Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Oil and Gas Applications

Development of a Statistical Methodology for Gas Turbine Prognostics

[+] Author and Article Information
Nicola Puggina

Dipartimento di Ingegneria,  Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Via G. Saragat, 1, 44122 Ferrara, Italy

Mauro Venturini

Dipartimento di Ingegneria,  Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Via G. Saragat, 1, 44122 Ferrara, Italymauro.venturini@unife.it

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 134(2), 022401 (Dec 16, 2011) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4004185 History: Received April 27, 2011; Revised April 27, 2011; Published December 16, 2011; Online December 16, 2011

To optimize both production and maintenance, from both a technical and an economical point of view, it would be advisable to predict the future health condition of a system and of its components, starting from field measurements taken in the past. For this purpose, this paper presents a methodology, based on the Monte Carlo statistical method, which aims to determine the future operating state of a gas turbine. The methodology allows the system future availability to be estimated, to support a prognostic process based on past historical data trends. One of the most innovative features is that the prognostic methodology can be applied to both global and local performance parameters, as, for instance, machine specific fuel consumption or local temperatures. First, the theoretical background for developing the prognostic methodology is outlined. Then, the procedure for implementing the methodology is developed and a simulation model is set up. Finally, different degradation-over-time scenarios for a gas turbine are simulated and a sensitivity analysis on methodology response is carried out, to assess the capability and the reliability of the prognostic methodology. The methodology proves robust and reliable, with a prediction error lower than 2%, for the availability associated with the next future data trend.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Availability for scenario #3 (high, medium, and low Qthr ), by using three or seven trends for methodology calibration

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Availability for scenarios #1, #2, #3 and #4 (medium Qthr ; 4 trends used for methodology calibration)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Prediction errors for scenario #3 (medium Qthr )

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

RMSE prediction errors for scenario #3 (high, medium, and low Qthr )

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Prognostic methodology

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Data trends for scenarios #2 (a) and #3 (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Influence of the number of generated histories and of samples for MLE method (scenario #3, Qthr  = 0.980)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Availability for scenario #3 (medium Qthr ), as a function of the number of available trends used for methodology calibration



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