NASA CR-120914

TF34 TURBOFAN QUIET ENGINE STUDY

FINAL REPORT

by D.P. Edkins, R. Hirschkron, R. Lee

General Electric Company

Aircraft Engine Group
Lynn, Massachusetts/Cincinnati, Ohio

Prepared for
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

NASA Lewis Research Center

R.J. Denington - Project Manager

COJ^TRACXNAS 3-14338

(ACCESSION NUMBER)

•12
'i
fNASA CR OR TMX OR AD NUMBER) {CATEGORY)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
ABSTRACT ii
SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS 4
1. CYCLE AND CONFIGURATION SELECTION 5
2. FAN SELECTION AND AERODYNAMIC DESIGN 7
3. ACOUSTICS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 15
4. FAN TURBINE 42
5. TF34 COMPATIBILITY 47
6. VARIABLE-PITCH FAN MECHANICAL DESIGN 50 .
7. REDUCTION GEAR 61
8. CONTROL SYSTEM 64
9. ENGINE WEIGHT 74
10. CONCLUSIONS 75
REFERENCE 76
STATION DESIGNATIONS 77

APPENDICES

I. ENGINE CYCLE DATA . 78

II. DERIVATIVE TABLES FOR DUCT LOSSES 84
in. TIMKEN PHYSICAL LABORATORIES REPORT 87
IV. ENGINE WEIGHT 90
V. ENGINE AND NACELLE DRAWINGS 91
 ABSTRACT

A study of high bypass turbofan engines in heavily sound-

suppressed nacelles based on the TF34 engine. The four-
engine noise objective was 95 PNdB at four locations typical
of takeoff and landing. Three engines were studied; these !
had fan pressure ratios, bypass ratios and fan tip speeds
respectively of 1.48/6. 5/404 m/s (1327 ft/s), 1. 25/13/305 (1000),
1.25/13/366(1200). The bypass 13 engines had a variable pitch
fan, direct - and gear-driven. Noise suppressive treatment
was identified which met the 95 PNdB objective except for
sideline liftoff at 6.5 bypass, full power, which was 2 PNdB
noisier; at 90% power, 95 PNdB was achieved.

ii
SUMMARY

This report describes a study of high bypass turbofan engines with noise suppression treat-
ment for use in short-takeoff-and-landing (STOL) commercial aircraft. The noise level,
objective was 95 PNdB at four points. Full power sea level: (1) static and (2)-50 m/s
(100 knots) at 150m (500 ft) sideline; (3)1850m (1 n. mi) from brake release at 210m (700ft)
altitude; (4) 925m (1/2 n. mi) from touchdown at 150m (500 ft) altitude, 50% power.

The study engines were all based on the General Electric TF34-2 turbofan which has a
bypass ratio of 6. 5 and a maximum thrust of 41000 N (9200 Ib). Three engines were
selected for investigation: (A) The TF34-2; (B) and (C), bypass 13 derivatives. (B) and
(C) used the TF34 core engine, but have a fan pressure ratio of 1.25 instead of 1.45 for
the bypass 6. 5 standard engine. Engine B has a 1. 9:1 reduction gear driving the fan which
permits direct use of the TF34 four-stage low-pressure turbine. Fan (B) and (C) are
variable pitch with capability to move through zero pitch to negative angles to provide
reverse thrust. The fan pressure ratio of 1.25 permits a reduction in tip speed from
404 m/s (1327 ft/sec) for the bypass 6.5 engine to lower values which reduce the variable
pitch blade centrifugal loads. Fan C is directly driven by a new, larger four-stage turbine.
Engine (A) has a mixed, (B) and(C) a separated, flow exhaust system. Key data for the
three engines are as follows:

A B

Thrust SLS N (Ib) 39265 (8909) 45092 (10137) 45336 (10192)

Diameter m (in.) 1.17 (46) 1.6 (63) 1.57 (62)
Weight kg (Ib) 615 (1358) 1082 (2386) 975 (2150)
Fan Pressure Ratio 1.48 1.25 1.25
Overall Pressure Ratio 20.0 18 18.
Thrust 1 0.8 M. N. N (Ib) 9915 (2230) 9200 (2068) 9275 (2085)
SFC J 7620m (25000 ft) 20. 7 nkg/NS (.73 Ib/lb/hr)
Fan Tip Speed m/s (ft/sec) 404 (1327) 305 (1000) 366 (1200)
Jet Velocity, Fan m/s (ft/sec)-^ 192 (631) 192 (631)
265 (871)
Jet Velocity Core m/s (ft/sec)j 262 (861) 262 (861)
Fan Blade/Vane Spacing, - .6 1.7 1.5
Bypass Ratio 6.5 13 13
The noise suppressive treatment was applied to representative nacelles designed for the
engines. The treatment consists of sound-absorbing material applied to the walls of the
inlet, fan exhaust and core exhaust ducts. Additional material was also applied to concen-
tric splitter sections in the inlet and fan exhaust ducts, and a series of 16 radial struts in
the core exhaust. Estimates of the noise attenuation and pressure loss characteristics of
the treatment were made. Calculation of flap impingement noise from 0 to 10 PNdB above
the jet noise were made.
It was concluded that the 150m (500 ft)sideline liftoff condition is the critical one for meeting
the 95 PNdB noise level objective. Engine(A) had a noise level of 95 PNdB at 90% of max-
imum takeoff thrust, and would therefore slightly exceed this level (by 2 PNdB) at full thrust.
The fan noise suppression of 23.5 PNdB would have to be increased by some 5-7 PNdB to
reach 95 PNdB overall at full power. This degree of suppression is considered to be excessive.
The jet noise is also limiting at full power. These estimates do not include flap impingement
noise. Engine (B) and (C) can meet the critical sideline noise objectives because of lower
fan source noise (wider blade/vane spacing) and lower jet noise, with less acoustic treatment.
Wider spacing on engine (A) would have lowered overall noise by 1. 5 PNdB. The noise levels
at the other three measurement points varied from 90 to 94 PNdB for all three engines.

Several lower noise sources exist, which while below the level that affects current suppressed
engines, may become important or even limiting as greater amounts of suppression for the
major sources are provided

The variable pitch fan was designed around solid titanium blades. The resulting centrifugal
and blade untwist loads are high and present problems of blade retention and actuation.
Although satisfactory solutions to these problems were found, the use of lightweight blades
such as composite construction is clearly indicated as a promising direction for further work.

The fan aerodynamic design for variable pitch required only minor compromises. The
overall efficiency was estimated at about 2 points lower because of reduction of solidity
to 0. 95 (to permit travel through zero pitch without blade clashing) relative to a fixed pitch fan.
Fan (C) was estimated to be a further 1 point lower in efficiency because of effect of higher
tip Mach number at the reduced solidity.

