Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ABSTRACT
The new engine proposed was able to reduce sfc and increase range
whist reducing the number of engines aboard. Though having a Ambrose Tey
considerably larger size to its predecessor, the proposed engine’s Nabilah Hamid
ability to reduce overall noise enables it to operate with less
interference to its surroundings therefore increasing its versatility in a
Ren Yin Tai
multitude of applications. Ikwan Jamaludin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Antonov An-225 Mriya ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Antonov An-925 Vira® ............................................................................................................. 1
2 Required Inputs Calculations .......................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Weight at start of cruise ......................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Net Thrust ............................................................................................................................... 2
2.2.1 Cruise .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Top-of-climb .................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.3 Sea-level static (SLS) take-off .......................................................................................... 3
3 Engine Performance........................................................................................................................ 4
3.1 Initial Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Optimisation ........................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Parametric Study..................................................................................................................... 4
3.3.1 Outer Fan Pressure Ratio ................................................................................................ 4
3.3.2 Bypass Ratio .................................................................................................................... 5
3.3.3 Turbine Entry Temperature ............................................................................................ 6
3.3.4 Operating Line ................................................................................................................. 6
3.3.5 Performance Map ........................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Results ..................................................................................................................................... 8
4 Aircraft Performance ...................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Flight Time............................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Range .................................................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Operating Cost of Fuel .......................................................................................................... 10
5 Improvements ............................................................................................................................... 10
6 Engine Dimensions ........................................................................................................................ 12
6.1 Compressors ......................................................................................................................... 12
6.1.1 Low Pressure Compressor............................................................................................. 12
6.1.2 High Pressure Compressor ............................................................................................ 14
6.2 Turbines ................................................................................................................................ 15
6.2.1 High Pressure Turbine ................................................................................................... 15
6.2.2 Low Pressure Turbine.................................................................................................... 16
7 Velocity Triangles .......................................................................................................................... 17
NOMENCLATURE
bpr Bypass Ratio
FN Net Thrust per Engine
h Blade Height
HPC High Pressure Compressor
HPCPR High Pressure Compressor Pressure Ratio
HPT High Pressure Turbine
IFPR Inner Fan Pressure Ratio
LPC Low Pressure Compressor
LPT Low Pressure Turbine
Ma Mach Number
NGV Nozzle Guide Vanes
OFPR Outer Fan Pressure Ratio
r Radius
rpm Revolutions per Minute
sfc Specific Fuel Consumption
SLS Sea-Level Static
TET, T041 Turbine Entry Temperature
TOC Top-Of-Climb
U Blade Speed
Vx Axial Velocity
Vx/Um Flow Coefficient
ω Rotational Speed
Δh0 Specific Work
Δh0/Um2 Work Coefficient
Subscripts
For r and U:
t Blade Tip
h Hub
m Mean
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Antonov An-225 Mriya
The Antonov An-225 Mriya is a strategic airlifter built by the Antonov Design Bureau primarily to
transport the Buran space shuttle. It is currently the world’s largest fixed-wing aircraft and is
commercially available for flying over-sized, heavy payloads. It was designed more than 2 decades
ago and first flew on 21st December 1988. Only one aircraft is operating today while a second aircraft
is being built due to recent demands.
Although the An-225 is the most powerful heavy airlifter in the world, it inevitably comes with
several disadvantages. In contrast, the American counterpart, Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, is the alternate
option albeit a smaller payload. The C-5 is however restricted entirely to military and government
use. Table 1 below shows the general performance and capabilities of these 2 airlifters.
Antonov Lockheed
An-225 Mriya C-5 Galaxy
Engines 6 (D-18T) 4 (GE-TF39) -
Maximum Payload 250 122.4 tonnes
Specific Fuel Consumption (Installed) 17.04 Classified g/kN*s
Range @ Max payload 4000 4440 km
Max. take-off weight (mtow) 600 381 tonnes
Empty weight 285 172.37 tonnes
Cruise mach number (M) 0.75 0.77 -
Cruising Altitude 33000 30000 ft
Cruise Speed(V) 222.22 230.39 m/s
Take-off run @ Max. payload 3500 2600 m
Wing area 905 576 m2
Table 1: Comparison of Antonov An-225 with Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
To accommodate recent growing demands, an improved heavy airlifter combining the advantages of
both aircrafts will undoubtedly be well-received by the officials and public alike. Therefore, a set of
parameters and limitations have been defined for a new airlifter of the century, the Antonov An-925
Vira®.
These improvements essentially mean that each engine on the An-925 will have to provide a
significantly higher thrust but still have a specific fuel consumption (sfc) lower than 17.04 g/kN*s.
Thus improving efficiencies and reducing operating cost. The targeted performance of the An-925 is
shown in Table 2.
Antonov
An-999 Vira
Number of engines (n) 4 -
Maximum Payload 250 tonnes
Range @ Max payload 4000 km
Maximum fuel capacity 300 tonnes
Maximum range 15400 km
Max. take-off weight (mtow) 600 tonnes
Empty weight 285 tonnes
Cruising Altitude 35000 ft
Cruise Mach Number(M) 0.75 -
Lift/Drag Ratio 19 -
Maximum TET 1850 K
Cruise TET 1450 K
Take-off run @ Max. payload 2600 m
Table 2: Targeted performance of the An-925 Vira
=
−
= 315
Assuming that the aircraft takes off with the maximum weight of 600 tonnes regardless of the mass
of payload and fuel it carries, the reduction in total weight during the flight due to fuel consumption
is therefore the same for maximum range (maximum fuel capacity) and minimum range (maximum
payload).
= 5768.28 /0
2.2.1 Cruise
The net thrust per engine during cruise is given by:
12 = ÷
3
4
12 = 75.90 kN
2.2.2 Top-of-climb
The net thrust per engine at top-of-climb with a minimum rate of climb of 1.5m/s is given by:
D
12 = 8 + sin θ@ ×
L n
12 = 84.20 kN
FB = 1377 kN
1B
OB = = 2.295 / Q
To estimate the required net thrust to achieve the same take-off speed (v) within 2600m, the
kinematic equation was used to relate the distance (s) with acceleration (a), assuming constant
acceleration:
R Q = SQ + 2O
But the initial speed (u) is zero and the take of speed remains the same, therefore:
OB B = OQ Q
B
OQ = OB = 3.089 / Q
Q
× OQ
∴ 12 =
12 = 463.41 kN
3 ENGINE PERFORMANCE
The range of the An-225 with maximum payload and maximum fuel capacity is 4000km and
15400km respectively, indicating that the flight time is approximately 5 to 19 hours depending on
the payload. The design point was therefore chosen at the cruising altitude of 35000 feet and the
off-design point would be at take-off.
