Sei sulla pagina 1di 62

Imperial College London

Mechanical Engineering Department


March 2010

Aircraft Engine Technology


Antonov An-925 Vira

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

The size and thrust produced by this engine is comparable to that of


the largest civil aircraft engine known today, the GE-90 series. But
lower sfc for both design and off-design conditions makes it a more
suitable engine for carrying large payloads in long haul.
Aircraft Engine Technology

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

Coursework Task 3 | Introduction 1


Aircraft Engine Technology

7.1 Compressor ........................................................................................................................... 17


7.1.1 Mean Blade Angles........................................................................................................ 17
7.1.2 Number of blades at mean radius ................................................................................ 17
7.1.3 Rotor and stator blade angles at varying radii .............................................................. 18
7.2 Turbine .................................................................................................................................. 21
7.2.1 At mean radius .............................................................................................................. 21
7.2.2 Hub-mean-tip radiuses ................................................................................................. 22
8 HP Turbine Stresses ...................................................................................................................... 25
8.1.2 HPT Disc......................................................................................................................... 26
8.1.3 HPT Blades..................................................................................................................... 29
8.1.4 Temperature effects ..................................................................................................... 29
9 Engine Sketch ................................................................................................................................ 30
10 Future Developments ............................................................................................................... 33
11 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 33
12 Acknowledgements................................................................................................................... 34
13 References ................................................................................................................................ 34
14 Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 35
14.1 Weight at start of cruise ....................................................................................................... 35
14.2 Initial Iteration ...................................................................................................................... 35
14.3 Initial GasTurb Printouts ....................................................................................................... 35
14.4 Design and Off-Design Engine Conditions ............................................................................ 36
14.5 Final GasTurb Printouts......................................................................................................... 37
14.6 Calculation: Cruise time and range ....................................................................................... 38
14.7 Fuel Cost Calculations ........................................................................................................... 41
14.8 Fan Calculations .................................................................................................................... 42
14.9 Booster Calculations ............................................................................................................. 44
14.10 HPC Calculations ............................................................................................................... 47
14.11 Sample of Turbine Dimension Calculations ...................................................................... 51
14.12 Sample of Compressors’ velocity triangles and number of blades................................... 53
14.13 Sample of Turbines’ verlocity triangles and number of blades ........................................ 54
14.14 HP turbine disc stresses .................................................................................................... 57
14.14.1 Stress Calculations .................................................................................................... 57

Coursework Task 3 | Introduction 2


Aircraft Engine Technology

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

For T, P and ρ: Station Numbers

Coursework Task 3 | Introduction 3


Aircraft Engine Technology

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®.

1.2 Antonov An-925 Vira®


The Antonov An-925 Vira is an upgraded version of the An-225, and hence retains the same
aerodynamic features. The aim is to design a new engine to improve the performance of the aircraft.
Firstly, the An-925 will be fitted with 4 high bypass engines instead of 6 and the take-off run will be
reduced from 3500m to 2600m, which is similar to the C-5 Galaxy. However, it should still carry a
maximum payload of 250 tonnes with a range of around 4000km.

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.

Coursework Task 3 | Introduction 1


Aircraft Engine Technology

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

2 REQUIRED INPUTS CALCULATIONS


Based on the specified requirements of the An-925, the net thrusts for different conditions were
calculated. Calculations are primarily based on the original lift/drag ratio of 19 for the An-225 since
the aerodynamics, cruising altitude and Mach number remains unchanged. [1]

2.1 Weight at start of cruise


The versatility of the An-925 (and An-225) meant that it has a wide range depending on its payload,
i.e. it can either fly a shorter distance with maximum payload or a maximum range with maximum
fuel load. To calculate the weight of the aircraft at the start of cruise, it was estimated that 4% the
fuel in a long haul flight (12hours) is used for take-off and climb to cruising altitude. The mass
available for both payload and fuel is:

 = 
−   

= 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).

So the weight at start of cruise is:

 = 9.81 × "


− #0.04 × &', ) *+

 = 5768.28 /0

2.2 Net Thrust


Once the weight at start of cruise is obtained, the respective net thrusts were calculated.

Coursework Task 3 | Required Inputs Calculations 2


Aircraft Engine Technology

2.2.1 Cruise
The net thrust per engine during cruise is given by:


12 = ÷
3
4

12 = 75.90 kN

Where L/D is the lift-to-drag ratio and n is the number of engines.

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

Where θ is the angle of climb at around 0.33°.

2.2.3 Sea-level static (SLS) take-off


To calculate the take-off thrust per engine, the kinematic equations are used as an approximation to
reduce the take-off run from 3500m to 2600m translating to an increase of about 1.5 times the
acceleration and twice the net thrust per engine.

The thrust required at take-off for a take-off run of 3500m is:

FB = thrust to weight ratio × L9.81 × mtowN

FB = 1377 kN

So the required acceleration (a1) is:

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

Coursework Task 3 | Required Inputs Calculations 3


Aircraft Engine Technology

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.

3.1 Initial Conditions


The on-design condition was first calculated using single cycle simulation in GasTurb to obtain rough
input values through iteration to produce the required cruising thrust, TET and velocities ratio. A
print screen showing the iterated targets, variables and outputs can be found in Appendix 14.2 and
14.3, where sfc was 13.78 g/kNs.

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.

3.3 Parametric Study


To validate the results from optimisation, parametric studies were performed in order to acquire the
performance and operating line of the engine. This is done by varying OFPR, TET and bpr. The sfc
values presented from in this section onwards are the calculated installed sfc after accounting for
nacelle drag. sfcinstalled is estimated using the following formula:

UVWX = Y1.04 + 0.01LZ[\ − 1N]UV

UVWX = 15.19 ^//0

3.3.1 Outer Fan Pressure Ratio


Figure 1 shows the variation in sfc and net thrust with OFPR. Net thrust peaks at 75.9kN and
corresponds with the minimum sfc, thus showing that the OFPR is optimised at 1.65. This confirms
that the engine is able to generate sufficient thrust while using minimum fuel at design point.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Performance 4


Aircraft Engine Technology

Thrust & sfc vs OFPR


77 16
76.5 15.9
15.8
76
15.7

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

3.3.2 Bypass Ratio


Figure 2 depicts the graph of thrust and sfc against increasing bpr. As expected, net thrust decreases
as bpr increases. The minimum sfc corresponds to a bpr of around 8.75, which is the ideal bpr.
However, there will be insufficient thrust on design point. Hence the bpr is lower (sfc higher) to
accommodate the required cruise thrust of 75.9kN.

