Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 469~477

www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x
DOI 10.1007/s12206-010-1207-5

Evaluation of gas path analysis methods for gas turbine diagnosis†

A. G. Stamatis *
Department of Mechanical Engineering ,University of Thessaly, Leoforos Athinon, Pedion Areos, Volos, 38834, Greece

(Manuscript Received April 28, 2010; Revised July 23, 2010; Accepted October 24, 2010)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

In the present paper, limitations concerning three implementations of gas path analysis (GPA) methods are investigated and their diag-
nostic effectiveness is evaluated. The methods were tested for different sets of faults on a twin shaft gas turbine with an instrumentation
set typical of today’s engines. Test results revealed that classical GPA is not sufficient. Correct diagnosis is provided only when one al-
ready knows a subset of components containing the fault; otherwise, the fault may be attributed to other component (s). The effectiveness
of a second method that implements Multi Operating Point Analysis (MOPA) is related with the assumption of non varying health pa-
rameters with deviations along with the operating point. Cases of wrong diagnosis were detected when the above assumption was vio-
lated. Improvement on the diagnostic effectiveness of the MOPA method has been verified through careful selection of the parameters
defining the operating point. Further improvement on diagnostic ability was achieved when a third, recently proposed method was ap-
plied. The method uses information produced from existing sensors when artificial operating points are defined close to the initial operat-
ing point. It was found that the third method can detect and correctly identify faults even in cases where the multipoint method fails.

Keywords: Diagnostics; Gas path analysis; Gas turbine; Fault identification; Multipoint analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sidered. Such approaches have been proposed by Stamatis et

