4.7 Article

Thickness threshold study of polyaniline-based lightning strike protection coating for carbon/glass fiber reinforced polymer composites

Journal

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Volume 280, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114954

Keywords

Lightning damage; Damage assessment; Lightning strike protection; Polyaniline; Conductive coating

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [21H01525]
  2. US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office [DE-AC0500OR22725]
  3. UT-Battelle, LLC
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21H01525] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different thicknesses of polyaniline-based lightning strike protection coatings were tested on composite materials, showing that they are suitable for protecting GFRP composites but careful design is needed for CFRP composites to avoid failure.
Different polyaniline (PANI) based lightning strike protection (LSP) coating thicknesses were tested against simulated lightning strike tests to evaluate the threshold thickness of the coating. A series of lightning strike tests were performed on carbon/glass fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP/GFRP) composites subjected to simulated lightning currents ranging from 40 to 100 kA. Five LSP-coated specimens were considered herein: two CFRP and three GFRP composites. A minimum of similar to 345 mu m thick PANI-based LSP coating on CFRP and GFRP composites under a 40 kA peak current retained 83 % and 100 % residual strength, respectively. Additionally, GFRP specimens tested against 60 and 100 kA peak currents exhibited 100 % residual strength. This study proposes that a PANI-based LSP coating is suitable for protecting GFRP composites, while the careful design is necessary for CFRP composites to avoid any catastrophic failure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available