Distributed Propulsion Concepts

Transcription

Visionary Concepts – Distributed
Propulsion Options
Dr Askin T. Isikveren
Head, Visionary Aircraft Concepts
“Alternative Fuels and Propulsion Systems”
Greener by Design Conference, The Royal Aeronautical Society,
London, United Kingdom, 21 October 2014
Agenda
Motivation for the DisPURSAL Project
Aircraft Top Level Requirements (ATLeRs) and
Reference Aircraft Definitions
Propulsive Fuselage Concept (PFC)
Distributed Multiple-Fans Concept (DMFC)
Important Findings and Next Steps
Alle Rechte bei / All rights with Bauhaus Luftfahrt
Visionary Concepts – Distributed Propulsion Options, 21.10.2014
Seite 2
Motivation
Flightpath 2050
75% less CO2 emissionsa
90% less NOx emissionsa
65% reduction in perceived noisea
Aircraft is designed and manufactured to be
recyclable
Emission-free taxiing
Strategic Research & Innovation Agenda
80% less accidentsb
90% of all journeys (door-to-door within the
EU) within 4 hrs
Flights arrived within 1 min. of planned time
regardless of weather
ATM should handle at least 25M flights
abased
bbased
on a typical aircraft with 2000 technology
on 2000 traffic
 Unconventional solution required in order to achieve ambitious goals
Seite 3
Distributed Propulsion Concepts:
Historical Overview
Georgia Tech
MIT (2025)
NASA N3-X
(2025)
EADS IW (2035)
ClaireLiner
(2030)
Silent Aircraft
SAX-40 (2020)
Empirical Systems Aerospace
ECO-150 (2030)
Bolonkin, 1999
Gohardani et al., 2010
Seite 4
Initially Gauging Distr. Propulsion Concepts
12
Rodriguez (incompr.)
Smith (incompr.)
Ducted Fan Model (compr.)
10
Good synergy with
laminar wing flow
PSC [%]
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
β = Ding/T
Bad synergy with laminar wing flow
PSC =
Pref − PBLI
Pref
β=
Dingested
T
=k⋅
C
k = D0
CD
S wet ,ing
S wet
S wet ,ing
Steiner et al., 2012
Seite 5
Principles of Wake-Filling
Seitz and Gologan, 2013
Seite 6
The DisPURSAL Project
EC granted approval for a
distributed propulsion project
Distributed Propulsion and Ultra-high
By-Pass Rotor Study at Aircraft Level
Framework 7 project, Level-0, Feb
2013 until Jan 2015
Coordinated by Bauhaus Luftfahrt e.V.,
involves partners from the CIAM
(Russia), ONERA (France) and Airbus
Group Innovations (Germany)
Industrial Advisory Board comprises
Airbus Group (Germany), MTU Aero
Engines AG (Germany), DLR
(Germany) and ONERA (France)
Grant Agreement no: 323013
DisPURSAL Overall Targets
Entry-into-Service year of 2035
Focus placed upon 2 novel solutions
Single propulsor tightly-coupled with
fuselage – dubbed the PropulsiveFuselage Concept (PFC)
Distributed Multiple-Fans Concept
(DMFC) driven by a limited number of
engine cores
Aspects that are being addressed
Aircraft design and optimisation
Airframe-propulsion integration
Power-train system design and
advanced flow field simulation
Seite 7
PAX versus Design Range for 2035
Seite 8
DisPURSAL Project ATLeRs
2035R and 2035DP (DisPURSAL design)
Range and PAX
TOFL (MTOW, S-L, ISA)
2nd Climb Segment
Time-to-Climb (1,500ft to ICA, ISA+10°C)
Initial Cruise Altitude (ISA+10°C)
4800 nm, 340 PAX in 2-class
2300 m
340Pax, 102 kg per PAX, DEN, ISA+20°C
≤25 mins
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
ACN (flexible,B)
COC
External Noise & Emission Target (Reference 2000)
ETOPS /LROPS capability
ICAO Code E (52 m < x < 65 m)
67
At least 20% reduction per PAX.nm; based on A330-300
CO2 -60%; NOx -84%; Noise -55% (interpolated SRIA 2035)
240 mins
Technology Freeze - EIS
2030 - 2035
Design Service Goal
50000 cycles
Seite 9
Reference Aircraft:
SoAR (340 PAX A330-300) and 2035R
SoAR Details
A330-300 utilsing Trent 772B engines
with 340 PAX cabin layout
Defines year 2000 datum
2035R Details
2035R Details (cont.)
-15.0% in structural weight assuming
omni-directional plies, nanotubes,
geodesic design, advanced bonding
Combined outcome  up to 32% block fuel
reduction vs SoAR
Revised fuselage compared to SoAR
Increased size due to anthropmetrics
