JOURNAL OF

COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
0(0) 1–14
! The Author(s) 2017
Effects of heavy lightning strikes Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
on pristine and repaired carbon DOI: 10.1177/0021998317690445
journals.sagepub.com/home/jcm
composite structures

Johannes Wolfrum1, Thomas J Schuster1 and Thomas Körwien2

Abstract
The effects of particularly heavy lightning strikes on representative carbon fibre reinforced plastics composite airframe
structures, specifically with epoxy matrix systems, which are common within the aerospace industry, have been inves-
tigated in this study. The applied action integrals of the lightning strikes significantly exceed the requirements for
airworthiness. All tests were performed with conventional prepreg materials and resin transfer moulding/non-crimp
fabric materials with high lightning strike current ratings. The pristine panels exhibit major damage zones around the
impact points. The results of non-destructive investigations show that the surface damage is predominantly superficial.
Only small zones were considerably damaged where extensive repair was necessary. Carbon fibre reinforced plastics
panels featuring repair patches were also investigated. Lightning strikes were placed above the scarf and the damage was
analysed by various non-destructive investigation methods including micro-computed tomography. In contrast to the
pristine panels, the repaired panels reveal different damage behaviour. The damaged zone on the surface was relatively
small. In the tapered zone of the patch, electric flashovers between the patch and the base material were observed.
Additional microscopy investigations show that these electric sparks also occur inside within the adhesive layers between
the patch and the base material. After enhancing the electrical conductivity of the adhesive by adding carbon nanotubes,
these difficult-to-detect electric sparks within the layers disappear.

Keywords
Carbon fibre structures, lightning strikes, repair, non-destructive testing

