SSPhoenix From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 91 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 24987 times:
Hello,
Flight has just reported that the TEST Trent 1000 engine based at the Rolls Royce Derby test-bed has suffered an uncontained failure that preliminary analysis points towards the failed component originating from the IP Turbine.
Anyone out there with more information about this?
I'm sure Rolls Royce is more than capable of fixing this problem (they have to) ... personally I think IF it is a problem attributed to creep in the turbine blades (for example) then apart from being an event where Rolls will focus their attention towards rectification but also a good learning opportunity.
Something like this could probably point towards the validation (or invalidation) of their Uncontained Engine Rotor Failure Analysis (simply known as UERF) - specifically the trajectory of the debris and the possible Wingbox and Skins damage sites that may be produced in case this happened when the engine was installed.
I don't wish this to turn into a RR vs GE fest ... UERF is something that can happen to all engines !
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 24780 times:
Be interesting to know what spec the engine was. Rolls has incorporated a number of changes to combat the SFC miss the original specification suffered from.
Part147 From Ireland, joined Dec 2008, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 24010 times:
It would also interesting to know how this issue might affect the ETOPS rating for these engines. Would it downgrade it for the time being or leave it unaffected?
It's better to ask a stupid question during training, rather than make a REALLY stupid mistake later on!
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1783 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 23099 times:
The source of the failure may have been corrected already, the fact remains that the engine failure was uncontained.
Does this mean that the surrounding engine core casing has to be strengthened ( addition of more weight) to prevent more uncontained engine failures, caused by a possible future (other) failure in the the single-stage intermediate pressure (IP) turbine.
SSPhoenix From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 91 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 22320 times:
In UERF situation - there is a limit to which the surrounding casing can be reinforced - remember the turbines are one of the highest stressed components and once dislodged- the kinetic and intertial (rotation) energy of the debris is extremely high ...
the reinforcement for these components becomes unrealistically high if containment is to be 'enforced' - so I think they key here is to investigate (as Rolls has already done) the issue and focus towards making sure other components are not going to experience the same failure mode AND making sure that engine/wing strength requirements are maintained (not affected) for 'high' risk trajectories.
offloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 701 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 22096 times:
At least this is on a test bed. When I read the thread title I (wrongly) thought of Icelandair (FI) and was wondering just how the heck they were flying around with a Trent 1000!
To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
bonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 398 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 17630 times:
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15812 times:
Quoting 747classic (Reply 6): The source of the failure may have been corrected already, the fact remains that the engine failure was uncontained.
You're allowed to have uncontained engine failures...it just depends on what the failure mode was.
Quoting 747classic (Reply 6): Does this mean that the surrounding engine core casing has to be strengthened ( addition of more weight) to prevent more uncontained engine failures, caused by a possible future (other) failure in the the single-stage intermediate pressure (IP) turbine.
If it was a rotor/disc failure, there's no requirement to strengthen the case because there's no requirement (or practical way) to contain such an event. The requirement is that you contain a single blade failure (plus whatever else the blade takes out when it fails). If a disc lets go, no practical containment in existence is going to stop it.
tepidhalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 206 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15621 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10): You're allowed to have uncontained engine failures...it just depends on what the failure mode was.
More importantly, the allowability depends upon the likelihood in service. It could be (speculation) that a bench test has discovered a very unusual mode of operation, or failure mode... if that combination of events will only be encountered every 1 x 10E-30 flights, then it may be acceptable. If it's encountered every 20 flights...probably not.
I'd be interested to see what the conclusion is, but I doubt I'll ever find out.
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1783 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 15238 times:
The following, very interesting, article by Guy Norris gives some further info about the Trent 1000 failure and the possible impact on the 787 flight tests and entry to service date.
Also the differences between the upgraded Package A and B versions are clearly explained.
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1783 posts, RR: 11 Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 14620 times:
Regulatory authorities confirm Trent 1000 failure was uncontained.
- The failure of the RR Trent 1000 engine, which powers the Dreamliner, resulted in "limited debris being released into the test facility.
- The test site was forced to temporarily close.
- Minor repairs to the site in Derby, England, will be completed shortly,
- The European Aviation Safety Agency, which must sign off on new aircraft and components developed in the region, said it sent an official to England following the test-bed incident.
