Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2005

Power for Land, Sea, and Air

Jun 6-9, 2005, Reno-Tahoe, Nevada, USA

GT2005-68137

GAS PATH ANALYSIS STUDY FOR OVERHAUL ENGINES

Oscar Córdoba
Whole Engine & Systems Department
Industria de Turbo Propulsores, S.A. Spain
oscar.cordoba@itp.es

ABSTRACT performed. In this paper, engine diagnostic or engine analysis

This paper could be considered as a sequel to current
studies in overhaul steady state engine gas path diagnostic field.
What is new in this work is the diagnostic system tuning based
on experience gained over the years. Some heuristic rules will
be presented to fit the statistical information required by the
Iterated Extended Kalman Filters (IEKF) methodology. Taking
into account that no engine performance models from the
manufacturer are usually available in maintenance workshops,
several details about gas path modeling techniques will be
shown.
Turbofan engine results derived from experiments carried
out in a test cell will be presented. They show how the
maintenance actions may be quantified and how their
prediction helps the overhaul decisions with a high economical
impact.
INTRODUCTION
The main task carried out in a maintenance workshop is to
receive an engine for performing some actions. Afterwards, the
engine is run in a test bed to check if it can be accepted and
delivered to the customer. If the acceptance test fails the engine
is rejected and has to be reprocessed and tested again. This
cycle is repeated until the engine is accepted. When one engine
is rejected, a lot of money is spent, in terms of workload, pieces
and the time that the engine stays in the workshop is increased.
There are many reasons for receiving engines in the
workshop; periodic inspections (i.e. MPI), specific area
inspections (i.e. HSI), FOD or for engines with low
performance. Sometimes, it is the customer who imposes the
actions to be performed and sometimes the actions have to be
assessed by the maintenance engineer and agreed by the
customer.
After the reception, it is necessary to obtain an engine
diagnostic or analysis to indicate the starting point or
performance level, otherwise erroneous actions may be
have the same meaning. Ideally, there are data recorded during
the engine operation, but in many cases, no previous
information is available. In this case, there is an additional
option to carry out a preliminary test in order to assess the
engine state. For economical reasons this is not a common
practice and is only carried out for those engines with extensive
problems. So, in the most severe cases the maintenance
engineer receives an engine which is subsequently
disassembled and visually inspected. Although a wide range of
information is recovered from this inspection, there is usually
nothing clearly connected to temperatures, pressures, thrust,
power, or any gas path parameter relevant in the pass-off test.
In other words, the engine performance level cannot be
quantified. At this time, it is known the necessary performance
requirements for a successful acceptance test, but the starting
point remains unknown. An engine with no preliminary test
may be accepted the first time it is tested and only test data
after overhaul will be registered.
A performance analysis is implicitly associated with test
bed data. For given sensors data, an analysis will reveal the
engine state. Once an analysis is done and a diagnostic is
available, it is possible to simulate the impact of the
maintenance actions and check if an engine will be accepted or
not. Running a performance model is commonly known as
synthesis. In those cases where test data is not available, model
simulations with estimations about the initial state is the only
possibility. The initial state estimation for those engines with
no preliminary test comes from the experience gained during
previous analyses of engines with a-priori similar deterioration.
The way to simulate maintenance actions in terms of gas path
parameters is also derived from previous analysis results of
repaired engines.
The availability of a diagnostic tool as a help in
maintenance workshops would appear to be important.

1 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

NOMENCLATURE DIAGNOSTIC METHODOLOGY
A4 High pressure turbine first stator area A lot of literature has been written about diagnostic
A5 Low pressure turbine first stator area methods. Conventionally, analysis uses a set of measurements
ANSYN Analysis by synthesis which are considered 100% confident after a previous reduction
D Kalman Gain Matrix with averaging, filtering, profiling and substitution. With the
E Expectation help of a model, a matching scheme is applied, and the same
number of unknowns as the number of measurements is taken
EGT Exhaust Gas Temperature into account. The state of the engine is defined by those values
EPR Engine Pressure ratio of the selected unknowns who modify the engine model in the
FC Fan capacity way that matches the measurements.
FN Thrust Additional complexity in the analysis process is introduced
FOD Foreign Object Damage by considering that sensors have inherently associated a
GPA Gas Path Analysis random error. The possibility of sensor bias emergence may
H Influence Coefficient Matrix also be considered. Moreover, it is very common a scenario
HPT High Pressure Turbine where the number of unknowns is bigger than the number of
equations. One method to overcome this problem is known as
HSI Hot Section Inspection gas path analysis.
HTC High pressure Turbine Capacity
An engine performance model is associated to the concept
HTE High pressure Turbine Efficiency
gas path analysis. The basis for these sorts of analyses with
I Identity matrix more unknowns than equations is to introduce statistical
IEKF Iterated Extended Kalman Filters information and look for solutions that minimize a function,
LPC Low Pressure Compressor typically a variance function. If the model is linearized around
LPT Low Pressure Turbine the working condition the minimization can be derived
LTC Low pressure Turbine Capacity analytically in many cases. If the model is kept non-linear, a
minimization algorithm is needed. For linearized engine
LTE Low pressure Turbine Efficiency performance models, the gas path analysis solution is typically
MPI Major Periodic Inspection the weighted least squares result. If more than one set of
NL Low pressure spool speed measurements are involved in a diagnostic search, the Kalman
NH High pressure spool speed Filter formulation may be used. These two formulations are the
P State Covariance Matrix same for only one set of measurements.
Pamb Ambient pressure When implementation of a diagnostic tool has begun, basic
PS25 Inter compressors pressure decisions must be taken at the start. Firstly, a gas path analysis
P3 High pressure compressor exit total pressure method would be selected if some engine models are available
to get a better understanding about what is happening. A linear
R Measurement Covariance Matrix method would be developed as a first step to start studies in
SVD Singular Value Decomposition reasonable development time. Subsequently upgrades must be
Tamb Ambient temperature made if considered necessary. At the present time, Iterated
TGT Turbine Gas Temperature Extended Kalman Filters are being used, which is a linear
T25 Inter compressors total temperature method that takes into account the possibility of non linearities
in a similar way as the method described in reference [1]. A
T3 High pressure compressor exit total temperature
thorough explanation of the Kalman Filter theory is out of the
WF Fuel flow scope. A detailed description can be found in reference [2],
x State ∆ Vector nevertheless, the basis for the methodology is presented here.
z Measurement ∆ Vector Equation (1) represents that a set of measurements readings
Subscripts z1, …, zm may be computed as some expected values coming
0 Initial conditions from a model represented by functions f1, …, fm which depend
k Discrete step k on some measured ambient condition and power settings w1,…,
corr Corrected wl. These values will be modified by functions h1, …, hm that
accounts faulty effects of engine parameters ∆x1,…,∆xn and
obs Observed
deviations (also called in this paper bias errors) in those sensors
marg Margin that measure the ambient condition and the power setting
Super scripts ∆w1,…, ∆wl. The reading will also be affected by bias
T Matrix transpose ∆z1,…,∆zm and random errors ε1, …,εm.
-1 Matrix inverse
^ Estimation

