Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275

12th Deep Sea Offshore Wind R&D Conference, EERA DeepWind’2015

Droplet Erosion Protection Coatings for Offshore Wind Turbine

Blades
E.A. Valakera , S. Armadab , S. Wilsonb
a Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Engineering Design and Materials, Trondheim, Norway
b SINTEF Materials and Chemistry, Trondheim, Norway

Abstract
Droplet erosion protection coatings has been proposed, tested and compared with industrial solutions. All of the proposed coatings
are based on a PU matrix, which is shown to provide good damping effects and good erosion resistant properties. Two of the
coating was reinforced with particles to investigate if this would improve the erosion resistance in the coating. A own built test-rig,
capable of proceeding experiments corresponding to extensive testing carried out in huge laboratories by the industry, has been
completed.
The weighing after erosion testing clearly revealed significant differences in the erosion resistance. All coatings, except one,
showed clear sign of material loss just after short test duration. The industrial coating showed sign of failure even more often and
earlier than all the purposed coatings. The proposal that handled the exposure best, did not show any sign of damage, even after
three times the test duration. This was a clear indication of the difference in erosion resistance where the industrial solution handled
the exposure worst. One of the proposals showed such good results that it is further discussed as a potential world leading surface
treatment for wind turbine blade tips.

©c 2015
2015TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS.
Peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS
Keywords: Droplet Erosion; Rain erosion; Leading edge erosion, Liquid impact; Protection coatings; Thermal spraying.

1. Introduction

Wind energy is an important contributor in our way towards a sustainable energy policy. The newer and still
increasing focus towards offshore wind farms allows bigger and more powerful wind turbines. Offshore we can utilize
higher and more stable wind speeds and at the same time neglect the political negativity wind farms meet in local
regions. Moving wind farms offshore increases the investment cost, complicates maintenance and shorten the total
lifetime. Better solutions are therefore needed in many disciplines to make this industry viable [1].

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 932 14 571

E-mail address: emilav@stud.ntnu.no

1876-6102 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of SINTEF Energi AS
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.430
264 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275

Wind turbine blades are mainly protected by elastomeric materials in forms of tape. These must be maintained or
replaced on bigger wind turbines, as test and real life experience indicates that they do not provide sufficient protection
during the whole lifetime. These elastomeric materials are often based on polyurethane [2]. Great resources are put
into continuous development of new durable tape materials. The hope is to develop a product that can withstand the
still harsher environmental exposure, increasing loads and increasing stresses [3].
The objective of this project is to make a test facility suitable for small scale droplet erosion testing, carry out a
suitable test program, characterization of test samples to determine impact mechanisms and important parameters,
and compare proposed coatings with industrial solutions.

Nomenclature

DTV Damage Threshold Velocity

PU Polyurethane
FN Reinforcement particles internally developed at SINTEF
SiC Silicon Carbide

2. Droplet Erosion & Wear Mechanics

Wear is understood as full system response and not a single material property. Wear can vary with the counterpart
material, contact pressure, sliding velocity, contact shape, environment and lubricant. Erosion is defined as one of the
wear modes, and can be divided into multiple subgroups. Particle erosion, cavitation erosion, fluid erosion and spark
erosion is seen upon as the most common types of erosion. These are caused by impacts either by particles, droplets,
bubbles or electric spark [4].

2.1. Impact Angle

The effect of impact angle has great effect on the erosion damage. Together with the material properties, very
different effect can be observed. Elastic materials tend to have a great erosion resistance towards particle impacting at
high angles. The material can absorb the impact energy in an elastic deformation and particles can bounce of while the
surface elastically recovers. The opposite can be observed for brittle surfaces. With a low impact angle the particle
fails to transfer a great amount of kinetic energy to the surface. The particle can have a perfect rebound from the
surface, or if the surface is very hard, particle destruction may be observed. See Figure 1.

Fig. 1: Visualisation of erosion resistance of both hard and elastic materials [5] .

