DisPURSAL Project: Distributed Propulsion and Ultra-high By-Pass … · 2014. 7. 2. · CENTRAL...

DisPURSAL Project:

Distributed Propulsion and Distributed Propulsion and Ultra-high By-Pass Rotor Study Ultra high By Pass Rotor Study at Aircraft Level

Artur MirzoyanArtur Mirzoyan,Central Institute of Aviation Motors (CIAM)

Fuel Burn & CO2/Non-CO2 mitigation technology Workshop, 1 – 2 July 2014, Paris

CONTENTSCONTENTS

About CIAM About CIAM

DisPURSAL project description

Concepts Pre-Selection and Down-selection Concepts Pre-Selection and Down-selection

SoA and 2035 Reference Aircraft

DisPURSAL Aircraft Top Level Requirements DisPURSAL Aircraft Top Level Requirements

New CO2 Emission Standard Metric

First Cycle Project Results

Future Work and Conclusion


CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF AVIATION MOTORS (CIAM)CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF AVIATION MOTORS (CIAM)

Named after P. BARANOVNamed after P. BARANOV ((founded founded 1930)1930)

1 academician of RAS42 D t d S i

STATE SCIENTIFIC CENTER OF RUSSIAN FEDERATIONSTATE SCIENTIFIC CENTER OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION

42 Doctors od Science 205 PhD Employment – 2550 (with CIAM STC) 4 engine benches4 engine benches More than 50 test rig for mock-up test

CIAM is only Russian research organization implementing comprehensive scientific studies

FUNDUMENTAL RESEARCHESFUNDUMENTAL RESEARCHES (gas dynamics, strength, heat exchange, combustion, acoustics)

implementing comprehensive scientific studies and engineering in the area of aviation engines

APPLIED RESEARCHESAPPLIED RESEARCHES (preliminary design of airbreathing engines of different architectures, design of engine components and systems, provision of reliability and trouble-free)TESTINGTESTING (testing of engines, their components and systems in real operatingTESTINGTESTING (testing of engines, their components and systems in real operating conditions, design of benches, test equipment and measuring means)ENGIBE DESIGN METHODOLOGY ENGIBE DESIGN METHODOLOGY (scientific and technical documentation providing development and certification engines and ground gas turbine power units, strength and airworthiness standards standards harmonization )


airworthiness standards, standards harmonization, …)

NUMERICAL FLOW SIMULATION IN ENGINE COMPONENTSNUMERICAL FLOW SIMULATION IN ENGINE COMPONENTS

Noise CombustorUnsteady flow

Fan stage

Outflow of chevron nozzle


TEST BENCHESTEST BENCHES

f h l l b l f b h d f d d d d Extension of technological capability of test benches to provide testing of modern and advanced engines under most complete operation conditions

Improvement of benches and rigs to test engine and their components under extreme conditions

l f h d d i i h id li i f h l i f d i f i Development of methods and test equipment with wide application of technologies for product information support

Icing Noise suppression


Bird strike resistance Flame resistance Contactless measurements

CIAM and EC projectsCIAM and EC projects

HISAC HISAC

Impact on the climate HISAC VITAL DREAM

Impact on the climate

dt = f (EINOxcr, Wf cr , Нcr) → DLR climate functions *

total change of near surface temperature dt

ESPOSA LEMCOTEC….

Results of emission reduction by optimization of SSBJ DV

Impact engine DV on dt

* V. Grewe and etc. Climate functions for the use in multi‐disciplinary optimisation in the pre‐design of supersonic business jets. May 2010, 114 (1153) edition of Aeronaut J


114, (1153), edition of Aeronaut J.

