Está en la página 1de 172

21 April 2010

Program Final Review

1
N+3 Phase I Final Review

Contract NNC08CA86C
NASA Glenn Research Center
21 April 2010

Dr. Sam Bruner


Principal Investigator
Northrop Grumman Corporation

2
Outline

• Introduction
• Scenario Development
• Requirements Definition
• Design Tools and Processes
• Candidate Configurations and Technologies
• Air Vehicle Design Studies
• Technology Maturation Plans
• Summary and Conclusions

• Closed session with NASA partners

3
N+3 Phase I Final Review:
Introduction

Contract NNC08CA86C
NASA Glenn Research Center
21 April 2010

Dr. Sam Bruner


Manager, Advanced Configurations
Northrop Grumman Corporation

4
Northrop Grumman Team

• Northrop Grumman
– Scott Collins – Program Manager
– Dr. Sam Bruner - Principal Investigator
– Chris Harris - Systems Analysis IPT Lead
– Nicholas Caldwell - Propulsion Integration
– Peter Keding - Technology Modeling and Vehicle
Trades/Optimization
– Scott Baber - Configuration Design
– Luck Pho - Aerodynamic Design and Performance
– Kyle Rahrig – Acoustic Modeling and Analysis
• Rolls-Royce Liberty Works
– David Eames
• Sensis
– Dave Miller – Traffic Forecasting and Simulation
• Tufts University
– Dr. Rich Wlezien - Future Scenario Research and Technology
Maturation Planning Effort
• Spirit Aerosystems
– Dr. Judy Gallman - Advanced Acoustic Inlet Liner
5
Objectives for Past Eighteen Months

• NASA seeks to “stimulate innovation and foster the pursuit of


revolutionary conceptual designs for aircraft that could enter into service
in the 2030-35 period”
• In response, Northrop Grumman:
– Developed a credible future scenario to establish a context for the proposed
advanced vehicle concept.
– Executed advanced concepts systems study that methodically identified and
evaluated integrated aircraft configurations
– Developed an advanced concept whose mission capabilities would enable it to fill a
broad, primary need within the future scenario
– Proposed an prioritized suite of enabling technologies and corresponding
technology development roadmaps required to realize the preferred vehicle
concept by the 2030-35 timeframe

Northrop Grumman’s preferred concept is revolutionary


in its performance, if not in its appearance
6
Scenario Analysis

• Develop a future scenario that describes King Carbon NIMBY

the challenges that may be facing


commercial aircraft operators in the 2030-
35 and beyond timeframe.
– Provide a context within which the proposer’s
Bright, Bold Doom and
Tomorrow Gloom

advanced vehicle concept(s) may meet a


market need and enter into service.
• Northrop Grumman provides four scenarios
that cover the range of possibilities
– King Carbon
– Not In My Backyard Individual Scenario Weighting Factors

– Bright Bold Tomorrow Combined Scenario


Weighting Factors
– Doom and Gloom
• Scenarios used to develop weighting
factors for use in design trade studies

7
Traffic and Passenger Forecast

• Scenario studies supplemented by


rigorous
– Analysis of current traffic movements
– Forecasts of future traffic and passenger
demands
• Simulations provide sensitivities to key
design parameters
• Final design requirements validated
through simulation

8
Requirements for Conceptual Design

Traffic and
Scenario
Passenger
Analysis
Forecasts

Noise (Cum below Stage 4) -71 EPNdB


N+3 (2030-2035
LTO NOx Emmissions (below CAEP/6) -75%
Service Entry)
Performance: Aircraft Fuel Burn better than
Advanced Aircraft
70%
Concepts Goals
Performance: Field Length Exploit
(Relative to User-
Metroplex
Defined Reference)
Concepts
Range 1600nm
Mission
Passengers 120
Requirements
Field Length, TO and Ldg (SL, Std Day) 5,000 feet
Derived from Traffic
Cruise Mach 0.75
Study
Cruise Altitude < FL450

Solid TRL 6 by 2025 to manage commercial risk

9
Reference Vehicle vs Preferred
Vehicle

• Reference Vehicle
– Vehicle used as baseline for establishing current-year capability
– Perturbation on a 737-500, assuming constant technology
– Resized to meet same mission requirements as the preferred vehicle
– “Rubber Engine”, “photographically scaled” wing
• Preferred vehicle
– Final design concept that meets the mission requirements and best meets the N+3
objectives
– Embodies prioritized set of enabling technologies
– Chosen via a rational downselect from a wide choice of architectures
– Only indirect consideration of cost

10
N+3 Phase 1 Technolo
* Cooled Cooling Air Turbine
Technology Suite
* Shape Memory Alloy Nozzle

Preferred Vehicle Overview Three-Shaft


* Porous Ceramic Nozzle Material
* Endothermic
TurbofanFuel System
Engine
Ultrahigh-Performance Fiber
-Ultra-High Bypass
Advanced Ratio of ~18
Metallics
-CMC Technology
Aeroservoelastic
Turbine SuiteStructures
Blades
26˚
Swept-Wing Laminar Flow
ThreeLarge
-Lean-Burn -Shaft
CMC Turbofan
Combustor
Integrated
Engine
Structures
Technology F E N L
- Ultra -High
Landing
Three-Shaft
-Intercooled Bypass
Gear
Compressor Ratio
Fairings
Turbofan of ~18
Engine
Stages
Pi *Preform
Ultrahigh Joints
Bypass Ratio of ~18
- Compressor
-Swept Fan Carbon OutletIntercooling
Guide
Nanotube
* Compressor VanesCables
Electrical
Intercooling
- Lean-Burn
Advanced
* Lean-BurnCMC Combustor
InletCeramic
Acoustic Liner Composite
Matrix
-Fan Blade Sweep DesignEngine
(CMC)Open-Rotor
Updated Combustor

N+3 Phase 1 Technologies


- CMC Turbine Blades
-Lifhgtweight * CMC
Modeling Fan/Fan
Turbine Cowl
for Inlet Blades
Optimization

Technologies
N+3 Phase 2
- Cooled Cooling
* Cooled
Distributed Air Turbine
Cooling
Exhaust Air Turbine
Nozzle and Flap
-Compressor * Shape
Nanotube Flow Control
Memory
Acoustic Alloy Nozzle
Liners
- Memory Metal Nozzle Design
-Active Compressor
* Porous Ceramic
Ultrahigh-Pressure Clearance Control
Nozzle Material
Hydraulic Subsystem
- Porous Ceramic
* Endothermic
High-Lift NozzleFuelMaterial
Leading-Edge System
System
-Variable Geometry
Ultrahigh-Performance
Fan
- EndothermicBlade FlowFuelNozzles
Control Fiber
System
Advanced Metallics
Four-Shaft Turbine Engine
Swept Wing
- Variable Laminar
Distributed Geometry
Aeroservoelastic
FlowNozzle
Structures
Propulsion

Technologies
N+4 Phase 2
Large Integrated
Swept Swept-Wing
Boundary-Layer
Wing Laminar Structures
Laminar
FlowFlow(BLI) Inlet
Ingestion
Large Integrated
Active Drag ReductionStructures
111.0 Aeroservoelastic
LargeOilless
Integrated Structures
Structures
98.7 Landing Gear
Engine Fairings
33.3 Pi Preform
Turboelectric
Aeroservoelastic Joints
Propulsion
Structures Fiber
M5Ultra High-Performance
Carbon Nanotube
Unsteady Electrical
Trailing-Edge CablesControl
Circulation
M5Ultra High -Performance Fiber
Carbon Nanotube Electrical Cables
Advanced
Fiber Metal Inlet Acoustic
Laminates Liner
F=Fuel
Carbon Burn,
Updated E=Emissions,
Nanotube ElectricalN=Noise,
Open-Rotor Cables L=Field Length
Engine
3-DNoWoven andfor
Modeling
Benefit Stitched
Inlet
Small CompositesLarge Benefit
Optimization
Benefit

Technologies
N+3 Phase 2
3-DWoven
DistributedandExhaust
StitchedNozzle
Composites
and Flap
12.5
10NP13 -028
Advanced Metallics
PhaseMetallics
Nanotube
Advanced 1 Preferred Configuration Summary
Acoustic Liners
Landing Ultrahigh-Pressure
Gear
Range Fairings
(With Reserves): Hydraulic Subsystem1,600 nm
Landing Gear Fairings
Dimensions in ft High-Lift
Passengers: Leading-Edge System 120
Advanced FanAcoustic
Advanced Acoustic
Blade
Field Length
FlowInlet
Inlet Liner
Liner
Control
Capability: 5,000 ft
Four-Shaft Turbine Engine
Cruise Altitude:
Distributed Propulsion 45,000 ft
N+3 Mission & Performance Design Mach Number: 0.75

Technologies
N+4 Phase 2
Boundary-Layer Ingestion (BLI) Inlet
Ramp
ActiveGross
DragWeight:
Reduction 80478 lb
Range[nmi] PAX Max TOGW[lb] CruiseAlt. [ft] CruiseMach CruiseSF C[pph/l
Oilless
bf] BFL[ft]
Zero Fuel Engine
Weight: 71,333 lb
Turboelectric
Operating Empty Propulsion
Weight: 46,133 lb
1600 120 80478 45,000 0.75 0.451
Unsteady
Empty Weight: Trailing-Edge 4999 Control
Circulation 43,666 lb
Fiber Metal Laminates
Wing Aspect Ratio:
F=Fuel Burn, E=Emissions, N=Noise, L=Field Length 12.7
11 Cruise Specific Fuel
No Benefit
Consumption: 0.451
Small Benefit
pph/lb
Large Benefit
Summary Accomplishments

• Northrop Grumman meets all design intents.


– All goals met except fuel burn
– Fuel burn still represents outstanding improvement
– Achievable with technology possible by 2025

Noise (Cum below Stage 4) -71 EPNdB -70 EPNdB 


N+3 (2030-2035
LTO NOx Emmissions (below CAEP/6) -75% -75% 
Service Entry)
Performance: Aircraft Fuel Burn better than 64%
Advanced Aircraft
70%
Concepts Goals
Performance: Field Length Exploit Exploit
(Relative to User-
Metroplex Metroplex
Defined Reference)
Concepts Concepts 
Range 1600nm 1600nm 
Mission
Passengers 120 120 
Requirements
Field Length, TO and Ldg (SL, Std Day) 5,000 feet 5,000 feet 
Derived from Traffic
Cruise Mach 0.75 0.75 
Study
Cruise Altitude < FL450 < FL450 

12
Technology Maturation Plans

• Seventeen high priority technologies identified


• Appendix to written report discusses disposition of 72
technologies considered but dismissed

13
Today’s Objectives

• Describe the Northrop Grumman


experience in detail
• Demonstrate:
– Our approach meets the broad needs for
the years 2030-2035
Subsection 5.2 Subsection 5.3 Section 6
Subsection 6.1
Preliminary Concepts Technology Assessment Analysis
Trade Studies

– Our design achieves the environmental


intent of the NASA N+3 challenges
– We have identified the technologies that
enable revolutionary improvements in Subsection 6.4
Exit Criteria Technology
Roadmaps, Findings

vehicle performance Section 7 Technology Risk Subsection 3.11 &6.5 and Recommendations
Phase 2 Proposal and
Final Report

Phase 2

14
Outline

• Introduction
• Scenario Development
• Requirements Definition
• Design Tools and Processes
• Candidate Configurations and Technologies
• Air Vehicle Design Studies
• Technology Maturation Plans
• Summary and Conclusions

• Closed session with NASA partners

15
N+3 Phase I Final Review:
Scenario Study

Contract NNC08CA86C
NASA Glenn Research Center
21 April 2010

Dr. Rich Wlezien


Tufts University

16
N+3 Scenario Objective

Scenario Task Objective: develop a future


scenario within which to describe the
challenges that may be facing commercial
aircraft operators in the 2030-35 and beyond
timeframe
Scenario Process

• NASA guidance – scenario may be developed using relevant existing


studies or as a part of this study
• Team conducted research on existing studies, literature search on issues,
and held interchange meetings
• Observed three primary scenarios across research findings
• Developed weighting factors to discern value with respect to goals of
concepts and technologies in context of scenarios
• Identify those that provide greatest value across scenarios
Future Energy Scenarios

Increasing Supply
Energy and Resource Use

Balancing Resources

Reducing Demand

Collapse

Today
Energy Scenarios and Advocates

Global “growth” scenario (Increasing Supply)


ExxonMobil projects that global oil production will continue to grow well beyond 100 million barrels a
day. In its latest reference scenario, for example, the US Department of Energy (Energy Information
Administration), expects global production to be 112 million barrels a day in 2030.

Global “plateau” scenario (Balancing Resources)


Shell “Blueprints Scenario”, argues that global production will flatten around 2015 and remain on a
plateau into the 2020s propped up by expanding volumes of unconventional oil production because of
the decline of conventional oil production.

Global “descent” scenario (Reducing Demand)


Shell “Scramble Scenario” predicts a fall off of global production as oilfield flows from the newer
projects fail to replace capacity declines from depletion in older existing fields.

Global “collapse” scenario


There is another, very worrying, scenario, wherein the steady fall of the descent scenario is steepened
appreciably by a serial collapse of production in some - possibly many – of the aged supergiant and
giant fields that provide so much global production today.

The Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security (Arup, FirstGroup, Foster and Partners, Scottish and Southern Energy,
Solarcentury, Stagecoach Group, Virgin Group, Yahoo!) considers that the “descent” scenario is a highly probable global
outcome, but they also fear that a “collapse” scenario is possible, albeit less likely.
Aircraft Efficiency Data

NLR-CR-2005-669
Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft, An overview of historical and future trends
Peeters P.M., Middel J., Hoolhorst A.
Sources: 15 scenarios from 4 studies

• World Business Council for Sustainable Development,


Global Scenarios 2000-2050 (WBCSD – 3 scenarios)
• Shell Energy Scenarios to 2050 (Shell – 2 scenarios)
• JPDO Futures Working Group (JPDO – 5 scenarios)
• Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Aeronautics: Scenario-
Based Strategic Planning for NASA's Aeronautics
Enterprise, National Research Council (NRC – 5
scenarios)
Scenario Overview

King Carbon NIMBY

D-1 C-1 A-1 B-5 D-2 C-3 A-2 B-3

Bright, Bold Doom and


Tomorrow Gloom

C-2 A-3 B-1 A-3 A-5 B-4 B-2

23
Scenarios breakdown

Organization Report/Scenario Title


A) JPDO Futures Working Group “Futures Working Group Final Report (Draft)”, 2004
1. Is it hot in here or what?
2. Storm Clouds
3. Markets Rule
4. Asia’s Century
5. Terror Uncontained
B) National Research Council (NRC) “Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Aeronautics: Scenario-
Based Strategic Planning for NASA's Aeronautics
Enterprise”, 1997
1. Pushing the Envelope
2. Grounded
3. Regional Tensions
4. Trading Places
5. Environmentally Challenged
C) World Business Council for “Exploring Sustainable Development”, 1997
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) 1. FROG! First Raise Our Growth
2. Jazz – Dynamic Reciprocity
3. GEOpolity – Sustainable Guidance to Market
D) Shell “Shell Energy Scenarios to 2050”, 2008
1. Scramble!
2. Blueprints
Reducing Demand
“King Carbon”
The confluence of peak oil and global
warming concerns results in the imposition of
strict “carbon taxes” to limit the burning of
fossil fuels. Years of complacency and a
business as usual approach has led to the
realization that something must be done
quickly. Insufficient investment in alternative
fuels and sequestration technologies leaves
little time to invest in alternative fuel
infrastructure. Ground transport and
electricity generation at least have some
alternatives – air transport must address
skyrocketing fuel costs with new approaches
to conservation and efficiency. Global
alliances cutting across the developed and
undeveloped countries set global standards
for carbon consumption.
Global Oil vs. Projected Demand

100

80

60
(million barrels per day)

40

20
MBPD

0
Balancing Resources
“Not in My Back Yard”
A combination of new energy sources and
new approaches to energy conservation have
brought supply and demand into a long-term
balance. Air transportation is growing slowly,
but remains a strong component of the overall
transportation mix. The push to greater
efficiency and energy conservation has
reinvigorated the cities, leading to much
higher population densities. Land for airports
is at a premium, and the luxury of large buffer
zones is not viable. Local populations are
becoming increasingly intolerant to noise and
airport emissions such as NOx, soot,
particulates, and hydrocarbon emissions.
Strict local rules evolve first in the EU and
California, and the bar for noise and local
emissions is set very high.
Shell “Blueprints” Energy Projection

500

400
(million barrels per day

300
oil equivalent)

200
MBPDOE

100

0
Increasing Supply
“Bright, Bold Tomorrow
New approaches to energy initiated in the
early 21st century now pervade the
transportation system, and reasonably-priced
carbon-based biofuels from algae farms are
now widely available. The world economy
has more than recovered from the downturn
of the first decade, and renewed prosperity
places high demand on global travel. New
investment in airport infrastructure has
saturated the hub-and-spoke system, and
widespread point-to-point transportation is
now available. Smaller, single-pilot aircraft
dominate the transportation system, and the
only realistic alternative is smaller local
airports, and closer spacing for aircraft going
into the larger airports.
Exxon Projection of Fossil Fuel
Growth

(million barrels per day


oil equivalent)
MBPDOE

Focus on sequestration for global warming amelioration


Three Scenarios that Cover the
Spectrum of Future States

Goal Scenario

Noise

Local NIMBY
LTO Emissions
Global
King Carbon
Fuel Burn

Bright, Bold
Field Length Tomorrow
Summary

Scenario Challenges
• NIMBY foresees modest (2%/yr) world-wide growth in air transport
• U.S. and Europe call for stricter emission and noise requirements similar to N+3 goals
• Replacement of aircraft, in particular single-aisle class will occur
NIMBY • Aircraft must offer improved efficiency and greater locale (local emissions requirements may vary
between airports) and passenger acceptance to enable market growth
• NextGen, through ops improvements, will enable smaller aircraft and better local acceptance

• King Carbon foresees decreasing (-2%) demand for air transport due to increasingly higher cost of fuel
and shortages from lack of national planning
• Taxes instituted to support entire transportation sector fuel efficiency initiatives
• Alternative forms of moderate range transportation take hold
King Carbon • Slower growth in developing countries and retraction in U.S. and Europe
• Fleet recapitalization will slow unless national technology investments reduce acquisition costs
• Development of efficient aircraft w/equally attractive cost and time to market is critical
• Systems capable of performing on different fuels depending on availability in areas of operation
• Bright, Bold Tomorrow occurs under strong national and global economies with correspondingly robust
(4%) increase in air transportation
• Multi-national investment strategies occur as countries partner to develop techs and systems
• Economic expansion results in need and opportunity for timely travel to a wide range of locales
• Effective management of air travel industry growth to prevent emission issues occurring beyond what
Bright, Bold technology can resolve will be critical
• Technical challenges will include bringing fleets of safe, cruise efficient STOL aircraft online and the
Tomorrow corresponding management of increasingly complex airspace
Mapping Goals to Scenarios

Individual Scenario Weighting Factors

Combined Scenario
Weighting Factors

Application of Weighting Factor discussed in Analysis Process


Summary

• Future likely dominated by national strategies and


objectives in energy, environment, economy, and
defense
• Team presented summary of existing studies,
literature search on issues, and internal observations
• Identified three primary scenarios covering research
findings
• Used weighting factors to discern value of concepts
and technologies in context of scenarios and related
to goals
Outline

• Introduction
• Scenario Development
• Requirements Definition
• Design Tools and Processes
• Candidate Configurations and Technologies
• Air Vehicle Design Studies
• Technology Maturation Plans
• Summary and Conclusions

• Closed session with NASA partners

35
N+3 Phase I Final Review:
Requirements Definition

Contract NNC08CA86C
NASA Glenn Research Center
21 April 2010

Dave Miller
Sensis Corporation
Chris Harris
Northrop Grumman Corporation
36
Agenda

• Simulation and Modeling Process

• N+3 Impact Assessment Approach

• Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES)

• Future Demand Generation

• NextGen Assumptions for N+3 Simulations

• Summary of Assumptions of N+3

37
Simulation and Modeling Process

N+3
N+3

N+3

N+3

• System-wide simulations using the Airspace Concept Evaluation System (ACES)


• AvDemand was used to create future schedules with N+3 vehicle
• Tail-tracking algorithm was used to create airframe-based itineraries
• Simplified N+3 performance model used in ACES 4-D trajectory simulator
• Airport and airspace capacities reflect JPDO-provided NextGen assumptions

Primary goal was NAS assessment of passenger throughput and delay


38
N+3 Impact Assessment Approach

• A surrogate vehicle was used for the initial analysis of N+3 vehicle
performance to develop sensitivities for requirements
• Targeted markets consisted of origination and destination (O/D) pairs
serviced by the Boeing 737 and other similar aircraft
• Separate future schedules were created and simulated for the reference
vehicle, similar vehicles, and the advanced N+3 vehicle and the results
compared
– Differences were used to assess the impact of the advanced vehicle configurations
on NextGen
– Performance metrics investigated included fuel efficiency, thrust, cruise speed, and
cruise altitude
– System-wide comparisons included passenger throughput and delay
• Assessed N+3 field length by using a bypass alternative that shifts
demand to regional, underutilized facilities

39
Airspace Concept Evaluation System
(ACES)

• Distributed, fast-time, computer simulation of gate-to-gate flight


operations in the NAS
• Developed in support of the NASA Virtual Airspace Modeling and
Simulation (VAMS) project to assess future Air Traffic Management (ATM)
concepts
• Utilizes an agent-based software architecture to model the behavior and
interactions of Traffic Flow Management (TFM), Air Traffic Control (ATC),
Flight Deck, and Airline Operational Control (AOC) entities
• Models terminal, and en route operations
• Utilizes a high fidelity, physics-based, four-degrees of freedom trajectory
generator
• Used to assess new vehicle concepts in current and future air traffic
environments

40
ACES Software Architecture

ACES Inputs

Airport Capacities Flight Data Set Static Data


Origin/Destination Airport Adaptation
Airport States
Aircraft Type Data
VFR
Trajectory Center/Sector ACES
IFR Adaptation Data
VFR Cruise Alt & Speed Functionality
RUC VFR
Winds VFR Departure Time Sector Capacities Generic/Enhanced
Airport Model

Winds On/Off
TFM
ACES Simulation Center A Center B TFM Delay Maneuvers
TFM TRACON Departure Meter Fix
ATC Separation
ATC
TRACON ATC TFM Airline Operations
ATC
Control
TFM
40

ATC Airport
Rerouting
nm

40
ATC
Airport Surface Traffic

nm
Limitations
Conflict Detection &
Resoluation

Local Data Collection

Center Handoff Airport Acceptance Flight Time Data Aircraft State


Message Rate Message Message Message

ACES Outputs

41
Future Demand Generation

• AvDemand was used to create future demand schedules from a


representative “seed” day
– Seed day was Thursday, July 13th 2006

– Same seed day used by JPDO for NextGen research

• N+3 vehicle was substituted into future demand schedules


– Assumed a production rate of 400/year for N+3 vehicle with production starting in
2030 and 4000 vehicles in service by 2040

– Took into account present day fleet mix and aircraft types

– Assumed retirement of present-day aircraft types e.g. MD-80, DC-9, B737, etc.

42
Airframes-based Itineraries

• A tail-tracking algorithm was used to


link together the flights in the
AvDemand generated future schedules
– Required to honor turnaround times and
account for propagated delay

– Propagated delay accounts for 30% of


all delay according to the Bureau of
Transportation and Statistics

• Future schedules generated had a


median of 5 flights per day per
airframe

43
NextGen Assumptions for N+3
Simulation

• NextGen to be fully implemented by 2025

• Modeled NextGen improvements:


– All known new and planned runway construction and JPDO operational
improvements

– Airport capacities were increased on average for the top 35 airports by


approximately 45%

– En route sector capacities were increased by a factor of 1.7

• Monitor Alert Parameter (MAP) is used to determine sector capacity

• MAP values were multiplied by the improvement factor to increase the


sector capacity for the N+3 simulations

44
How Flights Were Shifted for
Metroplex Operations

• Traffic was offloaded to auxiliary


airports within 70 nm of hub
airport to ensure that
capacity/demand ratio was less
than 90% at hub

• Assumes JPDO NextGen airport


capacities for 2025

45
Summary of Assumptions for N+3
NAS Simulations

• NextGen implementation by 2025


– En route sector capacity increases due to operational improvements

– Airport capacity due to new runway construction and operational improvements

– Availability of Virtual Towers for regional airports to enhance Metroplex operations

• Production rate of 400/year for 10 years starting in 2030

• Turnaround time of 36 min

• Metroplex defined by 70 nmi radius from hub airport, 40 flights/hour


capacity each satellite airport

46
Requirements Definition Process

OVERALL Scenario Metroplex


NIMBY
Inputs: (Field Length)
King Carbon
1.8X – 3.0X ACES Inputs

Traffic Levels
Flight Data Set

ACES N+3 NAS


Bright, Bold Airport Capacities Static Data
Tomorrow Airport States
Origin/Destination Airport Adaptation
Aircraft Type Data
VFR
Trajectory Center/Sector

Simulations
ACES
IFR Adaptation Data
VFR Cruise Alt & Speed Functionality
RUC VFR

Cruise Speed
Winds VFR Departure Time Sector Capacities Generic/Enhanced
Airport Model

Winds On/Off
TFM
ACES Simulation Center A Center B TFM Delay Maneuvers
TFM TRACON Departure Meter Fix

NextGen
ATC Separation
ATC
TRACON ATC TFM Airline Operations
ATC
Control

Assumptions
TFM

40
ATC Airport
Rerouting

nm

40
ATC
Airport Surface Traffic

nm
Limitations
Conflict Detection &

Range
Resoluation

Local Data Collection

Center Handoff Airport Acceptance Flight Time Data Aircraft State

ITERATIVE
Message Rate Message Message Message

ACES Outputs

N+3
N+3 Passenger Load
Preferred
Surrogate
Configuration

47
Primary Mission is to Serve Traffic
Volumes Predicted by BBT Scenario
Enplanements
(1000’s)

TRAFFIC GROWTH
PREDICTIONS:

Scenario %/yr 2035

NIMBY 2% 1.6x
Oil
KC -2% 0.6x
Embargo
BBT 4% 2.7x

High traffic growth rates for an extended period can be


sustained if infrastructure & macroeconomics are supporting.
48
Is Metroplex Needed?

