From repair to risk strategy: A conversation with Andrei Buliga on the future of blade management

“Blades don’t respect budgets; they respect physics.”

Wind turbine blades remain one of the least predictable major components in a renewable energy portfolio. While gearboxes and generators benefit from decades of operational data and established condition monitoring practices, blade strategy is still evolving. Too often, intervention is triggered by visible damage or production loss, at which point costs and risk have already escalated.

Ahead of his attendance at Blades USA we spoke with Andrei Buliga, our Digital Blades Project Director at RES, about why blade management must shift from reactive repair to structured risk strategy.

At the centre of Andrei’s thinking is a simple principle: blades respond to physics, not budgets.

“Blades do not respect financial planning cycles,” he explains. “They respond to load, environment and structural behaviour. If our decisions are not grounded in what the blade is experiencing in operation, then we are reacting to appearance rather than consequence.”

For decades, blades have often been treated as a maintenance line item. Repairs are scheduled, budgets are allocated and surface defects are addressed as they appear. According to Andrei, that mindset is no longer sufficient in a maturing industry where margins are tighter and performance expectations are higher.

“The real unit of value is avoided risk per megawatt hour. The objective is not simply to fix visible damage. It is to prevent loss. When you look at blade strategy through that lens, yield protection and cost discipline become aligned rather than being competing priorities.”

A key challenge lies in distinguishing between cosmetic damage and structurally meaningful risk. Not all defects carry the same consequence, yet without a structured framework they can be treated with equal urgency.

“Some surface damage can look alarming but progress slowly and predictably,” Andrei notes. “Other issues appear minor yet conceal deeper structural exposure. If we prioritise based on optics rather than consequence, we risk overspending where it does not materially reduce risk and underinvest where failure would be severe.”

This is where risk-based decision frameworks become critical. In practice, that means every intervention should answer three core questions:

• What loss is avoided if we act now?
• How quickly does risk accumulate if we delay?
• When is the optimal decision window, given pricing, seasonality, access and failure trajectory?

“Owners do not need more repair quotations,” Andrei noted. “They need decision clarity. Scenario modelling allows us to move from opinion to trajectory. It replaces reactive maintenance with managed outcomes.”

This approach moves blade management from execution to strategy. A maintenance budget becomes, in effect, a risk allocation strategy. Over maintenance consumes capital without improving revenue. Under maintenance increases exposure to unplanned downtime, structural escalation and potentially catastrophic cost. The balance lies in understanding which interventions materially change the probability and consequence of failure.

The impact of this shift can be seen in real field applications. In one case, two turbines operating under identical conditions developed similar blade damage. One received a conventional repair. The other underwent targeted structural reinforcement informed by deeper structural analysis. Several seasons later, the difference was clear. The conventionally repaired blade required repeat intervention, while the reinforced blade remained stable, resulting in lower downtime and improved energy production.

“The difference was not workmanship – it was the risk model behind the decision,” Andrei reflects.

Underpinning this evolution is the increasingly critical ability to integrate multiple data sources into a coherent blade health narrative. High resolution drone inspections, SCADA data, condition monitoring systems and structural modelling can now be aligned over time to reveal behaviour patterns rather than isolated snapshots.

“Trends reveal truth,” he explains. “When you combine operational data with structural understanding, you can map how damage is initiated, how it progresses and what actually drives failure modes. That allows you to score defects by consequence class and allocate resources where risk reduction is most meaningful.”

For Andrei, the broader industry opportunity lies in developing a more consistent risk language. As wind portfolios age and assets operate in increasingly diverse environments, consequence based decision frameworks will become essential to protecting long term value.

“We need to move from tradition based decisions to consequence based rules,” he says. “When thresholds are calibrated to real structural behaviour and shared definitions of risk, operators can make clearer, more confident choices.”

Blade management is therefore no longer simply about repair. It is about protecting availability, safeguarding revenue, and extending asset life through structured, evidence led decision making. As data quality improves and analytical capability advances, the tools to support this shift are already available.

Andrei will explore these themes in more detail at Blades USA 2026, where he will discuss how scenario based blade strategies are helping owners optimise budgets, reduce unplanned intervention and embed risk thinking into everyday operational decisions.

As the industry continues to mature, one principle remains constant. Effective blade strategy begins not with what is visible, but with what is structurally meaningful. In a market defined by performance and predictability, that distinction can define the difference between reactive cost and managed value.

Hear from Andrei at Blades USA 2026.

About:

Andre Buliga, Digital Blades Project Director

Andrei is Digital Blades Project Director at RES, specializing in structural blade performance. Trained in advanced wind‑energy engineering with deep grounding in blade physics and years of RCA work, he brings a proven understanding of how blades behave and fail under real operating conditions. Andrei’s expertise and insight allow him to convert structural blade knowledge into risk‑anchored decisions.

He brings a forward‑leaning, engineering‑driven vision to the industry as an author and conference speaker. His guiding principle: physics first — everything else is noise.

Connect with Andrei on LinkedIn