INDUSTRY NEWS


FEATURE SPONSOR


CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS OF NON-TESTING


The oil & gas industries have regular safety and integrity testing schedules for all working components but the wind industry continue to leave far too much to chance


That’s the stark view of renewable engineering specialists, Prontoport, following an incident recently where a turbine blade detached in motion, crashing into the side of the tower structure and causing such damage that the whole turbine collapsed.


This is not an isolated incident and at least one other event where a blade has become detached has been reported previously in the UK, in addition to other known failures in European installations.


HARSH ENVIRONMENTS


In the harsh environments of most windfarms and with ageing kit, problems can only be expected to multiply, according to Prontoport.


Phillip Hodgson is an experienced turbine technician, carrying out a range of testing regimes for the company across the UK and Europe. He commented: “Typically, we may be invited to sample test 5 or 10% of existing turbines and only if significant defects are found, will the exercise be extended to cover the remaining installations. “Yet even when an engineering report is produced, based on hard facts gained through ultrasonic NDT (non-destructive testing), often we find that companies still don’t want to face up to the implications.


ASSOCIATED NECESSARY COSTS


Phillip continued: “Clearly there are costs associated with ongoing NDT but this is the only way to stop potentially catastrophic failures happening without warning. It’s not enough to say that most windfarms are in remote locations and any damage would be contained, as failures of this magnitude pose danger to life of workers, livestock, visitors and anyone in the vicinity.


“It has been estimated that a blade, weighing up to 28,000kg, could travel as much as two miles if it sheared off in motion and at an appropriate trajectory. This does not bear thinking about and could result in hefty penalties if companies can be proven to have ignored essential maintenance.


4


www.windenergynetwork.co.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68