Article

Prioritizing Research for Enhancing the Technology Readiness

Level of Wind Turbine Blade Leading-Edge Erosion Solutions
Sara C. Pryor 1, * , Rebecca J. Barthelmie 2 , Jacob J. Coburn 1 , Xin Zhou 1 , Marianne Rodgers 3 , Heather Norton 3 ,
M. Sergio Campobasso 4 , Beatriz Méndez López 5 , Charlotte Bay Hasager 6 and Leon Mishnaevsky, Jr. 6

1 Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA;
jjc457@cornell.edu (J.J.C.); xin.zhou@cornell.edu (X.Z.)
2 Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA;
rb737@cornell.edu
3 Wind Energy Institute of Canada, Tignish, PE C0B 2B0, Canada; marianne.rodgers@weican.ca (M.R.);
heather.norton@weican.ca (H.N.)
4 School of Engineering, University of Lancaster, Lancaster LA1 4YW, UK; m.s.campobasso@lancaster.ac.uk
5 National Renewable Energy Center (CENER), 31621 Sarriguren, Spain; bmendez@cener.com
6 Department of Wind and Energy Systems, Technical University of Denmark, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark;
cbha@dtu.dk (C.B.H.); lemi@dtu.dk (L.M.J.)
* Correspondence: sp2279@cornell.edu; Tel.: +1-607-255-3376

Abstract: An enhanced understanding of the mechanisms responsible for wind turbine blade leading-
edge erosion (LEE) and advancing technology readiness level (TRL) solutions for monitoring its
environmental drivers, reducing LEE, detecting LEE evolution, and mitigating its impact on power
production are a high priority for all wind farm owners/operators and wind turbine manufacturers.
Identifying and implementing solutions has the potential to continue historical trends toward lower
Levelized Cost of Energy (LCoE) from wind turbines by reducing both energy yield losses and opera-
tions and maintenance costs associated with LEE. Here, we present results from the first Phenomena
Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRT) assessment for wind turbine blade LEE. We document the
Citation: Pryor, S.C.; Barthelmie, R.J.;
LEE-relevant phenomena/processes that are deemed by this expert judgment assessment tool to
Coburn, J.J.; Zhou, X.; Rodgers, M.; be the highest priorities for research investment within four themes: atmospheric drivers, damage
Norton, H.; Campobasso, M.S.; López, detection and quantification, material response, and aerodynamic implications. The highest priority
B.M.; Hasager, C.B.; Mishnaevsky, L., issues, in terms of importance to LEE but where expert judgment indicates that there is a lack of
Jr. Prioritizing Research for Enhancing fundamental knowledge, and/or implementation in measurement, and modeling is incomplete
the Technology Readiness Level of include the accurate quantification of hydrometeor size distribution (HSD) and phase, the translation
Wind Turbine Blade Leading-Edge of water impingement to material loss/stress, the representation of operating conditions within rain
Erosion Solutions. Energies 2024, 17, erosion testers, the quantification of damage and surface roughness progression through time, and
6285. https://doi.org/10.3390/
the aerodynamic losses as a function of damage morphology. We discuss and summarize examples
en17246285
of research endeavors that are currently being undertaken and/or could be initiated to reduce un-
Academic Editor: Davide Astolfi certainty in the identified high-priority research areas and thus enhance the TRLs of solutions to
mitigate/reduce LEE.
Received: 10 October 2024
Revised: 27 November 2024
Accepted: 3 December 2024
Keywords: blades; expert judgment; LEE; machine learning; PIRT; TRL; wind turbine
Published: 13 December 2024

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. 1.1. Background and Motivation
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
The global wind resource greatly exceeds both current electricity demand and total
This article is an open access article
primary energy supply [1]. Wind energy is a potential mechanism to reduce energy-
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
related environmental issues (e.g., anthropogenic climate forcing [2]) and to enhance
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
energy security [3,4]. Many countries have ambitious plans to expand both onshore and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ offshore wind energy installed capacity [5]. Thus, it is expected that more wind turbines
4.0/). will be deployed, and we will become increasingly reliant on them for electricity generation.

Energies 2024, 17, 6285. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17246285 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2024, 17, 6285 2 of 29

The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCoE) in $/MWh of electricity can be computed from
n
∑in=1 (CAPEX n + O&Mn )/(1 + r )
LCoE = n (1)
∑in=1 AEP/(1 + r )

where CAPEX = capital expenditures in each year (n); O&M = operations and maintenance
costs in each year; r = annual discount rate; AEP = amount of electricity (in MWh) produced
each year; i = wind turbine lifetime in years.
In locations with good wind resources, onshore wind energy has the lowest LCoE of
any electricity generation type [6]. However, LCoE from onshore wind energy is no longer
declining [7], and costs for offshore deployments exceed those for onshore [8].
O&M typically account for 25–30% of the lifecycle LCoE from wind turbines [9].
Blades contribute > 20% of the overall cost of wind turbines [10], and blade integrity is
a fundamental determinant of both O&M and power generation (AEP). An important
contributing factor to wind turbine blade lifespan is leading-edge erosion (LEE). LEE refers
to the material loss of wind turbine blade coatings leading to exposure and ultimately loss
of the laminate that provides the structure of the blade. It results primarily from materials
stresses induced when hydrometeors (e.g., rain droplets or hailstones) impact the rapidly
rotating blades [11–14]. The material loss leads to a roughening of the surface, reducing
lift and increasing drag [15], and thus negatively impacts AEP [15–19]. LEE requiring
emergency blade repair can occur within two years of installation [20], which is far short
of the expected lifetime of 30 years [21]. O&M expenditures associated with total blade
replacement for onshore wind turbines are >$200,000 and blade replacement may lead to
multiple days of lost power production [22].
Wind turbines being deployed offshore are physically larger and have both longer
blades and higher tip speeds than those deployed onshore [23]. This leads to higher closing
velocities with falling hydrometeors, higher materials stresses [20], and thus a higher
erosion rate [24,25]. Wind turbines being deployed at the South Fork Wind Farm off the
USA East Coast are GE Haliade-X 13 MW machines with blades 107 m in length, each of
which weighs 55 tons [26]. These wind turbines have maximum tip speeds of >90 ms−1 .
The 22 MW reference wind turbine that has recently been released for use in offshore
research [27] has even longer blades and a rated tip speed of 105 ms−1 . Manufacturing
defects and damage during transportation/deployment are likely enhanced in longer
blades [28,29] and even small imperfections may be important sites for the initiation of
LEE [29]. Thus, LEE issues may be particularly prominent offshore where O&M costs are
much higher [23], and the avoidance of excess maintenance is paramount to reducing the
LCoE. In 2018, Renew.Biz reported that the consortium behind the 630 MW London Array
in the UK was planning “emergency” blade repair to 140 of the project’s 175 wind turbines
and that ‘A similar repair campaign has begun at Orsted’s 400 MW Anholt wind farm
off Denmark, where 87 of 111 . . .. . . turbines are being fitted with rubber-like shells to fix
the problem’.
LEE thus represents an important challenge to the cost-effectiveness and reliability of
wind-derived electricity and there is a need to advance the fundamental understanding of
the processes that cause LEE and to advance effective solutions.

1.2. The Interdisciplinary Nature of LEE: Introduction to the Four LEE Themes
Over 40 years ago, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration intro-
duced “technology readiness levels” (TRLs) as a conceptual framework for measuring and
articulating the maturity, or readiness for deployment, of emerging technologies. TRL
assessments are usually based on a 9-point scale with higher values indicating more mature
technologies and lower values indicating more nascent technologies that are in the stages
of basic research, or feasibility studies [30,31].
Enhancement of the TRLs for solutions to mitigate/reduce LEE requires multidisci-
plinary research within four linked themes (Figure 1). Theme 1 is focused on the atmo-
spheric drivers of LEE and thus requires research primarily in the field of atmospheric
 Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3

Energies 2024, 17, 6285 Enhancement of the TRLs for solutions to mitigate/reduce LEE requires 3 of 29 multid
plinary research within four linked themes (Figure 1). Theme 1 is focused on the at
pheric drivers of LEE and thus requires research primarily in the field of atmospheri
science. Theme 2 is Theme
ence. focused2on the detection
is focused on theand quantification
detection of blade damage
and quantification and thus
of blade damage and
requires research primarily
requires within
research imagingwithin
primarily and image
imagingprocessing
and imageplusprocessing
acoustic monitoring.
plus acoustic mon
Theme 3 is focused on blade
ing. Theme 3 is response/redesign/repair/protection and thus requires
focused on blade response/redesign/repair/protection andre-thus req
search primarily within the material science field. Theme 4 is focused on the
research primarily within the material science field. Theme 4 is focused ondetection of the dete
aerodynamic changes due to LEE and the estimation of resulting power reduction and
of aerodynamic changes due to LEE and the estimation of resulting power reduction thus
requires research
thus primarily within the
requires research field of within
primarily aerodynamics.
the field All themes furtherAll
of aerodynamics. require
themes furthe
advances in computational
quire advancestools and measurement
in computational tools technologies.
and measurement An introduction toAn
technologies. eachintroducti
of these themes is briefly
each of thesegiven
themesbelow.
is briefly given below.

Figure 1. Schematic
Figureoverview of the
1. Schematic four LEE
overview themes.
of the RET
four LEE = rain RET
themes. erosion tester.
= rain Arrows
erosion tester.show
Arrows show
mary information
primary information links
links between thebetween
themes. the themes.

1.2.1. Theme 1—Atmospheric Drivers of LEE

1.2.1. Theme 1—Atmospheric Drivers of LEE
The amount of The amount of kinetic energyinto
kinetic energy transferred the bladeinto
transferred from anblade
the ensemble
from ofanfalling
ensemble of fa
hydrometeorshydrometeors
and the material response is dictated by the closing velocity
and the material response is dictated by the closing (v c ) between the (vc) betw
velocity
falling hydrometeor(s) and the rotating blades, plus the number, diameter (D), and phase of
the falling hydrometeor(s) and the rotating blades, plus the number, diameter (D)
hydrometeors (i.e., hailstones, graupel, or rain droplets). The impact force and the kinetic
phase of hydrometeors (i.e., hailstones, graupel, or rain droplets). The impact force
energy transferred into the coating scales with the hydrometeor mass and closing velocity
the kinetic energy transferred into the coating scales with the hydrometeor mass and
squared [32]. Larger diameter drops may be of greater importance in dictating the kinetic
ing velocity squared [34]. Larger diameter drops may be of greater importance in dict
energy transfer to the blades and hence the duration of the incubation period (i.e., the period
the kinetic energy transfer to the blades and hence the duration of the incubation pe
prior to material loss, see details below) [14,33] while smaller drops may be more critical in
(i.e., the period prior to material loss, see details below) [16,35] while smaller drops
the transition and steady state progression [34]. The water-hammer equation describes the
be more critical in the transition and steady state progression [36]. The water-ham
pressure exerted on a coating by the impact as a function of closing velocity [32,35,36]. For
equation describes the pressure exerted on a coating by the impact as a function of clo
vc = 80 ms−1 , a single 2 mm diameter rain droplet may exert a pressure of up to 120 MPa
velocity [34,37,38]. For vc = 80 ms−1, a single 2 mm diameter rain droplet may exert a
on the blade surface [32]. The hydrometeor phase is of importance because the material
sure of up to 120 MPa on the blade surface [34]. The hydrometeor phase is of import
response to hail (ice) exceeds that due to collisions with rain (liquid) droplets [32,37–40]. As
becauseimpacts
few as five hailstone the material
(D of response
15 and 20to hailat(ice)
mm) vc ≥exceeds
110 msthat due
−1 can to collisions
cause damage with
to a rain (liq
droplets [34,39–42]. As few as five hailstone impacts (D of 15 and
glass-fiber-reinforced plastic composite [41]. Thus, the prediction of LEE requires accurate 20 mm) at vc ≥ 110
and consistent descriptions of hydroclimate conditions, including precipitation intensity,the predi
can cause damage to a glass-fiber-reinforced plastic composite [43]. Thus,
of LEE requires
phase, and hydrometeor accurate and (HSD)
size distributions consistent
fromdescriptions
measurements of hydroclimate conditions, in
and models across
the wide range ingofprecipitation
environmentsintensity,
in whichphase, and hydrometeor
wind turbines are or will size distributions
be deployed. (HSD) from m
However,
urements and models across the wide range of environments
as discussed in detail below, best practice for the selection and operation of precipitationin which wind turbine
sensors within the context of LEE has not yet been advanced [14], and numerical models
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 4 of 29

exhibit only partial fidelity for precipitation rate and phase, and most simulations do not
explicitly simulate or output HSD.
A hierarchy of models have been generated to translate precipitation intensity/HSD
and closing velocities to estimates of potential erosion. First-order erosion models rely on
the volume (or depth) of impinged water without the explicit consideration of hydrometeor
size and/or phase [24]. Alternatively, VN curves (velocity–number of impacts to failure,
see ‘material response’) derived from rain erosion testers can be used to articulate functions
that describe the number of impacts at a given closing velocity for a given hydrometeor
diameter required for the initiation of coating damage and that can be used (with caution)
to extend beyond the measured range of closing velocities. For example, assuming all
hydrometeors have the same effective diameter, the accumulated distance to failure (ADF)
of the coating is given by the following:
Vtip · I ·∆t
j
vf
ADF = ∑ 
vc
m (2)
i =1 H0 · V0

where V 0 is 1 ms−1 , vc is the closing velocity between the hydrometeor and blade, vf is
the hydrometeor fall velocity (ms−1 ), ∆t is the time interval (s) for the specification of the
tip speed and precipitation intensity (I, in ms−1 ). H0 and m are fitting parameters that
are specific to the coating material tested, but for one coating and D = 0.76, these fitting
parameters are 2.85 × 1022 m and −10.5, respectively [42]. The summation is over all time
periods: i = 1 to j. Thus, the challenge is to specify a representative effective diameter to
characterize the precipitation that falls from stratiform and cumulus clouds and over a
wide range of intensity ranges [43]. More mechanistic models require greater specificity in
terms of the HSD/phase and range of fall velocities and are described below in Theme 3.
Less is known regarding the possible contribution of other meteorological variables
to LEE. Prolonged exposure to radiation within the visible range, and particularly UV-A
(wavelengths (λ) = 320 and 400 nm), may lead to the degradation of polyurethane coat-
ings [32,44]. Theoretical and experimental work has also indicated that low temperatures
degrade the erosion performance of polyurethane-protective leading-edge coatings [45].
Thermal cycling (expansion and contraction of the blades) is an important source of mate-
rial wear [46]. Other plausible meteorological co-stressors include impacts from aerosols
(e.g., wind-blown dust/sand [47,48]) and ice accretion on blades [49].

