43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit AIAA 2007-5011

8 - 11 July 2007, Cincinnati, OH

An alternative test cell run on CFM56-5C engines

during the acceptance run

José E. Moreira 1
TAP - Engine Maintenance
P.O. Box 50194, 1704-801 Lisbon, Portugal
[email protected]

and

Isabel S. Carvalho 2
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Lisboa
Rua Conselheiro Emídio Navarro, 1959-007 Lisbon, Portugal
[email protected]

[Abstract] Internal degradation is the main reason for removal of CFM56-5C engines.
The Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) reflects the engine performance degradation. The
phenomena consist, basically, on the increasing of the gaps between rotor and stator stages.
After the engine shop visit, the engine is tested on the test cell and statistical data shows that
the recorded thrust is always higher than the thrust that is actually needed. Although a plug
is installed in order to decrease the excess of thrust, an extra thrust is always reached. If the
engine reaches a value of thrust that is not needed, the initial degradation will be higher and
more intense rubbing between the blades and the cases due to unnecessary higher speed will
occur. The EGT margin loss related with excessive rubbing can hardly be recovered. The
present work purposes an alternative test procedure, which prevents the engine to reach
excessive thrust during the run on test cell.

Nomenclature

EGT = Exhaust Gas Temperature

EGTLIM = Exhaust Gas Temperature Limit
EGTM = Exhaust Gas Temperature Margin
EGTK3 = Exhaust Gas Temperature measured and corrected (Ambient Temperature, Humidity,
Condensation, facility modifiers, etc.)
EGTK3 Mod = Exhaust Gas Temperature, EGTK3, with the N1 trim plug installed
FADEC = Full Authority Digital Engine Control
FNK = thrust measured and corrected
FNK Rated = Take off thrust target
FNK3 = thrust measured and corrected (Humidity, Condensation, facility modifiers, etc.)
FNKM = Take off thrust margin
HPC = High Pressure Compressor
HPT = High Pressure Turbine
LPC = Low Pressure Compressor
LPT = Low Pressure Turbine
MAX CON = Maximum Continuous Power
N1 = Low pressure shaft speed [rpm] measured

__________________
1
CFM56-5 Power Plant & Test Cell Engineer, TAP Engine Shop, P.O. Box 50194, 1704-801 Lisbon, Portugal.
2
Professor, ISEL Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Rua Conselheiro Emídio Navarro, 1959-007 Lisbon, Portugal.
N1K = Low pressure shaft speed [rpm] measured and corrected (Ambient Temperature and Humidity)

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2007 by J.E. Moreira and I.S. Carvalho. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
N1K Rated = Take-off low pressure shaft speed target [rpm]
N1 Mod = de-rated N1K Rated with N1 trim plug installed
N2 = High pressure shaft speed [rpm] measured
OEM = Original Engine Manufacture
TO = Take-Off Power

I. Introduction

T he CFM56-5C is a high-pass turbo engine1. Four engines provide the necessary thrust to power the aircraft
Airbus A340-3002. The engine comprises three major modules namely, the Fan, the Core and the Low Pressure
Turbine (LPT). The Fan major module includes the fan plus four stages of the Low Pressure Compressor (LPC); the
Core major module includes nine stages of the High Pressure Compressor (HPC), combustion chamber and one
stage of High Pressure Turbine (HPT), and; the Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) major module includes five stages. The
CFM56-5C is a FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) engine. The communication between the engine
and the aircraft is secured by a 32 bits protocol, ARINC 429. On the engine, the ECU (Electronic Control Unit) is
responsible for managing all the signs.
The CFM56-5C is welcome to most of the longer ranges airliners, mainly due to the constant need of flying
longer distances with lower fuel consumption and lower noise levels.
Nowadays, reducing costs is one of the goals of all airliners. The maintenance costs are one of the heavier items
on the airliner budget, the engines being a significant part of this cost. An engine installed on wing will fly for
several hours until it reaches levels of degradation that indicate the need to be removed from the aircraft; hence, an
engine shop visit must be schedule and performed in order to restore the engine. After the required tests the engine
will be installed on wing and the cycle starts over.
In terms of maintenance/operational costs two issues appear to be relevant: increasing Time-On-Wing (TOW)
and a guarantee that after the engine shop visit the engines are sufficient “healthy” to stay installed as long as
possible.
The present paper evolves around the measurement procedures of the performance degradation mainly by
measuring and monitoring one parameter: the EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature). Next sections provide a brief
description of the CFM56 engine, examples of the most frequent performance degradation items and main obtained
results. Section IV compares the different test cell runs and the final section is devoted to the presentation of the
main conclusions and opens a possible path for future work.