1. Introduction
al. [5], Gronstead [6], and Pinelli et al. [7]. The same concept
Many variants of gas path analysis based diagnosis with dif- has also been incorporated in artificial intelligence based gas
ferent features and complexity have been developed and re- path diagnostic methods (Gulati et al. [8]). MOPA methods,
ported in the open literature. Extensive reviews of existing though, do not use a priori statistics for the parameters but rely
methods are provided by Li [1], Mathioudakis and Sieverding on the questionable assumption of non-varying health parame-
[2] and Marinai et al. [3]. A common feature of the most suc- ters.
cessful methods is the calculation of certain characteristic Recently, a new variant of GPA method named Artificial
component parameters (such as efficiencies) based on the Multi Operating Point Analysis (AMOPA) has been proposed
processing of measured data. by Stamatis [9]. The new method uses existing sensor infor-
Sufficient engine health assessment requires at least the es- mation produced when artificial operating points are defined
timation of the parameters associated with the main engine close to an initial operating point, and is capable of both isolat-
components. Considering an existing engine, a typical situa- ing and identifying the fault in individual components.
tion is characterized by the fact that the number of available In the present paper, evaluation of three implementations
sensors is smaller than the number of parameters to be calcu- representing the above variants of GPA is performed in a twin
lated. Accordingly, all the initially implemented methods are shaft industrial gas turbine. The influence of the various as-
compelled to adopt various assumptions. Most of the methods sumptions made by each method on diagnostic effectiveness is
use a priori information about the statistics of the calculated addressed and potential diagnosis problems are recognized.
parameters and therefore introduce bias in the estimation as Further details regarding the AMOPA method are also dis-
discussed by Doel [4]. cussed.
GPA Multi Operating Point Analysis (MOPA) methods
have been developed trying to exploit information provided by 2. Gas path analysis techniques
the existing sensors when different operating points are con-
†
This paper was recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor An engine may be viewed as a system, whose operating
Tong Seop Kim point is defined by means of a set of variables denoted as u.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +302421074077, Fax.: +302421074085 The health condition of its components is assumed to be rep-
E-mail address: tastamat@uth.gr
© KSME & Springer 2011 resented through the values of a set of appropriate ‘‘health’’
470 A. G. Stamatis / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 469~477
Fig. 1. Gas path analysis diagnostic procedure.
parameters contained in a vector f.
The system is observed through measured variables, such as
speeds, pressures, temperatures, etc., contained in a vector y.
When the engine operates at a certain operating point, meas-
ured quantities are produced for given values of health pa-
rameters. The purpose of diagnostics (Fig. 1) is to seek a solu-
tion to the inverse problem, namely to determine the values of
the estimated health parameters, from a given set of measure-
ments using a diagnostic method (DM).
Particular faults can then be detected if deviations of health
parameters from the reference state are observed. In linear gas
path analysis, the health parameters are represented as the
unknown ‘‘deltas’’ of component performance parameters
(typically efficiency and mass flow capacity). They are related
to known measurement ‘‘deltas’’ through relations produced
by linearization of the general nonlinear relations, assuming
small deviations. They are then treated as a linear system of
equations to be solved for determining the unknowns (Urban
and Volponi [10]). In nonlinear methods, the full equations are
treated directly without any simplification. An example of
such a method, the method of adaptive modeling introduced
by Stamatis et al. [11], uses ‘‘modification factors’’ as health
parameters and solves for them through an optimization pro-
cedure.
The origin for the multi operating point analysis (MOPA)
methods was the Discrete Operating point GPA, introduced by
Stamatis and Papailiou [12].The method, based on informa-
tion given by existing sensors when different operating points
are considered, significantly improved the diagnostic effec-
tiveness. The implementation of the method was an extension
of the classical linear gas path analysis. Other research groups
applied the same principle for the nonlinear case, [6-8]. The
MOPA methods in the general case using NOP operating
points are represented by Eqs. (1a)-(1d).
y k = F ( f,u k ) k = 1,NOP
T riorates, the idea of the method is that information provided
y ext = ⎡ y1T y T2 . . y TNOP ⎤⎦
⎣
T in the intact condition enhances the information provided
u ext = ⎡⎣u1T uT2 . . uTNOP ⎤⎦
fˆ = DM ( y ,u ) ext ext
Fig. 2. Definition of artificial operating points on compressor map.
A derivative of MOPA methods called AMOPA, proposed
recently by Stamatis [9], is based on specific operating points
called ‘artificial’ operating points. An artificial operating point
is defined as follows. We denote as zk the vector containing a
subset of the initial measurement vector y and a subset of con-
trol variables defining the operating point (also measured) so
that the dimension of z is the same as the initial vector y. The
rest of the measured variables substitute the missing control
variables of vector u, thus defining a new vector of control
variables denoted as xk where k spans all possible meaningful
combinations. A meaningful combination is defined when the
parameters included in vector zk are affected by health pa-
rameters. For example, parameters expressing ambient condi-
tions or remaining constant through engine operation by de-
mand cannot be used in vector z. The method in the general
nonlinear case is represented by Eqs. (2a)-(2d).
z k = F ( f,x k ) k = 1, NAOP (2a)
T
z ext = ⎡⎣ z1T zT2 . . zTNAOP ⎤⎦ (2b)
T
x ext = ⎡⎣ x1T xT2 . . xTNAOP ⎤⎦ (2c)
fˆ = DM ( z ,x )
ext ext (2d)
To further clarify the concept, an engine is considered
whose operating point is defined through Load, Power Tur-
bine Speed and Ambient conditions and the extra measured
quantities are Gas generator speed (NGG) and Compressor
Discharge Pressure (CDP). Then, a new artificial operating
point may be defined when Load is replaced by NGG in the
vector defining the operating point and Load is now consid-
ered an extra measurement. Another point is considered when
CDP defines the operating point and Load and NGG are the
(1a) extra measured quantities. Supposing a health parameter dete-
(1b) upon taking the variation of Load by keeping NGG at its value
(1c)
when Load remains constant and NGG variation is observed
(1d) (Fig. 2).
 A. G. Stamatis / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 469~477 471

3. Limitations of gas path analysis

In order to have an insight on the limitations of the various
GPA approaches without loss of generality, we consider their
linear versions. The classical linear approach is formulated as
follows: for a given operating point u, the measurement values
depend only on the health condition of engine components.
After linearization and taking into account measurement un-
certainty (by adding a noise vector v with zero mean and
known covariance R), the typical GPA equations take the
form:

∆y = C ⋅ ∆f + v (3a) (a)

where ∆ represents percentage deviation from a reference

value (when the engine is in intact condition) and C, the well-
known influence coefficient matrix. Estimation of health pa-
rameters is obtained from the relations

∆fˆ = S -1 ⋅ CT ⋅ R -1 ⋅ ∆y (3b)
-1 T -1
S = M + C ⋅R ⋅C (3c)

where M represents known statistics for the deviation of

health parameters.
The linear implementation for the MOPA approach is given (b)
by Eqs. (4a)-(4e) and for AMOPA by Eqs. (5a)-(5e). Fig. 3. Discrete operating point GPA.