There are currently intentions to qualify against higher

Introduction
Epoxy resin based composites are widely used as struc-
tural material for aerospace and engineering compo-
nents, etc., because of their excellent mechanical
characteristics. Fundamental investigations have been
conducted on a number of factors, which influence
these material properties.1 Environmental influences
such as moisture absorption and/or temperature are
the most crucial because they can lead to a plastification
of the matrix material, which can decrease strength, stiff-
ness and thermo-mechanical performance. Another
serious natural threat to the performance of composite
structures is lightning. In order to test these effects, struc-
tures are usually subjected to simulated lighting strikes
with idealized waveforms of the lightning current.
Typical lightning strikes that are of interest for aircraft
manufacturers depend on the waveforms and the light-
ning current ranging from 10 kA up to 200 kA.2–4
lightning currents ranging up to 260 kA. Up to now,
higher lightning currents are not laid down in inter-
national standards.
The primary method of lightning strike protection
for composite materials is to provide a conductive
path for the electricity on the exterior skin made of
aluminium or copper meshes or foils. This concept
has been in practice for many years, and a number of
conductive protective systems are currently available
for structural applications. Several important factors
1
Bundeswehr Research Institute for Materials, Fuels and Lubricants,
Germany
2
Airbus DS, Germany
Corresponding author:
Thomas Körwien, Airbus Defense and Space, Materials and Processes,
Rechliner Strasse, D-85077 Manching, Germany.
Email: thomas.koerwien@airbus.com
2 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
contribute to the selection of these protective coverings
such as cost, weight, size, and the necessity to protect
the structure.3,5–7 Lately, new protective systems utiliz-
ing carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and carbon nanofibre
paper have been reported.8,9
The damage characteristics following a lightning
strike depend on many factors, including the type and
strength of the lightning strike, the material thickness,
the type of composite material, the lay-up and the con-
figuration of the lightning strike protection mater-
ial.3,8,10,11 Lightning damage can be documented both
at the macroscopic or visual level, and within the
material microstructure. Decomposition of the matrix,
fibre breakage, fibre bulging, cracks and delaminations
have all been visually observed after lightning strikes by
many authors.5,10,12,13 It has also been shown that the
amount of damage is directly correlated with the
impulse energy or peak current.2,8,12,14 In addition to
these visual effects, microcracks and interplay arcs have
been microscopically identified within the material.10,15
Kawakami et al. show lightning strike results of scarf-
repaired carbon fibre reinforced plastics (CFRP). The
results show that the electrical integrity could not be
fully re-established for all specimens. Partial discharges
between patch and base material were observed.16 In
Chemartin et al.13 and Feraboli and Miller17 are the dif-
ferent mechanisms described that can occur during a
lightning strike on a fastener. Internal and external dis-
charges as well as damages in the carbon composite
about the fasteners were observed.
The present study focuses on the characterization of
the damage resistance of two carbon fibre composite
materials that are common within the aerospace and
other industries subjected to particularly heavy lightning
strikes with current levels of 260 kA. Additionally, arti-
ficial patch-repaired panels were investigated. Visual,
micro-computed tomography (CT) and microscope
examinations were performed in order to understand
the influence of heavy lightning strikes on the material,
both on the surface and inside. Based on the results,
additional panels were repaired with an adhesive filled
with CNTs in order to enhance their electrical conduct-
ivity and were subsequently tested to determine the
extent of the improvement.
Material
Pristine panels
The first material was the carbon fibre reinforced epoxy
prepreg system 8552/IM7 from Hexcel Composites
GmbH. The lay-up was [45/90/45/0/45]2S, for a
total of 20 plies and a total thickness of approximately
2.7 mm. The second material for this study was fabri-
cated using a vacuum infusion process. A flat panel
with the same dimensions was made of resin transfer
moulding 6 (RTM6) resin from Hexcel Composites
GmbH and HTA/HTS carbon fibre non-crimp fabrics
(NCF) from SAERTEX GmbH & Co. KG. The lay-up
was [(45/0/90)/(45/-45)]2S resulting in a thickness of
approximately 2.6 mm.
For these investigations, copper meshes with a surface
weight of 80 g/m2 were used. Flat panels with dimensions
of approx. 500 mm  500 mm were fabricated in an
autoclave (Material 8552/IM7) or by vacuum assisted
infusion technology (RTM6/NCF) according to the
applicable manufacturing procedures at 180 C.18 An
L-shaped aluminium bracket (measuring 30-mm wide
and 100-mm deep) was attached to the pristine panels
with 13 Hi-Lock fasteners to yield a representative com-
posite airframe structure (Figure 1). The distance
between the fasteners is 30 mm.
Repaired panels
RTM6/NCF panels without aluminium brackets were
used to perform a scarf repair in the middle of the
panels. The scarf-diameter on the upper-side is
150 mm and the scarf-ratio is 1:20. This results in a
diameter of approximately 50 mm on the lower side of