1.2.2. Theme 2—Damage Detection and Quantification

LEE pattern categorization frequently employs five classes, with Class 1 “small pin-
holes” exhibiting an erosion depth of 0.1–0.2 mm, an average feature damage of 2 mm,
and an approximate cord coverage of 3% [17]. Even Class 1 LEE may result in AEP loss.
The early detection and close monitoring of damage progress can help optimize mitigation
strategies and identify appropriate maintenance actions (patching and minor repair to
full-scale blade removal) [50–53].
Current techniques for real-time wind turbine blade damage detection [54,55] include
vibration-based techniques [56], ultrasound scanning techniques [57], acoustic emission
monitoring [58], and machine vision, image, or video processing [59]. Three out of four of
these LEE detection methods (acoustic emission, ultrasound, vibration-based techniques)
require the use of physical sensors placed along the blade or near the wind turbine, which
can be costly and vulnerable to damage in extreme meteorological conditions [60]. Image
processing methods can be used to assess blade conditions from 2D and 3D images or
videos captured by instrumentation deployed on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) [61] or
taken by technicians [62]. However, as discussed below, the fidelity of different damage
detection methods has not been fully quantified.
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 5 of 29

1.2.3. Theme 3—Material Response

Wind turbine blades are made of composites (e.g., epoxy or polyester, with reinforcing
glass or carbon fibers) [63] coated to protect them by distributing and absorbing energy
from hydrometeor and other impacts [64]. Defects such as air bubbles in these coatings
have a critical impact on crack initialization [65] and re-emphasize the importance of wind
turbine blade manufacturing quality in dictating erosion rates.
Erosion mechanics comprises an incubation period during which no damage is ob-
served but microstructural material changes can generate nucleation sites for subsequent
material removal. Material removal commences when a threshold level of accumulated
impacts is reached [66]. This is followed by a period during which additional impacts lead
to observable damage as stress waves propagate from impact locations. This leads to the
growth of pits/cracks and an increase in material loss [67–69]. The number of impacts
required to reach the threshold at which material failure becomes evident is thus a nonlinear
function of the number, magnitude, and phase of the hydrometeors and the hydrometeor
closing velocity plus the material strength [70].
Whirling Arm Rain ERosion testers (WARERs, or more simply rain erosion testers,
RET) artificially simulate the erosion process by spinning a sample of the blade, often with
a leading-edge protection applied, at very high speeds and bombarding the sample with
liquid droplets (of a confined droplet diameter range) supplied via needles [71]. These
experiments can be used to develop VN curves and thus to derive empirical coefficients for
use in Equation (2). However, the range of closing velocities sampled and used to derive
the fitting parameters m and H0 specified below in Equation (2) for hydrometeor D of
0.76 mm are 90 to 150 ms−1 , and thus exceed many of those that will occur.
Alternatively, a range of modeling techniques have been advanced to simulate the pro-
cess of material stresses that lead to LEE as a function of hydrometeor size distribution and
closing velocity [68,70,72]. The simplest method is to employ the Springer model [73,74]
combined with Miner’s rule to integrate across all hydrometeor diameters (and time) to
quantify the accumulated distance to failure (ADF) [66,75]. However, these simple engi-
neering models of LEE include multiple coefficients/assumptions that limit the robustness
of lifetime estimates, and when invoking Miner’s rule, the damage is assumed to be linearly
accumulated.

1.2.4. Theme 4—Aerodynamic Implications

A smooth leading edge reduces turbulence and drag, optimizing the lift-to-drag ratio
of a wind turbine blade. The outer part of the blade (toward the tip) produces most of
the energy and experiences the highest relative wind speeds. Thus, the leading edge
toward the blade tip is both the most vulnerable to roughening by material loss and is
also where reducing lift/increasing drag maximizes the negative impacts on the AEP. The
maximum lift force on blades has been modeled to be reduced for damage associated with
roughness heights of 0.11 mm for a rotor with a 175 m diameter [16]. Erosion classes 3
to 5 (large patches of missing coating, the erosion of laminate, and the complete loss of
laminate, respectively), are associated with AEP reductions of 1–5% [76]. Recent reports
found LEE-induced AEP losses from onshore wind turbines after only 1–3 years [77], but
there is a paucity of data regarding underlying blade LEE topologies. The damage location
on the blade is known to play a critical role in the alteration of the aerodynamic behavior,
and so there are clear links between Themes 2 and 4 [78].
The Simplified Aerodynamic Loss Tool (SALT) [79] can be used to illustrate the pre-
dicted effect of erosion on the power coefficient (CP ) and the AEP loss relative to clean or
undamaged blades, while acknowledging that it omits many of the details of more complex
models [80]. Within SALT, damage is specified in 2% increments over the outer 70% of the
blade (location r as a fraction of blade radius R) using a five-level categorization. Category
a is undamaged, and the lift-to-drag ratio loss factor is 1. Category e represents the most
severe damage which is deeper than 0.3% of the blade chord and the lift-to-drag ratio loss
factor = 0.3. For the IEA 15 MW reference wind turbine [81] and a hub-height wind speed
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 28

Energies 2024, 17, 6285 6 of 29

the most severe damage which is deeper than 0.3% of the blade chord and the lift-to-drag
ratio loss factor = 0.3. For the IEA 15 MW reference wind turbine [83] and a hub-height
wind
of 10 ms −1 , the
speed of 10
CPms for−1,an
the CP for undamaged
entirely an entirely undamaged bladereducing
blade is ~0.4551, is ~0.4551, it reducing
to ~0.2907itforto
~0.2907
categoryfor category C
e damage. ePdamage.
correctionCP factors
correction factors (multipliers
(multipliers to CP) as
to CP ) are shown area shown
function asofa
r/R in Figure −1 . The impact
function of r/R2ainfor a wind
Figure 2aspeed of 10 ms
for a wind speed of 10 ms−1. Theof the roughening
impact of the leading
of the roughening of
edgeleading
the on the edge
bladeon liftthe
and draglift
blade andandthedrag
powerandproduction
the powerisproduction
a nonlinearisfunction
a nonlinear of inflow
func-
wind
tion ofspeed
inflowand is specifically
wind speed andimportant at theimportant
is specifically below-rated wind
at the speeds (Figure
below-rated wind2b) and
speeds
also depends on turbulence intensity [19]. Thus, the AEP loss is dependent
(Figure 2b) and also depends on turbulence intensity [21]. Thus, the AEP loss is dependent on the site’s
wind
on theclimate. Assuming
site’s wind climate. a Weibull
Assumingdistribution
a Weibull of distribution
hub-height wind speeds forwind
of hub-height a typical US
speeds
Central
for Plains
a typical USsite [14], the
Central AEPsite
Plains loss for the
[16], different erosion
AEP loss levels along
for different the outer
erosion levels70%alongof the
blade 70%
outer is shown
of theinblade
Figureis2c. Whileinthis
shown analysis
Figure is useful
2c. While thisfor illustrative
analysis purposes,
is useful uniform
for illustrative
damage is unlikely to occur across such large areas of a blade, thus
purposes, uniform damage is unlikely to occur across such large areas of a blade, thus thethe AEP loss estimates
greatly
AEP lossexceed those
estimates that are
greatly likelythose
exceed to bethat
observed. Further,
are likely the attribution
to be observed. of any
Further, the loss in
attrib-
blade performance to any specific cause (e.g., LEE, gearbox wear-and-tear,
ution of any loss in blade performance to any specific cause (e.g., LEE, gearbox wear-and- the soiling of
blades)
tear, theissoiling
very challenging
of blades) is[82,83], particularly
very challenging in operating
[84,85], windinfarms.
particularly operating wind farms.

Figure 2. Results from the SALT model for (a) CP correction factors as a function of distance along
Figure 2. Results from the SALT model for (a) CP correction factors as a function of distance along the
the blade for a clean blade (shown by the blue line, Category a damage) and substantial damage
blade for a clean blade (shown by the blue line, Category a damage) and substantial damage (shown
(shown by the black line, Category e damage) along the outer two-thirds of the blade for a hub-
by the black
height wind line,
speedCategory
of 10 mse−1damage) along
for the IEA 15 the
MW outer two-thirds
reference windof the blade
turbine. (b) for a hub-height
Power wind
curves (power
speed of 10 ms −1 for the IEA 15 MW reference wind turbine. (b) Power curves (power generation as
generation as a function of hub-height wind speed) for the IEA 15 MW reference wind turbine for a
a function
clean bladeof(Category
hub-height wind speed)
a damage) and afor the IEAblade
damaged 15 MW reference
(Category wind turbine
e damage). for aloss
(c) AEP clean
for blade
dam-
age categories
(Category a to e and
a damage) and o3e (level 3 blade
a damaged damage only fore the
(Category outer one-third
damage). (c) AEP lossof the blade) for
for damage the IEA
categories
15
a toMW reference
e and wind
o3e (level turbineonly
3 damage andfor
thethe
Weibull-distributed
outer one-third ofwind speeds
the blade) forfrom a US15Southern
the IEA Great
MW reference
Plains site [16].
wind turbine and the Weibull-distributed wind speeds from a US Southern Great Plains site [14].

Optimizing O&M as LEE progresses for cost-effectiveness

cost-effectiveness requires not only accurate
damage assessment but also a robust, quantitative understanding
understanding of the effect effect of LEE on
blade aerodynamics. For example, if the damage is minor pitting pitting without
without material
material losses,
losses,
the aerodynamic
aerodynamicefficiency
efficiencymaymayonly
onlybebeslightly lower
slightly lowerthan its design,
than and and
its design, potentially only
potentially
impacts
only the aerodynamics
impacts at some
the aerodynamics tip speed
at some ratios.ratios.
tip speed In thisIncase,
this unless the damage
case, unless is likely
the damage is
to propagate,
likely it may be
to propagate, morebecost-effective
it may to wait rather
more cost-effective to waitthan to order
rather than repairs.
to orderOn the other
repairs. On
hand,
the if material
other hand, ifdamage
materialhas penetrated
damage beyond thebeyond
has penetrated blade coating,
the bladeeven a smalleven
coating, gouge may
a small
potentially leave open the possibility of further material loss and extensive
gouge may potentially leave open the possibility of further material loss and extensive delamination
impacting not impacting
delamination only the aerodynamics
not only thebut necessitatingbut
aerodynamics costly on-site repairs.
necessitating costly on-site re-
pairs.
1.3. Possible Solutions for Leading-Edge Erosion
Fundamentally,
1.3. Possible Solutions efforts to reduce Erosion
for Leading-Edge LEE can be placed into two classes:
• Enhanced blade efforts
Fundamentally, resilience: This may
to reduce LEE be
canachieved byinto
be placed blade
tworedesign
classes: and/or the use
of improved materials (e.g., more energy consuming coatings) [84,85], improved
• Enhanced blade resilience: This may be achieved by blade redesign and/or the use of
manufacturing, and/or the use of leading-edge protection (LEP) products. A range
improved materials (e.g., more energy consuming coatings) [86,87], improved man-
of LEP products are available including the following: (1) In-mould application
ufacturing, and/or the use of leading-edge protection (LEP) products. A range of LEP
of a gelcoat (e.g., epoxy) during blade manufacturing or co-bonding to an erosion
products are available including the following: (1) In-mould application of a gelcoat
shield (rigid/semi-rigid covers). (2) Post-mould application of flexible coatings (e.g.,
polyurethane [86]) using sprayers/rollers or flexible tapes [87] or thermoplastic ero-
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 7 of 29

sion shields [88]. The details of the relative merits of these solutions, including their
durability have been previously reviewed [20,89,90]. Best practice for the optimal
length of LEP from the tip of the blade is being investigated [91] as is the optimal
thickness of application [92]. All protective solutions incur additional costs and reduc-
tions in aerodynamic performance and AEP. For example, some research has reported
2–3% AEP losses from LEP tapes [15,87]. Further, some post-mould LEP products are
challenging to apply (see below, Section 3.4) and/or lack durability [93].
• Operation of wind turbines in a manner to reduce materials stresses: Specifically, use
of erosion safe mode [11] wherein wind turbine operation is modified during highly
erosive periods to reduce blade rotational speed, thus sacrificing the AEP to elongate
blade lifetime [94].
Both classes of solution require a detailed assessment of site conditions regarding likely
severity of LEE since the incubation, transition, and steady state progression of damage on
the leading edge differs as a function of precipitation climate and possibly other operating
conditions [16]. A quantitative comparison of overall cost effectiveness requires detailed
information regarding (i) AEP loss from LEE, LEP application (including down-time if
LEP is applied post-commissioning) and/or the adoption of erosion safe mode. (ii) The
cost of LEP measures and the expense of deployment [22] and robust economic/financial
information such as the spot market price for electricity [95]. Ultimately, an optimal solution
is likely to be one which maximizes revenues over a specific period of time for a given
wind farm [96]. The consideration of either solution type for a given situation demands
robust knowledge of processes/phenomena in each of the four themes described above.
Thus, the issue confronting the wind energy industry is how to prioritize research to reduce
uncertainty and increase confidence for wind farm owners/operators and enhance the TRL
for LEE mitigation.

1.4. Objectives of This Work

Our goal is to map priorities for LEE research that can enhance the technology readi-
ness levels for LEE solutions such as those described in Section 1.3, and thus aid in reducing
the LCoE from wind turbines. To achieve this goal, we undertook, and herein present,
the first Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRT) assessment for wind tur-
bine blade LEE (Section 2). Following the presentation of the PIRT analysis, we discuss
the research required and/or being conducted to address the highest priority research
needs identified during the PIRT process and that are necessary to enhanced TRLs of LEE
solutions (Section 3). We conclude in Section 4 by describing the next steps.

2. PIRT
The PIRT process (MATLAB R2024a from MathWorks) is a systematic way of gathering
information regarding processes on a specific concept and ranking their importance to meet
some decision-making objective such as the prioritization of research activities to enhance
the TRL. PIRT has been widely applied within, for example, nuclear safety [22,97,98], but is
gaining traction in other disciplines [99].
A schematic workflow of the PIRT process as applied in this research is given in
Figure 3. Steps 1 and 2 require the identification of a topic of interest and then the articu-
lation of the PIRT objective(s). To aid in structuring the PIRT by thematically clustering
processes/phenomena, in Step 3 four LEE themes were articulated (Section 1). The PIRT
analysis then proceeded by polling experts to identify key phenomena in each of these LEE
themes, acknowledging that some phenomena cross the thematic boundaries. Following
best practice in prior PIRT analyses [22], once each of the processes/phenomena were
identified, domain experts were asked to provide for each a ranking of ‘high’, ‘medium’, or
‘low’ priority. To derive a mean ranking and the standard deviation (SD) across respondents,
rankings of ‘high’ were allocated 1 point, medium as 0.5, and low as 0. As an example,
the need for hydrometeor size distributions (HSD) (jointly with wind speeds) to inform
LEE assessment was given a mean ranking of 0.86 and the standard deviation was 0.32
 Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 28

Energies 2024, 17, 6285 ‘low’ priority. To derive a mean ranking and the standard deviation (SD) across respond-8 of 29
ents, rankings of ‘high’ were allocated 1 point, medium as 0.5, and low as 0. As an exam-
ple, the need for hydrometeor size distributions (HSD) (jointly with wind speeds) to in-
form LEE
(Table assessment
1). These was given
rankings a mean>80%
are because rankingof of 0.86 and thegave
respondents standard deviation
a ranking was and
of high,
0.32 (Table 1). These rankings are because >80% of respondents
approximately 10% gave a ranking of either medium or low. gave a ranking of high,
and approximately 10% gave a ranking of either medium or low.