In the opposite event a much lower erosion resistance will be the result. The elastic material will not be able to
reflect the particle with the same perfect rebound as the hard material at low impact angles. The hard particles can dig
into the soft material causing great deterioration trough rapture and plastic deformation of the substrate. Ploughing
 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275 265

and production of cuttings can be observed in this state. With high impact angle and hard surfaces, a brittle tendency
may occur. The substrate does not have the same ability to absorb the energy over the same amount of volume.
Therefore huge local stresses can occur, causing fatigue and crack propagation in the substrate [6]. See Figure 2.

Fig. 2: Visualisation of erosion mechanisms of both ductile and brittle materials [5].

The erosion rate dependency of impact angle has been studied earlier on many different levels. Oka et al. [7]
shows that erosion damage at arbitrary angles E(α) can be expressed by Eq. (1), where E90 denotes the unit volume
of material loss per unit of mass of particles (mm3 /kg) impacting the surface.

E(α) = g(α)E90 (1)

g(α) denotes the impact angle dependence of normalized erosion at 90o expressed in Eq. (2), where Hv denotes the
material hardness given in GPa, and n1 and n2 are exponents determined by the target material hardness and some
properties of the impacting particles.

g(α) = (sinα)n1 (1 + HV (1 − sinα))n2 (2)

The first term in Eq. (2) represent the brittle characteristics of materials, such as ceramics etcetera. The second term
represents the effect of cutting action at lower impact angles. The combined effect of these two is proven to give a
good impact-angle dependence of erosion damage for various metallic surfaces [7].

2.2. Droplet Impact

In order to understand the importance of the recently discussed parameters, further explanation on the nature of
impact is needed. Figure 3 shows the effect of a droplet impacting a solid surface. The surface effects will be a
compressional wave, followed by a shear wave, again followed by a Rayleigh wave as the third response of impact.
The pressure build up in the droplet is crucial to be able to understand the nature of the impact phenomenon. This is
creating a wave front in the droplet itself.

,
Fig. 3: Liquid droplet – solid surface impact interaction, showing shock wave behavior in both the droplet and target [8].

The pressure can be predicted through the water hammer equation shown in Eq. (3), where P denotes the pressure
created during impact, ρ0 is the density of the fluid, c0 is the speed of sound in the undisturbed liquid and V0 is the
impact velocity.

P = ρ0 c0 V0 (3)

This equation has historically been used for similar type of events. It was first developed for calculating water hammer
pressure in piping systems and is therefore based on the assumptions that the impact is a one dimensional event, the
266 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275

target surface is perfectly rigid, the water density remains constant during the impact event, and the speed of sound
remains constant during the impact [9].
A modified water hammer equation has been purposed by Dear et al. [10]. Unlike the traditional water hammer
equation, this equation takes into consideration the propagation of pressure through the liquid during impact and
the target body. This is shown in Eq. (4), where P denotes the modified water hammer pressure during impact, V
the impact velocity, ρ the density , c the speed of sound, and l and s as subscript refers to liquid and solid bodies,
respectively.

Vρl cl ρ s c s
P= (4)
ρl cl + ρ s c s

In aviation studies, Gohardani et al. [8] states that a parameter called Damage Threshold Velocity (DVT) often is
utilized for water droplet erosion. This parameter shall represent the lowest velocity which theoretically could cause
damage in the target material. This damage can be based on different criterias. It may be worth noting that Adler WF.
[17] and Hackworth JV. [11] have both defined the damage as fractures occurring in the surface, independently. Evans
et al. [12] have defined a theoretical expression for the DTV which is shown in Eq. (5), where VDT denotes the DVT,
Kic2 the fracture toughness of the target material, cR the Rayleigh wave velocity on the target material, ρw the density
of water, cw the compressional wave speed in water, and dw is the diameter of the water droplets.
⎛ 2 ⎞1/3
⎜⎜⎜ Kic cR ⎟⎟⎟
VDT ≈ 1.41 ⎝⎜ 2 2 ⎟⎠ (5)
ρw cw dw

