IBR Stack Repair Using Structural and Aerodynamic Assessment

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current repair methods for integrally bladed rotors (IBRs) in gas turbine engines are limited, as they fail to consider functional assessment criteria such as aerodynamic stability and structural durability, leading to unnecessary scrapping of damaged IBRs without exploring more optimal repair options.

Innovation Solution

A method involving the determination of potential repair processes for IBRs through finite element modeling, structural, and aerodynamic analysis, allowing for the assessment and repair of IBRs to meet structural and aerodynamic criteria, and the use of a system to iterate and optimize repair processes based on simulation results.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Manufacturing precision

If conventional geometric assessment constraints are applied to repair decisions, then manufacturing precision and tolerances are maintained, but functional assessment constraints such as aerodynamic stability and structural durability are compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvegeometric tolerancesVSAvoidfunctional assessment
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transitions from conventional geometric parameter assessment to a comprehensive multi-parameter assessment that includes functional parameters such as aerodynamic stability, structural durability, and operational performance. This allows repair decisions to consider both geometric tolerances and functional requirements simultaneously, resolving the contradiction between manufacturing precision and reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Manufacturing precision

If damaged IBRs are scrapped based on conventional repair limitations, then manufacturing precision constraints are satisfied, but productivity and cost efficiency deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improverepair tolerancesVSAvoidrepair throughput
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary functional assessment and simulation analysis before finalizing repair decisions. By evaluating aerodynamic stability, structural durability, and operational performance in advance, the system identifies repairable IBRs that would otherwise be scrapped, thereby increasing productivity and cost efficiency while maintaining precision standards.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Reliability

If comprehensive structural and aerodynamic analysis is performed on each IBR, then reliability assessment is improved, but device complexity and analysis time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefunctional assessment accuracyVSAvoidanalysis system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the comprehensive analysis into distinct modules: structural analysis, aerodynamic stability assessment, and operational performance evaluation. Each module can be independently configured and executed based on specific repair needs, reducing overall system complexity while maintaining comprehensive reliability assessment capability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

4Reliability

If functional assessment constraints are incorporated into repair decisions, then reliability is improved, but manufacturing precision constraints may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaerodynamic and structural criteriaVSAvoidgeometric tolerances
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent merges geometric tolerance assessment with functional requirement evaluation into a unified repair decision-making framework. By combining these previously separate assessment criteria, the system simultaneously optimizes for both manufacturing precision and reliability, allowing repair processes to satisfy both geometric and functional constraints together rather than in conflict.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentEP4257798A1Stack based repair systems and methods
Publication Date: 2023.10.11 RTX CORP
  • EP4257798A1 patent drawingFigure 1A
  • EP4257798A1 patent drawingFigure 1B
  • EP4257798A1 patent drawingFigure 2~4

AI summary

A method can comprise: determining a plurality of potential repair processes for the stack of IBRs (110), each repair process associated with a defect (140) on an inspected IBR (100); generating (806) a finite element model of the stack of IBRs with a potential repaired defect of each inspected IBR being modeled, a plurality of vane stages (105) disposed between adjacent inspected IBRs, and an engine case (120); performing (808;810) a structural analysis and an aerodynamic analysis; determining (812) whether the stack of IBRs with the potential repaired defect of each inspected IBR meets a structural criteria and an aerodynamic criteria; and repairing (714) each IBR in the stack of IBRs with the repair process for the potential repaired defect for each inspected IBR in the stack of IBRs in response to determining the stack of IBRs meets the structural criteria and the aerodynamic criteria.