Gas turbine engine performance data validation

• US 20080154473A1
• Filed: 12/22/2006
• Published: 06/26/2008
• Est. Priority Date: 12/22/2006
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: United Technologies Corporation (Rtx Corporation)
• Original Assignee: United Technologies Corporation (Rtx Corporation)
• Inventors: Depold, Hans R., Hull, Jonathan A., Siegel, Jason P., Volponi, Allan J.
• Application Number:
  US11/644,795
• Publication Number:
  US 20080154473A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 701/100
• CPC Class Codes: G05B 23/0262 Confirmation of fault detection, e.g. extra checks to confirm that a failure has indeed occurred

Abstract

The invention validates propulsion data used in engine performance diagnostics based on heuristic knowledge of the physical relationships between engine parameters. The method identifies data anomalies, reduces overall scatter, and allows for the detection of true engine fault events. The method uses persistency to aid in differentiating between anomalous and fault event data, and it replaces anomalous data with the best-known level for that parameter, thereby preserving the overall mean signal level.

Claims

1. A method for validating data acquired from a gas turbine engine comprising:

inputting data samples corresponding to a plurality of gas turbine engine parameter measurements;

assembling the data samples in the form of a vector;

comparing the plurality of engine parameter measurements with corresponding estimated parameter values producing a percent Δ

s vector;

identifying critical engine parameters in the percent Δ

s vector;

observing deviations in the critical engine parameters if the engine experiences a physical fault and declaring the deviations suspect;

determining heuristic thresholds categorizing each data parameter sample Δ

in the percent Δ

s vector;

accepting the suspect data parameter sample Δ

for analysis if a trend of a data parameter sample Δ

is persistent over time;

declaring the data parameter sample Δ

an outlier if the trend of a data parameter sample Δ

is not persistent over time;

replacing that data parameter sample Δ

when a data parameter sample Δ

is declared an outlier with that parameter'"'"'s best estimate prior to the sample that is an outlier; and

accepting and outputting persistent data for performance analysis to avoid removing data that may indicate a systematic measuring problem.

2. The method according to claim 1 wherein the percent Δ

s vector represents a normalized, baseline engine model.

3. The method according to claim 2 wherein deviations in the critical parameters represent physical faults that affect the engine'"'"'s thermodynamic performance.

4. The method according to claim 3 wherein the data samples are collected during a stable cruise condition.

5. The method according to claim 4 wherein critical parameters comprise spool speeds, fuel mass flow rate, and exhaust gas temperature (EGT).

6. The method according to claim 5 wherein the heuristic threshold for declaring a data parameter sample Δ

suspect may be lowered from that which would normally be prescribed from statistical considerations.

7. The method according to claim 6 further comprising using a low frequency filter to track non-outlier data to provide the best estimate of a previous data parameter sample Δ

.

8. A method for validating data acquired from a gas turbine engine comprising:

inputting data samples corresponding to a plurality of gas turbine engine parameter measurements;

assembling the plurality of data samples in the form of vectors, wherein each vector captures a discrete sample time k;

normalizing the plurality of engine parameter data sample vectors using estimated engine parameter values to form corresponding vectors of percent Δ

s;

identifying critical engine parameters in the percent Δ

vectors;

identifying outliers in the percent Δ

vectors; and

removing the outliers in the percent Δ

vectors.

9. The method according to claim 8 wherein identifying outliers in the percent Δ

vectors further comprises;

deriving statistical average vectors and standard deviation vectors corresponding to each percent Δ

vector;

forming Low, High, InRange and Uncertain heuristic thresholds from the statistical average vectors and standard deviation vectors;

classifying each percent Δ

of the percent Δ

vectors as either InRange, Uncertain, High, or Low;

maintaining a cumulative persistence flag for each percent Δ

;

maintaining a heuristic flag for each percent Δ

vector;

counting the number of critical parameters in each percent Δ

vector that fall into InRange, Low or High heuristic thresholds, wherein if the number is greater than or equal to the total number of critical parameters in the percent Δ

vector minus one, setting the heuristic flag to true;

setting the persistence flag for a percent Δ

to zero if a percent Δ

is InRange or Uncertain;

if the persistence flag for the percent Δ

in a percent A vector sample k−

1 equals 2, declaring the k−

1 and k−

2 samples for the percent Δ

as outliers and replacing the statistical average vector values, the standard deviation vector values, and percent Δ

values corresponding to the k−

1 and k−

2 percent Δ

s with those of the k−

3 percent Δ

;