the panel. The repair was performed by a so-called
patch-repair. Thereby an appropriately prefabricated
scarfed patch with a diameter of 150 mm was adhesively
bonded onto the panel with a cure temperature of
120 C. The patch was fabricated from Hexcel M20/
G904 material and was adhesively bonded using
EA9395 from Henkel. The repaired areas of panels 3
and 4 were covered with copper mesh (80 g/m2) with
Figure 1. Flat panel with an L-shaped aluminium bracket
attached with 13 Hi-Lock fasteners yielding a representative
composite airframe structure.
Wolfrum et al.
Figure 2. Detailed sketches of the repaired areas covered with copper mesh (80 g/m2) and 50 mm overlap (top). For panel 3, an
additional copper foil with a thickness of 0.07 mm was used to cover the repaired area (bottom) (sketch is not drawn to scale).
Table 1. Panel no., current intensities and surface weight of the copper mesh for all analysed lightning
strikes.
Strikes/peak
Panel no. Material current amplitude
1 8552/IM7 3 strikes 260 kA
2 RTM6/NCF 2 strikes 260 kA
3 RTM6/NCF 1 strike 260 kA
4 RTM6/NCF 1 strike 260 kA
5 RTM6/NCF 1 strike 260 kA
50 mm extending beyond the patch (Figure 2) according
to repair instructions.19 For panel 3, an additional
copper foil with a thickness of 0.07 mm was used to
cover the repaired area (Figure 2).
Similarly to panel 3, an additional RTM6/NCF
panel 5 was manufactured. In contrast to panel 3, a
CNT doped adhesive was used in panel 5 to adhesively
bond the patch to the panel and to increase the elec-
trical contact between the patch and the panel.
To distribute the agglomerated CNTs (Baytubes
C70P from Bayer Material Science) in the epoxy-based
paste adhesive EA9396 (Henkel), they were first stirred
into component A of this two-component adhesive.
Then they were dispersed using a calendar (EXAKT
80E, Exakt Advanced Technologies). Therefore, a
three-step process has been used. The gap size between
the rolls of the calendar was minimized after each step,
resulting in a final gap size of 5 mm. The complete pro-
cessing is described in Schuster.20
Component B of the adhesive was then added
shortly before the repair and mixed with a centrifugal
mixer. The final concentration of CNTs in the adhesive
was 1.0 wt. %. This adhesive was then pressed between
two sheets of siliconized paper to a final thickness of
0.3 mm. To remove this paper, the whole setup was
cooled down. Immediately after this, the adhesive film
3
Action integral Lightning protection
(106 A2s) Cu-Mesh, Cu-Foil, CNTs
3.5 80 g/m2
3.5 80 g/m2
3.5 80 g/m2 þ Cu-Foil
3.5 80 g/m2
3.5 80 g/m2 þ Cu-Foil þ CNTs
was positioned on the scarf, the patch was placed on
top, and a copper foil and mesh were added onto the
repaired part, similar to panel 3. The adhesive (with
and without CNTs) was cured in an oven at 120 C by
packing the whole panel in a vacuum bag.
Experimental
The panels were subjected according to a modified
EUROCAE requirement to lightning strikes at
Cobham Lightning (Abington UK) (modification not
standardized).21,22 The entire panel was grounded along
the L-shaped aluminium bracket and in the striped area
around the panel (Figure 1). The lightning strikes on
the repaired panels were performed with a slight offset
from the centre of the patch. The current intensities,
action integrals and lightning protection method for
eight analysed lightning strikes are specified in Table 1.
The wave form for the lightning strike tests are
shown in Table 2.21,22
First, all panels were visually inspected. Additional
micro-CT scans were performed on the patch repaired
panels. To complement the non-destructive inspections,
optical microscopy was performed on 16 mm  10 mm
specimen cross-sections. The specimens were mounted
in epoxy resin and polished for analysis.
4 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Electrical conductivity was measured on bulk sam- left), one on the unprotected area (bottom right) and
ples of the hardened adhesive with a thickness of one on the central rivet. After the lightning strike on the
2.3 mm. Measurements were made with the megaohm- unprotected area, it can be seen that the material was
meter M1500P (Sefelec) at 10 V DC and a measuring completely destroyed throughout the entire cross sec-
time of 60 s. tion. This conclusively demonstrates that for CFRP
structures lightning strike protection is required.
Looking to the row of rivets in Figure 3, it can be
Results seen that material located outside of the direct impact
zone is also affected. Two rivets are marked with
Pristine panels arrows where chipping of the paint and traces of
Figure 3 shows the pristine prepreg-panel 1 after the carbon black could be observed. This clearly illustrates
three lightning strikes: one on the protected area (top that rivets outside of the directly affected zones can also
be damaged by lightning strikes.
The lightning strike in the protected area shows a
damaged zone around the impact. In this zone carbon
Table 2. Wave form for the simulated lightning strike tests. fibres are bulging toward the surfaces, burned or eva-
Component A Peak current 260 kA porated resin and fibre breakage becomes visible. The
Action integral 3.5 (106 A2s) outer damaged areas only show minor deteriorations.
Component B Average current 2 kA Partially punctiform chipping of the paint due to local
field enhancements of the copper mesh underneath can
Charge transfer 10 C
be observed.
Component C1 Average current 200–800 A
The ultrasonic C-scan image of the affected area
Charge transfer 20 C
shows that the predominant part of the surface
damage was merely superficial (Figure 4, left). Only