• Sensitivity to even
small increases in
traffic levels, well
below predicted 1.8X-
3X range is high

• NextGen and current + NextGen


infrastructure alone
are not enough for
even moderate traffic
increases 1.1X 1.5X

Metroplex Resources are Required to Enable the


Challenging Future Traffic Levels
49
Metroplex Airfields are Available to
Add Large Infrastructure Set to NAS

35 Major Airports

Goal is to leverage existing


Metroplex runways to
exploit underutilized
resources.

Population Distribution NextGen Enabled Fields

50
Identification of Metroplex Assets

• Metroplex offloading was used to assess the N+3 field length capability
– Support traffic projections by shifting flights to nearby underutilized runways
– Utilization of existing Metroplex assets was assumed (no new construction)
• Selection of Metroplex Airports
– Located within 70nm of the associated primary airport
– Public-use airport
– At least 150ft width
51 – History of commercial service
Metroplex Infrastructure By Runway
Length Shows Largest Gain at 5kft
Creating a scheme to offload traffic from major hubs, utilizing NextGen-
enabled airfields, is a crucial component of the 2035 simulations…
# Runways

>=5k 4k<=5k 3k<=4k


Maximum Runway Length (ft)

Determining field length capability depends greatly upon NextGen


resources in ~2035, combined with future traffic projections.
52
Employing Metroplex Infrastructure
Reduced Critical Airport Capacities
3 By offloading to metroplex fields 2 Reduces significant levels of
at critical capacity ratio. hub traffic volume…
Flight Counts

Cumulative Count of US Airports by Max Runway Length - % of


Total US Towered Airports (525)

Time of Day
674% 673%
637%
% Increase in Airports Relative to

493%
1 Using metroplex
Current Towered Airports

airports with 5000’


329% or longer runways…
Critical ~3X traffic levels were
186% successfully met. High delay
118%
75%
52%
levels were still observed.
37%
23% 15% 6% 2% 1% 0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Length of Longest Runway (Thousands of Feet)
53
What is the Right Cruise Speed?

6000 12 Gate
knots reduction
Arrival leads to 9
Delay Difference
Flight Data Set Cruise Speed Distribution
minute average
CESTOL delay increase
vs. B737 Schedule
1,800
5000
1,600

1,400
Flights

4000
N+3
CESTOL 1,200

Flight Counts
Counts

737
Statistics (minutes)
B737 1,000
N+3
Flightof

3000 800
9 min
Number

600
(mean)
2000 400

200

1000 -

12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
-21
-18
-15
-12

0
3
6
9
-9
-6
-3
Arrival Delay
Gate Arrival Difference
Delay Difference (minutes) (min)
0
228 248 268 288 308 328 348 368 388 408 428 448 468 488 508
Cruise Speed
Knots (knots)

To minimize adverse impact on NAS


traffic delay and throughput, a
minimum cruise speed of Mach 0.75
was adopted.
More airframes are required
54 since flights/day decreases.
Passenger & Range Requirements

• The current most prevalent vehicle size class in use in terms of number
of flights is also aptly suited to the metroplex mission:

max (nm)
Top 20 airframes show mainly 120-150 PAX 75th percentile
aircraft cruising <1600nm almost exclusively

median

Number of
flights
25th percentile

2400

1600

800
600

min

55
Further Refining the Range
Requirement

• The range requirement was determined from projected 2025 levels from
FAA estimated city-pair growth rates, using a Pareto type approach…
Current & Future Stage Length Distributions Cumulative Projection 2025
2400 nm
100%
1600 nm

Cumulative Percentage, Projected 2025 Flights


90%
Distributions show low 80%
800 nm
sensitivity of overall 70%
Number of Flights

character to growth 600 nm


60%
levels.
50% Pareto
40% Zone
30%

20%

10%

0%

1000

1330
1440
1550
1660
1770

2100
2210
2320
2430
1110
1220

1880
1990
10
120
230

560
670
780
890
340
450
Stage Length (nm) Stage
Stage Length Length
(distance (nm)
between city pairs), nm

To best meet the broadest possible need for future metroplex


missions, a “conservative” 1600 nm range was selected.
56
Best Passenger Count for 1600nm
Metroplex Operations Mission

• Correlation with the top


20 most often flown
airframes show that 120-
150 PAX is primary need

• Metroplex operations will


likely be more readily
accepted with smaller,
lighter, cleaner, and
quieter aircraft

• Smaller aircraft assure


higher loading rates, and
reduce propagated
system delays

The primary vehicle need in the future NAS is the 120-150 PAX
class. 120 was chosen for best Metroplex adoption potential.
57
Summary of Derived N+3
Requirements

• NextGen alone is not sufficient


• By engaging Metroplex fields with 5000’ runways (or greater), a huge
addition in capacity and attendant reduction in delay is achieved
• Substantial future delays will be seen (or attendant price increases,
congestion, frustration) if not implemented soon
• For the broadest capability, a range of 1600 nm is sufficient
• Passenger count of 120 will serve primary Metroplex mission
• Cruising at Mach 0.75 or greater will best utilize N+3 airframes

Mission Requirements
Range (with reserves): 1600 nm
Passengers: 120
Balanced Field Length (Sea Level/Standard Day): 5000 ft
Landing Distance (Sea Level/Standard Day): 5000 ft
Minimum Cruise Mach: 0.75
58
Outline

• Introduction
• Scenario Development
• Requirements Definition
• Design Tools and Processes
• Candidate Configurations and Technologies
• Air Vehicle Design Studies
• Technology Maturation Plans
• Summary and Conclusions

• Closed session with NASA partners

59
N+3 Phase I Final Review:
Design Tools and Processes

Contract NNC08CA86C
NASA Glenn Research Center
21 April 2010

Peter Keding
Configuration Design and Integration
Northrop Grumman Corporation

60
Tools and Processes Overview

Tools
• Flight Optimization System (FLOPS)
• Airspace Concepts Evaluation System (ACES)
• Conceptual Mass Properties (CONMAP)
• Model for Investigating the Detectability of Acoustic Signatures (MIDAS)

Subsection 5.2 Subsection 5.3 Section 6


Subsection 6.1
Preliminary Concepts Technology Assessment Analysis
Trade Studies

Processes
• Calibration
• Optimization
• System
Subsection 6.4
Exit Criteria Technology
Roadmaps, Findings

Effectiveness Section 7 Technology Risk Subsection 3.11 &6.5 and Recommendations


Phase 2 Proposal and
Final Report

Ratings (SER) Phase 2


61
Vehicle Design Tools

FLOPS CONMAP
• Developed by NASA Langley • Developed by Northrop Grumman
• Used for preliminary design and analysis of • Provides high-level weight and longitudinal
flight vehicles center of gravity estimates based on vehicle
• Uses nine separate modules that allow for geometry, system definitions, and vehicle
multidisciplinary vehicle design, including: functions
• Weights CONMAP
Weight (lb)
FLOPS Delta
Weight (lb) [lbs] [%]

• Aerodynamics
Structure 51433.8 51743 309.2 0.60%
Wing 19230.6 19391 160.4 0.83%
Horizontal Tail 1411.2 1408 -3.2 -0.23%

• Takeoff/landing
Vertical Tail 1490.5 1487 -3.5 -0.23%
Fuselage 18055.2 18135 79.8 0.44%
Alighting & Arresting Gear 7289.4 7364 74.6 1.02%
Engine Section & Nacelle 3956.9 3958 1.1 0.03%

• Engine data scaling and interpolation Miscellaneous


Propulsion
Engine Installation
0.0
13259.1
10468.0
13259.0
11246
-0.1 0.00%
-0.1 0.00%

• Mission performance Afterburner


Exhaust System
Accessory Gearboxes/Drives
0.0
0.0
562.7

• Program control
Engine Controls 79.3
Starting System 136.0
Fuel System 1029.1 1029 -0.1 -0.01%
Miscellaneous (Thrust Reverser) 983.9 984 0.1 0.01%
Systems & Equipment 23883.0 24090.0 207.0 0.87%
Flight Controls 3421.3 3445 23.7 0.69%
Auxiliary Power Plant 934.0 933 -1.0 -0.11%
Instruments 656.6 660 3.4 0.52%
Hydraulics & Pneumatics 1418.4 1428 9.6 0.68%
Electrical System 2378.2 2400 21.8 0.92%
Avionics 1620.0 1634 14.0 0.86%
Furnishings & Equipment 12343.9 12491 147.1 1.19%
Air Conditioning & Anti-Icing 1010.7 999 -11.7 -1.15%
Load & Handling 100.0 100 0.0 0.00%
Weight Empty 88575.9 89092.0 516.1 0.58%
Crew and Baggage - Flight 420.0 420 0.0 0.00%
Crew and Baggage - Cabin 1050.0 1050 0.0 0.00%
Engine Oil 120.0 120 0.0 0.00%
Fuel, Unusable 138.0 138 0.0 0.00%
Passenger Service 1031.9 1040 8.1 0.78%
Clean Operational Weight 91335.8 91860.0 524.2 0.57%
Cargo - Containers 0.0 0
External Fuel Tanks & Provisions 0.0 0
Miscellaneous 0.0 0
Operational Weight 91335.8 91860.0 524.2 0.57%
Passengers 27540.0 27540 0.0 0.00%
Passenger Baggage 6480.0 6480 0.0 0.00%
Cargo - Containers (Baggage only) 1296.0 1307 11.0 0.85%
Cargo (Chosen to match TOGW) 1548.0 1548 0.0 0.00%
Fuel, Usable - Internal 46000.0 45917 -83.0 -0.18%
Takeoff Gross Weight 174199.8 174652.0 452.2 0.26%

62
Additional Tools

MIDAS ACES
• Developed by Northrop Grumman • Simulates nationwide air traffic
• Allows for calculation of noise sources management, flight, and airspace
operations center functions
• Some modules based on NASA’s ANOPP
• Allows system-wide impacts of new aviation
• Includes models to predict shielding and concepts to be analyzed
refraction, acoustic radiation and duct
propagation, and acoustic attenuation and • Visualization of how the NAS will handle
reflection future flight demands
• Flight profile and individual noise sources
used to compute EPNL

63
FLOPS Calibration Process

• Tool calibration and


validation required
before beginning design 737-800 CATIA 3-D Initial 737-800
CONMAP MODEL FLOPS
CATIA File FLOPS File

process Publicly Released B737-800


Weight Information

Weight Statement

• B737-800 with the


737-800 737-800 FLOPS Single
CONMAP File Comparison FLOPS File Point Analysis

CFM56-7B27 used to 737-800


IF FLOPS = CONMAP

calibrate FLOPS Weights Calibration & Validation FLOPS File

1
2 Publicly Released Performance 737-800 FLOPS Multi
Performance Information Comparison FLOPS File Point Analysis

• Used publically released 3


Final 737-800 IF FLOPS = PUBLIC
geometry to generate Aerodynamics Calibration FLOPS File

vehicle in CATIA and


0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

CL
0.4

0.3

0.2

Aerodynamic Historical 0.1

FLOPS
0
0.0000 0.0200 0.0400 0.0600 0.0800
CD

Validation Aerodynamic Trends 20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

L/D or M *Max L/D


12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

Aerodynamics Validation
4.00

2.00

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Mach

• Must calibrate weights


before aerodynamics

64
FLOPS Weight Calibration

• 737-800 CATIA model used to


CONMAP FLOPS Delta
Weight (lb) Weight (lb) [lbs] [%] CONMAP
737-800
CATIA File
CATIA 3-D
MODEL FLOPS Initial 737-800
FLOPS File

Structure 51433.8 51743 309.2 0.60%

generate weight statement in


Publicly Released B737-800
Weight Information

Wing 19230.6 19391 160.4 0.83% 737-800 Weight Statement FLOPS Single
737-800

Horizontal Tail 1411.2 1408 -3.2 -0.23% CONMAP File Comparison FLOPS File Point Analysis

CONMAP, geometric input


IF FLOPS = CONMAP
Vertical Tail 1490.5 1487 -3.5 -0.23% Weights Calibration & Validation
737-800
FLOPS File

Fuselage 18055.2 18135 79.8 0.44% 1

used to create FLOPS weight


2 Publicly Released Performance 737-800 FLOPS Multi

Alighting & Arresting Gear 7289.4 7364 74.6 1.02%


Performance Information Comparison FLOPS File Point Analysis

3
IF FLOPS = PUBLIC
Engine Section & Nacelle 3956.9 3958 1.1 0.03% Aerodynamics Calibration
Final 737-800
FLOPS File

statement
0.9

Miscellaneous 0.0
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

CL
0.4

0.3

0.2

Aerodynamic Historical 0.1

0
0.0000 0.0200 0.0400
CD
0.0600 0.0800

Validation Aerodynamic Trends 20.00

18.00

Propulsion
16.00

13259.1 13259.0 -0.1 0.00%


14.00

L/D or M *Max L/D


12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

Aerodynamics Validation
4.00

2.00

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Mach

Engine Installation 10468.0 11246 -0.1 0.00%


Afterburner 0.0
Exhaust System 0.0
Accessory Gearboxes/Drives 562.7

• Publically released weight Engine Controls


Starting System
79.3
136.0

information used to validate


Fuel System 1029.1 1029 -0.1 -0.01%
Miscellaneous (Thrust Reverser) 983.9 984 0.1 0.01%

