0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Controls, Diagnostics, and Instrumentation

Application of a Statistical Methodology for Gas Turbine Degradation Prognostics to Alstom Field Data

[+] Author and Article Information
Mauro Venturini

Dipartimento di Ingegneria,
Università degli Studi di Ferrara,
Via Giuseppe Saragat, 1,
Ferrara 44122, Italy
e-mail: mauro.venturini@unife.it

Dirk Therkorn

ALSTOM (Switzerland) Ltd,
Brown Boveri Strasse 7,
Baden 5401, Switzerland
e-mail: dirk.therkorn@power.alstom.com

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power. Manuscript received June 27, 2013; final manuscript received June 28, 2013; published online August 21, 2013. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 135(9), 091603 (Aug 21, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: GTP-13-1189; doi: 10.1115/1.4024952 History: Received June 27, 2013; Revised June 28, 2013

In this paper, a prognostic methodology is applied to gas turbine field data to assess its capability as a predictive tool for degradation effects. On the basis of the recordings of past behavior, the methodology provides a prediction of future performance, i.e., the probability that degradation effects are at an acceptable level in future operations. The analyses carried out in this paper consider two different parameters (power output and compressor efficiency) of three different Alstom gas turbine power plants (gas turbine type GT13E2, GT24, and GT26). To apply the prognostic methodology, site specific degradation threshold values were defined, to identify the time periods with acceptable degradation (i.e., higher-than-threshold operation) and the time periods where maintenance activities are recommended (i.e., lower-than-threshold operation). This paper compares the actual distribution of the time points until the degradation limit is reached (discrete by nature) to the continuously varying distribution of the time points simulated by the probability density functions obtained through the prognostic methodology. Moreover, the reliability of the methodology prediction is assessed for all the available field data of the three gas turbines and for two values of the threshold. For this analysis, the prognostic methodology is applied by considering different numbers of degradation periods for methodology calibration and the accuracy of the next forecasted trends is compared to the real data. Finally, this paper compares the prognostic methodology prediction to a “purely deterministic” prediction chosen to be the average of the past time points of higher-than-threshold operations. The results show that, in almost all cases, the prognostic methodology allows a better prediction than the “purely deterministic” approach for both power and compressor efficiency degradation. Therefore, the prognostic methodology seems to be a robust and reliable tool to predict gas turbine power plant “probabilistic” degradation.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Orme, G. J., and Venturini, M., 2011, “Property Risk Assessment for Power Plants: Methodology, Validation and Application,” Energy, 36, pp. 3189–3203. [CrossRef]
Stamatis, A., Mathioudakis, K., and Papailiou, K. D., 1990, “Adaptive Simulation of Gas Turbine Performance,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 112, pp. 168–175. [CrossRef]
Bettocchi, R., and Spina, P. R., 1999, “Diagnosis of Gas Turbine Operating Conditions by Means of the Inverse Cycle Calculation,” ASME Paper No. 99-GT-185.
Pinelli, M., and Venturini, M., 2002, “Application of Methodologies to Evaluate the Health State of Gas Turbines in a Cogenerative Combined Cycle Power Plant,” ASME Paper No. GT2002-30248. [CrossRef]
Doel, D. L., 2003, “Development of Baselines, Influence Coefficients and Statistical Inputs for Gas Path Analysis,” Gas Turbine Condition Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis (von Karman Institute Lecture Series No. 2003-01), von Karman Institute, Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium.
Li, Y. G., 2004, “Gas Turbine Diagnosis Using a Fault Isolation Enhanced GPA,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-53571. [CrossRef]
Jaw, L. C., 2005, “Recent Advancements in Aircraft Engine Health Management (EHM) Technologies and Recommendations for the Next Step,” ASME Paper No. GT2005-68625. [CrossRef]
Verbist, M. L., Visser, W.P.J., van Buijtenen, J. P., and Duivis, R., 2011, “Gas Path Analysis on KLM In-Flight Engine Data,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45625. [CrossRef]
