Jasper Hughes, 2018

Analysis of Advanced Solutions for Lightning Strike Protection

Abstract
Modern aircraft are moving towards a greater use of composites, in particular, carbon fibre
reinforced polymers CFRP, whose high stiffness and strength to weight ratios results in a reduction of
weight in the aircraft. The main problem presented by CFRP is its low conductivity, leaving it
vulnerable to damage from lightning strikes. The current solution to use metal meshes bonded to the
outer surface has the adverse effect of adding large amounts weight. This paper aims to restate
characteristics of lightning strikes on aeroplanes and review different advanced materials such as
carbon nanomaterials and conductive polymers, which aim to provide lightning strike protection at a
lower mass.

1. Introduction
A commercial plane can expect a lightning strike around once a year [1] where the lightning
will cause a huge current to take the path of least resistance through the aeroplane structure, hence
leaving the surface unprotected would result in severe damage to critical parts such as vaporization of
the metal control cables [2].
Metal structures have been predominantly used due to their high electrical conductivity and
strength, however recently, aerospace companies have been switching over to composites with lower
overall weight, so as planes will require less fuel. One problem faced has been the fibre reinforced
polymers used are unable to conduct a sufficient amount of electricity to prevent damage, with the
current resulting in Joule heating effect causing fibre sublimation, acoustic shock and delamination,
with most damage at the entrance and exit points. The current solution is to add lightning strike
protection (LSP), in most cases comes in the form of an aluminium or copper mesh bonded on the
outside surface, yet the weight added by using these meshes negates most of the weight savings from
using the composite and a general decrease in mechanical properties.
The majority of lightning strikes on aircraft happen while inside clouds [3], striking the wing
tip, nose and other aircraft extremities [3]. The movement of the aircraft through the cloud will result
in the strike discharge being swept along the surface. The highest energy density is seen at the
entrance and exit points with the LSP causing the current to remain on the exterior and exit quickly off
[3]. Negative lightning averages between 30 to 50 kA and makes up 90% of strikes yet positively
charged strikes will cause the most amount of damage with the current reaching as high as 200kA. [4]
The secondary purpose of LSP is to provide shielding from electromagnetic interference
(EMI) which would otherwise interfere with electronics and communications on the plane. EMI
shielding works on the basis of forming a Faraday cage, stopping EM waves from entering the closed
surface the cage forms, yet the CFRP have poor conductivity thus will no longer act as a cage. [5]
The main current industrial guidelines are set by Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
while military standards (MIL-STD) and aerospace recommended practices (ARP) are also used to
show compliance [6] on top of those set by the manufactures themselves. SAE ARP contains
guidelines on testing as to determine if the LSP is to pass regulations, yet sets no specific level of
conductivity. SAE ARP 5412 and 5414 [7] provide information on the tailoring of LSP within
different zones. Figure 1 shows the 3 zones set out determined by laboratory test [3]. Zone 1 is
required to support A, B and C currents up to 200kA while zone 2 requires B, C and D currents up to
100kA.
Jasper Hughes, 2018

Fig. 1. Zones and lightning attribute simulated by SAE [4,8].