DisPURSALDisPURSAL 00--level FP7 projectlevel FP7 project

Distributed Propulsion and Ultra-high By-Pass Rotor Study at Aircraft Level

Propulsive-Fuselage Concept (PFC) Distributed Multiple-Fans Concept(DMFC)

Fuselage + single propulsor(DMFC)

Driving by a number of engine cores/turbofancores/turbofan


All rights with DisPURSAL Consortium

Partners

Industrial Advisors


Technical Work Logic

Distributed Propulsion and Propulsive Fuselage Concepts for Aircraft Motive Power

Application Scenario & System Requirements (M01-04)

Survey and Down-Select of Concept Candidates (M01-06)

Output:Target scenario for concept investigation defined, analysis

Output:Most promising propulsion / airframe integration concept established and focus for numerical experimentation defined

Concept Analysis through Numerical Experimentation (M08-16)

Elaboration of Electric Power TrainArchitectures (M08-16)

requirements determined and methodology set defined

Output:Comprehensive understanding for the

Output:Architectural layout and conceptual

M l i di i li D i O i i i (M07 20)

Aircraft-Level Benchmarking ofOptimised Concepts (M19-23)

Output:

Comprehensive understanding for the aero-structure-mechanistic design of most promising configuration

Architectural layout and conceptualdesign of most promising drive trainarchitectures

Multi-disciplinary Design Optimisation (M07-20)Output:Investigated concepts finally assessed at aircraft level w.r.t. Flightpath 2050 goals, concept-specific improvement potentials over reference technology quantified

Output:Optimised solution for integrated conceptual design of propulsive device, airframe andpower train w.r.t. aircraft-level figures of merit

Final Results Presentation & Recommended Technology Roadmap (M21-24)Output:Design optimisation and benchmarking results, recommended future research anddevelopment technology roadmap up to year 2035


development, technology roadmap up to year 2035


Results of Concept Pre-Selection

Pre Selection based on general feasibility and integration synergies Pre-Selection based on general feasibility and integration synergies Reduction of candidates down to a manageable number for individual evaluation Evaluation of each initial concept cloud with respect to main conceptual morphologies

Airframe Architecture

Propulsor Options

Drive Train Concept

Internal Gas Turbine

Arrangement Control Surface

Implementation Redundancy Concept

Core and Fan Arrangement



Outline of Down-Selection Process (1)

Rating Factors Rating of pre-selected concepts

-3Strongly Disagre

e

Criteria are grouped into 6 main categories System Integration (Weighting: 20%) e-1

Disagree

0

System Integration (Weighting: 20%) Aerodynamics (Weighting: 20%) Weights (Weighting: 20%) Noise (Weighting: 10%) 0

Neutral Position

+1

Noise (Weighting: 10%) Operability and Certifiability (Weighting: 10%) Costs (Weighting: 20%)

Agree

+3Strongly

Sub categories Four to seven specific criteria in each of the main categories 29 sub-criteria total Strongly

Agree29 sub criteria total

Concept rating is done by consensus decision

Fuel Burn & CO2/Non-CO2 mitigation technology Workshop, 1 – 2 July 2014, ParisSeite11


Outline of Down-Selection Process (2)

Maturity Criterion & effort required in achieving target TRL 6 in 2030 Likelihood of success (Drawbacks and Risks) How probable is it that performance improvements will be achieved?

How probable is it that showstoppers and drawbacks occur?

How precise is of data / How good is the information quality? How precise is of data / How good is the information quality?

Effort required How big is the effort to bring the technology to Target TRL 6 in Target Year 2030? (1-5)

high 5 5 10 15 20 25

4 4 8 12 16 20

Likelihood of success

low

4 4 8 12 16 203 3 6 9 12 152 2 4 6 8 101 1 2 3 4 5low

high Effort low

1 2 3 4 5

Fuel Burn & CO2/Non-CO2 mitigation technology Workshop, 1 – 2 July 2014, ParisSeite12


Best selected concepts

Fuselage Fan + Underwing-Podded UHBPR Turbofans

ConceptConcept

Hybrid Wing Body + Fans and Cores upper Body

Concept with mechanical-driven



SoA Reference (SoAR) and 2035 Reference (2035R)

Mid-to-long range stage lengths have the greatest impact on overall air transport system level cumulative fuel consumptionsystem level cumulative fuel consumption

95% of the flights within this broad market segment can be performed with cabin capacity of 320 to 340 seats

Accordingly, a design range of 4800 nm (8890 km) with payload of 340 passengers (PAX) i 2 l t l t d



(PAX) in a 2-class arrangement was selected

Aircraft Top Level Requirements

2035R and 2035DP (DisPURSAL design)

Range and PAX 4800 nm, 340 PAX in 2-class

TOFL (MTOW, S-L, ISA) 2300 m( )