2 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

⎧ z1 ⎫ ⎧ f1 ( w1 ,.., wl ) ⎫ ⎧ h1 (∆x1 ,.., ∆xn , ∆w1 ,.., ∆wl ) ⎫ ⎧ ∆z1 ⎫ ⎧ ε1 ⎫ linearizing around the estimation in the last known step xˆk −1 , it
⎪ z ⎪ ⎪ f ( w ,.., w ) ⎪ ⎪ h (∆x ,.., ∆x , ∆w ,.., ∆w ) ⎪ ⎪ ∆z ⎪ ⎪ ε ⎪
⎪ 2⎪ ⎪ 2 1 l ⎪ ⎪ 2 1 l ⎪ ⎪ 2⎪ ⎪ 2⎪
⎨ ⎬=⎨ ⎬+⎨
n 1
⎬+⎨ ⎬+⎨ ⎬ (1) is linearized around the solution point xˆk ,i . As many
⎪ ... ⎪ ⎪ .... ⎪ ⎪ .... ⎪ ⎪ ... ⎪ ⎪ ... ⎪
⎪⎩ zm ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ f m ( w1 ,.., wl ) ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩hm (∆x1 ,.., ∆xn , ∆w1 ,.., ∆wl ) ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩∆zm ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ε m ⎪⎭ calculations of xˆk ,i in equation (5), over the index i, are carried
out as are necessary to reach the point where negligible
A state delta vector or health parameters vector x, which
improvement is realized from further iterations.
contains engine parameters (deltas in efficiencies, capacities,
discharge coefficients, etc.) and sensor biases, has to be
estimated at an instant k where a measurements delta vector z is
(
xˆk ,i +1 = xˆk −1 + Dk ,i zk − h ( xˆk ,i ) − H k ( xˆk −1 − xˆk ,i ) ) (5)