2. Materials
2.1 overview
Good electrical conductivity is required for protection against lightning strikes and EMI from
high power transmitters. Due to the anisotropic characteristics of the unmodified CFRP, the
conductivity in plane along the fibres was greater than in other directions, though still several
magnitudes lower than copper or aluminium. The through-thickness conductivity with resin acting as a
barrier is multiple magnitudes lower of around 3.2 × 10−5 S/cm and thermal conductivity of ∼1 W/m
K compared to ∼10 W/m K in-plane [9]. These combined create issues of heat dissipation near areas
of high buildup e.g. engines, electrical systems, with lightning strikes causing joules heating as the
electrical energy is absorbed, damaging the structure. To mitigate this it has been reported for LSP the
sheet resistance would need to be less than 10−3 Ω/square [9], with importance also being put on
thermal and through-plane conductivity. For EMS only in-plane conductivity is important so as to be
incident to the waves [10], and in general EM shielding requires less conductivity than LSP [9].
Commercial LSP products from the like of Dexmet Microgrid®, Astrostrike and Strikegrid™
[8] are all either a metal mesh or foil which have been bonded to the outside of the resin or via metal
or metallized fibres. Depending on the solder structure and knit of the wire mesh the conventional Al
and Cu meshes could expect a surface resistivity of around 0.79 to 1.26 × 10−4 Ω /sq. with area
density from 50 to 1000 g m−2[11].
There has however been a push for advanced solutions using the likes of Carbon black [43], Carbon
nanotubes (CNTs) [14,15,16,19,22,23,24], CNT paper (Bucky paper) [2,26,27], graphene
[29,30,31,32] and carbon nanofibers (CNF) [2,44]. These carbon structures have been used due to
their higher shielding effectiveness, superior electrical conductivity and high aspect ratio resulting in a
high specific surface area [4], which aim to save weight and leave a smoother finish. Strength is the
other consideration, if compromised by the filler too greatly, will render the solution unusable.
Their potential can be seen in similar values of conductivity having been obtained by applying
a surface spray coating of 8 wt.% GNP on carbon fiber Asmatulu et al. [11] reached resistivity of
1.9 × 10−4 Ω/sq whereas Leng et al. [11] inserted CNT based Bucky paper to obtain a value of
1.2 × 10−4 Ω/sq. This suggests nanostructures can perform comparably to conventional LSP but at a
fraction of the mass area. Tushar Shah et al. [12] found CNS-infused standard modulus carbon fabric
had 193g/m2 compared to conventional copper LSP of 390g/m2 this results in a weight saving of
between 15-48% for LSP and up to 43% cost saving on EMI shielding.
Jasper Hughes, 2018

2.2 CNTs
CNTs are a hexagonal network of carbon atoms, rolled in a cylinder, capped with half of a
fullerene molecule and held by strong C-C covalent bonds. This geometry allows for ultra-high L-D
ratio as well as being highly isotropic and a high strength to weight ratio.[8] CNTs are categorized as
ingle-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) with a diameter of 1–2 nm, and multi-walled carbon
nanotubes (MWCNTs) at around 30 nm diameter are multiple concentric graphene cylinders, held
with weak van der Waals forces from tube to tube [13], and as such cost 200 times less than SWCNTs
[4].To increase the through-thickness conductivity and thus allowing the lightning current to exit off
the sheet, studies have tried to add a discrete conductive layer or by blending in electrical conductive
filer into the resin matrix.
Z.J.Zhao et al. [14] proposes shear dispersing MWCNTs in epoxy resin then impregnating this
into the fibres. At around 1wt% this reached its percolation threshold. Mechanical inter lamina shear
strength is increased due to the MWCNTs filling between the carbon fibre insulating vacancies
bridging gaps and anchoring the structure together, see figure 2. As this only toughens the resin, the
tensile and flexural strength which are both driven by the fibres are generally unchanged with 1.4%
and 2.7% increase respectively. For inter lamina shear and compressive strength, which are
determined by both the fibres and resin, saw a substantial increase of 17.1% and 28.9% respectively.
The composite achieved a small improvement with in-plane conductivity to 23s/cm, but a very
respectable increase in through plane by 4 fold to 13.3x10-2s/cm. However, the conductivity achieved
by this composite would most likely be insufficient on its own for LSP, This has been observed in
other papers where only unmodified CNTs are used also resulting in an insufficient conductivity gain
[26].

Fig. 2. MWCNTs bridging crack in epoxy resin [14].

To increase the conductivity to a useable level, researchers have attempted to decorate the
CNTs with metals. Divya K. Chakravarthi et al. [15] used nickel-coated single-walled carbon
nanotubes (Ni-SWNT) to coat the surface of the carbon fibres, thereby reducing the contact resistance
between said fibres. The Ni-SWNT reduces the resistivity by a factor of 6 to 1x10 4 Ω/sq. and under a
zone 2A lightning-strike the tests surface damage is reduced from 32.85cm 2 to 5.17cm2. The viscosity
issues caused by the Ni-SWNT when added straight to the resin was eliminated by spraying the filler
onto the heated carbon plies. The nickel on the SWCNT also improves the coverage as well, yet
carries the issue galvanic corrosion and with the high cost of SWCNTs, this solution would be
infeasible to use at the present.
Qi Dong et al. [16] used nickel-coated multi-walled carbon nanotubes (Ni-MWCNTs)
dispersed in ethanol sprayed onto the prepreg. The sample was surface loaded past the percolation
threshold to about 0.3g/m2 [17] at a flow rate for uniform distribution [18]. The CNTs where seen to
attached to the carbon fiber surface creating electrically conductive contacts between plies during the
curing process [18] the study found declining trend in damage with increased numbers of Ni-
MWCNTs/EP interlayers, with the interlay conductivity increasing in orders of magnitude from 1x10 -2
S/cm to 1x104 S/cm, however, the top few layers where still damaged. Better LSP effectiveness was
believed to be obtainable by increasing the number of modified layers with higher conductivity for
Jasper Hughes, 2018