∆y k = Ck ⋅ ∆f k = 1, NOP (4a) discussed by Doel [4]. The algorithm tends to ‘‘smear’’ the
Ck = ⎡⎣cij , k ⎤⎦ (4b) fault over many components.
Regarding the MOPA approach, the so-called information
cij , k = ( ∂∆yi / ∂∆f j ) (4c) matrix P is crucial in the sense that its condition determines
k
NOP the diagnostic effectiveness. The condition of the matrix is
∆fˆ = P −1 ⋅ ∑ (C
k =1
T
k ⋅ R −k 1 ⋅ ∆y k ) (4d) represented by its condition number. Investigations concern-
ing effects of both the number of operating points used and the
NOP ‘distance’ of the operating points on information matrices
P= ∑ (C
k =1
T
k ⋅ R −k 1 ⋅ Ck ) (4e) have been reported by Mathioudakis and Kamboukos [15] and
Skölde et al. [16].
∆z k = G k ⋅ ∆ f k = 1, NAOP (5a) Additional details on assessing identifiability in multipoint
G k = ⎡⎣ gij , k ⎤⎦ (5b) gas turbine estimation problems are given by Gronstedt [17].
Although all the works implementing the multipoint approach
gij , k = ( ∂∆zi / ∂∆f j ) (5c) agree that the idea more or less improves the diagnostic effec-
k
NAOP tiveness, there are also results (see Henriksson et al. [18]),
∆fˆ = H −1 ⋅ ∑ (G T
k ⋅ R −k 1 ⋅ ∆z k ) (5d) indicating that the theoretically attainable multi-point im-
k =1 provements are difficult to realize in practical engine applica-
NAOP
tions. In order to understand the reasons for potential problems
H= ∑ (G
k =1
T
k ⋅ R −k 1 ⋅ G k ) (5e)
concerning diagnosis using a multipoint approach, it is neces-
sary to examine the underlying assumptions of the method.
The main assumption of the method is that the ‘deltas’ con-
Although the formulation for classical GPA has proven to cerning the health parameters remain constant with regard to
be successful for practical purposes and existing commercial change in operating conditions (see Fig. 3(a)). This assump-
systems are based on it (e.g. Doel [13], Barwell [14]), identifi- tion is obviously true for some parameters (for example, the
ability problems exist due to limited instrumentation. In this parameter expressing the effective turbine area or the area of
case, inversion of matrix S is only possible when it is domi- non variable nozzle jet engine), but there are indications that
nated by M. The main drawback of the method is the effect for other parameters this is a week assumption. Several works
472 A. G. Stamatis / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 469~477

Table 1. Definition of u, y, f engine vectors.