II. Performance and Degradation Considerations

Performance degradation is the main issue concerning the CFM56-5C engine3. The Exhaust Gas Temperature,
EGT, is measured with nine probes installed on the second stage of the Low Pressure Turbine nozzle guide vanes,
station T49,5, as shown in Figure 1.
49,5

49,5

a) b)

Figure 1. Different stations on CFM56-5C engines.

a) General Layout; b) Measuring stations

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The accepted limit for this temperature, EGTLIM, is the higher temperature that the materials on the hot section
of the engine can withstand. The difference between the limit and the corrected EGT measured is the EGT Margin,
EGTM.

Hence, if EGT (measured) → EGTLIM => EGTM → 0

The EGTM is monitored when the engine is installed on wing. The higher the degradation, the lower is the
EGTM.
The engine internal degradation basically consists on the increasing of the gaps between the rotor and the stator
stages. The increment of these gaps implies that to produce the same thrust with these lower compressors and
turbines efficiencies, the engine becomes hotter, reducing the EGTM.
One of the major consequences of the above mentioned occurrence is that the engine cannot fly, after some EGT
exceedances, on Take Off power (TO). In these cases, the engine must be removed from the wing and a performance
restoration work scope must be applied in order to restore all the correct gaps between the rotor and the stator.
All over the engine per each par of rotary/stationary elements, there are values of degradation which are function
of the correspondent gap. For each E-3 inch of wear there is a correspondent loss of EGTM of y ºC 4. The EGTM
loss, which is a function of the wear value, is different on all pars of rotary/ stationary elements. For example, the
HPC stage 1 is different from the HPC stage 3 which is different from the HPT. Figure 2 shows the percentage of
influence on the EGTM per each engine “zone”. It is easily observed that the Core Major Module has a bigger
influence when compared with the other modules.

A. High Pressure Compressor (HPC) Degradation

The parts of the HPC which are more affected (higher degradation) are the blades; the most common findings are
the excessive wear on the top of the blade and the missing tip corner, as shown on Figure 3. These findings are the
main cause of HPC efficiency loss and are mainly associated with lower EGTM. In spite of the air seals between the
different stages (to seal the air from one stage to another), as the purpose is to conduct the airflow only through the
blades and the vanes, the wear that can be found on the seals also has a negative impact.

Figure 2. Percentage of influence on the EGTM per Figure 3. HPC blades findings
each engine “zone”.

B. High Pressure Turbine (HPT) Degradation

On the High Pressure Turbine the degradation is mostly visible on blades and shrouds, as shown in Figures 4 and
5. The contact between the blades and the shrouds results on excessive wear on the top of the blades and burns
(Figure 4) and missing material and cracks on the shrouds (Figure 5).

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 All the above mentioned findings will increase the gap between the rotary parts and static parts hence promoting
performance degradation.

Figure 4. High Pressure Turbine Blades Figure 5. High Pressure Turbine Shrouds

III. Statistical Data

On wing, performance degradation is directly related with the gaps that are established at the time that the engine
is in the shop and submitted to a Core performance restoration work scope. The Original Engine Manufacture
(OEM) recommends a superior and an inferior limit for the HPC blades grinding 5. Theoretically if the minimum gap
is used, the EGTM will be higher. Here, the main issue is that the constant rotor/stator contact will induce excessive
rubbing and wear promoting the gaps increase and the EGTM decrease. When using the maximum gap, the
correspondent value of EGTM loss is higher due to loss of efficiency on the compressors and turbines. There is one
value that is used as a baseline and reflects the gap after the initial engine degradation. This value name is the post
break-in; per 1(one) E-3 inch of increasing gap of the post break-in value there is a loss of y ºC on EGTM.
Thirty two engines were tested on one calibrated test cell with the following procedure:
- all the engines were removed from wing due to a performance degradation;
- a core performance restoration work scope was applied;
- all the engines were tested according the OEM Engine Manual procedures;
- the last fourteen engines were tested with the same dimensions on the HPC, as shown in Table 1 and Fig. 6;
- the clearance used on the HPT blades / HPT shrouds was 0,063 inch, and;
- the combustion items were all submitted to the same level of maintenance (full work scope).

