Design Project 2:
Engine Design Crisis
Team members:
Ankur Patel
ME 419 – Gas Turbines
Dr. Terry Yan
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
May 1st, 2008
Contents
Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
Project Handout ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Figures
Figure 1 ‐ Cutaway diagram of the General Electric CF6‐6 engine .............................................................. 5
Figure 2 ‐ Test Values Used ......................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3 ‐ Test Results ................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 4 ‐ Optimal Values Used ................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5 ‐ Optimal Results ........................................................................................................................... 12
Tables
Table 1 ‐ Maximum Effects of Component Modifications ............................................................................ 9
Table 2 ‐ Most Cost Effective Component Modifications ............................................................................. 9
Page 2
Project Handout
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Department of Mechanical Engineering
ME419- Gas Turbines
Prof. Yan
Spring 2006
Design Project 2
There is a crisis in your aircraft engine company. The first test results from your ME419-
X “next generation” commercial turbofan model have fallen far short of expectations. You have
been assigned to have “task force” which must develop a dependable, economical recovery plan
as quickly as possible. Moreover, the leader of the “task force” has asked you to provide a
specific technology program that will save the ME419-X program.
A data sheet for the initial testing of the ME419-X at the design/cruise condition is
attached. It contains all the available information about the performance of the components as
well as the overall performance of the engine. It is immediately obvious that none of the
components is outstanding. The general situation can be summarized as follows:
Engine performance Parameter Require Value Test Value
Specific fuel consumption (S) 0.7400 0.7711
Specific thrust (F/m) 20.10 19.46
You have completed an initial survey of the relevant component groups, and have
compiled a summary of the possible component performance improvements, and the
corresponding cost per percent change, as follows:
Components % Possible Improvement $M per %
Inlet/diffuser 1.0 18
Fan 1.5 12
HPC 1.5 14
Burner 1.0 +1.0 21
Turbines 2.0 20
Nozzles 1.0 + 1.0 15
Your job is to prepare a recommendation list of component improvement programs and
corresponding costs that will result in a successful ME419-X. Supporting documentation is also
required, such as a summary of the method of analysis and important intermediate performance
quantities. The “best” solution here will combine confidence with reasonable cost.
Page 3
Turbofan Engine with Two Exhaust & Convergent Nozzles
Input data
Mo = 0.87
Altitude (ft) = 38,000
Po (Pisa) = 3.0040
Density (Slug/ft3) = 0.00064619
γc = 1.4
γt = 1.3
Tt4 (R) = 2960
hf (Btu/lbm) = 18,500
α = 7.0
πc’ = 2.0
πD (max) = 0.97
πn = 0.98
πn’ = 0.98
Efficiency
Burner = 0.98
Mech Hi P = 0.99
Mech Lo P = 0.99
LP compr. = 0.89
HP compr. = 0.90
HP turbine = 0.87
LP turbine = 0.87
Page 4
Problem Statement
This design problem has two goals. The first will be to replicate the original engineer’s test results. The
second goal will be to meet the design goals, and lower cost.
Shown below is a typical turbofan engine.
The components shown, for design purposes, will be interchangeable within a range of performance
specifications. Each modification in performance will be related to a real world cost. The sum of the
modifications will lead to a final modification cost to compare against other design groups.
Figure 1 ‐ Cutaway diagram of the General Electric CF6‐6 engine
Page 5
Analysis
In this section, a summary of the necessary equations are shown to complete the calculations.
Sample calculations are not included in this section. The Oates Engine Software was used to perform all
calculations and compared to Table 6‐1 in the Aerothermodynamics of Gas Turbine and Rocket
Propulsion textbook for parameter consistency. Sample values supplied by these equations are shown
in Table 1 ‐ Maximum Effects of Component Modifications.
It is important to note that while sample calculations are not shown, the author did check the results of
the Oates Engine Software. Computer results should never be automatically accepted.
Inputs:
° , , , ,
, , , , ,
, , , / , / , , , , ,
Outputs:
, ,
1
1
1
2
⁄
Page 6
1
1 1 1
1
No afterburning is present:
, ,
⁄ /
2
1
1
No secondary afterburning is present:
, ,
⁄ /
2
1
1
1
⁄
1
⁄
1
1
1 1 1
⁄
1
1 1 1
⁄
10
1 ⁄
Page 7
Operation with Convergent Exit Nozzles
In the subsonic case, with choked nozzle flow:
⁄
1
2
⁄
1
2
⁄
1⁄2
The choked nozzle flow is a significant feature of the designed turbofan.
Page 8
Results
The data shown in Table 1 compares the maximum cost of each component’s modifications to percent
change in thrust and specific fuel consumption. Also shown are the test values and goal values. The
goal values were the base value used to create the percent changes in thrust and specific fuel
consumption. In Appendix A, the component values and results are shown to reach the test value
attained by the original design team.
% Possible $M per % Cost
Components F/m0 S %F/m0 %S
Improvement % Changed ($M)
Inlet/Diffuser 1 18 1 18 19.64 0.7641 100.9% 99.2%
Fan 1.5 12 1.5 18 19.55 0.7674 100.4% 99.6%
HPC 1.5 14 1.5 21 19.7 0.768 101.2% 99.7%
Burner 1.0+1.0 21 1 21 19.51 0.7613 100.2% 98.8%
Turbines 2 20 2 40 19.68 0.7623 101.1% 98.9%
Nozzles 1.0+1.0 15 1 15 19.64 0.7641 100.9% 99.2%
Test 19.47 0.7706 0.0% 0.0%
Goal 20.1 0.74 103.2% 96.0%
Table 1 ‐ Maximum Effects of Component Modifications
After analyzing the component modification gains, the parameters shown in Appendix B were selected.
These values attained the goal thrust and specific fuel consumption while keeping cost at a minimum of
$101 million. The break out values and final effects are shown in Table 2.
% Possible $M per % Cost
Components F/m0 S %F/m0 %S
Improvement % Changed ($M)
Inlet/Diffuser 1 18 1 18 19.64 0.7641 100.9% 99.2%
Fan 1.5 12 0 0 19.55 0.7674 100.4% 99.6%
HPC 1.5 14 0.5 7 19.7 0.768 101.2% 99.7%
Burner 1.0+1.0 21 1 21 19.51 0.7613 100.2% 98.8%
Turbines 2 20 2 40 19.68 0.7623 101.1% 98.9%
Nozzles 1.0+1.0 15 1 15 19.64 0.7641 100.9% 99.2%
Test 19.47 0.7706 0.0% 0.0%
Goal 101 20.11 0.7406 103.3% 96.1%
Table 2 ‐ Most Cost Effective Component Modifications
Page 9
Conclusion
The turbofan is an easily modified engine that offers a wide range of performance. It is robust,
yet simple because its components can easily be replaced and tested.
The design used by this modifies the inlet nozzle, compressor, burner, turbines, and nozzles.
Several other combinations were tested that also modified the fan unit. This was determined to be the
best design that had the lowest cost. $101 million in modifications to increase thrust by 3.2%, and
reduce specific fuel consumption by 4% is a very nice model.
The compressor was only modified by 0.5%, instead of a full 1.5% because the extra
performance and cost were unnecessary.
Page
10
Appendix A
Figure 2 ‐ Test Values Used
Figure 3 ‐ Test Results
Page
11
Appendix B
Figure 4 ‐ Optimal Values Used
Figure 5 ‐ Optimal Results
Page
12