A Modeling Study of the Use of Burner Exit Temperature in the Control of a Geared Turbofan Engine with NPSS by David P. Shore An Engineering Project Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING Approved: _________________________________________ Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Project Adviser Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Hartford, CT December, 2010 Abstract This project presents the results of a modeling study designed to develop new ratings using burner exit temperature (T4) for the control of a geared turbofan engine. The model was developed from an existing simulation using the Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS) software, which utilizes turbomachinery theory to determine various engine parameters based on a specific set of inputs. A matrix of burner temperature targets across the entire operating envelope of a Pratt & Whitney customer’s aircraft was developed for use in simulated thrust output control. The design objective was to fulfill thrust requirements specified by the customer. Requirements included ratings for 23k, 21k, and 18.9k pounds of thrust for a number of different customer bleed off take combinations at maximum takeoff (MTO), continuous (MCT), and climb (MCL) power requirements. The process of rating creation is demonstrated. The final result was a table of ratings that meet customer demands which is currently used in the customer’s aircraft design process. ii Table of Contents Abstract ii List of Tables iv List of Figures v Nomenclature vi Glossary viii 1. Introduction 9 1.1 Geared Turbofan Basics 10 1.2 Numerical Propulsion System Simulation 11 2. Methodology 14 2.1 Review of Gas Generator Turbomachinery 14 2.2 Engine Rating Characteristics 15 2.3 Aircraft Flight Envelope, Power Settings, and Derates 17 2.4 Customer Requirements and Thrust Logic 20 2.5 Method Used to Develop Ratings Tables 21 3. Results and Discussion 23 3.1 Ratings File and Selection Logic Result 23 3.2 Technical Requirements Document Thrust Points 23 3.3 Derates and Meeting Customer Requirements 24 3.4 Behavior Checks 27 4. Conclusions 29 5. References 30 6. Appendices 31 6.1 Appendix A – Maximum Takeoff Selection Logic Example 31 6.2 Appendix B – Scaled T4 Table Example 33 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Burner Exit Temperature Schedule Summary 20 Table 2 – Scaled TRD Thrust Requirements 23 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Two-Spool Turbofan Cross Section with Station Designations 10 Figure 2 - Simple Conceptual NPSS Model 12 Figure 3 - Aircraft Requirements & Engine Limitations 15 Figure 4 - Typical Rating Characteristic 16 Figure 5 - Modified Operating Envelopes 18 Figure 6 - Low rotor speed limitation 24 Figure 7 - 23k to 21k Derate – N1 limiting Issue 25 Figure 8 - 21k to 18.9k Derate Contour Plot 25 Figure 9 - 23k to 21k MCT Bleeds OFF Contour Plot 26 Figure 10 - MCL to MCT Bleeds OFF Contour Plot 27 Figure 11 - MCL to MCT Bleeds OFF Contour Plot 27 v LIST OF SYMBOLS BPR = fan bypass ratio Cp = constant pressure specific heat Cv = constant volume specific heat Fn = Raw Thrust (lbs) FNTST = Stream tube corrected thrust (lbs) h = enthalpy (BTU/lbm) ISA = International Standard Atmosphere LHV = Lower Heating Value of fuel (BTU/lb) m a = mass flow rate (lb/sec) MN = Mach number N1 = Low rotor speed (RPM) N1F = Fan speed (RPM) N2 = High rotor speed (RPM) P0, Pamb = Outside free-stream air temperature (psia) P2 = Pressure at the face of the fan, core stream (psia) P12 = Pressure at the face of the fan, fan stream (psia) P2.5 = Pressure in between the LPC and HPC (psia) P3 = Pressure at the exit of the HPC (psia) P4 = Pressure at the exit of the burner (psia) P4.5 = Pressure in between the HPT and LPT (psia) P4.9 = Pressure at exit of the LPT (psia) R = gas constant (BTU/°F/lbm) T0, Tamb = Outside free-stream air temperature (°F) T2 = Temperature at the face of the fan, core stream (°F) T12 = Temperature at the face of the fan, fan stream (°F) T2.5 = Temperature in between the LPC and HPC (°F) T3 = Temperature at the exit of the HPC (°F) T4 = Temperature at the exit of the burner (°F) T4.5 = Temperature in between the HPT and LPT (°F) T4.9 = Temperature at exit of the LPT (°F) vi TSFC = Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption Wf = Fuel flow (lbm/sec) Wa = Airflow (lbm/sec) ρ = Density (lbm/ft3) η = efficiency γ = Ratio of constant pressure specific heat to constant volume specific heat (Cp/Cv) vii viii Glossary Derate Derate is defined as an engine thrust rating that is at a lower value than the maximum thrust rating. For the subject engine, the derates are thrust targets of 21000 and 18900 lbs. GTF Geared Turbofan. A term used to describe the new family of engines being developed by Pratt and Whitney. MTO Maximum Take-Off thrust. Typically the maximum thrust output of the engine available to the pilot on demand. Used