The overall difference between geared and direct drive fans was modest; the main difference
is a 107 kg (240 Ib) lower weight for the direct drive engine (C).
 INTRODUCTION

Current interest in the relief of airport and airspace congestion

by the use of smaller existing or additional small airports has
led to studies of STOL aircraft and their propulsion systems. An
essential element in such studies is clearly the control of noise
in the vicinity of such airports. Several current commercial and
military aircraft have high bypass ratio engines which provide
lower noise levels than previous generations of such aircraft.
These lower levels are achieved by attention to source noise such
as fan and jet noise and by the use of noise suppressive treatment
of nacelles. For STOL aircraft further lowering of the noise level
will be required both on the airport and over the nearby community.

The current study was conducted to establish a preliminary design

definition of a quiet nacelle for a series of turbofan engines based
on the General Electric TF34 turbofan engine. Parallel studies
are being sponsored by NASA on experimental STOL aircraft sized
for the engines studied herein. Other NASA-sponsored work
includes a program to conduct a fullscale ground test of a quiet
TF34 nacelle with various suppressive schemes and with flap impinge-
ment noise testing. Further NASA exploratory work includes study
of a velocity decayer nozzle system for the reduction of flap impinge-
ment noise asssociated with externally blown airfoil flaps.

The scope of the current study included noise treatment definition,

noise estimates, engine performance and weight, and preliminary
design definition of the associated engine modifications.

The study procedure was analysed based on noise test data of an

unsuppressed TF34 engine, on suppressive treatment test data, and
on engine performance and weight data available from the TF34
engine development program currently underway.
LIST OF SYMBOLS

Co bearing deformation load

Fn net thrust
H height
J mechanical equivalent of heat
K 1000
L ' length
M, M. N. Mach number
N rotational speed
P/p pressure ratio
U linear speed
V velocity

g gravitational constant
h ' enthalpy drop across turbine
p pressure
q dynamic pressure

A change in parameter
r| efficiency

Subscripts

r relative
g gas generator
f fan

Abbreviations

BTU British Thermal Units

DIA diameter
FPS feet/second
FT, ft feet
Hz hertz
LP low pressure
N newtons
PCL power control lever
PSI pounds per square inch
R Rankine
RPM revolutions per minute
SEC sec, seconds
SFC specific fuel consumption
S. L. sea level
SLS sea level static
Ti titanium
T. O. takeoff
V. P. variable pitch
1. CYCLE AND CONFIGURATION SELECTION

Three modified TF34 engines were selected for study within one month after contract
initiation. The three engines were recommended to the NASA Lewis Laboratory and
approved.

The three engines are all based on the YT34-2 core with identical ratings. This was
done to minimize the modifications required to develop an* externally blown flap STOL
engine for use in experimental flight testing.

The key features of the three modified engines are displayed in Table I.

TABLE I - MODIFIED TF34 ENGINES

Fan Fan Core Fan

Engine Fan Turbine Duct Exhaust Nozzle Nozzle

A YTF34-2 YTF34-2 Long Mixed Fixed

B Geared 1.25 YTF34-2 Long Separate Fixed 2 -Position

pressure ratio
variable pitch

1.25 pressure 4-Stage-new Long Separate Fixed 2-Position

ratio variable
pitch

YTF34-2 YTF34-2 YTF34-2 Short Separate Fixed Fixed

Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the uninstalled engine designs. Nacelle outline drawings with
these engines installed are shown in Figures 4, 5 and 6. (See Appendix V).

Engine (A)

The mixed flow exhaust was selected to provide primary thrust spoiling during reverse
operation. This automatically occurs when the fan flow is diverted through a reverser
cascade. Under these conditions the effective primary nozzle area is increased, reducing
thrust and more energy is diverted to the fan turbine for greater fan (reverse) thrust.
Core exhaust areas and mixer areas were selected to reduce the jet velocity to 274 m/s
(900ft/sec), low enough so that in combination with the suppressed fan noise, the objective
of 95PNdB 4 engine 150m (500 ft) sideline noise could be met. .Three restrictions on
further area increases were: (1), the resultant high swirl and Mach number at fan turbine
discharge, (2), minimizing the partial mixer pressure loss and (3), keep the takeoff
pressure ratio at 1. 5 for good cruise thrust without a variable core nozzle area. The
cruise thrust compromise resulting from a constant core nozzle was considered as a
good balance for the experimental aircraft missions defined.

The general requirements for acoustic inlet, fan duct and turbomachinery suppression
were established and an installation outline is provided with each engine drawing. Bare
engine performance is quoted throughout with derivatives furnished for thrust and SFC
losses due to various pressure loss decrements. Jet velocities are calculated for the
installed engine including approximate pressure losses to provide a consistent noise
estimate. Appendices I and n list performance data and pressure loss derivatives
respectively.

Engine (B) - Geared Drive

The variable pitch fan is sized on the basis of the maximum usable fan turbine energy •
extraction. The fan turbine is run at 785 rad/s (7500 RPM), higher than the nominal
YTF34-2 takeoff speed 723 rad/s (6900 RPM) to improve fan turbine efficiency at the
higher loading condition of Engine B.

A modest boost pressure ratio of 1.14 is estimated for the 1.25 pressure ratio (bypass
average) fan. No booster stages are provided. A variable (2 position) fan nozzle is
required to optimize cruise thrust without fan overspeed. Table II shows the effect of
various nozzle areas.

TABLE H - FAN NOZZLE CRUISE AREA SELECTION

Mach 0. 8 at 7620 m (25, 000 feet) altitude, max continuous power

Net Thrust, N (Ib) 5013 (1127) 7362. (1655) 8523 (1916) 9194 (2067)
Fan Speed, % 134.7 111.7 106.7 104.4
j
(Corrected
l
Fan Speed, % 139.4 115.5 110.4 104.4
Fan Pressure Ratio 1.12 1.19 1.23 1.26
Fan Nozzle Exit Area m ; (in.2) 1.044 (1619) 0.940 (1457) 0.888 (1376)0.835 (1295)
Fan Nozzle Exit Area % 0 10 15 20
. Reduction from Takeoff,

.6
The closed position of the fan nozzle was selected at . 835m2 (1295 in.2). It is undesir-
able to run at a high corrected speed with fan efficiency penalties and little acceleration
capability due to the proximity of the fan stall line. The same considerations were applied
to Engine (C) as in Engine (B) with respect to sizing the nozzle areas at takeoff and deter-
mining the fan nozzle cruise setting.

A gear efficiency of,. 987 was assumed in all cycle calculations for engine (B). The new
fan turbine associated with engine (C) required a new exhaust system design. Though the
product of gear, fan, and turbine efficiencies for engine (B) exceeds that for (C), the
efficiency of the low pressure system for engine (C) yields a higher overall value. Thus
engine (B) is 0. 9% lower in thrust than the direct drive engine (C).

