Modular Lightning Protection for Wind Turbines
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is very interesting article, with high background but with too small part of research. There is no simulations details, no information in which part of wing was the results and only three results? Practical part of this article is to poor to make any discussion. Please, wtire some more details about simulations.
1. Definition of rise time and time do half is not showed on fig1. (in text are other symbols (tau not capital "T"), dashed lines do not crossing together (eg. for 0.5 and T2), so this figure must be corrected.
2. I don't see anything about polarity. You describe whole parameters, but what is polarity of first stroke? Which one is more probability?
3. Low quality of fig.5, must change
4. What is the worst case of lightning discharge on wind turbine? How they stop when some part of wing is damage after lightning (or fire)?
5. You describe LPS, but how about measuring systems of lightning discharge and detection? It can be help?
6. Fig 12 is for which surge pulse (10/350 or 1.2/50). You must write that.
7. You write about 10/350 and 1.2/50, but you simulate only one? I don't understand this part. No simulation details.
8.Why You use different units in fig 8, 10 and 11? It's hard to compare. Please, change to one standard, eg. kV/m in all or V/m in all.
9. If you use the same X axie in fig 8, 10 and 11 (up to 1500 us), figures will be better to compare together! Or please, combine all three in one, to show the diference. Now it is hard or impossible.
10. Any equations for results form table 7? How it is calculate?
11. Results based on 3 simulations? You don't compare different wings, or something more?
12. Where you measure electric field and how? You describe stroke as current impulse 200 kA. If it is directly to the metal top of wing, you don't measure electric field... If you use voltage surge you can measure current.
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madame,
Thank you for your comments. Please kindly find below our feedback:
It is very interesting article, with high background but with too small part of research. There is no simulations details, no information in which part of wing was the results and only three results? Practical part of this article is to poor to make any discussion. Please, wtire some more details about simulations.
Authors:
1. Definition of rise time and time do half is not showed on fig1. (in text are other symbols (tau not capital "T"), dashed lines do not crossing together (eg. for 0.5 and T2), so this figure must be corrected.
Authors: Figure is now corrected
2. I don't see anything about polarity. You describe whole parameters, but what is polarity of first stroke? Which one is more probability?
Authors: It is for positive stroke.
3. Low quality of fig.5, must change
Authors: Figure 5 resolution is now fixed.
4. What is the worst case of lightning discharge on wind turbine? How they stop when some part of wing is damage after lightning (or fire)?
Authors: This depends on the lightning characteristics. Peak current is a critical value while in some cases W/R can cause damages even with low Ipeak. It is updated in the text that in case of mild lightning strokes wind turbine continues its operation but with impact on the power curve while in severe cases the wtg is uncontrolled.
5. You describe LPS, but how about measuring systems of lightning discharge and detection? It can be help?
Authors: This is a valid point which can be considered in a new article.
6. Fig 12 is for which surge pulse (10/350 or 1.2/50). You must write that.
Authors: Text is updated
7. You write about 10/350 and 1.2/50, but you simulate only one? I don't understand this part. No simulation details.
Authors: It is for 10/350 while text is updated (line 414-416)
8.Why You use different units in fig 8, 10 and 11? It's hard to compare. Please, change to one standard, eg. kV/m in all or V/m in all.
Authors: Graph is updated
9. If you use the same X axie in fig 8, 10 and 11 (up to 1500 us), figures will be better to compare together! Or please, combine all three in one, to show the diference. Now it is hard or impossible.
Authors: Graph is updated
10. Any equations for results form table 7? How it is calculate?
Authors: These are simulation results based on probes on the strip and in the blade surface (non-conductive part)
11. Results based on 3 simulations? You don't compare different wings, or something more?
Authors: Different strip profiles could be considered but the purpose of this paper is to provide a solution that has low aerodynamic effect
12. Where you measure electric field and how? You describe stroke as current impulse 200 kA. If it is directly to the metal top of wing, you don't measure electric field... If you use voltage surge you can measure current.
