NASA Technical Memorandum 81566

Pf<OJ£CT Status ReL,Ort (,'_SA) _2_C A.J/dk AOl cJCL 21E

Jlxcla_" _ (;3/07 28919

I

A Status Rep-_rton theEnergy Efficient Engine Project

Lawrence E. Macioce, John W. Schaefer, and Neal T. SaundersLewB Research CenterCleveland, Ohio

J

Prepared for theAerospaceCongresssponsored by the American Society of Automotive EngineersLos Angeles, California, Oct,_ber 13-16, 1980

¢

1980023887

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19800023887 2020-07-31T16:41:06+00:00Z

A STATUS REPORT ON THE ENERGY

EFFICIENT ENGINE PROJECT

Lawrence E. Macioce, Joh_ W. Schaefer, andNeal T. Saunders

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationLewis Research Center

Cleve|and, Ohio

SUMMARY

The Energy Efficient Engine (E3) Project is

directed at providing, by 1984; the advanced

technologies which could be used for a new

generation of fuel conservative turbofan engines.The project is conducted by NASA through con-

tracts with the General Electric Company andPratt & Whitney Aircraft. This naper summarizes

the scope of the entire project and the currentstatus of these efforts. Included is a

description of the preliminary designs of thefully developed engines, the potential benefitsof these advanced engines, and highlights ofsome of the component technology effortsconducted to date.

1980023887-002

THE VIABILITY OF AIR TRANSPORTATION is

threatened by fuel prices that have beenrising at a rate greater than the rate ofinflation (1)*. In 1973, at the time of theOPEC oil embargo, fuel cost was 25 percent of

aircraft direct operating cost (DOC). Fuel

cost currently accounts for nearly 60 percentof DOC (2). Imt)rrvements in the efficiency of

air transport fu_l utilization is of primaryimportance in minimizing the burden of fuelcost, and its effect on DOC, on the world'sai ri ines.

The National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (NASA) has implemented theAircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE) Program whichaddresses improving fuel efficiency from thestandpoint of fuel conservation and aircraftoperating economics. One of the major elementsof the ACEE program is the Energy EfficientEngine (EJ) ProJect. While this project isfocused on reduced fuel consumption, futureengines must also be economically attractiveto airlines and environmentally acceptableto society. Therefore, a balanced set of goalsfor fully-developed and flight-qualified engineswas established at the onset of the projectto guide the design and technology efforts.These goals are to be assessed relative tocurrent turbofan engines (specifically, theCF6-50C for GE and the JTgD-7A for PWA) andare as follows:

o Reduce fuel usage

-at least 12 percent reduction in

specific fuel consumption (SFC)

-at least 50 percent reduction in

performance deterioration rateo Improve operating costs

-at least 5 percent reduction in

direct operating cost (DOC)

o Meet future environmental regulations-FAA's 1978 noise regulations:

FAR-36 (1978)-EPA's 1981 emissions standards

NASA has contracted, in parallel, with the

two domestic manufacturers of large turbofan

engines for accomplishment of the E3 Project-_ (The General Electric Company (GE) Aircraft

Engine Group and the Pratt & Whitney Aircraft MacioceGroup (PWA) of United Technologies Corporation). SchaeferBuilding on their experience and the NASA Saundersresearch and technology base, these twocompanies have selected engine thermodynamiccycles and have completed preliminary designs 2of engine configurations projected to meet theproject goals. Both manufacturers are cur-

*Numbers shown in parenthesis designateReferences at end of paper.

1980023887-003

rently in the component development phase ofthe project. The primary staoes of the projectare shown in Figure I, a summari of the [schedu Ie.

The basic engine design, as it could be

configured for future commercial application,

; is called the Flight Propulsion System (FPS).The first element of the project pertains togenerating the _DS designs which serve as thebasis for definil g the technology advances tobe evaluated in tie subsequent phases. TheFPS designs are also used in the prediction ofperformance benefits that such designs wouldoffer when fully developed to a flight-certified engine. A low-level of effort willcontinue throughout the duration of the projectto update the FPS designs and projections ofexpect:ed benefits. Such updates will be basedupon results of the component and systemstechnology development.

The second project el_.ment, componenttechnologies, pertains to detailed design ofeach component and associated technologydevelopment efforts to aid in the selectionand confirmation of advanced design concepts.Subsequently, full-scale versions of most ofthe components will be fabricated and tested inrig tests to demonstrate the performance levelspredicted for each advanced component design.

The third major project alement involvesintegration of the advanceo component designsinto engine systems. The purpose of thiselement is to experimentally assess theintegrated performance of the components andthe various advanced systems-technology featuresthat can be evaluated only in systems tests.In the case of GE, the high-spool components(i.e., - the high-pressure compressor andturbine plus the combustor) will first betested as a core-engine system. Both contractorswi I1 evaluate the high-spool componentsintegrated with the low-spool components (i.e.,

the fan, the low-pressure compressor andturbine, and the m_xer and simulated nacelle)in total engine systems tests that have beentermed "Integrated Core/Low-Spool" (ICLS)

tests. These engine system tests are considered

to be the primary means of demonstrating Maciocetechnology-readiness and, while the performance Schaefer

of a fulI,ideveloped engine will not be attained, Saunders" the tests provide the basis for the final update

of the FPS design.Candidate engine configurations and cycle 3

conditions were selected by each engine manu-

facturer during preliminary engine definitionstudies (3). Inputs to these studies in the

1980023887-004

areas of _irplane/mission definition andengine/airframe integration were made byBoeing, Douglas, and Luckheed, as sub-

. contractors to GE and PWA (4, 5). Preliminary

engine designs have since been developed by GEand PWA that are projected to meet or exceed E3

goals. The resulting thermodynamic cycleschosen by GE and PWA, compared to current

high-bypass (reference) engines, are presented

in Figure 2. Artist's conceptions of each of

the initial E_'configurations (FPS designs)

are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Both enginesemploy t_vospools, have a total inlet airflow

of about 635Kg per second (1400 pounds per

second) with a core airflow of abeut 52Kg per

second (If5 pounds per second), and have long-

duct nacelles with exhaust mixers. Both designs

are sized to produce about 160,O00 Newtons

(36,000 pounds) of takeoff thr,_'st,a levelscalable to other sizes for commercial transport

applications. E3 te,'h,,ologydevelopments can

a]so be scalea _u that they can be applied to

derivative versions of current engines atother thrust levels.

The improvements in SFC realized by the E3designs are expected to be at least 14 percent.Contributions to these improvements are depict_in Figure 5. (Note thot these SFC improvementsare relative to the respective manufacturer'sbaseline, or reference engine, and thus arenot directly comparable on an absolute basis.)The major portion of the SFC reduction resultsfrom improvements in the performance of themajor engine components. Accordingly,principal emphasis is directed at developingcomponents that incorporate aggressive advancesin technology (6). While the overall engineconfigurations and cycles for both manufacturer_energy efficient engines are similar, eachmanufacturer is developing unique component

': designs incorporating different technologies.This paper will present a sunTr,ary of the

preliminary designs of the fully developedengines (or FPS) and potential benefits of these

engines. Also presented is a description ofthe results of current activity in E_ high-pressure compressor testlng_ exhaust mixermodel testing, combustor rig (both full Mac;oceannular and sector) tests, high-pressure turbine Schaeferairfoil fabrication development, ant! model Saunderspowered nacelle_tes.'s, thus summarizing thestatus of the E3 Project.