predominately in takeoff situations and situations in which maximum thrust is necessary. MCT Maximum Continuous thrust. Typically the maximum thrust used by the pilot during cruise operation of the aircraft. MCL Maximum Climb thrust. The maximum thrust used by the pilot during climb operation of the aircraft. ix 1. Introduction The latest Pratt & Whitney engine offering is a high-bypass geared turbofan engine currently selected as the exclusive engine for the customer’s aircraft. Due to the sensitive nature of this material, the name of the customer is being withheld to alleviate any potential legal issues that could arise. At the time of this project creation, the first engine is currently being tested in Pratt & Whitney’s outdoor testing facilities in Florida. With the target aircraft estimated entry in to service date of 2013 rapidly approaching, there is a substantial amount of work that needs to be completed. One such task is defining a rating that will be used to determine performance (thrust targets) of the engine. This rating will eventually be defined by low turbine rotor speed (N1), but as an intermediate step, will be defined by burner exit temperature (T4). The final goal of this project will be a number of T4 matrices organized into a comprehensive ratings file. This file will be packaged in a customer simulation and shipped to the customer for use in their aircraft design process. The customer simulation is essential for accurate expectations on thrust targets, station temperatures and pressures, bleed pressures and temperatures, fuel burn, etc. Additional to the design process, it will be used by the Customer’s engine performance group to quote aircraft thrust capabilities to potential aircraft buyers. 9 1.1 Geared Turbofan Basics The geared turbofan engine is a typical two spooled engine design with a twist. Normal two spool engine designs are driven by two rotors, called the high spool and low spool. The low spool is composed of the fan, low pressure compressor (LPC), and low pressure turbine (LPT). The high spool, often called the core when combined with the burner, is composed of the high pressure compressor (HPC) and high pressure turbine (HPT). In the typical two spool design, all components on the low spool spin at the same rate, referred to as the low rotor speed (N1). All components on the high spool also spin at the same rate, referred to as the high rotor speed (N2). The figure below shows a simplified cartoon of a two-spool engine. Additionally, the figure has numeric station designations that will be used in the remainder of this project. Figure 1 – Two-Spool Turbofan Cross Section with Station Designations Modified from [4] In the geared turbofan design, the low spool components are separated by a reduction gearbox. In this design, the LPC and LPT will spin at the same rate, but the reduction 10 gearbox will create a slower spinning fan. The reason behind this design is fan bypass ratio (BPR). For subsonic commercial aircraft, the goal in engine design is multipronged, but all aircraft suppliers would agree that the engine needs to be as lightweight as possible with low thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC), while still being able to meet thrust requirements. A high bypass ratio gives a lower exhaust speed, which helps reduce TSFC. Unfortunately for the two spool engine design, a high bypass ratio requires a slow spinning fan. Since the fan is driven by the LPT, to slow the fan down to an optimal speed would require more stages on the LPT, which increases size and, more importantly, weight of the engine. By adding the reduction gearbox, the fan can spin at an optimal speed (N1F) without needing to increase the size of the LPT. 1.2 Numerical Propulsion System Simulation The Numerical Propulsion System Simulation, hereby referred to as NPSS, is a detailed aerothermomechanical computer simulation developed by the NASA Glenn Research Center with support from the US aeropropulsion industry. It is used in the aircraft engine design process to realistically model the physical interactions that take place inside an engine, which can not only reduce the need for expensive and complicated testing, but to also verify results of such testing as it is required [1]. NPSS is a component-based, object-oriented simulation. It is designed to perform cycle design, steady state and transient off-design performance prediction, test data matching, and day to day engineering tasks that require simulated engine performance [1]. For the purpose of this project, only steady state performance predictions will be used, since transient simulations are not necessary for rating table definitions. NPSS is composed of a series of individual, interconnected components, linked together through mechanical, fluid and fuel ports. The overall assembly of components is controlled by a solution algorithm by way of a solver