TABLE m - LOW PRESSURE SPOOL COMPONENT EFFICIENCIES

50 m/s (100 knots) at Sea Level, 288°K (59°F), max power, uninstalled

Engine (B) Geared (Q Direct Drive

Gear Efficiency . 987 —

Fan Efficiency .871 .862
Low Pressure Turbine Efficiency . 907 . 896
Tailpipe Efficiency .982 .994
Product Efficiency . 766 .768

2. FAN SELECTION AND AERODYNAMIC DESIGN

The increased bypass ratio fan engines (B and C) have advantages for an externally blown
flap STOL aircraft. In addition to intrinsic advantages of the lower fan and fan jet source
and flap impingement noise, the potential capability of obtaining thrust reversal was the
key motive for including a variable pitch design study. Although the requirements of this
study contract stipulate no thrust reversal capability in the experimental aircraft, it is
believed that operational aircraft would require some form of reverse thrust for both
landing and rejected takeoff.

Reversal through fine pitch (tangential) was assumed in the aerodynamic design of both
fans in engines (B) and (C). Two reasons leading to this decision were:

(1) less rotation required from nominal to reverse moving through fine pitch
1. 22 - 1. 57 radian (70° - 90°) compared to 2. 62 radian (150°).

(2) avoids rotating the blade through stall.

Both fans were therefore designed for solidities less than 1 (. 95 was used) at all radii
to permit non-interfering rotation through reversal. Table IV shows basic aerodynamic
data for all three fans.

The key fan aerodynamic design parameters are listed in Tables V and VI. Blading
design was carried out in sufficient detail to establish weight and feasibility. Examination
of the fan aerodynamic design parameters indicates that only a moderate loss is expected
due to variable pitch compromises. A fan stage efficiency decrement was taken from a
conventional fixed pitch design based on an estimate of rotor efficiency vs. radial height.
The results of this analysis are shown on Figure 7 for both fans. The solidity loss is
higher for the higher relative Mach number of the direct drive fan(C). The stage
efficiencies at design conditions are referenced in Table IV.

The fan flow annulus area and radius ratios were selected after an investigation of a range
from 2.67 to 2. 81 x 104 kg/sec/m2 (38 to 40 Ib/sec/sq ft) for the former and 0.4 to 0. 5
for the latter. For the lower tip speed design (B), consideration of hub loading limits,
and minimization of hub-to-tip stagger angle change (twist) to . 436 radian (25°) resulted
in a combination of 2.81 x 104 kg/sec/m2 (40 Ib/sec/sq ft) and 0. 5 for these parameters.

For engine (C) the same range of flow/area and radius was investigated with the
additional constraint of a high turbine output speed for direct drive to minimize the
number of stages. Selection of the number of stages is discussed in Section 4.
After the speed of 4840 RPM was selected, a combination of 2.77 x 104 kg/sec/m2
(39. 5 Ib/sec/sq ft) and 0.45 was chosen. The flow/annulus area was limited to
2.77 x W kg/sec/m2 (39. 5 Ib/sec/sq ft) to minimize tip losses with low solidity at
a tip relative Mach number in excess of 1.25. The radius ratio is set by the same
blade twist as in design (B) and results in a lower hub loading with improved hub
efficiency.

The tip rotor/stator spacing ratio was set at a minimum of 1. 5 rotor chords for low fan
noise. This ratio was 1.7 on the geared fan engine (B) since the minimum distance was
controlled by gearbox dimensions.

Fan Rotor Spacing

c _, .
°- Spacing
Tip Chord Spacing Ratio

Geared .221m (8.7 in.) .376m (14.8 in.) 1.7

Direct Drive •272m (10.7 in.) . 409m (16.1 in.) 1.5

 CO
* oo" o" c?
CO * o
CO CM
m I rH

iH
• m «
FH c- t- <*
1-1 . CM CO CO CM
lO • • ^4, o CO oo oo
CM i-l rH r-t in CO • •

o So" o"• o"

ca
en* in
^5
O
oo en o
£ in CO rH

o>
^• in ^J* t- oo CO
a O) CM iH •*• **}* m t- en
^J* •
• TH O co t-•
•<*<
g
iH i-t rH CO •

oo
(O
o
o
CO
e5T« en" p"
O 8 So"
CO
S2.
CO
CM
en
CO
CM

§
O
^ ^

§ CO
• en CO iH CM

ca
srH rH
•
r-l
•
rH
rH
•
CO
t-
S o
^^
en
•
CO
oo
•

M
5
H S
A 1 en 0 CO*
«H" • o 0

3 S (N
Tf
CO
CO
CO
2. oo
co.
CO
rH

rH
t» CM rH
O rH CM t-
03 in •
•
, rH
t-
en
rH i-l r-l- rH CO

CO

"o"
£ _o £
•
g 00
"cT
<u03
•4-1
CO
I S £ to *w
Pressure

d .0
Diameter

Efficiency
Pressure

Efficienc

(0
o
DO •o
•o" 1
CO

o
£ a
H
•§B 3*
H 1 a-H a-H
CO 1
 TIP NORMAL SOLIDITY

TIP ,70
SOLIDFIY = .95
(TIP)

26 . FAN B
.65 305 m/s
(1000 ft/sec)
Relative Tip
24 Mach No. 1.1
.60

Relative Tip-
Mach No. 1.25
22
.55
RADIUS <D
J 1
o
5
20
.50

18 ".45

16
.40

14
.3!

12
I
80 85 90 95
Rotor Efficiency %

Figure 7 - Effect of Solidity on Fan Rotor Efficiency.

10
 TABLE V - A (S.I. Units) AERODYNAMIC DESIGN DATA FOR FAN (B).

Corrected Airflow 249 kg/s

Tip Speed 305 m/s
Corrected Speed 414 rad/s
Tip Efficiency . 878 Hub Efficiency .793

ROTOR STATOR

Tip Pitch Hub Tip Pitch Hub

Inlet Radius R{n m .7363 .5847 .3680 .7363 .5842 .2848

Exit Radius Rout m .7363 .5982 .3942 .7363 .5725 .3655
• Average Radius R m .7363 .5913 .3813 .7363 .5781 .3767
Wheel Speed U m/s 304.7 241.9 152.3 - - -
Inlet Relative Mach Number 1.104 .943 .736 .495 .567 .524
Axial Velocity Ratio Vaxout, Vax{ .918 .922 .839 1.156 .917 1.257
n
Inlet Relative Air Angle rad .9969 .8964 . 6852 .4856 .4714 .5384
Exit Relative Air Angle rad .8685 .7168 .3901 0 0 0
Diffusion Factor * .361 .395 .520 .172 .330 .048
Pressure Loss Coefficient
(\PT .279 .361 .435 -.083 .265 .860
2gJAh <Hn
Work Coefficient U2
.599 .744 1.212 - - -
Solidity a .95 .95 .95 1.19 1.42 1.89
Number of Blades 20 46
Aspect Ratio 2.01 3.38
Chord m .2197 .1765 .1138 .1196 .1123 .0968
Stagger Angle rad .8866 .7540 .4459 .2119 .2014 .2244
Camber Angle rad . 1988 .3007 .5428 .7330 .6552 .6767
Incidence Angle rad .0110 -. 0079 -. 0321 -. 0929 -. 0576 -.0243
Deviation Angle rad .0812 .1133 .2155 .1546 .1262 .1140
Max Thickness/Chord .025 .043 .120 .06 .06 .06
Axial Chord Projection m .1389 .1288 .1026 .1168 .1100 .0945