4

1980023887-005

PRELIMINARY FLIGHT PROPULSION SYSTEM DESIGNS

E3 FPS designs have been con,p]eted by GEand PWA during the first two years of projecteffort. These FPS designs include the totalaircraft engine systems: bare enginecomponents, plus nacelle, exhaust-gas mixer,engine control system, and engine acce'_sorles.The designs are based on the results of theearlier engine de;inition studies and representeach manufacturers current views on the nature

of their next generation of turbofan engines.These FPS designs were used to define thecomponent and system technology advances thatare required during the project duration. Also,the FPS designs are used to predict theperformance benefits that such advanced eng,neswould offer when fully developed to flight-certified status.

The major effort on the FPS designs hasbeen completed (7, 8, 9, 10). A low-level ofeffort will continue throughout the projectduration to permit up-dating of the designsbased on results of the component developmentand systems technology elements of theproject. The performance predictions of theup-dated final FPS designs at the conclusionof the project will thus serve as the basisfor comparison to the project design goals.

A summarized description of both the G=.and PWA FPS designs follows:

GENERAL ELECTRIC CONFIGURATION - The GE

design shown in Figure 6 has two co-rotatingspools and employs only two main frames. Thebase engine length is about I0 percent shorterthan a CF6-50 reterence engine scaled toequivalent thrust level. The nacelle is aslender (fineness ratio of 2.5), low dragdesign. Hounting the accessory package insidethe core cowl allows for a low nacelle frontalarea. The ratio of the inlet highlightdiameter to the maximum nacelle diameter is

i 0.86. Bulk absorber type acoustic treatmentis used in the inlet, Inner and outer walls ofthe fan duct, and aft of the low pressureturbine at the end of the core flow passage.The nacelle includes a fan-stream thrustreverser totally encased in the outer structure Haciocewith no actuation links in the by-pass stream. Schaefer

The fan is a single stage, low tip-speed Saundersdesign incorporating a composite frame. Thesolid titanlum blades incorporate a sing]edamper located at approximately 55 percent 5span and near the trailing edge to minimize aero-dynamic losses. The vanes are integrated withthe support struts to minimize the number ofairfoils, thereby reducing fan frame weightand cos t.

1980023887-006

The integral vane-frame design requiresthat the vane/struts be large enough toprovide adequate support but few enough innumber to avoid excessive blockage. Thisresults in about an equal number of blades and

!, vanes. To offset the increased noise associatedwith a vane-blade ratio near unity, the axial

i

spacing betw,.en blades and vanes has beenincreased, as compared to current engines,

to approximately two chord widths. Tests have

• shown that this approach results in fangenerated noise levels as low as conventionaldesigns. The inlet is cantilevered from thefan-frame and is independent of the fancasing. Therefore, the fan casing is not sub-ject to any flight loads and the fan can be _operated with tighter clearances than existingdesigns. This feature also helps performanceretention by minimizing blade tip rubbing. Aquarte,-stage island booster is incorporatedin the fan duct which provides automatic coreflow matching without variable geometry and alsoacts as a foreign object separator, centrifugingdirt and other partic]es radial]y outward andback into the bypass stream away from theengine core.

The compressor is an aggressive designaimed at achieving a pressure ratio of 23:1 inonly ten stages by u. ilizing low aspect ratio:rugged airfoils. It has four variable-vanestages and a variable inlet guide vane. Activeclearance control (ACC) is ernployed on the lastfive stages to achieve tight running clearances.In operation, cooler front stage bleecl air isallowed to pass over the outer surface of theaft inner casing. Running clearances bet,vecnthe blades and vanes are varied by controllingthe cooling air flow with a modulating valve.In this manner, clearances are minimized,thereby improving performance during climb andespecially at cruise. During periods ofpotential high engine deflection, the casing isuncooled and therefore expands to increase theclearance. This capability to increaseclearances minimizes performance deterioratlon Lclue to inadvertant tip rubs which might normallyoccur during periods of high aerodynamic and Maciocemanueve r loads. Schaefer

The combustor is a double-annular design Saundersfor low emissions and is an cutgrowth of theNASA Experimental Clean Combustor Program. Asegmented, or "shingled", liner is utilized toprovide increased life and low maintenance. The 6split duct diffuser divides the flow for thetwo concentric burning zones, thus permitting

a very short combustor length.

1980023887-007

The high pressure turbine is a highefficiency two-stage design. Both stagesincorporate high tip-speeds with only modestincreases in turbine temperatures over current

_ engines. Active clearance control is also

_. incorporated in the design. Controlled amountsof fan air are allowed to impinge on the turbinecase, thus reducing the clearances.

This two-stage turbine is cooled by meansof compressor-discharge and interstage air forthe vanes and blades, respectively. A majordesign feature is the substantially extendedlife obtained through use of advanced direc-tionally-solidified airfoil material, a ceramicshroud over the first stage rotor, advancedpowder metallurgy disks, and through eliminationof bolt-holes in the disks. High-pressurecooling air requirements have also been reducedthrough the use of the advanced turbinematerial s.

The low pressure turbine has five uncooledhighly efficient stages and is acousticallytuned to reduce noise. The high efficiencywill be achieved by reducing pressure losses,by improving the aerodynamic design, and byuse of active clearance control. A short

transition duct between the turbines permitshigh blade velocities in the initial stages,

with lower overall average blade loading.

The GE/E3 design is a long duct, mixed

flow configuration. The hot core stream is

r.;ixedwith the cooler bypass stream through

an advanced lobe shaped mixer before expansion

through a bnixed flow exhaust nozzle. The 12

lobed mixer and the mixing chamber are shortin length to minimize weight, internal pressure

losses, and external nacelle drag.

A comparison of the GE/E3 cycle with the

cycle of the CF6-50C reference engine is shown

in Figure 2. As described earlier, the E3

design has a mixed flow exhaust and has amuch higher bypass ratio than the referenceengine. The E3 fan pressure ratio is slightlylower and the coml)ressor pressure rat'o is al-most double that of the CF6-50C. The E3 FPS

design has a 36:1 overall pressure rat:o, aturbine temperature increase, and is sized for Macioce160,O00 Newtons (36,000 pound) takeoff thrust.The specific fuel consumption (SF_._ of the E3 Schaeferis projected to be 14.2 percent lower than the Saundersreference engine at the maximum cruiseoperating condition.

Figure 7 shows a comparison of the GE/E 3 7FPS predicted performance relative to theproject goals. - ._ 14.2 percent reduction in

1980023887-008

SFC surpasses the 12 percent go•i with margin.A DOC reduction rangir,g from 5 percent to ]2percent would thus accrue. (DOC calculationswere made for four d|;'ferent advanced aircraftby the three major domestic airframe companies(_). The price of fuel used for thesecalculations was $.lO/! iter ($.40/gal .)domestic and $.12/liter ($.45/g•1.) interne-"tJona]. These DOC numbers are currently beingupdated using current and expected future fuelprices, and the levels of DOC improvement fol"the E3 •re expected to increase significantlywith the higher fuel prices.) Performanceretention features have been designed into theE3 through the basic design features, such •sthe extensive use of active clearance control.The E3 FPS is projected to be at least 3 EPNdBquieter than the goal l_vel for a]] measuringconditions (takeoff, sideline, and approach)for a]l four advanced aircraft studied.Emissions goals •re still expected to be metfor the FPS design, with optimization ofcooling/dilution air flows and other technologyfeatures, and with full development of thecombustor.

PRATT & WHITNEY CONFIGURATION - The PWA/E3

design is shown in Figure 8. The engine is •two-spool high-bypass turbofan with mixed coreand fan exhaust. The two major frames and bothmain shaft be•ring compartments are situatedbetween the compressors and between the turbinesto independent]y support the counterrotatingrotors. The n•ce]]e features extensive use of

acoustic treatment throughout the inlet andexhaust ducts and is designed to share fligh_loads through the load-carrying fan ducts whichtransmlt much of the inlet gust load and o*.hercowl ]o•ds •round the engine case and to theengine mounts.