object that will impose fundamental conservation laws (continuity, energy, momentum) as well as any other user defined constraints. To support engine simulation analysis, several gas property packages are supplied with the simulation. For this project, I will be using the Pratt and Whitney internal version of NPSS, so the gas property package that will be used in “GasTbl”. Additionally, NPSS 11 incorporates a full-featured user interface via a built-in programming language modeled after C++. All NPSS simulations are created from a collection of six (6) basic object types (classes) or building blocks. These classes (building blocks) represent the engine components (hardware) and how those components are linked together, as well as the more abstract features that a simulation comprises. The six basic object types are elements, subelements, sockets, flow stations, ports and tables. Elements are typically the biggest blocks in the model, typically representing the major components of the engine, such as turbines, compressors, and the fan. Subelements are specific to elements, and usually contain more detailed information on the element, one example being a turbine map. Sockets are a means to connect the subelement to it’s specific element. Ports are a means to connect each element together, and tables are specific information found in subelements. A conceptual figure illustrating how these concepts are used to create an engine simulation is included below in Figure 2. This particular figure is simplified for a single shaft turbofan. The highlighted area represents the portion of the simulation that would be doubled for the typical dual shaft engine design. Objects represent both engine Simplenozzle, Conceptual components (compressor, turbine, shaft, etc.) as well as the more abstract feaEngine Model tures such as “FlightConditions”, “Solver”, “DataViewers”, etc. Model FlightConditions Element s FuelStart Element Fluid Port Fuel Port Assembly F P Inlet Element F P Fuel Port F F P Compressor P Element F P F F P Burner P Element Shaft Port Bleed F P Turbine Element F P F P F Duct P Element F P CDNozzle Element F P Fluid Port Shaft Port Fluid Port S P Shaft Element S P FlowEnd Element CompressorMap Subelement F P Socket Compressor Element Shaft Port F P F P Compressor, Shaft, and Turbine will have both LP and HP objects for a 2-spool engine Solver Data Viewer(s) Figure 2 – Simple Conceptual NPSS Model, from Figure 1, p. 1-3 in [1] 12 For the purposes of this project, a baseline NPSS simulation for the customer’s engine has already been developed by various groups within Pratt & Whitney, including modeling, performance, aerodynamics, etc. Various “building blocks” from these departments and others within Pratt & Whitney were supplied to create this baseline simulation. These building blocks include input files for component maps, component setup, subsystems (bleeds, drag), engine control, ratings, and installation effects (customer bleeds, port losses, flight envelope, etc.). This baseline simulation is what will be sued to develop the target thrusts and combustor exit temperatures needed to hit customer thrust requirements. The ratings input file of the baseline simulations is what will be modified to meet the customer requirements for the new simulation. 13 2. Methodology 2.1 Review of Gas Generator Turbomachinery Methods of engine control in past engine designs at Pratt & Whitney have varied quite a bit over the years. Legacy engine models have used engine pressure ratio (EPR), or PT7/PT2 as a method of controlling the engine powersetting. Newer engine models, such as the Engine Alliance GP7000 and PW6000 have used low rotor speed (N1) as the means for setting engine power. The Customer’s engine will also eventually use an N1 rating to define powersetting, but in advance of this, combustor exit temperature will be used for preliminary customer simulations. T4 can be directly linked to engine thrust with basic thermodynamics of turbofan engines. For a turbofan engine, we can approximate specific thrust with the following equation [3]: Fn (1 f ) ue BPR uef (1 BPR ) u m a where Fn = specific thrust m a f = fuel air ratio ue = core engine exit velocity uef = fan nozzle exit velocity u = free stream velocity In the above equation, it is assumed that the core engine flow and the bypass flow expand separately to the ambient conditions behind the engine. Since we are concerned with burner exit temperatures for control, we want to focus on the core engine flow. Allowing for the work done by the engine core on the fan stream, assuming the rate of mass flow in both the turbine and compressor, as well as the average value of Cp to be equal, the turbine power balance becomes [3]: T4.9 T4 (T3 T2 ) BPR (T18 T0 ) where T18 = Fan bypass air temperature 14 We can also model the core engine exit velocity as such [3]: 1 Pamb ue 2 n R T4.9 1 1 P4.9 where n = Fan nozzle efficiency Therefore, the LPT exit temperature is dependent on the upstream burner exit temperature, the core engine exit velocity depends on the square root of the burner exit temperature, just as is the case for the specific thrust. Thus, we can conclude engine thrust for a given flight condition (MN, ALT, ambient pressures and temperatures) is directly proportional to T4 as well as ambient conditions. This is further discussed in Section 2.2. 