known, see equations (2). The upper case parameters represent The Kalman gain matrix and the covariance update are as
a characteristic value to normalize the delta values. follows in equations (6) and (7). The main advantage derived
⎧ ∆x1 ⎫ from the iterations is to take into account the possibility of
⎪ X ⎪ linearization errors.
⎪ ...1 ⎪
Dk ,i = Pk −1 H kT ( H k Pk −1 H kT + R )
⎪ ⎪ −1
⎪ ∆xn ⎪ (6)
⎪ Xn ⎪ ⎧ z1 − f1 ( w1 ,..., wl ) ⎫ ⎧ z1 − z10 ⎫
⎪ ∆w1 ⎪ ⎪
⎪ Z1
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ Z1 ⎪
⎪ Pk = ( I − Dk ,i H k ) Pk −1 (7)
⎪ ⎪
⎪ W1 ⎪ ⎪⎪ z2 − f 2 ( w1 ,..., wl ) ⎪⎪ ⎪ z2 − z20 ⎪
x = ⎨ ... ⎬ z=⎨ Z2 ⎬ = ⎨ Z2 ⎬ (2) Some precautions must be taken when dealing with
⎪ ∆wl ⎪ ⎪ .... ⎪ ⎪ .... ⎪ Kalman Filters. The calculated state estimate and covariance
⎪W ⎪ ⎪ z − f ( w ,..., w ) ⎪ ⎪ zm − zm 0 ⎪
⎪ ∆zl ⎪ ⎪ m m 1 l
⎪ ⎪ ⎪ matrix may become inconsistent. A good practice to invert
⎪ 1⎪ ⎪⎩ Zm ⎪⎭ ⎩ Z m ⎭ matrices is to check if the system is well conditioned and to use
⎪ Z1 ⎪
⎪ ... ⎪ methods such as SVD to calculate the Kalman gain matrix.
⎪ ∆z m ⎪
⎪ ⎪ In the case of linear models, the measurement function is
⎩ Zm ⎭
z = Hx + ε (8)
Although Kalman filters may look for solutions varying
with time, what is sought here is a steady state solution and the The first steps of equations (5), (6) and (7) are then like (9)
sub index k represents different times where the sensor , (10) and (11). More information can be found in reference [4]
measurements are registered for the same state. These different x1 = x0 + D1 ( z1 − Hx0 ) (9)
readings are perhaps the results of different scans at the same
D1 = P0 H T ( HP0 H T + R )
−1
rating or different scans in the same performance curve with (10)
different rating. Noise is present whenever measurements are
P1 = ( I − D1 H ) P0 (11)
involved in the problem and ε is a random vector representing
these uncertainties. Gaussian distributions are assumed for it If the R matrix is not invertible, it appears the inverse of a
and a fixed covariance matrix R is considered throughout. A- singular matrix in the second Kalman gain matrix calculation.
priori statistical knowledge is also known through the initial Equation (12) shows a product of square matrices to be inverted
value of the state covariance matrix P0. As discussed in Kalman and one of them is singular.
filter equations, the covariance matrix is updated as a new
⎛
( ) ⎞⎟⎠
-1
D2 = P1 H T ⎜ ⎡ HP0 H T ( HP0 H T + R ) + I ⎤ R
-1
estimation is carried out. The minimum variance solution (12)
proposed by Kalman uses a recursive filter that takes into ⎝ ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥
account previous estimations (predictor-corrector method). The
equations that extend the conventional Kalman Filter equations Another Kalman gain matrix formulation to avoid
for non linear models and an improved iterated solution are as numerical inconsistencies when R matrix is ill-conditioned is
follows: proposed for linear models and constant matrix R in (13).
D2 = P0 H T ( 2 HP0 H T + R )
−1
zk = hk ( x ) + ε (3)
The function h represents the results from a model that ...................................... (13)
includes sensor biases and links the state vector with the
( kHP H + R)
−1
Dk = P0 H T T
measurement vector. In terms of Kalman Filters nomenclature 0

it is known as measurement function.
∂h
Hk = k
∂x x = xk ,i
The designation “extended” comes from the fact that
although an engine performance model is not linear it is
possible to linearize around a point as represented by (4). Some
numerical issues about the attainment of the influence
coefficients given by (4) may be found in reference [3]. The
designation “iterated” comes from the fact that instead of
The last issue to be considered is the IEKF convergence.
Two typical behaviors have been found so far and an example
(4) of the state vector residue is showed in Figure 1. The Case 1 is
the most common scenario, where the convergence is achieved
after a few iterations. The solution is quite similar to the linear
one, obtained in the first iteration. In the Case 2, convergence is
reached more slowly, but after a bigger number of iterations a
solution is found. The state vector is meaningfully different
from the linear solution.