3.2 Optimisation
Optimisation of the engine performance was then performed to minimize the sfc while ensuring that
sufficient thrust is produced for off-design conditions during take-off and top-of-climb. The HPCPR
was set to 20.00. The NGV and HPT cooling rate were fixed to 10% and 8% respectively. Furthermore,
a polytropic efficiency of 0.9 was used for all engine components to ensure a consistent approach in
the design process.
Optimisation was first performed for on-design conditions by specifying the variables, constraints
where sfc was the figure of merit to minimize. Optimisation was initiated by varying the IFPR, OFPR,
bpr and corrected mass flow while constricting FN, T41 and the ideal jet velocity ratio. The sfc was
reduced to 13.60 g/kNs with design point optimisation. However, the off-design take-off conditions
had to be incorporated to ensure that the TET and T03 are acceptable.
The required SLS take-off thrust is 463.41kN with a maximum TET of 1850K while the cruising thrust
is 75.9kN with a maximum TET of 1450k. Optimisation of the engine was performed again to
accommodate the take-off conditions by creating an off-design point. The chosen figure of merit to
minimize was the on-design sfc while constraining the SLS take-off thrust and TET in addition to the
aforementioned design point constraints. The need to accommodate off-design constraints resulted
in a slight increase of the sfc to 13.66 g/kNs. It is however still well below that of the original engines.
sfc (g/kN*s)
Thrust (kN)
75.5 15.6
75 15.5
74.5 15.4
15.3
74
15.2
73.5 15.1
73 15
1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 Thrust
Outer Fan Pressure Ratio sfc
Figu 1: Optimising Outer Fan Pressure Ratio.
Figure
80 15.6
15.5
75 15.4
70 15.3
15.2
65
15.1
60 15
7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 Thrust
BPR sfc
Figure 2: Parametric study on varying bypass ratio.
sfc (g/kN*s)
Thrust (kN)
80 16.5
75 16
70 15.5
65
15
60
55 14.5
50 14
1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Thrust
TET, T041 (K) sfc
Figure 3: Parametric Study on varying TET.
LPC
2
Reference
With Bleeding
1.8
1.6
1.4
0. 0.
85 0. 90
88 0. 0
91 .9
2
0.
0.8
93
1.1
1.2
0.7
0.95
0.9
0.6
0.80
0.5
0.70
0.6
0.500
0.40
4
1
0.
0.3
.8
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Mass Flow W2RStd [kg/s]
Figure 4: LPC Operating Line
HPC
24
Reference
With Bleeding
20
0.
85
0.
86
0.
84
16
1.05
12
will surge.
0.
0.8
0.9
08
2
0.85
0.8
8
0.75
0.
75
0.7
4
0.6
0.70
5
0.
0
20 40 60 80 100
Mass Flow W25RSTD [kg/s]
26/02/2010 Gas Turb 10
Figure 5: HPC Operating Line
Outer Fan Pressure Ratio = 1.5 ... 1.7 Dotted Lines = Propulsive Efficiency
Design Bypass Ratio = 7 ... 8.8
15
7
2
7.
1.
5
14.8
4
7.
1 .5
6
14.6
7.
4
0.745
0.75
8
1%
7.
1.5
14.4 8
8
1.6
2
2
0.74
8.
0.755
14.2
1.6
6
4
8.
1.7
6
8.
14
0.76
8
8.
13.8
0.765
13.6
13.4
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Net Thrust [kN]
03/03/2010 GasTurb 10
Figure 6: Varying Outer Fan Pressure Ratio and Bypass Ratio
3.4 Results
The parametric study confirms that the required variables were optimised and the engine meets all
required constrains as specified, namely net thrust, T03 and TET. The engine data were extracted
from GasTurb for further analysis and interpretation.
A summary of the design and off-design engine conditions is shown in Table 3 below. The complete
data along with GasTurb print-outs can be found in Appendix 14.4 and 0.
Fundamentally, moving from on-design engine conditions to off-design engine conditions, the net
thrust and the overall pressure ratio should be higher while the bypass ratio and the ideal jet
velocity ratio should decrease. As for specific fuel consumption, take-off condition will require lower
sfc than that of cruise condition. However, top-of-climb condition requires a slightly higher sfc than
the sfc for cruise condition because during top-of-climb, the fuel flow is still high, but the sfc is
normalized by a much lower thrust than take-off, therefore a higher sfc. All of the mentioned trends
were observed during off-design conditions; take-off and top-of-climb. This is shown in the following
table.
Additionally, it is evident that the HPT and LPT pressure ratios are within acceptable range. T03, TET,
velocity ratios, overall and outer fan pressure ratios are also within acceptable range.
4 AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
Several specifications and performance, such as flight time, of the An-925 with the new engines
were calculated. The same values were also evaluated from the original An-225. The difference in
performance is largely attributed to a lower sfc for the new engines, effectively improving the range
and operating costs during flight. Furthermore 2 different flight configurations were considered for
thorough comparison: maximum payload and maximum fuel capacity.
The bare sfc for the original engines (D-18T) on the An-225 is 15.68 g/kNs [6] and the installed sfc is
17.04 g/kNs. Again, a realistic approach was adopted and the installed sfc values were used for all
aircraft performance calculations.
1
mmnelmoe = t u Y + WX ]
2
4.2 Range
The expected range of the original aircraft as described in the specifications is 4000km at maximum
payload and 15400km with maximum fuel capacity. The range was calculated using the Breguet
range equation [5]:
V L wejh
s= − 8 @ × ln 8 @
g × sfc D wgxmlx
To calculate the volume of fuel (Vf) required per km for maximum payload and maximum range, the
density of Jet A-1 required is 804 kg/m3. [3]
According to the International Airport Transport Association (IATA) [4], the current Jet Fuel price is
191.6 US cents per gallon which is £0.32 per litre. Therefore the cost of fuel for each aircraft, per km
is given by:
5 IMPROVEMENTS
A comparison of the original and the new aircraft was done to verify that the improved An-925 Vira
is superior to the An-225 Mriya in terms of performance and operating costs.