2.2 Engine Rating Characteristics When considering the development of an engine rating, a number of different limitations need to be considered. Two key limitations are aircraft requirements, and physical material limits of the engine hardware. While these are not the only limitations that need to be considered (others include physical engine limits, derates, etc.), the rating characteristic curves can be developed by focusing on these two specifically. Figure 3 shows schematically the aircraft requirements and material limits with respect to thrust, T4, and ambient temperature. Figure 3 – Aircraft Requirements & Engine Limitations 15 Figure 3 above shows the aircraft requirements in a plot of thrust versus ambient temperature. Considerations in this particular figure include take-off gross weight (TOGW) requirements and aircraft structural concerns. The engine limitations section takes the maximum combustor exit temperature into account, as well as engine life and deterioration concerns. Higher temperatures can result in failure of the engine hardware, or over an extended period of time, less time between overhauls for the customer. Figure 3 also shows combustor exit temperatures vs. thrust at various ambient conditions. It is fairly obvious that hot day conditions will strain the engine much more than cold day conditions. Putting these two requirements together will give us a typical engine ratings characteristic [Fig. 4]. Figure 4 – Typical Rating Characteristic Based on aircraft requirements, the net thrust on the cold day is constant, up until the flat rated temperature, or breakpoint. At the breakpoint, we have hit an ambient temperature in which the maximum T4 has been reached. At all hotter conditions than the breakpoint temperature, the rating logic will hold T4 constant so as not to violate the physical limits of the engine. This will cause net thrust to drop on the hot day. This is typically call this the “hot-day line”. The rating files I created model this type of behavior. Furthermore, subtracting flow out of the compressor for engine bleeds will have a noticeable effect on thrust. By reducing core flow, if all other conditions are held constant, the overall thrust value will decrease, and in most cases, the breakpoint value will move to a lower DTAMB [2]. This will be evident in the results section when constant T4 schedules are applied to different bleed configurations. 16 2.3 Aircraft Flight Envelope, Power Settings, and Derates The initial requirement for the GTF engine was a maximum take-off (MTO) thrust capability of 23,000 pounds of thrust. Further discussions with the customer have led to the requirements for thrust derates on the engine for the purpose of prolonging engine life on wing. Derates have been defined at 21k and 18.9k pounds of thrust respectively. Specific requirements for these derates have been supplied by the customer and have to be met for this particular engine simulation. Power settings required for the simulation are maximum take-off (MTO), maximum continuous (MCT), and maximum climb (MCL), ordered in descending levels of thrust. The baseline simulation used as a starting point in this project has 23k and 21k levels of MTO, MCT, and MCL thrust defined for only a small number of engine bleed configurations. The new simulation has MTO, MCT, and MCL power settings defined for 23k, 21k, and 18.9k levels of thrust at a larger number of bleed conditions. There are three different engine bleeds that will be taken into account for the rating definition. These bleeds are the environmental control system (ECS), wing anti-ice (WAI), and cowl anti-ice (CAI). ECS bleeds are responsible for feeding bleed off-take air into a number of different systems that are required for a commercial flight with passengers, including breathable air, cabin pressure regulation, heat and air conditioning systems, etc. WAI and CAI bleeds are fairly self-explanatory, in that their specific purpose is to combat the effects of wing and cowl icing in conditions in which icing can become a potential problem. Engine bleeds can be utilized in both single and dual (nominal) engine operation. Single operation occurs if there is only one engine on the aircraft producing bleed flow for these systems. This will incur a higher bleed flow for a particular engine, and hence the performance of that engine will be more restricted than an engine flowing less bleed for dual operation. There