What impact could this "now confirmed uncontained" engine failure have on the first ANA 787 delivery ?
There was another thread out here (started by Keesje) which discussed that topic specifically. But for some reason I can not find that thread anymore, and is was there this afternoon. Which seems a bit strange to me. Because what you asked was quite heavily debated out here. .
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 65 Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13980 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 14): There was another thread out here (started by Keesje) which discussed that topic specifically. But for some reason I can not find that thread anymore
The whole thread appears to have been deleted without explanation...
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13970 times:
Contrary to what some stated (in the thread that has been moved to tech-ops, for being to technical (?)) the engine in question would have been delivered to ANA.
The Trent 1000 engine involved in the failure was destined for an early All Nippon Airways Boeing 787. Rolls-Royce will initially deliver 'Package A' engines for the first ANA 787s before transitioning to the 'Package B' standard, which will bring specific fuel consumption within one percent of the original specification.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13839 times:
It would still be helpful to know what exactly failed and why.
After all, we have eight "Package A" Trent 1000s that have racked up almost 1500 hours in the air across over 400 flights, apparently without serious issue.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5025 posts, RR: 29 Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13677 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 16): The Trent 1000 engine involved in the failure was destined for an early All Nippon Airways Boeing 787.
While this may very well be true, this quote isn't attributed to any representative of either Boeing or RR. Who, specifically, said this engine, specifically, was destined for an ANA aircraft?
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 12979 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21): I suspect something more than stock was being done. But I do not know. RR needs to state more so that the 787 can continue to move forward.
They do imply it was not under normal conditions - whatever they might be of course!! But they would be well advised to explain what they were doing and what happened in more detail, you would think!
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10676 posts, RR: 100 Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 12934 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 22): They do imply it was not under normal conditions - whatever they might be of course!! But they would be well advised to explain what they were doing and what happened in more detail, you would think!
I 100% agree! But what if I'm being too optimistic? Aerospace engineering is 'trust but verify.' RR needs to allow the verify.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 12720 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 16): The Trent 1000 engine involved in the failure was destined for an early All Nippon Airways Boeing 787.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21): Quoting SSPhoenix (Thread starter):
Flight has just reported that the TEST Trent 1000 engine
That needs to be kept in mind.
I'm under the impression it was not a test engine but an engine to be delivered to ANA. I guess such an engine would not be tested under extreme circumstances / out of its operating regime.
25 BoeingVista: You'd hope not, I'm sure ANA also hopes not! But the engines obviously get run up after completion so maybe the testers mucked up and used the wrong
26 fruitbat: Lightsaber, you know as well as I do that those conversations are happening with the appropriate people, like EASA, the FAA, Boeing and ANA. They are
27 keesje: I guess a dozen big customers want some answers and they have some grey, skilled, suspicious people too.
28 fruitbat: Agreed - but information provided to customers is NOT public domain. Remember it's also not in the airlines interest to allow uninformed speculation
29 tdscanuck: Your impression is based on a false assumption: there's no difference near the end of a test program. Early engines are instrumented out the wazoo fo
30 Baroque: I can see the logic of that, but the failure is rather well known, so surely it would be best if the reasons for it and even more so the reasons why
31 tdscanuck: Best for who? There's no advantage to RR, no advantage to Boeing, and no advantage to the customers. The only people it's "best" for are enthusiasts
32 lightsaber: Fruitbat, I'm sure they're talking to the appropriate people and do not want this to spread too far. However, the customers will want to know more. A
33 tdscanuck: I'd say it's unusually loud...the vast majority of inflight engine failures never get any press, and a test stand at an OEM is a lot more locked down
34 Baroque: I accept your reasoning but I still suspect it is the wrong conclusion. Engines have to have a reputation like Caesar's wife otherwise a Brutus will
