Informe final Brian 150701_final Page 1 of 8

Brian McNiff 43 Dog Island Rd Harborside, ME

04642 USA

Final Report

Assessment of Capabilities for Manufacturing MEM Blades in Mexico

Brian McNiff

Document: MLI_15_IIE-13_MEM_FinalReport_Task3b_150701.docx Contract: MCNIFF/E/NC/18165

Deliverable 3b, Rev 1.1 Final Date: 1 July 2015

1 OBJECTIVE

The objective of this effort was to evaluate capabilities of organizations in the Mexican Eólico Machina (MEM) collaborative to manufacture MW scale wind turbine blades in Mexico, and to perform an assessment of the risk of manufacture in Mexico versus abroad. This work was performed under contract with the Instituto Investigaciones Electricas (IIE) as per McNiff proposal (MLI proposal 14MIIE_1 TDR blades 26Dec2014.pdf) in response to the blade consultancy terms of reference (TDR_Rotor_Blade_Consultancy.pdf) under IIE project ME-X1011. 2 APPROACH

The work was separated into the following tasks to perform the evaluation: Task 1 - planning and travel; Task 2a - Identify required skills and capabilities to design, fabricate and validate wind

turbine blades; - Survey, document and characterize capabilities of MEM collaborative

partners; - Match in-country capabilities to requirements and identify gaps; Task 2b - review and comment on draft terms of reference for MEM blades fabrication; Task 2c - Propose how to augment the capabilities up to the required level; Task 2d - Weigh risks vs benefits to manufacture in Mexico vs abroad; Task 3 - Summary reports and presentation materials.

The activity in these tasks are described in summary in this document with selected observations and the final recommendations and conclusions. More details are provided in the reports that were written for each of the tasks of this assessment (see Table 1) as required in the terms of reference. They are referenced in each clause as appropriate instead of completely reproducing them here. It is felt that these reports stand on their own to document observations and provide rationale for the conclusions and recommendations.

Brian McNiff 43 Dog Island Rd Harborside, ME

04642 USA

Informe final Brian 150701_final Page 2 of 8

Table 1 Reports provided and referenced

Task File Name Description

1 MLI_15_IIE_3a_McNiff_Status_18Apr2015.pdf Interim status memo

2a MLI_15_IIE-5b_MEM_capabilities_Task2a_150531.docx Assessment and documentation of capabilities match to requirements

2b MLI_15_IIE-6a_MEM_bladespec_Task2b_150601.docx Recommendations to refine the blade manufacturing project statement of work

2c MLI_15_IIE-7b_MEM_augment_Task2c_150604.docx Recommendations on augmenting in-country capabilities to meet requirements

2d MLI_15_IIE-10a_MEM_riskanalysis_Task2d_150615.docx risk analysis for manufacturing blades in Mexico versus abroad

3a MLI_15_IIE-12_MEM_ExecSummary_Task3a_150630.docx Executive summary

3b MLI_15_IIE-13_MEM_FinalReport_Task3b_150701.docx This document – final report

3c MLI_15_IIE-11_MEM_Blades_Assess_Task3c_7012015.pptx Summary presentation for high level stakeholders

3 EVALUATING IN-COUNTRY CAPABILITIES AND MATCHING TO REQUIREMENTS

The following steps were performed in evaluating available capabilities that can be utilized for wind turbine (WTG) blade design, manufacturing, testing and certification:

- develop and prioritize a list of skills and capability requirements for blade development; - visit team participants in Mexico based on availability and access; - review participant capacities from other sources including MEM meeting presentations; - describe and document observed capabilities; and - match the observed capabilities to the identified requirements with an assessment of how

good the match is. The organizations visited in the initial survey trip to Mexico are listed in Table 2 along with a short description of their normal activities. The observed in-country capabilities are matched to the developed list of required skills as listed in Table 3. The conclusion from this evaluation is that there are significant in-country capabilities to complete the project, but these need to be augmented to meet the requirements with external expertise. The document “MLI_15_IIE-5b_MEM_capabilities_Task2a_150531.pdf” describes the process, observations and results of this in more detail. 4 AUGMENTING IN-COUNTRY CAPABILITIES

The matching of capabilities to requirements included a rating criteria that characterized how close the in-country capabilities come to the needed level. This is also included in Table 3. As noted in the table, a rating of 5 is for an optimal match, and a rating of 1 is for a poor match, The gaps, or non-optimal matching, can be supplemented depending on how the blade acquisition or manufacturing is contracted. These contracting approaches are:

- purchase of a commercial product; - contract one of several possible entities that specialize in designing and providing molds

and tooling for blades (certainly foreign) ; - competitively bid a contract for complete design, fabrication and validation (also foreign);

Brian McNiff 43 Dog Island Rd Harborside, ME

04642 USA

Informe final Brian 150701_final Page 3 of 8

- identify an in-country project leader to coordinate in-country capacities and supplement with expert consultants to augment and advance those capacities.

A commercial blade is not available in the size range, unfortunately. Therefore, some form of contracting the process as a whole, or as managed/ integrated parts, is required. Based on the MEM project objectives it was interpreted that maximizing the use of in-country capabilities was a high priority. In the case of contracting the project as a whole to some entity abroad (2nd and 3rd approaches in list above), recommendations were made in the contract bid evaluation methodology to weight the use of those in-country capacities equal to the cost, schedule and expertise requirements (see MLI_15_IIE-6a_MEM_bladespec_Task2b_150601.pdf). The goal with that recommendation is to use the contracting and bidding process to maximize in-country added value and technology transfer and training. The option to use a Mexican organization to manage and integrate external expertise with local capabilities was concluded to be the best to meet the project objectives. Detailed approaches to supplement and augment the in-country capabilities with external expertise are included in “MLI_15_IIE-7b_MEM_augment_Task2c_150604.pdf” for the different contracting approaches. Also, a number of companies were identified and reviewed that can provide the needed services for any of these contracting approaches – e.g., blade manufacturers, blade design consultants, mold/ tooling manufacturers. 5 RISK EVALUATION

The two main options of fabricating blades in Mexico or acquiring them abroad were both evaluated for risks that may compromise the objectives and goals, and aspects that may benefit in achieving those goals. 5.1 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND ASSESSING RISK

There is a lack of substantive public data that would allow us to numerically quantify the risks, costs and benefits of each action and activity involved in the manufacture of the MEM blades in Mexico versus abroad. The approach instead included subjective assessments of these elements of risk and the effect of actions to supplement capabilities (and therefore mitigate risk) as recommended above. The following method was used:

- identify the risks (what can go wrong) and benefits for each of the major activities; - assess a probability or likelihood of occurrence for these risks in manufacturing in-country

or abroad; - describe the consequence of such risks and how they may impact project goals by

assessing a rating of importance (critical = 5, low importance = 1); - describe the recommended risk mitigation methods presented in previous documents; and - quantify a resultant improvement in the risk probability.

A summary of the results of this assessment is in Table 4, and it shows that the risks are higher for fabricating in Mexico, but not by a large margin. In my estimation this difference is offset by the benefits of fostering a local Mexican wind industry. The document “MLI_15_IIE10a_MEM_riskanalysis_Task2d_150615.pdf” includes a more detailed discussion of identifying the potential risks and the rationales for assessing probabilities and importance scoring.

Brian McNiff 43 Dog Island Rd Harborside, ME

04642 USA

Informe final Brian 150701_final Page 4 of 8

5.2 RISK MITIGATION

As mentioned above, bringing in the identified expertise reduces the probability of occurrence of the identified deviant situations and consequently improves the probability of project success. The effect of this improvement is also included in Table 4. To reduce risk, I also suggest that due care be given to these identified risks areas by requiring a rigorous engineering review at all critical steps of the process, independent of project contracting structure. 5.3 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE

There was some concern that fabricating in-country may risk not meeting the 3 year schedule goal. As a reality check, I contacted different colleagues in blade design and fabrication, mold fabrication, WTG certification, blade structural testing and lightning protection system testing as regards average time estimates for completing those elements of the process. Figure 1 shows a Gannt chart constructed with that information that shows being able to fabricate a set of validated blades in Mexico within 2 years. The assumptions used are realistic, but there is clearly enough room to accommodate organizational or other delays that may manifest within complex multi-party projects. 6 CONCLUSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

My interpretation of the key objectives of the MEM project is to promote and improve the Mexican capabilities in wind turbines and encourage the development of local supply chain and support services for a growing Mexican wind energy industry. It is also critically important to produce reliable, high quality blades within the 3-year project period. There is clearly significant capability in Mexico to meet the requirements of designing, fabricating and validating the MEM blades. To meet the project goals effectively, though, the local capabilities need to be supplemented with external expertise to successfully produce a set of quality blades within the project period. Gaps were identified, and strategies to fill those gaps were presented and recommended. Methods and strategies specific to how this will be contracted were provided with respect to the risks identified. In my estimation, based on this and the draft schedule in Figure 1, it is viable to manufacture high quality MEM blades in Mexico in less than 3 years with a manageable risk. Using this approach will also contribute to improving local capabilities and advancing the Mexican wind industry.

Brian McNiff 43 Dog Island Rd Harborside, ME

04642 USA

Informe final Brian 150701_final Page 5 of 8

Table 2 Organizations Visited in Survey of in-country Capabilities

Organization Label General Capabilities

Instituto Investigaciones Electricas

IIE Electrical industry research and applied engineering; developed initial MEM design; MEM project lead

Centro de Ingeniería y Desarrollo Industrial,

CIDESI Industrial research center; applied research & broad range of high tech services, e.g. developing unique tooling and processes for manufacturing specific parts

Center for Advanced Technology

CIATEQ Industrial research center; technical consulting in manufacturing methods and materials; production management, industrial & technical training

Autonomous University of Querétaro

UAQ Advanced materials, graduate engineering research center, built 7m blade using direct to mold CNC

Global Composites Part of manufacturer of FRP parts for buses and other applications, moving into aerospace industry

TEMACO FRP boat manufacturing, mature process & skilled workers, skilled tooling and adapatable

Somerset Technologies Design and prototype engineering group (some WTG)

Dow Chemical Dow

Material knowledge; infusion methods & manufacturing process advisory; quality systems,

Table 3 Requirements Matched to in-Country Capabilities

(Ratings: 5 = ideal match to requirements, 1= poor match )

Required Critical Capabilities Organization Match Rating

Notes

1 Wind turbine blade design need expert review

1a – aerodynamic design and aero-elastic modeling

IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ, UAQ

3 limited - trained in use of models

1b – planform design and structural integration and analysis

IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ, UAQ

3 limited - trained in use of models

2 High performance composite engineering expert review

2a – High strength/ weight, laminate knowledge

CIDESI, CIATEQ, Dow

5

2b – structural analysis, FEA modeling IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ

4

2c – use FRP material property & fatigue data bases

CIDESI, CIATEQ

4 important?

3 Process manufacturing experience using Global, 4

Brian McNiff 43 Dog Island Rd Harborside, ME

04642 USA

Informe final Brian 150701_final Page 6 of 8

Required Critical Capabilities Organization Match Rating

Notes

FRP TEMACO, Dow

3a – RTM or other well developed laminate system

Global, CIDESI, CIATEQ, Dow

4 smaller scale

3b – workers experienced in FRP fabrication for material cutting, layup, inspection and finish

Global, TEMACO

4 smaller scale

3c – Mature quality system (9001) for repeatability

Global, Dow 4 lacking WTG knowledge

4 Experience fabricating accurate molds & tooling

Global, TEMACO

4 medium scale

4a – Multiple elements, clam-shell molds, compound curves, joints, blind bonding, steep laminate transitions

Global, TEMACO

3 WTG specific

4b – Plug, molds, substructures (root, spar, beams)

Global, UAQ, CIDESI

4

5 Project management IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ

5

5a – project planning, management and execution

IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ

5

5b – budgeting and resource management planning

IIE, CIDESI, CIATEQ

5

6 Acceptance testing - manufacture review

6a – As-built coupon strength and composition tests,

CIATEQ, CIDESI

5

6b – Geometrical accuracy – airfoil & planform

CIATEQ, CIDESI

3 WTG specific

6c – Inspections for poor bonds, voids, laminate discontinuities, etc using NDT

Somerset, CIATEQ, CIDESI

3 WTG specific

6d – Measuring weight and CG location, stiffness, eigen-frequencies

need WTG specific advice

- basic knowledge

7 Certification

7a – wind turbine blade testing experience 1

7b – experience in any product certification CIATEQ 2 Do they certify ?

7c – experience specific to wind turbine certification

1

Brian McNiff 43 Dog Island Rd Harborside, ME

04642 USA

Informe final Brian 150701_final Page 7 of 8

Table 4 Comparative risk summary of manufacturing in Mexico versus abroad

What can go wrong? Likelihood Importance to Project Risk mitigation actions Improved likelihood

Mexico Abroad Consequences Rating Mexico Abroad

1a Aerodynamic errors – airfoil selection, poor modeling & analysis,

15% 5% Reduced energy production, increased loads

4 External consultants to provide review and oversight

5% 5%

1b, 2

Deficient structural design 15% 5% Reduced operating life

5 External consultants to provide review and oversight

5% 5%

2, 3 Poor manufacturing process design

20% 5% Reduced operating life

4 External consultants to provide review and oversight

10% 5%

3, 4 Poor fabrication from inexperienced labor & techniques

20% 5% Reduced operating life

4 External consultants to provide review and oversight

10% 5%

5 Poor project planning and integration

10% 10% Deficient blade, increased cost, delays

4 good selection of project lead, require thorough review and requirements

5% 5%

6 Inexperienced inspection team misses major as-built FRP deviations

25% 7% Poor material, Reduced operating life

5 External consultants to provide review and oversight

10% 7%

7 inadequate preparation for certification process

15% 5% delays and increased cost

4 External consultants to provide review and oversight

5% 5%

7 Large scale design problem not revealed in blade testing

2% 2% Reduced operating life

5 Test facility abroad to perform tests in both cases

2% 2%

1, 7 Inadequate lightning protection system

10% 10% Increased operating costs due to repairs

2 External consultants to provide review and oversight

5% 10%

Note: importance rating is 5= critical importance, 1= low importance to project

Brian McNiff 43 Dog Island Rd Harborside, ME

04642 USA

Informe final Brian 150701_final Page 8 of 8

Note: estimates from personal communication with TEMACO (mold fabrication), Wetzel Engineering (blade design and fabrication), DNV-GL (certification), NREL (blade testing) and Lightning Technologies (lightning protection testing).

Figure 1 Estimated Schedule for In-Country Manufacturing