Thrust & sfc vs Bypass ratio


95 16
15.9
90
15.8
85 15.7
sfc (g/kN*s)
Thrust (kN)

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.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Performance 5


Aircraft Engine Technology

3.3.3 Turbine Entry Temperature


Figure 3 depicts the graph of thrust and sfc against increasing TET. As expected, net thrust rises with
increasing TET. The minimum sfc corresponds to a TET of 1415K. However, there will be insufficient
thrust on design point. Hence the TET is higher (sfc higer) to accommodate the required cruise thrust
of 75.9kN. It can be seen that the design point TET is 1440.6K, which complies with the limit of
1450K.

Thrust & sfc vs TET, T041


100 18
95 17.5
90
17
85

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.

3.3.4 Operating Line


The operating lines of the HP and LP compressors were evaluated on GasTurb to ensure that the
engine is not susceptible to surging. However, surge was found to occur in the HP compressor and
thus an automaticc handling bleed was employed to rectify the problem. The new operating line with
handling bleed has a good surge margin and is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 for the LPC and HPC
respectively. This also provides a more realistic approach to the engine design since most engines
use either handling bleeds or variable stator blades to avoid HPC surge.

3.3.5 Performance Map


The optimisation of the engine can be clearly seen from the performance map (Figure ( 6) of varying
outer fan pressure ratio and bpr, giving the lowest sfc for the required net thrust. The coloured
contours also display the range of propulsive efficiency at different operating
operating conditions. Ideally,
propulsive efficiency increases with rising net thrust but also at a cost of larger sfc. Hence, the trade-
trade
off between efficiency and sfc is justified at the design point since the design aim is to design a
commercially viable engine for the aircraft: one that can provide the maximum range with the
lowest sfc.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Performance 6


Aircraft Engine Technology

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

Here the HPC


1
0.95

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

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Performance 7


Aircraft Engine Technology

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.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Performance 8


Aircraft Engine Technology

Cruise Take-off Top-of-climb


Altitude m 10670.00 0.00 10670.00
Mach Number - 0.75 0.00 0.75
Inner Fan Pressure Ratio - 1.99 2.06 2.06
Outer Fan Pressure Ratio - 1.65 1.69 1.70
HP Compressor Pressure Ratio - 20.00 20.87 21.04
Design Bypass Ratio - 8.32 7.92 8.03
Burner Exit Temperature K 1514.78 1840.13 1599.19
Inlet Corr. Flow W2Rstd kg/s 1434.96 1434.96 1434.96

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
HPC Exit Temperature T3 K 763.49 918.97 795.42
HPC Exit Pressure P3 kPa 1377.98 4344.28 1500.62
HPT Stator Outlet Temp T41 K 1440.59 1750.60 1520.20
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
Flight Velocity V0 m/s 222.48 0.00 222.48
Table 3: Summary of design and off-design engine conditions.

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.

4.1 Flight Time


It was estimated that the aircraft consumes 4% of the maximum fuel capacity to takeoff and reach
the cruising altitude. Another 15% of the fuel capacity must be kept as reserves in the event of
emergencies.

The flight time was calculated according to the equation below:

Coursework Task 3 | Aircraft Performance 9


Aircraft Engine Technology

mcdef dgeh ij kldige L


Time of Cruise = b qr s
mmnelmoe × g × sfc D

Where ^ = 9.81 / Q and the average cruising mass:

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

4.3 Operating Cost of Fuel


As for fuel consumption, the new An-925 consumed less fuel than the original aircraft, both for
maximum payload and maximum range. Assuming the jet fuel used is the standard kerosene fuel, Jet
A-1, the price of fuel for each aircraft was calculated. [2]

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]

Mass of fuel per km


Vc = × 1000 }
Fuel density

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:

Cost of fuel per km = Vc × £0.32

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.

An-925 Vira An-225 Mriya Improvement


Number of engines 4 6 -2
Take-off run (m) 2600 3500 -25.71%
sfcinstalled (g/kNs) 15.20 17.04 -10.86%

Coursework Task 3 | Improvements 10


Aircraft Engine Technology

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.

Coursework Task 3 | Improvements 11


Aircraft Engine Technology

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:

1. Uniform axial flow through each of the components.


2. Constant mean radius across each component.
3. Change in enthalpy per stage, Δh0,Stage, is equal across each component.
4. Constant pressure ratio per stage, PRStage.

Flow Coefficient Work Coefficient PR per Stage Blade Height


Vx/Um Δh0/Um2 PRStage h (m)
Compressors 0.40 - 0.70 0.35 - 0.50 1.36 > 0.01
HPT 0.50 - 0.65 < 2.50 2.50 > 0.01
LPT 0.90 - 1.00 < 2.50 2.50 > 0.01
Table 5: Constraints on engine components.

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.

Input Parameters Booster Fan


Relative Mach @ Blade Tip Marel 0.736 1.6 -

~
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.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Dimensions 12


Aircraft Engine Technology

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.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Dimensions 13


Aircraft Engine Technology

6.1.2 High Pressure Compressor


Input Parameters
The input parameters used to calculate the size of the HPC are extracted from GasTurb, such as inlet
and outlet conditions. The hub-tip ratio and work coefficient was set as input variables to allow
iteration of the calculations to meet the desired constraints on the HPC properties. The final input
parameters for the HPC, giving acceptable work and flow coefficient as well as number of stages, are
shown in Table 9.

HPC Input Parameters


Relative Mach @ Blade Tip Marel 1.1 -
Mach @ entry (Actual) Ma23 0.518 -
HPC Spec. Work Δh0HPC 479224.7 kW/(kg/s)
Specific Heat Ratio γ 1.38 -
Specific Heat Capacity Cp 1040.64 J/KgK
Hub-Tip Ratio rh/rt 0.8 -



HPC Inlet Mass Flow m23 57.24 kg/s
Normalised Mass Flow 0.992 -
Table 9: HPC input parameters.

Component Characteristics & Dimensions


After obtaining the normalised mass flow, the remaining dimensions and characteristics of the HPC
were calculated accordingly. The dimensions and characteristics are shown in Table 26 and Table 10
respectively.