are a large number of different bleed configuration permutations, but only eleven configurations were outlined in the requirements between P&W and the customer. The eleven different bleed configurations that were taken into account for rating design are as follows: Bleeds OFF ECS OFF / CAI ON ECS OFF / CAI ON WAI ON DUAL 17 ECS OFF / CAI ON WAI ON SINGLE ECS ON DUAL ECS ON DUAL / CAI ON ECS ON DUAL / CAI ON WAI ON DUAL ECS ON SINGLE, ECS ON SINGLE / CAI ON ECS ON SINGLE / CAI ON WAI ON DUAL ECS ON SINGLE / CAI ON WAI ON SINGLE. All schedules had to be defined for the entire operating envelope of the Customer’s aircraft. The operating envelope of the aircraft is defined as a combination of Mach number and pressure altitude values in which the aircraft is designed to operate. Since the operating envelope is an internally controlled and proprietary document, for the purposes of this project, it has been modified to eliminate any exposure. Figure 5 describes the modified operator envelopes. Figure 5 outlines two separate envelopes. The take-off envelope is defined for all points in which the aircraft could be expected to take off from a runway. The combination of the takeoff envelope and all other points within the boundaries of Figure 5 is considered the entire operating envelope. CSeries Operating Envelopes 40000.00 39,000 ft 35000.00 0.77M 30000.00 Pressure Altitude (ft) 25000.00 20000.00 15000.00 14,500 ft 12,000 ft 10000.00 Take-Off Envelope 5000.00 0.00 -2,000 ft -5000.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Mach Number 18 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Figure 5 – Modified Operating Envelopes It is only required to hit MTO target thrusts within the take-off envelope, which accounts for realistic airports around the globe. For MCT and MCL target thrusts, all points within the operating envelope are required. To hit specific thrusts for every point in the envelope would create ratings tables too large for the simulation, and fidelity on a level which is not required. As a result, grids of nodes were agreed upon with the customer to meet requirements. Typically, this results in a node at every 0.05 Mach number and every 2000 feet. Creating individual schedules for all possible permutations of derate, power setting, and bleed configuration would require a total of 99 different schedules. If we include all other bleed configurations outside the 11 defined previously, the number of schedules required gets out of control in a hurry. Combine this with the fact that there are nodes every 0.05 Mach and every 2000 feet across the entire envelope, and the size of the ratings file balloons very quickly. As a result, schedules were targeted for specific bleed conditions which were most important. For bleed conditions in which a specific schedule was not targeted, the bleed configuration with the next highest bleed flow was chosen to represent this case. For example, for the 21k MTO rating, bleed configurations that were specifically targeted were Bleeds OFF, ECS ON SINGLE, and ECS ON SINGLE / CAI ON WAI ON SINGLE. Obviously, bleed flow for the Bleeds OFF configuration is zero. Total bleed flow for ECS ON SINGLE will be less than ECS ON SINGLE / CAI ON WAI ON SINGLE, as the later is flowing bleed for the anti-ice system. Logically, it would also follow that ECS ON SINGLE / CAI ON would be flowing greater bleed than ECS ON SINGLE. As such, the next targeted bleed configuration with the highest flow would be ECS ON SINGLE / CAI ON WAI ON SINGLE, so that schedule would be used. This will result in the same T4 schedule being used for both the targeted and nontargeted condition. Since the non-targeted condition is operating with less bleed flowing, but the T4 remains the same, the corresponding output thrust will be greater. Table 1 below illustrates the T4 schedule summary. The numbers below the bleed configurations correspond to the bleed flow ranking, with (1) being the least amount of 19 bleed flow, and (11) being the max case. Schedules were also given an identifying number between (1) and (14) for organization purposes. Table 1 – Burner Exit Temperature Schedule Summary 2.4 Customer Requirements and Thrust Logic Customer requirements are taken into account in every aspect of this project. Initial customer requirements that we work off of as a base are defined in the Technical Requirements (TRD) document. For our purposes, we are really only concerned about the thrust requirements outlined in the TRD. Specifically, the TRD outlines the 23, 21, and 18.9k thrust targets for takeoff, cruise, and maximum continuous operation at a few specific locations within the envelope. These targets are absolute, and the final ratings file will hit these targets precisely as required. Additional to the TRD requirements, and at the core the reason for this project, there are specific derate and bleed flow requirements requested by the customer. These requirements can be summed up into the following list: For all ratings, derates, and specific bleed configurations - MTO > MCT > MCL 18.9k derate shall be 90% of 21k derate for all specific bleed configurations 21k MTO = 0.9 * 23k MTO for all specific bleed configurations 20 21k MCT = 0.94 * 23k MCT within the takeoff envelope. Outside the takeoff envelope, 21k MCT = 23k MCT. In other words, 21k MCT thrust uses the same values of T4 and thrust as 23k MCT outside the takeoff envelope. 