Table 1. HPC clearances used (all values in inches)

HPC stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
max clearance 0.068 0.057 0.036 0.051 0.040 0.044 0.042 0.040 0.038
post break-in 0.055 0.044 0.023 0.036 0.027 0.035 0.034 0.033 0.034
clearance used 0.054 0.042 0.022 0.034 0.025 0.034 0.031 0.030 0.031
min clearance 0.051 0.039 0.019 0.032 0.023 0.031 0.030 0.027 0.028

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 0,080 max clearance
post break-in
0,070 clearance used
min clearance
0,060

0,050
inch

0,040

0,030

0,020

0,010

0,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
HPC Stage
Figure 6. HPC Clearances used

The EGTM result on the test cell is within the OEM average for the same engine type 3, although eight engines
shown a faster performance degradation than the OEM average. Three of the engines had a premature removal due
to damages on the HPC blades, e.g., radial cracks and missing tip corners on the second, third and fourth stages. All
the engines had excess of thrust when submitted to test cell after the shop visit.

IV. Alternative Test Cell Run

The standard test cell run technique consists on the following steps:
After the engine shop visit, the engine is tested on the test cell according to one defined cycle as shown in Figure
7. The EGT is measured and recorded, thus reflecting the “health” (or adequacy) of the engine. A higher margin,
EGTM, increases the probability of more flight hours installed on wing.
The EGT is recorded for Take-Off power (TO), when the speed of the low pressure shaft equals one pre defined
engine manual value. This value, the N1K Rated, defines when the engine is on Take-Off power. Then, a thrust
correspondence is made and for the given N1K Rated a Thrust Value is measured.

N1K Rated [rpm] corresponds to FNK3 [Lbs]

The above correspondence is of most importance, because the thrust can only be measured on the test cell. A
fixed referential is required to perform the measurement and such situation / condition cannot be found on the
aircraft. When the aircraft pilot requests power, what he “sees” is N1 speed and the correspondent previously
measured thrust, not the thrust itself.
The thrust value required to take-off is the FNK Rated. Statistical data shows3 that the recorded FNK3 values are
always higher than the FNK Rated values, meaning that the engine has more thrust than needed.
To resolve this issue the percentage of exceedance thrust is calculated. This percentage leads to a decrease of N1
to reach the necessary FNK Rated. Consequently the EGT margin (EGTM) will also decrease. On wing, a N1 trim
plug is installed to relate the new N1 with the FNK Rated.
It is here proposed that if the engine is tested and it reaches a value of thrust that is not needed, the initial
degradation will be higher due to the more intense rubbing between the blades and the cases as a result of
unnecessary higher speed. The EGTM loss related with excessive rubbing can hardly be recovered.
An alternative test cell procedure is proposed in order to minimize the above mentioned degradation. Instead of
reaching the N1K Rated and interpolating for the new N1K value, which is a function of the corrected thrust value,

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
it is proposed that the engine reaches the FNK Rated and the correspondent N1K and then, it calculates the
difference to the N1K Rated.
This difference is essential in order to find the N1 trim plug to be installed. This way unnecessary thrust will not
be reached and degradation due to the excessive rubbing between rotor and stator will decrease. Figure 8 shows the
shadow area that will not be reached.

# * #

N1K Rated

N1 Mod f ( FNK3)

Figure 7. CFM56-5C Acceptance Cycle6 Figure 8. CFM56-5C Alternative method to

record the TO values
* EGT is recorded on Take-Off power, N1K = N1K Rated N1K Rated will not be reached

Figure 9 presents a step-by-step comparison between the OEM procedure and the presently proposed one. The
main difference is focused on the engine conduction: instead of conducted per N1, the engine will be conduct per
thrust.
As mentioned above, the findings related to stages two, three and four of the HPC blades (excessive wear and
missing tip corners) are associated with the engine performance degradation. In order to minimize these findings,
the rotor / stator contact should be minimized. Therefore, it is proposed to increase the gap between the top of the
blade and the correspondent case in those stages. The new proposed clearances can be found on Figure 10.
On the other hand, the penalty associated to this action is the loss in the EGTM. This is seen to correspond to
less then 4% of the EGTM4, which is considered to be of low significance where compared with the efficiency and
cost benefits.
As on the alternative method the engine reaches a lower value of thrust, the initial degradation will be less.