if the persistence flag for the percent Δ

in a percent Δ

vector sample k−

1 equals 1, declaring the k−

1 sample for the percent Δ

as an outlier and replacing the statistical average vector value, standard deviation vector value, and percent Δ

values corresponding to the k−

2 percent Δ

with those of the k−

1 percent Δ

;

if the percent Δ

in a percent Δ

vector sample k is InRange or Uncertain, declaring the percent Δ

sample in no fault and updating the statistical average vector value and standard deviation vector value corresponding to the percent Δ

sample k normally;

if the heuristic flag is false and the percent Δ

in a percent Δ

vector sample k is classified as Very High, Very Low, Extremely High or Extremely Low, examining whether the percent As vector sample k and the previous k−

1 sample are in the same class and increasing the cumulative persistence flag for that percent Δ

by 1, if in the same class;

if the cumulative persistence flag for the percent Δ

is less than 3, declaring the percent Δ

values corresponding to the k and the k−

1 samples as suspected outliers;

if the cumulative persistence flag for the percent Δ

is greater than or equal to 3, making an extreme outlier determination;

if the heuristic flag is true and the percent Δ

in a percent Δ

s vector sample k is not in the same class as the k−

1 sample, declaring the k sample as a suspected outlier and setting the cumulative persistence flag for that percent Δ

to 1, and examining the k−

1 and the k−

2 samples if both were suspect and examining the class of the k−

1 and the k−

2 samples if in the same class and if not, declaring the k−

1 sample as an outlier;

if the k−

1 and the k−

2 samples were in the same class and if the cumulative persistence flag for that percent Δ

at k−

1 is less than 3, declaring the k−

1 and the k−

2 samples as outliers; and

examining the k−

1 and the k−

2 samples if not suspect and if the k−

1 sample is InRange or Uncertain, declaring the k−

1 sample as an outlier.

10. The method according to claim 9 wherein the extreme outlier determination further comprises:

forming extreme heuristic thresholds;

classifying the percent Δ

in a percent Δ

s vector k−

2 sample as extreme or not;

if the k−

2 sample is not Extreme, one of the following conditions exist;

if the k−

1 sample is Extreme and the k sample is not Extreme, declaring a condition of High for the k−

2 sample, Extreme for the k−

1 sample, and High for the k sample;

if the cumulative persistence flag for the percent Δ

k sample is greater than 3 and the k−

3 sample is Extreme, declaring a condition of Extreme for the k−

3 sample, High for the k−

2 sample, Extreme for the k−

1 sample, and High for the k sample, wherein the trend represents a physical fault;

if either the cumulative persistence flag for the percent Δ

k sample is not greater than 3 or the k−

3 sample is not Extreme, declaring a condition of not Extreme for the k−

3 sample, High for the k−

2 sample, Extreme for the k−

1 sample, and High for the k sample, wherein the k−

1 sample is an outlier;

if the k−

1 sample is not Extreme, or the k sample is Extreme, declaring a physical fault;

if the k−

2 sample is Extreme, one of the following conditions exist;

if the cumulative persistence flag for the percent Δ

k sample is greater than 3, examining the k sample and the k−

1, k−

2 and k−

3 samples;

if the k−

1 sample or the k−

3 sample is Extreme, declaring a physical fault;

if the k−

1 sample is not Extreme and the k−

3 sample is not Extreme and the k sample is not Extreme, declaring the k−

2 sample an outlier;

if the k−

1 sample is not Extreme and the k−

3 sample is not Extreme and the k sample is Extreme, declaring a physical fault;

if the cumulative persistence flag for the percent Δ

k sample is 3 and the k−

1 sample is Extreme, declaring a condition of Extreme for the k−

2 sample, Extreme for the k−

1 sample and High for the k sample, wherein the trend represents a physical fault;

if the cumulative persistence flag for the percent Δ

k sample is 3 and the k−

1 sample is Extreme, declaring a condition of Extreme for the k−

2 sample, Extreme for the k−

1 sample and High for the k sample, wherein the trend represents a physical fault; and

if the cumulative persistence flag for the percent Δ

at k is 3 and the k−

1 sample is not Extreme and the k sample is not Extreme, declaring a condition of Extreme for the k−

2 sample, High for the k−

1 sample and High for the k sample, wherein the k−

2 sample is an outlier.

11. The method according to claim 10 wherein the threshold values are sigma (deviation) about a mean (average) level for each parameter of the percent Δ

vectors.