The E3 fan features • shroud]ess, hollowtitanium blade design to provide efficiencyimprovement without an offsetting weight in-crease. The spacin_ between the fin blades• nd exit guide vanes was increased to providea low noise configuration. The four-stage

.! low-pressure compressor and ten-stage high-pressure compressor utilize controlled diffusion

i airfoils and low-loss endwall concepts to Macioceraise compressor efficiency levels. Such Schaeferconcepts include rotor tip trenches and Saur0dersreduced tip cleerances _s well is minimizedctvity volumes.

The staged combustor has two in-li,'e 8combustion zones to control emissions. A

segmented-liner configuration has beenincorporated to increase combustor liner lifeaS well as reduce coollng air requirements.

L

1980023887-009

The overall length of the cembustor has beenreduced by the use of a short, low-loss,dump-type diffuser section.

To obtain a large reduction in numb(.r ofairfoils, initial cost, and engine maintenancecosts, a single-stage, high-work, high pressure

• turbine has been incorpr'rated. Single-crystalalloy airfoils are used to reduce cooling air-flow requirements. Ceramic outer air sealsare also incorporated to reduce cooling airrequirements as well as permitting the useof tighter rotor tip clearances, hence loweringrotor tip losses. The four-stage low-pressureturbine L'tilizing low-loss airfoils requiresno airfoil cooling and counter-rotates relativeto the high spool, thus permitting lightly-loaded low-pressure turbine inlet vanes forincreased turbine efficiency. The 18-1obescalloped, high penetration, exhaust mixer isdesigned to provide high mixing efficiency with

: a relatively short mixer and mixing chamber.The short length serves to minimize pressu;'eloss, weight, and external nacelle drag.

Active clearance control on the rear

section of the high-pressure compressor andon the turbines is designed to closely matchrotor and case diameters (minimize rotor tipclearances) during cruise operation withoutinducing rubs during takeoff and climbmaneuvers (requiring increased rotor tipclearances). This is achieved through properselection of rotor and case materials, externalfan air impingement tubes on the high-pressurecompressor, and an internal case air-coolingsystem on the turbines.

Cycle oararneters for the PWA/Z3 FPS designare compared to those of the JTgD-7A referer=eengine in Figure 2. Comparison is at maximumcruise flight conditions. The El _ycle exhibitsa somewhat higher bypass ratio and fan pressureratio relative to the reference engine, and has

a significantly higher compressor pressureratio and overall pressure ratio. E_ turbinetemperatures are seen to be about 9JK L200 F°)

i hotter than in the reference engine. The enginet is currently sized for about 160,000 Newtons

_ (]6,000 pounds) takeoff thrust.Figure 9 is a comparison of currently t_aciocepredicted performance for the P_'A E3/FPS Schaeferrelatiw to the program goals. _rojected cruise SaundersSFC indicates a 15.1 percent imp-ovement overthe JTgD-7A reference engine as :ompared to the12 percent program goal. DOC pr(,jections were 9calculated for _even study aircraft based on

! common economic ground rules (10). The range of

i DOC reduction for the study aircraft utilized is

1980023887-010

currently projected to be from 5 to I0 percent

which meets or exceeds the goat of 5 percent.

(Fu-°lprices of $.lO/liter ($.40/gal.) for the

domestic aircraft and $.12/]iter ($.45/gai.)for the intercontinental aircraft were used for

these proj_.ctions.) Many performance retention

' features have been incorporated into the E3

design to reduce projected in-service SFC

deterioration to the goal level (50 percentof reference engine experience). These

features include the load sharing nacelle,the short, stiff rote configuration, activeclearance control, a,,a the use of abradablerub strips over the blade tips. Noisecalculations for the fully-treated, mixedexhaust nacelle indicate the potential ofmeeting (with 2 EPNdB margin) the FAR 36 (1978)nois rules in future domestic and inter-national aircraft. Estimates of EPA emtssion

parameters for the FPS design fall below theproposed 1981 new engine standards for carbonmonoxide and unburned hydrocarbon levels andthus are projected to meet the program goals.But, despite the use of staged combustion, NOxestima.es exceed the proposed 1981 regulationsby over 50 percent. The E3 combustor develop-ment program now in progress, however, showsthe promise of further reducing NOx emissionstoward the goal levels.

STATUS OF COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT

Since the major contribution to SFCimprovement of the E3 designs will be achieved

through performance improvements in each of themajor engine components, the primary emphasis

is on the development of component technologies.Full-scale versions of most of the components

will be fabricated and rlg tested to demonstratepredicted performance levels. Following thecomponent development effort, the successfully-tested components will be integrated into thecore and ICLS systems to experimentally assessthe integrated performance of the componentsand the advanced system technology features.

As shown in Figure I, the component.: technologies effort was initiated early in the

project and continues for a period of Macioceapproximately four years. This effort leads Schaeferto engine system (ICLS) tests in the mid to Saunder_late 1982 time frame for GE and PWA,respectiw_.,.

Proje,', efforts are currently concentrated lOon the development of component technologies.Some supporting techno!ogy efforts have beencompleted and o_hers are currently underway.

ISome full-scale component tests have been

1980023887-011

initiated but the majority of the effort willbe conducted in 1981. A summary of thesignificant results to date follows:

GENERAL ELECTRIC - Highlights of someof the component technology efforts conductedto date are:

I-6 Sta_le High-Pressure Compressor Test -A full-scale rig test of the first six stagesof the lO-stage E3 high pressure compressorwas tested ear]y in 1980.

The test configuration is shown by theshaded stages in Figure I0. B]ading, flowpath,clearances, and inlet flow field were identicalto that required for the FPS at cruise. Aspecial outer casing, however, was uti]izedto allow six variab]e vane stages rather thanthe first four stages as in the flight de_=gn.The additiona] two variable stator stages permitgreater flexibility in matching the compressorin the starting region and will assist ingenerating data required for matching the aftfixed stages to the flow generated by the frontstages. This test is the first in a series ofthree tests planned for the compressor priorto incorporation into the core and ICLS systems.A photograph of the six stage test rotor whileinstalled in the ba]ance machine is shown in

Figure II.

The primary test goals for the 1-6 stagevehicle were to achieve an operating pressureratio of 9.83 at design weight flow and anadiabatic efficiency of 84.1 percent. Thispoint is shown in Figure 12, as well as thepredicted stall line and assumed efficiencygoals. Initial testing with the originalstator schedule indicated good efficiency andlo,_-speed stall margin, but there was lesstitan desired stall margin near the designpoint. The inlet guide vane and stator i werethen scheduled a few degrees closed to improvehigh-speed performance.

Several stator setting schedules weretested, and a preliminary performance map forthe optimized stator schedul_ is shown inFigure 12. To meet the design pressure ratioand weight flow, the compressor required over-

, speed operation. At the over-speed condition,the efficiency slightly exceeds the test goal Maciocevalue, but the hlgh speed stall margin was still Schaefersomewhat lower than desired. These results and Saunders

the low-speed performance are very encouraging,and further testing in the ten-stage configura-tion will be performed to meet the high-speed 11stall marg=n requirements.

=

1980023887-012

Radial survey data measuring flow angle,

total pressure, and total temperature wererecorded. Measurements es"ablished that !ow Jl

velocity and l_w stage hub pressure rise were

encountered at high speeds. Modificiations. have been made to the blading to improve the" hub pres._ure rise for the first l-lO

compressor test.The mechanical performance of the

compressor closely matched that predicted.

T',,eme_,._uredblade frequencies and shaft T

critical speeds occurred where predicted and

were of the expected mode and amplitude.Neither blade vibration nor shaft motion

" limited the flow range or speed, and there was

no blade flutter observed within the operatingrange of the compressor.

In general, the performance of the I-6

compressor was considered _romising, both

mechanically and aerodyr:amically. The

achievement of the efficiency goals, even with

the blade hubs down in work input, is very

encouraging. Although the real potentialof the GE HPC won't be known until after the

l-lO testing, streamline comp,tations showthat the blade modifications on the front

stators and rear ro*ors should meet ov exceed

the design intent for thu l-lO test.

Combustor Development - The GE design forthe E_combustion system is shown in Figure 13.

The double-annular design was chosen for its

low emissions potential and is based on the

technology improvements _chieved in the

NASA-GE Experimental Clean Combustor Program (10AND THE NASA-GE Quiet Clean Short Haul

Experimental Engine Program (12). These

cooperative programs developed emissionsreduction technoiogy that will help aircraft

engines satisfy the proposed 1981 EPA aircraftemissions standards (13). These earlier two-

zone combustors were relatively large, however.

The E3 design is considerably shorter in overall

length, and the combustion zone has beenreduced to .17 meters (7 inches). The desire to

reduce DOC (by minimizing maintenance costs) _has led to a liner design with considerably ,longer life. The E3 liner consists of seomentsor "shingles" which are free-riding relative t._ Macioceeach other. This Feature alleviates the life Schaefer

limiting hoop-stresses which normally build up Saundersin conventional continuous ring liner designswhen subjected to thc rapid heating and coolingcycles encountered in normal comoustor operatior_ 12The shingle liner concept is shown In Figure 14. ';,

1980023887-013

The GE co. lbustor development effortconsists af tests with a 60° sector rig anda full-scal_ annular test rig. The sector rigeffort will be directed pr;marily at obtaininglow emissi_q levels in the pilot stage at idle

conditions. Modifications in combustor design_: wil, be evaluated to determine effects of dome

'_ geometry and swirl cup design and spacing.Full-annuiar rig tests _ill be conducted for

:: the basic E3 combustor design. As designfeatures are identified from sector and full- !

-- annular tests, modifications will be made to iimprove and simultaneously meet L.missions, 1exit temperature profiles, light-off, and other !performance requirements. Sector and full-annular development tests will be conducted withmachined ring type liners to facilitate designmodifications. Upon selection of the finalcombustor design, full-annular tests will beconducted to verify performance and emissionscharacteristics of the combustor with a shingleliner, prior to engine installation.

Sector and full-annular rig tests are.. currently underway. Exhaust emission levels

of carbon monoxide (CO), total unburned hydro-carbons (HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)

were measured during these tests. Emissionlevels for the sector tests in terms of EPA

parameters (EPAP) are shown beio,-J.

SECTOR TESTS E3 GOAL

co 3.0 3.0HC .32 .4

NOx 3.71 3.O

Emissions results obtained tc date are

encouraging. However, continued developmentwill be required as combustor design modifica-

tions and tradeoffs are made to meet tempera-

ture profile and ignition reciuiremer,ts.Combustor exit temperatures were _lso

measured in the tests of sector and full-annularhardware. Pattern factor, which is defined as:

PF " TI_max - T4 ave

_ T4 ave - T3

r Where: MacioceSchaefer

T4 max = the maximum exit temperature SaundersT4 ave s the average exit temperature

13 ,, combustor inlet temperature13

is a representation of the maximum measuredcircumferential tempe-ature deviation from the

1980023887-014

average measured temperature. Profi!e factor,which is defined as:

Pr F = T4 imm ave (max) - T4 ave

T4 ave - T3

where T/_ imm ave (max) is the maximum value ofthe circumferential average exit temperatures

at the various radial immersions, represents themaximum measured average radial temperaturedeviation from the average measured temperature.The goal value for pattern factor is .25.The profile factor goal is shown in Figure 15.Also shown in the figure are the profilefactor test data for the full-annular combustor.

The measured pattern factors were .50, .41, and.25 for the pilot/total fuel splits of .30, .40,and .50 respectively. Profile factor andpattern factor are seen to be very sensitiveto fuel split. At an off-design pilot/totalfuel split of .5, both profile factor andpattern factors are near goal. Temperatureprofile tailoring characteristics are expectedto be improved by tai Ioring the wall cooting/dilution airflows.

Mixer Development - General Electric hasselected a mixed flow design for their EnergyEfficient Engine (E]). The benefits from amixed flow design can be as high as 3-4percent in reduced specific fuel consumption(SFC) relative to a separate flow design. Toobtain these large benefits, the mixed flowsystem must achieve high levels of mixingwhile minimizing the accompanying pressurelosses, Minimizing the pressure lo_,se is asimportant as achieving high mixing :,ec,_usean increase in pressure loss will u uallyresult in an atmost equal increase in SFC (i.e.,one percent increase in pressure loss w;11yield about one percent increase in SFC). Theexhaust system components (mixer, centerbody,and long duct nacelle) must also be designedto minimize weight and nacelle drag. As ;vithhigh pressure losses, the added weight of amixed flow system and/or the drag of the longcluct nacelle can offset all the gains from themixing. The overall objective, therefore,is to generate a mixed flow system design which MacioceSchaefereffectively mixes the core and fa,, flows in a

Saundersrelatively short length, keeps any pressurelosses to a minimum, and is relatively light

weight. 14Current mixer design methodology is

primarily empirical. Analytical codes forevaluating the complex flo,, fields of a mixed

!

1980023887-015

1"

flow system are not available for high bypassratio systems. Therefore, the GE mixerdevelopment program is based on a series ofscale model tests. To date, approximately 31different mixer/centerbody/outer shroudcombinations have been tested. Some of the

test results have be_ reported previously (15).-_ The primary geometric test variables are shown7 _n Figure 16. The geometric variations were

made primarily on mixer designs with theI_ tWO lobe shapes shown. Variations in lobe

number, lobe perimeter, lobe penetration, andscalloping (curved cutout of mixer sidewall)were all examined on lobe shape "'A" Variationsin mixing chamber length, lobe penetration, and

: scalloping were examined on |obe shape "B".Lobe snape "B" also had a much smaller mixer

' to centerbody gap.

Lobe number and lobe perimeter were not

found to have a s.;gnificant effect on overall

performance. Some variations in the level ofmixing and the amount of pressure loss wereobserved, but the net changes in terms ofSFC were small. This was the case for lobe

shape "A", but the trends may be differentfor other lobe shapes.

Lobe penetration, mixing chamber length,and scalloping were all found to have moresignificant effects on mixer performance. Sometest results from variations in these parametersare shown in Figure 17. The results are shownin terms of SFC improvements relative to a_,ong duct system with no mixing. An increasein lobe penetration is shown to significantlyimprove the performance of lobe shape "B".Increasing the penetration was found toincrease the amount of mixing. The pressurelosses also increased with increasingpenetration, but the penalty from the increasedpressure loss was ]ess than the benefit fromthe mixing. An optimum value of penetrationmost likely exists where the differencebetween the benefits of increased mixing andthe debits due to increased pressure loss isthe largest. This optimum value is greaterthan the levels shown here and may bedifferent for different lobe shapes. Variationsin lobe penetration were also examined on lobe hacioceshape "A". However, this lobe rlesign exhibited Schaefersome separated flow near the end of the core Saunderslobes. As penetration increa._ed, the size ofthe separation region also increased, withincreased pressure losses. Even with the 15separated flow, the level of mixing continuedto increase with increasing penetration.However, the increasing pressure losses offsetthe mixing gains, and the highest penetration

1980023887-016

mixers actually had lower overall performance.Lobe shape "B" did not exhibit this kind offlow separation and therefore had lowerpressure losses, resulting in improved overall

. performance with increased penetration.- All of the testing done on lobe shapes "A" was done with a short mixing chamber

length L/D ,, .48. Lobe shape "B" was testedwith three different mixing chamber lengths

: (L/D - .48, .58, and .75). The effect of alonger chamber was significant as shown inFigure 17. Since the actual mixing of thetwo streams occurs in the mixing chambert it isto be expected that making this region longerresults in increased mixing. A limit doesexistD however_ beyond which no further benefitfrom added length will be rea]ized. Increasedweight and Increased nacelle drag will thenbecome large enough to offset the increasesin 9erfor,_llnce from more mixing. Based on theresults shown here, the length of the GE FPSdesign was increased .25 meters (IO in.) topermit a longer mixer chamber.

Scalloping was a:so shown to have asignificant effect on mixer performance. Fiveof the mixer models were tested both with

full side walls and with scalloped sidewalls.The results for two of these mixer designs(for lobe shape "A '_) are shown in Figure 17.Scalloping is shown to produce a significantimprovement in mixer performance. This was :"true for all of the models tested. The levelof mixing was increased by the scalloping Inall cases with virtually no increase in pressureloss, The amount of perfor..ance improvementwas not constant, as some mixer designs showedmore Improvement from scalloping than others,but the effect was always an improvement.

The goal for the 6E/E 3 mixer componentis to produce a 3,1 percent SFC improvementrelative to a long duct design with no mixing.The 3.l percent SFC improvement results fromF

a mixing effectiveness goal of 75 percent and apressure loss goal of 0,2 percent. The resultsfrom the tests completed to date shown an SFC

_! Improvement of 2.2 percent, Based on thesetests, the original pressure loss goal nowappears to have been too aggressive, and a level Macioceof about O,_ percent is more realistic. A Schaefermixing effectiveness level of 75 percent is Saundersconsidered achlevab]e, These levels would

produce an overall SFC improvement of approxi-mately 2.8 percent. Further test efforts are 16planned, ar, d additional improvements areexpeci:ed from an improved lobe shape, increased

.|

1980023887-017

lobe penetrati(,_, and alternate geometricdesigns.

Lon_ Duct Nacelle Tests - The incorporationof a mixer on an engine requires a long duct

• nacelle. This presents a ne_ set of challenges

to the alrcraft/engine designer. Experienc _.

_ has shown that lon9 duct nacelles that have

high installed drag levels, making them

: impractical compared to the performance ofseparate flow nacelles. To address thisproblem in 33, a cooperative test program (NASA-Lewis, NASA-Langley, and GEl was conducted toevaluate the installed drag of the GE/E3 nacelleThe E3 nacelle and several other currenttechnology nacelles were tested at Langleyunder a supercritical wing on an EnergyEfficient Transport (EET) half-span modelThe nacelle test configurations and theirvarious positions relative to the wing areshown in Figure lB. Two separate flow nacellesand one current technology long duct nacellewere tested in addition to the GE/E_ nacelle.The E_ nacelle is shown in two positionsrelative to the wing.

Figure 19 shows the results of theinstalled tests. As might be expected, theseparate flow nace]les exhibited lower dragsthan the current technology, long duct nacelle.The E3 nacelle in the more aft position alsohad relatively high installed drag. However,in the more forward position, the E_l nacelledrag was quite low, indicating a significantreduction in interference drag. In thisforward position, the E3 long duct nacelledrag is comparable to separate flow designs.The test results indicate that with careful

tailoring of the wing/pylon/nacelle combination,the installed drag of a long duct nacelle canbe comparable to ,Iconventional separate flownace) le.

PRATT AND WHITNEY - Highlights of some of

the component technology efforts conducted todate are:

Comoustor Development - The significa_ntdesign features of the EJ Combustor confi_ura-tion, is deslgned by Pratt and Whitney, areshown in Figure 20. The two-zone in-linecombustor is required to meet the emission Maciocegoal levels for CO, HC, and NOx. The carburei.or Schaefertube fuel injection for the main zone, assists Saundersin reducing NOx levels as well as reducing t_hesmoke to below goal levels. The incor_oration

of a segmented combustor liner supported by 17a separate frame lind with advanced coolingallows for a long-life combustor configurgtior,.

1980023887-018

Figure 21 shows two views of the segmentedcon_)ustor liner to be used as a part of theE3 combustor development program. The segmentsare cast from a turbine-type material andfeature feather seal slots to minimize

-: leakage.The technology required for the combustor

' development program is being provided by twosupport efforts prior to full-scale, full-annular rig tests scheduled for 1981. Thefirst, the Diffuser/Combustor Model TestProgram, has been completed. The purpose ofthis test program was to experimentally deter-mine and optimize the aerodynamic performanceof t_e diffuser/combustor f]owpath, utilizinga modularized, full-scale, full-annularcombustor model made of plexiglas and wood.All the goals of this program (i.e., separation-free diffuser flowfield, overa]] pressure loss

(AP/P 3) of 5.5 percent, and diffuser pressureloss of 3.0 percent) were met and are reportedin Reference 16. The second effort, the

Combustor Sector Rig Test Program, is currentlyin progress. Atypica] test setup of thePWA/E3 Combustor Sector Rig is shown inFigure 22. The test program consists of 21tests. The firs*. 17 tests use a sheet-metal]ouvered linear combustor to facilitate

development of interne] combustor geometry withlow emissions and smoke while also meeting thedesign goal requirements for pattern factorand the other aerodynamic performanceparameters. A view of this sheet-metal]overed combustor configuration is shown inFigure 23. The last four tests of the CombustorSector Rig Program will be with the advancedsegmented linear at maximum EEE operatingconditions (30 atmospheres). These finalconfigurations will incorporate the optimizedresults obtained from the initial 17 tests.

The status of results with comparisonto goals of the Combustor Sector Rig Program,after 12 o1" the planned 21 tests, is shown inFigure 24. The test results are veryencouraging. The two-zone combustor, has beenstaged over the full range of EEE operatingconditions as well as having been re-ignitedat altitude conditions. Other encouraging MacioceresulLs to date are the low pattern _actor Schaeferof 0.]5, a smoke number less than one, and HC Saundersand CO emissions which are below the goallevels. Testing in the near future wlliemphasize further reduction in NOx and improved 18radial temperature proflle, while maintaininga low smoke number and pattern factor.

1980023887-019

Mixer Development - For the EnergyEfficient Engine, Pratt and Whitney selected amixed-flow configuratijn, which shows a poten-tial SFC benefit of 3 to 4 pe'cent relativeto an optimized separate flow configuration.The requirements for an acceptable design(i.e., high mixing, relatively short length

• and light weight, and minimal pressure

losses) and the availability of design data4 are similar for Pratt and Whitney and GeneralI Electric. Therefore, as with General Electric,

the Pratt and Whitney mixer development programis based on a series of scale model tests. Thefirst of two test series has been completedand consisted of a parametric test program

: using 29 configurations. These configurations

were divided into three basic mixer options

as shown in Figure 2c. The short option

provided for the lightest weight and was

designed with very agressive aerodynamic

requirements to examine the impact of primaryflow separation in the lobes. It wasconsidered an extreme in the test matrix. The

intermediate option, while not as aerodynami-

cally agressive as the short option, still

provided for an agressive weight reduction and

decrease in overall length for the E,imixerwhen compareJ to the more conservative aero-

dynamic approach of the long mixer. Figure 26

identifies the main test parameters investigatedduring this first test series. The variation

in test parameters was accomplished by

configuring the long, intermediate, and short

options so as to cover the range of testparameters desired. The. results of this testseries was reported in Reference 17.

For the short mixer, the penaltiesassociated with flow separation in the primarylobes were found to be significant. While thelevel of mixing was relatively good, thecorresponding pressure loss was very high.Diagnostics indicated that the primary flow wasindeed separated near the mixer exit dSexpected. The short mixer's main advantages oflightness and low external drag were more thanoffset by the large pressure losses observed.No further testing was conducted with thisextremely short mixer option. Macioce

The intermediate option raixers were used Schaefer

mostly to examine mixing chamber length (L/D) Saunders

llnd lobe number. The performance of thesemixers did show benefits for a long mixingchamber and 18 lobe mixers. However, when 19

the Intermediate option mixer was tested

initially with a short mixincj chamber, itshowed an unexplainably low level of performance.

I

1980023887-020

Since this was to be the basis against whichmost of these variables were to be reported,the effect of increased lobe number and mixingchamber length (L/D) are somewhat exaggerated,

as described in Reference 17.The long option mixers also examined lobe

number, mixing chamber length, and the effectof scalloping. This series of tests provided

: data and trends as shown in Figure 27. The: 18 lobe mixers showed a performance advantage

of approximately 0.2 percent SFC over thetwelve lobe configurations for both theconventional and scalloped mixer designs.Detailed analysis of the data indicated thatthe performance gains were due to increasedmixing, even though the internal pressurelosses did increase slightly. When a longmixing chamber length (L/D = 1.0) was in_talledon these mixers, the SFC i_roved 0.43 percentc_ompared to a short mixing ,_mber length(L/D of 0.5) installed on the same mixer.This SFC improvement was due primarily to anincrease in the level of mixing while thepressure loss increased only slightly.Scalloplng is seen to further increaseperformance by approximately 0.35 percent SFCIn both the twelve and eighteen lobeconfigur_tions. The performance gainassociated with scalloping is _ combination ofreduced total pressure losses and Increasedmixing. While the effect of penetration wasnot systematically varied during the firstseries of tests, all three mixer options didhave different levels of penetration (i.e.,short mixer penetration 0.50, long mixer 0.57,and Intermediate mixer 0.65), By selectingreasonable and consistent data points from testsof all three mixer designs, It was determinedthat the effect of penetration was substantial.

The second series of tests now planned willexamine mixer overa]l length and flow turningrates in the lobes. The designs will takeadvantage of the benefits discovered for 18lobes, Increased _ixi_g chamber length, andscalloping, while increasing penetration.tome s_ll varlltlons In plug gap will also beexamined.

High Pressure Turbine De.elo_ment - The Hacioce, SchaeferPWA single-stage high-work, high-pressureturblne (HPT) FPS design employs transonic Saunders

•aerodynamics and single crystal airfoils.0rlglnally, the design employed two-pieceairfoils. This approach permits the use of 20complex Inter_al cooling design, highly twisted

1980023887-021

and cambered airfoils (as shown in Figure 28),and thin tapered walls needed to meet thedesign goal requirf.lents for life and aero-dynamic performance. The long chord vanes and

_.i highly twisted blades are significantly largeri

:_! than state-of-the-art single crystal vanes andblades. To experimentally substantiate theaerodynamic design for the HPT, an HPT Uncooled

. Rig Test Program was undertaken. This testprogram has been completed and is reported in•

Reference 18. The test program did substantiatethe PWA design, demonstrating an uncooledefficiency level of 91.2 percent as comparedto the goal efficiency level of 90.8 percent.

A Fabrication Development Program, in-vestiQatinQ castina and subseauent bondinaof the E3 two-piece airfoils approach was alsoconducted. The objectives of the castingportion of this program were to determine th_feasibility and reproducibility of casting Esize -.nd geometry single crystal vanes andblades in halves, while maintaining internal andexternal dimensional control. The objectivesof the bonding portion of this program wereto evaluate Ihe feasibility and reproducibilityof bonding E_ size and geometry two-piece vaneand blade halves while maintaining dimensionalcontrnl and to provide verification of singlecrystal microstructure at the bond joint. Acast two-piece single crystal HPT blade is shownin Figure 29. The complex internal coolinggeometry and high degree of blade twist canbe seen from this figure. The feasibility ofbonding two-piece vanes and blades was a]sodemonstrated. A successfully bonded E3 two-piece HPT vane is shown in Figure 30. Someminor probl_ms were encountered, however, withbonding the blade in the root section. Theseproblems can be corrected by reducing the largemass in the lower part of the blade (shown inFigure 29), reducing the bond plane camber inthis area, and possibly by local bond surface

, matching. Hlcrostructure analysis of vane' and blade sections at the bond joints showedi _hat the single crystal material was retained.

Figure 31 shows an example of a typical airfoili bond Joint microstructure. Bonding reproduci-

bil Jty of the vane was demonstrated. Re- Macioceproducibility of bonding the blade was in- Schaefer

: consistent because of bond die - blade airfoil Saunders

contour mismatch. It is expected that this can

t be corrected for the engine blades by improvedcontour fitup and controlled assembly. All 21major objectives of the casting and bondingprograms were met. The feasibility of casting

1980023887-022

two-piece E3 size and geometry vanes and bladeswas demonstrated. The casting program provided

the required parameters for fabricating the

single crystal engine vanes and blades anddemonstrated required crystal quality and

dimensional reproducibility of the parts(airfoil halves).

The Fabrication Development Program

provided for the HPT vane and blade design the

required casting and bonding parameters neces-

sary for successful fabrication of two-pieceairfoils of the size and geometry unique to

the E] FPS design. Although it was originally

thought that two-piece airfoil fabrication wasrequired because of the complex internal

cooling geometries and wall thickness require-

ments, recent industry experience now indicat_sthat the vanes and b]ades can be cast in a

single piece. Therefore, the.PWA/E 3 ICLS will

use single crystal, one-pi(ce, HFT vanes and

blades. However, the techi_ol,)gydemonstratedby the Fabrication DeveIop._nt Program will

enable more complex turbine designs to beconsidered in the future.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The E3 Project is structured to provide

the advanced-technology base for a new

generation of fuel-conservative engines that

could be introduced into airline service bythe late 1980's or early 1990's. E3 isdirected at advancing engine component andsystems technologies to the point of demon-stration of technology-readiness by 1984. Theflow of the technology to E_ applicationsIs illustrated in Figure 32. Commercialdevelopment of new engines could be initiatedby the engine manufacturers to meet potentialairllne needs of the 1990's. Selectedtechnologies could be incorporated intoderivative versions of current engines forIntroduction into airline fleets by the mid-to-late 1980's.

Both GE and PWA are heavily engaged inexperimental efforts to develop the component

technologies required in their respective E3 Maciocedesigns. Results of some of this effort Schaeferhas been reported in this paper and areconsidered promising. The outlook, therefore, Saunderscontinues to be optimistic that the performanceadvantage projected in the E3 goals can beachieved with the current designs. 22

1980023887-023

REFERENCES

I D.L. Nored, et. al., "Aircraft

Energy Efficiency (ACEE) Status Report".

Aeropropulsion1979,NASA ConferencePubl ication 2092, October 1979.

2. R. G. O'Lone, "Fuel Shortage Causing

Concern". Aviation _:-ek and Space Technology,March 3, 19BO.

3. N. T. Saunders, R. S. Colladay, andL. E. Macioce, "Design Approaches to More

Energy Eff;cient Engines". AIAA Paper 78-931

(also NASA TM-78894), July 1978.

4. R. F. Patt, "Energy Efficient Engine

Flight Eropulsion System - Aircraft/EngineIntegration Evaluation", NASA CR-I59584,General Electric Company, June 1980.

5. R. E. Owens, "Energy Efficient Engine-

Propulsion System - Aircraft IntegrationEvaluation", NASA CR-159488, Pratt & Whitney

Aircraft Group, March 1979.6. N. T. Saunders, "Advanced Component

Technologies for Energy-Efficient TurbofanEngines". NASA TM-81507, June 1980.

7. R. P. Johnston, et. al., "Energy

Efficient Engine - Flight Propulsion System

Preliminary Anal'rsis and Design Report". NASA

CR-159583, General Electric Company, May 19eo.

e. w. B. Gardner, et. al., "Energy

Efficient Engine - Flight Propulsion System

Preliminary Analysis and Design Report". NASA

CR-159487, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Group,April 1979.

9. R. P. Johnston, and P. Ortiz, "Future

Trends in Subsonic Transport Energy Efficient

Turbofan Engines", ASME Paper BO-G':-177,March 1980.

IO. W. B. Gardner and D. E. Gray, "The

Energy Efficient Engine (E3) -- Advancing theState of the Are", ASME Paper BO-GT-142,March 1980.

II. C. C. G]eason, and D. W. Bahr, "The

Experimental Clean Combustor Program - Phase Ill

Final Report", NASA CR-1353B4, June 1979.12. D. L. Burrus, P. E. Sabla, D. W. Bahr,

"Quiet Clean Short Haul Experimental Engine, (QCSEE) Double Annular Clean Combustor Tech- Mac ioce

i nology Development Report", NASA CR-159483, May Schaefer1979. Saunders

13. "Control or Air Pollution From

Aircraft and AircrafL Engines - Proposed

Amendments to Standards", EPA, Federal Register,Volume 43, Number 58, March 1978. 23

14. C. C. Gleason, D. W. Rogers, andD. W. Bahr, "Experimental Clean Combustor

Program Phase If - Final Report", NASA CR-

134971, August 1976.

1980023887-024

15. A. P. Kuchar, General Electric

Company, and R. Chamberlif , NASA Lewis,"Scale Model Performance Test Investigation

of Exhat_t System Mixers for an Energy

Efficient Engine (E3) Propulsion System ''AIAA

• Paper 80-0229. Presented at AIAA 18thAerospace Sciences Meeting, January 1980.

16. W. B. Wagner and S. Tanrikut,

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Group, and D. E.

Sokolowski, NASA-Lewis, "Performance of Annular

_ Prediffuser-Combustor Systems", ASME Paper 80-GT-15 presented at the Gas Turbine Conference,New Orleans, Louisiana, March 1980.

17. H. Kozlowski, Pratt & Whitney

Aircraft, and G. Kraft, NASA-Lewis, "Experimen-tal Evaluation of Exhaust Mixers for an Energy

Efficient Engine". Paper AIAA-BO-IOSB

presented at the 16th AIAA/SAE Joint PropulsionConference, Hartford, Connecticut, June 1980.

18. D. E. Crow, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft,

M. R. Vanco, NASA-Lewis, H. Welna and I. O.

Singer, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, "Resultsfrom Tests on a High Work Transonic Turbine

for i, Energy Efficient Engine." ASME Paper80-GT-_ti6, March 1980.

Macioce.

Schaefer

Saundersi,

1980023887-025

CALENDARYEAR "//'-ff-'T 18 79 8O 81 82 83

PROPULSION FLIGHTPROPULSIONSYSTEMDESIGNSSYSTEMSDEFINITION I JANDUPDATES 1ECI_NO[OGYI_DS

I111COMPONENT IIIllllllJ /111"/III/!/ITECHNOLOGIES I J

I I I

COREICLSSYSTEMS _INTEGRATION f/// */I///[//////ll

ICLS.INTEGRATEDCORE/LOWSPOOLGENERALELECTRIC

PRATT& WHI1HEY

Figure1. - Summ.-_'scheduleofEnergyEfficientEngine(E3)Project.

PRATr&WHffNEY GENERALELECTRIC

JTgD-TA EEE EEE CF6-50C

FANDRNE DIRECT DIRECT DIRECT DIRECT

EXHAUSTCONFIGURATIONSEPARATEMIXED MIXED !SEPARATEBYPASSRATIO 5.1 6.61 6.9 4.3FANPRESSURERATIO 1.58 1.71 1.6l 1.73COMPRESSORPRESSURE lO 14 22.6 12.5RATIO

OVERALLPRESSURERATIO 25.4 37.3 36.l 30.l

TURBINETEMPERATURE,K(OF)MAX.CRUISE I_Q (IWOi1470(2190)1460(2I/PIi1410(LffJQO)HOT-DAYTAKEOFF 11520(2285)]635(2480)1620(2450)1590(2400)

Figure2. - CyclesselectedforE3designs(Max.cruiseconditions).

1980023887-026

'+- -,_11

Figure 3. - Gen_,(alElectric[3 Confi'../uration.

Figure4. - Pratt _d WhitneyE3 Configuration.

"Ill

1980023887-027

• TOTALSFCIMPRGVEMENT i

" GE- I4.P&WA-15. I'_

#BYP,_SS iRATIO IINCREASEJ

Figure5. - Contributionsto SFCimprovementrelativetoCF6-5OC/JTgD-IA.

ACTIVECI_AR_IOE

- = .,,. , CON/ROt

I _m,N.ACOUSnC• . _ -_+

_-----_-----.._ ' ' :r :_u,_ I - = _ _" _ CO-ROtAnNg

- Ili'SfAG£ / 21l P.R. i /, - HIGH(FFI_I(NCY FIVt-STAGEISLAN(_ i TEN-STAG[ _ LCM-PR[SSU_R[

; IOOSTERd HIGH-PRESSuR[+ ' I_VO-STACE

(_g_RESS_- J I/NIGH-PR[SSUR[ TURII_

TURBINE

OOUIIU[ANNULAR/COMgUSTO_--J

Figure6. - EnergyEfficiencyEnginecunhguratton_Genera:Electric).

1980023887-028

GOAL FPSPROJECrlON

SFC -12._ -14.

DOC -._ -5 TO -]2'_

PERFORMANCERETENTION 505

NOISE FAR36(1978) MEETSGOALWITHATLEAST3 EPNdBMARGIN

EMISSIONS EPANEW MEETSTH£GOALENGINEJAN. lqglSTANDARD

Figure7. - Projectedperformancestatusorc,F.j£3 Flight PropulsionSystem4FPS)relativeto _6-50C.

-.".."_J_'.'.':..._ • .c_o_.-,-,.-.,,.a_, _._,, / _tiAOEl.iJ[ ( " _ ,u,,,,

/ ' ?IlIAP/SOPdlC lHIGH LOADING. _ , 4-S/A_ LOWPRESSURI[4-STAGE _ 14:1 P,R. $1HCA,['$TAPS ', TURgN/

LOWPllSSU_ ' /I_-SfAGE HIGH PRESSUREO[_'_SSCm-/ _Ci4IqtESS_EIURIIIN£....

CGMPI_SS_

Figure8. - EnergyEfficientEngineconhgurationIPraM&Whitney).

1980023887-029

GOAL FPSPROJECTION

SFC -IZ OI, -LS.1_DOC -_ -5 TO-10'/,

PERFORMANCERETENTION 50'/, 50fk

NOISE FAR_l]_8) MEETSGOALWITH2EPNdBMARGIN

EMISSIONS EPANEWENGINEMEETSALLBUTNOxJAN.1981STANDARD

Figure9. - ProjectedperformancestatusofPWA/E3FlightPropul-sionSystemIFPS)relativeto JT_-TA.

6 STAGETESTCONFtGdRATION

C ^ "1

. Figure1(1- GF./E3 - Highpressurecompressor.

1980023887-030

,v C46941

Figure]1. - GE/E3 - ]-6 high-pressurecompiessorrotor assembly.

90 -- 6 STAGETESTGOAL

g

ESIGN

/ STALLLINE-, _'" _ 'I' """103_

/

l I I I ] I I [ I Ilo 2o 3o 4o 50 60 70 so 9o loo no

INLETCORRECTEDWEIGHTFLOW(%DESIGN)

Figure 12. - GE,'E3 - 1-6 High-pressurecompressortestperformance.

1980023887-031

j"

•- OUTERCASESWIRLCUPS_ j_ , I1

1

___== , __// \ _ ,J I PILOT /

SPLITDIFFUSER-I

FILM-IMPINGEMENT /COOUNGSHINGLELINERJ

Figure 13. - GE/E3 combustorconfiguration.

Figure 14. - GEIE3 - typicalshinglecombusterinner liner assembly.

,. ! ._.,,I.; !

',', i_,_ji_ (,_T":,iTs

1980023887-032

PILOT/[O1ALFUELSPLIT

0 0._ )r-j .40

" A 7"r"_ _-DESIGNPROFILE

_ 8o

_'_0

_ // _'_..

-, 20-- I

_ p° L-- I_1° 04].1 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

FROFILEFACTOR,PrF

Figure15. - _r _3combustorexitplaneprofilef_ctor(SLTO,__ - 0.024).

PA,RAMETERS

• LOBENUMBER(12, 18,24)• PERIMETER(P)• LOBESHAPE(2CONFIGURATIONS)• GAPHEIGHT(G)• MIXINGCHAMBERLENGTH(L/D)• LOBEPENETRATION(A_nlA_.,)• SCALLOPING(ICONFIt_{]kA_Ib'N)I - '

i

_'1 A Amix

.- !o I

SHAPEA SHAPEB

Figure16.- GF../E3 - Mixergeometrictestvariables.

1980023887-033

,.,,-,_ I_.\_'X_._\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_X,.\'_¢.) i

_d _ _Z_zz ,_ _ i_\\\\\\\\\\\..,,\\\\\\\\_-,¢I'<

,- ._ o _\\_._.\\\\\\_._._.\\\_-_, ,x

.__NE

_ k",.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"_ __ _ I,,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'%_ _"

_ ,el u.j -- u'*l

_ ,_ °

W _

.__

I I I I I.M M .-; M "

% 'J.N3W3AO_dWI3::ISV

1980023887-034

i

- SEPARATEFLOWNACELIFS MIXEDFLOWNACELLES

LONGCORENACELLE LONGDUCTNACELLE

r REAR

FWD _ ..._

I

SHORTCORENACELLE GE/E3NACELLE !(PRIMARY REVERSERREfAOVED)

Figure]& -GEIE3-1nstalledNacelleconfigurationstestedatLangleyonEETmodel.

SEPARATEFLOW.0060- NACELLES MIXEDFLOWNACELLES

LONGDUCT ADV.E3LONG SHORT

C_ORECORE

_-- >-.0050-m P_

z 1_A/CDRAG

.oozo --,REARREAR REAR REAR

FWD FWD FWD

Figure19. - GE/E3 - Installednacelledrag(Math(182, _:CI.,59).

1980023887-035

:' PILOTZONE INNER'_" FUELINJECTOR SUPPORT,' _ FRAME"7

i _ /_,,_ INNER

( ,,,,

/ I

MAINZONE / L OUTERFUELINJECTOR_

t SUPPORT! FRAME

L CARBURETOR1UBE

Figure20. - PWA/E3 - Combustorconfiguration.

,lll==_' • •

HOT-GASSIDE

• o._-

COOLANTFEEDSlOE

Figure21. - PWAIE3 advarlcedcombustor,iner segment.

t

- I

g9BOO?-3BB

Figure22. - PWA/E3..90° sectorcombustorinstalledintestrig.

Figt.re23.- PWA/E3-gO° sectorcombustorshowingouterlinerandcarburetortubes,

• 12-0F-21TESTSCOMPLETED. PT3" 16atmospheres

TT4_ 15600K (23450F)• SUCCESSFULI_NO-ZONEOPERATIONUSINGCARBURETORTUBES

• PILOTZONEDEVELOPMENTCOMPLETED

STATUS GOAL

•EMISSIONS:NOX(EPAP) 4.6.5 V3.O)CO(EPAP) 2.(II (-_3.0)

HC (EPAP) 0.26 ("0.4)

S;vIOKE(SAENO.)•I (-zo)

• PATTERNFACTOR: O.15 (-0,3/)

•OVERALLPRESSURELOSS(_,) 5.31 (5.5)

•ALTITUDERE-LIGHTTESTINGCOMPLETEDSUCCESSFULLY

Figure24.-PWA/E3 -Statusoftestresultsfrom900sector .. "" "'_.ombu_ior. . ',-_,.

1980023887-037

£

LONG

DIATE

q.Figure25.- FWAIE3 mixeroptions.

LOBE_ "_

NUM_Amix

• LOBEPENETRATION,Aoen/A._.(0.5, 0.57,0.65)• MIXINGCHAMBERLENGTH,_'(0.5, 1.0)• LOBENUMBER(/..2,1.8)• WITHANDWITHOUTSCALLOPS

Figure26. - PWA/E_ t,st parameters.

1980023887-038

__ EFFECTOF EFFECTOFMIXING EFFECTOFSCALLOPING2.5 -- LOBENUMBER CHAMBERLENGTH (Apen/Amix - 0.-=7,L/O- O.5,

(A_n/A, iv - O.57, - O.57, LONGMIXER)w .... (Apen/AmixL/D- O.50, 12LOBE,LONGMIXER) 12LOBE 18LOBE

LONGMIXER) L/l:) ( I r

2.0 -- • SCALLOPED'LOBENUMBER .5 i.0'" SCALLOPEDCONVEN-_

I_' TIONAL '//'_. J-8 '" CONVEN- /// ,//,,/, TIONAL i/// '//J

1.5-- _ _ ,/, r_ ',,, !/h/1,1 //, q' /// /// (_{'---

_. [//! /I, III III _llJ• . ,_, III i/// fl, f/IJ._ //A W //, /// ,/// //_ ///'

¢jl.O-- //4 '/Y _ /// /// /1_ "'i

,, IIII t/t /i/ ///I//I //y //i /i/

///I l/, '//,_ H/ ///I/A f// ///

•5 _ 11/1 //, //y /////A //// III III rll _//_//A r/y /,'/ I/I r r/l,///! tlj Ill /// _// _///IIA I/,, Ill III f],_ _lhIIA f/, ...... , . ///,

Figure27. - PWAIE3- Significanttrendsfromfirst seriesmodeltests.

;ROOT

iI

," _"MEAN

ROOT _TIPf MaN

- TiPVANE BLADE

Figure28. - I:_A/A_3HPTbladeandvanecrosssections.

1980023887-039

1980023887-040

Figure31. - PWAIE3 - typicalHPTairfoil bondmicrostructure,

1980 l°,85 1990

I I I

_. MODELSOFZ "__0 CURR_NTFAGINES

._ 12

14F CORE/LOWSPOOL,_ 16L :NEWENERGYEFFICIENT

t __.m_-.v TECHNOLOGYENGINES3 ' READINESSETECHNOLOGY,,PROGRAM .I L_.._, ] ;

LFUTURECOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT

Figure32. - IntroductionofE} Technology.

.v..!_:t".:.'-\LPAGE ._,'_""_;J."I-_)_)P,{_[JALF{'I

1980023887-041