0
Research Papers

Modeling Particle Deposition Effects in Aircraft Engine Compressors

[+] Author and Article Information
Felix Döring

Institute of Aircraft Propulsion Systems,
University of Stuttgart,
Stuttgart 70569, Germany
e-mail: felix.doering@ila.uni-stuttgart.de

Stephan Staudacher

Institute of Aircraft Propulsion Systems,
University of Stuttgart,
Stuttgart 70569, Germany
e-mail: stephan.staudacher@ila.uni-stuttgart.de

Christian Koch

Institute of Aircraft Propulsion Systems,
University of Stuttgart,
Stuttgart 70569, Germany
e-mail: christian.koch@ila.uni-stuttgart.de

Matthias Weißschuh

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG,
Blankenfelde-Mahlow 15827, Germany
e-mail: matthias.weissschuh@rolls-royce.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received July 1, 2016; final manuscript received October 24, 2016; published online January 24, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Rakesh Srivastava.

J. Turbomach 139(5), 051003 (Jan 24, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-16-1139; doi: 10.1115/1.4035072 History: Received July 01, 2016; Revised October 24, 2016

Airborne particles ingested in aircraft engines deposit on compressor blading and end walls. Aerodynamic surfaces degrade on a microscopic and macroscopic scale. Blade row, compressor, and engine performance deteriorate. Optimization of maintenance scheduling to mitigate these effects requires modeling of the deterioration process. This work provides a deterioration model on blade row level and the experimental validation of this model in a newly designed deposition test rig. When reviewing previously published work, a clear focus on deposition effects in industrial gas turbines becomes evident. The present work focuses on quantifying magnitudes and timescales of deposition effects in aircraft engines and the adaptation of the generalized Kern and Seaton deposition model for application in axial compressor blade rows. The test rig's cascade was designed to be representative of aircraft engine compressor blading. The cascade was exposed to an accelerated deposition process. Reproducible deposition patterns were identified. Results showed an asymptotic progression of blade row performance deterioration. A significant increase in total pressure loss and decrease in static pressure rise were measured. Application of the validated model using existing particle concentration and flight cycle data showed that more than 95% of the performance deterioration due to deposition occurs within the first 1000 flight cycles.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Overview of the deposition test rig

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Inflow Mach number versus relative span, Re1=5×105; measured two chords upstream of the cascade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Geometric and aerodynamic design parameters of the compressor cascade

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic enthalpy–entropy diagram to illustrate change of thermodynamic state in clean and deteriorated (′) compressor stator

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Wetted blades and end wall surfaces, sectioned at midspan for visibility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Sample photograph (index 2-2) of degraded blade surfaces; deposits appear dark; brightness and contrast adjusted, suction side reflection removed for visibility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Relative outflow dynamic head versus relative pitch; nominal boundary conditions Re1 = 5 × 105, mA = 40 mg, and mP = 14.6 g (index 2-2); mean

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Relative change in static pressure rise coefficient versus particle mass; nominal boundary conditions Re1 = 5 × 105, mA = 40 mg, and mP = 14.6 g (index 2-2); single sample; moving average and least-squares fit

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Relative change in static pressure rise coefficient versus particle mass; nominal boundary conditions Re1 = 5 × 105, mA = 40 mg, and mP = 14.6 g (index 2-2); mean and 95% confidence interval

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Relative change in total pressure loss coefficient versus particle mass; nominal boundary conditions Re1 = 5 × 105, mA = 40 mg, and mP = 14.6 g (index 2-2); mean and 95% confidence interval

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Flight cycles versus particle mass and deterioration isolines (index 2-2); particle concentration φP*=4×10−8 [55], and taxi/idle times by ICAO [56] and Eurocontrol [57,58]

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In