The Rayleigh wave speed on a solid surface is given by Achenbach et al. [13] in Eq. (6), where ν denotes the Poisson’s
ratio, ρ the density, and E the Young’s modulus.
  1/2
0.862 + 1.14ν E
cR = (6)
1+ν 2 (1 + ν) ρ

If applying both equation (5) and (6), it is possible to estimate the DTV for a typical epoxy coating ordinary used
for wind turbine blades. The relevant material properties will vary vastly between different products, manufactures
and environmental factors. Engineering Toolbox [14] states an approximate of a Young’s modulus for epoxy to be
∼ 3.5 GPa and have density of ∼ 1250 kg/m3 , and Mott et al. [15] states a Poisson’s ratio for epoxy to be ∼ 0.36.
Equation (6) than gives a Rayleigh wave speed of approximately 949 m/s. Further we can estimate the density of water
to ∼ 1000 kg/m3 , and a compressional wave speed in water to ∼ 1490 m/s. The fracture toughness √ of different epoxy
materials will often vary widely from the lower values of 0.5 to the higher values of 1.5 MPa m, [16]. Historically,
experimental test have been using a mean rain droplet diameter of D = 2mm. This is agreed to be the most probable
droplet diameter size according to experimental researchers [8]. The plot in Figure 4 shows the DTV for three different
epoxy fracture toughness values versus water droplet diameter. The plot clearly shows the importance of applying a
erosion protection coating on the wind turbine blades due to the low DTV for varying fracture toughness values.

2.3. Lateral Jetting

Through further studying of the nature of a droplet impacting a solid surface, the different characterization of the
mentioned damage may play an interesting role. When a droplet is compressed lateral water jets can shot out along
the surface. This is the first step of the depressurizing internally in the water droplet. Theoretically, the lateral jets
are expected to erupt through the droplet free surface when the contact line velocity becomes equal to the shock wave
velocity at the contact line. Some delay are expected in experimental jetting observation compared to theoretical
calculations [18].
These lateral water jets are highly interesting from a tribological point of view when studying erosion resistance.
Najafabadi et al. [19] states that these kind of lateral jetting can tear of any unevenness or irregularities in the surface
greater than 100 nm. This means that lateral jetting will highly affect the erosion resistance of different surfaces
applied to the turbine blade, see Figure 5.
 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275 267

,
Fig. 4: Plot showing Damage Threshold Velocity (DTV) for rain drop impact on an epoxy target across a range of droplet diameters and for different
epoxy fracture toughness values, Ref Eq. (5) and (6).

,
Fig. 5: Propagation of the shock front: shock wave overtakes the contact line and the jetting erupts. (Adopted from Haller et al. [18]).

2.4. Reinforcing Particles

The current trend in the erosion protection industry is the promotion of Polyurethane (PU) as an erosion protection
layer on turbine blades. Both as coatings and tapes. US Patent 6341747 [20] shows the possibility for adding nanosized
reinforcing particles in the elastomeric matrix with the intention of improving the erosion resistance. The nanosized
particle turns out to increase the thermal conductivity, the modulus of stiffness, the hardness, and the velocity of sound
in the matrix. Improving such properties assists the nanocomposite in absorbing and dissipating the impact energy
over a larger volume in comparison to a pure elastomeric material. The improvement of erosion resistance by adding
various nanosized reinforcing particles is also discussed by Simon et al. [21] and Armada et al. [22].

3. Test Facility

The erosion test experiments are carried out in an own built test facility. The test rig shall provide an easy accessible
test facility intended to provide sufficient information about different coatings and their erosion resistance towards rain
droplet impacts. A rotating rod will generate impact between rain droplets and the test sample at velocities up to 180
m/s. The test samples are mounted at each end of the rod with a washer, an orientation stabilizer pin and a bolt to hold
the samples in place during testing. The rod is rotating in a test chamber with 12 mm thick stainless steel walls. The
whole test chamber is closed and tightened by twelve bolts to secure safety during the experiment. The principle of
the own built test rig is shown in Figure 6.