u OPV y MV
1 Load 1 NGG
2 NPT 2 EGT
3 Tamb 3 WF
4 Pamb 4 CDP
5 CDT

f HPV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 SWc + + + - + + - -
Fig. 4. Variability of compressor flow capacity delta with operating
point. 2 SEc + + + - + + - -
3 SWt + + + + - - + -
(Diakunchak [19], Aker and Saravanamuttoo [20]), have pro- 4 SEt + + + + - - + -
vided evidence that when deterioration is present, the devia- 5 SWpt + + - + + - - +
tions of parameters such as flow compressor capacity and
6 SEpt + + - + + - - +
efficiency change with the operating point. In fact, a different
working-point means different aerodynamic conditions and, in 7 SEb + - - - - - - -
this sense, efficiency and flow capacity deltas can significantly
vary with the operating condition (Fig. 3(b)).
We may formulate this variability (Fig. 4) as nosis since the assumption of non-variability of health pa-
rameter deltas is ‘insured’ by the method definition. On the
∆fl = ∆f r + δ∆fl l = 1, NOP (6a) other hand, the way the operating points are defined seems to
improve diagnostic accuracy, as will be shown in the follow-
where ∆f r represents the deltas in a reference operating ing application.
point r among the NOP operating points and δ∆fl the devia-
tion from this base situation in operating point l. 4. Application test case
It can be seen (after some matrices manipulation) that when
the deltas are estimated with the multipoint approach, a bias is Results from application to a case of a twin shaft gas turbine
introduced in the estimation given in the linear case by the engine are used to demonstrate limitations and capabilities of
relation the variants of GPA discussed previously. A computerized
engine model based on the methodology introduced by Stama-
NOP tis et al. [21], resembling the ABB GT10 engine, was used to
∆fˆ − ∆fl = P −1 ⋅ ∑ (Q k ⋅ δ∆fk ) − δ∆fl (6b) simulate engine performance.
k =1 The engine operating point vector (OPV) is defined initially
Q k = CTk ⋅ R -k1 ⋅ Ck (6c) through ambient pressure and temperature, power turbine
NOP speed (NPT) and Load (vector u in Table 1). The measure-
P= ∑Q k . (6d) ments Vector (MV) provided (Table 1, vector y) includes
k =1 compressor delivery pressure (CDP) and temperature (CDT),
exhaust gas temperature (EGT), fuel flow rate (WF) and gas
The resulting diagnosis risk is not only imprecise calcula- generator speed (NGG).
tion of the engine’s state after some deterioration but, more- The engine main component faults such as erosion, fouling,
over, indicating the wrong component (s) as responsible for turbine nozzle area change, etc. are represented by changing
the fault. mass flow capacity and efficiency with respect to their values
The question emerging through the previous analysis is the at the healthy component condition (see Aker and Saravana-
following: is it possible to overcome the diagnosis risk using muttoo [20], Urban and Volponi [10]).
multipoint analysis based on the ‘questionable’ assumption of It must be stressed at this point that changes for each com-
non-varying deltas of health parameters, without abandoning ponent have to be independent from the operating point shift
at the same time the basic idea of the method? We recall here due to change in another component. In order to make it pos-
that this idea is to exploit information supplied from existing sible, the changes have to be defined not between final (faulty)
instrumentation when more operating points are considered in and initial (healthy) values but between final values and the
the analysis. values at the initial map corresponding to the same final val-
The AMOPA method, although implementing a multipoint ues of the independent parameters of the map (i.e. pressure
analysis, at the same time minimizes the risk for wrong diag- ratio and corrected speed). Here, the health performance vec-
 A. G. Stamatis / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 469~477 473

Table 2. Sampler of fault cases.

Load ∆fi C1 C2 T1 T2 PT1 PT2

1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0
2 -1 -1 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 -1 -1 0 0
100% 4 0 0 -1 -0.5 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 1 1
6 0 0 0 0 -1 -0.5 (a)
7 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 -1 -0.75 0 0 0 0
2 -1 -1 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 -1 -1 0 0
80%
4 0 0 -1 -0.75 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 1 1
6 0 0 0 0 -1 -0.75
7 0 0 0 0 0 0
(b)
1 -1 -0.5 0 0 0 0
2 -1 -1 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 -1 -1 0 0
60%
4 0 0 -1 -1 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 1 1
6 0 0 0 0 -1 -1
7 0 0 0 0 0 0

tor (HPV) of the main engine components (compressor, tur-
bines and burner), is expressed through a flow factor SW
and/or an efficiency factor SE (Table 1, vector f), defined as:
x An indicative set of engine faults considered is shown in
Sx =
xref
where x is the corrected airflow or isentropic efficiency for
compressor and turbines, combustion efficiency for the burner,
subscript ref represents the healthy engine and x, xref corre-
spond to the same values of the independent parameters of the
component map. Sign + in the table means that the corre-
sponding health parameter is assumed to vary and is included
in the estimation process while sign – means that the corre-
sponding health parameter is assumed to be constant.
For the purposes of the present work, we produced the re-
quired information from the engine when different faults oc-
cur using the computerized engine model. The model provides
simulated data (the values of the 5 measured quantities of the
engine) for a given operating point, defined through the 4
relevant parameters, when the condition of the engine compo-
nents, namely a set of values of the 7 health parameters, is
known. The data produced can be contaminated with noise to
resemble actual measured data. Sets containing series of noisy
(c)
Fig. 5. GPA and MOPA fault diagnosis.
data could be generated, as would happen in an actual situa-
tion, when measurements are periodically recorded.
(7)
Table 2. Cases Cx represent a compressor fault, Tx a turbine
fault and PTx a power turbine fault. Two variants, x, of each
fault are examined. Variant 1 represents invariant health pa-
rameters deltas along with different operating points and vari-
ant 2 assumes that some deltas are decreasing and increasing
correspondingly.
Classical GPA cannot be used for diagnosis when health pa-
rameter vectors (HPV1 or HPV2) have dimensions larger than
the engine measurement vector (MV). Still, a solution is ob-
tained when health parameter vectors with smaller dimensions
than the measurement vector are estimated (HPV3- HPV8).
However, as it can be seen from Fig. 5, correct diagnosis using
HPV6- HPV8 is provided only when one already knows the
faulty component, or the pair of components containing the
fault when using HPV3- HPV5; otherwise, the fault may be
attributed to other component (s). GPA results in these figures
are obtained at 100% load.
No a priori knowledge is needed when MOPA is applied.
Fig. 5 shows that estimation of health parameters deltas of the
474 A. G. Stamatis / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 469~477