each. The method which was used to apply the nanofillers carries the advantage where it could be
readily and cheaply implemented. To increase safety, Yan Li et al [19] aimed to reduce the release of
airborne particles by first dispersing the CNTs onto B-staged epoxy adhesive film.
The dispersion is affected by both the van der Waals interactions and the viscosity of the
polymer, to low and CNT's will re-agglomerate, to high, may make processing difficult [20]. This is
useful as agglomerated films have been shown to have higher conductivity and a lower percolation
threshold [21]. When producing a CNT polymer composite reducing film thickness to cluster size (~20
μm) or even CNT length (1–4 μm) has much high conductivity for weight fraction [20]. The use of
film has also been enhanced further by Koutsoureli, M et al. [22] embedding the CNTs into Silicon
nitride (SiNx) dielectric films results in ultra-low effective resistance and quick discharge of current.
Another method to enhance the properties has been to create a three-phase nanocomposite
material system from epoxy resin, short carbon fibre and MWCNTS, which has the advantage of two
conductive filers [23]. These SCF form bridges to enhance the conductivity of the MWCNTs. A
MWCNTs wt.3%+SCF wt.3%+epoxy sample had resistivity 16.425 Ω cm compared to 2×107 Ω cm
of CFRP shows promise.
N. Yamamoto et al. [24] found similar result using MWCNT directly grown on the fibre
substrates. The CNTs work as capillaries infiltrated with the polymer, which results in a greater
dispersion and radial alignment. The CNTs interact forming conductive bridges and pathway inside
and in between the plies, yet with a conductivity of around 1S/cm, this would require a thickness of
over 10m to achieve required sheet conductivity. This paper, however, used an insulating alumina
fibre, so better results could be expected from using more conductive carbon fibres.

2.3 Bucky Paper

Bucky paper (BP) can be produced by a CVD method, filtration method, or “domino pushing”
method. These methods work to intertwine carbon nanotubes to make BP the most highly load form of
CNTs [25]. BPs poses reasonable electrical conductivity of around 1 S/cm, with a density as low as
0.25–0.83 g/cm3, much less than that of copper and aluminium 8.9 g/cm3 and 2.7 g/cm3 respectively
[8].
To enhance these properties of BP, I-Wen Peter Chen et al [26] used acid treatment and other
chemical modifications are used to create defects at the end caps. P-type or n-type doping has been
used to add charge carriers enhancing conductivity properties. By altering the nanotubes Fermi level
this can increase electron density. Acid doping is able to convert semiconducting nanotubes into
metallic tubes reducing the resistance and increasing conductivity [26]. One problem presented by this
procedure is the easy of reversibility resulting in the properties being lost during composite
fabrication. One solution presented is to crosslink the CNT's which on its own will improve
mechanical and electrical properties but importantly, results in high doping stability from covalent
bonding which can be observed in figure 3. Conjugational cross-links (CCL) create a 3D network
which increases the ability of electrons to move among the CNTs, results of which can be seen in an
increase of conductivity of 6200 S cm– 1, one order greater than that of pristine BP. These properties
were also seen to improve with a greater alignment of the CNTs, done by stretching the BP by 30%
which also reduce CNT waviness, resulting in a 161% increase in conductivity. MWCNT also
performed better than SWCNT. When cross-linked, SWNTs conductivity reached only 550 S cm – 1.
The cross-linking also enhanced thermal and doping stability and load transfer with significant
improvements in electrical and mechanical properties, yet limited improvements for these were
achieved with SWNT Bucky paper.
Jasper Hughes, 2018

Figure 3: randomly orientated CNTs as (a) MWNT-BP compared to (b) CCL-MWNT-BP showing
good polymer grafting.