Figure
Figure 3. Workflowof
3. Workflow ofthe
thePIRT
PIRTprocess.
process.Steps
Stepsinin red
red indicate
indicate solicitation
solicitation of expert
of expert judgments.
judgments.

TableThe second
1. PIRT component
analysis of PIRT
results. Column analyses (Step 6) is of
1: Processes/phenomena to interest.
evaluate the state
Columns of knowledge
2 and 3: Mean
with
(mean) ranking and the standard deviation (SD) of the rankings across respondents. Expertaspects:
respect to each process/phenomenon. Here, we broke this down into two judg-
ment What
1. evaluation of state
is the the knowledge regarding
of knowledge each process/phenomenon
regarding as translated
this phenomenon/process andinto
howstate-of-
well has
the-art measurements (columns 4 and 5) and modeling (columns 6 and 7). Items in black have high
knowledge regarding this process/phenomenon been translated into measurement
importance (mean > 0.8) and process-level understanding has been well translated to measurement
technologies
technologies and/or and data (mean
modeling analysis procedures?
> 0.5). Processes/phenomena in red have high importance
2.
(meanWhat
> 0.8) is the
but state of knowledge
process-level knowledgeregarding this phenomenon/process
is lacking and/or and how
translation of that knowledge well has
to meas-
knowledge
urement and modeling regarding thisisprocess/phenomenon
capabilities poor (mean < 0.5) and thusbeen
aretranslated into1 for
defined as tier state-of-the-art
research.
Items modeling tools?
in blue are tier 2 priorities for research; moderate importance (0.5 < mean < 0.8) and process-
level knowledge and translation to models and measurements are incomplete (mean < 0.6). Items in
Conceptually, the goal of this combined rating system is to identify phenomena/
green have importance level scores (mean < 0.5). Note: processes/phenomena are listed in the order
processes that
in which they have
were high importance
presented and where
to the respondents to avoidcritical knowledge
confusion gapsorder
that the ranked preclude
of im- full
treatment of those phenomena/processes in numerical models
portance is systematically a function of the row number in the PIRT. or current measurement
technologies and data analysis tools. Such phenomena/processes will have high impor-
Processes/Phenomena
tance ratings but low measurement/modeling ratings. Advancing
Importance Level
Measurementknowledge for these
Modeling

Theme 1:topics is most

Atmospheric likely to enhance TRLs forMean
drivers LEE solutions.
SD In Mean
this preliminary
SD PIRT SD
Mean analysis,
Hub-height windrespondents
speeds: existingwere also encouraged to supply
wind farms 0.92 narratives
0.19 explaining
1 their
0 rankings.
0.73 0.26
Hub-height wind speeds:Based on PIRT,
prospective one can identify key processes
wind farms 0.91 and phenomena
0.2 0.82 that are
0.25 of high
0.68 0.25impor-
Hydrometeor
tancesize butdistribution
where the state-of-the-art ability0.86 to measure 0.32or simulate
0.27 them
0.41 is deemed
0.2 0.26
good. An
Hydrometeor phase (rain/hail/other) 0.91 0.3
example is hub-height wind speeds at operating wind farms.0.36 0.39
These wind 0.14
speeds 0.23
are critical
Hydrometeor fall velocities 0.58 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.32 0.34
to power production and blade tip speed0.55
Impinged water (blade capture efficiency as a function of droplet diameter)
predictions.
0.44
The mean
0.15
ranking
0.34
for
0.1
phenomena
0.21
importance
Real-time data was
for ‘erosion safe >0.9 with small standard0.68
mode’ deviation 0.25(≤0.2) 0.18
indicating
0.34 a consensus
0.46 0.33of this
ranking.
Space/time variability But theconditions
in hydroclimate ratings for the translation of knowledge
0.64 0.23 to measurements
0.59 0.2 and/or0.2models
0.59
is also
Non-hydrometeor weathering stressors (e.g.,rated as high.
UV radiation, Nacelle-mounted
icing, thermal expansion, anemometers and/or remote sensing technologies
0.55 0.27 0.18 0.25 0.27 0.34
aerosols (incl.
such dustasand pollution))
lidars have been demonstrated to have relatively high fidelity with respect to wind
Reanalysis/gridded product data quality 0.44 0.17 0.67 0.25 0.81 0.26
speeds within the rotor plane even in complex terrain [100] and offshore [101]. Multiple
Theme 2: Damage detection and quantification Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
modeling
Availability of blade images and methodsexercises have
to quantify also demonstrated
damage 0.83 that 0.25
numerical 0.54weather
0.33 prediction
0.5 (NWP)
0.33
models such as the Weather Research
Damage characterization from varying image types and methods to translate to dam- and Forecasting (WRF) model, particularly when
0.88 0.23 0.58 0.29 0.44 0.3
coupled
age with micro-scale flow models, also exhibit relatively high fidelity [102]. This does
classification
Methods for 3D characterization of damage
not imply morphology
that thereandisrate of progression
not 0.71
a need for continuing to0.26
improve0.25 0.26
measurement 0.18 0.25
and modeling
capabilities but that, in the context of LEE, other research activities should be prioritized.
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 9 of 29

Table 1. PIRT analysis results. Column 1: Processes/phenomena of interest. Columns 2 and 3:

Mean (mean) ranking and the standard deviation (SD) of the rankings across respondents. Expert
judgment evaluation of the knowledge regarding each process/phenomenon as translated into
state-of-the-art measurements (columns 4 and 5) and modeling (columns 6 and 7). Items in black
have high importance (mean > 0.8) and process-level understanding has been well translated to
measurement technologies and/or modeling (mean > 0.5). Processes/phenomena in red have high
importance (mean > 0.8) but process-level knowledge is lacking and/or translation of that knowledge
to measurement and modeling capabilities is poor (mean < 0.5) and thus are defined as tier 1 for
research. Items in blue are tier 2 priorities for research; moderate importance (0.5 < mean < 0.8) and
process-level knowledge and translation to models and measurements are incomplete (mean < 0.6).
Items in green have importance level scores (mean < 0.5). Note: processes/phenomena are listed in
the order in which they were presented to the respondents to avoid confusion that the ranked order
of importance is systematically a function of the row number in the PIRT.

Processes/Phenomena
Measurement Modeling
Importance Level
Theme 1: Atmospheric drivers Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Hub-height wind speeds: existing wind farms 0.92 0.19 1 0 0.73 0.26
Hub-height wind speeds: prospective wind
0.91 0.2 0.82 0.25 0.68 0.25
farms
Hydrometeor size distribution 0.86 0.32 0.27 0.41 0.2 0.26
Hydrometeor phase (rain/hail/other) 0.91 0.3 0.36 0.39 0.14 0.23
Hydrometeor fall velocities 0.58 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.32 0.34
Impinged water (blade capture efficiency as a
0.55 0.44 0.15 0.34 0.1 0.21
function of droplet diameter)
Real-time data for ‘erosion safe mode’ 0.68 0.25 0.18 0.34 0.46 0.33
Space/time variability in hydroclimate
0.64 0.23 0.59 0.2 0.59 0.2
conditions
Non-hydrometeor weathering stressors (e.g., UV
radiation, icing, thermal expansion, aerosols (incl. 0.55 0.27 0.18 0.25 0.27 0.34
dust and pollution))
Reanalysis/gridded product data quality 0.44 0.17 0.67 0.25 0.81 0.26
Theme 2: Damage detection and quantification Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Availability of blade images and methods to
0.83 0.25 0.54 0.33 0.5 0.33
quantify damage
Damage characterization from varying image
types and methods to translate to damage 0.88 0.23 0.58 0.29 0.44 0.3
classification
Methods for 3D characterization of damage
0.71 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.18 0.25
morphology and rate of progression
Translating water impingement to material
loss/stress (e.g., metrics: kinetic energy, 0.86 0.23 0.27 0.26 0.36 0.23
Springer–ADF, VN curves)
Quantification of material loss 0.71 0.26 0.5 0.39 0.27 0.26
Quantification of equivalent surface roughness
0.75 0.26 0.41 0.3 0.45 0.27
for aerodynamic loss
Microplastic loss for environmental impacts 0.5 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.26
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 10 of 29

Table 1. Cont.

Processes/Phenomena
Measurement Modeling
Importance Level
Theme 3: Material response Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Rain erosion tester reliability and reproducibility 0.92 0.19 0.59 0.3 0.4 0.21
Rain erosion tester representation of atmospheric
conditions: hydrometeors: phase (e.g., rain and 0.83 0.25 0.5 0.33 0.28 0.26
hail), size distributions and collision velocities
Rain erosion tester representation of atmospheric
0.71 0.33 0.45 0.28 0.28 0.36
conditions: flow field (e.g., impact velocities)
Methodologies to translate lab experimental data
(incl. rain erosion tester) to field conditions and 0.88 0.23 0.35 0.24 0.3 0.26
failure modes
Damping and energy dissipation properties of
0.67 0.25 0.32 0.25 0.45 0.16
LEPs/coatings (single/multilayer)
Linking mechanical and viscoelastic properties to
0.73 0.26 0.32 0.25 0.4 0.32
failure mechanisms/modes
Coating adhesion and mechanics of multi-layer
0.75 0.26 0.45 0.44 0.55 0.28
materials
Material response to non-hydrometeor
weathering stressors (e.g., UV radiation, icing, 0.64 0.23 0.36 0.32 0.35 0.24
thermal expansion, aerosols (incl. dust))
Theme 4: Aerodynamic implications of LEE Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Quantification of damage and surface roughness
0.95 0.16 0.4 0.32 0.45 0.28
progression through time
Attribution of AEP loss to LEE (via effective
0.88 0.23 0.35 0.34 0.5 0.24
surface roughness)
Attribution of AEP loss to application of LEP
0.75 0.26 0.4 0.39 0.55 0.28
measures
Quantifying evolution of power curve through
0.75 0.26 0.3 0.42 0.3 0.42
time (incl. post deployment)
Optimization of damage repair solution/timing 0.9 0.21 0.35 0.34 0.5 0.33

Equally, there are processes/phenomena where understanding is lacking, but un-

certainty in a process/phenomenon is not deemed to be a current primary limitation on
TRLs for LEE solutions. Such a process/phenomenon might be deemed tier 2 for research
effort. An example drawn from Theme 1 atmospheric drivers is non-hydrometeor stressors,
which received a mean process/phenomena importance level rating of 0.55, and both
measurement and modeling require improvement.
A high SD of rankings also conveys information about the divergence of opinions
across the experts. An example from Theme 1 is the estimation of impingement efficiency
as a function of the hydrometeor diameter [103]. The mean rating for importance was 0.55,
but the variability around that was large (SD = 0.44). Thus, there is substantial variability in
the opinions regarding whether the ‘capture’ of hydrometeors of different sizes by the blade
leading edge is <1 for the hydrometeors of greatest importance to damage, and whether
there is uncertainty in the D and vc dependence of impingement efficiency.
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 11 of 29

3. Discussion of Exemplar Research Activities Designed to Address Critical Research

Needs Identified in the PIRT Process and Thus to Improve TRLs of LEE Solutions
3.1. Phenomena/Processes Given Tier 1 Priority Within the Atmospheric Drivers Theme
Two processes/phenomena within Theme 1 were identified as tier 1 priority: hydrome-
teor size distribution (HSD) and phase. The narratives supplied within the PIRT framework
and past research suggest that although these are phenomena of importance, the knowl-
edge or translation of knowledge to improve measurement/data analysis procedures or to
modeling tools is insufficient. Materials stresses are demonstrably a function of the number
and diameter of impinging hydrometeors. The HSD (and hydrometeor phase) is also a
function of precipitation intensity and of temporal and spatial scale [104]. For example, an
analyses of data from the US Southern Great Plains showed that 10% of 1 min precipitation
rates exceeded 4.5 mmhr−1 , while the 90th percentile value for 10 min precipitation rates
were <2.3 mmhr−1 [14]. A study in Switzerland using automated hail sensors found that
75 % of local hailfalls lasted just a few minutes (from less than 4.4 min to less than 7.7 min,
depending on a parameter to delineate the events) and that 75 % of the impacts occurred in
less than 3.3 min to less than 4.7 min [105]. These findings imply not only a need for the
robust assessments of precipitation rate, HSD, and phase but also that such data, whether
from measurements or models, need to be available at high spatiotemporal resolution.
A range of technologies exist to measure the precipitation intensity (collectively re-
ferred to as rain gauges (RG)) [106] and HSD (i.e., instruments that measure hydrometeor
number concentrations in size classes and are referred to as disdrometers) [14]. Some
disdrometers also measure the fall velocity, phase, and sphericity (which is required to
compute the hydrometeor mass and kinetic energy transfer) [14]. In the case of optical
(or laser) disdrometers, the hydrometeor D is measured by the number of horizontal laser
beams broken by the hydrometeor and the vf is derived from the duration of time that the
beams are interrupted.
Assuming spherical droplets, the precipitation rate (RR in mmhr−1 ) from a disdrome-
ter is proportional to the sum of the number of size distributed hydrometeors (n in diameter
(D) class i = 1 to j) as follows:
j
RR ∝ ∑i=1 ni Di3 (3a)

or more explicitly for the OTT Parsivel2 disdrometer (which has 32 diameter classes):

π 3.6 1 32
6 103 Ft ∑i=1 i i
RR = n D3 (3b)

where F is the instrument ‘field of view’, and t is the duration of time during which the
hydrometeor counts are made.
The implication of Equation (3a,b) is that small errors in hydrometeor diameter can
yield large errors in RR. Hence, if the precipitation rate is to be derived from disdrometers,
the accurate assessment of the hydrometer diameter is a necessary pre-requisite, but the axis
ratio (the ratio of the vertical dimension of the hydrometeor to the horizontal dimension)
for liquid hydrometeors is generally <1 and scales with the horizontal dimension [94,107].
Most disdrometers report RR computed by integrating overall hydrometeor diameters and
fall velocities using proprietary software which includes correction factors, e.g., for the axis
ratio of hydrometeors that are not fully specified.
When the accumulated depth of precipitation (or precipitation intensity) from dis-
drometers is compared with tipping or weighing rain gauges that measure only the mass
or depth of water accumulated over a time interval, incomplete closure is achieved [108].
Thus, even if the first-order models of nominal erosion rates (such as those described above)
are employed, the source of the precipitation data are a major source of uncertainty in
lifetime estimates. For example, data were being collected at the Wind Energy Institute of
Canada (WEICan) wind farm in Prince Edward Island, Canada, using an OTT Parsivel2
optical disdrometer and an unheated Campbell Scientific TE525 Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge
(RG) (Figure 4a). Because the RG was unheated, in the following, we selected only data
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 12 of 29

collected during the summer months to avoid periods with snowfall. Hourly summer-
time accumulated precipitation from the disdrometer was consistently lower than that
from an RG across a wide range of precipitation rates and wind regimes (Figure 4b,c).
Although the disdrometer was more likely to report non-zero precipitation (even when
the threshold to detect precipitation was set to that determined by the tip volume of the
rain gauge, Figure 4d), of particular importance to LEE, the RG at WEICan exhibited twice
the frequency of occurrence of precipitation rates > 10 mm/hr. When conditionally sam-
pled
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW to select periods when both sensors exhibited non-zero precipitation, the probability
12 of 28
of extreme precipitation being reported by the RG was also higher than that from the
disdrometer (Figure 4c).

