Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T17:20:33.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emission comparison of turbofan and open rotor engines under special consideration of aircraft and mission design aspects

Part of: Sustainable Aerospace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

A. Seitz ,
D. Schmitt  and
S. Donnerhack
D. Schmitt
Affiliation:
Bauhaus Luftfahrt, Munich, Germany
S. Donnerhack
Affiliation:
MTU Aero Engines, Munich, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An integrated parametric model involving the design of propulsion system, airframe and flight mission is presented. Based hereon, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emission characteristics of advanced direct-drive turbofan and open rotor powered aircraft are analysed against pertinent aircraft and propulsion system design parameters. In addition, initial concept-specific trend statements on nitrogen oxides (NOx) as well as propulsor noise emission characteristics are derived. The obtained results contribute to a better understanding of more appropriate aircraft design attributes for advanced system architectures.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 115 , Issue 1168 , June 2011 , pp. 351 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe, Strategic Research Agenda Volume I, October 2002 Google Scholar
2. Martens, R. MTU Aero Engines’ CLAIRE Technology Program, MTU Aero Engines, Press Briefing on 18 July 2007.Google Scholar
3. Betz, A. The theory of contra vanes applied to the propeller, IngenieurArchiv, 9, (6), 1938, NACA TM-909, 1939.Google Scholar
4. Sieber, J., Bock, S., Horn, W. and Wilfert, G. Active core technology within the NEWAC research program For cleaner and more efficient aero engines, 1st CEAS European Air And Space Conference, Berlin, Germany, 10-13 September 2007.Google Scholar
5. Korsia, J.-J. and De Spiegeleer, G. VITAL – European R&D Programme For Greener Aero-Engines, ISABE Conference, 2007.Google Scholar
6. Sargisson, D.F. Advanced Propfan Engine Technology (APET) and Single-Rotation Gearbox/Pitch Change Mechanism, Final Report, General Electric Company, NASA Contractor Report 168113, 1985.Google Scholar
7 Reynolds, C.N. Advanced Propfan Engine Technology (APET) Singleand Counterrotation Gearbox/Pitch Change Mechanism, Final Report, Pratt and Whitney United Technologies Corporation, NASA Contractor Report 168114, 1 and 2, 1985.Google Scholar
8. Anderson, R.D. Advanced Propfan Engine Technology (APET) Definition Study, Single- And Counter-Rotation Gearbox/Pitch Change Mechanism Design, Final Report, Allison Gas Turbine Division, General Motors Corporation, NASA Contractor Report 168115, 1985.Google Scholar
9. Hager, R.D. and Vrabel, D. Advanced Turboprop Project, NASA SP-495, 1988.Google Scholar
10. Dream project website, http://www.dream-project.eu, cited October 15, 2009.Google Scholar
11. Energy Consumption Characteristics of Transports Using the Prop-Fan Concept, Final Report, Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, Seattle, Washington, US, NASA CR-137937, 1976.Google Scholar
12. Rohrbach, C. and Metzger, F.B. The Prop-Fan – A New Look in Propulsors, AIAA-75-1208, AIAA/SAE 11th Propulsion Conference, Anaheim, California, US, 29 September 1975 – 1 October 1975.Google Scholar
13. Muehlbauer, J. and Morris, S. Advanced turboprop cargo aircraft systems study, J Aircr, 1983, 20, (6), pp 523–529.Google Scholar
14. Mikkelson, D., Mitchell, G. and Bober, L. Summary of Recent NASA Propeller Research, AGARD Fluid Dynamics Panel Meeting on Aerodynamics and Acoustics of Propellers, Toronto, Canada, 1-4 October, 1984.Google Scholar
15. Seitz, A., Donnerhack, S. and Seifert, J. Implication of ultra high bypass engines on aircraft design features and mission, Bauhaus Luftfahrt, 1st CEAS European Air and Space Conference, Berlin, Germany, 10-13 September, 2007.Google Scholar
16. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J. and Haftka, R.T. Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, AIAA 34th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, US, 15-18 January 1996.Google Scholar
17. Seitz, A., Donnerhack, S., Broichhausen, K. and Seifert, J. An Integrated Parametric Model for Engine and Aircraft Design and Performance Optimization, AIAA 2008-4671, AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Hartford, Connecticut, US, 21-23 July 2008.Google Scholar
18. Matlab® Version 7.8.0.347 (R2009a), Copyright 1984-2009, The Mathworks, Inc, 2009.Google Scholar
19. Gasturb™, Version 11, Compile Date 18 December 2008, Copyright by Joachim Kurzke, 2008.Google Scholar