4. Erosion Protection Solutions

Five different erosion protection solutions where chosen for experimental testing. Two industrial solutions, one
coating and one tape, and three own proposed flame spray coatings. One pure Polyurethane (PU), one reinforced with
particles internally developed at SINTEF and one reinforced with Silicon Carbide (SiC) particles.
268 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275

,
Fig. 6: Illustration of the principle used in the droplet erosion test rig (adopted from [23]).

4.1. Adhesion

The results from the Pull-Off test, the Cross-Cut test and the Scrap test, as described in [24], [25] and [26], is
presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Results obtained from the adhesion testing.

Samples Test Results

ISO 4624 [24] ISO 2409 [25] ASTM D2197 [26]
Coating Surface ∼ Breaking Type of Classification Classification
Coating Method Preparation Strength [MPa] Failure of Failure of Adhesion
100% PU Flame Sprayed Blasted 6.8 –/Y 1 Good
FN Reinforced Flame Sprayed Blasted 6.8 –/Y 1 Good
SiC Reinforced Flame Sprayed Blasted 6.8 –/Y 0–1 Good
Industrial Coating Painted Grinded 9.1 A/B 2–3 Poor

4.2. Surface Finish

Surface roughness, surface cracks, porosity and waviness are discussed to possibly be important parameters for
observation. Initial parameters are presented in Table 2. Every value is the mean value of eight measurements carried
out, four measurements on two individual samples for each coating.

Table 2: Initial surface properties observed in a Conofocal IFM microscope.

Samples Surface Properties

Coating Coating Method Ra [μm] Pa [μm] Wa [μm]
100% PU Flame Sprayed 1.6759 19.390 16.464
FN Reinforced Flame Sprayed 1.6961 37.786 34.902
SiC Reinforced Flame Sprayed 1.5947 41.633 38.572
Industrial Coating Painted 1.3026 41.440 36.731

4.3. Material Loss

The complete sheet presenting material loss observed after testing is presented in Appendix A. The plot in Figure
7 shows the average material loss observed in mg after 20 min of testing with an impact velocity of 100m/s.
 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275 269

,
Fig. 7: The plot shows the material loss observed on the different Erosion protection coatings in mg after 20 min of testing with an impact velocity
of 100m/s.

4.4. Endurance of Protection Coating

The endurance of the different protection coatings is in this project defined as the time until signs of erosion is
initiated, presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Results obtained from the adhesion testing.

Percentage Failed
Samples at v = 100m/s
Coating Surface Number of
Coating Method Preparation samples tested 20 min 40 min
100% PU Flame Sprayed Blasted 2 50% 50%
FN Reinforced Flame Sprayed Blasted 2 0% 50%
SiC Reinforced Flame Sprayed Blasted 2 0% 0%
Industrial Coating Painted Grinded 4 75% 100%

4.5. Visual Characterization

In Figure 8 photos of the surfaces after erosion testing are presented. All photos are obtained after finished test pro-
gram, which result in different exposure time for the different samples. See Appendix A for further information about
duration time for each sample. Visual inspection and characterization of the erosion mechanisms reveals different
failure modes of the erosion protection coatings.
From the visual characterization it is concluded that only the SiC reinforced coating and the industrial protection
coating shows clear signs of cohesive failure. This mechanism is studied further in the IFM microscope. The results
are presented in Appendix B. The visual characterization carried out after erosion testing, revealed craters in the
cohesive failed area of the industrial erosion protection coating. This is further studied in the microscope as shown in
Appendix C.

• 100% PU: Evenly distribution between cohesive and adhesive failure, shown in Figure 8a.
• FN Reinforced: Mostly adhesive failure, shown in Figure 8b.
• SiC Reinforced: Mostly cohesive failure (result after hazard test).
• Industrial Coating: Mostly cohesive failure, shown in Figure 8d.
• Industrial Tape: Only adhesive failure.
270 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275

(b) #31, FN Reinforced

(a) #14, 100% PU

(c) #20, SiC Reinforced (d) #46, Industrial Coating

Fig. 8: Photos obtained after erosion testing for different surface protections. All photos are obtained after finished test program, see Appendix A,
(Photos by Valaker, E.A).

