Date post: | 19-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 1 times |
System Definition Review
• XG International
presented by:
Gihun Bae - Joe Blake - Jung Hoon Choi - Jack Geerer - Jean Gong - Daniel Kim - Mike McCarthy - Nick Oschman - Bryce Petersen - Lawrence Raoux - Hwan Song
Outline of ContentsI. Mission StatementII. Market / Customer VerificationIII. CompetitorsIV. Concept of OperationsV. System Design RequirementsVI. Advanced TechnologiesVII. Sizing CodeVIII.Summary / Next Steps
2
Mission Statement
Develop an environmentally-sensitive aircraft which will provide our customers with a 21st-century transportation system that combines speed, comfort, and convenience while meeting NASA’s N+2 criteria.
3
Design Requirements
4
• Noise (dB)– 42 dB decrease in noise
• NOx Emissions– 75% reduction in emissions
• Aircraft Fuel Burn– 40% lower TSFC
• Airport Field Length– 50% shorter distance to
takeoff
**Values for NASA N+2 protocol are found in the Opportunity Statement**
NASA ‘s Subsonic Fixed Wing Project Requirements.
5
Aircraft Concept Selection
1. Six Initial Concepts and a Datum2. Pugh’s Method3. Two Result Concepts
Concept Sketches
6
Pugh’s Method
7
•Started off by choosing criteria using original QFD:– Fuel Efficiency, Airport Flexibility, Noise, Speed, Range, Attractiveness, Green
Image, Personal Space, Passenger Capacity, Smooth Ride (i.e. Overall Vibration)
• Gathered concepts and chose a datum concept, the Gulfstream G250, then formed a matrix comparing everyone’s concepts with the datum concept.
• Ran with +’s, left out –’s and reiterated a couple of times; feasibility a key issue here.
• Took winning ideas, and either added or replaced them on datum concept.
• Produced two, ranked “Winning Concepts”
Pugh’s Method
8
Concept Canard/Solar panels 3 engines Dihedral Blended Wing
BodyWinglets,
T-tail,TurbojetsDassault Falcon
2000 EX
Fuel Efficiency = + + + - =
Speed = = = = + =
Quiet = = = + - =
Range - + + + - =
Airport Flexibility - = = - = =
Attractive + = = - = =
Green Image + + = + = =
Personal Space = = = = = +
Smooth Ride + = = - = =
Standing Freedom = = = = = +
Concept Design 1
Turbofan
Solar film
Winglet
Duct
Turboprop
9
Concept 1 Cont’d
• 3 Engines -1 Turbofan, 2 Turboprop
• Conventional Tail• Swept back + winglets• Battery powered avionics• Integrated all-weather solar films• NOX-reducing Catalytic Reduction “Green Image”• Active Vibration Control System• Closeable duct – reduce unnecessary drag from resting engine during cruise
Pros• Less expensive development costs• Location of engines doesn’t create
moment about c.g.
Cons• Heavier• Shorter range• Longer take-off Distance• Slower 10
Concept Design 2
Duct
T-TailSolar film
Turbofan
UDF
Canard
11
Concept 2 Cont’d
• 2 Vertically oriented engines -1 UDF, 1 Turbofan
• T-tail• Canard
- reduce drag, wing size- create moment about c.g.
• Battery powered avionics• Integrated all-weather solar films• NOX-reducing Catalytic Reduction “Green Image”• Active Vibration Control System• Closeable duct
Pros• Lighter• Faster
Cons• Louder• Harder to control• Higher development costs 12
Closeable Duct
Diverted Airflow diagram Passing Flow diagram
14
Advanced Technology
• Engine-Isolated Internal Power System– Solar Film– Lithium-ion Batteries
• Active Vibration Control System• Selective Catalytic
Reduction• Un-ducted Fan
15
Advanced Technology Cont’d
• Internal Power : Lithium-Ion Batteries– Replace one APU as power generator for avionics, air-
conditioning, pressurization, lighting, electronics– Equivalent APU weight will provide 5kWh of power – Can be charged directly by solar film or ground power
source– Backup APU used to start engines, for nighttime
operation, as failsafe
16
Advanced Technology – Solar Film• Copper Indium Gallium Selenide thin film
– Demonstrated at 19% efficiency– Can be mounted on plastic, glass,
or metal substrate– All-weather application
• Typical performance: >10 W/ft2
• 7.5 hour optimal day-time operation
• Added Weight: 200 lb– Negligible effect on c.g.
http://www.ascentsolar.com/site/epage/87631_870.htm
17
Advanced TechnologyActive Vibration Control
• Generates destructive interference– Significantly dampens vibration and noise
throughout cabin– Lightweight
• 10:1 mechanical advantage
– Tunable response• Reduce overall vibration
or eliminate completely in specific section of the aircraft
18
Advanced TechnologySelective Catalytic Reduction
• Simple chemical process to remove NOX from exhaust gases
• Primary reaction:NO + NO2 + 2NH3 →
2N2 + 3H2O• Pertinent issues:
– Catalyst delivery/storage– Removing excess from mix– Optimal temperature range
19
Advanced TechnologyVortex Generators
• Small vanes or bumps that create turbulence in flow over the wing.