The performance and specification of the two aircrafts are summarised in the following table. In
overall, the new An-925 has have a lower sfc and higher range at both maximum payload or
maximum fuel. It is able to fly further with the same amount of fuel and payload, which effectively
reduces the fuel cost for the same distance travelled. The take-off run has also been reduced to
2600m.
Flight time:
Max. Payload 2hrs 42mins 2hrs 24mins 12.50%
Max. Range 24hrs 57mins 22hrs 14mins 12.22%
Range (km):
Max. Payload 2165 1929 12.23%
Max. Range 15107 13467 12.18%
Fuel Cost (£/km):
Max. Payload 11.95 13.41 -10.89%
Max. Range 7.90 8.87 -10.94%
Fan tip diameter (m) 3.20 2.33 37.34%
Table 4: Summary of aircraft performance.
6 ENGINE DIMENSIONS
For both compressor and turbine components, there are several constraints on each component‘s
characteristics which effectively determine the components’ design. The initial step of designing the
components’ dimensions and stages was to specify the different constraints on each component as
well as the assumptions made in the calculations. The criteria to be satisfied for each component are
shown in Table 5.
Although the guidelines given in the brief states that the maximum pressure ratio per stage should
not be more than 1.3, it was found that the General Electric engine, GE90-115B, has a pressure ratio
of 1.36 per stage. Therefore, according to recent standards, a pressure ratio of 1.36 is acceptable.
Several general assumptions were made to facilitate the calculation models, these are:
6.1 Compressors
6.1.1 Low Pressure Compressor
The LPC includes the fan and booster components, which are powered by the LPT on the LP shaft. To
define an accurate model for the LPC calculations, it was approximated that the pressure ratio across
the fan is 1.65 while that for the booster is 1.206. Thereby giving an OFPR of 1.65 and an IFPR of 1.99.
The following table shows the input parameters for the fan and booster.
~
Specific Work Δh0 17.436 42.171 kW/(kg/s)
Mass Flow 57.24 533.44 kg/s
Hub-Tip Ratio rh/rt 0.70 0.35 -
Mach @ entry (Actual) Ma 0.55 0.60 -
Specific Heat Ratio γ 1.4 -
Booster Specific Heat Cp 1004.5 J/KgK
Normalised Mass Flow 1.022 1.078 -
Table 6: Input parameters for fan and booster.
Fan
From the actual area, the tip radius was calculated and subsequently the hub radius, mean radius
and followed by the blade height. The chord length was calculated from the blade height and aspect
ratio, h/c. For fan, the blade aspect ratio is 2.5. For sketching purposes, the chord length was
approximated to represent the blade width. Table 26 and Table 7 show the dimensions and
characteristics of the fan respectively.
Characteristics
Work Coefficient Δh0/Um2 - 0.461
Flow Coefficient Vx/Um - 0.599
Rotational Speed ω rpm 2672.79
Axial Velocity Vx m/s 181.315
Fan mean Speed Um m/s 302.55
Table 7: Fan Characteristics.
The Mach number at entry was taken to be 0.6 and the static temperature was calculated using the
stagnation temperature from Gasturb. The axial velocity at the fan inlet was then computed. The
relative velocity of the blade tip was also calculated using the same method but with a relative Mach
number of 1.6. The tip speed was then calculated from the axial and relative velocities and
subsequently, the rotational speed and blade mean speed was computed.
Booster
The actual annulus area was computed from the normalised mass flow rate. Assuming the hub to tip
ratio of booster to be 0.70, the tip radius was calculated from the area obtained earlier. Next, the
hub and mean radius, blade height and chord length was calculated.
The axial velocity and rotational speed of the booster is the same as that of the fan as both are on
the LP shaft. The mean blade speed was calculated based on the rotational speed and mean radius.
The enthalpy change per stage was obtained from the mean blade speed and work coefficient.
Finally, the number of stages in the booster can be determined from the total enthalpy change
across booster and per stage.
Characteristics
Work Coefficient Δh/Um2 - 0.47
Flow Coefficient Vx/Um - 1.33
Specific work per Stage Δh0,Stage kJ/kg 19.908
Number of Stages - - 2.0
Pressure ratio per Stage PRStage - 1.098
Table 8: Booster characteristics.
As the booster is on the LP shaft with a low rpm compared to the HP shaft, the mean blade speed,
Um, is therefore also relatively lower. This directly results in a significantly high flow coefficient of
1.33. Although the flow coefficient is outside the normal range of 0.4 – 0.7, it is worth noting that
the operating conditions of the booster is very much different from that of the HPC. However, a low
Um reduces the loading/compression capabilities of the booster stages, which results in a low PRStage
of only 1.098. In comparison to the booster stages of the GE90-115B, which has similar performance,
the PRStage is about 1.102. Therefore the number of stages and pressure ratio are justified.
HPC Inlet Mass Flow m23 57.24 kg/s
Normalised Mass Flow 0.992 -
Table 9: HPC input parameters.
The number of stages is primarily dependant on the work coefficient and hub-tip ratio. From the
calculated values, it can be seen that the work coefficient is at the maximum allowable value of 0.5.
Therefore, the inlet hub-tip ratio was increased to 0.8 to reduce the number of stages required.
Although the weight of the engine is not a limiting factor in the design, it is prudent to keep the
number of stages (and weight) at a minimum. Increasing the hub-tip ratio also resulted in a decrease
in the rotational speed of the HP shaft, which was deemed acceptable after the HPT calculations in
the following section. Additionally, the flow coefficient, blade height and pressure ratio per stage are
well within acceptable ranges.
Characteristics
Rotational Speed ω 4856.66 rpm
Flow Coefficient Vx/Um 0.59 -
Work Coefficient Δh0/Um2 0.50
Axial Velocity Vx 175.08 m/s
Number of Stages 11.00 Stages
Specific work per Stage ΔhStage 43.566 kJ/kg
Pressure ratio per Stage PRStage 1.31 Pa
Table 10: HPC Characteristics.
