Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T00:02:50.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Analysis of modern fan manufacturing variations and their links to Jet-engine performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2023

S. Shahpar*
Affiliation:
Innovation Hub, Future Methods, Rolls-Royce Plc, Derby, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Every manufacturing procedure is subject to tolerance variations. Over the years, a set of key characteristic features (KCF) that can explain the effect of manufacturing variations on the aero-mechanical performance of a fan blade has been devised and monitored to ensure conformality and good performance. The KCFs are derived from a cloud of coordinate measurement machine (CMM) points and are defined on approved engineering drawings for the manufactured part. In this paper, it is demonstrated that some of the traditional, common wisdom KCFs are not adequate to explain the engine performance deviation behaviour on a test bed at the sea-level condition. On the other hand, good correlation is found by analysing a set of engineering parameters drawn from a new inverse-mapping procedure of the CMM data. It is further demonstrated that a deviation measured via CMM or 3D structured light (GOM) data in cold conditions can be translated to a variation in the hot running shape of the blade. Having identified the key blade features, a cheap alternative to modifying the manufacturing procedure is devised to recover the fan performance by optimising its leading-edge shape.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Rolls-Royce plc, 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
Figure 0

Figure 1. Inverse-mapping work-flow (INMA): SOFT-PADRAM-P2S codes.

Figure 1

Figure 2. (a) Typical distance-field contours on the initial CMM data; (b) distance-field after the inverse mapping. Not to scale.

Figure 2

Figure 3 (a) PADRAM multi-block mesh for a fan blade passage; (b) butterfly tip-gap mesh, LE detail.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Typical PADRAM engineering parameters used in the inverse-mapping process.

Figure 4

Table 1. Optimisation phases

Figure 5

Figure 5. Typical history of the optimisation phase I (LHS) and phase IV on the (RHS).

Figure 6

Figure 6. (a) Meridional computational domain – not to scale; (b) table of CFD exit BCs.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Fan characteristics and interpolation procedure to achieve the SLS target pressure ratio.

Figure 8

Figure 8. The influence of each geometric parameter on blade efficiency for Blade D when activated individually (at SLS).

Figure 9

Figure 9. The influence of each geometric parameter on pressure ratio for Blade D when activated individually (at SLS).

Figure 10

Figure 10. Slices of the flow at 95% span for the four blades at SLS (datum shock position highlighted in a white dash line).

Figure 11

Figure 11. Plot of LP-system efficiency vs. maximum thickness at 75% height.

Figure 12

Figure 12. Plot of LP-system efficiency Vs. TEMO at 75% height.

Figure 13

Figure 13. SC03-FE mesh used in the untwist analyses. Not in scale.

Figure 14

Figure 14. Variation of the tip stagger angle with the blade speed under CF and gas loads.

Figure 15

Figure 15. Comparison of the run-up blade shape using two different methods of applying perturbations.

Figure 16

Figure 16. Comparison of the efficiency variation for the eight key manufactured blades using two methods of run-up process.

Figure 17

Figure 17. PADRAM parametric definition (cut-back) of the blade leading-edge.

Figure 18

Figure 18. Datum and optimum shape of the blade leading-edge. Not-to-scale.

Figure 19

Figure 19. Datum and optimum shape of the blade leading-edge.

Figure 20

Figure A.1. PADRAM design space influence on the LP-system efficiency (R2 values plotted along the span of the blade (Pos 0-Hub, 220 Tip)).