Authors: It is applied on the upper part of the blade (tip)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Literature review needs to be extended. You can use the following papers:
· B. Glushakow and H. Qin, "Wind Turbine Lightning Protection of Blades, Electronics and Humans," 2019 International Symposium on Lightning Protection (XV SIPDA), 2019, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.1109/SIPDA47030.2019.8951561.
· W. Arif, Q. Li, W. Yu, Z. Guo and H. Li, "A Review on Experimental Study of Wind Turbine Blade Lightning Protection System," 2019 IEEE International Conference on Power, Intelligent Computing and Systems (ICPICS), 2019, pp. 25-29, doi: 10.1109/ICPICS47731.2019.8942452.
· S. Sekioka, "Simulation of Lightning Overvoltages in Substation for Lightning Strike to Wind Turbine," 2021 35th International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP) and XVI International Symposium on Lightning Protection (SIPDA), 2021, pp. 01-06, doi: 10.1109/ICLPandSIPDA54065.2021.9627343.
· M. J. Nasiri, O. Homaee, A. Najafi, M. Jasinski and Z. Leonowicz, "Analyzing the Effect of Lightning Channel Impedance on the Induced Overvoltages in Wind Turbines," 2022 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2022 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe), 2022, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/EEEIC/ICPSEurope54979.2022.9854694.
· E. Shulzhenko, K. Yamamoto and M. Rock, "Calculation of Lightning Current Distribution within a Wind Turbine and its Surge Protection," 2022 36th International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2022, pp. 194-201, doi: 10.1109/ICLP56858.2022.9942515.
· Z. Zhu, M. Jiang and V. Crevenat, "Simulation and Analysis of Surge Protection for Wind Turbines Based on ATP-EMTP," 2022 36th International Conference on Lightning Protection (ICLP), 2022, pp. 155-159, doi: 10.1109/ICLP56858.2022.9942639.
- Contributions of the paper have to be highlighted.
- Line 310: the sentence is not complete.
- It is not clear for this reviewer why the lightning strikes are reduced after 10000 feet?
- The Y axis of figure 5 needs correction.
- Please add more explanation about the standard design of the WT LPS presented in page 10.
- Figure 6 needs to be explained in detail. What is SMT?
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madame,
Thank you for your time and your comments. Please kindly see below authors response:
- Literature review needs to be extended. You can use the following papers:
Authors: Thank you for the literature shared which was included in the references
- Contributions of the paper have to be highlighted.
Authors: It is mentioned in the beginning of the paper and also was added following your kind recommendation in the conclusion.
- Line 310: the sentence is not complete.
Authors: Sentence was updated.
- It is not clear for this reviewer why the lightning strikes are reduced after 10000 feet?
Authors: This is finding of the relevant reference
- The Y axis of figure 5 needs correction.
Authors: Fig.5 is now fixed
- Please add more explanation about the standard design of the WT LPS presented in page 10.
Authors: relevant explanation was added .
- Figure 6 needs to be explained in detail. What is SMT?
Authors: Fig. was updated. SMT stands for solid metal tip but in the updated graph was used the term tip metal cap.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the authors for writing this article!
Unfortunately, I cannot really take anything new, nothing useful for the lightning protection of wind turbines, from the article, sorry.
Some comments can be found in your PDF document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madame,
Thank you very much for your time and your constructive comments.
Please kindly find below and attached our feedback.
This paper intends to act as guidance of the wind industry to select a proper WTG and wind farm LPS which can be based on site conditions. Lightning despite the high impact on the components does not have the proper attention by the wind farm developer and thus by using the proposed methodology will help them to go a step closer to safety and reliability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for replay and corrections.
Better option is to simulate negative polarity of first stroke, because 90% of all CG lightnings have negative. But it is not wrong to test positive - this is information for further research for you.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be published.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the authors for the revision of the article!
Many of my corrections were accepted, but a few comments were not taken into account!
Overall, however, I unfortunately cannot change my assessment, the article contains nothing new, nothing recognisably useful for the lightning protection of wind turbines.