6.2 Turbines
6.2.1 High Pressure Turbine
Input Parameters
The main limitation of the design is that the maximum pressure ratio per stage should be less than
2.50. Therefore the minimum number of stages for the HPT is 2, which also corresponds to about 5
HPC stages per HPT stage. It is prudent to keep the number of stages at a minimum in order to
minimise the engine weight and size. From Gasturb, the total HPT specific work is 510.84kJ/kg.
Assuming equal contributions of each HPT stage, this translates to 255.42kJ/kg specific work per
stage.
Utilising the Smith chart, taking polytropic efficiency as 0.9, the corresponding flow and work
coefficients for the HPT were chosen. Since the engine does not use a gearbox, the rotational speed
of the HPT is the same as the HPC. The input parameters for HPT calculations are shown in Table 11.
Inputs
Rotational Speed ω rpm 4856.66
Work Coefficient Δh/Um2 - 1.7
Flow Coefficient Vx/Um - 0.65
Specific work per Stage Δhstage kJ/kg 255.42
Number of Stages - - 2
Pressure ratio per Stage PRStage - 2.25
Table 11: HPT Input Parameters
Flow Characteristics
Axial Flow Velocity Vx m/s 251.95
Blade Mean Radius Velocity Um m/s 387.62
Blade Mean Radius rm m 0.76
Table 12 Summary of parameters for HPT
With the initial assumption of uniform axial flow, the flow directions for input and output, α2 and α4
were obtained using the Euler turbomachinery equation. In order to compute the static
temperatures and pressures, the entry and exit Mach numbers were calculated using:
V V
= =
−1 Q
1 + 2
V
=
2
L2 − L − 1NQ N
2V Q
∴=
2
− L − 1NV Q
The local density of the flow was then obtained through the static flow properties. With the local
mass flow rate obtained from Gasturb and the local density and axial velocity computed, the areas of
HPT inlet and outlet was then calculated. Using the equation of area for circular annulus, the blade
height for each stage was then obtained. Thus, tip and hub radius was then obtained through simple
geometry equation.
Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix 14.11 and the summary of the key dimensions for
HPT is given in Table 26.
Inputs
Rotational Speed ω rpm 2672.79
Work Coefficient Δh/Um2 - 1
Flow Coefficient Vx/Um - 0.9
Specific work per Stage Δhstage kJ/kg 100.78
Number of Stages - - 4
Pressure ratio per Stage PRStage - 1.62
Table 13: LPT Input Parameters.
Flow Characteristics
Axial Flow Velocity Vx m/s 241.48
Blade Mean Radius Velocity Um m/s 268.31
Blade Mean Radius rm m 0.96
Table 14: LPT flow characteristics.
Next, the dimension of the low pressure turbine was determined using the same method as
mentioned above in the HPT section. The key dimensions of the LPT are show in the following table.
7 VELOCITY TRIANGLES
7.1 Compressor
7.1.1 Mean Blade Angles
A number of assumptions were made to ensure a consistent model for each component:
Applying the Euler turbomachinery equation with α1=0 gives α2 which can be used to find the
necessary angles by simple trigonometry. From velocity triangles, the mean blade angles were
computed as shown in table 2.
To ensure that this design is capable of operating within aerodynamic limits, De Haller’s criterion
was also shown to be not less than 0.72 in table 3. Since the compressor experiences an adverse
pressure gradient, deflection in the rotor is required not to exceed 45°.
Since it is desirable to restrict the tip relative Mach number at HPC inlet to 1.1, increasing this value
whilst decreasing stage loading coefficient does have an effect on reducing the blade number. This
however, is a matter as compromise as a greater rotor deflection can be achieved by increasing the
load coefficient.
A suitable number of blades had to matched with the required number of stages to which the engine
is designed to have, which is the main reason why different aspect ratios were considered.
The process was quite iterative as an optimum compromise had to be achieved in to meet the fixed
design criteria.
The radial variation of the absolute tangential velocities was obtained by conservation of angular
from \ = V
O .
momentum; the tangential velocities at the radial locations can be derived from the mean values
The blades are shown to operate within accepted aerodynamic limits at the various radii as shown in
table 5:
The angles computed are sufficient to sketch out a stage of the compressor. The sketch shown
below is that of the 1st stage HPC and depicts the actual scale of the blades.
7.2 Turbine
Once the general dimensions for the HPT and LPT components has been fixed, a more detailed
dimension of the local area and blade height, between each stages is calculated as the middle stage
has to be taken into account.
The reaction was calculated by applying conservation of energy to the fundamental definition of the
reaction (the ratio of the static enthalpy change in the rotor to the total enthalpy change across the
stage). The pitch-chord ratio (s/c) was obtained using tangential lift coefficient (Cl). The Zweifel’s
criterion suggests that the best compromise for Cl is 0.8 and this is the value used to calculate the s/c
ratio for both HPT and LPT blades. It is essential to ensure that the reaction and s/c for all stages and
radiuses are within the recommended range to optimise the performance of the engine. The
optimised range for s/c ratio and h/c ratio are shown below:
s/c h/c
HPT Stator 1.0-2.0
0.5-1.2
Rotor 2.0-3.0
LPT Stator 3.0-4.0
0.5-1.0
Rotor 3.0-4.0
Table 20: Recommended range for dimension ratios
The work coefficient and flow coefficient were changed until the reaction and s/c for all stages were
within the recommended range. Once the s/c is set and by using an appropriate aspect (h/c) ratio,
the number of blades for each stator and rotor stage was computed through simple algebra. The
summary of s/c, h/c, pitch, chord and no. of blades is shown below:
Once the values for the reaction and s/c are acceptable, the actual velocity triangles for each blade
can be obtained. A summary of the properties that define the velocity triangles is shown below:
\ = V
O
From this relationship and the hub and tip radiuses computed previously, for both hub and tip
were obtained. The blade speed was obtained by computing the tangential velocity at the respective
radiuses as the rotational speed must be the same. With these 2 components and the axial velocity
known, the other velocity components and angles were easily obtained through trigonometric
relations similar to what was done at the mean radius. The summary of the velocity components and
flow angles for the HPT stage 1 are shown below:
The s/c at hub and tip radiuses were also computed through the tangential lift coefficient of 0.8.