3 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 State vector residue
be carried out in a maintenance workshop. To reach the known
thermodynamic values and some of its derivatives with a
( xˆ − xˆ k , i ) P − 1 ( xˆ k , i +1 − xˆ k , i ) collage model from similar components, the unknowns to
T
k , i +1
0.14 modify are scaling factors and adders applied to the maps
0.12 readings. This is equivalent to translating the design point
xˆk ,0 = 0 inside a map and to deform it in order to get the correct
0.1
derivatives. Some of these scaling factors coincide with the
Case 1
0.08
Case 2
engine parameters of the health parameter vector x. As the
0.06 number of unknowns will not coincide with the number of
0.04
equations, a minimum least squares algorithm may be applied
to calculate the afore factors, as for example IEKF, but in this
0.02
case only the step k=1 is calculated. To exactly match the
0 known values the R matrix will be null and if no other
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
ITERATIONS
information is available, all the weighting factors in the
covariance matrix will be equal in the diagonal of the P0 matrix
Figure 1 Typical IEKF convergence and zero in the non-diagonal terms. In this case, the vectors z
and H , turn to z and H as showed in relations (14).
PERFORMANCE MODELLING
⎡ ∂z1 ⎤ ∂z1 ⎤ ⎤
Gas Path Analysis is dependant upon two different pieces ⎢ ⎥ ... ⎥ ⎥
of information: ⎧ z1 ⎫ ⎢ ∂x1 ⎦ i −1 ∂xn ⎦ i −1 ⎥
1. Baseline engine. A diagnostic algorithm looks for ⎪ ... ⎪ ⎢ ... ... ... ⎥
differences over what is considered a healthy state. This ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ zp ⎪ ⎢ ∂z p ⎤ ∂z p ⎤ ⎥
healthy or nominal state is known as baseline and is ⎢ ⎥ ... ⎥ ⎥
⎪ ⎪
represented for functions f1 ,..., f m in equation (1). In other ⎪ ∂zq ⎪ ⎢ ∂x1 ⎦ i −1 ∂xn ⎦ i −1 ⎥
z = ⎨ ⎬ H k = ⎢ ⎥ (14)
words, for a given set of parameters defining the ambient
⎪ ∂xr ⎪ ⎢ ∂ ⎛ ∂zq ⎞ ⎤ ...
∂ ⎛ ∂zq ⎞ ⎤ ⎥
condition and power settings w1 , w2 ,..wl , the baseline ⎪ .... ⎪ ⎢ ∂x ⎜ ∂x ⎟ ⎥⎥ ⎜ ⎟⎥
∂xn ⎝ ∂xr ⎠ ⎦⎥ i −1 ⎥
defines which are the values for the measurements, ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ 1 ⎝ r ⎠ ⎦ i −1 ⎥
considered as health or nominal measurement values ⎪ ∂zt ⎪ ⎢ .... ... .... ⎥
⎪ ∂x ⎪ ⎢ ⎥
z10 , z20 ,..zm 0 , see relations (2). ⎩ s⎭ ⎢ ∂ ⎛ ∂zt ⎞ ⎤ ∂ ⎛ ∂zt ⎞ ⎤ ⎥
⎢ ∂x ⎜ ∂x ⎟ ⎥ ... ⎜ ⎟⎥
2. Exchange rates or influence coefficients. It is necessary to ⎢⎣ 1 ⎝ s ⎠ ⎥⎦ i −1 ∂xn ⎝ ∂xs ⎠ ⎥⎦ i −1 ⎥⎥⎦
know how a modification in a health parameter affects all
the measurements. This is represented by the functions hk Again, a numerical precaution must be taken when
in equation (3) and is known as faulty behavior. For a calculating derivatives. Although the actual engine behavior is
linearized problem these exchange rates result in the quite smooth, the way to model with predefined accuracy to
influence coefficient matrix H. solve loops, interpolating in component maps defined as
numeric tables causes discontinuities which results in
This information is found in a performance model which is inaccurate Hessian estimations. This issue is widely discussed
part of the knowledge that the manufacturer does not usually in reference [5] and the conclusions obtained are that the
share with its customers. A performance model may be perturbation size must be studied when estimating derivatives
summarized as a 0-Dimensional simulation model of a gas using finite differences and that good approximations for the
turbine. Every single engine module is characterized by means Hessian calculation, as for example the proposed in the
of either a set of maps or formulae, and then all combined to Levenberg and Marquardt method, should be employed, see
build up a whole model that matches mechanical and reference [6].
thermodynamic equations for a given ambient condition and
power settings. If the previous proposed tasks to build a model are
successfully carried out, there is a performance model available
Another source of information is currently the Maintenance able to reproduce what is written in the Maintenance Manual in
Manual. In some cases, all the exchange rates for a given a specific condition for new engines. The question now is if this
condition and power setting are found, however in most of the model will accurately reproduce the engine performance in
cases only a few are available. different conditions and if those exchange rates derived from
What is discussed here is how to get a thermodynamic the model without previous manufacturer information will be as
model by scaling maps from similar components with available accurate as those provided by the manufacturer. Although the
characteristics. From the Maintenance Manual a few physics of the model proposed is similar to that used by the
thermodynamic values for new engines are known at standard manufacturer, there are some differences caused by corrections
conditions in a common power setting and the values for some and methods that the manufacturer applies after years of
exchange rates at the same condition. A typical value found in experience. This is the best possible action to take and much
the manual and that the developed model must reproduce is the better than no action at all, and has been found that these
changes in measurements when the first stator turbine area is differences are not so big as to produce an unusual diagnostic.
modified. An HPT overhaul is one of the most common tasks to The accuracy obtained in the influence coefficients matrix is