Figure 3. Pristine prepreg-panel 1 after three lightning strikes: one on the protected area (top left), one on the unprotected area
(bottom right) and one on the central rivet.
Wolfrum et al. 5

Figure 4. Left: Ultrasonic C-scan image of the top left lightning strike in panel 1 (Figure 3). Right: Ultrasonic C-scan image of the top
left lightning strike in panel 2 (Figure 4).

Figure 5. Light optical micrographs of cross-sections taken from the heavily damaged zones of panels 1 and 2 (Left: cross-sectional
view 1-1, Figure 3, Right: cross-sectional view 2-1, Figure 4).

the direct impact zone with a relatively small diameter Light optical micrograph images of the cross-sec-
was considerably damaged. It is noteworthy that nearly tions for the heavily damaged zone of panel 1 are
all the damage is recognizable by both visual inspection shown in Figure 5 (left). It can be easily seen that five
and ultrasonic C-scan images. plies are damaged or missing. Porosity due to vaporized
6 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

resin and fibres can also be observed underneath the
damaged surface.
The lightning strike zone around the central rivet is
characterized by punctiform chipping of the paint. It is
remarkable that the lightning impact zone is not limited
to the central rivet. The lightning jumps between neigh-
bouring rivets, so that these additional rivets are also
affected. Figure 6 shows an optical micrograph image
of the damaged CFRP-structure close to the rivet. The
cracks in the CFRP-structure can be observed.
Figure 7 shows the pristine RTM6/NCF-panel 2
after two lightning strikes. The lightning strike on the
protected area (top left) shows a damaged zone around
the impact. Besides the chippings of the paint, more
severely damaged parts within the damaged zone can
be visually detected.
It can be seen that similarly to panel 1, rivets located
further outside of the direct impact zone are still
affected from the lightning strike on the central rivet.
In Figure 7, the affected rivets are marked with arrows.

Figure 6. Light optical micrographs of the cross-sections taken from the damaged CFRP-structure close to the rivet (cross-sectional
view 1-2, Figure 3).

Figure 7. Pristine RTM6/NCF-panel 2 after two lightning strikes. There is a damage zone around the impact on the protected area
(top left) and one on the central rivet.
Wolfrum et al. 7

Chipping of the paint and traces of carbon black can be
observed.
In Figure 4 (right), the ultrasonic C-scan image of the
affected area from panel 2 is shown. Locally small zones
with increased damage can be found. Again, it is clear
that the extent of the damage recognizable by visual
inspection and ultrasonic C-scan images are almost iden-
tical. The damage is also similar to the damage observed
on the 8552/IM7 panel 1 (Figure 4, left).
Damage can also be found in the area around the
impact near the central rivet. The damage of the material
next to the rivet is predominantly punctiform chipping
of the paint as previously described. Looking to the cen-
tral rivets of the panel, it is clear that the lightning
impact zone is not limited to the central rivet, but the
damage extends to two additional rivets. Figure 7 shows
the locations where small samples were removed for
microscopy investigations. An optical micrograph is
shown in Figure 8. It can be seen that the sample has
delaminated throughout the entire cross section.
Figure 5 (right) shows optical micrographs of the
cross-sections taken from the heavily damaged zone

Figure 8. Light optical micrographs of the cross-sections taken from the damaged CFRP-structure close to the rivet (cross-sectional
view 2-2, Figure 4). The sample has delaminated throughout the entire cross section.