Figure
Figure4.4.(a)(a)
Precipitation sensors
Precipitation deployed
sensors at WEICan.
deployed at WEICan.(b) Scatterplot of hourly
(b) Scatterplot precipitation
of hourly (PPT)
precipitation
from
(PPT)the rainthe
from gauge
rain(RG)
gaugeand OTT
(RG) anddisdrometer (Dis) for(Dis)
OTT disdrometer data for
collected during May–October
data collected of 2022
during May–October
and 2023.and
of 2022 Symbols
2023. scale with,scale
Symbols and are colored
with, by,colored
and are prevailing
by, wind speedwind
prevailing at wind turbine
speed hub-height
at wind turbine
(HH). (c) Histograms of hourly precipitation for all hours when both sensors report
hub-height (HH). (c) Histograms of hourly precipitation for all hours when both sensors reportnon-zero pre-
cipitation. (d) Heatmap of the joint probability of no precipitation (defined using a threshold of 0.126
non-zero precipitation. (d) Heatmap of the joint probability of no precipitation (defined using a
mm, i.e., minimum reported by the RG) from RG and Dis. As shown, 7% of hours exhibited precip-
threshold of 0.126 mm, i.e., minimum reported by the RG) from RG and Dis. As shown, 7% of hours
itation of >0.126 mm from both sensors. (e) Example photograph of leading-edge erosion on one of
exhibited
the precipitation
wind turbines of >0.126
operating mm from both sensors. (e) Example photograph of leading-edge
at WEICan.
erosion on one of the wind turbines operating at WEICan.
Research to reduce uncertainty in HSD/vf/sphericity (axis ratio)/phase, and ulti-
More mechanistic models of material stress and erosion include information regarding
mately to provide best practice for measurements at prospective or operating wind farms
HSD (i.e., the concentration of hydrometeors of given diameters, Di ) which can be derived
is ongoing. This includes an experiment performed at an airport in upstate New York in
which two identical OTT Parsivel2 optical disdrometers were deployed close to a highly
maintained Mesotech heated tipping bucket RG (part number 29000503) deployed as part
of the Automated Weather Observing System operated by the US Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration. The experiment ran from June to September 2024, inclusive (154 days of 1
min observations), and focused on summer months to avoid snowfall periods. It was de-
signed to test whether the presence of large diameter hydrometeors reported at vf < vt
(where vt is the terminal fall velocity) for that D [112] was due to horizontal advection of
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 13 of 29

from the disdrometer measurements of the number counts (n(i,v)) in diameter (i) and fall
velocity (vf ) classes:
x n(i, v)
N ( Di ) = ∑ v = 1 (4)
Ftv f (i, v)∆Di
where x is the number of fall velocity classes and ∆Di is the width of each diameter class, i.
The implication of Equation (4) is that small errors in either hydrometer D or fall velocity can
yield substantial errors in the derived HSD (i.e., the expression of number concentrations as
a function of hydrometeor diameter). However, measured HSD also differ across different
disdrometers, and standardized data processing procedures are lacking [14,94,109]. Further,
there is evidence that the relative performance of different disdrometers is a function of the
prevailing climate [14]. Accordingly, when measurements from the three most commonly
used disdrometers types (optical, impact, and video) were used to compute accumulated
kinetic energy of transfer from hydrometeor impacts to wind turbine blades at an example
site in the US Southern Great Plains, the results differed by 38% [94]. The results differed
by 100% when different data analysis protocols that vary in terms of the permitted range of
fall velocities regarding hydrometeor asymmetry were applied to a single disdrometer [94].
Also, even excluding effects from hydrometeor hardness, hail may be substantially more
erosive than rain due to the higher diameters of these hydrometeors. Many disdrometers
use proprietary empirical functions to indicate the possible presence of hail based on
hydrometeor diameter and/or fall velocity rather than directly detecting it.
Research to reduce uncertainty in HSD/vf /sphericity (axis ratio)/phase, and ulti-
mately to provide best practice for measurements at prospective or operating wind farms
is ongoing. This includes an experiment performed at an airport in upstate New York in
which two identical OTT Parsivel2 optical disdrometers were deployed close to a highly
maintained Mesotech heated tipping bucket RG (part number 29000503) deployed as part
of the Automated Weather Observing System operated by the US Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration. The experiment ran from June to September 2024, inclusive (154 days of
1 min observations), and focused on summer months to avoid snowfall periods. It was
designed to test whether the presence of large diameter hydrometeors reported at vf < vt
(where vt is the terminal fall velocity) for that D [110] was due to horizontal advection of the
droplets during high wind events. Accordingly, one of the disdrometers was deployed with
a windshield and the other without as typified by the current deployments at operating
wind farms (Figure 5a). In contrast to the data being collected at WEICan (Figure 4), good
achievement was found between hourly precipitation intensity from the RG and disdrom-
eters across the entire dynamic range of the precipitation intensities (Figure 5b). Across
the range of observed wind speeds (0–12 ms−1 ) and wind gusts (0–18 ms−1 ) measured
using a sonic anemometer deployed at 10 m AGL, the two disdrometers exhibited a high
degree of agreement in terms of the detection of precipitation (Figure 5d) and the amount of
precipitation (Figure 5b), and there was no evidence that the degree of agreement between
the disdrometers and the RG scales with wind intensity (Figure 5b). This experiment
did not suggest that the wind shielding of disdrometers greatly reduces the frequency of
occurrence of hydrometeors falling with vf < vt (Figure 5c), or greatly improves agreement
with precipitation rates sampled with an RG (Figure 5b).
 proves agreement with precipitation rates sampled with an RG (Figure 5b).
There remains an urgent need for a comprehensive instrument inter-comparison ex-
periment, openness from instrument manufacturers regarding hardware settings, and the
development of best practice for instrument deployment and data processing to enhance
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 the TRL for the prediction of long-term LEE and the nowcasting of erosive events for ero-
14 of 29
sion-safe mode of implementation.

Figure 5. (a) Instruments deployed in upstate New York. (b) Scatterplot of hourly precipitation (PPT)
Figure 5. (a) Instruments deployed in upstate New York. (b) Scatterplot of hourly precipitation (PPT)
from the disdrometer
from the disdrometeroperated
operatedwithout
withoutthe the wind
wind shield
shield (Dis
(Dis wo/shield)
wo/shield) versus
versus the disdrometer
the disdrometer with
with
the wind shield (Dis w/shield) (filled symbols) and the rain gauge (RG) (open symbols)symbols)
the wind shield (Dis w/shield) (filled symbols) and the rain gauge (RG) (open on
on logarith-
logarithmic and linear axes. Symbols are scaled with, and colored by, the prevailing
mic and linear axes. Symbols are scaled with, and colored by, the prevailing wind speed at 10 m wind speed
AGL
at 10 m(left-hand panel) and
AGL (left-hand by the
panel) andfastest
by thewind gust
fastest (right
wind panel).
gust (right(c)panel).
Joint probability of hydrome-
(c) Joint probability of
teor diameter (D) and fall velocity (v ) from Dis w/shield. White line indicates terminal
hydrometeor diameter (D) and fall velocity (vf ) from Dis w/shield. White line indicates terminal fall
f fall velocity
(vt) as a function
velocity of D from
(vt ) as a function ofGunn
D fromandGunnKinser
and[112]. Yellow
Kinser [110].lines show
Yellow theshow
lines ±50%the bounds
±50%onbounds
vt that
may indicate erroneous observations [113]. (d) Heatmap of the joint probability
on vt that may indicate erroneous observations [111]. (d) Heatmap of the joint probability of no of no precipitation
or precipitation from the two disdrometers.
precipitation or precipitation from the two disdrometers.

There remains an urgent need for a comprehensive instrument inter-comparison

experiment, openness from instrument manufacturers regarding hardware settings, and the
development of best practice for instrument deployment and data processing to enhance
the TRL for the prediction of long-term LEE and the nowcasting of erosive events for
erosion-safe mode of implementation.
NWP models are sophisticated and skillful tools for weather forecasting and climate
projections. However, simulated precipitation occurrence and intensity remain less skillful
than other atmospheric properties and are highly dependent on model grid [112]. The
PIRT analysis also identified the need for improvements in the numerical simulation of
precipitation and HSD. These issues have long been recognized within the atmospheric
science modeling community [113] and there are many parameterizations available to
represent cloud, precipitation, and convection processes from scales of millimeters to
kilometers, which can yield very different precipitation rates (see example in Figure 6).
Most NWP models use bulk microphysics schemes and employ gamma distributions for
cloud and hydrometeor distributions [114–118]. Binned (or classed) microphysics schemes
 NWP models use bulk microphysics schemes and employ gamma distributions for cloud
and hydrometeor distributions [116–120]. Binned (or classed) microphysics schemes re-
solve the HSD at higher computational cost and improved flexibility [121], but different
schemes yield widely varying hydrometeor characteristics [122] and they do not always
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 out-perform bulk schemes in terms of the fidelity of RR [123]. Most modeling studies15post- of 29
process simulated RR using empirical relationships between near-surface HSD and simu-
lated RR [124]. Simulated hail production is also very sensitive to the pre-existing aerosol,
frozen
resolvehydrometer density,
the HSD at higher and other factors
computational influencing
cost and improved hydrometer
flexibility diameters and fall
[119], but different
velocities [125]. The land surface scheme employed and soil moisture
schemes yield widely varying hydrometeor characteristics [120] and they do not always used to initialize
numerical
out-perform simulations also influence
bulk schemes in terms precipitation
of the fidelitysimulation
of RR [121].fidelity
Most[126].
modeling studies
It has been
post-process previously
simulated RR shown that WRFrelationships
using empirical exhibits somebetween
skill for forecasting
near-surfaceheavy
HSD pre-
and
cipitation
simulatedand hail and
RR [122]. the occurrence
Simulated of high wind
hail production speeds,
is also but the joint
very sensitive to theoccurrence
pre-existingof
heavy
aerosol, precipitation and high
frozen hydrometer wind speeds
density, andfactors
and other the simulation
influencingof hail diameterdiameters
hydrometer continue
to
andlack
fallthe fidelity necessary
velocities [123]. Thetoland
make integrative
surface scheme robust assessments
employed and soilof moisture
erosion potential
used to
or short-term
initialize forecasts
numerical of highlyalso
simulations erosive eventsprecipitation
influence for erosion safe-mode
simulationoperation [77,78].
fidelity [124].

Figure 6. Spatial average. (a) Precipitation rate and (b) accumulated precipitation from WRF simu-
Figure 6. Spatial average. (a) Precipitation rate and (b) accumulated precipitation from WRF
lations (dx = 1 km) of an intense precipitation event during March 2017 over a region with many
simulations (dx = 1 km) of an intense precipitation event during March 2017 over a region with
wind turbine assets [127]. The simulation [128] is performed in a short-term forecasting mode as
many wind
would turbine
be used assets [125].
for predicting the The
needsimulation
for erosion[126] is performed
safe-mode in aof
operation short-term forecasting
wind turbines. mode
Time series
as would
denote be used forwith
simulations predicting the need
five different for erosion safe-mode
microphysics operation of wind
schemes: Milbrandt–Yau turbines.
(MILB), Time
Morrison
series denote
(MORR), simulations
Thompson with aware
aerosol five different
(THOMA),microphysics schemes: Milbrandt–Yau
WRF double-moment (MILB),
seven class Morrison
(WDM7), and
(MORR),
NSSL, plusThompson
RADAR aerosol
(NEXRAD) aware (THOMA), WRF
observations. double-moment
(c) The domain over seven
whichclass (WDM7),
the spatial and NSSL,
averaging is
performed.
plus RADARBlack triangleobservations.
(NEXRAD) indicates Dallas Fort
(c) The Worth,
domain black
over lines
which thedenote
spatialthe state boundaries
averaging of
is performed.
Texas, Oklahoma,
Black triangle and Arkansas.
indicates Dallas Fort Worth, black lines denote the state boundaries of Texas, Oklahoma,
and Arkansas.
The improved representation of hydroclimatic conditions with numerical models,
It has been
the scoping previouslyand
of uncertainty, shown that WRF
fundamental exhibits
model some skill are
improvements for aforecasting heavy
focus of multiple
precipitation and hail and the occurrence of high wind speeds, but the joint
initiatives within the atmospheric science community including the World Climate Re- occurrence of
heavy precipitation and high wind speeds and the simulation of hail diameter
search Programme Global Precipitation Experiment lighthouse activity [129]. Machine continue to
lack the fidelity necessary to make integrative robust assessments of erosion
learning climate emulators are also being developed that seek to bridge the gap between potential or
short-term
the forecastsby
scales resolved ofNWP
highlymodels
erosiveandevents for erosionatsafe-mode
precipitation operation
the local level [130]. [75,76].
Leveraging
such The improved
initiatives representation
can, and will, benefitofthe
hydroclimatic
wind energyconditions
industry andwith numerical
enhance TRLsmodels,
of LEE
the scoping of uncertainty, and fundamental model improvements are a
mitigation options. However, the specific need for model and measurement fidelity forfocus of multiple
initiatives within
precipitation ratesthe atmospheric
and science community
HSD particularly at high wind including theto
speeds is, World
someClimate
degree,Research
specific
Programme Global Precipitation Experiment lighthouse activity [127]. Machine learning
climate emulators are also being developed that seek to bridge the gap between the scales
resolved by NWP models and precipitation at the local level [128]. Leveraging such
initiatives can, and will, benefit the wind energy industry and enhance TRLs of LEE
mitigation options. However, the specific need for model and measurement fidelity for
precipitation rates and HSD particularly at high wind speeds is, to some degree, specific to
the wind energy community. Effort should be invested in a detailed NWP verification and
validation (V&V) framework that is specifically focused on the requirements of the wind
energy community to advance the TRL for model-based prediction of LEE meteorological
drivers. This is a focus of the understanding atmospheric impacts on wind turbines for
better efficiency (AIRE) project (https://aire-project.eu, e.g., accessed on 10 August 2024).