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.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Dimensions 14


Aircraft Engine Technology

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

Component Characteristics and Dimensions


From the definitions of the work coefficient and flow coefficient, and the specific work per stage, Um
and Vx were then calculated. These velocities are assumed to be constant throughout HPT. From
these values, the dimensions of the HPT were calculated accordingly. A summary of the key
parameters for HPT is described below, and the detailed calculations for each parameter can be
found in Appendix 14.11.

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
€= =
‚ƒ„… …‡
†ƒ„ ƒ−1 Q
ˆ1 + 2 € ‰

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Dimensions 15


Aircraft Engine Technology


=
2ƒ„…‡
Š
L2 − Lƒ − 1N€Q N

2V Q
∴€=†
2ƒ„…‡ − Lƒ − 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.

6.2.2 Low Pressure Turbine


Input Parameters
The total enthalpy change across the LPT obtained from Gasturb was 403.13 kJ/kg. For turbine, the
Smith chart was used to determine the suitable flow and work coefficient for a polytropic efficiency
of 0.90. The number of stages was estimated and the resulted conditions were evaluated whether
they are acceptable or not. The minimum number of stages that satisfies the constraints was found
to be 3. However it was later discovered that the resulting dimensions do not provide a smooth flow
between the HPT and LPT. Therefore the number of stages was increased to 4 to reduce losses in the
engine at the cost of extra weight.

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.

Component Characteristics and Dimensions


Subsequently, Um was then calculated from the work coefficient and specific work per stage. Using
the flow coefficient, the corresponding axial velocity was found. The mean radius was then
calculated from the mean blade speed of LPT and the rotational speed of LP shaft. The calculated
values are shown in the following table.

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.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Dimensions 16


Aircraft Engine Technology

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:

1. All stages in the compressor are repeating i.e. α1=α3=0


2. Zero incidence and deviation i.e. i=0=α1-β1 and δ=0=α2-β2
3. Constant mean radius through each component
4. Angles and velocities are taken as positive in the direction of blade rotation

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.

Component α1 α2 α1rel α2rel α3


Fan 0.00 37.55 -59.07 -41.98 0.00
Booster 0.00 19.45 -36.91 -21.70 0.00
HPC 0.00 32.01 -60.75 -49.26 0.00
Table 15: Mean blade angles of compressor components in degrees

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°.

Component deflection De Haller's De Reaction Lieblien Lieblien


ε (°) (rotor) Haller's Λ diffusion diffusion
(stator) factor factor
(rotor) (stator)

Booster 15.21 0.86 0.94 0.76 0.45 0.45


HPC 11.50 0.75 0.85 0.83 0.45 0.45
Table 16: Mean blade characteristics

7.1.2 Number of blades at mean radius


To calculate the number of blades required evaluating the pitch to chord ratio (s/c). This was carried
out by using the Lieblien’s Diffusion Factor approximation. For all components, a diffusion factor of
0.45 was used to provide sufficient diffusion whilst avoiding extensive losses. Since the aspect ratio
for compressors can vary from 1-2.5, the blade pitch was calculated for these values. The number of
blades approximated for all the compressor components were based on the mean pitch hence for
each stage, the chord length of the rotor and stator will be the same. Blade thickness was taken to
be 10% of the chord in all cases; blade thickness should be between 10-20% of the chord.

Coursework Task 3 | Velocity Triangles 17


Aircraft Engine Technology

Component Mean Row Pitch/chord Aspect Pitch Chord Blade Number


location ratio (s/c) ratio (m) (m) Thickness of blades
(h/c) (m)
Fan Fan Rotor 0.716 2.500 0.298 0.416 0.042 23
Booster Front Rotor 2.200 1.750 0.216 0.098 0.010 14
Stator 2.892 1.750 0.284 0.098 0.010 11
Outlet Rotor 2.200 1.750 0.188 0.086 0.009 16
Stator 2.892 1.750 0.247 0.086 0.009 12
HPC Front Rotor 1.300 1.750 0.106 0.082 0.012 30
Stator 2.014 1.750 0.165 0.082 0.012 19
Middle Rotor 1.300 1.750 0.039 0.030 0.007 81
Stator 2.014 1.750 0.060 0.030 0.004 53
Rear Rotor 1.300 1.000 0.021 0.026 0.004 147
Stator 2.014 1.000 0.033 0.017 0.002 95
Table 17: Key component dimensions and number of blades at mean radius.

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.

7.1.3 Rotor and stator blade angles at varying radii


Table 4 shows the rotor and stator blade angles at the hub, mean and radius for the HP compressor.
The rotor deflection i.e. α1rel - α2rel in absolute form is less than 45°, which is required in a compressor.
The degree of reaction implies that the rotor contributes most of the increase in static pressure
within the stage.

Radial α1 α2 α1rel α2rel α3 Deflection, Reaction


location ε
Hub 0 36.10 -56.84 -38.71 0 18.13 0.76
Mean 0 32.01 -60.75 -49.26 0 11.50 0.83
Tip 0 28.67 -63.90 -56.20 0 7.69 0.87
Table 18: HPC blade angles in degrees and rotor deflection

The radial variation of the absolute tangential velocities was obtained by conservation of angular

from \‹Œ = 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:

Coursework Task 3 | Velocity Triangles 18


Aircraft Engine Technology

Row Radial Pitch/chord Aspect De Lieblien


location ratio (s/c) ratio Haller's Diffusion
(h/c) Factor
Rotor Hub 0.76 1.75 0.72 0.45
Mean 1.30 1.75 0.75 0.45
Tip 2.00 1.75 0.79 0.45
Stator Hub 1.89 1.75 0.81 0.45
Mean 2.01 1.75 0.85 0.45
Tip 2.16 1.75 0.88 0.45
Table 19: Radial variation of blade characteristics

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.

Coursework Task 3 | Velocity Triangles 19


Aircraft Engine Technology

Figure 7: HPC 1st Stage Blade shape at varying Radius.

Coursework Task 3 | Velocity Triangles 20


Aircraft Engine Technology

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.

7.2.1 At mean radius


Assuming repeating stages and axial inlet and outlet flow for each stage, the middle flow angle at
mean radius were obtained using Euler Turbomachinery equation. Once the flow angles and axial
velocity were known, the remaining velocity components and flow angles were calculated using
trigonometric relations. The recommended blade turning (α2rel - α3rel) is less than 120˚. The maximum
blade turning for HPT is 104.10˚ and for LPT is 71.98˚. An example of the calculations can be seen in
Appendix 14.13.