Figure 9. Front side of the repaired panel 3 after one lightning strike on the patch.
8 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
of panel 2. Three missing or damaged plies can be
found. The damage extends slightly deeper when com-
pared to the 8552/IM7 panel 1 (Figure 5, left).
Underneath the damaged surface, porosity due to
vaporized resin and fibres can be observed.
Repaired panels without CNTs in the adhesive
Figure 9 shows the front side of the repaired panel 3 after
the lightning strike on the patch. The impact zone can be
visually recognized within the patched area. On the edge
of the patch, the copper-foil has bent upward due to the
electromagnetic forces or temperature gradients due to
the strike. Additionally, the overlap area of the copper
mesh can be identified visually by punctiform chipping of
the paint due to local field enhancements of the copper
mesh underneath. In summary, no serious damage could
be visually detected on the front side.
The backside tapered zone of the patch is shown in
Figure 10. Traces of electric flashovers between the
patch and the base material were found. These electric
flashovers are critical as they might cause fires or elec-
trical malfunctions inside an aircraft.
Figure 11 shows a micro-CT picture of a virtual
cross-section in the panel plane with the viewing
Figure 10. Tapered zone of the patch in panel 3. Traces of electric flashovers between the patch and the base material can be seen.
direction towards the tapering of the patch. Between
the patch and the panel a damage indication was
found which was subsequently investigated microscop-
ically. Figure 12 shows that an internal spark occurred
between the patch and the base material. Parts of the
adhesive and the matrix material evaporated causing
cracks inside the repair area.
A front side photograph of panel 4 is shown in
Figure 13. The impact zone close to the centre of the
panel can easily be recognized. Visually, no serious
damage can be found on the front side. In the over-
lapping area of the copper-meshes of the panel and the
patch, the previously discussed punctiform chipping of
the paint occurred.
The tapered zone of the patch on the backside is
shown in Figure 14. Again, traces of electric flashovers
between the patch and the base material can be found.
This conclusively demonstrates that for repaired struc-
tures, conventional lightning protection methods are
not sufficient for effective protection against very
heavy lightning strikes, despite being outside the
requirements for legacy platforms.
Figure 15 shows a micro-CT picture of a virtual
cross-section in the panel plane with the viewing direc-
tion towards the tapered zone of the patch. Similarly to
Wolfrum et al. 9

panel 3, a damage indication was found. It was inves-
tigated microscopically (Figure 16). Between the patch
and the base material an internal spark occurred. Part
of the matrix material and the adhesive evaporated
causing cracks inside the repair area.
Panel 5 with CNTs in the adhesive
Figure 17 shows the front side of panel 5. Visually, the
damage looks similar to panel 3. On the edge of the
patch, the copper-foil has bent upward, and in the over-
lapping area of the copper mesh, punctiform chipping
of the paint has become visible. The backside of the
panel is shown in Figure 18. Contrary to panels 3 and
4, no traces of electric flashovers between the patch and
the base material could be found in the tapered zone.
Figure 19 shows a micro-CT picture of a virtual cross-
section in the panel plane with the viewing direction
towards the tapered zone of the patch. Again, some
damage indications were detected. Optical micrographs

Figure 11. Micro-CT picture of a virtual cross-section in panel 3 with the viewing direction towards the tapering of the patch.
Between the patch and the panel, a damage indication was found.

Figure 12. Optical micrograph of the small damage indication is shown in Figure 11. An internal spark occurred between the patch
and the base material.
10 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Figure 13. Front side photograph of the repaired panel 4 after one lightning strike on the patch.