Since the number of blades should be the same with the mean radius, and taking the pitch to be the
same as the mean radius because the spacing between the blades should be the same to produce
constant blade profiles, only the h/c ratio and c change across the radius.
It is reasonable to assume there is zero incidence and zero deviation for modern turbine blades.
Hence, the flow angles calculated resembles the blade angles in the sketch as shown below:
8 HP TURBINE STRESSES
Stress calculations were carried out for HP turbine only. The proposed HP turbine will have 2 stages.
The following are the assumptions made to assist the stress calculations.
8.1.1.1 Assumptions
• The disc and blades were manufactured from Inconel 718 (IN718) [6].
• The disc is axially symmetric
• Uniform material properties
• Young’s Modulus, E and Poisson’s Ratio, ν are independent of radius
• Temperature, T independent of radius (uniform temperature)
• Thermal expansion coefficient, α is a function of temperature only
• Thin disc rotating at constant speed Ω rad/s
• The plane stress condition applies (σz=0)
• No through thickness variation of stresses
• The disc thickness is constant, h = axial chord
• Elastic stress distribution
• Centrifugal force acts in radial direction and no forces applied in the axial and hoop direction.
3
Density IN718 ρ 8220 kg/m
Yield Stress IN718 σY 1000 Mpa
HP shaft rotational speed ω 502.65 rad/s
Poisson ratio IN718 ν 0.272 0.272
Inner radius Ri 0.2 0.2 m
Disc Outer radius Ro 0.742 0.689 m
Thickness h 0.03 0.11 m
Number of blades attached to disc Nb 307 160
Radial force transmitted by each blade F 5.79 78.14 kN
Height hb 0.040 0.146 m
The outer radius of the disc is taken as the hub radius of blades. The inner radius of the disc is also
the HP shaft radius and is assumed to be 0.20m. The inlet disc thickness was obtained from the
scaled blade sketch while the outlet disc thickness was computed from the pitch-to-chord ratio and
the inlet disc thickness. The blade was firstly assumed to behave like a rectangular cantilever.
However, the volume of the blade was taken to be 2/3 of the computed volume as the real blade is
not completely rectangular and also to take into consideration the cooling channel in the blade. The
blade thickness was assumed to be 15% of the blade chord.
1 = ΩQ \ = ΩQ \
The radial and hoop stresses due to centrifugal loads along the radius of the disc were then
calculated using the following equation [7]:
These equations, which were obtained from the equilibrium and compatibility equations, are valid
subjected to a total force of Nb × FRIM due to the blades. The following figure shows the stresses
by assuming uniform rectangular cross section of disc, no change in temperature and the disc is
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Radius (m)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
Radius (m)
The hoop stress is at its maximum at the inner radius while the maximum radial stress is at mid
radius. Next, the safety factor against yielding at the most highly stressed location was computed.
From the graphs above, the inner radius is the point at which the difference between radial and
hoop stresses is the largest. The yield stress of IN718 was obtained from the following graph. There
is a temperature gradient between the blade and the combustion gas. However, the cooling
temperature, T3 best represents the condition near the disc. For T3 which is 763.5 K (470°C), the
corresponding yield stress is 1000 MPa.
[6]
Figure 11: Yield stress against Temperature for Inconel718
B = ; Q = ; = = 0
= B − =
= 978.6¡O ∴ ¢1X = = 1.1
8.1.2.1 Inlet of HPT
)
= 879.8¡O ∴ ¢1X = = 1.2
8.1.2.2 Outlet of HPT
)
Next, the disc thickness profile was designed as such it has a uniform equivalent stress along the
radius.
= = £
O =
ℎ ¤Ω ¦
= Q§¨ ©
L¦ ª ¦ N
ℎ
Thickness profile of disc (HPT Inlet) Thickness profile of disc (HPT Outlet)
1.2 1.2
1 1
0.8 0.8
r/Ro
r/Ro
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Thickness, h (m) Thickness, h (m)
It can be seen that the maximum thickness is at the bore and it reaches the minimum at the edge of
disc.
ΩQ Q
L\N = L« − \ Q N ℎ\ « = + ¬}O }^ ℎ
2
At blade root, \ =
8.1.3.1 Inlet of HPT
L N = 62.8¡O
At mid-section, \ = + =
X
®X W
Q
L X N = 31.8¡O
Safety factor:
1000
¢1X = = = 15.9
) 62.8
At blade root, \ =
8.1.3.2 Outlet of HPT
L N = 230.4¡O
At mid-section, \ = + =
X
®X W
Q
L X N = 120.7¡O
Safety factor:
1000
¢1X = = = 4.3
) 230.4
9 ENGINE SKETCH
Following the calculation of key dimensions of the compressors and turbines, the values were used
to sketch a technical drawing of the engine to evaluate and assess the flow path through the engine.
The primary objective was to ensure that there are minimum losses in the flow stream across the
engine. The compiled dimensions of the engine components are detailed overleaf in Table 26 and
the scaled drawing on squared paper is depicted in Figure 13 on the following page.
To maintain consistency in both axes, each major unit of the squared paper is 0.50m while each
minor unit is 0.05m. The technical drawing is evident that the calculated dimensions provide a
smooth flow stream across the engine and the approximate proportions of the engine components
can be perceived easily.
10 FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
There are several aspects of the engine design which could be improved in light of recent
developments in the aircraft engine industry. These developments include advance blade cooling
technologies, the use of improved thermal barrier coatings (TBC), improved component effciciencies,
improved aerodynamic design of turbomachinery bladings and new composite materials.
Firstly, the use of improved blade cooling coupled with TBC allows the HPT blades to attain a much
higher TET. Current trend shows that the maximum TET at cruise is as high as 1800K and increases
above 2000K during take-off. This effectively means that engines of the same size are able to
produce a much higher thrust due to a higher T04/T02.
Additionally, a conservative approach was adopted in the engine calculations where the polytropic
efficiencies for the engine components were taken as 0.90. However, contemporary engines are able
to operate at polytropic efficiencies as high as 0.93. Therefore the engine performance can be
improved further by using a polytropic efficiency of 0.93.