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:

s/c h/c s c no. of blades


HPT Stator 1.199 1.9 0.025 0.021 192
Front
Rotor 0.515 2.5 0.016 0.030 307
Stator 1.199 1.9 0.048 0.040 100
Rear
Rotor 0.515 2.5 0.030 0.058 160
LPT Stator 0.879 3 0.025 0.028 244
Front
Rotor 0.575 3 0.021 0.037 287
Stator 0.879 4 0.024 0.027 250
Middle
Rotor 0.575 4 0.026 0.045 233
Stator 0.879 4.5 0.060 0.068 101
Rear
Rotor 0.575 4.5 0.049 0.086 122
Table 21: Summary of s/c, h/c, pitch, chord and no. of blades

Coursework Task 3 | Velocity Triangles 21


Aircraft Engine Technology

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:

Stage Station α Vx Vθ V αrel Vxrel Vθrel Vrel


Units ̊ ms-1 ms-1 ms-1 ̊ ms-1 ms-1 ms-1
HPT Front 1 0.00 251.95 0.00 251.95
2 69.08 251.95 658.95 705.48 47.12 251.95 271.33 370.27
3 0.00 251.95 0.00 251.95 -56.98 251.95 -387.62 462.31
Rear 1 0.00 251.95 0.00 251.95
2 69.08 251.95 658.95 705.48 47.12 251.95 271.33 370.27
3 0.00 251.95 0.00 251.95 -56.98 251.95 -387.62 462.31
LPT Front 1 0.00 241.48 0.00 241.48
2 57.26 241.48 375.63 446.55 23.96 241.48 0.00 107.32
3 0.00 241.48 0.00 241.48 -48.01 241.48 0.00 -268.31
Middle 1 0.00 241.48 0.00 241.48
2 57.26 241.48 375.63 0.00 23.96 241.48 0.00 107.32
3 0.00 241.48 0.00 241.48 -48.01 241.48 0.00 -268.31
Rear 1 0.00 241.48 0.00 241.48
2 57.26 241.48 375.63 0.00 23.96 241.48 0.00 107.32
3 0.00 241.48 0.00 241.48 -48.01 241.48 0.00 -268.31
Table 22: Summary of values for velocity triangles

7.2.2 Hub-mean-tip radiuses


Using the radial equilibrium equation, and assuming that axial velocity is constant across radius and
stagnation enthalpy is constant with radius, it can be shown that,

\‹Œ = V
 O

From this relationship and the hub and tip radiuses computed previously, ‹Œ 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:

Station α Vx Vθ V αrel Vxrel Vθrel Vrel


Units ̊ ms-1 ms-1 ms-1 ̊ ms-1 ms-1 ms-1
Hub 1 0.00 251.95 0.00 251.95
2 69.57 251.95 676.56 721.95 49.88 251.95 299.03 391.02
3 0.00 251.95 0.00 251.95 -56.28 251.95 -377.53 453.88
Mean 1 0.00 251.95 0.00 251.95
2 69.08 251.95 658.95 705.48 47.12 251.95 271.33 370.27
3 0.00 251.95 0.00 251.95 -56.98 251.95 -387.62 462.31
Tip 1 0.00 251.95 0.00 251.95
2 68.58 251.95 642.24 689.89 44.14 251.95 244.53 351.10
3 0.00 251.95 0.00 251.95 -57.65 251.95 -397.71 470.80

Coursework Task 3 | Velocity Triangles 22


Aircraft Engine Technology

Table 23: Velocity components and flow angles at varying radii

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.

s/c h/c s c no. of blades


HPT Hub Stator 1.22 1.94 0.02 0.03 192
Stage 1 Rotor 0.48 2.35 0.03 0.02 307
Mean Stator 1.20 1.90 0.05 0.04 100
Rotor 0.51 2.50 0.03 0.06 160
Tip Stator 1.18 1.86 0.02 0.03 192
Rotor 0.55 2.66 0.03 0.02 307
Table 24: Dimensions of HPT blades at varying radii

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:

Coursework Task 3 | Velocity Triangles 23


Aircraft Engine Technology

Figure 8: HPT 1st Stage Blade shape at varying radius

Coursework Task 3 | Velocity Triangles 24


Aircraft Engine Technology

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.

Properties and Dimensions Symbols Inlet Outlet Units

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

Blades Thickness tb 0.005 0.009 m


Chord Cb 0.030 0.058 m
3
Volume of a blade Vb 3.66E-06 4.94E-05 m
Mean radius rm 0.762 m
Table 25: Turbine properties and dimensions

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

Coursework Task 3 | HP Turbine Stresses 25


Aircraft Engine Technology

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.

8.1.2 HPT Disc


The radial force transmitted by each blade was calculated using the following equation:

1Ž =  ΩQ \ = ‘ ‹ ΩQ \

1Ž L’} N = 5.79/0

1Ž L“S } N = 78.14/0

The radial and hoop stresses due to centrifugal loads along the radius of the disc were then
calculated using the following equation [7]:

L3 + RN Q Q „Q „‡Q 0 1Ž „– „ Q


” = ‘Ω •„ + „– − Q − \ — +
Q Q
š1 − 8 @ ›
8 \ 2˜ℎL„–Q − „Q N \

L3 + RN Q Q „Q „‡Q L1 + 3RN Q 0 1Ž „– „ Q


”Œ = ‘Ω •„ + „–Q + Q − \ —+ š1 + 8 @ ›
8 \ L3 + RN 2˜ℎL„–Q − „Q N \

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

along the radius of the disc.

σr and σθ along disc radius (HPT inlet)


1000
900 Radial stress
800 Hoop stress
700
Stress (MPa)

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)

Figure 9: HPT inlet disc stress at varying radius

Coursework Task 3 | HP Turbine Stresses 26


Aircraft Engine Technology

σr and σθ along disc radius (HPT outlet)


900
Radial
800 stress
700
600
Stress (MPa)

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)

Figure 10: HPT outlet disc stress at varying radius

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

The Tresca yield criterion was assumed:

”B = ”Œ ; ”Q = ” ; ” = ”ž = 0

”Ÿ = €O YL”B − ” N; L”B − ”Q N; L” − ”Q N]

”Ÿ = ”B − ” = ”Œ

Coursework Task 3 | HP Turbine Stresses 27


Aircraft Engine Technology

”
”Œ = 978.6€¡O ∴ ¢1X = = 1.1
8.1.2.1 Inlet of HPT

”Ÿ )

”
”Œ = 879.8€¡O ∴ ¢1X = = 1.2
8.1.2.2 Outlet of HPT

”Ÿ )

Next, the disc thickness profile was designed as such it has a uniform equivalent stress along the
radius.

