group

- E-mail [email protected] , Mobile +1 425 422 8794 - works for the consulting services part of DNV, not the certification part - US expert on IEC 61400-23 blade testing standard - Has been involved in blade design, research and problem solving all around the world for

20 years OTHER: Direct to mold machining: Christensen Fiberglass Tooling http://christensenfiberglasstooling.com/

- fabricate molds and tooling for large scale FRP manufacture - in Michigan, USA near where I surveyed the Energetx factory (Aeroblade partner) - impressive gantry CNC mill used for direct-to-mold machining up to 18 m long, 6m wide, 3

meters high Janicki Industries http://www.janicki.com/

- fabricate molds and tooling for large scale FRP manufacture, 30 meter CNC 5 axis mill - in Washington State, USA

Scaled Composites, LLC http://www.scaled.com/

- in Southern California, these guys are legendary in aircraft and aerospace FRP - built original blades and tooling for Zond Z40 m and Z50 m WTG - have the facilities to produce tooling for composite parts accurately - also has a 5-axis CNC gantry router with a 15m X 6m X 2.5 m direct-to-mold machining

envelope.


http://christensenfiberglasstooling.com/


04642 USA


ANNEX D: In-Country Capabilities Matched to Requirements

Table 3 Requirements Matched to in-Country Capabilities

(Ratings: 5 = ideal match to requirements, 1= poor match )

Required Critical Capabilities Organization Match Rating

Notes

1 Wind turbine blade design need expert review

1a – aerodynamic design and aero-elastic modeling

IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ, UAQ

3 limited - trained in use of models

1b – planform design and structural integration and analysis

IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ, UAQ

3 limited - trained in use of models

2 High performance composite engineering expert review

2a – High strength/ weight, laminate knowledge

CIDESI, CIATEQ, Dow

5

2b – structural analysis, FEA modeling IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ

4

2c – use FRP material property & fatigue data bases

CIDESI, CIATEQ

4 important?

3 Process manufacturing experience using FRP

Global, TEMACO, Dow

4

3a – RTM or other well developed laminate system

Global, CIDESI, CIATEQ, Dow

4 smaller scale

3b – workers experienced in FRP fabrication for material cutting, layup, inspection and finish

Global, TEMACO

4 smaller scale

3c – Mature quality system (9001) for repeatability

Global, Dow 4 lacking WTG knowledge

4 Experience fabricating accurate molds & tooling

Global, TEMACO

4 medium scale

4a – Multiple elements, clam-shell molds, compound curves, joints, blind bonding, steep laminate transitions

Global, TEMACO

3 WTG specific

4b – Plug, molds, substructures (root, spar, beams)

Global, UAQ, CIDESI

4

5 Project management IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ

5

5a – project planning, management and execution

IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ

5

5b – budgeting and resource management planning

IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ

5

6 Acceptance testing - manufacture review

6a – As-built coupon strength and CIATEQ, 5


04642 USA


Required Critical Capabilities Organization Match Rating

Notes

composition tests, CIDESI

6b – Geometrical accuracy – airfoil & planform

CIATEQ, CIDESI

3 WTG specific

6c – Inspections for poor bonds, voids, laminate discontinuities, etc using NDT

Somerset (NDT),

CIATEQ, CIDESI

3 WTG specific

6d – Measuring weight and CG location, stiffness, eigen-frequencies

need WTG specific advice

- basic knowledge

7 Certification

7a – wind turbine blade testing experience 1

7b – experience in any product certification CIATEQ 2 Do they certify ?

7c – experience specific to wind turbine certification

1

Notes: UAQ = Autonomous University of Querétaro

End of document

mli 15 iie - ineel.mx › detelm › documentos › informe_aspas › 03... · document:...

Documents