Jihua Gou et al [2] utilized carbon nanofibers (CNF) as opposed to CNTs as the base of the
paper due to CNF being sold at a much lower cost. Nickel nanostrands were added to this to create a
nickel nanostrands and carbon nanofiber paper CNFP. The nickel nanostrands worked to bridge the
individual CNFs resulting in greater conductivity characteristics. One process which has been
developed to attach the carbon nanofiber paper CNFP to the outside of the wing is through the
conventional RTM process with the CNFP placed at the bottom of the mold, and subsequent CF mats
placed on top with resin being applied and cured. Due to the large pore size in the CNFP resin would
be able to penetrate it and create a thin resin outer layer. To prevent this the CNFP outer surface is
treated with a nanoclay particles solution that was sprayed on. This blocks these pores while the resin
can still penetrate the back side of the paper. After curing the nanoclay can then be washed off with
water. Latex binder was added to the paper to improve strength for later composite processes, though
this resulted in lower lightning tolerance, with area surface damage of 3.3% compared to 1% without.
It was found these values could be improved further using higher pressure in the RTM process to pack
the nanoparticles even tighter and greater still by increasing alignment of the nickel nanostrands and
carbon nanofibers. A top conductivity of 341 S cm– 1 was recorded yet this is still a magnitude lower
from what was reach with just CNTs.
Jin-hua Han et al [27] testing different adhesives for bonding indicated an insulating adhesive
is much more effective. A conductive CNT's/EP layer sustained severe damage, while insulating
hexagonal boron nitride BN/EP performing best, showing only tiny damage to the surface of the BP,
and the thicker the adhesive the less the damage seems to be obtained. The residual strength of
samples with thicker adhesive and lower conductivity was also higher. From these test the optimized
thickness of 70 μm BP and a 200 μm could protect against a 100kA strike, compared to Cu and Al
screen [28] provides a weight reduction of ∼30% and ∼55%, respectively.

2.4 Graphene
Graphene sheets are most commonly made via exfoliation to create a dense honeycomb
crystalline monolayer of carbon atoms which creates a greater area per unit mass compared to CNTs
[40]. Graphene nanoplatelets (GNP’s) can be created from small stacks of platelet-shaped graphene
sheets. They have been found experimentally to yield high mechanical properties∼1 TPa with
resistivity for pure graphene of 1.0 × 10−6 Ω cm and ∼5000 W m−1K−1 thermal conductivity [29].
Yet these figures are hard to realize when mixed with a polymer matrix, with high percolation
thresholds for low improvements ∼10−3 S/cm at 10 wt. % loading [29]. Even after reaching percolation
threshold improvements are not necessarily guaranteed with a greater volume of filler, and doing so
would increase the brittleness thus reducing the mechanical strength. In regards to EMI shielding,
those with conductive fillers with higher aspect ratio (L/D) offer better EMI shielding, hence graphene
sheets which have the highest aspect ratio compared to other carbon-based nanomaterials provides the
best protection [31], graphene also has the advantage of a 3D network to provide close contact
between the particles.
Jasper Hughes, 2018

To fully utilize the properties, the GNPs can be used to create a micron thick paper or film
creating a large continuous phase. This paper can then be incorporated into the polymer matrix and
have the advantage of being highly flexible and lightweight. The two which have generated most
research is Bucky paper and graphite oxide (GO) paper. GO paper has yet only achieved a
conductivity of 350S/cm [30] This is due to the extremely small particle size of the chemically
reduced graphite oxide paper which results in large contact resistance between each tube, the solution
to this is to expand the graphite into GNP.
Huang Wu et al. [29] researched GNP particle ‘worms’, which were suspended in water, with
ultrasonication used to break these down to individual platelets of diameter ranging from 20 μm to 100
μm. Filter paper was used to collect the platelets to create a film which was peeled off. It was then
impregnated with polymer which greatly improve the composites tensile modulus by 500–600% and
annealed. This was then layered between the CF layers. Improvements were made by increasing the
density by pressing the sheet, thereby reaching electrical and thermal conductivity of ∼2200 S/cm and
∼100 W/m K respectively which reduced damage area and volume by 94% and 96% respectively. The
through-plane properties saw no significant improvement due to the alignment of GNP particles and
the anisotropic behaviour, yet permeability did significantly reduce.
Graphene nano-flakes are much cheaper than CNTs. B Zhang et al[32] showed a Graphene
and an Indium-doped tin oxide ITO could be used together with ITO which has a low electrical
resistivity of 4.1 × 10−3 Ωm and is already used in aerospace as a windscreen coating and to deflect
and scatter any radio waves on stealth aircraft and Ωm [33]. Graphene and ITO were added to an
epoxy fill primer then spray coated onto the carbon fiber composite at a thickness of around 75μm.
The high aspect ratio of the graphene flakes caused a greater increase in viscosity, and by 10 wt.%
became too high for proper dispersion, yet when ITO was added this performed much better. The
composite measured a conductivity of ∼1200 S/cm, though at 40 wt% ITO this may cause reductions
in strength.