Hindle, E., Van Stone, R., Brogan, C., Ken Dale, J. V., and Gibson, N., 2006, “A Prognostic and Diagnostic Approach to Engine Health Management,” ASME Paper No. GT2006-90614. [CrossRef]
Roemer, M. J., Byington, C. S., Kacprzynski, G. J., and Vachtsevanos, G., 2006, “An Overview of Selected Prognostic Technologies With Application to Engine Health Management,” ASME Paper No. GT2006-90677. [CrossRef]
Puggina, N., and Venturini, M., 2012, “Development of a Statistical Methodology for Gas Turbine Prognostics,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 134(2), p. 022401. [CrossRef]
Watson, M. J., Smith, M. J., Kloda, J., Byington, C. S., and Semega, K., 2011, “Prognostics and Health Management of Aircraft Engine EMA Systems,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-46537. [CrossRef]
Palmé, T., Breuhaus, P., Assadi, M., Klein, A., and Kim, M., 2011, “Early Warning of Gas Turbine Failure by Nonlinear Feature Extraction Using an Auto-Associative Neural Network Approach,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45991. [CrossRef]
Li, Y. G., and Nilkitsaranont, P., 2009, “Gas Turbine Performance Prognostic for Condition-Based Maintenance,” Appl. Energy, 86, pp. 2152–2161. [CrossRef]
Saxena, A., Celaya, J., Saha, B., Saha, S., and Goebe, K., 2009, “On Applying the Prognostic Performance Metrics,” Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society, San Diego, CA, September 27–October 1, Paper No. 039.
Coble, J., and Hines, J. W., 2009, “Identifying Optimal Prognostic Parameters From Data: A Genetic Algorithms Approach,” Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society, San Diego, CA, September 27–October 1, Paper No. 069.
Nam, A., Sharp, M., Hines, J. W., and Upadhyaya, B. R., 2012, “Bayesian Methods for Successive Transitioning Between Prognostic Types: Lifecycle Prognostics,” 8th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Control and Human Machine Interface Technologies, San Diego, CA, July 22–26, Paper No. 262.
Hepperle, N., Therkorn, D., Schneider, E., and Staudacher, S., 2011, “Assessment of Gas Turbine and Combined Cycle Power Plant Performance Degradation,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45375. [CrossRef]
Borguet, S., and Leonard, O., 2008, “A Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test for Adaptive Gas Turbine Health Monitoring,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-50117. [CrossRef]
Tarabrin, A. P., Bodrov, A. I., Schurovsky, V. A., and Stalder, J. P., 1998, “Influence of Axial Compressor Fouling on Gas Turbine Unit Performance Based on Different Schemes and With Different Initial Parameters,” ASME Paper No. 98-GT-416.
Meher-Homji, C. B., Chaker, M., and Bromley, A. F., 2009, “The Fouling of Axial Flow Compressors—Causes, Effects, Susceptibility End Sensitivity,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-59239 [CrossRef].
Schneider, E., Demirciogiu, S., Franco, S., and Therkorn, D., 2009, “Analysis of Compressor On-Line Washing to Optimize Gas Turbine Power Plant Performance,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-59356. [CrossRef]
Kurz, R., and Brun, K., 2011, “Fouling Mechanisms in Axial Compressors,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45012. [CrossRef]
Igie, U., Pilidis, P., Fouflias, D., Ramsden, K., and Lambart, P., 2011, “On-Line Compressor Cascade Washing for Gas Turbine Performance Investigation,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-46210. [CrossRef]
Fabbri, A., Traverso, A., and Cafaro, S., 2011, “Compressor Performance Recovery Systems: a New Thermoeconomic Approach,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45121. [CrossRef]
Melino, F., Morini, M., Peretto, A., Pinelli, M., and Spina, P. R., 2012, “Compressor Fouling Modeling: Relationship Between Computational Roughness and Gas Turbine Operation Time,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 134(5), p. 052401. [CrossRef]
Jardine, A.K.S., Lin, D., and Banjevic, D., 2006, “A Review on Machinery Diagnostics and Prognostics Implementing Condition-Based Maintenance,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 20, pp. 1483–1510. [CrossRef]
Heng, A., Zhang, S., Tan, A.C.C., and Mathew, J., 2009, “Rotating Machinery Prognostics: State of the Art, Challenges and Opportunities,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 23, pp. 724–739. [CrossRef]
Si, X. S., Wang, W., Hua, C. H., and Zhou, D. H., 2011, “Remaining Useful Life Estimation—A Review on the Statistical Data Driven Approaches,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 213, pp. 1–14. [CrossRef]