21k MCL shall be the lower thrust value of 21k MCT and 23k MCL within the takeoff envelope. Outside the enveloped, 21k MCL shall be equal to 23k MCL Meeting these requirements based on single bleed condition would not be an overwhelming feat. However, by adding different bleed configurations into the process, the specific thrust targets of 90% or 94% in some areas will be missed. The reason for this is schedules have only been developed for 14 specific conditions (See Table 1). For the conditions in which a schedule has not bee specifically developed, we will miss the derate target by a lower value. For example, the MCT condition for ECS off, CAI on, does not have a target schedule for the 23k thrust level. The 21k requirement at this condition is 94%. Unfortunately it is not a targeted bleed condition. Therefore, the derate will be less than 6% because the schedule we are using for this bleed condition is targeted to a bleed configuration with more bleed off-take. The key takeaway from this is that we will never be giving the customer less thrust because of a missed target. To keep track of various bleed configurations, schedules, and ratings in the actual ratings file, I have developed some NPSS code that includes selection logic. This will ensure the model is using the correct schedule based on the given bleed configuration and thrust setting input by the user. Closer examination of Table 1 shows that there are no schedules targeted for any of the 18.9k ratings. This is because the selection logic for the 18.9k includes a simple few lines of code that will target exactly 90% of whatever the 21k thrust value is. This will not work on 21k derates from 23k thrusts due to other limitations that will be discussed in the results section. 2.5 Method Used to Develop Ratings Tables Developing the T4 ratings table is a model intensive process, but fairly straightforward. As discussed previously, the base model used to develop the new T4 tables has the capability to run 23k and 21k MTO, MCT, and MCL conditions. However, the output 21 thrust values for the base model is not at the target thrusts that are required by the TRD and the customer. To develop a schedule for a specific target, the following process was used. The model was run at all nodes throughout the envelope at the 23k rating for MTO, MCT, and MCL at the targeted bleed conditions. Output values of T4 were saved and organized into a comprehensive table for each condition. The 21k rating was then run for MTO, MCT, and MCL at the targeted bleed conditions. Once again, output values of T4 were saved and organized into tables for the 21k. Thrust values for each condition were then checked between the 23k and 21k results. If the T4 had to be adjusted due to the derate being off target, the T4 values were modified and the process was repeated until I got the correct answer. Additionally, breakpoint temperatures had to be modified for a number of schedules to meet requirements. This process was repeated over a substantial period of time until I was comfortable with the results. 22 3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Ratings File and Selection Logic Result The result of the process is a ratings file that went from about 5000 lines of code for the base simulation to a ratings file that is just under 10000 lines of code. Additional to the new T4 schedules in the ratings file, selection logic in the form of nested if/then statements was added to ensure the correct schedule is being applied for the given thrust level and bleed configuration. Examples of the ratings code T4 schedules and the selection logic can be found in the Appendix. 3.2 Technical Requirements Document Thrust Points The thrust targets included in the Technical Requirements Document are an essential part of this project. It is essential that the output thrust of the new customer simulation meet these targets exactly. Special consideration was taken into account in the T4 ratings file to ensure there was no deviation from target. Table 2 below shows the scaled targets and the results of the new ratings file. The values have been scaled down by a constant factor as the actual values are considered proprietary, and a contract agreement between the customer and Pratt & Whitney. Table 2 – Scaled TRD Thrust Requirements Point Altitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Speed Amb. Rating