”Œ = ” = £
 O = ”–

IN718, the constant ”– was computed which was 800 MPa.


For this purpose, the optimum safety factor was taken to be 1.25[8] and using the yield stress of

The thickness profile was obtained using the following equation:

ℎ ¤Ω ¦

=  Q§¨ ©
L¦ ª ¦ N
ℎ

Where ℎ is the thickness at the inner radius.

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)

Figure 12: Blade profiles at HPT inlet and outlet

It can be seen that the maximum thickness is at the bore and it reaches the minimum at the edge of
disc.

Coursework Task 3 | HP Turbine Stresses 28


Aircraft Engine Technology

8.1.3 HPT Blades


The stresses due to the centrifugal effects at the root and mid-section of the blade were calculated
using the following equations:

‘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
”Ÿ ) 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
”Ÿ ) 230.4

8.1.4 Temperature effects


As temperature increases, stress increases and this leads to a decrease in the safety factor. For the
on-design cruise conditions, the assumptions made are acceptable. However, during take-off, the
temperature gradient effect will be greater and need to be considered appropriately when
computing the safety factor.

Coursework Task 3 | HP Turbine Stresses 29


Aircraft Engine Technology

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.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Sketch 30


Aircraft Engine Technology

Table 26: Key dimensions of the Engine.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Sketch 31


Aircraft Engine Technology

Figure 13: Schematic of the engine.

Coursework Task 3 | Engine Sketch 32


Aircraft Engine Technology

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.

Coursework Task 3 | Future Developments 33


Aircraft Engine Technology

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.

(2) BP Products Handbook [Online] Available from: http://www.bp.com/

(3) International Airport Transport Association (IATA)[Online] Available from: http://www.iata.org/

(4) Nicholas Cumpsty. A simple guide to the aerodynamic and thermodynamic design and
performance of jet engines. Jet Propulsion. 2.; 2009.

(5) Motrsich [Online] Available from: http://www.ukrainetrade.com/company/motrsich/d18t.htm

(6) Special Metals – Inconel Alloy 718

(7) AET Course: Stress Analysis of Blades and Discs

(8) http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/DANotes/SSS/safety/safety.html

(9) AET Course: Stress Analysis, Material Design Issues and Failure Analysis

Coursework Task 3 | Acknowledgements 34


Aircraft Engine Technology

14 APPENDIX


= 600000 /^
14.1 Weight at start of cruise

&', ) = 300000/^

 = 9.81 × "


− #0.04 × &', ) *+

 = 9.81 × Y600000 − L0.04 × 300000N]

∴  = 5768.28 /0

14.2 Initial Iteration

14.3 Initial GasTurb Printouts

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 35


Aircraft Engine Technology

14.4 Design and Off-Design Engine Conditions


* Input * Cruise Take-off Top-of-climb
Altitude m 10670.00 0.00 10670.00
Mach Number 0.75 0.00 0.75
Inner Fan Pressure Ratio 1.99 2.06 2.06
Outer Fan Pressure Ratio 1.65 1.69 1.70
HP Compressor Pressure Ratio 20.00 20.87 21.04
Design Bypass Ratio 8.32 7.92 8.03
Burner Exit Temperature K 1514.78 1840.13 1599.19
Inlet Corr. Flow W2Rstd kg/s 1434.96 1434.96 1434.96
NGV Cooling Air W_Cl_NGV/W25 0.10 0.10 0.10
HPT Cooling Air W_Cl/W25 0.08 0.08 0.08

* 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

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 36


Aircraft Engine Technology

14.5 Final GasTurb Printouts


Design Point

Off-Design (Take-Off)

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 37


Aircraft Engine Technology

Off-Design (Top-Of-Climb)

14.6 Calculation: Cruise time and range


For Maximum payload
Original aircraft,

Cruising sfcbare = 15.68 g/(kN*s) = 0.54 kg/N.hr

Cruising sfcinstalled = (1.04+0.01(bpr-1) sfcbare = (1.04+0.01(5.7-1) 15.68

= 17.04 g/(kN*s)

Mass of fuel = 600,000 – 285,000 – 250,000

= 65,000kg (with max load)

mgxmlx ¯c kldige = 600,000 − 0.04 × 300,000 = 588,000 kg

Assuming 15% fuel reserve,

mejh ¯c kldige = me°±x² + m±m²f¯mh + 0.15mcdef

= 285,000 + 250,000 + 0.15 × 65,000

= 544,750kg

1
mkldige mnelmoe = t u Ymgxmlx ¯c kldige + mejh ¯c kldige ]
2

= 0.5 × L588,000 + 544,750N

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 38


Aircraft Engine Technology

= 566,375 kg

mcdef dgeh ij kldige = mcdef − mxm³e ¯cc cdef − mcdef legelne

= 65,000 − 0.04 × 300,000 − 0.15 × 65,000

= 43,250kg
µ
´
-Flight range, s = − × ln ˆ ‰
¶ ·¸¹º
o gck ·»¼½¾¼

= ¿.ÀB×BÁ.‡Â×B‡ÃÄ × ln LÅÀÀ,‡‡‡N
ªQQQ.QQ×B¿ ÅÂÂ,ÁŇ

= 1,929.71 km

mcdef dgeh ij kldige L


Time of Cruise = b qr s
mkldige mnelmoe gsfc D

= ÆÅÇÇ,ÁÅ׿.ÀB×BÁ.‡Â×B‡ÃÄ È É19Ê
,QŇ

= 2 hours 24minutes

For new aircraft,

Cruising sfcbare = 13.66 g/(kN*s)

Cruising sfcinstalled = (1.04+0.01(bpr-1) sfcbare = (1.04+0.01(8.2271-1) 13.66

= 15.19 g/(kN*s)

VL
wejh
Flight range, s = − D × ln 8 @
g sfc wgxmlx

= − ¿.ÀB×BÅ.B¿×B‡ÃÄ × ln ˆÅÀÀ,‡‡‡‰
QQQ.QQ×B¿ ÅÂÂ,ÁŇ

= 2,165km

mcdef dgeh ij kldige L


Time of Cruise = b qr s
mkldige mnelmoe gsfc D

= ÆÅÇÇ,ÁÅ׿.ÀB×BÅ.B¿×B‡ÃÄ È É19Ê
,QŇ

= 2 hours 42 minutes

For maximum range


Original aircraft,

Cruising sfcbare = 15.68 g/(kN*s) = 0.54 kg/N.hr

Cruising sfcinstalled = (1.04+0.01(bpr-1) sfcbare = (1.04+0.01(5.7-1) 15.68

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 39


Aircraft Engine Technology

= 17.04 g/(kN*s)