CONMAP
Systems & Equipment 23883.0 24090.0 207.0 0.87%
Flight Controls 3421.3 3445 23.7 0.69%
Auxiliary Power Plant
Instruments
934.0
656.6
933
660
-1.0
3.4
-0.11%
0.52%
A similar process
Hydraulics & Pneumatics
Electrical System
1418.4
2378.2
1428
2400
9.6
21.8
0.68%
0.92%
was used to
calibrate these tools
• FLOPS/CONMAP weight
Avionics 1620.0 1634 14.0 0.86%

for hybrid wing-body


Furnishings & Equipment 12343.9 12491 147.1 1.19%

comparison used for FLOPS


Air Conditioning & Anti-Icing 1010.7 999 -11.7 -1.15%
Load & Handling 100.0 100 0.0 0.00%
vehicles using a
calibration, reconciled
Weight Empty 88575.9 89092.0 516.1 0.58%
Crew and Baggage - Flight
Crew and Baggage - Cabin
420.0
1050.0
420
1050
0.0
0.0
0.00%
0.00%
Northrop Grumman
differences in FLOPS using Engine Oil 120.0 120 0.0 0.00% internal database of
all-wing aircraft.
Fuel, Unusable 138.0 138 0.0 0.00%

calibration factors Passenger Service


Clean Operational Weight
Cargo - Containers
1031.9
91335.8
0.0
1040
91860.0
0
8.1
524.2
0.78%
0.57%

External Fuel Tanks & Provisions 0.0 0


Miscellaneous 0.0 0

• Iterated until weights were


Operational Weight
Passengers
91335.8
27540.0
91860.0
27540
524.2
0.0
0.57%
0.00% DTOGW=0.26%
Passenger Baggage 6480.0 6480 0.0 0.00%

within an acceptable tolerance Cargo - Containers (Baggage only)


Cargo (Chosen to match TOGW)
1296.0
1548.0
1307
1548
11.0
0.0
0.85%
0.00%
Fuel, Usable - Internal 46000.0 45917 -83.0 -0.18%
Takeoff Gross Weight 174199.8 174652.0 452.2 0.26%
65
FLOPS Aerodynamic Calibration

• Takeoff and landing max CL CONMAP


737-800
CATIA File

Publicly Released B737-800


CATIA 3-D
MODEL FLOPS Initial 737-800
FLOPS File

and low-speed drag polars


Weight Information

737-800 Weight Statement 737-800 FLOPS Single


CONMAP File Comparison FLOPS File Point Analysis

determined through
IF FLOPS = CONMAP
737-800
FLOPS File
Weights Calibration & Validation
1
2 Publicly Released Performance 737-800 FLOPS Multi

historical trends
Performance Information Comparison FLOPS File Point Analysis

3
Final 737-800 IF FLOPS = PUBLIC
FLOPS File
Aerodynamics Calibration
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

CL
0.4

0.3

0.2

Aerodynamic Historical 0.1

0
0.0000 0.0200 0.0400
CD
0.0600 0.0800

Validation Aerodynamic Trends 20.00

18.00

16.00

14.00

L/D or M *Max L/D


12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

Aerodynamics Validation
4.00

2.00

0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Mach

• High-speed drag polars


calculated internally in
FLOPS
• Calibrated to match publically A similar process
released performance was used to
characteristics calibrate these tools
for hybrid wing-body
vehicles using a
• Validated against historical Northrop Grumman
trends for tube-and-wing internal database of
aircraft of similar gross all-wing aircraft.
weight and passenger count

66 B737-800 Aerodynamic Calibration Points


Fuel Optimization

• FLOPS parametric mode to Initial Trade


generate an array of vehicles Space
within the trade space (aspect
ratio, wing area, thrust)
• Use parser to filter FLOPS
configurations based on
mission requirements and
geometric constraints Trade Space Requirements
Vehicle Parser and
• Sort candidate configurations Refined Constraints
by objective function
• Repeat process, refining trade Configurations User Defined
space each iteration until Sorted by
Objective Function
Objective

objective function is minimized


Function

within an acceptable tolerance


Optimized
• Subsequent analysis of Vehicle
emissions and acoustics

67
Fuel Burn Objective Function

• Optimizing solely on mission fuel


drives aspect ratio higher with little
regard for vehicle empty weight

• New objective function weighted


combination of both mission fuel and
gross weight
– Yielded lower empty weight vehicles
while still allowing for higher aspect
ratios
– Empty weight serves as a surrogate for
vehicle cost

68
Optimization Methodology cont.

• Effective at examining and refining a large trade space

• Resulted in optimum performance of trade space while satisfying


performance and geometric constraints

4
x 10
Fuel Required
2
Range = 1600 nm
1.9 120 Passengers
Std Sea Level Performance

Takeoff Thrust (per engine), T ~ lbs


1.8
10 00
0
1.7

1.6
95
00
Optimized Configuration
1.5

1.4
Second-segment Climb
1.3 90 0
0

1.2

Sample Objective 1.1 8500

Function Minimization 1
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Wing Area, Sw - sq.ft.

69
System Effectiveness Ratings (SER)

Sample Configuration SER Comparison


Noise

• SER metrics defined in order to


System Effectiveness Rating (SER)

System Effectiveness Rating


Fuel Burn
1.000
Emissions

quantify configuration performance 0.900 Field Length

relative to the 2030-2035 future


0.800

0.700
scenario and the N+3 goals 0.600

0.500

0.400

• Take into account the benefits and 0.300

penalties of technologies at the 0.200

system level
0.100

0.000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Configuration Number
Configuration
• No extra credit is given for
configurations that exceed individual 4
N+3 goals SER   i SERi
1
• Penalties where SERi are the goal-
• Noise, fuel burn, and emissions SER < 0
for negative system impacts specific system effectiveness
• Field length SER = 0 for configurations ratings, and i are scenario-
which do not meet the requirement based weighting factors
70
System Effectiveness Ratings (SER)

Fuel Noise
• Goal: 70% reduction in fuel burn from • Goal: 71 EPNdB reduction in EPNL
reference vehicle and mission from Stage 4 requirement
MFref  MF EPNLStage4  EPNL
SERfuel  SEREPNL 
0.70MFref 71

MFref= Reference vehicle mission fuel EPNLStage4= Stage 4 FAR noise limit for vehicle
MF=Current configuration mission fuel based on its gross weight
EPNL=Current configuration cumulative
noise
Scenario Weighting
Factors
Emissions (NOX) Field Length
• Goal: 75% reduction in NOX emissions • Goal: Enable metroplex operations,
from CAEP/6 requirement field length ≤ 5,000 ft

NOx CAEP / 6  NOx  5000   


SERNOx  SERFL  floor 
0.75 NOx CAEP / 6
 FL 
NOxCAEP/6= Max permissible NOX production based on OPR ε= Arbitrarily small positive number
and SLS thrust FL=Current configuration field length
NOx=Current configuration NOX production

71
Tools and Processes Review

• Advanced tools capable of analyzing N+3 vehicles for performance,


acoustics, and NAS simulations

• Calibration and validation of tools leads to robustness and higher fidelity

• Optimization process effective at examining large trade space and


converging on optimized configuration

• Metrics and process established for quantifying configuration and


technology effectiveness relative to N+3 goals

Tools and processes in place to support


trade studies for a wide range of
configurations and technology suites

72
Outline

• Introduction
• Scenario Development
• Requirements Definition
• Design Tools and Processes
• Candidate Configurations and Technologies
• Air Vehicle Design Studies
• Technology Maturation Plans
• Summary and Conclusions

• Closed session with NASA partners

73
N+3 Phase I Final Review:
Candidate Configurations and
Technologies

Contract NNC08CA86C
NASA Glenn Research Center
21 April 2010

Nicholas Caldwell, Peter Keding, Chris Harris


Northrop Grumman Corporation

74
Reference Vehicle

• Vehicle used as baseline for establishing current-year capability


• Perturbation on a 737-500, assuming constant technology
• Resized to meet mission requirements
• “Rubber Engine”, “photographically scaled” wing

Reference
Units 737-500 Vehicle
# Passengers [] 123 120
Range [nm] 2,400 1,600
Ramp Gross Weight [lb] 133,500 120,170
Empty Weight [lb] 68,860 67,350
Fuel Weight [lb] 42,186 25,048
Wing Reference Area [ft^2] 1,135 1,280
Wing Sweep [deg] 25 25
Wing Span [ft] 94.9 100.4
Wing AR [] 7.9 7.9
T/W Ratio [] 0.3 0.34
Max Wing Loading [psf] 117 94
Balanced Field Length [ft] 8,630 4,497
Landing Field Length [ft] 4,450 4,996

75
Candidate Configurations and
Technologies

• Engine Architecture Concepts


Airframes
• Airframe Concepts

• Advanced Technologies

Engine Architectures

G
Technologies 3-Shaft Turbofan Open Rotor

76
Engine Architecture Concepts

77
Reference Engine

CFM56-3B1 chosen due to its use on the Boeing 737-500

Specifications:
• Maximum Thrust: 20,000 lbf
• Cruise SFC: 0.67 pph/lbf
• Overall Pressure Ratio: 22.4 (sea level)
• Fan diameter: 60”
• Bypass ratio: 6.0 (sea level)
CFM56-3B1
(Scalable Reference Engine)

Scalable reference engine was carried through the study to serve as


a baseline against which to derive fuel burn improvements

78
Advanced Engine Architectures

All engines modeled with constant Cv (velocity


coefficient) of 0.995, base Cd (discharge coefficient) of
0.995, no bleed, and constant inlet pressure recovery

Open Rotor
• Low fuel consumption
• High noise potential
• Weight of gearbox and
rotors

Three-Shaft Turbofan
• High BPR (~18) = propulsive efficiency
• High OPR (~50) = thermal efficiency
• Low noise
• Low weight

Geared Turbofan
• High BPR = propulsive efficiency
• High OPR = thermal efficiency
• Low noise
• Low weight
79
Advanced Engine Comparison

Sea Level Static


0.30

Specific Fuel Consumption, pph/lbf


0.25
• The geared and three-shaft
turbofans exhibit nearly identical
0.20

fuel performance for a constant 0.15

level of technology 0.10 Geared Turbofan


Three-Shaft Turbofan
0.05
Initial engine candidates
0.00
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Net Thrust, lbf

0.50
Idle Max T/O

Specific Fuel Consumption, pph/lbf


• Three-shaft turbofan and open
0.45

0.40

rotor show 44% and 60% reduced 0.35

fuel burn, respectively, at max 0.30

0.25

takeoff thrust compared to the 0.20

reference engine 0.15


Three-Shaft Turbofan
0.10
Open Rotor
0.05 CFM56-3B1 Turbofan
Refined engine candidates
0.00
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Net Thrust, lbf

80
Engine Down-Selection

• Scalable reference engine is maintained Initial Engine Candidates


throughout the study to serve as a
baseline

• Geared turbofan set aside due to its 3-Shaft Turbofan Open Rotor Geared Turbofan

similarities to the three-shaft turbofan

• Open rotor showed the best sea level


static fuel consumption
Open Rotor 3-Shaft Turbofan
CFM56-3B1
• Open rotor maintained for further
investigation regardless of its potential Final Engine Candidates
noise penalties

81
Airframe Concepts

82
Initial Design Space

Advanced Tube-and-Wing ATW with Embedded


(ATW) Propulsion
• Higher recovery propulsion • Noise shielding benefits
installation • Potential reduction in nacelle
• Low fuselage drag drag and wetted area due to
• Compatible with high aspect removal of engine pods
ratio wings • Propulsive efficiency penalties
• Drag and wetted area of • Possible ingestion of fuselage
external nacelle boundary layer
• Physical integration challenges

Hybrid-Wing-Body HWB with Embedded


(HWB) Propulsion
• Higher recovery propulsion • Noise shielding benefits
installation • Potential reduction in
• Noise shielding benefits wetted area due to removal
• Centerbody sized by of engine pods
passenger count • Centerbody sized by passenger count
• Drag and wetted area of • Propulsive efficiency penalties
external nacelle • Possible ingestion of fuselage boundary layer
• Physical integration challenges

83
Hybrid Wing-Body Sizing Constraint

• Minimum centerbody height determined by passenger height


• Centerbody volume sized by number of passengers
• Wing spar location and propulsion integration dictates length of
centerbody and thickness-to-chord ratio
Plan
View
Aft Spar Location

Home Plate Area Used


to Calculate Number of
Passengers

6 Foot Height
Constraint Closure Angle
Constraint

Minimum centerbody size determined by


passenger count, regardless of mission
84
Initial Design Space

ATW with Canard Channel Wing


• Unconventional stability and • Reduced field length
control • Increased wing wetted area
• Higher induced drag due to and weight
additional lifting surface • Channel sized by rotor
• Higher recovery propulsion diameter
installation • Incompatible with turbofan
• Low fuselage drag engines
• Physical integration
challenges

Joined Wing Low Aspect Ratio Span


• Lower structural weight Loader (LARS)
• Low fuselage drag • Induced drag is a balance of
• Good transonic aerodynamic aircraft weight and aspect ratio
properties • More efficient passenger
• Excess wetted area and loading/unloading
interference drag • Platform for distributed
• Minimal engine noise propulsion systems
shielding due to engine
placement and wing size

85
Qualitative Down-selection

• Wide range of configurations


Initial Design
considered in initial design Space
space
Qualitative Down-select
• Considerations:
• Propulsive efficiency
• Predicted aerodynamic
performance
• Packaging issues

• Smaller subset of candidate


configurations selected based
on this qualitative assessment

86
Qualitative Down-selection

• Based on a quantitative
analysis that looked at factors
relevant to the N+3 goals, three
Initial Design
configurations were eliminated Space