• Reduces pressure drag by delaying flow separation. Also increases the maximum takeoff weight.
• Implementation Prosa) Extremely Light
• Implementation Consa) Difficult to manufacture – increase in
costb) Placement limited – possibly affect
location of solar films
20
Major Performance Constraint
• Change from the last constraint diagram– Aspect Ratio– Mach Number– Altitude
o Service Ceiling Height
• Major Constraints– Landing ground roll – Take-off ground roll (for smaller airport compatibility)
Basic Assumptions
21
Concept 1 Concept 2
CLmax 1.5 1.5
L/D 2.75 2.83
We/WO 0.743 0.738
SFCcruise 0.5 /hr 0.5 /hr
SFCloiter 0.4 /hr 0.4 /hr
e 0.8 0.8
Vcruise 460 kts 480 kts
Vstall 330 kts 330 kts
Vtake-off 380 kts 450 kts
Vapproach 380 kts 380 kts
22
Constraint DiagramConcept 1 Concept 2
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Top of climb (1g steady, level flight, M = 0.80 @ h=45K, ser-vice ceiling)
Subsonic 2g manuever, 250kts @ h =10K
Takeoff ground roll 4000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot day
Landing ground roll 2500 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot day
Second segment climb gradient above h = 5K, +15° hot day
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 1500
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Top of climb (1g steady, level flight, M = 0.80 @ h=45K, ser-vice ceiling)
Subsonic 2g manuever, 250kts @ h =10K
Takeoff ground roll 4000 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot day
Landing ground roll 2500 ft @ h = 5K, +15° hot day
Second segment climb gradient above h = 5K, +15° hot day
TSL/WO = 0.36 WO/S = 92.6 lb/ft2 TSL/WO = 0.35 WO/S = 88.3 lb/ft2
23
Design Mission
Weight Fraction Values State
W1/W0 0.97 Take-Off
W2/W1 0.985 Climb
W3/W2 0.791 Cruise
W4/W3 0.988 Land
W5/W4 0.97 Missed Approach
W6/W5 0.791 Climb
W7/W6 0.979 Divert
W8/W7 0.993 Hold
W9/W8 0.995 Land
W9/W0 0.567 Combined Fraction
Wf/W0 0.459 Fuel Fraction
24
Sizing Code
• Used Excel Spreadsheet• 6 Different Sections
a) Maini. Fuselageii. Wingiii. Engine
b) Geometryc) Constraint Diagramd) Weighte) Airfoilf) Mission Detail
25
ValidationBench Mark : Bombardier Challenger 300
Bombardier Challenger 300 Specification (XG Endeavour)• Range : 3560 nmi (3700 nmi)• Passenger number: 9 (9)• Crew Number : 2 (2)• Cruise Mach Number : 0.8 (0.8)• Service Ceiling : 45000 ft (45000 ft)
26
Validation Cont’d
Features that affect the weight based on the sizing code • High Correlation
a) Specific Fuel Consumptionb) Ultimate Load Factor
• Low Correlationa) Aspect Ratiob) Area of the wingsc) Others
27
Validation Cont’d
• Weights based on the sizing codea) Empty Weight = 17500lbb) Fuel Weight = 14000lbc) Total Weight = 34400lb
• Actual Weights of Bombardier Challenger 300a) Empty Weight = 18500b b) Fuel Weight = 14100lbc) Total Weight = 35400lb
• Fudge Factor
28
Basic AssumptionConcept 1 Concept 2
CLmax 1.5 1.5
L/D 2.75 2.83
We/WO 0.743 0.738
SFCcruise 0.5 /hr 0.5 /hr
SFCloiter 0.4 /hr 0.4 /hr
e 0.8 0.8
Vcruise 460 kts 480 kts
Vstall 330 kts 330 kts
Vtake-off 380 kts 450 kts
Vapproach 380 kts 380 kts
29
Current Approach• Current Status
– Able to predict the weight based on 100+ inputs– Empty Weight based on the 22 features of aircraft– Empty Weight fraction based on the equation from Raymer’s– Fuel Weight fraction based on the weight fractions
• Future Work– Drag calculation based on the altitude – Noise calculation
30
Current Description
CONCEPT 1 CONCEPT 2
Wo /S 88.35lb/ft2 82.65lb/ft2
TSL/Wo 0.354 0.337
AR 7.8 9
Sweep Angle 35o 35o
t/c 0.5 0.5
31
Weight Estimation
CONCEPT 1 CONCEPT 2
Wempty 16,700 lb 1,5100 lb
Wfuel 1,4800 lb 1,5000 lb
Wcrew 480 lb 480 lb
Wpayload 2,160 lb 2,160 lb
WO 34,100 lb 32,700 lb
Engine Modeling
• Design concepts require two types of engines to be utilized in the final design.