4 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

sufficient, taking into account the rest of uncertainties
encountered in the gas path analysis issue.
Where an engine model is available a common way to
correct observed data to a referred condition and power setting
is to use the ANSYN method. After an analysis or a diagnostic,
the health parameters are known and they modify the results of
the nominal model. Therefore, this modified model may be run
at any specified condition (synthesis). A different way to
correct data with the ambient conditions is possible with
relations as those found in (15).
Parameterobs
Parametercorr = a, b constants
θ aδ b
⎛ Tamb ( K ) ⎞
θ =⎜ ⎟ (15)
⎝ 288.15 ⎠
⎛ P ( Pa ) ⎞
δ = ⎜ amb ⎟ one health parameter is bigger than another it means that,
⎝ 101325 ⎠
As stated before, there are cases where a complete relation
of the required exchange rates in a defined condition is
available. It is then possible to build a model by correlation of
a set of measured engine data corrected in the same way as (15)
and apply the explained diagnostic methodology. With the
corrected measured data of engines that have passed the
acceptance test after a repair, in an specified power condition
(always the same point from the performance curve) plotted
versus a magnitude of the power setting (spool speed, EPR,
power, etc) it is possible to find a correlation of what has been
defined as baseline. This is feasible under the hypothesis of no
sensors deviations. In this case the calculated baseline is not for
new engines as in the previous way to model, but they are for
engines typically repaired or with similar level of deterioration
when the workshop is visited.
FITTING THE DIAGNOSTIC ALGORITHM
The analysis methodology suggested, IEKF, relies on the
knowledge of an engine model to calculate the influence
coefficients matrix, a baseline defined as well for the model, a
measurement covariance matrix R, and a state covariance
matrix P, which in the first step is P0. What is intended in this
section is to show how to formulate the statistical information
to succeed in engine diagnostics, i.e., how to get a good
baseline starting from a new engine model and accepted
engines test bed data and matrix P0 estimation. It is assumed
that matrix R is datum, since the sensors random errors are
required to be known whenever an experiment is carried out, as
for the engine instrumentation, as well as for the test bed slave
instrumentation. It must be pointed out that different types of
engines are tested in the same test bed. When the sizes of these
engines are slightly different, the test bed slave sensor will not
be the most accurate in all the cases.
A covariance matrix of a vector is defined as:
cov( x, x) = E ⎡( x − E ( x ) ) ( x − E ( x ) ) ⎤
T
(16)
⎣ ⎦
Some hypotheses are made to assign values to matrix P0. It
is assumed that E ( x ) = 0 and that all the elements from vector
x are independent. So, the a-priori knowledge about the
probabilities of health parameters may be summarized in the
state covariance matrix, which is assumed to be diagonal. As
showed in (17), the task to be done is to assign values to the
diagonal elements of the P0 matrix.
⎡σ 12 0 0 0⎤
⎢ ⎥
0 σ 22 0 0⎥
P0 = ⎢ σ standard deviation (17)
⎢0 0 ... 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ 0 0 0 σ n2 ⎥⎦
It must be taken into account that the number of engines
tested in a workshop is not high enough to directly apply the
covariance definition. Moreover, the actual results from
analyses should be known, including the sensor deviations. So,
as a first step these values must be estimated by heuristic rules
based on experience and common sense. If the covariance of
among the infinite solutions of the problem, the preferred one is
to assign faults to the more weighted parameter. In this sense, it
is reasonable to assign more weight to a deviation in a TGT
sensor than in a deviation of a spool speed sensor. In terms of
absolute values, these weighting factors represent what is
considered statistically correct. According to this, a typical
value for a standard deviation is 1% in percentage. If the result
of an analysis shows differences far from a number of standard
deviations, it is a symptom of something wrong. A value of 0%
means that this health parameter is never the cause of
measurement differences against expectation.
Once a first approximation to the covariance matrix is
achieved after an Herculean effort, another view to the baseline
will be made. In the previous section a method to calculate the
baseline, for what the manufacturer says corresponds to new
engines, has been explained. Perhaps a diagnostic against a
baseline for new engines is useful in some other applications to
determine the degree of deterioration. What is interesting in
maintenance workshops is a baseline for all the engines with
the same degree of deterioration. In a first approximation this is
what is required to be able to compare against. In the second
step, for those engines with preliminary tests or those rejected
after an acceptance test, a diagnostic comparing the second test
against the first is preferred. An assessment of the results of the
maintenance action in terms of performance parameters is then
obtained.
To build the baseline, the first thing to do is to average the
analyses of those engines available with similar deterioration
and that have passed the acceptance test. This is the proposed
methodology in the previous section for those engines where no
thermodynamic model is available. This relies on the fact that
for the baseline there are no sensor deviations. If sensor
deviations are considered in further analyses, it may lead to
some inconsistencies. In Figure 2 there is a proposed scheme to
calculate the baseline and fit the covariance matrix. Proceeding
in this way will establish what will be considered as a sensor
deviation. Even when the user will be able to select a test to
compare against, the general baseline will be present provided
that the new reference comes from an analysis where sensor
deviations have been accounted.
5 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
Guess P0 matrix values (health parameters
standard deviations) and baseline (health
parameters average values)
NO
P0 matrix values
Do the average values
and standard deviations
and baseline YES coincide with the initial deviation for the health
calculated data of this iteration ?
(within a tolerance) resulted in the analyses
Figure 2 Baseline loop calculation
Another issue to take into account is the data validation. A
lot of operations have to be done with engine test bed raw data:
averages, filters, substitutions, unit changes and check that
values are inside thresholds. This process is sometimes called
data reduction and the quality of the resultant data is often not
enough. As shows reference [7], Kalman Filters are not so
robust when dealing with data very far from the baseline,
especially with large measurement deviations. If the weighted
least squares solution for the linearized problem is taken with
previous estimation set to zero ( x0 = 0 ), then:
x1 = D1 z1
To quantify to what degree measurement deltas are left
explained, an objective function χ 2 may be evaluated, which is
distributed as chi square with a number of degrees of freedom
equal to the number of measurements.
χ 2 = ( z1 - H1 x1 ) R -1 ( z1 - H1 x1 )
T
(19)
If the test given by (19) exceeds a pre-defined confidence
level, there is a possibility of an existing large unexplained
measurement deviation. Solving this discrepancy will require to
repeat the test (19) leaving out a different sensor each time, and
then removing from analysis the value that provides a bigger
effect on the test. As a result, it will be found a solution with
less measurements but a better goodness. Results outside
confidence level will demand a new process to be started.
Once that an estimation is made, there is another task to be
done with the analyses results. Depending on what the analyst
is looking for, the minimum variance solutions tends to