Inlet Radius Ratio .50

* Defined per NASA SP36

11
 TABLE V-B (F.P.S. Units) AERODYNAMIC DESIGN DATA FOR FAN (B).

Corrected Airflow 550 Ib/sec

Tip Speed 1000 ft/sec
Corrected Speed 3950 RPM
Tip Efficiency .878 Hub Efficiency . 793

ROTOR STATOR

Tip Pitch Hub Tip Pitch Hub

Inlet Radius R{n in. 28.99 23.02 14.49 28.99 23.0 15.15
Exit Radius ROut in. 28.99 23.55 15.52 28.99 22.54 14. 39
Average Radius R in. 28.99 23.28 15.01 28.99 22.76 14. 83
Wheel Speed U ft/sec 999.8 • 793.7 499.7 - - -
Inlet Relative Mach Number 1.104 ,943 .736 .495 .567 .524
Axial Velocity Ratio Vaxout/Vaxm .918 .922 .839 1. 156 .917 .1.257
Inlet Relative Air Angle degree 57.12 51.36 39.26 27.82 27.01 30.85
Exit Relative Air Angle degree 49.76 41.07 22.35 0 0 0
Diffusion Factor * .361 .395 .520 . 172 .330 .048
APT .279 .361 .435 -.083 .265 .280
Pressure Loss Coefficient
\ T - I / (-/oeiiicient
\work — rf • i •"M .599 .744 1.212
Solidity a .95 .95 .95 1.19 1.42 1.89
Number 'of Blades 20 46
Aspect Ratio 2.01 3.38
Chord in. 8.65 6.95 4.48 4.71 4.42 3.81
Stagger Angle degree 50.80 43.20 25.55 12.14 11.54 12.86
Camber Angle degree 11.39 17.23 31.10 42.00 37.54 38.77
Incidence Angle' degree .63 -.45 -1. 84 -5.32 -3.3 -1.39
Deviation Angle degree 4.65 6.49 12.35 8.86 7.23 6.53
Max Thickness/Chord .025 .043 .120 .06 .06 .06
Axial Chord Projection in 5.47 5.07 4.04 4.60 4.33 3.72

Inlet Radius Ratio .50

* Defined per NASA SP36

12
 TABLE VI-A (S.I. Units) AERODYNAMIC DESIGN DATA FOR FAN (C).

Corrected Airflow 251 kg/s

Tip Speed 366 m/s
Corrected Speed 505 rad/s
Tip Effioiency •86? Hub Efficiency .827

ROTOR STATOR

Tip Pitch Hub Tip Pitch Hub

Inlet Radius Rin m .7198 .5600 .3239 .7198 .5624 .3409

Exit Radius Rout m . 7249 .. 5758 .3500 .7198 .5512 .3218

Average Radius R m .7198 .5679 .3371 .7198 .5570 .3335
Wheel Speed U m/s 365.46 284. 07 164.29 - - -
Inlet Relative Mach Number 1.253 1.037 .721 .476 .538 .502
Axial Velocity Ratio Vaxout/v .929 .919 .902 1.159 .929 1.249
Inlet Relative Air Angle rad 1.088 .9837 .7615 .4421 .4231 .4815
Exit Relative Air Angle rad 1.012 .8861 . 5332 0 0 0
Diffusion Factor * .289 .318 .437 .115 .202 .187
Pressure Loss Coefficient • APT .203 .300 .400 -.116 .233 .242
Qin
Work Coefficient ° 2— .442 .543 .966
Solidity a .95 .95 .95 1.18 1.33 2.19
Number of Blades 16 38

Aspect Ratio 1.81 3.38

Chord m .2687 .2118 .1232 . 1405 . 1224 .1186
Stagger Angle rad 1.011 .8866 .5550 .1932 . 1817 .1960
Camber Angle rad .0820 .1431 .4311 .6672 .6009 .5735
Incidence Angle rad .0367 .0244 -. 0096 -. 0846 -. 0592 .0014
Deviation Angle rad .0419 .0698 .1037 .1405 .1187 .0881
Max Thickness/Chord .025 .043 .120 .06 .06 .06

Axial Chord Projection m .1425 .1336 .1069 .1379 . 1207 .1168

* Defined per NASA SP36

13
 TABLE VI-B (F.P.S. Units) AERODYNAMIC DESIGN DATA FOR FAN (C).

Corrected Airflow 554 Ib/sec

Tip Speed 1200 ft/sec
Corrected Speed 4840 RPM
Tip Efficiency .8677 Hub Efficiency . 827

ROTOR STATOR

Tip Pitch Hub Tip Pitch Hub

Inlet Radius in. 28.34 22.85 12.75 28.34 22.14 13.42

Exit Radius Routt in. 28.54 22.87 13.78 28.34 21.70 12.69

Average Radius in. 28.34 22.36 13.27 28.34 21.95 13.13

Wheel Speed ft/sec 1199 932 539 - - -

Inlet Relative i Number 1.253 1.037 .721 .476 .538 502
Axial Velocity 0 V .929 .919 .902 1.159 .929 1.249
«ou/Vaxin
Inlet Relative Air Angle
mgle degree 62.32 56.36 43.63 25.33 24.24 27.59
.ngle
Exit Relative Air Angle degree 57.98 50.77 30.55 0 0 0
Diffusion Factor* .289 .318 .437 .115 .202 .187
Pressure Loss Cc fficient — .203 .300 .400 -.116 .233 .242
2gJAh ^ in
Work Coefficient .442 .543 .966

Solidity a .95 .95 .95 1.18 1.33 2.19

Number of Blades 16 38

Aspect Ratio 1.81 3.38

Chord in. 10.58 8.34 4.95 5.53 4.87 4.67

Stagger Angle degrees 57.9 50.8 31.8 11.07 10.41 11.23

Camber Angle degrees 4.7 8.2 24.7 38.23 34.43 32.86

Incidence Angle degrees 2.1 1.4 -.55 -4. 85 -3.39 .082

Deviation Angle degrees 2.4 4.0 11.1 8.05 6.80 5.05

Max Thickness/Chord
ord .025 .043 .120 .06 .06 .06

Axial Chord Projection

tion 5.61 5.26 4.27 5.43 9.75 4.60

* Defined per NASA SP36

14
3. ACOUSTICS ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

Study Objectives, Scope, and Ground Rules

The objective of the acoustics analysis is to define the extent of the engine modification
and the associated installation and acoustic suppression features of the nacelle that
could result in a significantly quieter engine. The ultimate design goal is a STOL transport
powered by four modified TF34s operating at an appropriate thrust level in quiet nacelles
to meet 95 PNdB at the 150 meter (500 foot) sideline points and at other measurement
reference points specified in Figure 8.