Mass of fuel = 300,000 kg (max)

mgxmlx ¯c kldige = 588,000kg

Assuming 15% fuel reserve,

mejh ¯c kldige = me°±x² + m±m²f¯mh + 0.15mcdef = 345,000kg

mkldige mnelmoe = Æ È Ymgxmlx ¯c kldige + mejh ¯c kldige ] = 466,500 kg


B
Q

mcdef dgeh ij kldige = 0.81mcdef = 243000 kg

VL
wejh
Flight range, s = − D × ln 8 @
g sfc wgxmlx

= ¿.ÀB×BÁ.‡Â×B‡ÃÄ × ln LÅÀÀ,‡‡‡N
ªQQQ.QQ×B¿ ÂÅ,‡‡‡

= 13,467.1km

mcdef dgeh ij kldige L


Time of Cruise = b qr s
mkldige mnelmoe gsfc D

= ƝÂÅ,‡‡‡×¿.ÀB×BÁ.‡Â×B‡ÃÄ È É19Ê
Q,‡‡‡

= 22 hours 14 minutes

For new aircraft,

Cruising sfcbare = 13.66 g/(kN*s)

Cruising sfcinstalled = (1.04+0.01(bpr-1) sfcbare = (1.04+0.01(8.2271-1) 13.66

= 15.19 g/(kN*s)

VL
wejh
Flight range, s = − D × ln 8 @
g sfc wgxmlx

= − ¿.ÀB×BÅ.B¿×B‡ÃÄ × ln ˆÅÀÀ,‡‡‡‰
QQQ.QQ×B¿ ÂÅ,‡‡‡

= 15,107km

mcdef dgeh ij kldige L


Time of Cruise = b qr s
mkldige mnelmoe gsfc D

= ƝÂÅ,‡‡‡×¿.ÀB×BÅ.B¿×B‡ÃÄ È É19Ê
Q,‡‡‡

= 24 hours 57 minutes

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 40


Aircraft Engine Technology

14.7 Fuel Cost Calculations


Calculation: Volume of fuel per km
An-225 Mriya, maximum payload:

33.7 kg/km
Vc = × 1000 } = 41.92 }
804 kg/km

An-225 Mriya, maximum range:

22.28 kg/km
Vc = × 1000 } = 27.71 }
804 kg/km

An-925 Vira, maximum payload:

30.02 kg/km
Vc = × 1000 } = 37.34 }
804 kg/km

An-925 Vira, maximum range:

19.86 kg/km
Vc = × 1000 } = 24.7 }
804 kg/km

Calculation: Cost of fuel per km


An-225 Mriya, maximum payload:

Cost of fuel = 41.92 } × £0.32 = £13.41

An-225 Mriya, maximum range:

Cost of fuel = 27.71 } × £0.32 = £8.87

An-925 Vira, maximum payload:

Cost of fuel = 37.34 } × £0.32 = £11.95

An-925 Vira, maximum range:

Cost of fuel = 24.7 } × £0.32 = £7.90

From the computed costs of fuel, the reduction in cost of fuel is given by:

Cost of fuel¯lioijmf − Cost of fuelje·


Reduction in fuel cost = %
Cost of fuel¯lioijmf

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 41


Aircraft Engine Technology

14.8 Fan Calculations


The normalised mass flow for fan was given by:

ƒ ƒ − 1 Q ªLÎÏBN/QLΪBN

= € 81 + € @
‚ƒ − 1 2

1.4 1.4 − 1 ªLB.ÂÏBN/QLB.ªBN



= 0.5865 81 + 0.5865 @
Q
√1.4 − 1 2


 = 1.063

The actual annulus area of fan was given by

~ ‚£ …‡Q
ÑQ =

 × ¡‡Q

476.2 √1004.5 × 243.64


ÑQ =
1.063 × 34600

ÑQ = 6.40 Q

The tip radius was given by:

ÑQ
\ = Ò \' Q
L1 − L \ N N × ˜


6.40
\ = †
L1 − 0.35Q N × ˜

\ = 1.523 

While the hub radius:


\'
\' = \ ×
\

\' = 1.523 × 0.35

\' = 0.533 

And the mean radius:

L\ + \' N
\ W =
2
L1.523 + 0.533N
\ W =
2

\ W = 1.028 

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 42


Aircraft Engine Technology

The blade height:

ℎX = \ − \'

ℎX = 1.523 − 0.533

ℎX = 0.990 

The chord length:

ℎX
£ℎ
\­, V =
ℎ/V

0.990
£ℎ
\­, V =
2.5

£ℎ
\­, V = 0.396  ≈ Ô­ ℎ
U Z}O­,

The static temperature was calculated using the following equation:

…W–W
…Õ =
ƒ−1
ˆ1 + 2 € Q ‰

243.64
…Q =
1.4 − 1
ˆ1 + 2 0.587Q ‰

…Q = 227.96 Ö

While the static pressure is:

¡W–W
¡Õ = Î
ƒ−1 ×LΪBN
ˆ1 + 2 € Q ‰

34624
¡Q =
1.4 − 1
B.Â×
LB.ªBN
ˆ1 + 2 0.587 ‰
Q

¡Q = 27431.2 ¡O

The axial velocity was given by:

‹) = €&W W × ‚ƒ„…Q

‹) = 0.587 × √1.4 × 287 × 227.96

‹) = 177.5   ªB

While the relative velocity:

‹ = €&W  × ‚ƒ„…Q

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 43


Aircraft Engine Technology

‹ = 1.6 × √1.4 × 287 × 227.96

‹ = 484.23   ªB

Next, the tip speed was given by:

Ø = Š‹
Q
− ‹)Q

Ø = ‚484.23Q − 177.5Q

Ø = 450.52   ªB

The rotational speed was found from the following equation:

Ø × 60
Ù= \[
2˜ × \

450.52 × 60
Ù= \[
2˜ × 1.523

Ù = 2823.9 \[

The blade mean speed was the computed:

Ù × \ W × ˜
Ø W =
30
2823.9 × 1.028 × ˜
Ø W =
30

Ø W = 304.10   ªB

14.9 Booster Calculations


Inlet of Booster
The actual cross-sectional area into the core can be computed.