5. Discussion

This project was intended as a continuation of two student projects carried in the autumn of 2012. This meant
that some parameters involved in the project were already predetermined. During the rebuild of the test facility, no
verification of the droplet parameters was carried out. The choice of nozzles and water pressure fully relied on earlier
verifications test. These where described as kind of fuzzy results. Before a valid comparison of the erosion protection
coatings can be obtained, a verification of droplet size needs to be carried out.
During preparation of the samples, a remark regarding the thermal spraying process was mentioned. Some
deviation from an ordinary process involving polymers was observed. This also applied for the test plates, so the
characterization of the coating corresponds to the samples tested. Since the last student projects, the powder used
for thermal spraying has been stored in plastic mugs in normal indoor environment. Polyurethane is well known for
its high resistance against UV–degradation and oxidation. Nevertheless, some degradation, aging or oxidation of the
powder particles could possibly result in a significant importance for the material properties and the thermal spraying
process.
Inspection of the industrial erosion protection coating revealed craters in the coating, showed in Appendix C. This
probably indicates porosity due to trapped air bubbles, most likely trapped in the coating during mixture of the two
components. This was not observed during mixing or application, but smaller air bubbles would not be possible to
observe. Due to the short window of work life, waiting for potential bubbles to exit the coating is not possible. More
training and experimenting with parameters during application could possibly reduce the probability for trapped air in
the coating.
The industrial erosion protection tape did not fulfill the requirements needed to study the erosion resistance on a
level sufficient to provide a good comparison. The adhesion between the aluminum test samples and the tape failed
before sign of erosion could be observed. The design of the test rig used in this experiment introduces centripetal
forces on the tape resulting in peeling effects. This is desirable to avoid for tapes when the adhesion of a tape will
not match typical values for adhesion of coatings. Various experiments were carried out for the protection tape with
additional binding elements to avoid failure in the adhesive. The production methods for these tapes provides good
control of the mechanical properties in the polymer. The polymer itself is therefore believed to possess good erosion
 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275 271

resistance. Good methods for securing adhesion to the substrate could possibly result in erosion resistance that could
exceed values observed for the coatings in this project, especially if particle reinforcement is a realistic option.
Generally for the experiments carried out in this project, the number of samples with unique coating tested is too
low. More testing is critical to be able to conclude with an accepted amount of uncertainty.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank SINTEF and NOWITECH – the Norwegian Research Centre for Offshore Wind Technology
(www.nowitech.no), Professor O.Ø. Knudsen, S. Armada, A. Bjørgum and S. Wilson for their role and their great
help in this exciting project, and letting me be a part of it.
272 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275

Appendix A. Material Loss

Fig. A.9: Material loss observed after individual test programs

The white group seen in Figure A.9 represent the samples taped with industrial erosion protection tape. The green
section represents the sample flame sprayed with the different purposed protection coating. The blue section represents
the samples painted with the industrial erosion protection coating.
 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275 273

Appendix B. Microscopy

(a) #22, SiC Reinforced (b) #47, Industrial Coating

Fig. B.10: 2D microscope, Initial conditions

(a) #22, SiC Reinforced (b) #47, Industrial Coating

Fig. B.11: 2D microscope, After erosion has been initiated

(b) #47, Industrial Coating

(a) #22, SiC Reinforced

Fig. B.12: 3D IFM microscope, After erosion has been initiated

274 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275

Appendix C. Craters in Industrial Coating

,
Fig. C.13: Test sample #46 (Industrial Coating) after erosion testing at 100 m/s and 20 min duration, (Photo by Valaker, E.A).