Lipowsky, H., Staudacher, S., Bauer, M., and Schmidt, K. J., 2009, “Application of Bayesian Forecasting to Change Detection and Prognosis of Gas Turbine Performance,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-59447. [CrossRef]
Zaluski, M., Letourneau, S., Bird, J., and Yang, C., 2010, “Developing Data Mining-Based Prognostic Models for CF-18 Aircraft,” ASME Paper No. GT2010-22944. [CrossRef]
Bryg, D. J., Mink, G., and Jaw, L. C., 2008, “Combining Lead Functions and Logistic Regression for Predicting Failures on an Aircraft Engine,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-50118. [CrossRef]
Heng, A., Tan, A.C.C., Mathew, J., Montgomery, N., Banjevic, D., and Jardine, A.K.S., 2009, “Intelligent Condition-Based Prediction of Machinery Reliability,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 23, pp. 1600–1614. [CrossRef]
Tangkuman, S., and Yang, B. S., 2011, “Application of Grey Model for Machine Degradation Prognostics,” J. Mech. Sci. Technol., 25, pp. 2979–2985. [CrossRef]
Cavarzere, A., and Venturini, M., 2012, “Application of Forecasting Methodologies to Predict Gas Turbine Behavior Over Time,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 134(1), p. 012401. [CrossRef]
Venturini, M., and Puggina, N., 2012, “Prediction Reliability of a Statistical Methodology for Gas Turbine Prognostics,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 134(10), p. 101601. [CrossRef]
Muller, M., Staudacher, S., Friedl, W. H., Kohler, R., and Weisschuh, M., 2010, “Probabilistic Engine Maintenance Modeling for Varying Environmental and Operating Conditions,” ASME Paper No. GT2010-22548. [CrossRef]
Pinelli, M., and Venturini, M., 2001, “Operating State Historical Data Analysis to Support Gas Turbine Malfunction Detection,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2001/AES-23665.
Wilcox, M., and Brun, K., 2011, “Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration System Life Cycle Cost Analysis,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-46708. [CrossRef]
Fishman, G. S., 1996, Monte Carlo: Concepts, Algorithms and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Dubi, A., 2000, Monte Carlo Applications in Systems Engineering, Wiley, New York.
Spieler, S., Staudacher, S., Fiola, R., Sahm, P., and Weisschuh, M., 2007, “Probabilistic Engine Performance Scatter and Deterioration Modeling,” ASME Paper No. GT2007-27051. [CrossRef]
Davison, C., and Drummond, C., 2009, “Application of Cost Matrices and Cost Curves to Enhance Diagnostic Health Management Metrics for Gas Turbine Performance,” ASME Paper No. GT2009-59630. [CrossRef]
Coble, J., Humberstone, M., and Hines, J. W., 2010, “Adaptive Monitoring, Fault Detection and Diagnostics, and Prognostics System for the IRIS Nuclear Plant,” Annual Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management Society, Portland, OR, October 10–16, Paper No. 039.
Therkorn, D., 2005, “Remote Monitoring & Diagnostic for Combined Cycle Power Plants,” ASME Paper GT2005-68710. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Prognostic methodology

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Data trends of nondimensional power and compressor efficiency for GT13E2 (a), GT24 (b), and GT26 (c)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Linearization of GT26 nondimensional power data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Significant time points and time frames

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

PDF of actual time points above the degradation limit (dashed line) and of the time points obtained through the prognostic methodology (continuous line) for GT26 power output data for high and low threshold

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(RMSEk,j)HtT values for power (a) and compressor efficiency (b), in the case where data belong to the same history

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(RMSEk,j)HtT values for power (a) and compressor efficiency (b), in the case where data are split into different histories

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Absolute deviation (ΔAk,j)HtT for simulated data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Absolute deviation (ΔAk,j)HtT for gas turbine power data for GT13E2 (a), GT24 (b), and GT26 (c)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Absolute deviation (ΔAk,j)HtT for compressor efficiency data for GT13E2 (a), GT24 (b) and GT26 (c)

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