The study is a feasibility investigation, and specifically does not include detailed acoustics
design of the quiet nacelle or any external mixer device for controlling the blown flap
interaction noise. Estimates are required on the impact of unsuppressed flap interaction
noise on the engine systems noise. However, definitions of the nacelle suppression and
other engine features toward meeting the 95 PNdB criteria are to be made on the assump-
tion that flap interaction noise can be fully controlled.

Noise calculations are required in PNdB units, for three power settings (100%, 80% and
50% thrust)and at four reference measurement positions. Noise constituent levels for fan,
jet, and core sources on the maximum front and maximum aft positions are to be provided.
All three engine configurations are to be analyzed.

General Approach to Noise Suppression

Noise reduction for engine (A) is achieved by extensively treating the inlet and aft nacelle
which includes three inlet and two long aft splitters. Configurations (B) and (C) are the
same from the acoustics viewpoint. The B/C nacelle is more modestly treated, and has
one inlet and one aft splitter. The lower fan pressure ratio of these engines also results
in considerably lower jet noise than in the baseline engine. For all configurations core
noise reduction by acoustically treating the core discharge passage behind the turbine
is provided.

Baseline TF34-GE-2 Engine Noise Level

The noise of the baseline TF34-GE-2 engine has been evaluated in detail under static open
field conditions at General Electric's Flight Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base,
California on two occasions (November, 1970, and March 1971). The second test was
sponsored by NASA (Lewis Research Center), and the test results are reported under
Reference 1. In general acoustics results from these two tests are consistent with each
other.

When operated statically with a reference bellniouth, the 60 meter (200 foot) sideline
single engine reference noise level is 122 PNdB at rated thrust, standard day. The per-
ceived noise level is dominated by two strong discrete tones associated with the blade
passing frequency (3200 hertz) and its harmonic. The maximum sideline noise is aft
controlled, at about 100° from the inlet. Estimated flight noise levels for an airplane
equipped with four baseline engines are shown in Figure 9.
 •o
3
•P
CO
01
•1-1
si
•p

•o
Q)
01

CO
O
•H
•P
Oj
O

o
ti
0)
»H
0)
<H
0)
OJ
•P

I
0>
J^-
3
CD
OS
0)

0>
01

•p
<H
C8
fc
O
h
•H
<

g
03
I
00
0)
^
3
bO

o
o
10

o
in

16
 o o
o o
o- •00
co

VI
0)
C
cd o •H
4->
to o o bO
- -o
CJ

cd
a;
00
0)

0)
o
o
§ o
0_ o
0)
10
o • o
CM CD
3 -t? oo
MS
cd O qj

8-i „
oofi
a > .2
-^ £ bo
ID ^ d
>r
^ o a)
o
sis o
o-
o
.o
u <U -8 CO

Mia
cT cu I o" o
• in
<D
C
-•-> cd •£ •5
<; °~
oo ca
J3 "O *^
bo d X
S S3 o
•o
0)
0)
o IN 03
o- m
CD

O
o-
Tf
E
o
-o
•p
cd
g
•H
•P
10

o
o—
CS1 cn
0)
_o h
I i tuO

o o O O o o
CO CM rH O 00
r-l

QPNd paAiao ja<j

17
The noise level of the baseline TF34-GE-2 engine compares favorably to other in-service
low bypass ratio turbofan transport engines - being about 3 to 7 PNdB quieter on a scaled
thrust basis. This is due to the single stage IGV-less fan design and the relatively low
exhaust velocities on the TF34. The baseline engine, however, is 2 - 3 PNdB noisier than
typical in-service high bypass ratio transport engines when compared on an unsuppressed
and scaled thrust basis. The relatively close blade-to-vane spacing on the TF34 engine is
responsible for this.

It is noted from Figure 9 that the 150 meter (500 foot) sideline noise level after liftoff for
four baseline TF34-GE-2 engines is 116 PNdB. The noise constituents are: 115.5 PNdB
for the fan, 101 PNdB for the jet, and 98 PNdB for the core which includes the turbine,
combustion and other internally generated noises.

In order to meet the nominal STOL objective of 95 PNdB, a systems noise reduction of 21
PNdB is required. The fan noise needs drastic reduction. Attention must also be given to
reducing the jet and the core noise.

Configuration (A) - Noise Reduction by Extensively Treating the Nacelle

On Configuration (A), no major modification is made to the baseline TF34 engine. The
existing fan and OGV system is retained as well as the core. The baseline engine cycle is
rematched for a mixed exhaust system. Noise reduction is achieved mainly by extensively
treating a full length engine nacelle. Core engine noise suppression is also provided.

Jet Noise Control

A drawing of the configuration (A) mixed exhaust system is shown in Figure 4. The key
exhaust parameters that influence the jet noise are shown in Table VII. The jet noise level
for a 4 engine powered STOL at the 150 meter (500 foot) sideline after liftoff is estimated to
be about 93.5 PNdB. Losses associated with the nacelle splitter system have been taken into
account. The corresponding mixed exhaust velocity is 264 meters (870 foot) per second.

The jet noise estimates provided here are based on scale model test results of mixed exhaust
nozzles similar to the proposed system. The predicted levels are approximately 2.5 PNdB
lower than predicted by the SAE procedure (with straight line extrapolation for velocity
lower than 305 meters/sec (1000 fps)). Evidence is quite strong from scale model results
that for low velocity, low temperature jets, the SAE method tends to over-predict the jet
noise.

Full relative velocity effect similar to that implicit in the SAE method has been used for in-
flight noise estimates. This flight effect is quite strong - amounting to approximately 7 PNdB
at 50 meters/sec (100-knots)-.

For static operation, the 150 meter (500 foot) sideline jet noise at takeoff power is 97 PNdB
with extra ground attenuation and shielding effects taken into account. Thus, it is seen that
without the benefit of flight effect, the jet noise constituent alone would exceed the nominal
95 PNdB limit. During ground roll, with partial relative velocity influence, the resultant
4 engine jet noise level is on the average about 94 PndB.
18
TABLE VII - KEY DESIGN PARAMETERS ON ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS (A), (B), AND (C)
FOR NOISE CALCULATIONS.