2nd Climb Segment 340Pax, 102 kg per PAX, DEN, ISA+20 C

Time-to-Climb (1,500ft to ICA, ISA+10 C) ≤25 mins

Initial Cruise Altitude (ISA+10 C) To be optimised

Design Cruise Mach Number ≥ 0.75

Maximum Cruise Altitude FL410

Approach Speed (MLW, S-L, ISA) 140 KCAS

Landing Field Length (MLW, ISA) 2000 m

One Engine Inoperative Altitude (Drift Down) FL170

Airport Compatibility Limits ICAO Code E (52 m < x < 65 m)

ACN (flexible,B) 67

COC At least 20% reduction per PAX.nm; based on A330-300

External Noise & Emission Target (Reference 2000) CO2 -60%; NOx -84%; Noise -55% (interpolated SRIA 2035)

O S / O SETOPS /LROPS capability 240 mins

Technology Freeze - EIS 2030 - 2035

Design Service Goal 50000 cycles



New CO2 emission Standard (Annex 16, Vol.III) [1]

MV = 1/(SAR*RGF0.24) [1] Reference Geometry Factor definitionMVCO2 = 1/(SAR RGF0 ) [1]

3 test points with equal weighting at optimum cruise conditions:

Reference Geometry Factor definition

i) High Gross Weight (GW) = 0.92 * MTOWii) Mid GW = Average of High GW and Low GWiii) Low GW = (0.45 × MTOM) + (0.63 ×(MTOM0.924)) where MTOM – certified Maximum Takeoff Mass for aeroplane type

[1] CAEP/9 Agreed Certification Requirement for the Aeroplane CO2 Emissions Standard – Circular 337 2013



Emissions Standard Circular 337, 2013

First cycle results(1)2

1,6

1,8SoAR(2000)

2035R

PFC

DMFC

1,2

1,4

0,8

1

0,4

0,6

0

0,2

O O f S C fMTOW OWE Wing Ref.Area

Wing loading TSFC Thrustloading

PAX Lift-to-DragRatio

Block FuelBurn

CO2 emission reduction PFC – 38.5% ; DMFC - 35% (relative to SoAR)



( ) PFC – 8.9% ; DMFC – 4% (relative 2035R)

First cycle results(2)

RGF

SoA (2000) 2035R PFC DMFC

(1/SAR)mean 1 0 65 0 53 0 6(1/SAR)mean 1 0,65 0,53 0,6

RGF 1 1 1 0,79MV 1 0 65 0 53 0 63MV CO2 1 0,65 0,53 0,63

MV CO2 reduction PFC – 47% ; DMFC - 37% (relative to SoAR)



( ) PFC – 18.5% ; DMFC – 3.1% (relative 2035R)

Future work

Numerical experimentation results of external

and internal aerodynamics for DMFC

I t ti f i l i t ti lt Integration of numerical experimentation results

Assessment of impact of distorted inlet flow field

on engine performance

MDO of PFC and DMFC design parametersMDO of PFC and DMFC design parameters

Benchmarking of obtained results on PFC and

DMFC



Conclusion

This presentation reflects work-in-progress developments in scope of DisPURSAL

I iti l i di ti h f di t l Initial indications show for medium-to-long-range operations: fuel burn (CO2-emissions) for PFC is by 8 9% for DMFC fuel burn (CO2-emissions) for PFC is by 8.9%, for DMFC

is by 3.9% lower in compared to evolutionary, year 2035 gas-turbine aircraft (2035R)g ( )

new CO2 emission Standard metric value for PFC is by 47% , for DMFC is by 37% lower relative to SoAR(2000), f PFC b 18 5% f DMFC i b 3 1% l l ti for PFC by 18.5%, for DMFC is by 3.1% lower relative 2035R

Improvements of PFC and DMFC relative SoAR and 2035R Improvements of PFC and DMFC relative SoAR and 2035R will be concerned not only CO2 emission, but also to noise



Thank you for your attention !Thank you for your attention !

Earth is not a gift from our parents,it is a loan from our children !


it is a loan from our children !

Date post:	24-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

DisPURSAL Project: Distributed Propulsion and Ultra-high By-Pass … · 2014. 7. 2. · CENTRAL...

Documents