Temp. (ft) M / KCAS (ISA + C) 00M 15 MTO 0 0.2 M 15 MTO 3000 0.25 M 30 MTO 15000 0.45 M 0 MCT 3000 250 KCAS 10 MCL 18000 290 KCAS 10 MCL 30000 0.78 M 10 MCL 34000 0.78 M 10 MCL Fan Interstage Bleed Bleed (lb/s) (lb/s) 0 OFF 0 OFF 0 OFF 0 OFF NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM VFG Power Thrust Thrust Delta Delta Bleed Extraction TRD Actual (lb/s) (HP) (lb) (lb) lbs % 0 60 23300 23300 0 0.00 0 60 16000 15998 -2 -0.01 0 60 11900 11898 -2 -0.02 0 60 9600 9598 -2 -0.02 NOM 35 10500 10500 0 0.00 NOM 35 6800 6799 -1 -0.01 NOM 35 4700 4699 -1 -0.03 NOM 35 3995 3995 0 -0.01 With the new T4 ratings table and the schedule selection logic in place, the simulation hits the TRD required thrust points within two hundredths of a percent, which is within the tolerance of the simulation itself. 23 3.3 Derates and Meeting Customer Requirements The portion of the project that dealt with meeting customer requirements outside the TRD was the most time intensive and the most difficult. For the majority of the customer requirements, plot packages including large numbers of contour plots were created to ensure the simulation was behaving as intended. One major issue that I ran into while creating the derates was the inability to hit 90% of the 23k level of thrust for the 21k MTO rating. While running through the process, the rating characteristic curves were showing a double breakpoint temperature near standard day temperatures. The reason for this double breakpoint was another engine limit was getting in the way of the target T4. In this particular case, the maximum low rotor speed limit was forcing the thrust and T4 to be cut, creating this condition. Figure 6 below illustrates how another engine limit can impact the rating structure. FNTST Original Breakpoint N1 Limit DTAMB Figure 6 – Low rotor speed limitation Figure 6 illustrates the idea behind a “double breakpoint”. Because the engine simulation is running on the low rotor speed limit, the thrust is clipped in the area of the original breakpoint. This results in a complication with targeting 90% of 23k thrust for the 21k rating. By targeting 90% of the output 23k MTO thrust (clipped), the resulting thrust for the 21k rating was less than desired by the customer. The customer further requested that the 21k level of thrust be based off the 23k level of thrust had the N1 limit not interfered with thrust output. The process had to be re-run with the N1 limit moved out of the way, creating a final value for 21k MTO that was less than a 10% derate from 23k. This can be seen in the following contour plot. 24 Altitude Mach Number Figure 7 – 23k to 21k Derate – N1 limiting Issue Figure 7 above shows the numerical values of percent delta thrust, or derate, between the 23k and 21k MTO rating is 10% throughout a good portion of the take off envelope. The requirement for the 21k MTO rating was to be 90% of the unconstrained (no N1 limit) 23k MTO thrust target. The points that are less than 10% derate from 23k MTO in the upper right hand corner of the envelope are clipped because of the N1 limit. Contour plots similar to Figure 7 above were created for a number of ambient conditions, power settings, and bleed configurations to ensure all customer requirements we’re met. Below is an example of the 21k to 18.9k check. For all conditions, the below contour plot applies. There were no cases in which the 21k to 18.9k plots were different than a 10% derate. 25 Figure 8 – 21k to 18.9k Derate Contour Plot Checks were also performed to ensure the special logic requested by the customer for the MCT and MCL ratings worked correctly. From section 2.4, one such requirement was to ensure 21k MCT was equal to 23k MCT everywhere outside the takeoff envelope, and equal to 94% of the 23k MCT inside the envelope. Figure 9 below illustrates this well. The green domain in Figure 9 is the area outside the takeoff envelope, and it represents the 0% delta between the 23k and 21k MCT rating, which is the customer requirement for this flight regime. 26 Figure 9 – 23k to 21k MCT Bleeds OFF Contour Plot Additionally, Figure 9 shows that the new ratings file is meeting the customer requirements with some small deviation in the upper left hand portion of the takeoff envelope (in red). This is mostly due to the grid differences between the ratings files and the contour plots. At points in which the ratings file does not contain a node, there is usually a deviation from the target by a small amount. In this particular case, the upper left hand corner of the contour is being influenced by a point outside the flight envelope all together. Also notice the transition points between the takeoff envelope and the remainder of the flight envelope. These points rapidly go from a 0% difference to a 6% difference linearly, which is by design. The last set of contour plots was created to ensure MTO>MCT>MCL at a given thrust setting and bleed configuration. This was a relatively simply check. Contour plots needed to show that the simulation resulted in a higher thrust for MTO than MCT, and a higher thrust for MCT over MCL. An example showing the simulation is working correctly is shown below in Figure 10. 