Ñ∗
ÑQ,Õ' =
0.85
0.638
ÑQ =
0.85

ÑQ = 0.751 Q

The tip radius of booster was given by:

ÑÕ' 0.751
\ = † =†
L1 − 0.80 N × ˜
Q L1 − 0.80Q N × ˜

\Q, = 0.815 

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 44


Aircraft Engine Technology

While the hub radius:

\' = \ × 0.80

\Q,' = 0.815 × 0.80

\Q,' = 0.652 

And the mean radius:

L\ + \' N
\ W =
2
L0.815 + 0.652N
\ W =
2

\ W = 0.733 

The blade height:

ÑÕ'
ℎX =
2˜ × \ W

0.751
ℎX =
2˜ × 0.733

ℎX = 0.163 

The chord length:

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

∆ℎ = 0.4 × L253.48Q N

∆ℎ = 25.70 /Ü /^ªB

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

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 45


Aircraft Engine Technology

0

U  O^ = 2.32 ≈ 3  O^

The pressure ratio per stage was computed using the following equation:

¡„Ý = L¡„ N2– –& 

fjLލ¨ßàáâãã N
¡„ =  2– –& 

fj B.¿¿
¡„ =  

¡„ = 1.26

Outlet of Booster
The static temperature and pressure were given by:

302.98
…Q =
1.4 − 1
ˆ1 + 2 0.522Q ‰

…Q = 287.30 Ö

¡W–W
¡Õ = Î
ƒ−1 ×LΪBN
ˆ1 + 2 € Q ‰

68899
¡Q =
1.4 − 1
B.Â×
LB.ªBN
ˆ1 + 0.522Q ‰
2

¡Q = 57203.78 ¡O

Therefore, the outlet to inlet static density ratio is:

PQ
ρQ RTQ
= æP
ρQ Q
RTQ

ρQ 0.694
=
ρQ 0.419
ρQ
= 1.65
ρQ

Therefore the annulus area of the booster outlet:

ÑQ
ÑQ =
1.65

ÑQ = 0.454 Q

Thus, blade height at the outlet is:

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 46


Aircraft Engine Technology

0.454
ℎX =
2˜ × 0.733

ℎX = 0.099 

While the tip and hub radii are:


\, = \ W +
2

\, = 0.783 


\,' = \ W −
2

\, = 0.684 

Finally, the chord length:

ℎX
£ℎ
\­, V =
ℎ/V

0.099
£ℎ
\­, V =
1.75

£ℎ
\­, V = 0.056  ≈ Ô­ ℎ
U Z}O­,

14.10 HPC Calculations


Inlet of HPC

Mach number 0.518 and ƒ = 1.381:


The annulus area of HPC inlet was calculated from the normalised mass flow per unit area for flow at

1.381 1.381 − 1 ªLB.ÀBÏBN/QLB.ÀBªBN



 Q = 0.518 81 + 0.518Q @
√1.381 − 1 2


 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;

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 47


Aircraft Engine Technology

\' = 0.8\ = 0.8 × 0.644

\' = 0.516

and

L0.645 + 0.516N
\O =
2

\ W = 0.580

Hence the blade height at the first stage of the HPC:

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 = 0.69517 /^/

The axial was calculated using the equation described earlier:

‹) = 0.518 × √1.381 × 287 × 288.25

‹) = 175.08   ªB

And

‹ = 1.1 × √1.381 × 287 × 288.253

‹ = 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/

The calculated flow coefficient is then:

‹)
= 0.534
Ø

The rotational speed based on HPC conditions is therefore:

327.9796
Ù= = 508.59 \O­/
0.645

Ù = 4856.66 \[

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 48


Aircraft Engine Technology

Superimposing the rotational speed on the mean plane gives the mean blade speed:

Ø W = Ù\ W = 508.59 × 0.580

Ø W = 295.18 /

The cord length is expressed by:

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 = =
‚ƒ„… …‡
†ƒ„ ƒ−1
ˆ1 + 2 €O Q ‰

2V Q
€O = †
2ƒ„…‡ − Lƒ − 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
ˆ1 + 0.321Q‰
2

¡ = 1284,020 ¡O

Therefore, the outlet to inlet static density ratio is:

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 49


Aircraft Engine Technology


ρ RT
= æP
ρQ Q
RTQ

ρ 5.975
=
ρQ 0.694
ρ
= 8.595
ρQ

The annulus area at HPC exit is then:

‘Q 0.470
ѝ = ÑQ =
‘ 8.595

ѝ = 0.055 Q

The outlet blade height is given by:

0.055
ℎ =
2˜ × 0.580

ℎ = 0.0150

Accordingly:

0.0150
\, = 0.580 +
2

\, = 0.5879

0.0150
\,' = 0.580 −
2

\,' = 0.5729

Chord length is therefore:

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

∴ ∆ℎ‡, = 0.5 × 295.18Q = 43,566 Ü//^

479,224.7

.
U  O^ =
43,566

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 50


Aircraft Engine Technology


.
U  O^ = 10.9999 ≈ 11  O^

With a design HPC pressure ratio of 20, each stage will have:

fj Q‡
¡„ =  BB

¡„ = 1.3

14.11 Sample of Turbine Dimension Calculations


The 1st stage of HPT is used

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

Hence the mean radius was computed by:


\ =
Ù
196.55
\ =
508.58

\ = 0.703 

Initially flow angles, α2 and α4 were calculated using Euler turbomachinery equation and degree of
reaction equation:

∆ℎ‡ = Ø ‹) Ltan ∝Q − tan ∝ N

í = 0°

ïℎ/ Ø2
í = tanªB
‹) /Ø

íQ = 74.62°

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 51


Aircraft Engine Technology

Property Units Stage 41 Stage 45


Mach no 0.3456 0.4121
P kPa 1275.2 244.4
T K 1414.5 994.7
3
ρ Kg/m 3.14 0.856
The areas of the inlet and outlet of HPT were then obtained using the following equation:


~ = ‘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:

Ñ = 2˜\ ℎX cos í

ÑÂB
ℎX,ÂB =
2˜\ cos íQ

= 0.040

The tip and hub radii were obtained using:

0.040
\ÂB, = 0.762 +
2

\ÂB, = 0.782 

And:

0.040
\ÂB,' = 0.762 −
2

\ÂB,' = 0.742

The chord length:

ℎX
£ℎ
\­, VL O
\N =
1.9

£ℎ
\­, ÂB,– = 0.02088 

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 52


Aircraft Engine Technology

14.12 Sample of Compressors’ velocity triangles and number of blades

For stage 1 HPC:

Flow into the rotor:

‹) = ‹B = 185.32 /

‹ŒB = ‹Œ  − Ø = 0 /

The expression is similar for flow out of rotor.