Figure 14. Tapered zone of the patch in panel 4. Traces of electric flashovers between the patch and the base material can be seen.
Wolfrum et al.
of the damage indications in Figure 19 show that only
porous areas were found during the micro-CT investi-
gation. In this case, the pores are beyond the copper
foil. Contrary to panels 3 and 4, no electric flashovers
occurred.
Discussion of the results
Pristine panels
The overall dimensions of the damaged areas in both
pristine panels, which were recognizable by visual
inspection and ultrasonic C-scan images, were almost
identical. Minor differences in the appearance of the
damages can be attributed to the differences in the
underlining fibre structure.7 All lightning strikes
resulted in small local zones with extensive damage
Figure 15. Micro-CT picture of a virtual cross-section in panel
4 with the viewing direction towards the tapering of the patch.
Between the patch and the panel, a damage indication was found.
Figure 16. An optical micrograph of the damage indication is shown in Figure 15. An internal spark occurred between the patch and
the base material.
11
and larger areas with predominantly superficial
damage. In the heavily damaged zones with diameters
less than 30 mm, bulging of fibres toward the surface
and burned or evaporated resin and fibre breakage were
visible. Optical microscopy investigations showed that
the depth of the damage does not exceed the symmetry
plane of the material.
The lightning strikes on the central rivet could not be
implemented as was originally planned because the light-
ning jumped between neighbouring rivets. Probably the
neighbouring rivets coincidentally show a lower elec-
trical resistance. Optical microscopy confirmed that the
CFRP-structure next to the central rivet was seriously
damaged. Visual examination of the total row of rivets
shows that rivets located further outside the direct
impact zone are also affected from the lightning strike.
Probably here the current flow is disrupted by a resin
rich zone between base material and rivet. This can lead
to the observed sparking.
Repaired panels
The lightning strikes performed on the patch of the
repaired panels caused only minor damage in the
direct impact zone. On the back sides of the panels
repaired with the undoped adhesive, electric flashovers
between the patch and the base material occurred.
Additionally, micro-CT and optical microscopy inves-
tigations showed that internal sparks appeared inside
the repair between the patch and the base material.
These results conclusively show that the lightning pro-
tection for repairs is not sufficient protection against
heavy lightning strikes, despite the correct application
of the lightning protection. The results also show that
the electrical charges are not fully dissipated by the
lightning protection, and remaining electrical charges
can transfer into the patch causing the observed flash-
overs and internal sparks.
The repaired panel with the CNT-doped adhesive
shows no electric flashovers, neither in the tapered
zone of the patch on the backside of the panel nor in
the bond line between the patch and the base material.
As shown with the repaired panels 3 and 4, the
12 Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)

Figure 17. Front side photograph of the repaired panel 5 (with CNTs) after one lightning strike on the patch.

Figure 18. Tapered zone of the patch in panel 5 (with CNTs). No traces of electric flashovers between the patch and the base
material were found.