• A smaller subset of Qualitative Down-select


configurations was considered
further

Quantitative Down-select

87
Quantitative Down-selection

• All vehicles designed to meet


5,000 ft field length requirement
- Conventional high-lift
Initial Design
systems proved sufficient Space

• Remaining requirements used Qualitative Down-select


for downselection

Use of reliever
airports
Quantitative Down-select

88
Advanced Technologies

89
Technology Assessment Overview

• Initial technology database


identified over 100 candidate
technologies for the N+3 timeframe

• QFD process sorted technologies


based on scenario weighting
factors

• Candidate technologies selected INTEGRATE TECH


from QFD results and modeled in Air Vehicle
BENEFITS INTO
FLOPS

FLOPS and MIDAS


Design Study

90
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
Process

• Input from SMEs used to rate


technologies with respect to each N+3
metric
Extensive Technology Database
• Scenario weighting factors used to
produce Technology Effectiveness Rating
(TER)
QFD Analysis
• Further assessed based on TRL and
interaction with other technologies

• Sorted technologies downselected to a


manageable number for more detailed
investigation

Sorted Technologies
91
Candidate Technologies

All-inclusive technology QFD


Candidate Technologies
• Noise
– Inverted Flow Nozzle
– Landing Gear Fairings
– Landing Gear Assembly Component Integration
– Deployable Vortex Generators
• Aerodynamics
– Distributed Exhaust Nozzle & Flap
– Steady Circulation Control
– Swept-Wing Laminar Flow
– Modeling for Inlet Optimization
• Airframe
– 3D Woven Pi Preform Joints
– Advanced Metallic Structural and Subsystem Alloys
– Ultrahigh Performance Fiber
filtered by projected – Carbon Nanotube Electrical Cables
technology – Affordable Large Integrated Structures
readiness inside – Integrated Aeroservoelastic Structures
N+3 time window • Propulsion
– Intercooled Compressor Stages
– Lean-Burn CMC Combustor
– CMC Turbine Blades
For use on subsequent charts: – Compressor Flow Control
– Active Compressor Clearance Control
Used on Final Not Used on Final – Lightweight Fan/Fan Cowl
– Fan Blade Sweep Design
Configuration Configuration – Swept Fan Outlet Guide Vanes
– Variable Geometry Nozzle
92
Inverted Flow Nozzle

Baseline Flow
• Discipline: Noise
• TRL Level: 4
• Primary Metric Addressed: EPNL
• Consequences of Failure: Severe
Inverted Flow

Inverter/20-lobe mixer
configuration (w/ acoustic
shield) at NASA ARC

Inverts high-temperature core flow and the • Benefits: Reduced jet noise
low-speed cooler fan flow to generate two • Penalties: Increased weight, decreased
mixing interfaces for the core stream thrust, increased engine complexity
Increased mixing capacity of the primary • Modeled in MIDAS as a conservative
stream leads to reduced noise generation broadband jet source noise reduction
• Modeled in FLOPS as weight and
propulsive penalties

93
Landing Gear Fairings

• Discipline: Noise Boeing 737 MLG Sample Faired LG


• TRL Level: 8
• Primary Metric Addressed: EPNL
• Consequences of Failure: Minimal

Passive method to streamline the landing • Benefits: Reduced landing gear drag,
gear assembly during low altitude noise
operations • Penalties: Increased weight
Reduces vortex shedding due to bluff-body • Modeled in MIDAS as a conservative
nature of nose and main landing gear broadband source noise reduction
• Modeled in FLOPS as a drag reduction and
weight penalty on each of the landing gear
assemblies

94
Landing Gear Component Integration

• Discipline: Noise
• TRL Level: 8
• Primary Metric Addressed: EPNL
• Consequences of Failure: Minimal

Fully Dressed B737-300 NLG

Integration of smaller landing gear assembly • Benefits: Reduced landing gear drag,
components into larger, more concise noise
parts leads to reduced noise and landing • Penalties: Increased complexity, more
gear drag difficult maintenance
Minimizes exposed small parts reduces flow • Modeled in MIDAS as a conservative
turbulence and small-scale vortex broadband source noise reduction
shedding • Modeled in FLOPS as a drag reduction on
each of the landing gear assemblies

95
Deployable Slat Vortex Generators

• Discipline: Noise ONERA Experimental


Setup to Investigate
• TRL Level: 4 Static VGs
• Primary Metric Addressed: EPNL
• Consequences of Failure: Minimal

Computational
Study of Vortex
Development
Induced by
VGs

VGs are small vanes on the scale of the • Benefits: Reduced narrowband noise
boundary layer used to delay the onset of • Penalties: Increased weight
flow separation by generating vortices • Deployable VGs have been modeled into
which promote mixing and re-energize the the wing slat and weight penalty
boundary layer
• Modeled in MIDAS as a as frequency-
Forces the flow to remain attached which dependent noise attenuation
leads to a decrease in noise in a narrow
low-frequency range, but increases noise • Modeled in FLOPS as weight penalty
in the high-frequency range due to the
development of small scale turbulence

96
Distributed Exhaust Nozzle (DEN) and
Flap
• Discipline: Aerodynamics/Acoustics
• TRL Level: 2
• Primary Metric Addressed: CD,, CL,max, Round jet
EPNL, Weight, Thrust
• Consequences of Failure: Moderate

DEN

DEN and Flap


Configuration Turbulence Intensity Contours

• Benefits: Increased max lift coefficient with


Engine exhaust is ducted through small ports reduced noise footprint
in the wing flap • Penalties: Increased weight and complexity,
The blowing is used for circulation control as decrease in thrust, increase in drag
well as preventing flow separation over • Modeled in MIDAS as a as frequency-
flaps dependent noise attenuation
Exhaust flow is converted to small jets whose • Modeled in FLOPS as weight, propulsive, and
noise signature is characterized by higher parasite drag penalties in addition to a max CL
frequencies which are more readily increase
damped by the atmosphere

97
Steady Circulation Control

• Discipline: Aerodynamics
• TRL Level: 3
• Primary Metric Addressed: CL,max, CD,
Weight, Thrust
• Consequences of Failure: Moderate

• Benefits: Increased max lift coefficient


Extracts engine bleed for jet blowing over
round trailing edge surface to increase lift • Penalties: Increased weight and
complexity, decreased thrust
Blown sheet of air remains attached to round
circulation control (CC) surface which acts • Modeled in FLOPS as weight, propulsive,
as a BL control at low blowing flow rates and parasite drag penalties in addition to a
max CL increase
At higher blowing rates, blown flow stays
attached to CC TE which moves the airfoils
stagnation point and streamline to the
lower surface of the airfoil

98
Swept-Wing Laminar Flow

• Discipline: Aerodynamics
• TRL Level: 4
• Primary Metric Addressed: CD
Natural Laminar Flow Control
• Consequences of Failure: Moderate

Sensor Craft Laminar Flow

Delaying the onset of turbulent flow on the • Benefits: Reduced skin friction drag on
wing leads to cruise drag reduction. the wing
Natural swept-wing laminar flow is achieved • Penalties: Susceptibility to failure, lower
through optimal selection of airfoil and CLmax, constrained MDD
wing shapes and advanced manufacturing • Required slat removal modeled in MIDAS
techniques • Modeled in FLOPS as percentage of
Foreign-object debris can lead to premature surface(s) in laminar flow region
turbulent transition which will penalize the
drag-reducing effectiveness of the wing

99
Modeling for Inlet Optimization

• Discipline: Propulsion Performance Probability


Functions
• TRL Level: N/A
• Primary Metric Addressed: TSFC
• Consequences of Failure: N/A

+Integration
Effects

Propulsion flow-path and integration effects • Benefits: Increased pressure recovery,


modeling tool for complex inlet geometries improved fuel burn, decrease in drag,
increased range
MDO tools and analysis allow for optimum
engine configuration and propulsive • Penalties: Little benefit with pitot-static
efficiency, while reducing drag in certain engine configurations
body configurations • Modeled in FLOPS as an increase in
More applicable with embedded propulsion pressure recovery and decrease in drag
configurations

100
3-D Woven Pi-Preform Joints

• Discipline: Airframe
• TRL Level: 4
• Primary Metric Addressed: Weight
• Consequences of Failure: Varies per
application

Enables creation of large integrated • Benefits: Reduction in joint and fastener


composite structures and sub-structures weight, reduction in part count and
through composite pi-joints assembly processes, enables larger
Design allows for exploitation of orthotropic integrated structures
properties of carbon fiber and limits out of • Penalties: Increase in cost
plane failure modes • Modeled in FLOPS as weight reduction
Allows for failure arrest in design
Dry assembly materials remove
manufacturing size limitations found on
pre-preg systems
101
Advanced Metallic Structural and Sub-
System Alloys
• Discipline: Airframe
• TRL Level: 5
• Primary Metric Addressed: Weight
• Consequences of Failure: Vary per
application Engine Mount

Mixer Nozzle

• Benefits: Reduced structural and sub-


Aluminum and titanium alloys meet high system weights
demand for materials with increased
• Penalties: Increase in manufacturing cost
structural properties and withstand
elevated temperatures • Modeled in FLOPS as weight reduction
Materials exhibit improved strength to weight
ratios and fatigue/crack growth properties

102
Ultrahigh Performance Fiber

• Discipline: Airframe
• TRL Level: 2
• Primary Metric Addressed: Weight
• Consequences of Failure: Vary per
application

Carbon Nanotube
Enhanced Fibers

Hydrogen Bonded Molecularly


Aligned Fibers

• Benefits: Reduced structural weight,


A high strength low density polymer fiber in reduced part count, larger integrated
which the monomers are aligned and structures
fused through chemical bonding along the
• Penalties: Increase in manufacturing cost
length of the fiber
• Modeled in FLOPS as weight reduction
Hydrogen bonding between fibers and
carbon nanotubes have been absent in
previous composites
Results in increase in strength and positive
thermal and flame resistance properties

103
Carbon Nanotube Electrical Cables

• Discipline: Airframe
• TRL Level: 3
• Primary Metric Addressed: Weight
• Consequences of Failure: Vary per
application

• Benefits: Reduced electrical system


Carbon nanotubes are manufactured by weight
injecting fuel and reaction gas into a
floating catalyst suspended in a furnace • Penalties: Increase in electrical system
cost
Can produce CNT threads which can be
woven into a braid and CNT sheets • Modeled in FLOPS as weight reduction
CNT sheets are extremely lightweight,
strong, with good electrical properties
CNT braids are extremely lightweight, strong,
and have slightly reduced electrical
properties
104
Affordable Large Integrated Structures

• Discipline: Airframe
• TRL Level: 4
• Primary Metric Addressed: Weight
• Consequences of Failure: Vary per
application

Fuel floor, skin, and


bulkhead joint
intersection

Advancements in alloy, composite, and • Benefits: Reduction in structural weight,


composite joint technology allow more lower manufacturing time and cost
design flexibility toward unitized structures
• Penalties: Possible limits on vehicle life,
Developments in materials reduces weight structure must be more robust to avoid
while new methodology further reduces repair, increased part complexity,
weight constrained design volume
Eliminates structural discontinuities and • Modeled in FLOPS as weight reduction
fastened assemblies, increasing structural
efficiency
Reduction in part count

105
Integrated Aeroservoelastic (ASE)
Structures
• Discipline: Airframe/Aerodynamics
• TRL Level: 5
• Primary Metric Addressed: Weight
• Consequences of Failure: Catastrophic

• Benefits: Reduced structural and control


Utilization of directional stiffness into aircraft system weight
structural design to control aeroelastic
deformation which benefits aerodynamics, • Penalties: Increase in manufacturing cost
control, and structure in a positive way and time
Structural weight no longer primary factor in • Modeled in FLOPS as weight reduction
wing design, but should include other
disciplines
MDO improves design efficiency by designing a
wing to meet specific loads, flight
conditions, and performance
106
Intercooled Compressor Stages

• Discipline: Propulsion
• TRL Level: 3 Temperature-Entropy
Diagram of
• Primary Metric Addressed: TSFC Intercooling Stage
• Consequences of Failure: Minimal

Example Engine
Diagram w/
Intercooling Stage

• Benefits: Reduced fuel consumption,


Reducing the temperature of the compressed increased thrust, reduced emissions
flow between compressor stages increases
the thermal efficiency of the engine • Penalties: Added engine weight due to
because less work is required to compress the presence of the intercooler
lower temperature gas • Modeled by RR-LW
Intercooler can not completely drop the
intermediate flow to ambient temperature,
as there will always be an efficiency
associated with its heat exchange capacity

107
Lean-Burn CMC Combustors

• Discipline: Propulsion
• TRL Level: 6
• Primary Metric Addressed: NOx
• Consequences of Failure: Moderate

P&W ASC Combustor, tested in V2500

• Benefits: Reduced emissions, reduced


Staged combustors incorporate multiple sensitivity to fuel composition, leaner
(typically two) distinct combustion zones combustion
serviced by independent fuel injection
systems • Penalties: Increased engine weight,
increased fuel system complexity
Depending on the engine power setting,
different combinations of combustor • Modeled by RR-LW
stages may be used, and the burner can
then be optimized for multiple flight
conditions
This level of control allows for emissions to
be more tightly monitored and controlled
108
CMC Turbine Blades

• Discipline: Propulsion
• TRL Level: 3
• Primary Metric Addressed: TSFC
• Consequences of Failure: Severe