Figure 4: Effect of ITO concentration on top coating electrical conductivity with 2 wt.% CNT

2.5 Enhanced polymer

Lightning strikes can cause damage through matrix resin decomposition and resultant gas
evaporation joules heating [8]. Hence the best way for Lightning damage suppression is to prevent any
intensive temperature rise, which can be done through improving materials conductivity or changing
the materials thermal properties. Another approach is to use intrinsically conductive polymer instead
of adding conductive nanofillers to the matrix. In recent year Polyaniline (PANI) has become the
subject of a large amount of research due to its good environmental stability, high conductivity, and
low manufacturing costs [34] yet is somewhat limited by the low thermal conductivity of less than
0.7 W m−1K−1. Yokozeki et al. and Kumar et al. developed this polymer to achieved an electrical
conductivity of 148 S/cm in-plane and 0.73 S/cm out of plane, and after lightning strike tests showed
only a 10% reduction in strength compared to CF/epoxy 76% [35, 36].
The effects of −40 and −100 kA on CF/PANI resulted in minimal resin deterioration on the
surface and no damage in the through-thickness direction [37]. Though the conductivity here is less
than conventional LSP with in-plane ranging from 350–700 S/cm, the lack of damage in the test
Jasper Hughes, 2018

sample suggest that out of plane conductivity has a larger effect reducing the level of damage. There
was no significant difference in the thermal properties of CF/epoxy and CF/PANI, yet the great
difference in damage suggests conductivity has the biggest effect. [37] Using PANI however over
epoxy reduced flexural strength from 610MPa to 267MPa.
Shintaro Kamiyama et al. [38] compared bismaleimide (CF/BMI), cross-ply carbon fibre
reinforced epoxy (CF/epoxy), and polyetheretherketone (CF/PEEK). It was found that the onset
temperature of thermal decomposition, interlinear fracture toughness, char yield and other material
properties had a greater effect on lighting strike damage than the electrical conductivity of each
matrix. CF/BMI and CF/PEEK showed much less damage than CF/EP. The thermal decomposition
thermal onset temperature was 280 °C and a char yield of 75% for CF/epoxy, comparably lower than
CF/BMI and CF/PEEK with 370 °C and 530 °C and char yield of 85% and 82% respectively. It was
also found a lower percolation threshold correlates with greater maximum conductivity. PMMA and
10 wt% SWCNT composite achieves a maximum conductivity of 100 S/cm compared to PANI and 15
wt% SWCNT of 30 S/cm and a PU with 15 wt% MWCNT composite at 20 S/cm each have a
percolation threshold of 0.17 wt%, 0.3 wt%, and 1 wt% respectivly[39]. It should be noted the
polymer system found to require the lowest percolation threshold is epoxy resin.