• Standard day, 50 m/s (100 knots)

• Maximum power
• Installed condition

Configurations A B C_

Netthrust,N. (Ib) 32,161 (7230) 34,852 (7835) 34,852 (7835)

Fan pressure ratio 1.48 1.24 1.24

Fan tip speed, m/s (ft/sec) 408.9 (1342) 306.3 (1005) 359.7 (1180)

Fan diameter, m (in,) 1.11 (43.9) 1.47 (58.0) 1.44 (56.7)

Blade number 28 20 16

Fan speed, rad/sec (RPM) 733.6 (7005) 431.3 (4119) 518. 8 (4954)

Fan blade passing frequency, Hz. 3270 1370 1300

Total flow,kg/sec (Ib/sec) 156.0 (344) 255. 4 (563) 257.6 (568)

Bypass ratio 6.6 13 13

Exhaust system type Mixed Separate Separate

o o
Primary nozzle area, m (in. ) . 620 (961) . 194 (296) . 194 (296)
O o
Secondary nozzle area, m^ (in. ) - 1.045 (1619) 1.045 (1619)

Primary jet velocity*, m/s (ft/sec) 265.5 (871) 262.4 (861) 262.4 (861)

Secondary jet velocity*, m/s (ft/sec) - 192.3 (631) 192.3 (631)

Primary pressure ratio 1.386 1.155 '1.155

Secondary pressure ratio - 1.234 1.234

Primary total temperature, °K (°R) 400 (720) 829. 4 (1493) 829.4 (1493)

Secondary total temperature, °K (°R) - 310. 6 (559) 310. 6 (559)

Blade/vane spacing (true chord) .6 1.7 1.5

* Isentropic

19
 Definition of Quiet Nacelle Suppression Features

To provide adequate room for suppression and to accommodate the mixed exhaust system,
a long cowl installation is proposed for configuration (A). All the available inner and outer
wall surfaces of the inlet and fan exhaust duct are to be acoustically treated. In addition,
three inlet splitters and two aft splitters are provided. Suppression objectives for the inlet
and aft fan noise are shown below:

150 meter (500 foot)-Sideline Fan PNdB, 4 engines. T.O.

Inlet Aft
Unsuppressed level 110 115.5

Objective level 94 92

Suppression Requirement, 16 23.5

A PNdB

Salient design features and configurations of the wall treatment and splitters necessary to
provide the desired suppression are defined in Table VIE. The,amounts of suppression
expected to be achieved are 14 to 17 PNdB for the inlet, and 20 - 25 PNdB for the exhaust
duct. A range of estimated suppression values is shown to reflect the uncertainty and
nature of the feasibility design. It should be emphasized that these estimated suppression
values refer to only the fan noise.

Note that two stages of aft duct wall treatment of dissimilar suppression designs are pro-
vided - one designed for the low frequency broad band fan noise in the frequency range
around 800-1000 hertz, extending from the beginning of the treated duct to the splitter
region, on both the outer and inner walls; and the other designed for the principal fan fre-
quencies in the neighborhood of 4000 hertz, located opposite to the splitters. The purpose
of the two-stage design is, of course, to provide a wide suppression band width.

The preliminary fan exhaust duct suppression design provided in Table VIE calls out the
use of single degree of freedom (SDOF) perforated honeycomb lining for both the wall and
the two splitters. This is proposed for reasons of economy and earlier availability. An
alternate approach may be the use of multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) plastic linings
which would provide a wider suppression band width and may net the same amount of total
fan noise suppression with less amount of treatment surface. Preliminary estimate shows
that about the same amount of fan duct noise suppression can probably be retained if the
two SDOF splitters are replaced by a single MDOF splitter of comparable length, and the
SDOF wall linings replaced by MDOF linings. A single splitter approach leads to
simpler construction and to a lower flow Mach number which is an advantage both from
the acoustics and performance loss points of view. Further design study along this line
should be explored.

20
TABLE V I I I - TF34 CONFIGURATION (A) - PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF NACELLE
TREATMENT CONFIGURATION.

Inlet Aft Duct

1st Stage 2nd Stage
Wall Treatment
Treated Length, m (in.) . 54 (21) . 62 (24. 4) . 99 (39)
Treated Surface Area, m2 (ft2) 1. 8 (19. 3) 4. 3 (46) 6. 5 (70)
Panel Thickness, m (in.) . 013 (. 5) . 05 (2) .025 (1)
. 076 (3)
Design Frequency, hertz 3 - 4000 800 - 1000 3 - 4000
L/H Effective - 2.7 -

H/X - 0.56 -

Acoustic Material Type SDOF* SDOF SDOF

Splitter System
Number of Splitters 3
Treated Length, m (in.) .38 (15) .76 (30) to 1 (40)
Treated Surface Area, m2 (ft2) 4.7 (51) 10.5 (109) to 13.8 (143)
Passage Height, m (in.) .086 (3.5) .056 (2.2)
Splitter Thickness, m (in.) .025 (1.0) .025 (1.0) to .031 (1.25)
Design Frequency, hertz 3000 - 4000 3000 - 4000
L/H Effective 3. 8 11. 6 to 15. 5
H/X 1. 0 0. 64
Acoustic Material Type SDOF SDOF
Estimated Total Suppression, A PNdB 14-17 ..,-, 20-25

* Single degree of freedom

21
Inspection of Figure 4 shows that a relatively large center area at the inlet is left unsup-
pressed. Selection of the three ring design and the passage height is based on data from
another high bypass ratio fan showing the sound intensity near the inlet center to be quite
small compared to that near the outer wall. There is some uncertainty as to whether
the TF34 engine inlet sound propagation would behave according to that model. Consid-
eration should be given to the possible need for a small fourth splitter near the center,
or an extended acoustically treated centerbody.

The proposed aft splitter configuration aimed at achieving a fan-alone noise suppression
of upwards of 20 PNdB rests on the design criteria that splitter configurations having
progressively large length-to-passage-height ratio and progressively small passage-
height-to-design-wavelength ratio yield increasing greater sound attenuation. It is
assumed also that splitter thickness and passage height ratio can be optimized in a
practical fashion. From the standpoint of past design practices the design selections of
about 13 for L/H, and about 0. 6 for H/X for the aft splitter system are fairly extreme
choices. While theoretical consideration and design trends tend to support this design
approach, it must be clearly recognized that no extensive engine and laboratory test data
are available to validate the selected designs as being appropriate. An adequate laboratory
program should be conducted on such a design (and its optimization) before commitment
is made to full scale engine designs.

The above preliminary splitter and treatment configurations are provided to show design
feasibility and general dimension so that performance, weight and cost estimates can be
carried out. They are not intended to represent final designs. Specification of exact
treatment thickness, length, core cell size, and cover sheet perforation require a detailed
mechanical and acoustical design effort which is beyond the scope of the present program.

Core Noise Reduction

Core noise is defined here as consisting of turbine noise, combustion noise and internally
generated flow noise, but excluding compressor noise or core jet noise. Four TF34
engines are estimated to have a core noise level of about 98 PNdB for takeoff at the 150
meter (500 foot) sideline point. The estimate is based partly on the microphone array
measurement of the turbine noise as described in Reference 1 and partly based on low
frequency core engine noise data collected on turboshaft engines of various sizes.

A core noise suppression objective of 12 PNdB with attention given equally to low and high
frequencies is established. The region of acoustical treatment will be the flow passage
between the low pressure turbine discharge and the internal mixer.
Inner and outer annulus walls in this flow passage of approximately 0.35 meters (14 inches)
will be acoustically treated with a relatively thick honeycomb SDOF panel having a design
frequency of about 500 hertz. Panel thickness is estimated to be between .05 - .1 meters
( 2 - 4 inches).

22
Suppression of high frequency turbine noise will take the form of acoustically treated thin
radial splitters of less than .013 meters (1/2 inch) thickness and about 0.35 meters (14
inches) long. The number of radial splitters required is estimated to be between 12 and 16.
They will be tuned to about 5000 hertz and of SDOF construction.

