0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Manufacturing, Materials, and Metallurgy

An Experimental System for Assessing Combustor Durability

[+] Author and Article Information
Nagaraja S. Rudrapatna, Benjamin H. Peterson, Daniel Greving

 Honeywell Aerospace, 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 133(4), 042103 (Nov 23, 2010) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4002177 History: Received May 13, 2010; Revised May 25, 2010; Published November 23, 2010; Online November 23, 2010

Modern gas turbine combustors are made of high temperature alloys, employ effusion cooling, and are protected by a thermal barrier coating (TBC). Gas turbine combustor failure modes, such as TBC spallation, cracking, and distortion resulting from oxidation, creep, and thermal fatigue, are driven by hot spot peak temperature and the associated thermal gradient. Standard material characterization tests, such as creep, oxidation, and low cycle fatigue are indicators of a material’s potential performance but they neither fully represent the combustor geometric/material system nor fully represent the thermal fatigue conditions a combustor is subjected to during engine operation. Combustor rig tests and/or engine cyclic endurance tests to determine the suitability of new material systems for combustors are time-consuming and costly. Therefore, a simple yet efficient test method for screening material systems under representative combustor conditions is needed. An experimental system has been developed to fill this gap. This paper discusses the configured specimen geometry, test methodology, observed test results, and a comparison with typical failure modes observed in combustors.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2011 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Honeywell’s TFE731-5 combustor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Photograph of the subelement combustor can

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Schematic depicting the subelement combustor can test

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Photograph of the test setup

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Generalized thermal cycle definition for testing

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Infrared thermal image of the subelement can with hot spot T/C locations

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Photograph of the thermocouples on the inside (metal side) of the subelement can

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Typical thermal cycle data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Photograph of hot spot on subelement can surface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Permanent distortion of can, 543 cycles at ∼1660°F peak temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Photographs of subelement can failure locations: (a) 543 cycles at ∼1660°F (904°C) peak temperature—TBC side, (b) cold (T/C) side, and (c) 1136 cycles at ∼1600°F (871°C) peak temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Optical micrographs of metallographic cross sections from a subelement combustor can

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Crack at the edge of effusion hole, 543 cycles at ∼1660°F peak temperature

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In