References
[1] Wilkes J, Moccia J. Wind in power. EWEA Annual Report. 2012 European statistics. 2013
[2] Dalili N, Edrisy N, Carriveau R. A review of surface engineering issues critical to wind turbine performance. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy. Vol. 13. 2009
[3] 3M. 3M Wind Protection Tapes. On the Leading Edge of Inovation. 2013
[4] Kato K. Classification of Wear Mechanisms/Models. Wear: Materials, Mechanisms and Practice. 2005;Chap2
[5] Espallargas N. Tribology and Surface Technology:TMM 4205. Course material. 2014
[6] Stack MM, Jana BD, Abdelrahman SM. Erosion-Corrosion mechanisms and maps. University of Strathclyde. 2013
[7] Oka YI, Mihara S, Yoshida T. Impact-angle dependence and estimation of erosion damage to ceramic materials caused by solid particle impact.
17th International Conference on Wear of Materials. 2009;267
[8] Gohardani O. Impact of erosion testing aspects on current and future flight conditions. Progress in Aerospace Sciences. 2011;47:280-303.
[9] Heymann FJ. HighSpeed Impact between a Liquid Drop and a Solid Surface. Journal of Applied Physics. 1969;40:5113.
[10] Dear JP, Field JE. Highspeed photography of surface geometry effects in liquid/solid impact. Journal of Applied Physics. 1988;63:1015.
[11] Hackworth JV. Damage Of Infrared-Transparent Materials Exposed To Rain Environments At High Velocities. Proceedings of SPIE.
1982;362:122-36.
[12] Evans AG, Gulden ME, Rosenblatt M. Impact Damage in Brittle Materials in the Elastic-Plastic Response Regime. ROCKWELL INTERNA-
TIONAL THOUSAND OAKS CALIF SCIENCE CENTER. 1978;361:122-136.
[13] Achenbach J. Wave Propagation in Elastic Solids. North-Holland Series in Applied Mathematics and Mechanics. 1973;361:425.
[14] Engineering ToolBox. Comparing some typical properties of common engineering materials like steel, plastics, ceramics and composites.
Website. 2014.
[15] Mott PH, Dorgan JR, Roland CM. The bulk modulus and Poissons ratio of incompressible materials. Journal of Sound and Vibration.
2008;312:572-5.
[16] Ashby MF, Shercliff H, Cebon D. Materials: Engineering, Science, Processing and Design. Butterworth-Heinemann. 2014;3rd;197-224.
[17] Adler WF. Development Of Design Data For Rain Impact Damage In Infrared-Transmitting Windows And Radomes. Optical Engineering.
1987;26:143-51.
 E.A. Valaker et al. / Energy Procedia 80 (2015) 263 – 275 275

[18] Haller KK, Poulikakos D, Ventikos Y, Monkewitz P. Shock wave formation in droplet impact on a rigid surface: lateral liquid motion and
multiple wave structure in the contact line region. Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 2003;490:1-14.
[19] Najafabadi AH, Razavi RS, Mozaffarinia R, Rahimi H. A New Approach of Improving Rain Erosion Resistance of Nanocomposite Sol-Gel
Coatings by Optimization Process Factors. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions. 2014;45:2522-2531.
[20] US Patent 6341747 B1. Nanocomposite layered airfoil. 2002.
[21] Simon C, Pilz M, Adamczak M. Nanotechnology based coatings resistant to wear, erosion, soiling, icing as well as salt. Energy Conversion
and Materials. 2010
[22] Armada. S, Bjrgum A, Knudsen O, Simon C, Pilz M. Organic coatings reinforced with ceramic particles: An erosion study. European Wind
Energy Conference and Exhibition (EWEC). 2010.
[23] Tyrhaug MH. Coatings and modeling leading edge erosion of wind turbine blades. Specialization Project - NTNU. 2012.
[24] ISO 4624:2002. Paints and varnishes – Pull-off test for adhesion.
[25] ISO 2409:1992. Paints and varnishes – Cross-cut test.
[26] ASTM D2197 - 13. Standard Test Method for Adhesion of Organic Coatings by Scrape Adhesion.