3.2. Phenomena/Processes Given Tier 1 Priority Within the Damage Detection and
Quantification Theme
This PIRT process resulted in one phenomenon/process being given tier 1 priority
within the damage detection and quantification theme: translating water impingement to
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 16 of 29

material loss/stress (e.g., metrics: kinetic energy, Springer–ADF, VN curves). Although

this topic could legitimately be included under Theme 3—material response, the specific
theme under which it was listed is likely not a critical determinant of the PIRT rating. As
described above, computing the accumulated kinetic energy (AKE) of collisions between
falling hydrometeors and rotating blades through time is trivial presuming adequate
data regarding the hydrometeors and hub-height wind speed are available at high time
resolution. However, AKE does not directly translate to material damage.
Springer’s model uses the material properties of the blade and coating and the hy-
drometeor impact number, diameter, velocity, and impact angle to estimate a distance to
failure or the end of the incubation period for coating wear for each hydrometeor diameter
that combined with Miner’s rule is used to estimate ADF [94]. However, Springer’s model
is not very mechanistically defined and the parameter estimates are highly uncertain [66].
As described above, many RET experiments are confined to a fairly narrow range
of droplet sizes and can generate only liquid droplets. However, actual precipitation
comprises an ensemble of multiple hydrometeor diameters. A recommended practice
from DNV [129] considers only one droplet diameter (D = 2.38 mm) that naturally will not
reflect the range of observed hydrometeors. Indeed, based on data from the US Southern
Great Plains, where deep convection and intense precipitation is relatively common [14],
the mass-weight hydrometeor mean diameter was ≥2.38 mm during only 6% of 1 min
precipitation periods. Further, to achieve damage results in a reasonable time (i.e., to
accelerate erosion), RETs are operated at higher closing velocities than is representative
of real operating conditions. The resulting VN curves are then extrapolated to derive
estimates at lower vc of the number of impacts at a given diameter that would yield
damage. Testing viscoelastic coatings at very high closing velocities may result in rain
erosion testers underestimating coating or LEP durability because wind turbines frequently
operate at lower tip speeds. A comprehensive rain erosion test with multiple droplet sizes
underlines the need for further research on the derivation of the VN curves from RETs [130].
More detail is given in Section 3.3.
Other phenomena/processes in the damage detection theme that are characterized as
tier 2 priority for research relate to the accuracy of damage estimates. The use of drones
and robots for blade inspection is becoming more routine, particularly for larger wind
turbines and offshore wind farms and potentially decreases costs/time/risk of injury to
technicians [131]. The full automation of damage detection data derived using such tools
is leveraging advanced machine learning (ML) image processing tools [62,132]. Further
innovations in this field include the construction of digital twins using high-resolution
topographic leading-edge roughness (LER) data from operating/decommissioned blades
that can be analyzed aerodynamically using 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) or
wind tunnels [133].
Efforts to commercialize damage detection solutions are ongoing (e.g., using thermal
imaging [134], laser profilometry [135], or gloss measurement [136]) implying relatively
high TRLs, even as research is being conducted to evaluate efficacy as a function of damage
severity and extent [137].

3.3. Phenomena/Processes Given Tier 1 Priority Within the Material Response Theme
This PIRT analysis identified two phenomena within Theme 3, material response
as tier 1 priority for research that links to the usefulness of RETs, and specifically their
representation of atmospheric conditions including the hydrometeors phase (e.g., rain and
hail), size distributions and collision velocities [12], and whether accelerated lab tests repre-
sent the pre-stressing of blade materials that enhances hydrometeor erosion of the leading
edge [138]. These concerns also link to the second tier 1 research priority: methodologies to
translate lab experimental data (incl. rain erosion testers) to field conditions and failure
modes (see Section 3.2).
Important new research is testing multiple key aspects of the translation of RET to real-
world conditions. For example, RETs tend to operate with the continuous bombardment
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 17 of 29

of droplets, while in the real-world precipitation it is discontinuous. Experiments with

a pulsating jet erosion tester have evolved evidence that the duration of time between
precipitation events may play a role in dictating the number of droplet impacts required to
reach the end of the incubation time [139]. Recent RET tests performed with and without
UV exposure have found that UV weathering reduced the LEE coating life by about 30%,
which greatly influenced the resulting VN curve parameters [140].
Experimental technologies have an important role in projecting damage emergence
and progression, but mechanistically sound numerical models can permit more diagnostic
analyses and sampling across a broader spectrum of conditions. An important source
of uncertainty in such numerical models is that the precise composition of LEPs and/or
coating is proprietary. In addition, the temperature and strain rate sensitivity of the flow
stress are either ignored in modeling or at best implemented with empirical constitutive
equations. This may lead to significant deviations from reality considering the adiabatic
nature of hydrometeor impacts deforming surface layers at relatively high strain rates [141].
More sophisticated and explicit models such as finite element (FE) models of mul-
tiple liquid impact on multilayered viscoelastic materials take into account microscale
material structure and porosity [84,142] and are preferable to empirical or semi-empirical
models. However, they are relatively computationally demanding and require information
regarding a range of material properties and behaviors that can be difficult to acquire. The
computational cost is amplified if all possible combinations of hydrometeor D and vc are
to be included in coating lifetime estimations. Thus, an emerging area of research is the
construction of ML emulators conditioned using the output from numerically sophisticated
models but taking the form of considerably faster closed-form architectures [143]. Such
emulators can be used to more rapidly and efficiently evaluate the uncertainty space. An
example is the incorporation of an ML model trained by the output of FE simulations of the
spatial and temporal evolution of the stress field in the coating for various impact speeds
and hydrometeor diameters (see the schematic in Figure 7). To illustrate this potential, a
surrogate model based on a neural network was trained to make predictions for the peak
stresses in the coating layer. A relatively small number of FE simulations was used to
generate training data for droplet diameters (D) of 0.5 to 4 mm, and impact speeds (vc )
between 80 and 90 ms−1 . A neural network surrogate model was trained to predict peak
von Mises stresses at each point in the coating as a function of D and vc . An independent
set of FE simulations was used to evaluate the surrogate model predictions (Figure 8). The
ML predictions capture the topology of the peak stress contour, but the peak values show
an error of ~10% relative to independent FE simulations. Building a larger suite of training
simulations would likely aid in building a more robust surrogate model.
In principle, the workflow shown in Figure 7 could be expanded such that wind
speed, rain intensity, and HSDs measured or modeled for any location can be combined
with the surrogate model to obtain coating stresses for all possible combinations of impact
parameters in an analogous manner to their use with the Springer model. The properties
of the coating material could also be used as input to the machine learning model, and in
principle this workflow can be extended to estimate not only the lifetimes of coatings, but
also the levels of surface damage for estimating AEP losses.
While the use of ML-based surrogate models shows great promise, the response of
viscoelastic polyurethane-based coatings depends on the loading rate, temperature, and
the level of experienced strain. A more thorough experimental characterization of these
materials is required, which includes high- and low-rate uniaxial data for wide strain
ranges, dynamic mechanical analysis, cyclic loading–reloading, and volumetric strain
measurements. Data from RET experiments can aid in determining parameters related to
the fatigue behavior of coatings and to enhance the accuracy of predictions. Improvements
in experimental procedures related to RET are therefore also highly valuable.
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 28

Energies 2024, 17, 6285

Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 2818 of 29

Figure 7. Schematic of a proposed combination of material testing and modeling; atmospheric meas-
Figure 7. Schematic of a proposed combination of material testing and modeling; atmospheric
urements
Figure and lifetime
7. Schematic modelingcombination
of a proposed using a machine learning testing
of material surrogate
andmodel. Arrows
modeling; show infor-meas-
atmospheric
measurements
mation flow. and lifetime modeling using a machine learning surrogate model. Arrows show
urements and lifetime modeling using a machine learning surrogate model. Arrows show infor-
information flow.
mation flow.

Figure 8. Comparison of peak von Mises stress (σ in MPa) contours over a cross section of the coating
layer that spans from the top surface (z = 0) to the full layer thickness (z = 0.2 mm) and from the
impact axis (x/r = 0) to a distance equal to the droplet radius r (x/r = 1) based on the finite element
(FE) simulations, (left) and the predictions of the neural network surrogate model (NN) (right) for
Figure
Figure Comparison
8.different
two8. of peak
peakdiameters
hydrometeor
Comparison of von Mises
von Mises stress
(d)stress (σ in
inMPa)
and closing
(σ MPa) contours
velocities overaacross
(u). over
contours crosssection
sectionofofthe
thecoating
coating
layer that
layer that spans
spans from
from the the top
top surface
surface (z
(z == 0)
0) to
to the
the full
full layer
layer thickness
thickness (z(z == 0.2
0.2 mm)
mm) and and from
from the
the
impact axis
impact axis (x/r
(x/r==0)0)totoaadistance
distanceequal
equaltoto the
the droplet
droplet radius
radius r (x/r
(x/r==1)1)based
basedon onthe
the finite
finite element
element
(FE)
(FE) simulations,
simulations, (left)
(left) and
and the
the predictions
predictions of of the
the neural
neural network
network surrogate
surrogate model
model (NN)
(NN) (right)
(right) for
for
two
two different
different hydrometeor
hydrometeor diameters (d) and closing velocities (u).
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 19 of 29

3.4. Phenomena/Processes Given Tier 1 Priority Within the Aerodynamics Theme

Finally, three phenomena/processes were identified as tier 1 priority in the aerody-
namic implications theme: (a) Quantification of damage and surface roughness progression
through time. This links strongly to Theme 2—damage detection. (b) Attribution of
AEP loss to LEE (via effective surface roughness). (c) Optimization of damage repair
solution/timing.
The quantification of wind turbine power and AEP losses due to LEE typically relies
on blade force coefficient data obtained with wind tunnel testing or simulations with com-
putational fluid dynamics (CFD) models [144,145]. In both cases, the geometry of damage
and corresponding surface roughness at any time between installation and leading-edge
resurfacing are key to achieving reliable estimates of the blade performance degradation.
For moderate to intermediate LEE, which typically corresponds to damage of the thin
external protection system of the leading edge (e.g., coating), the effects of roughness can
be modeled by the means of the equivalent sand grain roughness [146]. The equivalent
roughness height, yielding the same wall shear stress as that achieved with the observed
roughness, can be obtained by using geometry, experimental data, or very high-fidelity
CFD [147]. Their use for LEE applications, however, is associated with uncertainty, in part
due to the difficulty of measuring blade roughness with sufficient resolution. One of the
aims of the leading-edge roughness categorization (LERcat) efforts is to reduce this uncer-
tainty [76]. When LEE becomes severe, with damage also to the leading-edge composite
material, the sand grain model is no longer applicable, and the erosion geometry needs
to be resolved [148]. The above highlights the importance of acquiring, with sufficient
resolution, the depth and surface map of LEE and thus links to new innovations in damage
characterization mentioned under Theme 2.
Once erosion topographies are acquired with adequate geometric resolution, ML can
also play a key role in developing blade predictive maintenance frameworks by providing
erosion aerodynamics and resulting AEP losses, as demonstrated with the AEP loss predic-
tion system (ALPS) [144]. Determining the LEE-induced blade performance degradation
for each erosion topography encountered in operation would require numerous lengthy
CFD analyses and specialized expertise for each wind turbine assessment, a cost increased
by the large number of turbines in a wind farm and the potentially high temporal frequency
of these assessments in the wind farm lifetime. An initial (one-off) execution of many
CFD simulations corresponding to many diverse erosion topographies can be used to train
the fast ML metamodels that can be used to quickly determine blade force coefficients
for AEP loss assessment. Preliminary work, shown in Figure 9 [144], has demonstrated
the high reliability of fast ML metamodels for predicting lift coefficient (cl ) and drag co-
efficient (cd ) of eroded blade sections, allowing the ML models to be used for AEP loss
assessment [148,149]. More development work is needed in this area to generalize these
ML approaches, enable them to consider even wider LEE patterns observed in opera-
tion, and consider the variability of the nominal blade geometry among different wind
turbine classes.
Optimizing the timing of blade leading-edge repair was identified as an important
phenomena/process in the PIRT. The optimization of repair at any operating wind farm
depends on factors such as wind turbine age, damage severity, cost of electricity, and
accessibility. The considerations used by commercial wind farm owner/operators regarding
repair decisions are usually considered proprietary and thus are held in confidence. Thus,
information from WEICan is briefly presented below to illustrate the process by which
repair decisions and LEP application were made and the results of those actions. WEICan
owns and operates five 2 MW turbines on a coastal, high-wind site with turbines 1–4 being
located on an escarpment and experiencing a very similar wind climate [150]. All wind
turbines at WEICan have exhibited advanced levels of LEE since commissioning in 2013.
WEICan have chosen to initiate repair measures prior to “moderate” or “severe” levels
of erosion, and indeed before there was significant mass loss or clear detection via power
curve degradation or acoustic tracking [151], due to factors such as the severity of the
 Energies 2024, 17, 6285 20 of 29

winter climate which means the O&M window is relatively short, and the remote location
means that access for more extensive O&M is challenging. The two main indications that
trigger WEICan’s decision to carry out a blade repair are as follows:
1. The rapid degradation of LEP. If an LEP product experiences significant peeling and
bubbling within a year, it saves on repair expenses to replace it before the blade is
completely exposed.
2. The first sign of visible fiberglass. The more fiberglass is eroded away, the more blade
preparation work is required before repairs. With light erosion, only sanding and
buffing of the surface is required before reapplying the LEP, which takes about half a
day per blade. With moderate to heavy erosion, the blade must be sanded, built back
x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 28
into shape with additional fillers and fiberglass before reapplying the LEP product,
which can take 1.5 days to 2 days per blade. Therefore, repairing blades at the first
sign of visible fiberglass saves time and cost.

Figure 9. (Top): Eroded blade section force coefficients (lift (C ) and drag (C )) for varying angles
l d
Figure 9. (Top): Eroded blade section force coefficients (lift (Cl) and drag (Cd)) for varying angles of
of attack (bottom axis) from geometry-resolving CFD (‘CFD’) and ML models (‘ML’) trained using
attack (bottom axis) from geometry-resolving CFD (‘CFD’) and ML models (‘ML’) trained using the
the metadata of the erosion topography (curve labeled ‘nom’. denotes nominal section performance
metadata of the erosion topography (curve labeled ‘nom’. denotes nominal section performance
curves) [126]. Bottom: offshore (left) and onshore (right) AEP losses for a multi-MW wind turbine
curves) [128]. Bottom: offshore
derived (left)
using blade and force
section onshore (right)
coefficients AEP
from MLlosses
models for a multi-MW
of type displayed in wind turbine
top plots for broad
derived using blade section force coefficients from ML models of type displayed in top plots
patterns and the extent of erosion topographies; ‘Ks ’ = equivalent sand grain roughness, ‘nom/ft.’for
broad patterns andand the extent
‘scan mean’ofdenote
erosion topographies;
moderate ‘Ks’ LEE
to intermediate = equivalent sand
severity, and ‘grv. grain
dmean ’ roughness,
and ‘grv. dmax ’
‘nom/ft.’ and ‘scandenote
mean’severe
denote
LEEmoderate
stages [148].to intermediate LEE severity, and ‘grv. dmean’ and ‘grv.
dmax’ denote severe LEE stages [150].
Initially, the blades on the wind turbines deployed at WEICan had no LEP, only
standard polyurethane paint. In 2014, after LEE was observed visually, the blades were
Optimizing repaired,
the timing of bladepolyurethane
and standard leading-edge paintrepair was identified
was reapplied. as an important
LEE was observed again in 2015.
phenomena/process Sincein2016,
the WEICan
PIRT. The optimization
has engaged of repair
in the testing at any
of five operating
different wind farm
LEPs, including paints,
tapes, and shells. The first four LEPs were applied from 30 m to 45
depends on factors such as wind turbine age, damage severity, cost of electricity, and ac- m, while the fifth LEP
was applied from 35 m to 45 m, measuring from the root of the blade. Each type of LEP has
cessibility. The considerations used by commercial wind farm owner/operators regarding
specific application instructions which typically require filling, sanding, and cleaning to
repair decisions are usually
achieve considered
a smooth proprietary
surface, and and thus
specific maximum andare held in
minimum confidence.
temperatures andThus,
relative
information from WEICan is briefly presented below to illustrate the process by which
repair decisions and LEP application were made and the results of those actions. WEICan
owns and operates five 2 MW turbines on a coastal, high-wind site with turbines 1–4 being
located on an escarpment and experiencing a very similar wind climate [152]. All wind
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 21 of 29

humidities for curing and drying. Most of the wind turbine blade LEP materials have failed
in one year to two years (Table 2, see example in Figure 4e), which LEP manufacturers
generally have attributed to improper or inadequate surface preparation and installation.
For example, the epoxies or adhesives were not appropriately activated, the surface was
not adequately cleaned, the blade repairs with fillers or coatings ahead of installation were
still curing, the conditions may have been appropriate at the start but were not sustained,
or the skills of the technicians were not adequate. The original blade quality has also been
identified as an important factor impacting LEP failure.