Improved aerodynamic design of turbomachinery bladings have seen the introduction of new 3D
aerodynamic blades design, allowing further increase in engine mass flow rates and and higher
overall compression ratios.
Developments in the use of composite materials have also expanded the boundaries of aircraft
engine design. New composite materials have allowed contemporary engines such as the GE90-115B
to achieve a bigger fan tip diameter (3.25m) without the risk of material failure.
11 CONCLUSION
In the design and calculation process of the engine size, it was found that there are unique critical
limiting constraints on each component which eventually determined the minimum number of
stages. The primary limiting factor for the fan is the work coefficient and the diameter (Fan diameter
should be less than 3.15m). The booster was limited by the flow coefficient and pressure ratio across
each stage. The HPC was limited by the work coefficient and the number of stages (More than 11
HPC stages are undesirable). The HPT was limited by the pressure ratio across each stage. Finally the
LPT stages had to be increased due to undesirable flow paths.
These limitations show that, although engineers seek to design the ideal engine that provides a high
thrust/weight ratio, there are physical and performance constraints on size (and weight) of the
engine. Therefore, new innovative technologies are constantly being developed to tackle and break
through these barriers. Just as what is happening in the industry today.
12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to Dr. Andrew L. Heyes and Dr. Ricardo F. Martinez-Botas for guidance and advice
with calculations as well as the conduct of this project.
13 REFERENCES
(1) Tey A, Tai RY, Hamid N, Jamaludin I. Aircraft Engine Technology: Coursework Task 2. 1. ; 2010.
(4) Nicholas Cumpsty. A simple guide to the aerodynamic and thermodynamic design and
performance of jet engines. Jet Propulsion. 2.; 2009.
(8) http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/DANotes/SSS/safety/safety.html
(9) AET Course: Stress Analysis, Material Design Issues and Failure Analysis
14 APPENDIX
= 600000 /^
14.1 Weight at start of cruise
&', ) = 300000/^
∴ = 5768.28 /0
* Output *
Net Thrust kN 75.90 463.41 84.20
Sp. Fuel Consumption (bare) g/(kN*s) 13.66 8.32 14.16
Sp. Fuel Consumption (installed) g/(kN*s) 15.20 9.23 15.73
Overall Pressure Ratio P3/P2 39.80 42.87 43.34
HPT Pressure Ratio 5.05 5.03 5.05
LPT Pressure Ratio 6.82 6.11 6.87
Fan Inner Exit Temp T21 K 302.98 362.77 308.67
Fan Inner Exit Press P21 kPa 68.90 208.18 71.33
Fan Outer Exit Temp T13 K 285.49 341.01 289.68
Fan Outer Exit Press P13 kPa 57.13 171.50 58.73
HPC Exit Temperature T3 K 763.49 918.97 795.42
HPC Exit Pressure P3 kPa 1377.98 4344.28 1500.62
Burner Exit Pressure P4 kPa 1377.98 4344.28 1500.62
Burner Exit Temperature T4 K 1514.78 1840.13 1599.19
HPT Stator Outlet Temp T41 K 1440.59 1750.60 1520.20
HPT Exit Pressure P44 kPa 272.74 863.86 297.24
LPT Inlet Pressure P45 kPa 272.74 863.86 297.24
LPT Inlet Temperature T45 K 1001.76 1231.61 1059.63
LPT Exit Temperature T5 K 645.46 822.92 685.42
LPT Exit Pressure P5 kPa 40.02 141.35 43.24
Core Nozzle Vel. V8 m/s 423.61 388.44 465.85
Bypass Nozzle Vel. V18 m/s 309.24 309.38 311.49
Engine Mass Flow W2 kg/s 533.44 1451.45 546.51
HPC Inlet Flow W25 kg/s 57.24 162.74 60.55
Bypass Inlet Flow W12 kg/s 476.20 1288.71 485.96
Ideal Jet Velocity Ratio V18/V8 0.84 0.80 0.78
Propulsive Efficiency 0.76 0.00 0.74
Core Efficiency 0.57 0.52 0.57
Flight Velocity V0 m/s 222.48 0.00 222.48
Off-Design (Take-Off)
Off-Design (Top-Of-Climb)
= 17.04 g/(kN*s)
= 544,750kg
1
mkldige mnelmoe = t u Ymgxmlx ¯c kldige + mejh ¯c kldige ]
2
= 566,375 kg
= 43,250kg
µ
´
-Flight range, s = − × ln
¶ ·¸¹º
o gck ·»¼½¾¼
= ¿.ÀB×BÁ.Â×BÃÄ × ln LÅÀÀ,N
ªQQQ.QQ×B¿ ÅÂÂ,ÁÅ
= 1,929.71 km
= ÆÅÇÇ,ÁÅ׿.ÀB×BÁ.Â×BÃÄ È É19Ê
Â,QÅ
= 2 hours 24minutes
= 15.19 g/(kN*s)
VL
wejh
Flight range, s = − D × ln 8 @
g sfc wgxmlx