Table 3. Definition of x and z vectors.

AOP 1 2 3 4 5
x z x z x z x z x z
Tamb + + + + +
Pamb + + + + +
NPT + + + + +
Load + + + + +
NGG + + + + + Fig. 6. MOPA wrong fault diagnosis.
EGT + + + + +
WF + + + + +
CDP + + + + +
CTD + + + + +

Table 4. Influence Coefficient Matrix at two different artificial operat-

ing points.

SWc SEc SWt SEt SWpt SEpt

G1 LOAD=constant (a)
∆ (NGG) Load -0.3 0.31 -0.1 0.31 0.3 -0.1
∆ (WF) Load 0 -0.6 0.2 -0.6 0.14 -0.8
∆ (EGT) Load -0.1 -1.8 0.5 -1.7 -0.56 -0.8
∆ (CDP) Load 0.1 0.24 -1.1 0.48 0.64 -0.5
∆ (CDT) Load 0.1 -1.2 -0.6 0.28 0.36 -0.3
G2 NGG=constant
∆ (Load) NGG 2.3 -2.5 1 -2.5 -2.45 1
∆ (WF) NGG 1.7 -2.6 0.9 -2.4 -1.72 0
∆ (EGT) NGG 0.5 -2.4 0.7 -2.3 -1.19 -0.5 (b)

∆ (CDP) NGG 1.2 -0.9 -0.6 -0.7 -0.56 0 Fig. 7. Faults detected using AMOPA.
∆ (CDT) NGG 0.7 -1.9 -0.3 -0.4 -0.3 0