Table 2. Leading-edge protections used, dates applied, and damage and failures observed at WEICan.

Year Applied, Year Year Damage Types of Damage

Type of LEP Turbine
Reapplied Observed Observed
Pitting, cracking,
Paint (2 component epoxy) T1, T5 2016, 2017, 2019 2017, 2019, 2021
peeling, bubbling
Paint (polyurethane) T4 2016, 2017, 2019 2017, 2019, 2021 Pitting, peeling
Tape (2-component Pitting, peeling,
T2 2016, 2017 2017, 2021
polyurethane) bubbling
Tape (2-component Pitting, peeling,
T3 2016, 2019 2019, 2021
polyurethane) bubbling
T1 2021, 2023 2023 Peeling, bubbling
T2 2022
Shell (polyurethane) T3 2022
T4 2021, 2022 2022 Peeling, bubbling
T5 2022

Current leading-edge repair work instructions have many requirements, including

filling, sanding, and cleaning with maximum and minimum temperatures and relative
humidities for curing and drying, as well as wind speed restrictions, depending on the
method used to access the blade. This leads to small windows of time where repair is even
possible and long and expensive repair times. TRLs would be enhanced by simplifying the
repair process so that there are fewer restrictions, and it can be performed more quickly
and economically.
A tier 2 priority in Theme 4 relates to the aerodynamic performance reductions due to
LEP and their efficacy in slowing LEE. Data from the WEICan wind turbines was used in
a decomposition analysis to remove effects due to prevailing meteorology (e.g., changes
in the wind speed distribution before and after application) and isolate the impact of
LEP on wind turbine performance. The results showed minimal to no improvements in
performance due to LEP application and the resulting smoothing of the blade [151]. This is
likely due to the high proportion of time that WEICan’s wind turbines spend operating
at rated power when AEP loss due to LEE is minimum, as well as the fact that WEICan
repairs blades before any reduction in performance is observed.
Ultimately, decision-making with regard to LEE at WEICan relies on information from
many of the tier 1 and tier 2 Themes: the existing and expected progression of damage, the
resulting AEP reductions, and the impacts of LEP options. The uncertain durability of LEP
options, perhaps resulting from unreliable LEP installation, has been the most substantial
barrier to effective O&M planning for this site.

4. Concluding Remarks and Next Steps

The PIRT presented herein represents the first attempt to collate expert judgments on
research priorities to enhance the TRL for solutions to reduce AEP (and revenue) losses and
wind turbine operation and maintenance costs caused by wind turbine blade LEE. We used
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 22 of 29

a snowball sampling technique to identify possible respondents [81] and had a relatively
small sample size (n < 20). Thus, the results must be considered preliminary. Nevertheless,
the PIRT presented herein yields some important insights and lays the foundation for a
comprehensive PIRT survey of wind energy experts that will be conducted during 2025 via
the International Energy Agency Wind Energy (IEA) Technology Collaboration Programme
(TCP) Task 46: Leading-Edge Erosion.
PIRT analyses are valuable because they allow the systematic identification of phe-
nomena/processes of importance and that require further research to enhance TRLs or
reduce safety risks. However, PIRT analyses are inherently subjective, since they leverage
expert knowledge and judgment [82]. While some have advocated that PIRT methodologies
should be based on literature-based meta-analyses [83], these too are not fully objective
due to inherent biases in publishing [84]. An important advancement of this PIRT analysis
is that the standard deviation of rankings across respondents is captured and presented
to provide quantitative information about the presence or absence of consensus in the
rankings. A divergence of opinions may derive from knowledge gaps due to the trans-
disciplinary nature of a topic or the rapidly evolving nature of a complex topic. Expert
knowledge-based frameworks for research priority identification using PIRT may also not
fully reflect emerging issues. An example of this that was identified in the PIRT but not
given a tier 1 ranking is the possibility of micro-plastic shedding in the ocean environments.
This research topic is being addressed in the PREventing MIcroplastics pollution in SEa
water from offshore wind (PREMISE) project [152]. The emergence of such new topics
strongly advocates for PIRT assessments to be continuously updated to ensure they evolve
as knowledge is advanced.
The PIRT process and discussions summarized above indicate that the TRL for LEE
solutions remains relatively low. However, investment in the priority areas articulated
herein will enhance fundamental understanding and can be used to evolve a robust frame-
work for end-to-end LEE prediction (Figure 7). Investments should be made in building
a robust model V&V framework for each component of such a model chain [153]. Suc-
cessful implementation of such a framework will require the sharing of a range of data
from industrial partners. Needed information includes LEP product material properties,
greater transparency regarding hardware settings in meteorological sensors, and data from
operating wind farms linking the LEE state and the AEP. The end-to-end assessment of
damage as a function of operating climate would also greatly benefit from sharing blade
damage reports/images from operating wind farms for use in the evaluation of location-
specific meteorologically driven LEE predictions [34]. Availability of time histories of
wind turbine Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) data and adequately
resolved LEE topographies for eroded blades will enable faster progress in blade predictive
maintenance technologies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.C.P. and R.J.B.; methodology, S.C.P. and R.J.B.; software,
S.C.P.; validation, S.C.P. and R.J.B.; formal analysis, S.C.P., R.J.B., M.R., H.N. and M.S.C.; investigation,
all authors; resources, S.C.P.; data curation, S.C.P., M.R. and H.N.; writing—original draft preparation,
S.C.P. and R.J.B.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, S.C.P., R.J.B., M.R., H.N. and
M.S.C.; supervision, S.C.P.; project administration, S.C.P. and R.J.B.; funding acquisition, S.C.P., R.J.B.,
C.B.H. and B.M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the US National Science Foundation (2329911 to SCP and RJB),
Sandia National Laboratory (to SCP) IEA task 46 “Erosion of wind turbine blades”, EUDP grant J.nr.
64021-0003 (to C.B.H.) the HORIZON Europe Grant “AIRE” (101083716) (to C.B.H. and B.M.) and by
Danish-American Innovation Network for Wind Energy (DAINWE, grant no. 2084-00014B) funded
by the Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science. Computational resources to S.C.P. and
R.J.B. used in these analyses are provided by the NSF Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery
Environment (XSEDE2) (award TG-ATM170024).
Data Availability Statement: The PIRT results are summarized in Table 1. All other data can be
provided upon request to the authors.
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 23 of 29

Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the PIRT analysis respondents and the contributions
of Joachim Reuder and Mostafa Hassani to development of the PIRT. The authors are also grateful to
Antonios Tempelis for his valuable comments on the topics of Section 3. The Cornell University team
gratefully acknowledge Jeffry Reimel (FAA) and Roxan Noble for enabling access to the Ithaca Airport
AWOS site and Fred Letson for his assistance with instrument maintenance. WEICan gratefully
acknowledge research support from Robbie Sanderson.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature

ADF Accumulated Distance to Failure

AEP Annual Energy (electricity) Production
AKE Accumulated Kinetic Energy
CAPEX CAPital EXpenditures
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
D Hydrometeor Diameter
Dis Disdrometer
FE Finite Element
HSD Hydrometeor Size Distribution
IEA International Energy Agency
LCoE Levelized Cost of Energy
LEE Leading-Edge Erosion
LEP Leading-Edge Protection
LER Leading-Edge Roughness
LERcat Leading-Edge Roughness categorization
ML Machine Learning
NWP Numerical Weather Prediction
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PIRT Phenomena Identification and Ranking Tables
PPT Precipitation
RET Rain Erosion Tester
RG Rain Gauge
RR Precipitation (or Rain) Rate
SALT Simplified Aerodynamic Loss Tool
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SD Standard Deviation
TRL Technology Readiness Level
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
USA United States of America
UV-A Ultraviolet radiation at wavelengths (λ) = 320 and 400 nm
VN curves Velocity–Number of impacts to failure
V&V Verification and Validation
WARERs Whirling Arm Rain ERosion testers
WRF Weather Research and Forecasting
vc Closing velocity
vf Fall velocity
vt Terminal fall velocity

References
1. Pryor, S.C.; Barthelmie, R.J.; Bukovsky, M.S.; Leung, L.R.; Sakaguchi, K. Climate change impacts on wind power generation. Nat.
Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 627–643. [CrossRef]
2. Barthelmie, R.J.; Pryor, S.C. Climate Change Mitigation Potential of Wind Energy. Climate 2021, 9, 136. [CrossRef]
3. Gökgöz, F.; Güvercin, M.T. Energy security and renewable energy efficiency in EU. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 96, 226–239.
[CrossRef]
4. Borba, P.C.S.; Júnior, W.C.S.; Shadman, M.; Pfenninger, S. Enhancing drought resilience and energy security through complement-
ing hydro by offshore wind power—The case of Brazil. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 277, 116616. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 24 of 29

5. GWEC. Global Wind Report 2024; Global Wind Energy Council: Brussels, Belgium, 2024; p. 168. Available online: https:
//gwec.net/global-wind-report-2024/ (accessed on 20 October 2024).
6. Lazard. Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis—Version 16.0 [Online]. Zurich, Switzerland, 2023. Available online:
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ (accessed on 10 July 2024).
7. Bolinger, M.; Wiser, R.; O’Shaughnessy, E. Levelized cost-based learning analysis of utility-scale wind and solar in the United
States. Iscience 2022, 25, 104378. [CrossRef]
8. Barthelmie, R.J.; Larsen, G.C.; Pryor, S.C. Modeling Annual Electricity Production and Levelized Cost of Energy from the US East
Coast Offshore Wind Energy Lease Areas. Energies 2023, 16, 4550. [CrossRef]
9. Rinaldi, G.; Thies, P.R.; Johanning, L. Current status and future trends in the operation and maintenance of offshore wind turbines:
A review. Energies 2021, 14, 2484. [CrossRef]
10. Du, Y.; Zhou, S.; Jing, X.; Peng, Y.; Wu, H.; Kwok, N. Damage detection techniques for wind turbine blades: A review. Mech. Syst.
Signal Process. 2020, 141, 106445. [CrossRef]
11. Bech, J.I.; Hasager, C.B.; Bak, C. Extending the life of wind turbine blade leading edges by reducing the tip speed during extreme
precipitation events. Wind Energy Sci. 2018, 3, 729–748. [CrossRef]
12. Bartolomé, L.; Teuwen, J. Prospective challenges in the experimentation of the rain erosion on the leading edge of wind turbine
blades. Wind Energy 2019, 22, 140–151. [CrossRef]
13. Zhang, S.; Dam-Johansen, K.; Nørkjær, S.; Bernad, P.L., Jr.; Kiil, S. Erosion of wind turbine blade coatings–design and analysis of
jet-based laboratory equipment for performance evaluation. Prog. Org. Coat. 2015, 78, 103–115. [CrossRef]
14. Pryor, S.C.; Barthelmie, R.J.; Cadence, J.; Dellwik, E.; Hasager, C.B.; Kral, S.T.; Reuder, J.; Rodgers, M.; Veraart, M. Atmospheric
Drivers of Wind Turbine Blade Leading Edge Erosion: Review and Recommendations for Future Research. Energies 2022, 15, 8553.
[CrossRef]
15. Sareen, A.; Sapre, C.A.; Selig, M.S. Effects of leading edge erosion on wind turbine blade performance. Wind Energy 2014, 17,
1531–1542. [CrossRef]
16. Mishnaevsky, L., Jr.; Hasager, C.B.; Bak, C.; Tilg, A.-M.; Bech, J.I.; Rad, S.D.; Fæster, S. Leading edge erosion of wind turbine
blades: Understanding, prevention and protection. Renew. Energy 2021, 169, 953–969. [CrossRef]
17. Gaudern, N. A practical study of the aerodynamic impact of wind turbine blade leading edge erosion. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2014,
524, 012031. [CrossRef]
18. Froese, M. Wind-farm owners can now detect leading-edge erosion from data alone. Wind. Eng. Dev. 2018, 14. Available
online: https://www.windpowerengineering.com/wind-farm-owners-can-now-detect-leading-edge-erosion-from-data-alone/
(accessed on 10 October 2024).
19. Campobasso, M.S.; Castorrini, A.; Ortolani, A.; Minisci, E. Probabilistic analysis of wind turbine performance degradation due to
blade erosion accounting for uncertainty of damage geometry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 178, 113254. [CrossRef]
20. Herring, R.; Dyer, K.; Martin, F.; Ward, C. The increasing importance of leading edge erosion and a review of existing protection
solutions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 115, 109382. [CrossRef]
21. Wiser, R.; Jenni, K.; Seel, J.; Baker, E.; Hand, M.; Lantz, E.; Smith, A. Expert elicitation survey on future wind energy costs. Nat.
Energy 2016, 1, 16135. [CrossRef]
22. Mishnaevsky, L., Jr.; Thomsen, K. Costs of repair of wind turbine blades: Influence of technology aspects. Wind Energy 2020, 23,
2247–2255. [CrossRef]
23. Pryor, S.C.; Barthelmie, R.J.; Shepherd, T.J. Wind power production from very large offshore wind farms. Joule 2021, 5, 2663–2686.
[CrossRef]
24. Maniaci, D.C.; Westergaard, C.; Hsieh, A.; Paquette, J.A. Uncertainty quantification of leading edge erosion impacts on wind
turbine performance. Proc. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1618, 052082. [CrossRef]
25. Shankar Verma, A.; Jiang, Z.; Ren, Z.; Hu, W.; Teuwen, J.J. Effects of onshore and offshore environmental parameters on the
leading edge erosion of wind turbine blades: A comparative study. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2021, 143, 042001. [CrossRef]
26. McMorland, J.; Flannigan, C.; Carroll, J.; Collu, M.; McMillan, D.; Leithead, W.; Coraddu, A. A review of operations and
maintenance modelling with considerations for novel wind turbine concepts. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 165, 112581.
[CrossRef]
27. Zahle, F.; Barlas, T.; Lonbaek, K.; Bortolotti, P.; Zalkind, D.; Wang, L.; Labuschagne, C.; Sethuraman, L.; Barter, G. Definition of
the IEA Wind 22-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine; Technical University of Denmark (DTU): Lyngby, Denmark; National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2024; 69p.
28. Shohag, M.A.S.; Hammel, E.C.; Olawale, D.O.; Okoli, O.I. Damage mitigation techniques in wind turbine blades: A review. Wind
Eng. 2017, 41, 185–210. [CrossRef]
29. Mishnaevsky, L., Jr. Root causes and mechanisms of failure of wind turbine blades: Overview. Materials 2022, 15, 2959. [CrossRef]
30. Mankins, J.C. Technology Readiness Levels. 1995, p. 5. Available online: http://www.artemisinnovation.com/images/TRL_
White_Paper_2004-Edited.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2024).
31. Mankins, J.C. Technology readiness assessments: A retrospective. Acta Astronaut. 2009, 65, 1216–1223. [CrossRef]
32. Keegan, M.H.; Nash, D.; Stack, M. On erosion issues associated with the leading edge of wind turbine blades. J. Phys. D Appl.
Phys. 2013, 46, 383001. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 25 of 29