distribute the faults over all the parameters susceptible to be
faulty. This is known as smearing error. In many cases the
interesting solution is a concentrated solution. As there are
more unknowns than equations there is an open world to find
one of the infinite possible solutions. In this concentration task
there are many intelligent algorithms to fight against smearing
error. Different strategies can be followed, looking for a single
fault or two faults maximum, combinatorial methods or a
search only in those parameters with high level of fault. Good
examples of this may be found in references [8], [9], [10], and
[11]. Each method has advantages and disadvantages, and there
is no infallible method. A mixture of them has been
implemented looking for a minimum number of faulty
parameters that explain the measurements. An additional
feature to a default concentration in a tool for overhaul engines
is to give the user the possibility to select which health
Analyses of those
parameters will be considered for diagnosis. It is much better to
engines available to solve a problem when part of the solution is known.
build the base line
Whatever form the concentration algorithm selected takes,
a good practice is to show to the analyst only those health
parameters considered statistically meaningful. As standard
deviations that are associated to health parameters are assumed,
Calculation of the
average and standard
only a number of deviations far from the average should be
taken into account. The number of standard deviations
parameters values considered will be different if the baseline is general than when
comparing against previous test where the differences expected
are lower.
As the Kalman filters formulation allows for multipoint
diagnostics if different scans are available for the same state,
this is only recommendable for measured points around the
maximum power condition. As the engine model in many cases
is only adjusted at the mentioned condition, the use of different
power setting scans will lead to errors. Ideally, the scaling
factors that constitute part of the health parameter vector
applied to the model reproduce the measurement for different
ratings assuming that the sensor deviation keeps constant along
the different conditions. Unfortunately, this consistency has not
yet been reached. The multipoint diagnostics at the same rating
(18) condition increase the diagnostic accuracy, although no high
improvements have been observed.
APPLICATION TO TEST BED DATA
When a gas path analysis tool is developed, preliminary
checks to the diagnostic algorithm are made with simulated
data by the performance model, modified by simulated sensor
noise. This is quite satisfying since the success rate is very high
for common fault types. A different thing is to run the
algorithms with actual engine data. Causes for this are widely
explained in references [12], [13] and [14], with the additional
drawbacks of non-manufacturer models as well as a reduced
number of engines to calculate statistical information and
baselines. To sum up, results of gas path analysis with actual
engine data are not completely satisfying and are not
quantifiable since in many cases the actual diagnostic is
unknown.
The performance part of an acceptance test is what is
called a performance curve, which consists in a set of scans at
different power levels. To illustrate results from the gas path
analysis code a separated flow turbofan will be considered
whose acceptance depends on the results of the high power
rating in the performance curve, which is defined by running at
a predefined corrected NL. The manufacturer procedure to
correct the observed TGT, NH and FN to sea level conditions is
with formulae as that represented in (15). Every reference in
this text to this procedure is designated as CORR. At that point
the corrected data are compared against the limit obtaining the
engine margins. Positive margins indicate that the engine is
accepted, while negative margins reject the engine. The
margins definitions are as follows in (20).
TGTMARG = TGTlimit − TGTcorr
NH MARG = NH limit − NH corr (20)
FN MARG = FN corr − FN limit
6 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 In this procedure, it does not matter what happens with the HTC and a percentage change in A5 is approximately the same
remaining measurements, fuel flow and the rest of temperatures change in LTC. Predictions in maintenance actions come from
and pressures. Only sensors that define ambient conditions, experience of previous analyses of engines before and after the
studied action. Unfortunately there are no data with a unique
power conditions (NL), FN, TGT and NH are taken into
account. The preferred way to calculate margins by the Gas maintenance action to be sure of its impact in terms of
performance parameters. For this sample, some performance
Path Analysis code is the ANSYN method and later correction
to the ambient conditions and power settings where the limits values to simulate the maintenance action, including the turbine
are defined. All available measurements are taken into account. areas modification after the preliminary test were predicted a-
The differences between these methods are not high, except priori in the first column of Table 2. The second column shows
when a sensor deviation is encountered in TGT, FN or NH (NH the modification from the preliminary test based upon
acceptance test measurements taken after the maintenance
bias is not a common scenario). In this case, margins values are
obviously different and some engines that are accepted should actions were performed. The last three rows in Table 1 are the
increments in the measurement values (not the margins).
have been rejected with the new method and vice versa.
Results from the acceptance test analysis reflected that the
In order to build the baseline, nine acceptance tests from expected changes were not completely attained. In the case of
different engines were employed. Those engines were all from A5, the predicted change (and requested by the maintenance
which electronic data were available at the baseline creation engineer) was not reached since the way to measure this
moment. They were engines with performance margins closed parameter was not very accurate.
to the limits, far from the new engine margins. The
instrumentation available was Pamb, Tamb, NL, NH, PS25,
T25, P3, T3, WF, TGT, EGT and FN. Prediction Acceptance Test analysis results
HTC (A4) -2% -2%
An example of an actual engine has been selected to
LTC (A5) +1.76% +1.35%
illustrate how a gas path analysis algorithm works. This engine
was received for major periodic inspection (MPI) and a FC -1.2% -0.7%
preliminary test was required. After this test, the MPI THE +0.25% 0%
maintenance actions were made and the final acceptance test LTE +0.5% +0.8%
was carried out. This inspection covers everything except the
∆TGT -26K -27K
compressor region (HSI, fan area/rotor inspection, reduction
gearbox inspection and some accessories as well). In Table 1 ∆NH +538rpm +434rpm
are the engine margins results of these two tests. For each test ∆FN -374N -214N
the margins calculated using corrected parameters and those
Table 2 Maintenance actions
calculated with the ANSYN methodology after a gas path
analysis are depicted. In Figure 3, results from the analyses of the two tests are
presented, taking the preliminary test as reference or baseline.
Only those health parameters involved in this example have
PREVIOUS TEST ACCEPTANCE TEST been printed (HTC, HTE, LTC, LTE, FC, FN bias, TGT bias
CORR ANSYN CORR ANSYN and PS25 bias). Measured turbine stator areas inputs are
TGTMARG +4K -7K +12K +19K required before analyzing and turbine capacities deviations are
NH MARG +788rpm +757 rpm +371 rpm +323 rpm calculated against these expected values. Turbine areas
+529N +560N +463N +347N
measurement errors are intended to be detected.
FN MARG
Table 1 Test margins PREVIOUS TEST AND ACCEPTANCE TEST ANALYSES
PRELIMINARY TEST AS BASELINE