fined as in Table 3 and computed Influence Coefficient Matri-

actual faulty component can be obtained for fault variants of
type 1 with some smearing effect on the other components.
This is not a problem since we may calculate the exact de-
viations by making a new GPA analysis allowing only the
parameters of the isolated component to vary. Results in these
figures are obtained using the measurements at all three Load
conditions and estimating all seven health parameters (HPV1)
or the six parameters of compressor and turbines (HPV2). The
latter case gives better results, as expected.
On the contrary, diagnosis based on MOPA for faults of
type 2 is quite unsafe. It is even risky to use MOPA as a pre-
processor for single fault cases in order to isolate the most
probable component, and in a second pass, where only the
health parameters of this component are considered for esti-
mation, to accurately predict deltas. This situation is depicted
in Fig. 6, where power turbine fault is the most probable in-
stead of the actual core turbine fault.
Application of AMOPA with artificial operating points de-
ces G (Table 4) resolves the previous problems as shown in
Fig. 7. It is evident that individual faults are estimated with
sufficient accuracy. It is also observed that prediction is likely
to be improved as we consider more artificial points. Some
smearing effect in core turbine fault case (that could be attrib-
uted to method linearization errors and/or the particular meas-
urement set used) does not imply any confusion for the faulty
component. Therefore, the correct magnitude of health pa-
rameter deltas is calculated in a second pass where only tur-
bine health parameters are estimated.
5. Discussion
The influence of the engine performance model on method
effectiveness is crucial. The model was constructed using the
adaptive simulation technique (Stamatis et al. [21]) applied to
real engine data, and was proved to be able to reproduce intact
engine performance. Supplied with usual health factors repre-
 A. G. Stamatis / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 469~477
Fig. 8. Distance of operating points in MOPA and AMOPA.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9. Effect of the variable defining operating point on MOPA diag-
nosis.
senting the condition of engine components, the model is ca-
pable of producing realistic simulated fault data.
A key aspect of the AMOPA method is the assumption of
non varying health parameters deviations with the operating
point. This assumption is quite reasonable as can be seen in
compressor map (Fig. 8) where all the artificial operating
points are quite close with respect to usual MOPA while the
extra two points are far enough to justify the assumption. Still,
some of the artificial points are discrete as observed in the
zooming area. Therefore, the AMOPA method can be applied
to data coming from neighboring operating conditions for
which existing MOPA methods are not effective. That the
method was found to be less successful in accurately predict-
ing health parameters when combined faults affecting both
compressor and turbines are considered is probably due to
linearization errors. Ongoing research is focused on the non-
475
linear implementation of the method.
Another aspect investigated with respect to MOPA methods
was related to the parameters defining the operating point. It
was found that the effectiveness of the diagnosis is strongly
influenced by this selection. It can be seen in Fig. 9(a) that
MOPA analysis fails to identify the faulty component (com-
pressor) when the different operating points are defined by
CDP, and it also fails to identify as a faulty component the
power turbine when operating points are defined through Load
(Fig. 9(b)). Predictions in both figures are based on a reduced
measurement set (Fuel Flow not included), HPV6 and faults
of type 1. Consequently, special care must be taken when one
intends to use usual MOPA with the assumption of non-
varying parameter deltas, even in cases where the assumption
is justified.
6. Conclusions
The scope of the present paper was to investigate limitations
concerning various implementations of gas path analysis
methods in order to evaluate their diagnostic effectiveness and
suggest possible improvement.
The methods were tested on different sets of main compo-
nent faults, with an instrumentation set typical of today’s en-
gines. Main limitations of the examined implementations
evaluated on a twin shaft gas turbine have been identified as
follows: Classical GPA is not sufficient when the number of
health parameters is bigger than the number of measurements.
Correct diagnosis is provided only when one already knows a
subset of components containing the fault; otherwise the fault
may be attributed to other component (s). MOPA method
effectiveness is directly related with the assumption of non-
varying health parameter deviations along with the operating
point. The weaker the assumption is, the greater the risk for
wrong diagnosis. The AMOPA method, though more efficient
than the previous method, has limited success when combined
faults are considered.
Improvement of the diagnostic effectiveness of MOPA
methods has been verified when selection of the parameters
defining the operating point was done after careful analysis.
Diagnosis results confirm that success is influenced strongly
by this selection. Further improvement on diagnostic ability
resulted when the AMOPA method was implemented. It was
found that AMOPA can detect and correctly identify faults,
even in cases where existing multipoint methods may produce
an incorrect diagnosis.
Nomenclature------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDP : Compressor Discharge Pressure
CDT : Compressor Discharge Temperature
EGT : Exhaust Gas Temperature
N : Shaft rpm
NGG : Gas Generator rpm
NPT : Power turbine rpm
476 A. G. Stamatis / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 469~477

SE : Efficiency factor [4] D. Doel, An Assessment of Weighted-Least-Squares Based