33. Letson, F.; Barthelmie, R.J.; Pryor, S.C. RADAR-derived precipitation climatology for wind turbine blade leading edge erosion.
Wind Energy Sci. 2020, 5, 331–347. [CrossRef]
34. Visbech, J.; Göçmen, T.; Hasager, C.B.; Shkalov, H.; Handberg, M.; Nielsen, K.P. Introducing a data-driven approach to predict
site-specific leading edge erosion. Wind Energy Sci. 2023, 8, 173–191. [CrossRef]
35. Preece, C.M. Treatise on Materials Science and Technology; Academic: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1979; Volume 16, p. 450.
36. Slot, H.; Gelinck, E.; Rentrop, C.; van der Heide, E. Leading edge erosion of coated wind turbine blades: Review of coating life
models. Renew. Energy 2015, 80, 837–848. [CrossRef]
37. Zhu, X.; Fu, X.; Liu, L.; Xu, K.; Luo, G.; Zhao, Z.; Chen, W. Damage mechanism of composite laminates under multiple ice impacts
at high velocity. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2022, 168, 104296. [CrossRef]
38. Heymsfield, A.; Szakáll, M.; Jost, A.; Giammanco, I.; Wright, R. A comprehensive observational study of graupel and hail terminal
velocity, mass flux, and kinetic energy. J. Atmos. Sci. 2018, 75, 3861–3885. [CrossRef]
39. Macdonald, J.; Stack, M. Some thoughts on modelling hail impact on surfaces. J. Bio-Tribo-Corros. 2021, 7, 37. [CrossRef]
40. Kim, H.; Kedward, K.T. Modeling hail ice impacts and predicting impact damage initiation in composite structures. AIAA J. 2000,
38, 1278–1288. [CrossRef]
41. Savana, R. Effect of Hail Impact on Leading Edge Polyurethane Composites. TUDelft, 2022. Available online: http://repository.
tudelft.nl/ (accessed on 10 October 2024).
42. Hannesdóttir, Á.; Kral, S.T.; Reuder, J.; Hasager, C.B. Rain erosion atlas for wind turbine blades based on ERA5 and NORA3 for
Scandinavia. Results Eng. 2024, 22, 102010. [CrossRef]
43. Dolan, B.; Fuchs, B.; Rutledge, S.; Barnes, E.; Thompson, E. Primary modes of global drop size distributions. J. Atmos. Sci. 2018,
75, 1453–1476. [CrossRef]
44. Mayer, P.; Lubecki, M.; Stosiak, M.; Robakowska, M. Effects of surface preparation on the adhesion of UV-aged polyurethane
coatings. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2022, 117, 103183. [CrossRef]
45. Godfrey, M.; Siederer, O.; Zekonyte, J.; Barbaros, I.; Wood, R. The effect of temperature on the erosion of polyurethane coatings
for wind turbine leading edge protection. Wear 2021, 476, 203720. [CrossRef]
46. Lachenal, X.; Daynes, S.; Weaver, P.M. Review of morphing concepts and materials for wind turbine blade applications. Wind
Energy 2013, 16, 283–307. [CrossRef]
47. Wan, D.; Chen, S.; Li, D.; Zhen, Q.; Zhang, B. Sand-Laden Wind Erosion Pair Experimental Analysis of Aerodynamic Performance
of the Wind Turbine Blades. Energies 2024, 17, 2279. [CrossRef]
48. Alajmi, A.F.; Ramulu, M. Characterization of the Leading-Edge Erosion of Wind Turbine Blades by Sand Particles Impingement.
In Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition; American Society of Mechanical Engineers:
New York, NY, USA, 2021; p. V08BT08A033.
49. Vinnes, M.K.; Hearst, R.J. Aerodynamics of an airfoil with leading-edge icing. Wind Energy 2021, 24, 795–811. [CrossRef]
50. Rempel, L. Rotor blade leading edge erosion-real life experiences. Wind Syst. Mag. 2012, 11, 22–24.
51. Amirat, Y.; Benbouzid, M.E.H.; Al-Ahmar, E.; Bensaker, B.; Turri, S. A brief status on condition monitoring and fault diagnosis in
wind energy conversion systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 2629–2636. [CrossRef]
52. Song, X.; Xing, Z.; Jia, Y.; Song, X.; Cai, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Guo, J.; Li, Q. Review on the damage and fault diagnosis of wind
turbine blades in the germination stage. Energies 2022, 15, 7492. [CrossRef]
53. Lopez, J.C.; Kolios, A. An autonomous decision-making agent for offshore wind turbine blades under leading edge erosion.
Renew. Energy 2024, 227, 120525. [CrossRef]
54. Kong, K.; Dyer, K.; Payne, C.; Hamerton, I.; Weaver, P.M. Progress and trends in damage detection methods, maintenance, and
data-driven monitoring of wind turbine blades–A review. Renew. Energy Focus 2023, 44, 390–412. [CrossRef]
55. Cao, Z.; Li, S.; Li, C.; Li, P.; Ko, T.J. Formation mechanism and detection and evaluation methods as well as repair technology
of crack damage in fiber-reinforced composite wind turbine blade: A review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2022, 120, 5649–5672.
[CrossRef]
56. Yan, Y.; Cheng, L.; Wu, Z.; Yam, L. Development in vibration-based structural damage detection technique. Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 2007, 21, 2198–2211. [CrossRef]
57. Juengert, A.; Grosse, C.U. Inspection techniques for wind turbine blades using ultrasound and sound waves. In Proceedings of
the Non-Destructive Testing in Civil Engineering: NDTCE, Nantes, France, 30 June–3 July 2009; p. 8.
58. Van Dam, J.; Bond, L.J. Acoustic emission monitoring of wind turbine blades. In Proceedings of the Smart Materials and Nondestructive
Evaluation for Energy Systems; SPIE: San Diego, CA, USA, 2015; pp. 55–69.
59. Xu, D.; Wen, C.; Liu, J. Wind turbine blade surface inspection based on deep learning and UAV-taken images. J. Renew. Sustain.
Energy 2019, 11, 053305. [CrossRef]
60. Sørensen, B.F.; Lading, L.; Sendrup, P. Fundamentals for Remote Structural Health Monitoring of Wind Turbine Blades-a Pre-Project;
Report # RISO-R-1336(EN); Risoe National Laboratory: Roskilde, Denmark, 2002; p. 37. Available online: https://www.osti.gov/
etdeweb/biblio/20273791 (accessed on 10 October 2024).
61. Shihavuddin, A.; Chen, X.; Fedorov, V.; Nymark Christensen, A.; Andre Brogaard Riis, N.; Branner, K.; Bjorholm Dahl, A.;
Reinhold Paulsen, R. Wind turbine surface damage detection by deep learning aided drone inspection analysis. Energies 2019,
12, 676. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 26 of 29

62. Aird, J.A.; Barthelmie, R.J.; Pryor, S.C. Automated Quantification of Wind Turbine Blade Leading Edge Erosion from Field Images.
Energies 2023, 16, 2820. [CrossRef]
63. Mishnaevsky, L.; Branner, K.; Petersen, H.; Beauson, J.; McGugan, M.; Sørensen, B. Materials for wind turbine blades: An
overview. Materials 2017, 10, 1285. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Brøndsted, P.; Lilholt, H.; Lystrup, A. Composite materials for wind power turbine blades. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2005, 35,
505–538. [CrossRef]
65. Fæster, S.; Johansen, N.F.J.; Mishnaevsky, L., Jr.; Kusano, Y.; Bech, J.I.; Madsen, M.B. Rain erosion of wind turbine blades and the
effect of air bubbles in the coatings. Wind Energy 2021, 24, 1071–1082. [CrossRef]
66. Hoksbergen, N.; Akkerman, R.; Baran, I. The Springer model for lifetime prediction of wind turbine blade leading edge protection
systems: A review and sensitivity study. Materials 2022, 15, 1170. [CrossRef]
67. Cortés, E.; Sánchez, F.; O’Carroll, A.; Madramany, B.; Hardiman, M.; Young, T.M. On the Material Characterisation of Wind
Turbine Blade Coatings: The Effect of Interphase Coating–Laminate Adhesion on Rain Erosion Performance. Materials 2017,
10, 1146. [CrossRef]
68. Eisenberg, D.; Laustsen, S.; Stege, J. Wind turbine blade coating leading edge rain erosion model: Development and validation.
Wind Energy 2018, 21, 942–951. [CrossRef]
69. Traphan, D.; Herráez, I.; Meinlschmidt, P.; Schlüter, F.; Peinke, J.; Gülker, G. Remote surface damage detection on rotor blades of
operating wind turbines by means of infrared thermography. Wind Energy Sci. 2018, 3, 639–650. [CrossRef]
70. Verma, A.S.; Castro, S.G.; Jiang, Z.; Teuwen, J.J. Numerical investigation of rain droplet impact on offshore wind turbine blades
under different rainfall conditions: A parametric study. Compos. Struct. 2020, 241, 112096. [CrossRef]
71. Nash, D.; Leishman, G.; Mackie, C.; Dyer, K.; Yang, L. A staged approach to erosion analysis of wind turbine blade coatings.
Coatings 2021, 11, 681. [CrossRef]
72. Castorrini, A.; Venturini, P.; Bonfiglioli, A. Generation of Surface Maps of Erosion Resistance for Wind Turbine Blades under Rain
Flows. Energies 2022, 15, 5593. [CrossRef]
73. Springer, G.S. Erosion by Liquid Impact; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1976; p. 278.
74. Springer, G.S.; Yang, C.-I.; Larsen, P.S. Analysis of rain erosion of coated materials. J. Compos. Mater. 1974, 8, 229–252. [CrossRef]
75. Herring, R.; Domenech, L.; Renau, J.; Šakalytė, A.; Ward, C.; Dyer, K.; Sánchez, F. Assessment of a wind turbine blade erosion
lifetime prediction model with industrial protection materials and testing methods. Coatings 2021, 11, 767. [CrossRef]
76. Maniaci, D.C.; MacDonald, H.; Paquette, J.; Clarke, R. Leading Edge Erosion Classification System. Technical Report from IEA
Wind Task 46 Erosion of Wind Turbine Blades. 2022, p. 52. Available online: https://iea-wind.org/task46/t46-results/ (accessed
on 20 October 2024).
77. Panthi, K.; Iungo, G.V. Quantification of wind turbine energy loss due to leading-edge erosion through infrared-camera imaging,
numerical simulations, and assessment against SCADA and meteorological data. Wind Energy 2023, 26, 266–282. [CrossRef]
78. Saenz, E.; Mendez, B.; Muñoz, A. Effect of erosion morphology on wind turbine production losses. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022,
2265, 032059. [CrossRef]
79. Bak, C. A simple model to predict the energy loss due to leading edge roughness. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022, 2265, 032038. [CrossRef]
80. Özçakmak, Ö.S.; Bretos, D.; Méndez, B.; Bak, C. Determination of annual energy production loss due to erosion on wind turbine
blades. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2024, 2767, 022066. [CrossRef]
81. Gaertner, E.; Rinker, J.; Sethuraman, L.; Zahle, Z.; Anderson, B.; Barter, G.; Abbas, B.; Meng, F.; Bortolotti, F.; Skrzypinski, W.; et al.
Definition of the IEA 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine; NREL/TP-5000-75698; National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
Golden, CO, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75698.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2024).
82. Malik, T.H.; Bak, C. Challenges in Detecting Wind Turbine Power Loss: The Effects of Blade Erosion, Turbulence and Time
Averaging. Wind Energy Sci. Discuss. 2024, 2024, 1–23. [CrossRef]
83. Han, W.; Kim, J.; Kim, B. Effects of contamination and erosion at the leading edge of blade tip airfoils on the annual energy
production of wind turbines. Renew. Energy 2018, 115, 817–823. [CrossRef]
84. Mishnaevsky, L., Jr.; Tempelis, A.; Kuthe, N.; Mahajan, P. Recent developments in the protection of wind turbine blades against
leading edge erosion: Materials solutions and predictive modelling. Renew. Energy 2023, 118966. [CrossRef]
85. Verma, A.S.; Yan, J.; Hu, W.; Jiang, Z.; Shi, W.; Teuwen, J.J. A review of impact loads on composite wind turbine blades: Impact
threats and classification. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 178, 113261. [CrossRef]
86. Dashtkar, A.; Johansen, N.F.-J.; Mishnaevsky, L., Jr.; Williams, N.A.; Hasan, S.W.; Wadi, V.S.; Silvello, A.; Hadavinia, H.
Graphene/sol–gel modified polyurethane coating for wind turbine blade leading edge protection: Properties and performance.
Polym. Polym. Compos. 2022, 30, 09673911221074197. [CrossRef]
87. Major, D.; Palacios, J.; Maughmer, M.; Schmitz, S. Aerodynamics of leading-edge protection tapes for wind turbine blades. Wind
Eng. 2021, 45, 1296–1316. [CrossRef]
88. Kyle, R.; Wang, F.; Forbes, B. The effect of a leading edge erosion shield on the aerodynamic performance of a wind turbine blade.
Wind Energy 2020, 23, 953–966. [CrossRef]
89. Bera, P.; Lakshmi, R.; Pathak, S.M.; Bonu, V.; Mishnaevsky, L., Jr.; Barshilia, H.C. Recent Progress in the Development and
Evaluation of Rain and Solid Particle Erosion Resistant Coatings for Leading Edge Protection of Wind Turbine Blades. Polym. Rev.
2024, 64, 639–689. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 27 of 29