35 keesje: Most engine failures are not - uncontained (thank god) - first of the line for a 30 months delayed 1600 pieces backlog - 3 years after EASA / FAA cer
36 ruscoe: Uncontained within the engine caseing? Or do we know the nacelle was on.? Will this have an impact on the Trent for XWB? Ruscoe
37 keesje: Uncontained means out of the engines dimensions. That why the cell is out. Yes it impacts at least the Trent XWBs testing schedule that was started t
38 PlanesNTrains: I always enjoy the way you phrase these things - as if there is some conspiracy, and "people are demanding answers". It isn't the first time you've u
39 fruitbat: And, behind the scenes, out of the public domain, they will be getting the relevant information. There is more that one test cell in Derby that can t
40 keesje: The media say the site that was shut down was also used for the XWB. I guess the cell is instrumented specially for the new Trents. http://www.bloomb
41 tdscanuck: Actually, by your definition, most engine failures *are* uncontained: It's almost physically impossible to liberate any part in the gas path and have
42 Stitch: Well looks like it, and the stabilizer issue, will push back EIS to 2011, so score another one for keesje. On the flip side, more reports of A350 sli
43 tdscanuck: And *now* we've got evidence: Flight Global If you cast the net enough times... Tom.[Edited 2010-08-26 20:17:40][Edited 2010-08-26 20:18:03]
44 Stitch: Still sounds to me more like the delay will be because Boeing won't have completed their certification by year's end (they still have almost 1500 mor
45 2175301: As far as RR not releasing "why" the failure occured. I would estimate that the Root Cause investigation into the failure would take at least 6 weeks
46 keesje: and a sad score it is a small postive note is that several issues with the 787 test & certification program seem to be happening in parallel inst
47 fruitbat: Glad that you have spotted this, reading through all the press releases from RR and Boeing I drew the same conclusion. If you haven't done so already
48 Baroque: Thanks for that. I was beginning to wonder how in heck such a change would not make a difference. That RR already had a modification that they believ
49 Stitch: It might be, with the intention to replace that (and perhaps other) parts before the engine was delivered to Boeing for installation on an NH frame.
50 lightsaber: Maybe not public press, but the industry is like a bunch of gossiping women. When any competitor does wrong, the news travels. Now if I were to talk
51 Baroque: The size of the RR T1000 IP blades is quite amazing according to The Aus - a Murdoch publication: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...delay/story-e
52 keesje: I am starting to fear that if the damage to the engine and testcell was limited, Rolls Royce would have released that information to comfort it's cust
53 tdscanuck: Now that's a *big* turbine! Who's to say they didn't? Unless I missed something, you're neither a customer nor a stakeholder. It's not like they're g
54 aircellist: Well, first question first: fan blade or turbine blade?
55 Stitch: It was in the Intermediate Pressure Turbine stage, so by default that makes it a turbine blade.
56 aircellist: Thanks, Stitch. Then, why does the article states "fan blade" ? Poor journalism? Or is it another story? I was surprised to read about the "fan blade"
57 Baroque: One hope the first and slightly worries there might be another story! It might well qualify as a killer ap if indeed it was a 1.5m turbine blade! Mus
58 tdscanuck: An individual turbine blade is much less dangerous than an individual fan blade, due to lower mass and speed (much lower kinetic energy). The dangero
59 aircellist: Baroque, Tom, many (late) thanks! Especially for correcting my misperception about the relative dangers of loose fan and turbine blades, or disks. Kin
60 tdscanuck: Yes. RPM (along with diameter) goes straight to speed, and the specific kinetic energy of the bits goes up by speed squared. Tom.
61 BoeingVista: Rumoured oil fire! http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...rent%201000%20Failure&channel=comm Could be worse news, the shaft failure and subsequent
62 Stitch: I wonder if that means the improved IPT cooling in Package B would help keep the oil at a safe thermal limit.[Edited 2010-09-01 20:36:08]
63 PW100: Seems unlikley to me. Usually turbine cooling is referring to gaspath components [blades or vanes]. In the hot section of the engine, it is critical
64 Stitch: That article noted there is an AD out for the Trent 900 for excessive shaft wear in the IPT so I wonder if this is something that could affect the Tr
65 PW100: Seems unrelated to me, as shaft wear suggests a different wear/failure mode than shaft softening due to excessive heating. But I'm not familiar with
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 91 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Dec 2008, 351 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 206 posts, 
Which seems a bit strange to me. Because what you asked was quite heavily debated out here. 
.
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8298 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
