IBR Repair Modeling Using Structural and Aerodynamic Simulation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current repair methods for integrally bladed rotors (IBRs) in gas turbine engines are limited by geometric and material constraints, often leading to scrapping of damaged IBRs without considering functional assessments like aerodynamic stability and structural durability, thus overlooking potentially cost-effective and optimal repair options.
Innovation Solution
A system and method that utilize finite element models and computational fluid dynamics to simulate structural and aerodynamic analyses of IBRs, allowing for iterative repair shape optimization and generation of repair processes that meet both structural and aerodynamic criteria, including the use of CNC instructions and additive manufacturing.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If conventional geometric assessment constraints (tolerances, material removal, material addition) are applied to damaged IBRs, then repair options are limited and many IBRs must be scrapped, but functional assessment constraints (aerodynamic stability, structural durability) are not considered
Solution Approach 1:
The patent changes the assessment parameters from conventional geometric constraints (tolerances, material volumes) to functional performance parameters (aerodynamic stability, structural durability). By using simulation-based functional assessment, the system evaluates repair feasibility based on actual performance outcomes rather than prescriptive geometric limits, enabling more IBRs to be repaired while maintaining reliability.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent replaces conventional mechanical/geometric assessment methods with simulation-based functional assessment. Instead of relying on physical measurements and geometric tolerances, the system uses computational simulations to evaluate aerodynamic and structural performance, substituting physical constraint checking with virtual performance validation.
2Ease of manufacture
If geometric constraints (tolerances, material removal thickness, material addition volume) are enforced, then repair process is simplified, but optimal repair options in terms of aerodynamic or structural capability are avoided
Solution Approach 1:
The patent transitions from enforcing fixed geometric constraints to optimizing based on functional performance parameters. Instead of applying predetermined tolerance limits, the system uses simulation to evaluate how different repair geometries affect aerodynamic stability and structural durability, allowing optimal repair solutions to be identified based on actual performance requirements.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces dynamic evaluation of repair options through simulation. Rather than static geometric acceptance criteria, the system dynamically assesses repair feasibility by simulating aerodynamic and structural responses under various operating conditions, enabling adaptive optimization of repair geometries for optimal performance.
3Quantity of substance
If damaged IBRs are scrapped based on geometric assessment constraints without functional assessment, then manufacturing costs increase, but repair analysis complexity is reduced
Solution Approach 1:
The patent replaces simple geometric assessment with simulation-based functional assessment. By using computational models to evaluate aerodynamic and structural performance, the system can accurately predict repair outcomes without physical testing, enabling informed decisions about which IBRs can be successfully repaired while maximizing material utilization.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent performs preliminary simulation-based functional assessment before committing to repair or scrapping decisions. By evaluating aerodynamic stability and structural durability through simulations upfront, the system identifies viable repair candidates and optimizes repair geometries before actual repair work begins, preventing unnecessary scrapping and reducing overall analysis complexity.
Data Source
Figure 1A
Figure 1B
Figure 2~4
AI summary
An article of manufacture may include a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a processor (602), cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving (702), via the processor, one of a point cloud and a three-dimensional model for an inspected integrally bladed rotor (IBR) (100) and a defect (104) including a defect shape, a defect size, and a defect location; generating, via the processor, a first finite element model and a second finite element model based on the point cloud or the three-dimensional model, the first finite element model and the second finite element model; performing (1106), via the processor, a structural analysis simulation with the first finite element model; performing (1108), via the processor an aerodynamic analysis simulation with the second finite element model; iterating, via the processor, a repaired defect shape based on simulation data from the aerodynamic analysis simulation and the structural analysis simulation; and determining (1102) a repair process for the defect based on the iterating.