From Table 1 it is noted the difference encountered in the 2

TGT margin during the preliminary test between the different
types of analyses. Following the manufacturer procedure the 1
PERCENTAGE DEVIATION %

engine is inside the limits, while following the ANSYN method 0

derived after the gas path analysis that engine is out of the HTC HTE LTC LTE FC FN TGT PS25

limits. As the gas path analysis method applied to the

-1
PRELIMINARY TEST
ACCEPTANCE TEST
preliminary test showed a TGT sensor deviation it was decided -2

to replace it. -3

The utility of a gas path analysis tool is to simulate the -4

maintenance actions and check that the engine will pass the
acceptance test. The most common case is to decide which -5

stator turbine areas are the most adequate, taking into account HEALTH PARAMETERS

the impact of the rest of the maintenance actions. Low values
for A4 will increase the TGT margin while decreasing the NH
margin. The A5 behavior is the opposite. As in this example
both turbines are choked in the maximum rating point, a
percentage change in A4 is approximately the same change in
Figure 3 Gas path analyses results
The analysis of the preliminary test against itself is zero for
all the parameters but for those that represent sensor deviations
or bias errors. PS25 was discarded from both analyses in the
data validation process. An initial TGT deviation of -0.5% was

7 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

found and +1% after the sensor replacement. Different TGT
Overhaul
types of sensor were employed. Therefore, these deviations Engine
reason
Test ∆A4 ∆A5 Actions
could be consistent provided the baseline was calculated with
sensors as that used in the preliminary test. Although it is not Previous (TGTMARG)
demonstrable that the TGT sensor was actually deviated in the Rejection (TGTMARG) -0.70% -0.56% MPI
A MPI
preliminary test looking at the Table 1, with the manufacturer Rejection (NHMARG) 0% 0% 3
procedure to correct parameters only an increment of 8K in
Acceptance 0% 0% 2
TGT margin is reached after the maintenance action, which is
less than expected from the experience. Previous (NHMARG)
Low
B
To summarize, the results found in Table 2 and Figure 3 performance Rejection (NHMARG) 0% 0% 2,4
are an explanation for the measurements encountered. This is Acceptance 1.91% -0.56%
one explanation; moreover, it is an explanation with high Rejection (NHMARG) Core,1,2
probability. Results found with the gas path analysis code are C Core
Acceptance 0.63% 0%
reasonable, and consistent, but the actual results will never be
known. Although they are not 100% reliable, the predictions Previous (TGTMARG)
D MPI
made are accurate enough to reduce the number of rejected Acceptance -2.00% 1.76% MPI,2,3
engines. Once a good baseline is reached as well as simulation
Low Previous (TGTMARG)
of maintenance actions is known, even for those engines E
performance Acceptance -1.81% 1.61% 2,3
without preliminary test, the correct turbine areas estimation for
the proposed maintenance actions will improve the acceptance Low Previous
percentage. F
performance Acceptance -1.49% 0% 2
So far, an example of a GPA application in one engine has Low Previous (TGTMARG)
been detailed. In Table 3, there is a description of the G
performance Acceptance -0.94% 0% 1,3
maintenance actions carried out for eight engines. The core
revision includes all the MPI actions as well as the compressors H Core Acceptance Core,1
zone. No preliminary test is required and it makes the turbine 1 LPC maintenance action
areas choice more difficult. The engines have been named from 2 Fan maintenance action
A to H in the first column. The second column describes why 3 TGT sensor replacement
the engines are being overhauled. In the third column is showed
the tests carried out and the margins out of the limits between 4 HPT rotor blades replacement
brackets. Each line in the table is associated to one test. The Table 3 Maintenance actions description
column four and five show the percentage change for the
turbine areas and the last column shows the maintenance Engine
GPA a priori GPA diagnostics Main GPA
actions taken before the tests. predictions remarks conclusion

In Table 4 is showed a summary of the results obtained TGT deviation

applying GPA to the engines described in Table 3. Engines Not available TGT still deviated
A
tested between maintenance actions introduce lessons learnt as Not available HTE improved Action 3 affects HTE
to identify unaccounted effects derived from maintenance
Not available No remarks Action 2 quantified
actions and quantifications of these actions. For instance,
engine B was tested and showed an NH value over the limit. No remarks
The turbine areas were calculated without taking into account B Action 2 HTE improved Action 4 quantified
the effect produced by the HPT rotor blades replacement. The A4, A5 Prediction achieved
HPTE increment due to this action increased the NH value even
more than in the preliminary test, so the engine was rejected. Cooling deficiency
C
An additional turbines areas adjustment had to be done and A4, Action 2 Prediction achieved
finally the engine was accepted. For future HPT rotor No remarks
replacement the effect of the HPTE increment will be taken D *
A4, A5,MPI Error in A5 MPI quantified
into account. Maybe the quantification obtained is not 100%
reliable and it will depend on the initial blades state but the a- No remarks
E
priori simulations will look for better and worst cases around A4, A5, Action2 Error in A5 Avoid A5 changes
this point and the turbine areas decision will follow a based No remarks
criterion. This process will try to avoid unnecessary rejections. F
A4, Action 2 Prediction achieved
TGT deviated
G
A4,Action 1* No remarks Action 1 quantified
H Core, A4 Prediction achieved Baseline confirmed
* Action guessed without a-priori information
Table 4 GPA study