• Estimated total thrust requirement = 11,500 lbf.• Turbofan, Turboprop, and UDF engines are among the
considerations.• Engines will be modeled based on existing platforms.• The design concepts intend to combine the use of two types
of engines, so the effects of separate and simultaneous use will need to be determined.
32
Turbofan
33
PROS• Efficient at subsonic speeds• Lower TSFC• Low direct operating cost• Commercially acceptable
technical risk• Relative mechanical
simplicity• Proven technology
CONS• Weight, drag of large
diameter fan and nacelle
Turboprop
34
PROS• Efficient at cruising altitude,
can be more efficient than turbofan
• High potential for fuel savings
CONS• Speed limited to M < 0.65• High noise and vibration
UDF
35
PROS• High potential for fuel
savings
CONS• Speed limited to M < 0.85• High noise and vibration• Only a few existing designs
Engine Modeling - Turbofan
36
• Baseline engine is HF120 Turbofan• Manufactured by GE Honda Aero Engines• Environmentally Friendly:
a) Designed to reduce NOx, CO, HC, and smoke emissions.b) Meets Stage 4 noise level requirements with room to
spare.
Turbofan Cont’d
37
Engine Modeling - Turboprop
38
• Baseline engine is the Rolls-Royce M250-B17.• Combines small size and a high power to weight
ratio.
Turboprop Cont’d
39
• Specifications:
Width 19.4 inLength 45 inWeight 212 lb
Engine Modeling - UDF
40
A few concepts have been built in the past, including: GE-36, P&W-578DX, and the Russian built Progress-D27.
GE-36 Progress-D27
UDF Cont’d
41
• Very little data exists for the unducted fan engines. • The 3 examples of unducted fans shown were meant
for much higher thrust outputs than a business jet requires.
• Currently working on an accurate method for predicting performance and scaling to fit the business jet design.
Modeling of Baseline Engines
42
• The three engines shown are the baseline engines that will be scaled to meet the final design’s needs.
• The engines will be scaled for proper thrust and fuel flow, while incorporating technology factors to predict performance in 2020.
Technology Factor
43
• According to historical data, seat miles per gallon increased from 26.2 to 49 for small commercial aircraft between 1970-1989.
• Improving seat miles per gallon would require the improvement of many individual technologies, and therefore is a good estimate of the overall technological advancement rate.
• Seat miles per gallon improved by 3.3 %/yr between 1970-1989.
• To be conservative, our design will be based on an assumed overall technological improvement rate of 2 %/yr.
Center of Gravity, Stability, Control Estimates
44
Concept 1 Concept 2
Location of c.g. 27.7 ft 28.6 ft
Location of a.c. 28.9 ft 30.3 ft
Static Margin 1.2 ft 1.7 ft
**c.g. travel diagram is not yet calculated
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40Center of Gravity
Neutral Point
Tail Sizing
• Current approach– Design tail so that the a.c. is close to c.g.– More calculation needs to be done
• Current estimated size
45
Concept 1 Concept 2
Tail area 80 ft2 70 ft2
Vertical Tail area 80 ft2 100 ft2
Cabin Layout
46
Cabin Layout Cont’d
47
Concept 1 CATIA
48
Concept 2 CATIA
49
Compliance Matrix
50
Requirement Target Threshold Concept 1 Compliant Concept 2 Compliant
Maximum Mach Number 0.85 0.8 0.8 Yes 0.8 Yes
Empty Weight (lb) 18,500 20,000 16,700 Yes 15,100 Yes
Gross Weight (lb) 28,000 32,000 34,100 No 32,700 No
Takeoff Distance (ft) 3,400 3,800 4,100 No 4,000 No
Maximum Range (nmi) 3,700 3,600 3,640 Yes 3,700 Yes
Design Mission Range (nmi) 3,700 3,600 3,640 Yes 3,700 Yes
Noise (dB) 42 50 77 No 77 No
Seats 10 8 8 Yes 8 Yes
Volume Per Passenger (ft^3) 65 60 60 Yes 60 Yes
TSFC (% of avg) 55 65 65 Yes 65 Yes
N0X Emissions (% of avg.) 25 50 10 Yes 10 Yes
Charge Time - 220V 80A* (hr) 2 4 1.5 Yes 1.5 Yes
Charge Time - 125V 15A** (hr) 3 5 4 Yes 4 Yes
Internal Systems Power (kWh) 5 6.5 8 No 8 No
Next Steps?I. Select the best conceptII. More accurate sizing
a) Detailed sizing codeb) Detailed model of the conceptc) Accurate weightsd) Control Surface area calculation
III. Trade-offs for the selectionIV. Determine specific details of the Aircraft
a) Propulsion, Aerodynamics, Structureb) Noisec) Costd) Performancee) Stability / Control Calculation
51