Euler turbomahinery equation:

Δℎ‡ = ؋) Ltan íQ − OíB N

ïℎ‡
íQ = OªB 8 @ = 32.0°
؋)

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

Lieblien Diffusion Factor approximation:

DF is the diffusion factor, taken a 0.45 I all cases here for HPC.

Rotor:

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 53


Aircraft Engine Technology

 ‹Q  ‹B 
= 2 b41 − š1 −  ›q b  q = 2.01
V ‹B ‹ŒQ − ‹ŒB 

Stator:

 ‹Q ‹B
= 2 t41 − 81 − @u t u = 1.30
V ‹B ‹ŒQ − ‹ŒB

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

Where mean pitch is assumed the same throughout the radius.

14.13 Sample of Turbines’ verlocity triangles and number of blades


Sample calculations for HPT stage 1:

From Euler Turbomachinery equation:

Δℎ‡ = ؋) L OíQ − Oí N

Since íB = í = 0, hence

Δℎ‡
íQ = tanªB
؋)
= 69.08 U
\ ò¡…  O^ 1
–

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 54


Aircraft Engine Technology

Vx = 251.95ms-1

Um = 387.62 ms-1

The velocity triangles were obtained using the following method:

Stage 1:

óôõ = óõ ö÷ø ∝õ = óô = ùúõ. ûúms ªB

óüõ = óõ øýþ ∝õ = ૙

Stage 2:

Assuming axial velocity remains constant throughout the component,

óô = óù ö÷ø ∝ù

óô
óù = = ૠ૙ú. ૝ૡms ªB
ö÷ø ∝ù

óüù = óù øýþ ∝ù = ૟úૡ. ûúmsªB

óüù ࢘ࢋ࢒ = óüù − ࢁ࢓ = ùૠõ. ૜૜ms ªB

óüù ࢘ࢋ࢒
∝ù ࢘ࢋ࢒ = ‫܉ܜ‬þªõ = ૝ૠ. õù࢕
óô

óô
óù ࢘ࢋ࢒ = = ùúõ. ûúms ªB
ö÷ø ∝ù ࢘ࢋ࢒

Stage 3:

‫܄‬૜ = óô = ùúõ. ûúmsªB

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 55


Aircraft Engine Technology

óü૜ = ó૜ øýþ ∝૜ = ૙

óü૜ ࢘ࢋ࢒ = óü૜ − ࢁ࢓ = −૜ૡૠ. ૟ùmsªB

óü૜ ࢘ࢋ࢒
∝૜ ࢘ࢋ࢒ = tanªB = −ú૟. ûૡ࢕
óô

Calculation of the reaction, ⋀

‫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

Calculation of pitch-chord ratio (s/c)

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

Pitch, s was calculated using:


 V
࢙= × ×ℎ
V ℎ

Hence, the number of blades was obtained using:

ù࣊࢘࢓
ࡺ࢕. ࢕ࢌ ࢈࢒ࢇࢊࢋ࢙ =

For the hub and tip velocity components,

࢘࢓ óü,࢓ࢋࢇ࢔ = ࢘ࢎ࢛࢈ óüࢎ࢛࢈ = ࢘࢓ óü,ࢎ࢛࢈

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 

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 56


Aircraft Engine Technology

14.14 HP turbine disc stresses


14.14.1 Stress Calculations
The radial force transmitted by each blade is given by:

1Ž =  ΩQ \ = ‘ ‹ ΩQ \

1Ž = 8220 × 3.65 × 10ªÇ × 502.7Q × 0.762 = 5.79/0

The radial stress is given by:

L3 + RN Q Q „Q „‡Q 0 1Ž „– „ Q


” = ‘Ω •„ + „–Q − Q − \ Q — + š1 − 8 @ ›
8 \ 2˜ℎL„–Q − „Q N \

L3 + 0.272N 0.2Q 0.742Q 307 × 5790.3 × 0.742 0.2 Q


” L„– N = 8220 × 502.7Q •0.2Q + 0.742Q − − 0.742Q — + š1 − 8 @ ›
8 0.742 Q 2˜ × 0.03L0.742 − 0.2 N
Q Q 0.742

” L„– N = 13.1 €¡O

The hoop stress is calculated using the following equation:

L3 + RN Q Q „Q „‡Q L1 + 3RN Q 0 1Ž „– „ Q


”Œ = ‘Ω •„ + „–Q + Q − \ —+ Q š1 + 8 @ ›
8 \ L3 + RN 2˜ℎL„– − „ N
Q \

L3 + 0.272N 0.2Q0.742Q L1 + 3 × 0.272N Q 307 × 5790.3 × 0.742 0.2 Q


”Œ L„ N = 8220 × 502.7Q •0.2Q + 0.742Q + − 0.2 — + š1 + 8 @ ›
8 0.2Q L3 + 0.272N 2˜ × 0.03L0.742Q − 0.2QN 0.2

”Œ L„ N = 978.6 €¡O

Safety factor at inlet calculation:

” 1000
¢1X = = = 1.1
”Ÿ ) 978.6

Safety factor at outlet calculation:

” 1000
¢1X = = = 1.2
”Ÿ ) 879.8

Stress at optimum safety factor:

”Ÿ ) 1000
”– = = = 800€¡O
¢1 1.25

Disc thickness was given by:

¤Ω¦
ℎ = ℎ ×  Q§¨
L©¦ ª ¦ N

ℎL„– N = 0.03 ×  ¦×ఴబబ L‡.Q


¦ ª‡.ÁÂQ¦ N
2
8220×502.7

=0.0154 m

Stress in blade at the root was given by:

‘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

Stress in blade at mid-section, \ = „– + = „ X


®X W
Q

8220 × 502.7Q 0.04 Q


” L„ X N = 8L0.742 + 0.04NQ − L0.742 + N @ = 31.8 €¡O
2 2

Safety factor:

” 1000
¢1X = = = 15.9
”Ÿ ) 62.8

Coursework Task 3 | Appendix 58