8 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 It will be noted that while in 2003 the rejected engines of
the same type as the used in this paper for performance reasons
was the 21% from those tested, in 2004 was 0%. Of course,
there are some other factors than GPA for this, such us
improvements in the overhaul processes, better accuracy in A4
modification as well as more experience.
The final issue to consider is whether there remains any
other action to be taken with the gas path analysis results. The
answer is that only those elements common across the different
analyses may be studied. The test bed slave instrumentation is
the same for all the tested engines. If sensor deviations are
found, the analyses carried out with those sensors for different
engines must be studied. A study showed that systematic
positive thrust deviations were found through gas path analyses
calculations. This can be seen in Figure 4. For engines tested
early in time thrust deviations oscillated around zero. With
time, a shift of more than 1% is then observed indicating a
problem with the calibration or a process that has changed the
initial test cell correlation. Some outliers from the trend line
caused by a different sort of known problems with those
specific tests are also found in Figure 4. It represents how gas
path analyses studies may be useful detecting test bed
instrumentation problems.
THRUST DEVIATION ACROSS DIFFERENT ANALYSES
4 Lecture Series 2003-01.
3 [4] Volponi, A., 1983, Gas Path Analysis: An Approach to
2
PERCENTAGE DEVIATION
1
0
-1
-2 OUTLIERS
-3
-4
ene-02 may-02 sep-02 ene-03 may-03 sep-03
Figure 4 Thrust deviation vs. time
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The implementation of a gas path analysis code in a
maintenance workshop is an essential tool that produces a
better understanding as to how the maintained engines work.
The analyses carried out with some known maintenance actions
between two tests gives an estimation of how maintenance
actions impact gas path parameters. The results obtained will be
used for future simulations.
If confident simulations of the maintenance actions over a
confident averaged engine behavior are obtained, it will
facilitate the decisions of the maintenance engineer, such as
turbines areas decisions or the need for further actions in non
overhauled components.
Gas path analysis studies of engines trended over time are
recommended since problems with the test bed slave
instrumentation may be detected. It goes without saying that the
instrumentation quality will lead to better diagnostics and
customer satisfaction.
At the present time, a gas path analysis tool is unable to
replace the decisions of an engine expert. It will be used solely
as an aid and in some cases extra effort will have to be made to
interpret results.
The main target to attain with gas path analysis tools is to
increase the number of delivered engines with no rejections
after the acceptance test. After an implementation of one tool as
the one described here, the percentage of engines rejected due
to performance has decreased considerably. In terms of money
an engine rejection to be reprocessed is the most expensive
task, even without taking into account penalties by the
customer for time delays.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank to the ITP Turbofans
Maintenance Department for their help and collaboration
during this study development.
REFERENCES
[1] Escher, Patrick C., 2002, Gas Turbine Data Validation
Using Gas Path Analysis, ASME GT-2002-30024.
[2] A Gelb(Ed), 1974, Applied Optimal Estimation, MIT Press.
[3] Doel, D.L., 2003, Development of baselines, influence
coefficients and statistical inputs for Gas Path Analysis, VKI
Engine Diagnostics, Time-Dependent Failure Mechanisms
and Assessment Methodologies Cambridge University Press.
[5] Gröndstedt, Tomas ,2004, A comparative study of genetic
FN
TREND
algorithms and gradient methods for RM12 turbofan engine
diagnostics and performance estimation, ASME GT2004-
53591.
[6] Press, William H., Teukolsky, Saul A., Vetterling, William
T., Flannery, Brian P., 2002, Numerical recipes in C++,
Cambridge University Press.
ene-04 may-04 [7] Dewallef, P., Léonard, O., 2003, On-line performance
monitoring and engine diagnostic using robust Kalman
filtering techniques, ASME GT2003-38379.
[8] Dewallef, P., Léonard, O., Mathioudakis, K., 2004, On-line
aircraft engine diagnostic using a soft-constrained Kalman
Filter, ASME GT2004-53539.
[9] Kamboukos, Ph., 2001, Optimizing Diagnostic Effectiveness
of Mixed Turbofans by Means of Adaptive Modelling and
Choice of Appropriate Monitoring Parameters, RTP
Symposium on Aging Mechanism and Control.
[10] Mathioudakis, K., 2003, Non-Linear methods for Gas
Turbine Fault Diagnostics, VKI Lecture Series 2003-01
[11] Provost, M J, 1994, The Use of Optimal estimation
Techniques in the Analysis of Gas Turbines, PhD Thesis,
Cranfield University.
[12] Doel, D.L., 2002, Interpretation of weighted-least-squares
gas path analysis results, ASME GT-2002-30025.
[13] Doel, D.L., 2003, A weighted-Least-Squares Gas Path
Analysis method for test cell or on-wing data, VKI Lecture
Series 2003-01.
[14] Doel, D.L., 2003, Sample analyses including interpretation
of residual error, VKI Lecture Series 2003-01.
9 Copyright © 2005 by ASME