2.6 Mix of CNTs and Graphene

CNTs have been shown to synergize with graphene nanoparticles (GNP). They align and
thereby creating an interconnected strong network increasing the mechanical, electrical, thermal
properties [40]. MWCNT prevent the GNPs aggregation and stacking while forming a bridge to
increase electrical and mechanical properties.[8] Multi-graphene platelets (MGPs) is a type of
graphene with multiple layers of carbon plates which results in a high conductivity, unique graphitized
plane structure, high aspect ratios, and low cost [40].
Y. Tang, et al. found an MGP/epoxy composite could expect resistivity of 0.275 Ω cm and
MWCNT/epoxy with 0.125 Ω cm, both much greater than when mixed together achieving a resistivity
of 0.05 for MGP/MWCNT/epoxy. There was also a 35.4% improvement in tensile strength from
baseline epoxy [41]. Yan Li et al used a spray instead, consisting of CNTs and GNPs to coat CFRPs
surface whereby the resistivity was reduced 4 times from 2–3 Ω/sq to 3 × 10 −4 Ω/sq and increasing
thermal conductivity 7 fold from 200 W m−1K−1 to 1500 W m−1K−1 which is far superior to
conventional metal mesh of 400 W m−1K−1. [42]

3. Conclusion
The advance LSP solutions investigated appear to present the beginnings of some reasonable
candidates yet most are still to reach the conductivity of aluminium and copper. It is however certainly
within reason to expect this to be reached and with a reasonable return on weight savings compared to
the conventional metal mesh. The main factors determining the suitability of the LSP are the additives
effects on strength, thermal conductivity, and electrical conductivity, however, the difficulty in
quantifying required conductivities will pose problems in selection. Other critical factors to consider
are the density, costs, manufacturing processes, reparability and maintenance, with for example the
current high cost of CNT making their use currently infeasible. Along with the correct selection of the
carbon nanostructure, whether it is to be mixed into the epoxy, to be sprayed on or made as a film or
paper must also be decided. The biggest potential for LSP may be a combination of conductive
polymer with the addition of cheaper nanoparticles such as CNF and GNP sprayed onto the CF layers
for ease of manufacture. When achieved the composite will be applicable for a wide range of uses in
helicopters, UAVs and general EMI shielding among others.
Jasper Hughes, 2018

References
[1] Larsson, A. (2002). The interaction between a lightning flash and an aircraft in flight. Comptes
Rendus Physique, 3(10), pp.1423-1444.
[2] Gou, J., Tang, Y., Liang, F., Zhao, Z., Firsich, D. and Fielding, J. (2010). Carbon nanofiber paper
for lightning strike protection of composite materials. Composites Part B: Engineering, 41(2), pp.192-
198.
[3] Lago, F. (2014). Lightning in aeronautics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 550, p.012001.
[4] Ma, X., Scarpa, F., Peng, H., Allegri, G., Yuan, J. and Ciobanu, R. (2015). Design of a hybrid
carbon fibre/carbon nanotube composite for enhanced lightning strike resistance. Aerospace Science
and Technology, 47, pp.367-377.
[5] Thomassin, J., Jérôme, C., Pardoen, T., Bailly, C., Huynen, I. and Detrembleur, C. (2013).
Polymer/carbon based composites as electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding materials.
Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports, 74(7), pp.211-232.
[6] Feraboli, P. and Miller, M. (2009). Damage resistance and tolerance of carbon/epoxy composite
coupons subjected to simulated lightning strike. Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Manufacturing, 40(6-7), pp.954-967.
[7] SAE (1999). Aerospace recommended practice, Aircraft Lightning Environment and Related Test
Waveforms.
[8] Gagné, M. and Therriault, D. (2014). Lightning strike protection of composites. Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, 64, pp.1-16.
[9] Yamamoto, N., Guzman de Villoria, R. and Wardle, B. (2012). Electrical and thermal property
enhancement of fiber-reinforced polymer laminate composites through controlled implementation of
multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Composites Science and Technology, 72(16), pp.2009-2015.
[10] Zhao, Z., Zhang, B., Du, Y., Hei, Y., Yi, X., Shi, F. and Xian, G. (2017). MWCNT modified
structure-conductive composite and its electromagnetic shielding behavior. Composites Part B:
Engineering, 130, pp.21-27.
[11] Li, Y., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Wang, H., Huang, Z., Peijs, T. and Bilotti, E. (2018). Synergistic
effects of spray-coated hybrid carbon nanoparticles for enhanced electrical and thermal surface
conductivity of CFRP laminates. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 105, pp.9-
18.
[12] Tushar, Shah., Melissa, Jones., Mark, Alberding., Matthew Laszewski. (2012). Carbon
Nanostructures for electromagnetic shielding and lightning strike protection applications in aircraft.
2012 ESA Workshop on Aerospace EMC
[13] Roghayeh, Ghasempour., Hamid, Nare. (2018). Carbon nanotube-reinforced polymers. A volume
in Micro and Nano Technologies, pp.1-24.
[14] Zhao, Z., Zhang, B., Du, Y., Hei, Y., Yi, X., Shi, F. and Xian, G. (2017). MWCNT modified
structure-conductive composite and its electromagnetic shielding behavior. Composites Part B:
Engineering, 130, pp.21-27.
[15] Chakravarthi, D. K., Khabashesku, V. N., Vaidyanathan, R. , Blaine, J. , Yarlagadda, S. ,
Roseman, D. , Zeng, Q. and Barrera, E. V. (2011), Carbon Fiber–Bismaleimide Composites Filled
with Nickel‐Coated Single‐Walled Carbon Nanotubes for Lightning‐Strike Protection. Adv. Funct.
Mater., 21: 2527-2533.
[16] Dong, Q., Wan, G., Xu, Y., Guo, Y., Du, T., Yi, X. and Jia, Y. (2017). Lightning Damage of
Carbon Fiber/Epoxy Laminates with Interlayers Modified by Nickel-Coated Multi-Walled Carbon
Nanotubes. Applied Composite Materials, 24(6), pp.1339-1351.
[17] Guo, M. and Yi, X. (2013). The production of tough, electrically conductive carbon fiber
composite laminates for use in airframes. Carbon, 58, pp.241-244.
[18] Kim, H. and Hahn, H. (2011). Graphite fiber composites interlayered with single-walled carbon
nanotubes. Journal of Composite Materials, 45(10), pp.1109-1120.
Jasper Hughes, 2018