27 Figure 10 – MCL to MCT Bleeds OFF Contour Plot Figure 10 actually illustrates the requirement that for all points, MCT >MCL. There is not a single positive delta on the plot, indicating that at all conditions, 21k MCT is always equal to or greater than 21k MCL. 3.4 Behavior Checks The last checks to be performed were to ensure the simulation was behaving as expected with regards to thrust lapses, using fir tree plots. One such fir tree plot can be seen below in Figure 11. Figure 11 – MCL to MCT Bleeds OFF Contour Plot 28 The above figure shows the 23k MTO thrust lapse for all the different bleed configurations we are concerned with. There a couple key takeaways from this plot. As bleed flow increases, the resulting thrust on the hot day line will decrease. While on the cold day “flat”, bleed flow has no impact on the net corrected thrust. The shape of the rating characteristic matches expectations as well. For increasing levels of bleed flow, the break point temperature moves to a colder condition. This is due to the reduced performance of the engine with higher levels of bleed flow. By taking more flow off the engine, the T4 levels will increase and we will once again be limited by our maximum T4 temperatures. Plots similar to this were created for all target thrust levels and conditions to ensure compliance. 29 4. Conclusions After creating an additional 5000 line matrix of T4 schedules, adding schedule selection logic to the simulation, and checking about every possible flight condition, I was comfortable enough to present the results to my department managers and executives, and finally distribute the new ratings files to the Pratt & Whitney modeling group. The modeling group took the input and created a new NPSS simulation which was readied for distribution. The simulation has since been distributed to the customer and has been used extensively by their engine performance group. As a result, the customer now has a better idea of the thrust output of the geared turbofan engine, and those of us in the P&W performance group have a set of thrust targets in which to meet with future simulations based on an N1 rating. 30 5. References 1. NPSS User Guide, Software Release: NPSS_2.3.0, Rev. 2, July 2, 2010 2. Lewis, John H., Fundamental Engineering Principles as Applied to Gas Turbine Performance Analysis, 2nd Edition, September 2003 3. Hill, Philip and Peterson, Carl, Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion, 2nd Edition, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1992 4. Aainsqatsi, K. “Turbofan operation.svg”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turbofan_operation.svg 31 Appendix A – MTO Selection Logic Example real TB_sched2targ (real alt, real MN) { if (Pset.switchTOrating == "23KTO") { return TB_sched2targ23(alt, MN, Amb.dTs); } if (Pset.switchTOrating == "21KTO" ) { if (DblPtRat.SecondPointActive == 0.0) return TB_sched2targ21mtobld0(alt, MN, Amb.dTs); } else { if ((CbldECS.switchW == "OFF" || (CbldECS.switchW == "INPUT" && CbldECS.W_in == 0.0) || (CbldECS.switchW == "FRAC" && CbldECS.WqWref_in == 0.0)) && ((CbldWAI.switchW == "OFF" || (CbldWAI.switchW == "INPUT" && CbldWAI.W_in == 0.0) || (CbldWAI.switchW == "FRAC" && CbldWAI.WqWref_in == 0.0)) && (CbldCAI.switchW == "OFF" || (CbldCAI.switchW == "INPUT" && CbldCAI.W_in == 0.0) || (CbldCAI.switchW == "FRAC" && CbldCAI.WqWref_in == 0.0)))){ return TB_sched2targ21mtobld0(alt, MN, Amb.dTs); } else { // ECS OFF, WAI OFF, CAI ON if ((CbldECS.switchW == "OFF" || (CbldECS.switchW == "INPUT" && CbldECS.W_in == 0.0) || (CbldECS.switchW == "FRAC" && CbldECS.WqWref_in == 0.0)) && ((CbldWAI.switchW == "OFF" || (CbldWAI.switchW == "INPUT" && CbldWAI.W_in == 0.0) || (CbldWAI.switchW == "FRAC" && CbldWAI.WqWref_in == 0.0)) && (CbldCAI.switchW == "CALCULATE" || (CbldCAI.switchW == "INPUT" && CbldCAI.W_in > 0.0) || (CbldCAI.switchW == "FRAC" && CbldCAI.WqWref_in > 0.0)))){ return TB_sched2targ21mtobldOEI(alt, MN, Amb.dTs); } else { // ECS ON (Single or Dual), WCAI OFF if ((CbldECS.switchW == "CALCULATE" || (CbldECS.switchW == "INPUT" && CbldECS.W_in > 0.0) || (CbldECS.switchW == "FRAC" && CbldECS.WqWref_in > 0.0)) && ((CbldWAI.switchW == "OFF" || (CbldWAI.switchW == "INPUT" && CbldWAI.W_in == 0.0) || (CbldWAI.switchW == "FRAC" && CbldWAI.WqWref_in == 0.0)) && (CbldCAI.switchW == "OFF" || (CbldCAI.switchW == "INPUT" && CbldCAI.W_in == 0.0) || (CbldCAI.switchW == "FRAC" && CbldCAI.WqWref_in == 0.0)))){ return TB_sched2targ21mtobldOEI(alt, MN, Amb.dTs); } 32 else { // All other bleed states return TB_sched2targ21mtobldOEIAI(alt, MN, Amb.dTs); } } } } } 33 Appendix B – Scaled T4 Table Example 34