Static structural aeroengine components are typically designed for full lifetime operation. Under this assumption, efforts to reduce weight in order to improve the performance result in structural designs that necessitate proven yet expensive manufacturing solutions to ensure high reliability. However, rapid developments in fabrication technologies such as additive manufacturing may offer viable alternatives for manufacturing and/or repair, in which case different component lifing decisions may be preferable. The research presented in this paper proposes a value-maximizing design framework that models and optimizes component lifing decisions in an aeroengine product–service system context by considering manufacturing and maintenance alternatives. To that end, a lifecycle cost model is developed as a proxy of value creation. Component lifing decisions are made to minimize net present value of lifecycle costs. The impact of manufacturing (represented by associated intial defects) and maintenance strategies (repair and/or replace) on lifing design decisions is quantified by means of failure models whose output is an input to the lifecycle cost model. It is shown that, under different conditions, it may not be prudent to design for full life but rather accept shorter life and then repair or replace the component. This is especially evident if volumetric effects on low cycle fatigue life are taken into account. It is possible that failure rates based on legacy engines do not translate necessarily to weight-optimized components. Such an analysis can play a significant supporting role in engine component design in a product–service system context.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
February 2017
Research-Article
Quantitative Assessment of the Impact of Alternative Manufacturing Methods on Aeroengine Component Lifing Decisions
Benjamin Thomsen,
Benjamin Thomsen
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139
Search for other works by this author on:
Michael Kokkolaras,
Michael Kokkolaras
Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
McGill University,
Montréal, QC H3A 0C3, Canada;
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
McGill University,
Montréal, QC H3A 0C3, Canada;
Visiting Researcher
Department of Product and
Production Development,
Chalmers University,
Göteborg 41258, Sweden
Department of Product and
Production Development,
Chalmers University,
Göteborg 41258, Sweden
Search for other works by this author on:
Tomas Månsson,
Tomas Månsson
GKN Aerospace Engine Systems Sweden
Trollhättan 461 81, Sweden
Trollhättan 461 81, Sweden
Search for other works by this author on:
Ola Isaksson
Ola Isaksson
Professor
Department of Product and
Production Development,
Chalmers University,
Göteborg 41258, Sweden;
Department of Product and
Production Development,
Chalmers University,
Göteborg 41258, Sweden;
GKN Aerospace Engine Systems Sweden,
Trollhättan 461 81, Sweden
Trollhättan 461 81, Sweden
Search for other works by this author on:
Benjamin Thomsen
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139
Michael Kokkolaras
Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
McGill University,
Montréal, QC H3A 0C3, Canada;
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
McGill University,
Montréal, QC H3A 0C3, Canada;
Visiting Researcher
Department of Product and
Production Development,
Chalmers University,
Göteborg 41258, Sweden
Department of Product and
Production Development,
Chalmers University,
Göteborg 41258, Sweden
Tomas Månsson
GKN Aerospace Engine Systems Sweden
Trollhättan 461 81, Sweden
Trollhättan 461 81, Sweden
Ola Isaksson
Professor
Department of Product and
Production Development,
Chalmers University,
Göteborg 41258, Sweden;
Department of Product and
Production Development,
Chalmers University,
Göteborg 41258, Sweden;
GKN Aerospace Engine Systems Sweden,
Trollhättan 461 81, Sweden
Trollhättan 461 81, Sweden
1Corresponding author.
Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received October 7, 2015; final manuscript received September 26, 2016; published online November 14, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Irem Tumer.
J. Mech. Des. Feb 2017, 139(2): 021401 (10 pages)
Published Online: November 14, 2016
Article history
Received:
October 7, 2015
Revised:
September 26, 2016
Citation
Thomsen, B., Kokkolaras, M., Månsson, T., and Isaksson, O. (November 14, 2016). "Quantitative Assessment of the Impact of Alternative Manufacturing Methods on Aeroengine Component Lifing Decisions." ASME. J. Mech. Des. February 2017; 139(2): 021401. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034883
Download citation file:
Get Email Alerts
Cited By
Multi-Split Configuration Design for Fluid-Based Thermal Management Systems
J. Mech. Des (February 2025)
Related Articles
Optimal Design of Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines
J. Pressure Vessel Technol (June,2011)
Design for Lifecycle Cost Using Time-Dependent Reliability
J. Mech. Des (September,2010)
Stochastic Modeling of Crack Growth and Maintenance Optimization for Metallic Components Subjected to Fatigue-Induced Failure
ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Part B (June,2025)
Reliability-Based Optimization of Multi-Component Welded Structures
J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng (November,1994)
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Chapters
Development and Structure of the German Common Cause Failure Data Pool (PSAM-0020)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)
Subsection NG—Core Support Structures
Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Codes, Volume 1 Sixth Edition
Performance Testing of Combined Cycle Power Plant
Handbook for Cogeneration and Combined Cycle Power Plants, Second Edition