= − ¿.ÀB×BÅ.B¿×BÃÄ × ln ÅÀÀ,
QQQ.QQ×B¿ ÅÂÂ,ÁÅ
= 2,165km
= ÆÅÇÇ,ÁÅ׿.ÀB×BÅ.B¿×BÃÄ È É19Ê
Â,QÅ
= 2 hours 42 minutes
= 17.04 g/(kN*s)
VL
wejh
Flight range, s = − D × ln 8 @
g sfc wgxmlx
= ¿.ÀB×BÁ.Â×BÃÄ × ln LÅÀÀ,N
ªQQQ.QQ×B¿ ÂÅ,
= 13,467.1km
= ÆÂÅ,׿.ÀB×BÁ.Â×BÃÄ È É19Ê
QÂ,
= 22 hours 14 minutes
= 15.19 g/(kN*s)
VL
wejh
Flight range, s = − D × ln 8 @
g sfc wgxmlx
= − ¿.ÀB×BÅ.B¿×BÃÄ × ln ÅÀÀ,
QQQ.QQ×B¿ ÂÅ,
= 15,107km
= ÆÂÅ,׿.ÀB×BÅ.B¿×BÃÄ È É19Ê
QÂ,
= 24 hours 57 minutes
33.7 kg/km
Vc = × 1000 } = 41.92 }
804 kg/km
22.28 kg/km
Vc = × 1000 } = 27.71 }
804 kg/km
30.02 kg/km
Vc = × 1000 } = 37.34 }
804 kg/km
19.86 kg/km
Vc = × 1000 } = 24.7 }
804 kg/km
From the computed costs of fuel, the reduction in cost of fuel is given by:
− 1 Q ªLÎÏBN/QLΪBN
= 81 + @
− 1 2
= 1.063
~ £
Q
ÑQ =
× ¡Q
ÑQ = 6.40 Q
ÑQ
\ = Ò \' Q
L1 − L \ N N ×
6.40
\ =
L1 − 0.35Q N ×
\ = 1.523
\' = 0.533
L\ + \' N
\
W =
2
L1.523 + 0.533N
\
W =
2
\ W = 1.028
ℎX = 0.990
ℎX
£ℎ
\, V =
ℎ/V
0.990
£ℎ
\, V =
2.5
£ℎ
\, V = 0.396 ≈ Ô ℎ
U Z}O,
WW
Õ =
−1
1 + 2 Q
243.64
Q =
1.4 − 1
1 + 2 0.587Q
Q = 227.96 Ö
¡WW
¡Õ = Î
−1 ×LΪBN
1 + 2 Q
34624
¡Q =
1.4 − 1
B.Â×
LB.ªBN
1 + 2 0.587
Q
¡Q = 27431.2 ¡O
) = 177.5 ªB
= 484.23 ªB
Ø =
Q
− )Q
Ø = 450.52 ªB
Ø × 60
Ù= \[
2 × \
450.52 × 60
Ù= \[
2 × 1.523
Ù = 2823.9 \[
Ù × \
W ×
Ø
W =
30
2823.9 × 1.028 ×
Ø
W =
30
Ø W = 304.10 ªB
Ñ∗
ÑQ,Õ' =
0.85
0.638
ÑQ =
0.85
ÑQ = 0.751 Q
ÑÕ' 0.751
\ = =
L1 − 0.80 N ×
Q L1 − 0.80Q N ×
\Q, = 0.815
\Q,' = 0.652
L\ + \' N
\
W =
2
L0.815 + 0.652N
\
W =
2
\ W = 0.733
ÑÕ'
ℎX =
2 × \
W
0.751
ℎX =
2 × 0.733
ℎX = 0.163
ℎX
£ℎ
\, V =
ℎ/V
0.163
£ℎ
\, V =
1.75
£ℎ
\, V = 0.093 ≈ Ô ℎ
U Z}O,
The enthalpy change per stage for booster was given by:
∆ℎ
= 0.4
Ø
Q
Next, the number of stages in a booster can be calculated using the following equation:
∆ℎ
0
U O^ =
∆ℎ
59.72
0
U O^ =
25.70
0
U O^ = 2.32 ≈ 3 O^
The pressure ratio per stage was computed using the following equation:
fjLÞ¨ßàáâãã N
¡ = 2 &
fj B.¿¿
¡ =
¡ = 1.26
Outlet of Booster
The static temperature and pressure were given by:
302.98
Q =
1.4 − 1
1 + 2 0.522Q
Q = 287.30 Ö
¡WW
¡Õ = Î
−1 ×LΪBN
1 + 2 Q
68899
¡Q =
1.4 − 1
B.Â×
LB.ªBN
1 + 0.522Q
2
¡Q = 57203.78 ¡O
PQ
ρQ RTQ
= æP
ρQ Q
RTQ
ρQ 0.694
=
ρQ 0.419
ρQ
= 1.65
ρQ
ÑQ
ÑQ =
1.65
ÑQ = 0.454 Q
0.454
ℎX =
2 × 0.733
ℎX = 0.099
ℎ
\, = \
W +
2
\, = 0.783
ℎ
\,' = \
W −
2
\, = 0.684
ℎX
£ℎ
\, V =
ℎ/V
0.099
£ℎ
\, V =
1.75
£ℎ
\, V = 0.056 ≈ Ô ℎ
U Z}O,
Q = 0.992
57.244√1040.639 × 302.98
∴ ÑQ =
68899 ×
Q
ÑQ = 0.470Q
It is sufficiently accurate to assume at this stage that the hub/tip ratio is 0.8.
0.470
\ =
L1 − ç0.8èQ N
\ = 0.645
Correspondingly;
\' = 0.516
and
L0.645 + 0.516N
\O =
2
\ W = 0.580
0.470
ℎX =
2 × 0.580
ℎQ = 0.129
The static density at inlet which will be used when computing the HPC outlet area is therefore:
¡Q
Q = ×
= 57510.38×L287 × 288.253N
Q
) = 175.08 ªB
And
= 371.78 ªB
By assuming a purely axial flow into the first stage of the HPC inlet:
Ø = 371.78Q − 175.08Q
Ø = 327.9796/
)
= 0.534
Ø
327.9796
Ù= = 508.59 \O/
0.645
Ù = 4856.66 \[
Superimposing the rotational speed on the mean plane gives the mean blade speed:
0.129
£ℎ
\Q =
1.75
£ℎ
\Q = 0.074
Outlet of HPC
In order to convert the stagnation quantities to static at HPC outlet, the Mach number at that
location needs to be evaluated:
V V
O = =
−1
1 + 2 O Q
2V Q
O =
2
− L − 1NV Q
2L175.08NQ
O =
L2 × 1.381 × 287 × 763.490N − L1.381 − 1NL175.08NQ
O = 0.321
Using this Mach number, it is possible to calculate the static temperature and pressure at the outlet:
= 763.49
æ81 + L1.381 − 1N 0.321Q @
2
= 748.763Ö
And
¡ = 1377983
æ 1.381 − 1
B.ÀB×
LB.ÀBªBN
1 + 0.321Q
2
¡ = 1284,020 ¡O
P
ρ RT
= æP
ρQ Q
RTQ
ρ 5.975
=
ρQ 0.694
ρ
= 8.595
ρQ
Q 0.470
Ñ = ÑQ =
8.595
Ñ = 0.055 Q
0.055
ℎ =
2 × 0.580
ℎ = 0.0150
Accordingly:
0.0150
\, = 0.580 +
2
\, = 0.5879
0.0150
\,' = 0.580 −
2
\,' = 0.5729
0.0150
£ℎ
\ =
1.75
£ℎ
\ = 0.009
From Gasturb, the overall enthalpy change within the HPC is 479.224 kJ/kg. Given the chosen load
coefficient:
∆ℎ,
= 0.5
Ø
Q
479,224.7
.