SW : Flow factor Gas Path Analysis, Journal of Engineering for Gas turbines
WF : Fuel flow rate and Power, 116 (1994) 366-373.
F : Functional representing engine non linear model [5] A. Stamatis, K. Mathioudakis, G. Berios and K. Papailiou,
∆x : Percentage deviation of magnitude x from Jet Engine Fault Detection with Discrete Operating Points
nominal value Gas Path Analysis, Journal of Propulsion and Power, 7 (6)
u : Vector of quantities defining operating point (1991).
f : Vector of engine component health parameters [6] T. Grönstedt, A multi-point gas path analysis tool for gas
x : Vector of quantities defining artificial operating turbine engines with a moderate level of instrumentation,
point Proc. XV ISABE, Bangalore, India, Sept. 3-7,paper ISABE-
y : Vector of measured quantities 2001-1034 (2001).
z : Vector of measured quantities at artificial [7] M. Pinelli, P. R. Spina and M. Venturini, Optimized Operat-
operating point ing Point Selection for Gas Turbine Health State Analysis by
C : Influence Coefficient Matrix Using a Multi-Point Technique, ASME Paper, No. GT2003-
G : Artificial Influence Coefficient Matrix 38191 (2003).
H : Artificial Information Matrix [8] A. Gulati, D. Taylor and R. Singh, Multiple operating point
M : Health parameters Covariance analysis using genetic algorithm optimisation for gas turbine
P : Information Matrix in MOPA diagnostics, Proc. XV ISABE, Bangalore, India, Sept. 3-7,
R : Noise Covariance paper ISABE-2001-1139 (2001).
S : Information Matrix in GPA [9] A. Stamatis, Optimum Use of Existing Sensor Information
for Gas Turbine Diagnostics, ASME Paper, GT2008-50296
Subscripts, Superscripts (2008).
ref : Quantity referring to the intact engine [10] L. A. Urban and A. J. Volponi, Mathematical Methods of
amb : Ambient Relative Engine Performance Diagnostics, SAE Trans. 101,
b : Burner J. Aerosp. Sect. 1, Technical Paper 922048 (1992).
c : Compressor [11] A. Stamatis, K. Mathioudakis and K. Papailiou, Gas Tur-
ext : Extended vector bine Component Fault Identification by Means of Adaptive
pt : Power Turbine Performance Modeling, ASME Paper, 90-GT- 376 (1990).
t : Turbine [12] A. Stamatis and K. Papailiou, Discrete Operating Condi-
tions Gas Path Analysis, AGARD CP No 448, paper 33
Greeks (1988).
θ : Inlet temperature/288.15K [13] D. Doel, TEMPER- A Gas Path Analysis Tool for Com-
δ : Inlet pressure/1atm mercial Jet Engines, ASME paper, 92-GT-315 (1992).
[14] M. J. Barwell, COMPASS—Ground Based Engine Moni-
Abbreviations toring Program for General Applications, S.A.E. Technical
AMOPA : Artificial Multi Operating Point Analysis paper, 871734 (1987).
DM : Diagnostic method [15] K. Mathioudakis and P. Kamboukos, Assessment of the
HPV : Health Parameter Vector effectiveness of gas path diagnostic schemes, Journal of En-
MOPA : Multi Operating Point Analysis gineering for Gas turbines and Power, 128 (2006) 57-63.
MV : Measurement Vector [16] P. Skölde, M. Wallin and T. Grönstedt, An augmented
NAOP : Number of Artificial Operating Points multipoint estimation technique for gas path analysis model
NOP : Number of Operating Points generation, ASME paper, GT2004-53995 (2004).
PR : Pressure ratio [17] T. Gronstedt, Identifiability in Multipoint as Turbine Pa-
rameter Estimation Problems, ASME paper, GT-2002-30020
(2002).
References
[18] M. Henriksson, Borguet, O. Léonard and T. Groሷnstedt, On
[1] Y. G. Li, Performance Analysis Based Gas Turbine Diag- inverse problems in turbine engine parameter estimation,
nostics: A Review, Proceedings of ImechE Part A, Journal Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 1, 703-711, ASME
of Power and Energy, 216 (6) (2002) 363–377. paper, GT2007-27756 (2007).
[2] K. Mathioudakis and C.H. Sieverding, Gas-turbine Condi- [19] Diakunchak, Performance Deterioration in Industrial Gas
tion Monitoring & Fault Diagnosis, Von Karman Institute Turbines, ASME Paper, 91-GT-228 (1991).
Lecture Series, 2003-01. [20] G. Aker and H. Saravanamuttoo, Predicting Gas Turbine
[3] L. Marinai, D. Probert and R. Singh, Prospects for aero gas- Degradation Due to Compressor Fouling Using Computer
turbine diagnostics: a review, Applied Energy, 79 (2004) Simulation Techniques, ASME Paper, 88-GT-206 (1988).
109-126. [21] A. Stamatis, K. Mathioudakis and K. Papailiou, Adaptive
 A. G. Stamatis / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 25 (2) (2011) 469~477 477

simulation of gas turbine performance, Journal of Engineer-

ing for Gas turbines and Power, 112 (1990) 168-175.

Prof. A. G. Stamatis is Assistant

Professor of Applied Thermodynamics
and Thermal Power Stations in the
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Thessaly. He received his
Ph.D. from the Dept. of Mechanical
Engineering, National Technical
University of Athens, Greece in 1990.
The research interests of A. G. Stamatis include
thermodynamics, heat transfer and gas dynamics of gas
turbines, modeling, simulation and diagnostics of thermal
systems, and methods of diagnosis in energy installations
based on artificial intelligence.