Ceramic Matrix
Composite (CMC)

Turbine Blades

• Benefits: Reduced engine weight,


Ceramic matrix composite turbine blades and reduced fuel consumption, decreased
turbine materials are attractive due to their takeoff and landing distances
high temperature tolerance
• Penalties: Increased emissions due to
Without the need to cool the turbine blades, higher combustor temperatures
compressor bleed is no longer required,
and higher temperatures can be achieved • Modeled by RR-LW
with the combustor
CMC blades will also weigh less than those
constructed from current metallic alloys

109
Compressor Flow Control

• Discipline: Propulsion
• TRL Level: 4
• Primary Metric Addressed: TSFC
• Consequences of Failure: Minimal

• Benefits: Reduced likelihood of


Extracting or diffuser bleed flow and injecting compressor surge or stall, increased
it into the compressor face in order to engine performance
tailor the compressor flow to minimize the
likelihood of stall or surge • Penalties: Engine bleed must be
compensated by increased performance,
Can be used to control flow distortion or to increased engine weight
dampen flow instabilities that are
associated with stall or rotating surge • Modeled by RR-LW
Requires sensors and control system to
detect and control the instabilities or flow
characteristics that need to be dampened
110
Active Compressor Clearance Control

• Discipline: Propulsion Vortex formation due to tip


clearance effects
• TRL Level: 4
• Primary Metric Addressed: TSFC
• Consequences of Failure: Minimal

Mach contours
showing flow
separation due to tip
clearance effects

• Benefits: Higher component efficiencies,


Tip clearances can vary depending on flight improved TSFC
conditions, engine power settings, etc.
• Penalties: Added engine weight
Active compressor clearance control provides
higher compressor efficiencies by • Modeled by RR-LW
minimizing blade tip losses by maintaining
tip clearances through active means
Generally takes the form of variable, flexible
clearance control maintained by
electromagnetic actuators

111
Lightweight Fan/Fan Cowl

• Discipline: Propulsion Short bypass


nacelle Core front mount
• TRL Level: 3 (Weight/performance)

• Primary Metric Addressed: TSFC, Field Conventional


Length Core mounted
gearbox
• Consequences of Failure: Moderate (drag)

Bypass shaping
Conventional (noise)

Lifted intake OGV tangential lean


(performance/noise/drag) (noise/weight/performance/drag)

• Benefits: Weight, reduced nacelle drag


Through optimization of the engine front-end
structure using light weight material, a • Penalties: Lighter engine requires more
shorter (lower wetted area) nacelle is structural weight in the wing
achievable • Modeled by RR-LW
This technology also allows for mounting of
AGB closer to the engine core, reducing
nacelle diameter and hence drag

112
Fan Blade Sweep Design

• Discipline: Propulsion
• TRL Level: 8
• Primary Metric Addressed: TSFC, EPNL
• Consequences of Failure: Minimal

Mn contours a) conventional b) swept blade

Conventional Fan Blades Swept Fan Blades

• Benefits: Reduced noise, increased fan


Introducing sweep into the fan blades efficiency
minimizes the occurrence of shocks on the
fan blade tips • Penalties: Blade complexity, axial length
This increases fan efficiency by minimizing • Modeled by RR-LW
pressure losses
Fan efficiency also increased by allowing for
the formation of a more favorable
boundary layer

113
Swept Fan Outlet Guide Vanes

• Discipline: Propulsion
• TRL Level: 5
• Primary Metric Addressed: TSFC
• Consequences of Failure: Minimal

Swept Fan Outlet


Guide Vane

Vane Sweep Angle


[deg]

• Benefits: Reduced noise, increased fan


Introducing sweep into the fan outlet guide efficiency
vanes has the potential to reduce pressure
losses • Penalties: Blade complexity, axial length
By delaying the impact of turbulent rotor • Modeled by RR-LW
wake on OGV, noise reduction is
achievable through this design strategy

114
Shape Memory Alloy Nozzles

• Discipline: Propulsion/Noise
• TRL Level: 5
• Primary Metric Addressed: EPNL, TSFC
• Consequences of Failure: Moderate

Variable-area exhaust Variable-area exhaust


nozzle: fully open nozzle: reduced area

• Benefits: Reduced Noise


Variable geometry nozzles utilize a SMA • Penalties: Decrease in fuel efficiency,
actuated hinge that is able to be varied increase in nozzle weight
and controlled as seen on many modern
military aircraft • Modeled by RR-LW
Allows for optimization of engine for given
power setting and flight condition
Noise generated from engine is proportional
to diameter of the nozzle exit squared and
to the exit velocity to the eighth power

115
Double Degree-of-Freedom Inlet
Liner
• Discipline: Noise Facesheet

• TRL Level: 8
• Primary Metric Addressed: EPNL Septum
• Consequences of Failure: Moderate

• Benefits: Reduced Noise


Contains two layers of absorbing material • Penalties: Decrease in fuel efficiency,
and perforated sheets separating the increase in weight
layers
• Modeled in MIDAS as frequency-
Absorbing sections divided up into smaller dependent noise attenuation
cells designed to target specific tonal
frequencies
Trade between absorption capacity and drag
from the porous face sheet

116
Candidate Configurations and
Technologies Review

• Two advanced and one reference engine architectures selected


• Planform down-selection led to the HWB and ATW as the two preferred
airframes
• Candidate technologies selected from QFD results and modeled in FLOPS
and MIDAS

Candidate Technologies
• Noise
– Inverted Flow Nozzle
– Landing Gear Fairings
Geared Turbofan Initial Design Space – Landing Gear Assembly Component Integration
3-Shaft Turbofan Open Rotor – Deployable Vortex Generators
• Aerodynamics
– Distributed Exhaust Nozzle & Flap
Qualitative Down-select – Steady Circulation Control
– Swept-Wing Laminar Flow
– Modeling for Inlet Optimization
• Airframe
– 3D Woven Pi Preform Joints
– Advanced Metallic Structural and Subsystem Alloys
– Ultrahigh Performance Fiber
– Carbon Nanotube Electrical Cables
– Affordable Large Integrated Structures
– Integrated Aeroservoelastic Structures
• Propulsion
– Intercooled Compressor Stages
– Lean-Burn CMC Combustor
Open Rotor 3-Shaft Turbofan –

CMC Turbine Blades
Compressor Flow Control
– Active Compressor Clearance Control
CFM56-3B1 Use of reliever – Lightweight Fan/Fan Cowl
airports – Fan Blade Sweep Design
– Swept Fan Outlet Guide Vanes
Quantitative Down-select – Variable Geometry Nozzle

Air Vehicle Design


Studies
117
Outline

• Introduction
• Scenario Development
• Requirements Definition
• Design Tools and Processes
• Candidate Configurations and Technologies
• Air Vehicle Design Studies
• Technology Maturation Plans
• Summary and Conclusions

• Closed session with NASA partners

118
N+3 Phase I Final Review:
Air Vehicle Design Studies

Contract NNC08CA86C
NASA Glenn Research Center
21 April 2010

Peter Keding, Nicholas Caldwell, Dr. Sam Bruner


Northrop Grumman Corporation

119
Air Vehicle Design Studies Overview

• Sizing and Performance

• Aircraft Acoustics

• Aircraft Emissions

• System Effectiveness
Rating Results

• Preferred Configuration

Aircraft Vehicle Design Study Overview

120
Air Vehicle Design Studies Overview

• Sizing and Performance

• Aircraft Acoustics

• Aircraft Emissions

• System Effectiveness
Rating Results

• Preferred Configuration

Aircraft Vehicle Design Study Overview

121
Sizing and Performance
Analysis
Advanced Liner Design
10
9
8

Reduction in OASPL (dB)


• Design of advanced inlet and fan duct 7
6

liners to aid in the reduction of noise 5


Inlet Liner

towards the N+3 goal levels


4
Impact of Liner Length On
3 Fan Duct Liner
Overall Sound Pressure Level
2 Reduction
1
0
• Advanced materials exhibit better 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

absorptive properties and are capable of Liner Length, in

increased integration 18
Baseline and Advanced Fan Duct Liner
Sound Pressure Level Reduction

Sound Pressure Level Attenuation, dB


16
Baseline Liner
14
Advanced Liner
• Advanced two degree-of-freedom liner 12

reduces overall sound pressure level


10
8

(OASPL) over larger frequency range 6

than baseline 4
2
0
100 1000 10000

• Reduction in OASPL has been shown to Frequency, Hz

be largely insensitive to power setting Fan Duct Liner Inlet Liner


ΔOASPL, dB

Power Setting Altitude, ft Hard Wall Baseline Advanced Hard Wall Baseline Advanced
0 - -5.2 -6.8 - -3.8 -6.9
1,000 - -4.3 -5.7 - -3.3 -5.7
5,000 - -4.3 -5.8 - -3.3 -5.8
Baseline and Advanced Fan Duct/Inlet Liner Overall Sound
Pressure Level Reduction
123
Analysis of Engine Mounting
Configurations

• Wing- and fuselage-mounted three-shaft


turbofan and open rotor configurations used
a tube-and-wing baseline airframe a)

• T-tail design selected for fuselage-mounted


engine configurations b)

– Places horizontal tail out of the engine exhaust


– Increases structural weight

• Quantified the performance and weight Laminar flow regions for: a) clean wing, fuselage-
change associated with each configuration mounted b) wing-mounted turbofan engine

• Both mounting configurations were


analyzed with the addition of laminar flow

124
Analysis of Engine Mounting
Configurations

• Wing-mounting resulted in the


lowest fuel burn between
configurations
– With laminar flow
– Without laminar flow

• Open rotor wing-mounting


dismissed due to configuration
problems
– Tip clearance

• Engines were fuselage-mounted


for all HWB configurations
– Shielding benefits
– No vertical tails to re-size
– Available space

125
Laminar Flow Integration

• Conventional leading edge devices will


trip the boundary layer

• Removal of leading edge devices


penalizes maximum lift coefficient

• Wing size and thrust must increase to


meet field performance constraints

• Wetted area increase on HWB


outweighs fuel savings due to reduced
skin friction

• Reconciling laminar flow and high-lift


devices would result in improved fuel
burn potential

126
MDD and Sweep Analysis

• Drag divergence Mach number studies were performed for initial sizing for
a range of wing sweeps, thickness-to-chord ratios, and wing technology

• Enables a cruise Mach number up to 0.8


– Meets minimum cruise Mach number of 0.75 defined in mission requirements

Tube-and-Wing HWB

127
Aircraft Acoustics
Landing and Takeoff Operations

16000

14000

12000

10000
10000

Altitude, ft
9000
8000
8000
6000
7000
FLOPS
4000 6000

Altitude, ft
5000
2000
4000
Altitude, ft
0
3000
0 25000 50000 75000 100000 125000 150000 175000 200000
2000 Distance, ft

1000

0
0 25000 50000 75000 100000 125000 150000 175000 200000

Distance, ft

Detailed Trajectories Interpolated Engine Aircraft Geometry


Data Table

• Detailed trajectories were developed


for each configuration below 10,000 ft N+3 Mission & Performance
Flight Range [nmi] PAX Max TOGW [
Profile
1600 120 80478

• Takeoff/Climb: Federal Aviation


Fan / Stator Noise Propulsive Noise Airframe Internal Engine Noise
• Rotational • Exhaust Mixing Vibrational • Rotational
• Broadband • Combustion

Regulation (FAR) Part 36 rules permit Duct Propagation /


Lining
Source Predictions Muffler / Active
Noise Control

engine cutback Propagation Path


Effects

SPL Weighting

MIDAS
dBA

Detection System
Unaided Human Ear

• Landing/Descent: Used three degree 10000

glide slope for approach, landing


8000

6000

4000

configuration set at outer marker


2000

0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Vehicle Noise Sources

EPNL
129
FAR Part 36 Noise Requirements

• The FAR Part 36 limits the effective perceived noise level (EPNL)
allowable by aircraft

• Restrictions placed on cumulative EPNL divided into three categories:


takeoff, sideline, and approach

• Stage 4 requirements are a function of vehicle gross weight and number


of engines
305 110

Stage 3 Component EPNL Requirement,


Stage 4 Cumulative EPNL Requirement,

300 105
100
295
95
290 90

EPNdB
EPNdB

285 Cumulative 85
Takeoff 80
280
Sideline
75
275 Approach
70
270 65
265 60
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
Gross Weight, lbf
130
Modeled Noise Source Components

• OASPL directivities were OASPL (dB), Source at 1 ft., Third Octave Band Centers: 20 Hz – 5000 Hz
computed for each noise
source at multiple altitudes

•Identified targets for noise


reduction
- Landing gear
- Slats and flaps
- Jet and fan

Example Noise Source Calculation and Directivity

131
Configuration Effects on Noise

• The ATW was found to have the lowest cumulative EPNL between
airframes

300
275
Effective Perceived Noise Level, EPNdB

Takeoff
250
Sideline
225
Approach
200
Cumulative
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Reference Vehicle ATW NoATW
Technologies HWB NoHWB
Technologies

132
Aircraft Emissions
Reference LTO Cycle Definition

• Defined by ICAO Annex 16, Volume II, Aircraft Engine Emissions for all
aircraft engines rated above 6,000 lbf

• Conducted at sea level static conditions by varying the engine throttle to


simulate the different portions of the LTO cycle

Power Setting Time, min


Takeoff
Climb
100%
85%
0.7
2.2
2.1% of cycle time
Approach 30% 4.0
Idle 7% 26.0
79.0% of cycle time