90. Jones, S.M.; Rehfeld, N.; Schreiner, C.; Dyer, K. The Development of a Novel Thin Film Test Method to Evaluate the Rain Erosion
Resistance of Polyaspartate-Based Leading Edge Protection Coatings. Coatings 2023, 13, 1849. [CrossRef]
91. Verma, A.S.; Noi, S.D.; Ren, Z.; Jiang, Z.; Teuwen, J.J. Minimum leading edge protection application length to combat rain-induced
erosion of wind turbine blades. Energies 2021, 14, 1629. [CrossRef]
92. Ansari, Q.M.; Sánchez, F.; Mishnaevsky, L., Jr.; Young, T.M. Evaluation of offshore wind turbine blades coating thickness effect on
leading edge protection system subject to rain erosion. Renew. Energy 2024, 226, 120378. [CrossRef]
93. Katsivalis, I.; Chanteli, A.; Finnegan, W.; Young, T.M. Mechanical and interfacial characterisation of leading-edge protection
materials for wind turbine blade applications. Wind Energy 2022, 25, 1758–1774. [CrossRef]
94. Letson, F.; Pryor, S.C. From Hydrometeor Size Distribution Measurements to Projections of Wind Turbine Blade Leading Edge
Erosion. Energies 2023, 5, 3906. [CrossRef]
95. Skrzypiński, W.; Bech, J.; Hasager, C.B.; Tilg, A.; Bak, F.; Ch, V. Optimization of the erosion-safe operation of the IEA Wind 15 MW
Reference Wind Turbine. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1618, 052034. [CrossRef]
96. Visbech, J.; Göçmen, T.; Réthoré, P.-E.; Hasager, C.B. Erosion-safe operation using double deep Q-learning. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2024,
2767, 032047. [CrossRef]
97. Oliver, T.J.; Nowlen, S.P. A Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) Exercise for Nuclear Power Plant Fire Modeling
Applications; Report # NUREG/CR-6978; Sandia National Laboratory: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2008; p. 441.
98. Singh, P.M.; Chan, K.J.; Deo, C.S.; Deodeshmukh, V.; Keiser, J.R.; Ren, W.; Sham, T.; Wilson, D.F.; Yoder, G.; Zhang, J. Phenomena
Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) study for metallic structural materials for advanced High-Temperature reactor. Ann.
Nucl. Energy 2019, 123, 222–229. [CrossRef]
99. Maniaci, D.C.; Naughton, J.W. V&V Integrated Program Planning for Wind Plant Performance; Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM):
Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2019.
100. Klaas-Witt, T.; Emeis, S. The five main influencing factors for lidar errors in complex terrain. Wind Energy Sci. 2022, 7, 413–431.
[CrossRef]
101. Wagner, R.; Pedersen, T.F.; Courtney, M.; Antoniou, I.; Davoust, S.; Rivera, R.L. Power curve measurement with a nacelle mounted
lidar. Wind Energy 2014, 17, 1441–1453. [CrossRef]
102. Haupt, S.E.; Kosovic, B.; Shaw, W.; Berg, L.K.; Churchfield, M.; Cline, J.; Draxl, C.; Ennis, B.; Koo, E.; Kotamarthi, R. On bridging a
modeling scale gap: Mesoscale to microscale coupling for wind energy. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2019, 100, 2533–2550. [CrossRef]
103. Prieto, R.; Karlsson, T. A model to estimate the effect of variables causing erosion in wind turbine blades. Wind Energy 2021, 24,
1031–1044. [CrossRef]
104. Lochbihler, K.; Lenderink, G.; Siebesma, A.P. The spatial extent of rainfall events and its relation to precipitation scaling. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 2017, 44, 8629–8636. [CrossRef]
105. Kopp, J.; Manzato, A.; Hering, A.; Germann, U.; Martius, O. How observations from automatic hail sensors in Switzerland shed
light on local hailfall duration and compare with hailpads measurements. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2023, 16, 3487–3503. [CrossRef]
106. Lanza, L.G.; Cauteruccio, A.; Stagnaro, M. Rain gauge measurements. In Rainfall; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022;
pp. 77–108.
107. Pruppacher, H.R.; Beard, K. A wind tunnel investigation of the internal circulation and shape of water drops falling at terminal
velocity in air. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 1970, 96, 247–256. [CrossRef]
108. Ro, Y.; Chang, K.-H.; Hwang, H.; Kim, M.; Cha, J.-W.; Lee, C. Comparative study of rainfall measurement by optical disdrometer,
tipping-bucket rain gauge, and weighing precipitation gauge. Nat. Hazards 2024, 120, 2829–2845. [CrossRef]
109. Méndez, B.; Saenz, E.; Pires, Ó.; Cantero, E.; Bech, J.; Polls, F.; Peinó, E.; Udina, M.; Garcia-Benadí, A. Experimental campaign
for the characterization of precipitation in a complex terrain site using high resolution observations. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2024,
2767, 042016. [CrossRef]
110. Gunn, R.; Kinzer, G.D. The terminal velocity of fall for water droplets in stagnant air. J. Atmos. Sci. 1949, 6, 243–248. [CrossRef]
111. Tokay, A.; Petersen, W.A.; Gatlin, P.; Wingo, M. Comparison of raindrop size distribution measurements by collocated disdrome-
ters. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2013, 30, 1672–1690. [CrossRef]
112. Prein, A.; Rasmussen, R.; Wang, D.; Giangrande, S. Sensitivity of organized convective storms to model grid spacing in current
and future climates. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 2021, 379, 20190546. [CrossRef]
113. Fridlind, A.M.; Li, X.; Wu, D.; van Lier-Walqui, M.; Ackerman, A.S.; Tao, W.-K.; McFarquhar, G.M.; Wu, W.; Dong, X.; Wang, J.
Derivation of aerosol profiles for MC3E convection studies and use in simulations of the 20 May squall line case. Atmos. Chem.
Phys. 2017, 17, 5947–5972. [CrossRef]
114. Hong, S.-Y.; Dudhia, J.; Chen, S.-H. A revised approach to ice microphysical processes for the bulk parameterization of clouds
and precipitation. Mon. Weather Rev. 2004, 132, 103–120. [CrossRef]
115. Morrison, H.; Curry, J.; Khvorostyanov, V. A new double-moment microphysics parameterization for application in cloud and
climate models. Part I Description. J. Atmos. Sci. 2005, 62, 1665–1677.
116. Milbrandt, J.; Yau, M. A multimoment bulk microphysics parameterization. Part II: A proposed three-moment closure and
scheme description. J. Atmos. Sci. 2005, 62, 3065–3081. [CrossRef]
117. Milbrandt, J.A.; Yau, M.K. A Multimoment Bulk Microphysics Parameterization. Part I: Analysis of the Role of the Spectral Shape
Parameter. J. Atmos. Sci. 2005, 62, 3051–3064. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 28 of 29

118. Thompson, G.; Field, P.R.; Rasmussen, R.M.; Hall, W.D. Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk
microphysics scheme. Part II: Implementation of a new snow parameterization. Mon. Weather Rev. 2008, 136, 5095–5115.
[CrossRef]
119. Khain, A.; Beheng, K.; Heymsfield, A.; Korolev, A.; Krichak, S.; Levin, Z.; Pinsky, M.; Phillips, V.; Prabhakaran, T.; Teller, A.
Representation of microphysical processes in cloud-resolving models: Spectral (bin) microphysics versus bulk parameterization.
Rev. Geophys. 2015, 53, 247–322. [CrossRef]
120. Xue, L.; Fan, J.; Lebo, Z.J.; Wu, W.; Morrison, H.; Grabowski, W.W.; Chu, X.; Geresdi, I.; North, K.; Stenz, R. Idealized simulations
of a squall line from the MC3E field campaign applying three bin microphysics schemes: Dynamic and thermodynamic structure.
Mon. Weather Rev. 2017, 145, 4789–4812. [CrossRef]
121. Fan, J.; Han, B.; Varble, A.; Morrison, H.; North, K.; Kollias, P.; Chen, B.; Dong, X.; Giangrande, S.E.; Khain, A. Cloud-resolving
model intercomparison of an MC3E squall line case: Part I—Convective updrafts. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2017, 122, 9351–9378.
[CrossRef]
122. Yang, Q.; Zhang, S.; Dai, Q.; Zhuang, H. WRF Rainfall Modeling Post-Processing by Adaptive Parameterization of Raindrop Size
Distribution: A Case Study on the United Kingdom. Atmosphere 2021, 13, 36. [CrossRef]
123. Shpund, J.; Khain, A.; Lynn, B.; Fan, J.; Han, B.; Ryzhkov, A.; Snyder, J.; Dudhia, J.; Gill, D. Simulating a Mesoscale Convective
System Using WRF With a New Spectral Bin Microphysics: 1:Hail vs Graupel. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2019, 124, 14072–14101.
[CrossRef]
124. Collow, T.W.; Robock, A.; Wu, W. Influences of soil moisture and vegetation on convective precipitation forecasts over the United
States Great Plains. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2014, 119, 9338–9358. [CrossRef]
125. Pryor, S.C.; Letson, F.; Shepherd, T.J.; Barthelmie, R.J. Evaluation of WRF simulation of deep convection in the US Southern Great
Plains. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 2023, 62, 41–62. [CrossRef]
126. Zhou, X.; Letson, F.; Crippa, P.; Pryor, S.C. Urban effect on precipitation and deep convective systems over Dallas-Fort Worth. J.
Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2024, 129, e2023JD039972. [CrossRef]
127. Zeng, X.; Alves, L.; Boucher, M.-A.; Cherchi, A.; DeMott, C.; Dimri, A.; Gettelman, A.; Hanna, E.; Horinouchi, T.; Huang, J.
Global Precipitation Experiment-A New World Climate Research Programme Lighthouse Activity. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2024.
[CrossRef]
128. Yu, S.; Hannah, W.; Peng, L.; Lin, J.; Bhouri, M.A.; Gupta, R.; Lütjens, B.; Will, J.C.; Behrens, G.; Busecke, J. ClimSim: A large
multi-scale dataset for hybrid physics-ML climate emulation. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems 36 (NeurIPS 2023), New Orleans, LA, USA, 10–16 December 2023; p. 14.
129. DNVGL. DNV-RP-0171 Testing of Rotor Blade Erosion Protection Systems; 2018. Available online: https://www.dnv.com/
energy/standards-guidelines/dnv-rp-0171-testing-of-rotor-blade-erosion-protection-systems/ (accessed on 20 October 2024).
130. Bech, J.I.; Johansen, N.F.-J.; Madsen, M.B.; Hannesdóttir, Á.; Hasager, C.B. Experimental study on the effect of drop size in rain
erosion test and on lifetime prediction of wind turbine blades. Renew. Energy 2022, 197, 776–789. [CrossRef]
131. Márquez, F.P.G.; Chacón, A.M.P. A review of non-destructive testing on wind turbines blades. Renew. Energy 2020, 161, 998–1010.
[CrossRef]
132. Rizk, P.; Rizk, F.; Karganroudi, S.S.; Ilinca, A.; Younes, R.; Khoder, J. Advanced wind turbine blade inspection with hyperspectral
imaging and 3D convolutional neural networks for damage detection. Energy AI 2024, 16, 100366. [CrossRef]
133. Forsting, A.M.; Olsen, A.; Sørensen, N.; Fischer, A.; Markussen, C.; Bak, C. An aerodynamic digital twin of real-world leading
edge erosion: Acquisition, Generation and 3D CFD. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2024, 2767, 022021. [CrossRef]
134. Hwang, S.; An, Y.-K.; Yang, J.; Sohn, H. Remote inspection of internal delamination in wind turbine blades using continuous line
laser scanning thermography. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol. 2020, 7, 699–712. [CrossRef]
135. Ding, K.; Wu, C.; Luo, M.; Su, Z.; Ding, H.; Ye, Y.; Zhang, D. Surface Profile Inspection for Large Structures with Laser Scanning.
Surf. Topogr. Metrol. Prop. 2024, 12, 035039. [CrossRef]
136. Leishman, G.; Nash, D.; Yang, L.; Dyer, K. A novel approach for wind turbine blade erosion characterization: An investigation
using surface gloss measurement. Coatings 2022, 12, 928. [CrossRef]
137. Zhang, Y.; Avallone, F.; Watson, S. Leading edge erosion detection for a wind turbine blade using far-field aerodynamic noise.
Appl. Acoust. 2023, 207, 109365. [CrossRef]
138. Pugh, K.; Rasool, G.; Stack, M.M. Raindrop erosion of composite materials: Some views on the effect of bending stress on erosion
mechanisms. J. Bio-Tribo-Corros. 2019, 5, 45. [CrossRef]
139. Verma, A.S.; Wu, C.-Y.; Díaz, M.A.; Teuwen, J.J. Analyzing rain erosion using a Pulsating Jet Erosion Tester (PJET): Effect of
droplet impact frequencies and dry intervals on incubation times. Wear 2024, 562–563, 205614. [CrossRef]
140. Castorrini, A.; Barnabei, V.F.; Domenech, L.; Šakalyté, A.; Sánchez, F.; Campobasso, M.S. Impact of meteorological data factors
and material characterization method on the predictions of leading edge erosion of wind turbine blades. Renew. Energy 2024,
227, 120549. [CrossRef]
141. Hassani-Gangaraj, M.; Veysset, D.; Nelson, K.A.; Schuh, C.A. Melt-driven erosion in microparticle impact. Nat. Commun. 2018,
9, 5077. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
142. Tempelis, A.; Mishnaevsky, L., Jr. Surface roughness evolution of wind turbine blade subject to rain erosion. Mater. Des. 2023,
231, 112011. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 6285 29 of 29

143. Reichert, P.; White, G.; Bayarri, M.J.; Pitman, E.B. Mechanism-based emulation of dynamic simulation models: Concept and
application in hydrology. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2011, 55, 1638–1655. [CrossRef]
144. Cappugi, L.; Castorrini, A.; Bonfiglioli, A.; Minisci, E.; Campobasso, M.S. Machine learning-enabled prediction of wind turbine
energy yield losses due to general blade leading edge erosion. Energy Convers. Manag. 2021, 245, 114567. [CrossRef]
145. Campobasso, M.S.; Castorrini, A.; Cappugi, L.; Bonfiglioli, A. Experimentally validated three-dimensional computational
aerodynamics of wind turbine blade sections featuring leading edge erosion cavities. Wind Energy 2022, 25, 168–189. [CrossRef]
146. Nikuradse, J. Laws of Flow in Rough Pipes; Technical Memorandum NASA TM 1292; Lewis Research Center: Washington, DC,
USA, 1950. Available online: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc63009/m2/1/high_res_d/19930093938.pdf
(accessed on 20 October 2024).
147. Kadivar, M.; Tormey, D.; McGranaghan, G. A review on turbulent flow over rough surfaces: Fundamentals and theories. Int. J.
Thermofluids 2021, 10, 100077. [CrossRef]
148. Castorrini, A.; Ortolani, A.; Campobasso, M.S. Assessing the progression of wind turbine energy yield losses due to blade erosion
by resolving damage geometries from lab tests and field observations. Renew. Energy 2023, 218, 119256. [CrossRef]
149. Castorrini, A.; Ortolani, A.; Minisci, E.; Campobasso, M. Opensource machine learning metamodels for assessing blade perfor-
mance impairment due to general leading edge degradation. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2024, 2767, 052055. [CrossRef]
150. Barthelmie, R.J.; Doubrawa, P.; Wang, H.; Giroux, G.; Pryor, S.C. Effects of an escarpment on flow parameters of relevance to
wind turbines. Wind Energy 2016, 19, 2271–2286. [CrossRef]
151. Latiffianti, E.; Ding, Y.; Sheng, S.; Williams, L.; Morshedizadeh, M.; Rodgers, M. Analysis of leading edge protection application
on wind turbine performance through energy and power decomposition approaches. Wind Energy 2022, 25, 1203–1221. [CrossRef]
152. Technical University of Denmark. Preventing MIcroplastics Pollution in SEa Water from Offshore Wind (PREMISE) Project.
Available online: https://premise.dtu.dk/ (accessed on 1 October 2024).
153. Thacker, B.H.; Doebling, S.W.; Hemez, F.M.; Anderson, M.C.; Pepin, J.E.; Rodriguez, E.A. Concepts of Model Verification and
Validation; Report # LA-14167-MS: California; Los Alamos National Laboratory: Los Alamos, NM, USA, 2004; p. 41.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.