The approach of low frequency core noise reduction by use of thick wall treatments indicated
above has not been previously proven on full scale engines. Further detail design study
supported by laboratory test data should be carried out. Alternate approaches such as the
use of a side branch resonator or folded quarter wave tubes also merit exploratory design
study.

Summary of Estimated Configuration (A) Noise Levels

Estimated perceived noise levels of a STOL aircraft powered by four TF34 Configuration
(A) engines with fully treated nacelles are shown in Table IX for the following four measure-
ments points (see Figure 8.)

(A) 150 meter (500 foot) sideline noise: ground static; 100%, 80%, 50% thrust. -
(B) 150 meter (500 foot) sideline noise after liftoff 50 m/s (100 knots); 100%, 80%,
50% thrust.
(C) Community noise: 210 meter (700 foot) altitude; 50 m/s (100 knots); 100%, 80% thrust.
(D) Approach noise; 150 meter (500 foot) altitude; 35 m/s (70 knots) 50% thrust.

Noise constituents and total levels for both maximum front and maximum aft positions
are included. Flap impingement noise adder, however, is not included in Table DC, Figure 10
plots the total noise in PNdB vs percent thrust for the above four measurement points.
Figure 11 plots the total noise vs altitude for three levels of thrust.

Figure 10 shows that four TF34 Configuration (A) engines with fully treated nacelles can
meet the 95 PNdB criteria at all four reference measurement points when operating at
a thrust level of 90% maximum or below. For maximum thrust takeoff, it is about two
PNdB above the 150 meter (500 foot) sideline 95 PNdB objective level. At the takeoff
community noise point, the airplane noise levels at maximum and at cutback power (80%
thrust) are 1 and 4 PNdB respectively below the 95 PNdB objective level. During approach,
at the noise measuring point, the airplane noise level is 4 PNdB below the 95 PNdB
objective level.

23
TABLE IX - TF34 CONFIGURATION (A) - ESTIMATED NOISE CONSTITUENT LEVELS - PNdB.

Fully treated nacelle (including 3 inlet and 2 aft splitters)

Mixed exhaust nozzle
Core noise suppressed
4 engines
Standard day
Flap impingement noise not considered
Thrust per engine; installed 38682N (8696 Ib) SLS

Max Front (50° Max Aft (100°)

Measurement Points % Thrust Fan Jet Core Total Fan Jet Core Total
(A>
150m (500 ft) Sideline 100 91 89.5 76 94 87 96.5 82 97.5
Ground Static 80 88.5 85 74 91 85.5 93 .80 94.5
50 85.5 78.5 72 87 82 85 78 87.5

(B)
150m (500 ft) Sideline 100 95 86.5 80 95.5 92 93.5 86 96.5
After Liftoff 80 92.5 82 78 93.5 89.5 89.5 84 93.5
50 m/s 50 89.5 75 76 90.5 86 81 82 89

(C)
210m (700 ft) Altitude 100 92.5 84 77.5 93 89.5 91 83.5 94 ,
50 m/s 80 90 79.5 75.5 91 87 87 81.5 91

Approach, 150 m 50 90.5 76 71 91.5 87 82 83 90

(500 ft) altitude

Note: See Figure 8 for reference measurement points - A, B, C and D.

24
 to
•p

o
0,

I
0
01
oJ
0)
S

3
o O
o
-P
OS

01
3
J-i
o
O5

0)
O
00
0)
Ul
•H
O

•o
a>
o
t-
•p
m
(D 0)
P
C?

a co o
3 >> 3
to o
•H
•p
OJ 03 a
o !H
s
m
QC

o
a •H
<H
C
to
I
00
o
O

0)
EH
I
O
o o o O
o ffi 00 t~

w bO
H •H
g
HPNd

25
 .D
O
CO
1M
t-

2
o
o.
o"
CO
I
o
o
o
GO
0
CO
1-1
•»
IN
CO

of o
o
s in
CO
O
o
•H
bD
J
CO
o-
w
2?
"aT
0
& o
c-
S2. 0)
§
"&
to !5 a)
o
o
« t-
N o o CO
00 o o
08 m o"
eg
to •H
o
-8 "8
a ii
i—
"rt
fe
S
CO
3"a §
a0
•1-1 g -s oo •M
PM
I
"o
0 "
O *r*
2a /-\

« S
£ Q) CO o
,2 J2
"£0 03
c3 a
nJ
CQ "

0 *J
tn in
3
la^j
O H
o>
o
o-

o
o
o
m
<=>
10
c

«3 -M o-
cto g.*S
o 3 3
Standard day,
Mixed exhaus

Maximum thr

oo
Fully treated

bfi
•H
o <H
o
^§- CO .o
s& o
t«E to 2
T3
o 0)
o
••*
-p
o
. o -p
(0

o
o— bO

o
ta
I I I I
o o o o
o oo t- o
CO

SPNd

26
Configurations (B) and (C) - Noise Reduction by Change of Fan System and by Nacelle Treatment

On configurations (B) and (C), a lower speed, low pressure ratio fan with a wider blade-to-
vane spacing is provided, thus reducing fan source noise. Further reduction of fan noise
is achieved by a modest amount of nacelle treatment, including one inlet and one aft
splitter. The core engine will be also suppressed for turbine, combustion and other
internally-generated noise.

Fan Source Noise Reduction

The major change from configuration (A) to configuration (B/C) concerns the fan. Listed
in Table X are the key fan parameters that have impacts on fan noise:

TABLE X - FAN PARAMETERS

i . T. 0. POWER, 50 m/s (100 KNOTS)
Configuration (A) (B) (C)
Fan Pressure Ratio 1 1.48 1.24 1.24
Fan Tip Speed m/i (ft/sec) 1 409 1342 305 (1000) 360 (118(
Fan speed rad/s (RPM) ;
*M) 734 (7005) 431 (4119) 519 (4954
1 j
Fan Diameter, m (in.)
a.) j 1.11 (43.9) 1.43 (56.3) 1.39 (54. £

Number of Blades 28 20 16
Blade-vane spacing I 0.6 1.7 1.5
(true chords) 1

Fan Passing Freque icy, Hz 3200 1370 1300

i•
!
Airflow kg/s (Ib/sec)
3) !
1
156 (344) 255 (563) 25.7 (567)
60 meter (200ft) noisee PNdB 121 112.5 112.5
(single engine fan only)

The noise advantage of about 8 PNdB of configurations (B) and (C) over configuration
(A) is due to: Lower fan pressure (-3 PNdB) ; wider blade/vane spacing (-3. 5 PNdB),
and blade passing frequency in the less annoying frequency region (-2 PNdB). The
method of fan noise prediction adopted for this study makes fan pressure ratio, mass
flow, and tone location the controlling parameters affecting noise. Since these para-
meters are unchanged between (B) and (C), their fan noise levels are estimated to be
the same. Exactly how differences in tip speed and other detailed aerodynamic charac-
teristics associated with variable pitch will affect the resultant noise cannot be accurately
estimated without experimental data. It is conceivable that improved incidence angles
made possible by variable pitch operation at low power settings may result in lower
27
 approach noise. This possible advantage cannot be quantitatively identified at the
present time.