EGTK3 Mod (1) > EGTK3 Mod (2)

EGTK3 Mod (1) - EGTK3 Mod (2) = k

This constant, k, is the EGT loss related with the margin of thrust that the engine had to reach when using the
standard test method.
The engine will have less initial degradation if unnecessary thrust will not be reached. Also, exceedance of thrust
corresponds to a higher speed, which increases the centrifugal force on the rotors and consequently the length of the
blades; the contact between rotor and stator will be bigger with the correspondent wear. The EGT margin
degradation reflects all these phenomena. Another advantage of the proposed alternative method is that it can easily
be performed within the OEM standard procedure. Data should be collected in order to quantify the constant k.
According with CFM statistics the EGT degradation average on wing is between 3 and 5 ºC per 1000 flight
hours. The EGT difference between both test cell runs is a function of the thrust exceedance. For example, if for one
value of thrust there is a decrease of 4 ºC, by testing the engine using the second method there is a higher probability
that an engine will stay on wing more 1000 flight hours, which results in a real improvement in cost effectiveness.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 OEM METHOD (1) ALTERNATIVE METHOD (2)

Take Off Condition Take Off Condition

NIK = N1KRated FNK3 = FNKRated

Record at Take Off power: Record at Take Off power:

FNK3 N1 Mod
EGTK3 EGTK3 Mod

With FNK3 calculate the Thrust Margin: Functional Engine curve

FNK3 − FNKRated (N1KRated - N1 Mod) corresponds

FNKM[%] = * 100
FNKRated to a FNKM[%]

With FNKM find out the new

correspondents values of FNKRated :

N1 Mod
EGTK3 Mod

EGTKM = EGTKM =
EGTLIM – EGTK3 Mod EGTLIM – EGTK3 Mod

Function FNKM selects the N1 trim plug Function FNKM selects the N1 trim
to verify: plug to verify:

N1 Mod => FNKRated N1 Mod => FNKRated

To install on wing To install on wing

Figure 9. Comparison between both procedures

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 0,080
max clearance
0,070 post break-in
clearance used
0,060 min clearance

0,050
inch

0,040

0,030

0,020

0,010

0,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
HPC stages

Figure 10. HPC Clearances proposed

V. Conclusions
Performance degradation was assessed by measuring and monitoring the Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) with
nine probes installed on the second stage of the LPT nozzle guide vanes. Thirty two engines were tested on one
calibrated test cell using both methods: OEM and alternative / proposed.
Although it is well known that the engine internal degradation basically depends on the increasing of the gaps
between the rotor and the stator stages and that the higher the degradation, the lower is the Exhaust Gas Temperature
Margin (EGTM), the performed tests allowed to quantify, localize and established a relation between the
“degradation levels” and the Exhaust Gas Temperature Margin (EGTM).
The main difference between the test cell run methods resides in preventing that unnecessary thrust will be
reached thus preventing further degradation due to the excessive rubbing between rotor and stator. By using the
alternative test cell run, the average time between engine shop visits and fleet reliability will increase. While a better
fleet management reflects the time that the engine is installed on wing, the number of engine removals has a direct
proportionality with the maintenance costs.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support and collaboration of TAP and CFM. Several fruitful
discussions with Eng. Francisco Azevedo (TAP) and Mr. Eric Folcher (Focus Team – CFM) are also gratefully
acknowledged.

References
1
A340 Aircraft Maintenance Manual; revison - July 2006
2
CFM56-5C Advance Line Maintenance; customer training center, January 2002
3
CFM56-5C Focus Team meeting publication, June 26-27, Madrid, Spain (2006).
4
CFM56-5C Technical Publication – Workscope Planing Guide; April 2005
5
CFM56-5C Technical Publication - Engine Manual; revision 40 - 15 April 2007
6
CFM56-5C Technical Publication - Engine Manual; Engine Test - Chapter 72-00-00; revision 40 - 15 April 2007

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics