Skip to main content
Log in

A new methodology for evaluating position and orientation errors of airfoil sections

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an improved methodology for evaluating the position and orientation errors of airfoil sections of a manufactured aero-engine blade. The existing method estimates these errors by finding rigid-body transformations with translational and rotational parameters altogether to best match the inspection data points onto the design airfoil profiles. Such transformations lead to unreliable evaluation results due to combining the position and orientation errors with each other. This paper proposes to decouple the position and orientation errors in their evaluation in order to avoid the combining effect. To isolate the position error from the orientation error, an important location tolerance evaluation feature, the centroid of a manufactured airfoil section, must be correctly identified from the sectional inspection data points. Identifying the centroid location directly from discrete data points is subject to an error caused by biased area calculations on the pressure and suction sides of an airfoil. This work proposes to reconstruct a valid airfoil profile from the inspection data points for each airfoil section to overcome the area bias problem and to maintain consistency in identifying the centroid. With the centroid of each inspected airfoil section identified, the position error and the orientation error can then be evaluated in sequence. A series of case studies has been performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology and how it is able to prevent wrongful rejection/acceptance of geometrically acceptable/unacceptable blades as well as incorrect modification of the related manufacturing processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Makem JE, Ou H, Armstrong CG (2012) A virtual inspection framework for precision manufacturing of aerofoil components. Comput Aided Des 44:858–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang MH, Sun Y (2014) Error prediction and compensation based on interference-free tool paths in blade milling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71:1309–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cardew-Hall M, Cosmas J, Ristic M (1988) Automated proof inspection of turbine blades. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 3:67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jinkerson RA, Abrams SL, Bardis L, Chryssostomidis C, Clément A, Patrikalakis NM, Wolter FE (1993) Inspection and feature extraction of marine propellers. J Ship Production 9:88–106

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pahk HJ, Ahn WJ (1996) Precision inspection system for aircraft parts having very thin features based on CAD/CAI integration. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 12:442–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hsu TH, Lai JY, Ueng WD (2006) On the development of airfoil section inspection and analysis technique. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30:129–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14:239–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Khameneifar F, Feng HY (2014) Airfoil profile reconstruction under the uncertainty of inspection data points. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71:675–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee SY, Kim KY (2000) Design optimization of axial flow compressor blades with three-dimensional Navier-Stokes solver. KSME Int J 14:1005–1012

    Google Scholar 

  10. Abbott IH, von Doenhoff AE (1959) Theory of wing sections: including a summary of airfoil data. Dover Publications, Mineola, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Davis PJ, Rabinowitz P (1984) Methods of numerical integration, 2nd edn. Academic, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Li Y, Gu P (2004) Free-form surface inspection techniques state of the art review. Comput Aided Des 36:1395–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhu L, Barhak J, Srivatsan V, Katz R (2007) Efficient registration for precision inspection of free-form surfaces. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 32:505–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. OuYang D, Feng HY, Jahangir NA, Song H (2012) Robust initial matching of free-form objects represented by point clouds. J Manuf Sci Eng 134:021008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Piegl LA, Tiller W (1997) The NURBS book. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Rao SS (2009) Engineering optimization: theory and practice. Wiley, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Savio E, De Chiffre L (2002) An artefact for traceable freeform measurements on coordinate measuring machines. Precis Eng 26:58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hsi-Yung Feng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khameneifar, F., Feng, HY. A new methodology for evaluating position and orientation errors of airfoil sections. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 83, 1013–1023 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7641-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7641-x

Keywords

Navigation