Aircraft Propulsion Part Flow Validation Using 3D Scan Ratios

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing systems for validating fluid flow requirements in aircraft propulsion system parts, such as gas turbine engine components, are inefficient and time-consuming, particularly due to the need for extensive experimental testing and complex 3D modeling.

Innovation Solution

A method involving fluid flow testing, 3D scanning, and image data analysis to determine a flow-area ratio, allowing for the validation of fluid flow requirements in aircraft propulsion system parts without the need for full 3D models, thereby reducing computational and testing burdens.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If extensive experimental fluid flow testing and complex 3D modeling are used to validate fluid flow requirements, then measurement precision and reliability are improved, but loss of time and device complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefluid flow rate validation accuracyVSAvoidvalidation time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent creates a digital copy (3D scan) of the part's external geometry and uses it to generate an internal geometry model. This digital copy replaces the need for extensive physical 3D scanning and modeling, allowing rapid validation of fluid flow requirements while maintaining measurement precision through accurate digital representations of the part geometry.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces complex mechanical 3D modeling systems with a simplified process that uses 3D scanning data directly to generate internal geometry models. This substitution reduces device complexity and validation time while maintaining the ability to accurately determine flow-area ratios for fluid flow rate validation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Measurement precision

If extensive experimental fluid flow testing is performed, then measurement precision is improved, but device complexity and loss of time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefluid flow rate measurement accuracyVSAvoidtesting system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses 3D scanning to create a digital copy of the part's external geometry, which is then processed to generate an internal geometry model. This digital copying approach replaces complex physical testing setups with computational models, reducing device complexity while maintaining measurement precision through accurate digital representations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The patent extracts only the essential geometric information needed for fluid flow validation from the 3D scan data, rather than performing complete and complex 3D modeling. This extraction approach simplifies the testing system by focusing only on the flow-area ratio calculations necessary for validation, eliminating unnecessary computational complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

3Measurement precision

If complex 3D modeling is used to validate fluid flow requirements, then measurement precision is improved, but loss of time and device complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveflow-area ratio calculation accuracyVSAvoidmodeling time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses 3D scanning to create a digital copy of the part's external geometry and processes this copy to generate an internal geometry model. This approach replaces time-consuming complex 3D modeling with a streamlined process that maintains calculation accuracy by directly deriving internal geometry from external scan data through systematic processing steps.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary 3D scanning to capture the part's external geometry before conducting fluid flow validation. This preliminary action provides the foundation for generating internal geometry models and calculating flow-area ratios, eliminating the need for time-consuming modeling steps during the actual validation process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Reliability

If extensive experimental testing is performed, then reliability of fluid flow validation is improved, but loss of time and productivity decrease

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefluid flow requirement validation reliabilityVSAvoidvalidation throughput
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses 3D scanning to create digital copies of parts for validation, enabling rapid processing and testing of multiple parts without the time constraints of extensive physical testing. This digital copying approach maintains validation reliability through accurate geometric representation while significantly improving productivity by reducing the time required for each validation cycle.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the approach from extensive physical testing to a parameter-based validation method using flow-area ratios derived from 3D scan data. This parameter change enables rapid validation by focusing on the critical geometric parameters that determine fluid flow characteristics, maintaining reliability while improving productivity through reduced testing time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP4597064A1System and method for validating aircraft propulsion system parts
Publication Date: 2025.08.06 PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA CORP
  • EP4597064A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4597064A1 patent drawingFigure 2~3
  • EP4597064A1 patent drawingFigure 4

AI summary

A method for validating a fluid flow requirement for at least one first part includes performing a fluid flow test on at least one first part by measuring a fluid flow rate of the fluid through a first fluid flow surface portion of the at least one first part, scanning the first fluid flow surface portion and generating first image data of the first fluid flow surface portion, determining a first effective air flow surface area of the first fluid flow surface portion using the first image data, determining a flow-area ratio of the first fluid flow surface portion using the measured fluid flow rate and the first effective air flow surface area, and validating the fluid flow requirement for at least one second part by inspecting the at least one second part using the determined first flow-area ratio for the at least one first part to determine an estimated fluid flow rate for the at least one second part.