[19] Li, Y., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Wang, H., Huang, Z., Peijs, T. and Bilotti, E. (2018). Synergistic
effects of spray-coated hybrid carbon nanoparticles for enhanced electrical and thermal surface
conductivity of CFRP laminates. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 105, pp.9-
18.
[20] Aguilar, J., Bautista-Quijano, J. and Aviles, F. (2010). Influence of carbon nanotube clustering on
the electrical conductivity of polymer composite films. Express Polymer Letters, 4(5), pp.292-299.
[21] Singh, I., Bhatnagar, P., Mathur, P., Kaur, I., Bharadwaj, L. and Pandey, R. (2008). Optical and
electrical characterization of conducting polymer-single walled carbon nanotube composite films.
Carbon, 46(8), pp.1141-1144.
[22] Koutsoureli, M., Stavrinidis, G., Birmpiliotis, D., Konstantinidis, G. and Papaioannou, G. (2017).
Electrical properties of SiN x films with embedded CNTs for MEMS capacitive switches.
Microelectronics Reliability, 76-77, pp.614-618.
[23] Chunxia Wu, Haibao Lu, Yanju Liu, Jinsong Leng. (2010). Study of carbon nanotubes/short
carbon fiber nanocomposites for lightning strike protection. Behavior and Mechanics of
Multifunctional Materials and Composites, 76441H.
[24] Yamamoto, N., Guzman de Villoria, R. and Wardle, B. (2012). Electrical and thermal property
enhancement of fiber-reinforced polymer laminate composites through controlled implementation of
multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Composites Science and Technology, 72(16), pp.2009-2015.
[25] Han, J., Zhang, H., Chen, M., Wang, D., Liu, Q., Wu, Q. and Zhang, Z. (2015). The combination
of carbon nanotube buckypaper and insulating adhesive for lightning strike protection of the carbon
fiber/epoxy laminates. Carbon, 94, pp.101-113.
[26] Peter Chen, I., Liang, R., Zhao, H., Wang, B. and Zhang, C. (2011). Highly conductive carbon
nanotube buckypapers with improved doping stability via conjugational cross-linking.
Nanotechnology, 22(48), p.485708.
[27] Han, J., Zhang, H., Chen, M., Wang, D., Liu, Q., Wu, Q. and Zhang, Z. (2015). The combination
of carbon nanotube buckypaper and insulating adhesive for lightning strike protection of the carbon
fiber/epoxy laminates. Carbon, 94, pp.101-113.
[28] Teresa M. Kruckenberg., Valerie A. Hill., Anthony Michael Mazany., Eloise Young., Song
Chiou. (2018). Low density lightning strike protection for use in airplanes. US8962130B2.
[29] Wu, H. and Drzal, L. (2012). Graphene nanoplatelet paper as a light-weight composite with
excellent electrical and thermal conductivity and good gas barrier properties. Carbon, 50(3), pp.1135-
1145.
[30] Chen, H., Müller, M., Gilmore, K., Wallace, G. and Li, D. (2008). Mechanically Strong,
Electrically Conductive, and Biocompatible Graphene Paper. Advanced Materials, 20(18), pp.3557-
3561.
[31] Zhang, B., Soltani, S., Le, L. and Asmatulu, R. (2017). Fabrication and assessment of a thin
flexible surface coating made of pristine graphene for lightning strike protection. Materials Science
and Engineering: B, 216, pp.31-40.
[32] Zhang, B., Patlolla, V., Chiao, D., Kalla, D., Misak, H. and Asmatulu, R. (2012). Galvanic
corrosion of Al/Cu meshes with carbon fibers and graphene and ITO-based nanocomposite coatings as
alternative approaches for lightning strikes. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 67(5-8), pp.1317-1323.
[33] Manoj, P., Joseph, B., Vaidyan, V. and Amma, D. (2007). Preparation and characterization of
indium-doped tin oxide thin films. Ceramics International, 33(2), pp.273-278.
[34] Li, Y., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Wang, H., Huang, Z., Peijs, T. and Bilotti, E. (2018). Synergistic
effects of spray-coated hybrid carbon nanoparticles for enhanced electrical and thermal surface
conductivity of CFRP laminates. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 105, pp.9-
18.
[35] Yokozeki, T., Goto, T., Takahashi, T., Qian, D., Itou, S., Hirano, Y., Ishida, Y., Ishibashi, M. and
Ogasawara, T. (2015). Development and characterization of CFRP using a polyaniline-based
conductive thermoset matrix. Composites Science and Technology, 117, pp.277-281.
Jasper Hughes, 2018