2 x LD3 containers in cargo
2-class, 296-340-391 PAX family
Evolved GTF (BPR=18.0) and PEM fuelcell for APU, ∆TSFC = -21.5%
∆L/D = +8.6% due to very flexible high
AR wing, fuselage riblets and shock
contour bump on wing
SoAR A330-300
2035R
Seite 10
PFC – Aero-Airframe and Power-Train
Aero-Airframe Analysis
Sensitivity studies conducted w.r.t.
aerodynamic/engine operating
conditions, and engine fan diameter
Shroud design needs to be performed
with great attention, i.e. avoid local
super-velocities and nozzle blockage
Power Supply & Transmission
S-Duct
Driveshaft
Fuselage Fan Rotor
ONERA computations for Isikveren et al., 2014
Planetary Gear
System
Core engine
Single rotating Fuselage Fan device
Shrouded for noise and tail-scrape
Powered via LP-spool and planetary
reduction gear system
Core intake supplied by eccentrical
swan-neck duct aft of FF rotor plane
Seite 11
PFC – Design Description
2035R
PFC
Δ [%]
Fuselage Length
m
67.0
69.0
+3.0
Wing Span
m
65.0
65.0
0
MTOW
kg
206270
209340
+1.5
OWE
kg
123460
130590
+5.8
Wing Ref. Area, Sref
m²
335.4
339.8
+1.3
MTOW/Sref
kg/m²
615
616
+0.2
Thrust to Weight
0.31
0.31
0
(SLS, MTOW)
Fuselage Share of
%
29.7
28.0
-5.7
Total Cruise Drag*
Ingested Drag Ratio
%
n/a
28.2
n/a
= Ding/FN,t
Block Fuel Burn,
kg
42257
38380
-9.2
4800 nm, 340 PAX
*if BLI / wake-filling effects are not accounted
85% Fuselage Axial Position
Maximises fuselage drag ingestion
Fan disk burst corridors do not interfere
with cabin or critical empennage zones
Tail scrape angle is 12°  acceptable
Sizing Implications and Outcome
Net thrust split approx. 77% for the
under-wing podded and 23% for the FF
Increased structural weight due to
+2.0 m fuselage length, installation of
FF at aft-fuselage, larger empennage
and fin structural reinforcements
-20% in propulsion efficiency due to BLI
-9.2% block fuel relative to 2035R and
-38.3% relative to SoAR
Seite 12
DMFC – Aero-Airframe and Power-Train
Aero-Airframe Analysis
ONERA computations for
Isikveren et al., 2014
Appropriate aircraft body contouring
and alignment of nacelle tilt is at a
premium in avoiding super-velocities
Increase in FPR has a significant
impact on local Mach, thereby, lift and
boundary layer thickness
Power Supply & Transmission
Mirzoyan et al., 2014
Core straddled by 2 fans on either side
Relative positioning between core/fans
chosen to minimise axial loading
Mechanical gearing losses are 2%;
heat generation requires dedicated
thermal regulation and control system
Seite 13
Important Findings and Next Steps
Projected Evolution of Current Approach
For medium-range wide-bodies 30-32% reduction in CO2-emission by 2035
SRIA 2035 stipulates 51% in CO2 reduction from airframe and propulsion
Propulsive Fuselage Concept
Net thrust split approx. 77% for the under-wing podded and 23% for the Fuselage Fan
-9.2% block fuel relative to 2035R and -38.3% relative to SoAR
Distributed Multiple-Fans Concept [work-in-progress]
Care needs to be taken in alignment of nacelle tilt and design of aircraft body contour
Mechanical transmission emphasis is to reduce axial loading and gearing losses
Next Steps
Refining the DMFC sizing; preliminary examination of hybrid-electric PFC and DMFC
Operating economics analysis and associated benchmarking against SoAR and 2035R
CO2-emission assessment of PFC and DMFC improvements relative to SoAR and 2035R
will be conducted; preliminary noise predictions also to take place
Seite 14
Contact
Bauhaus Luftfahrt e.V.
Lyonel-Feininger-Strasse 28
80807 Munich
Germany
Tel.: +49 (0) 89 3 07 48 49 - 0
Fax: +49 (0) 89 3 07 48 49 - 20
info@bauhaus-luftfahrt.net
http://www.bauhaus-luftfahrt.net
Seite 15

Distributed Propulsion Concepts

Transcription

Similar documents

Cessna U3-B, Part 1 by Jerry Testa

Bauhaus and Memphis

b-IONIC Airfish

Press Release Shashemane Opening

Hybrid Assist datasheet

Kewatec_EASY

Verkauf Frankreich 895 000

Used Aircraft for Sale BK 117 B2 D

Read article