electrical currents are not fully dissipated by the copper dissipated. In the bulk-material of the adhesive, the
mesh. Parts of the current flow into the repair patch. By electrical conductivity can be increased from 4.5 
the significant increase in the electrical conductivity of 1012 to 1.1  105 S/m by adding 1 wt. % CNTs.20 It
the bond line by the CNTs, the enclosed current can be is quite obvious that 1% of CNTs are sufficient to
Wolfrum et al.
Figure 19. Micro-CT picture of a virtual cross-section in the plane of panel 5 with the viewing direction towards the tapered zone of
the patch. The damage indications detected show only porous areas.
create a conductive path between the patch and the
base material. All imperfections found in the CT ana-
lysis show porosity, mostly beyond the copper foil, and,
therefore, originate during the repair process.
Conclusion
The effects of heavy lightning strikes with current levels
in the range of 260 kA on representative pristine and
repaired carbon fibre epoxy composite airframe struc-
tures common within the aerospace industry have been
investigated in this study. The applied action integrals
of the lightning strikes significantly exceed the require-
ments for airworthiness. Two different types of pristine
composite panels were tested. It was found that the
extent of the damage recognizable by visual inspection
and ultrasonic C-scan images were almost identical.
All lightning strikes resulted in small local zones with
extensive damage. In these zones with diameters less
than 30 mm, bulging of fibres toward the surface and
burned or evaporated resin and fibre breakage was vis-
ible. Optical microscopy investigations showed that the
depth of the heavily damaged zones did not exceed the
symmetry plane of the panels. The lightning strikes on
the central rivet could not be implemented as was ori-
ginally planned because the lightning jumped between
neighbouring rivets. Optical microscopy confirmed that
the CFRP-structure next to the central rivets can be
seriously damaged. Visual examination of the total
13
row of rivets showed that rivets located further outside
the direct impact zone are also affected from the light-
ning strike.
The lightning strikes on the repaired panels were
carried out directly on the patch. On the front side,
only minor damage was found. On the back sides of
the panels, electric flashovers between the patch and
the base material occurred, despite the correct applica-
tion of the lightning protection. These flashovers must be
regarded as particularly critical, since they might cause
fires or electrical malfunctions in underlying structures.
Micro-CT and optical microscopy investigations showed
that internal sparks also appear inside the repair between
the patch and the base material. In these zones, matrix
material and the adhesive evaporate causing cracks
inside the repaired area. This internal damage can only
be found by CT investigations. To avoid such critical
damage, CNTs can be added to the adhesive in order
to increase electrical conductivity between the patch and
the panel, minimizing the damage.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
14
References
1. Bank LC, Gentry TR and Barkatt A. Accelerated test
methods to determine the long term behavior of FRP
composite structures: environmental effects. J Reinf
Plast Compos 1995; 14: 559–587.
2. Hirano Y, Katsumata S, Iwahori Y, et al. Artificial light-
ning testing on graphite/epoxy composite laminate.
Compos Part A 2010; 41: 1461–1470.
3. Welch JM, Kitt BB and Meusborn RJ. Honeycomb panel
lightning strike testing: metal mesh product protection
assessment. SAMPE J 2008; 44: 6–17.
4. Gockenbach E and Ritschel C-D. Direkte und indirekte
Effekte eines Blitzeinschlags. EMC Kompendium 2001;
294–296.
5. Schneider SD. Lightning protection, considerations for
graphite/epoxy aircraft structure. In: AGARD conference.
Proceedings No. 288, Athens, Greece, 1980.
6. Jaeger D. Lightning protection of a modern wind energy
system. In: International aerospace conference on lightning
and static electricity, Oxford, 23–25 March 1982, Vol. 2,
pp.F5-1-8.
7. Li Y, Li R, Lu L, et al. Experimental study of damage
characteristics of carbon woven fabric/epoxy laminates
subjected to lightning strike. Compos Part A 2015; 79:
164–175.
8. Gou J, Tang Y, Liang F, et al. Carbon nanofiber paper
for lightning strike protection of composite materials.
Compos Part B 2010; 41: 192–198.
9. Gagne M and Therriault D. Lightning strike protection
of composites. Progr Aerosp Sci 2014; 64: 1–16.
10. Gammon LM and Falcone A. Lightning strike damage in
polymer composites. Adv Mater Process 2003; 161: 61–62.
11. Larsson A, Delannoy A and Lalande P. Voltage drop
along a lightning channel during strikes to aircraft.
Atmos Res 2005; 76: 377–385.
12. Ogasawara T, Hirano Y and Yoshimura A. Coupled
thermal-electrical analysis for carbon fiber/epoxy
Journal of Composite Materials 0(0)
composites exposed to simulated lightning current.
Compos Part A 2010; 41: 973–981.
13. Chemartin L, Lalande P, Peyrou B, et al. Direct effects of
lightning on aircraft structure: analysis of the thermal,
electrical and mechanical constraints. AerospaceLab
2012; 5: 1–15.
14. Feraboli P and Miller M. Damage resistance and toler-
ance of carbon/epoxy composite coupons subjected to
simulated lightning strike. Compos Part A 2009; 40:
954–967.
15. Gammon LM. Polymeric composites morphological
characterisation and fracture analysis: fluorescent, dark
field, and polarized light optical microscopy. Micros
Microanal 2004; 10 (Suppl 2): 740–741.
16. Kawakami H and Feraboli P. Lightning strike damage
resistance and tolerance to scarf-repaired mesh-protected
carbon fiber composites. Compos Part A 2011; 42:
1247–1262.
17. Feraboli P and Miller M. Damage resistance and toler-
ance of carbon/epoxy composite coupons subjected to
simulated lightning strike. Compos Part A 2009; 40:
954–967.
18. N.N. Product data sheets. Hexcel Inc, www.hexcel.com
(accessed 10 January 2017).
19. N.N. Procedure for Repair and Production of Parts using
Wet Lay-Up Laminate. MI S000M0113X01, NH
Industries, 2011.
20. Schuster TJ. Einfluss von Carbon Nanotubes auf die funk-
tionellen und strukturellen Eigenschaften von kohlenstoff-
faserverstärkten Kunststoffen. PhD Thesis, 2016.
21. Morgan D, Hardwick CJ, Haigh SJ, et al. The interaction
of lightning with aircraft and the challenges of lightning
testing. J Aerospace Lab 2012; 5: 1–10.
22. N.N. SAE ARP 5412B. Aircraft lightning environment
and related test waveforms.