Surrogate Modelling of Potential Progressive Coating Loss Effects in Novel Aero-Engine CMC Seal Segments

Ceramic-matrix-composite (CMC) turbine seal segments lose their gas-side coatings in service. Assessing one loss configuration takes a thermal and a mechanical finite-element solve, and there are too many admissible configurations to solve them all. A surrogate makes it affordable and follows it as the loss progresses. We build one on 5452 solves of a published seal-segment model with coating added, specify its toolchain in full, and compare four digital-twin techniques: a neural network against reduced-basis and full-field Gaussian processes. Swapping a lost cell to a higher-conductivity material instead of deleting it costs about 1∘C in the mean but 100∘C at the rim, an error that stays on the sacrificial coating and under-reads the substrate by at most 11.5∘C. That error is one-signed: a bias to be carried, not a scatter. On a reduced basis the basis binds, not the regressor: neither model improves with data. Restricting the design to the service-marked loss zones is worth 3.4× on one layer and 3.1 to 4.9× on two. The recommended full-field twin returns the peak coating-interface temperature within 0.23∘C at 3 ms per pattern, but a free superposition baseline beats it in the maintenance regime.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Solids
Published
2026-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/solids7050047
Primary Topic
Turbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Surrogate Modelling of Potential Progressive Coating Loss Effects in Novel Aero-Engine CMC Seal Segments

Felice Rubino, Giacomo Canale, Alessio Langiu
Solids
Turbomachinery Performance and Optimization
article

Surrogate Modelling of Potential Progressive Coating Loss Effects in Novel Aero-Engine CMC Seal Segments

Felice Rubino, Giacomo Canale, Alessio Langiu
article en

Abstract

Ceramic-matrix-composite (CMC) turbine seal segments lose their gas-side coatings in service. Assessing one loss configuration takes a thermal and a mechanical finite-element solve, and there are too many admissible configurations to solve them all. A surrogate makes it affordable and follows it as the loss progresses. We build one on 5452 solves of a published seal-segment model with coating added, specify its toolchain in full, and compare four digital-twin techniques: a neural network against reduced-basis and full-field Gaussian processes. Swapping a lost cell to a higher-conductivity material instead of deleting it costs about 1∘C in the mean but 100∘C at the rim, an error that stays on the sacrificial coating and under-reads the substrate by at most 11.5∘C. That error is one-signed: a bias to be carried, not a scatter. On a reduced basis the basis binds, not the regressor: neither model improves with data. Restricting the design to the service-marked loss zones is worth 3.4× on one layer and 3.1 to 4.9× on two. The recommended full-field twin returns the peak coating-interface temperature within 0.23∘C at 3 ms per pattern, but a free superposition baseline beats it in the maintenance regime.

SolidsVol. 7(5)
University of Salerno (IT), University of Derby (GB), Derby College (GB), Institute for Biomedical Research and Innovation (IT), National Research Council (IT)
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Turbomachinery Performance and Optimization
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.