Low NOX combustor must be effective


across operating range
134
CAEP/6 NOx Emissions Metric

• Mass of emissions computed as the sum of the fuel flows, NOx production
(g/kgfuel), and operational time for each stage of the simulated LTO cycle:
Historical emissions

Dp   ti NOx iW f ,i
performance trends
(F∞ > 20,000 lbf)

• This value is divided by the


SLS thrust of the engine to
compare to the CAEP/6
N+3 Emissions
requirement: Goal
Dp
F
CAEP/6 requirement is a function of…
OPR, F∞ Thrust < 20,000 lbf
OPR Thrust ≥ 20,000 lbf
135
System Effectiveness
Rating (SER) Results
Technology Packaging
Technology HWB No Tech HWB Noise Tech HWB Performance Tech
Scaled CFM56-3B1 X
Open Rotor X X

• Technology suites were


Three-Shaft Turbofan X X
Aeroservoelastic Structures X X

developed based on the


M5 Ultra-High Performance Fiber X X
Affordable Large Integrated Structures X X

technology SER
3-D Woven and Stitched Composites X X
Advanced Metallics X X

assessments
Swept-Wing Laminar Flow
Carbon Nanotube Electrical Cables X X
Landing Gear Fairings X X X X
Landing Gear Integration CONFLICTS WITH LANDING GEAR FAIRINGS, LOWER SYSTEM EFFECT
Aerothermal Concepts X X

• Noise and performance


Boundary Layer Ingestion X X
Steady Circulation Control

packages were
Inlet Optimization X X
Distributed Exhaust Nozzle X X

developed
Vortex Generators X X
Major Technology Suites for HWB Configurations

Technology ATW No Tech ATW Noise Tech ATW Performance Tech

• Technologies with Scaled CFM56-3B1


Open Rotor
X
X X

highest SER were Three-Shaft Turbofan


Aeroservoelastic Structures
X X
X X

retained M5 Ultra-High Performance Fiber


Affordable Large Integrated Structures
X
X
X
X
3-D Woven and Stitched Composites X X
Advanced Metallics X X
Swept-Wing Laminar Flow X X
Carbon Nanotube Electrical Cables X X
Landing Gear Fairings X X X X
Landing Gear Integration CONFLICTS WITH LANDING GEAR FAIRINGS, LOWER SYSTEM EFFECT
Aerothermal Concepts X X
Boundary Layer Ingestion NOT ANALYZED
Steady Circulation Control
Inlet Optimization PR ≈ 1 FOR PODDED INLETS
Distributed Exhaust Nozzle X X
Vortex Generators X X
Major Technology Suites for ATW Configurations
137
Final Configuration SER Comparisons

Noise Fuel Burn


• The ATW exhibits 1.00
Emissions Field Length
better system-level 0.90

performance than the

System Effectiveness Rating (SER)


0.80

HWB 0.70

0.60
• The ATW open rotor 0.50
configuration performs
0.40
slightly better than the
ATW three-shaft 0.30

turbofan 0.20

- Assuming the two 0.10

engines have the same 0.00


noise output

The ATW is the


preferred
configuration
138
Final Engine Down-Selection

0.97

0.96

System Effectiveness Rating


• No reliable method currently 0.95

available to compute open-


0.94

0.93
rotor acoustic levels 0.92

0.91 Open Rotor Noise +


Performance Package
• Trade study was performed 0.90
Three-Shaft Preferred
0.89
to quantify the SER sensitivity
Configuration Reference
0.88

between engines 0.87


-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
EPNL Difference between Configurations, EPNdB

• Acoustics experts agree that


this is highly unlikely with The open-rotor becomes the preferred
current understanding of this engine if no more than ~3 EPNdB louder
noise source than the three-shaft turbofan

The three-shaft turbofan was selected


as the preferred vehicle engine
139
Preferred Configuration
Preferred Configuration Summary

Phase 1 Preferred Configuration Summary


Range (With Reserves): 1,600 nm Technology Suite
Passengers: 120
Three-Shaft Turbofan Engine
Field Length Capability: 5,000 ft Technology
Technology Suite
Suite
-Ultra-High Bypass Ratio ~18
Cruise Altitude: 45,000 ft
Design Mach Number: 0.75
Three-Shaft
Three-Shaft Turbofan
Turbofan
-CMC Turbine Engine
Blades Engine
Engine
Ramp Gross Weight: 80478 lb -Lean-Burn
-Ultra-High
-Ultra-High CMC Ratio
Bypass
Bypass Combustor
Ratioof
Ratio of~18
of ~18
~18
Zero Fuel Weight: 71,333 lb -CMC
-CMC Technology
Technology
-Intercooled
Turbine Blades
Turbine Suite
Suite
Compressor
Blades Stages
Operating Empty Weight: 46,133 lb 26˚ -Swept Fan
Three-Shaft
Three-Shaft
-Lean-Burn
-Lean-Burn Outlet
Turbofan
Turbofan
Turbofan
CMC
CMC Guide
Combustor
Combustor
Combustor Vanes
Engine
Engine
Engine
Empty Weight: 43,666 lb -Fan Blade Bypass
--Ultra-High
Ultra-High Sweep
BypassDesign
Bypass Ratio of
Ratio
Ratio of~18
of ~18
~18
-Intercooled
-Intercooled Compressor
Compressor
Compressor Stages
Stages
Stages
Wing Aspect Ratio: 12.7 -LightweightIntercooling
--Compressor
Compressor Fan/Fan Cowl
Intercooling
Intercooling
Cruise Specific Fuel Consumption: 0.451 pph/lb
-Swept
-Swept Fan Outlet
Fan Outlet GuideVanes
Guide
Guide Vanes
Vanes
-Compressor
--Lean-Burn
Lean-Burn CMC
CMC
CMCFlowCombustor
Control
Combustor
Combustor
-Fan Blade
-Fan Blade Sweep
-Active
SweepDesign
Compressor
Design
Design Clearance Control
--CMC
CMC Turbine
Turbine Blades
Blades
Blades
-Lifhgtweight
-Lifhgtweight Fan/Fan
Fan/Fan
Fan/Fan
-Shape Cooling
Memory Alloy Cowl
Cowl
Cowl
Nozzle
--Cooled
Cooled Cooling
CoolingAirAir Turbine
AirTurbine
Turbine
-Compressor
-Compressor
Swept Wing Flow
Flow Control
Control
Control
Laminar Flow
--Memory
Memory Metal
Metal
Metal Nozzle
Nozzle
Nozzle Design
Design
Design
-Active
-Active Compressor
Compressor
Large Integrated Clearance
Clearance
Clearance
Structures Control
Control
Control
- Porous
Porous Ceramic
Ceramic Nozzle
Ceramic Nozzle
Nozzle Material
Material
Material
-Variable
-Variable Geometry
Geometry
Aeroservoelastic Nozzles
Nozzles
Nozzles
--Endothermic
Endothermic FuelStructures
Fuel
Fuel System
System
System
Swept
Swept Wing
Ultrahigh
- Variable Laminar
WingGeometry
Laminar
Performance
Geometry Flow
Flow
Flow Fibers
Nozzle
Variable Geometry Nozzle
Nozzle
Large
Large Carbon
Swept
Swept WingNanotube
Integrated
Integrated
Wing Electrical
Structures
StructuresFlow Cables
Structures
Laminar
Laminar
Laminar Flow
Flow
111.0 3-D Integrated
Large Woven
Aeroservoelastic
Aeroservoelastic
Large Pi Preform
Integrated
Integrated Structures
Structures
Structures
Structures
Structures
StructuresJoints
98.7
33.3 Advanced Metallics
Aeroservoelastic Structures
High-Performance Fiber
M5Aeroservoelastic
M5 Aeroservoelastic
Ultra Structures
Structures Fiber
Ultra High-Performance
High-Performance Fiber
M5
M5 Landing
Ultra
M5Ultra
Ultra Gear Fairings
High-Performance
High-Performance
High-Performance Fiber
Fiber
Fiber
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon Nanotube
Nanotube
Nanotube Electrical
Electrical
Electrical Cables
Cables
Cables
Advanced
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon Acoustic
Nanotube
Nanotube
Nanotube Inlet
Electrical
Electrical
Electrical Liner
Cables
Cables
Cables
3-D
3-D
3-D3-DWoven
Woven
Woven and
and
and Stitched
Stitched
Stitched Composites
Composites
Composites
3-D Woven
3-D Woven
Woven andand Stitched
and Stitched Composites
Stitched Composites
Composites
12.5
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced Metallics
Metallics
Metallics
Metallics
Advanced
Advanced Metallics
Metallics
Landing
Landing
Landing
Landing Gear
Gear
Gear
GearFairings
Fairings
Fairings
Fairings
Landing
Landing Gear
Gear Fairings
Fairings
Dimensions in ft Advanced
Advanced Acoustic
Acoustic Inlet
Inlet Liner
Liner
141 Advanced
Advanced
Advanced
Advanced Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic
Acoustic Inlet
InletLiner
Inlet
Inlet Liner
Liner
Liner
Aircraft Comparison

Dramatic improvements in empty


weight and fuel have been enabled
by advanced technologies
Fuel Optimization &
Mission & Passengers Advanced Technologies

Reference Preferred
Units 737-500 Configuration
Vehicle
# Passengers [] 123 120 120
Range [nm] 2,400 1,600 1,600
Ramp Gross Weight [lb] 133,500 120,170 80,478
Empty Weight [lb] 68,860 67,350 43,660
Fuel Weight [lb] 42,186 25,048 9,144
Wing Reference Area [ft^2] 1,135 1,280 967.5
Wing Sweep [deg] 25 25 26
Wing Span [ft] 94.9 100.4 111.0
Wing AR [] 7.9 7.9 12.7
T/W Ratio [] 0.30 0.34 0.36
Max Wing Loading [psf] 117 94 83.2
Balanced Field Length [ft] 8,630 4,497 4,999
Landing Field Length [ft] 4,450 4,996 4,906

142
Airframe / Engine Matching

50000
Flight Envelope Design Point
45000
40000
Wing loading for field
Pressure Altitude, hp ~ feet

35000
30000 performance synergistic
25000
with cruise performance
20000
15000
10000
5000 Aerodynamic Efficiency
22
0 20
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 18 1
Start of Cruise:
Mach Number, M 16
Altitude = 45,000 ft
14
Weight = 78800 lb
12

Thrust-to-Weight ratio
L/D

10
8

enables 5000 ft BFL as well 6


4
Max L/D
Mn*Max L/D

as efficient cruise at FL 450 2


0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
143 Mn
Electrical 1.1% 865

Weight Fraction Comparison and


Avionics 1.5% 1232
Furnishings & Equipment 11.8% 9518

Weight Statement
Air Conditioning 1.7% 1357
Anti-icing 0.2% 198

Empty Weight 54.3% 43663


100% System/Components % TOGW Weight, lbf System/Components % TOGW Weight, lbf
90% Structural 23.9% 19264 Structural
Flight Crew & Misc. 23.9%
3.1% 19264
2470
Wing 7.9% 6365 Wing & Baggage Flight, 2
Crew 7.9%
0.6% 6365
450
80%
Takeoff Weight Fraction

Horizontal Tail 0.9% 691 Horizontal


Crew Tail Cabin, 4
& Baggage 0.9%
1.0% 691
800
70% Vertical Tail
Unusable Fuel 0.4%
0.6% 356
492
FuelVertical Tail 0.4% 356
60% Fuselage 7.9% 6324 Fuselage
Engine Oil 7.9%
0.1% 6324
70
Passengers & Cargo
Landing Gear 4.4% 3552 Landing
Cargo Gear
Containers 4.4%
0.8% 3552
658
50% Flight Crew & Misc. Nacelle 2.5% 1976
Nacelle 2.5% 1976
40% Systems & Equipment
Operating Weight 57.3% 46133
30% Propulsion
Propulsion 6.3% 5058 Propulsion 6.3% 5058
Structural Engines 5.5% 4453
20% Engines 5.5% 4453 Passengers & Cargo 31.3% 25200
Fuel Tanks & Plumbing 0.8% 605
Fuel Tanks & Plumbing 0.8% 605 Passengers 26.8% 21600
10%
Passenger Baggage 4.5% 3600
0% Systems & Equipment 24.0% 19341
Systems & Equipment 24.0% 19341
Reference Preferred Surface Controls
Zero Fuel Weight 1.7%
88.6% 1377
71333
Surface Controls 1.7% 1377
D% Auxilary Power 0.8% 626
Auxilary Power 0.8% 626

-9% Fuel Fuel


Instruments 0.7%
11.4% 587
9145
Instruments 0.7% 587
Hydraulics
Mission Fuel 4.4%
11.4% 3581
9145
10% Hydraulics 4.4% 3581
Passengers & Cargo Electrical 1.1% 865
Electrical 1.1% 865
Avionics 1.5% 1232
1% Flight Crew & Misc. Avionics 1.5% 1232
Max Ramp Weight 100.0% 80478
Furnishings & Equipment 11.8% 9518
6% Systems & Equipment Furnishings & Equipment 11.8% 9518
Air Conditioning 1.7% 1357

-3% Propulsion
Air Conditioning
Anti-icing
1.7%
0.2%
1357
198
Largest contributors
Anti-icing 0.2% 198

-5% Structural Empty to Weightgross weight


54.3% 43663
Empty Weight 54.3% 43663
identify future
Weight fraction Flight Crew & Misc. 3.1% 2470 weight reduction
Flight Crew & Misc.
Crew & Baggage Flight, 2
3.1%
0.6%
2470
450

changes modest
Preferred
Crew & Baggage Flight, 2
Crew & Baggage Cabin, 4
0.6%
1.0%
450
800 Unusable Fuel
targets
Crew & Baggage Cabin, 4 1.0% 800
0.6% 492
144 Unusable Fuel 0.6% 492 Engine Oil 0.1% 70
Preferred Performance

30000
N+3 Goal
Performance (2030-2035 EIS) Phase I Achievement
Criteria Relative to Maximum Payload
(71,333 lb)
Reference Vehicle Absolute % of Goal 25000
Noise
-71 dB -70 dB 98%
(Cum Below Stage 4)
LTO NOx Emissions
Better than -75% -91% 121%
(Below CAEP/6) 20000
Fuel Burn Better than -70% -64% 91%

Payload, lb
Field Length Exploit Metroplex Exploited Metroplex

15000
1650

1600
10000
Range, nm

1550

1500 5000

1450
120 Passengers Mach 0.75 Cruise
200 nm Reserves 200 nm Reserves
1400 0
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Mach Number
Range, nm
145
Preferred Vehicle Fuel Burn Reduction

• Overall fuel reduction represents technology set applied as a group


• Propulsion system resulted in largest overall fuel burn reduction
• Aerodynamics, structures, and propulsion disciplines all important towards
achieving fuel burn reduction
30000

-8.23% 25048 lb
25000
-28.18%
Mission Fuel, lb

20000 -63.5%

-8.12%
15000
-70%
-5.73%
-4.18%
-3.40%
-2.23% -1.19%
10000 -1.15% -1.10%

7514.4
5000 N+3 GOAL

146
Preferred Vehicle Noise Reduction

• Ultra-high bypass ratio engine (~18) directly reduces jet noise


• Slat removal and landing gear fairings greatly reduced landing/approach noise
• Jet noise further reduced by shape memory alloy nozzle
• Fan noise limited by the addition of advanced liner technology

147
Preferred Configuration Emissions
Results

• The three-shaft and open Reference

rotor engine architectures


Preferred Configuration

generate significantly less


NOx emissions than
enforced by CAEP/6

• N+3 emissions goal is


NASA N+3 Goal
75% reduction from CAEP/6

achieved through the use of


staged combustion enabled
by CMC liners

CAEP/6 Requirement Achievement


[g/kN] [g/kN] Δ
Reference 48.3 40.3 -17%
Open Rotor, Fn = 16760 lbf 73.72 10.63 -86%
Three-Shaft, Fn = 14393 lbf 102.9 9.69 -91%
148
Outline

• Introduction
• Scenario Development
• Requirements Definition
• Design Tools and Processes
• Candidate Configurations and Technologies
• Air Vehicle Design Studies
• Technology Maturation Plans
• Summary and Conclusions

• Closed session with NASA partners

149
N+3 Phase I Final Review:
Technology Maturation Planning

Contract NNC08CA86C
NASA Glenn Research Center
21 April 2010

Chris Harris
Northrop Grumman Corporation

150
Set of Technology Maturation Plans

• All technologies that were included on the final preferred configuration


were included in the maturation planning
• Internal R&D and relevant external sources were used to compile initial
“trajectory” for near-term planning and expectations
• Future planning considered potentials for scheduled risk, as well as
technical risk, so some activities show longer duration than typical
• We are presenting a limited set of the most beneficial technologies

As an example of technology maturation, mixing devices for jet noise


reduction were studied in the 50’s (G.M. Lilley) and just recently were
adopted on commerical transport. Approximately 10 years passed from
~TRL 4 to certification.

151
Virtual Landing Gear Fairings

• Plasma actuators are viewed as


a prime candidate for
implementation since although
they offer relatively low
momentum addition compared
to other active flow actuators,
they may greatly affect the
coherent structure of the shed
vorticity.
• However, at this low TRL, it is
viewed as a prime candidate in a
series of actuator trials, so that
the most effective control
scheme can be developed.

152
Swept-Wing NLF / HLFC

• Elimination of the slat by


integrating virtual or seamless
leading edge concepts is
estimated at a current TRL of 2.
• This technology item spawned
from a more detailed
consideration of the laminar flow
requirements, not initially
assumed in the technology QFD
study.
• Continued development of new
approaches through
experimental and computational
approaches is envisioned,
working towards approaches
that are both effective at
increasing CL on a laminar flow
wing, and have a tolerable
failure mode that prohibits
immediate stall.

153
Swept-Wing Laminar Flow Slat
Integration
• Plasma actuators are viewed as
a prime candidate for
implementation since although
they offer relatively low
momentum addition compared
to other active flow actuators,
they may greatly affect the
coherent structure of the shed
vorticity.
• However, at this low TRL, it is
viewed as a prime candidate in a
series of actuator trials, so that
the most effective control
scheme can be developed.

154
SMA Variable Geometry Nozzle

• Variable geometry nozzles


utilizing SMA materials to
actuate a high-bypass ratio fan
nozzle are estimated to be at a
TRL of 4.
• SMA characterizations should
be performed to reliably
(minimizing hysteresis) actuate
at least a 2-position nozzle
practical for takeoff and cruise
operations.
• Investigating the tradeoff
between continuously varying
nozzle area, and two or multi-
position fixed positions should
be performed by exploring
multiple configurations.

155
Advanced Structural and Subsystems
Metal Alloys
• At a current TRL of
approximately 4 (depending on
which material class of several),
optimizations of alloy
chemistries for structural and
subsystem components should
continue to investigate good
candidates for limited sample
production throughout the next
several years.
• Near-term goals should focus
on higher toughness and
strength in compressive as well
as tensile modes, as well as at
elevated temperatures and room
temperatures. High-pressure,
dynamic, hydraulic applications
should be targeted as well.

156
Ultra-High Performance Composite
Fiber
• Further work to verify
performance for aircraft panel
applications should focus on
using the status fibers, which
have known fabrication quality
limitations, to develop layup
processes with appropriate
resins.
• Fiber manufacturing
development must occur in
parallel to improve fiber
performance and
manufacturability to reinforce
the TRL 3 level risk.
• Coupon testing to examine
basic composite properties
• For moving to TRL 4, improved fibers must be
through break tests and surface
available starting in several years following
examination, along with basic
coupon testing to advance a simple composite
stress/strain testing should occur
panel structure through compression and break
at this stage.
testing, as well as verifying layup procedures
and the expected resin-fiber interface properties.
157
Carbon NanoTube Electrical Cables

• Carbon nanotube cables are


currently estimated at a TRL of
3, and must be pursued in terms
of both core wire performance,
and outer mesh conductor
performance (coaxial
arrangement).
• To reach TRL 4 for both of
these components, at least two
years (potentially several) of
development is forseen to assess
feasibility of optimized designs
for combined prototypes.
• Separate development will
occur on each to adequately
lower risk levels initially, and
identify and isolate technical
hurdles.
•For acquiring a TRL of 5,
performance of a subsystem
prototype installation for a
moderately complex electrical
158system should be evaluated.
Modeling for Inlet Optimization

• Researchers have
demonstrated some components
of low- and moderate-fidelity
transport of fan-face distortion
through to the bypass duct and
core compressor, but this has
not been in concert with other
activities required to bring this
capability to TRL 4.
• This would also require adding
additional multi-fidelity models
of inlet losses and integration
effects to estimate performance
quickly for MDO applications.
• Handling of complex geometry
requirements (to handle BLI,
podded, embedded
configurations) passed
automatically through an API
that must be devolved into a set
of modeling constraints should
be a cornerstone component.
159
Large Integrated Structures

• Continued development to
further reduce risk at this level
should include prototype
development activities including
Reliability Based Design (RBD)
methods for joint designs.
• Advanced structural models
should be developed to predict
performance at joint component
and integrated structure levels.
Weight models should be
updated for system level
evaluations.
• A follow-on task for
advancement to TRL 5 is the
implementation of previous
design and prediction tools to
design/fab/test a large
substructure in the NASA COLTS
facility.

160
Aeroservoelastic Structures

• Previous development of
advanced state-space
simulations, analysis methods,
and flutter control law
development should be
leveraged to developed a
simplified high aspect ratio wing
design to be evaluated by
testing of a cantilevered semi-
span wind tunnel model.
• A static aeroelastic scaling of
this subscale model should be
sufficient for this activity.
Moderate drag reduction and
load control goals should be
pursued.
• Parallel refinement of
requirements for an integrated
system should be performed and
incorporated into future model
designs to a practical extent.

161
Intercooled Compressor Stage

• Evaluation of subscale
concepts to investigate pressure
loss and cooling performance
should be performed in the next
several years utilizing DOE and
other methods to optimize
subsystem-level integration into
the engine.
• This should occur in simulated
design flow (flowrates, pressure)
conditions downstream of HPC
installation to bring to TRL 4.
• CFD simulations should be
carried out to understand
pressure loss mechanisms and
improve heat transfer rates.
• System concept studies should
continue to use updated models
for top-level mission benefits.

162
Staged Combustor with Ceramic
Matrix Composite Liner
• Development of the CMC liner
technology should occur in
parallel with this activity so that
the design for staged
combustion, which will allow
huge NOx reductions across the
power setting range, can
assume CMC availability.
• Design and test of injector
concepts for use in staged
combustion on a flametube to
validate the design and also
investigate the compatability
with alternative fuels.
• Diagnostics data from the
previous study will feed aid in
evaluating performance on a
two-cup sector test at high OPR,
focusing on integration, ignition,
lean blowout, and subidle
efficiency, as well as the primary
emissions metrics.
163
Cooled Cooling Air and Endothermic
Fuel Cooling

• To advance to a TRL of 6, demonstration


on an integrated, ground-based engine
should be performed. Assessment of flow
levels and heat exchanger pressure losses,
with surrogate cooling fluids representative
of cracked fuels (if none are available)
should be performed. A low-loss,
lightweight heat exchanger design should
be validated as a key outcome.
• Developing an array of potential
candidates of jet fuels in bench-test
burners measuring heat sink capability and
exothermic properties would elevate this
technology to a TRL of 4. Simultaneous
efforts to de-oxidize the fuel & pursue
other coke-mitigation strategies, although
not detailed here, should be made to
sufficiently reduce coke deposition due to
the oxidation mechanism across the
temperature range relevant to an inline
turbofan fuel heat exchanger for cooled
cooling air.
164
Outline

• Introduction
• Scenario Development
• Requirements Definition
• Design Tools and Processes
• Candidate Configurations and Technologies
• Air Vehicle Design Studies
• Technology Maturation Plans
• Summary and Conclusions

• Closed session with NASA partners

165
SELECT Final Review:
Summary and Conclusions

Contract NNC08CA86C
NASA Glenn Research Center
21 April 2010

Dr. Sam Bruner


Manager, Advanced Configurations
Northrop Grumman Corporation

166
Rational Design Process

NASA N+3
Goals

Optimization
Future Requirements
and Trade
Scenarios Definition
Studies

Engine and Methodical Preferred Concept


Airframe Technology
Architectures
Vehicle
Downselect

Relevant
Candidate
Technologies
Technologies
for N+3 EIS

167
Future Scenarios Drive Design

• Broad future need identified for


– Efficient 1600 nautical mile capability
– 120 passenger load
• Prioritized objectives
– Reduced fuel burn
– Reduced emissions
– Reduced noise
• Future traffic growth sustainable by
– Utilizing existing 5000 foot runways in Metroplex operations
– Contingent upon NextGen enabling technlogy

168
Key Enabling Technologies

30000

• Propulsion system -8.23% 25048 lb


25000
-28.18%

Mission Fuel, lb
– Low SFC 20000

-8.12%
-63.5%

– Low jet velocity


15000
-70%
-5.73%
-4.18%
-3.40%

– Low NOx
-2.23% -1.19%
10000 -1.15% -1.10%

7514.4

• Aerodynamics
5000 N+3 GOAL

– Swept wing laminar Flow


• Materials
– Light-weight materials
– Advanced structural concepts
• Subsystems
– Advanced nozzles and inlets
– Landing gear fairings and integration
• Airframe / Engine integration
– Proper matching of T/W and W/S

169
Summary Accomplishments

• Northrop Grumman meets all design intents.


– All goals met except fuel burn
– Fuel burn still represents outstanding improvement
– Achievable with technology possible by 2025

Noise (Cum below Stage 4) -71 EPNdB -70 EPNdB 


N+3 (2030-2035
LTO NOx Emmissions (below CAEP/6) -75% -75% 
Service Entry)
Performance: Aircraft Fuel Burn better than 64%
Advanced Aircraft
70%
Concepts Goals
Performance: Field Length Exploit Exploit
(Relative to User-
Metroplex Metroplex
Defined Reference)
Concepts Concepts 
Range 1600nm 1600nm 
Mission
Passengers 120 120 
Requirements
Field Length, TO and Ldg (SL, Std Day) 5,000 feet 5,000 feet 
Derived from Traffic
Cruise Mach 0.75 0.75 
Study
Cruise Altitude < FL450 < FL450 
Solid TRL 6 by 2025 to manage commercial risk
170
Conclusions

• Northrop Grumman’s preferred concept is revolutionary in


its performance, if not in its appearance
• Breakthrough performance is obtainable via cascading
benefits in a variety of areas
• Several topics deserve further study in Phase II

171