U O^ =
43,566
.
U O^ = 10.9999 ≈ 11 O^
With a design HPC pressure ratio of 20, each stage will have:
fj Q
¡ = BB
¡ = 1.3
The mean velocity was calculated from the work coefficient obtained:
∆h
U° Q =
φ
225.42 × 10
=
2
U° = 357.37 m/s
And the axial velocity was then obtained from the flow coefficient:
V = ∅ × U°
V = 0.55 × 357.37
V = 196.55 m/s
V
\
=
Ù
196.55
\
=
508.58
\ = 0.703
Initially flow angles, α2 and α4 were calculated using Euler turbomachinery equation and degree of
reaction equation:
í = 0°
ïℎ/ Ø2
í = tanªB
) /Ø
íQ = 74.62°
~ = Ñ)
~ ÂB = ÂB ÑÂB )
ÂB
~
ÑÂB =
ÂB )
= 0.068Q
Once areas were obtained, the blade heights of the 2 stages of HPT were then obtained using:
ÑÂB
ℎX,ÂB =
2\
cos íQ
= 0.040
0.040
\ÂB, = 0.762 +
2
\ÂB, = 0.782
And:
0.040
\ÂB,' = 0.762 −
2
\ÂB,' = 0.742
ℎX
£ℎ
\, VL O
\N =
1.9
£ℎ
\, ÂB, = 0.02088
) = B = 185.32 /
ïℎ
íQ = OªB 8 @ = 32.0°
Ø)
Δℎ is enthalpy change per stage and is obtained by multiplying the overall enthalpy change from
Gasturb with the load coefficient.
The remaining angles can be obtained from the trigonometric relations ad the axial and calculated
lade velocities.
Reaction:
)
Λ= × #tan íB + íQ * = 0.825
2Ø
DF is the diffusion factor, taken a 0.45 I all cases here for HPC.
Rotor:
Q B
= 2 b41 − 1 − q b q = 2.01
V B Q − B
Stator:
Q B
= 2 t41 − 81 − @u t u = 1.30
V B Q − B
V
= × × ℎ = 0.165 LU
\ \
\N
Pitch:
ℎ V
2\
No of blades:
¬}O
. = = 20 LU
\ \
\N
The blades number is computed by taking the aspect ratio (h/c) =1.75
Inlet (mean)
Stator
h/c s/c blade height s mean circumference no of blades
1 2.013551 0.143303145 0.288548259 3.151400756 10.92157258
1.25 2.013551 0.143303145 0.230838607 3.151400756 13.65196572
1.5 2.013551 0.143303145 0.192365506 3.151400756 16.38235887
1.75 2.013551 0.143303145 0.16488472 3.151400756 19.11275201
2 2.013551 0.143303145 0.14427413 3.151400756 21.84314515
2.5 2.013551 0.143303145 0.14427413 3.151400756 21.84314515
Rotor
h/c s/c blade height s mean circumference no of blades
1 1.300488 0.143303145 0.186363952 3.151400756 16.90992661
1.25 1.300488 0.143303145 0.149091162 3.151400756 21.13740826
1.5 1.300488 0.143303145 0.124242635 3.151400756 25.36488991
1.75 1.300488 0.143303145 0.106493687 3.151400756 29.59237156
2 1.300488 0.143303145 0.093181976 3.151400756 33.81985322
Since íB = í = 0, hence
Δℎ
íQ = tanªB
Ø)
= 69.08 U
\ ò¡
O^ 1
Vx = 251.95ms-1
Um = 387.62 ms-1
Stage 1:
óüõ = óõ øýþ ∝õ =
Stage 2:
óô = óù ö÷ø ∝ù
óô
óù = = ૠú. ૡms ªB
ö÷ø ∝ù
óüù ࢘ࢋ
∝ù ࢘ࢋ = ܉ܜþªõ = ૠ. õù
óô
óô
óù ࢘ࢋ = = ùúõ. ûúms ªB
ö÷ø ∝ù ࢘ࢋ
Stage 3:
óü = ó øýþ ∝ =
óü ࢘ࢋ
∝ ࢘ࢋ = tanªB = −ú. ûૡ
óô
ܐù − ܐ
܉܍ܚöܜý÷þ,∧ = =
△ ܚ÷ܜ÷ܚܐ
△ ÷ܐ,ø܍܉ܜ △ ÷ܐ
ù ù
#܄ * ܔ܍ܚ− #܄ù * ܔ܍ܚ
=
ù △ ÷ܐ
= . õú ܉܍ܕ ܜ܉þ ܌܉ܚýܝø
For stator:
0.8 × £
=
V 2cos íQ Ltan íB − tan íQ N
Q
= 1.199
For rotor:
0.8 × £
=
V 2cos í Ltan íQ − tan í N
Q
= 0.515
ù࣊࢘
ࡺ. ࢌ ࢈ࢇࢊࢋ࢙ =
࢙
The remaining velocity components were calculated using trigonometric relations, what differs at
hub and tip radius is that the aspect ratio is calculated instead of being an input.
ℎ 1
= × ×ℎ
V V
1 = ΩQ \ = ΩQ \
1000
¢1X = = = 1.1
) 978.6
1000
¢1X = = = 1.2
) 879.8
) 1000
= = = 800¡O
¢1 1.25
¤Ω¦
ℎ = ℎ × Q§¨
L©¦ ª ¦ N
=0.0154 m
ΩQ Q
L\N = L« − \ Q N ℎ\ « = + ¬}O }^ ℎ
2
Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 57
Aircraft Engine Technology
8220 × 502.7Q
L N = LL0.742 + 0.04NQ − 0.742Q N = 62.8 ¡O
2
Safety factor:
1000
¢1X = = = 15.9
) 62.8