[36] Kumar, V., Yokozeki, T., Goto, T. and Takahashi, T. (2015). Mechanical and electrical properties
of PANI-based conductive thermosetting composites. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites,
34(16), pp.1298-1305.
[37] Hirano, Y., Yokozeki, T., Ishida, Y., Goto, T., Takahashi, T., Qian, D., Ito, S., Ogasawara, T. and
Ishibashi, M. (2016). Lightning damage suppression in a carbon fiber-reinforced polymer with a
polyaniline-based conductive thermoset matrix. Composites Science and Technology, 127, pp.1-7.
[38] Kamiyama, S., Hirano, Y., Okada, T. and Ogasawara, T. (2018). Lightning strike damage
behavior of carbon fiber reinforced epoxy, bismaleimide, and polyetheretherketone composites.
Composites Science and Technology, 161, pp.107-114.
[39] Bauhofer, W. and Kovacs, J. (2009). A review and analysis of electrical percolation in carbon
nanotube polymer composites. Composites Science and Technology, 69(10), pp.1486-1498.
[40] Gagne, M. 2016, Properties of Lightning Strike Protection Coatings, Ecole Polytechnique,
Montreal (Canada)
[41] Tang, Y. and Gou, J. (2010). Synergistic effect on electrical conductivity of few-layer
graphene/multi-walled carbon nanotube paper. Materials Letters, 64(22), pp.2513-2516.
[42] Li, Y., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Wang, H., Huang, Z., Peijs, T. and Bilotti, E. (2018). Synergistic
effects of spray-coated hybrid carbon nanoparticles for enhanced electrical and thermal surface
conductivity of CFRP laminates. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 105, pp.9-
18.
[43] Zhang, D., Ye, L., Deng, S., Zhang, J., Tang, Y. and Chen, Y. (2012). CF/EP composite laminates
with carbon black and copper chloride for improved electrical conductivity and interlaminar fracture
toughness. Composites Science and Technology, 72(3), pp.412-420.
[44] HIRANO, Y., KATSUMATA, S., IWAHORI, Y. and TODOROKI, A. (2009). PS04 Effect of
added cup stacked CNF on lightning damage behavior of CFRP. The Proceedings of the Materials and
Mechanics Conference, 2009(0), pp.431-433.