20. Godston, J. and Reynolds, C.N. Propulsion system integration configurations for future prop-fan powered aircraft, J Aircr, 1985, 22, (12), pp 1027–1033. Google Scholar
21. Conlon, J.A. and Bowles, J.V. Application of advanced high speed turboprop technology for future civil short-haul transport design, AIAA Aircraft System And Technology Conference, Los Angeles, California, US, 21-23 August 1978.Google Scholar
22. Walsh, P.P. and Fletcher, P. Gas Turbine Performance, 2nd ed, Blackwell Science Ltd, 2004.Google Scholar
23. Grieb, H. Projektierung von Flugtriebwerken, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel – Boston – Berlin, 2004.Google Scholar
24. Full scale technology demonstration of a modern counterrotating unducted fan engine concept, Design Report, GE Aircraft Engines, NASA CR-180867, 1987.Google Scholar
25. Hoff, G.E. et al, Experimental performance and acoustic investigation of modern, counterrotating blade concepts, Final Report, GE Aircraft Engines, NASA CR-185158, 1990.Google Scholar
26. Borst, H.V. et al, Summary of propeller design procedures and data, Volumes I-III, USAAMRDL Technical Reports 73-34A, 73-34B, 73-34C, 1973.Google Scholar
27. Theodorsen, T. The theory of propellers, Volumes I-IV, NACA Reports 775-778, 1944.Google Scholar
28. Davidson, R.E. Optimization and performance calculation of dualrotation propellers, NASA TP-1948, 1981.Google Scholar
29. Crigler, J.L. Application of Theodorsen’s theory to propeller design, NACA Report 924, 1948.Google Scholar
30. Lock, C.N.H. Interference velocity for a close pair of contra-rotating airscrews, National Physical Laboratory, Aerodynamics Division, Reports and Memoranda No. 2084, 1941.Google Scholar
31. Mckay, B.G. Ideal optimization of counterrotating propellers, AIAA-88-2801, AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 24th Joint Propulsion Conference, 11-13 July, Boston, Massachusetts, US, 1988.Google Scholar
32 Wainauski, H.S., Rohrbach, C. and Wynosky, T.A. Prop-fan performance terminology, SAE Paper 871838, Aerospace Technology Conference and Exposition, Long Beach, California, US, 5-8 October 1987 Google Scholar
33. Torenbeek, E. Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, Kluver Academic Publishers, 1982.Google Scholar
34. Raymer, D.P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed, AIAA Education Series, Series-in-Chief Editor: Schetz, J.A., 2006.Google Scholar
35. Howe, D. Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis, Professional Engineering Publishing Ltd., London, 2000.Google Scholar
36. Mccormick, B.W. Aerodynamics Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics, 2nd ed, John Wiley and Sons, 1995.Google Scholar
37. Roskam, J. Aircraft Design Part II: preliminary configuration design and integration of the propulsion system, Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation, Ottawa, Kansas, US, 1985.Google Scholar
38. Loftin, L.K. Jr. Subsonic Aircraft: Evolution and the Matching of Size to Performance, NASA Reference Publication, 1060, 1980.Google Scholar
39. Arps, H. et al Verschärfung der Lärmgrenzwerte von zivilen Strahlflugzeugen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Zusammenhangs zwischen den Lärm- und Schadstoffemissionen von Strahltriebwerken, Forschungsprojekt im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes FuE-Vorhaben, Förderkennzeichen 202 54 131, August 2006.Google Scholar
40. Magliozzi, B., Hanson, D.B. and Amiet, R.K. Propeller and propfan noise, aeroacoustics of flight vehicles: Theory and Practice. Volume 1: noise sources, pp 1–64, NASA N92-10599, 1991.Google Scholar
41. Metzger, F.B. A review of propeller noise prediction methodology 1919 – 1994, Metzger Technology Services, Simsbury, Connecticut, US, NASA Contractor Report 198156, 1995.Google Scholar
42. Gutin, L. On the sound field of a rotating propeller, Physical magazine of the Soviet Union, 9, (1), pp 57–71, NACA-TM-1195, 1948.Google Scholar
43. Richards, E.J. and Mead, D.J. Noise and Acoustic Fatigue in Aeronautics, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., London – New York – Syndey – Toronto, 1968 Google Scholar
44. Woodward, R.P. Noise of a model high speed counterrotation propeller at simulated take-off/approach conditions (F7/A7), AIAA-87-2657, 11th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference, Sunnyvale, California, US, 19-21 October 1987 Google Scholar
45. Magliozzi, B., Brown, P. and Parzych, D. Acoustic test and analysis of a counterrotating prop-fan model, Hamilton Standard Technologies Corporation, NASA Contractor Report 179590, 1987 Google Scholar
46. Kurzke, J. Design and off-design performance of gas turbines, GasTurb™11 User Manual, 2007 Google Scholar