Nacelle Treatment for Further Fan Noise Reduction

In spite of the lower fan source noise for configurations (B) and (C), additional reduction
by acoustically treating the engine nacelle is necessary to meet the 95 PNdB objective.
The amount of fan noise suppression is established below: .

4 Engine Fan Noise. 150 meter (500 ft) S. L., after Liftoff. Takeoff Power
i
Forward Aft

Unsuppressed Level PNdB

Objective Level PNdB
Suppression Required.A PNdB

Preliminary design study shows that in addition to having the inlet and aft duct wall
surfaces fully treated acoustically, one inlet and one aft splitter are required.

Table XI defines the treatment configuration. For fans with wide blade/vane spacing,
the discrete tone noise levels are not as sharp nor as large relative to the broad band
noise as in the TF34 baseline engine case. Effective suppression of the fan noise in
PNdB requires a wider band width suppression than that associated with single degree
of freedom (SDOF) honeycomb panel. Accordingly, a multiple-degree-of-freedom
(MDOF) plastic construction panel design similar to that used in the General Electric
CF6-6 commercial transport engine nacelle is proposed for both the wall treatment
and for the splitters. The estimated inlet and aft duct suppression levels are 10 to 13 PNdB
and 14 to 16 PNdB respectively. Again a range of suppression values are shown,
reflecting the fact that the design is preliminary. Further analysis and optimization would
be required for a detail design.

Higher Bypass Ratio and Jet Noise Advantage

The higher bypass ratios for the Configuration (B) and (C) cycles yield lower jet exhaust
velocities, and hence lower exhaust jet noise, when compared to Configuration (A). Com-
parisons of the exhaust jet parameters between Configuration (A) and (B) and (C) are
shown below:

28
 TABLE XI - TF34 CONFIGURATION (B) and (C) - PRELIMINARY
DEFINITION OF NACELLE TREATMENT CONFIGURATION

Inlet Aft
Wall Treatment
Treated Length, m (in.) .82 (32) 1.5 (58)
2 2
Treated Surface Area, m (ft ) 3.6 (40) 11 (119)
Panel Thickness, m (in.) . 025 (1) . 025 (1)
Design Frequency, hertz 2000 2000
Acoustic Material Type MDOF * MDOF

Splitter System
No. of Splitters
Treated Length, m (in.) .54 (21.4) .83 (33)
Treated Surface Area, m2 (ft2) 3.42 (36. 8) 6.5 (70)
Passage Height, m (in.) .18 (7.2) .14 (5.6)
Splitter Thickness, m (in.) .04 (1.5) .04 (1.5)
Design Frequency, hertz 2000 2000
L/H, Effective 2.5 5
H/X 1.07 .81 ,
Acoustic Material Type MDOF MDOF

Estimated Total Suppression, APNdB 10 - 13 14 - 16

* Multiple degree of freedom

29
 Takeoff, 50 m/s (100 Knots) Configuration (A) Configurations (B). (C)
Type of exhaust system Mixed Separate
Velocities, Vg/V 2 8 m/s (ft/s) 265.5 (871) 262.4/192.3 (861/631)
Nozzle Areas, AS/A£8 m2 (in.2) .62 (961) .194/1.045 (296/1619)
Jet Densities, p 8 / p28 kg/m 3 (lb/ft3) .961 (.06) .449/1.217 (.028/.076)
97 5 90
Jet Noise, 60 meter (200fl)altitude PNdB -

It is seen that the jet noise advantage of the higher bypass ratio configurations (B) and
(C), relative to configuration (A) is only about 7 PNdB.

3.4 Core Engine Noise Reduction

It is assumed that the core engine unsuppressed perceived noise level for Configurations
(B) and (C) are about the same as that for Configuration (A), and that the design approach
for core noise suppression previously identified for Configuration (A) will also apply
for Configuration (B) and (C).

3. 5 Summary of Estimated Noise Levels, Configurations (B) and (C)

The unsuppressed noise constituents for Configurations (B) and (C) are shown below for
a 4 engine aircraft, 150 meter (500 foot) sideline after liftoff, at maximum power:

Fan 107
Jet 86
Core 98
Total 108.5
Table XII summarizes the suppressed levels of four Configuration (B) or (C) engines at
the four reference stations. Figure 12 plots the maximum noise level versus percent
thrust at the reference stations. Figure 13 plots the noise level vs altitude for three
levels of thrust.

These results indicate that for all the reference stations, operation of the aircraft
powered by four configuration (B) or (C) engines will produce noise levels below
the 95 PNdB limit.

Consideration of Arbitrary Levels of Flap Impingement Noise

The scope of this study did not include prediction of the flap interaction noise. Similarly
no consideration is given to the reduction of flap interaction noise by use of external
mixer devices. However, the impact of flap interaction noise where it does exist and
cannot be adequately controlled can be assessed by arbitrarily assuming different levels

30
 CQ 3o in
co o •**<
m m in
t-
hJ
cn
H os os oo rj< CQ
os os oo
CO C/Q ^
OS oj oo

o0 <D
)-l
in in
I-l O <M 0 00 CO Tj< 0 CO i-l • ,_(
I-l 0 oo oo c- oo oo oo oo oo oo
<M
os
r-l & m in m in in
w
W
O
<f, •s
1-3
o m CD
os oo c-
«D0 0
oo oo c-
co e-
oo t-
iH

CD
9
CO ^ 1-1
m in
CO
in C3 oo co i-i oj o in os t- CD
W PH oo oo oo os os oo OO 00 OO

PQ
PQ "rt in in
o 03 -Os Tt* in co os co o O
c- EH OS OO OO os os oo os os OS
M co
^ o
o 0) in m
en s "8
in
6 t> in c-
| •aCQ &§
T3 OS •g
CD •«* <M
c- t- t-
O 00 CD
oo t- c- t- t- t-

K W « §§^s
•i-l £-5
o
fi1
m m
o ^ in
m m
t> iH CD
P o oo t- t-
^^ ^^ ^H oo t- co c- t> co
OEH X
ctf
PH •8*8
G ^5 t-i in^ inw
!5 s o oo co ^ 03 oo i-H OS os
O <u ?S PH os oo oo os os oo os oo oo
U "•r-<
^ ^
"S ® .2 §
§•2
NST:

CO CO
en
<u
^1 "Sfe .2S 0 0 0 o o o o o O
» S ^a o oo in o oo in O 00 in
•3 > S- I §
W W >5 s,
l«
<u S-§ itsg-S CO
T3 4-J
11 c -u CO fi fl
v- _
^3- •s ^
S IS a> "2
•i-< M
•B •i-*

I!
"« ^5 o
=
PQ ^ a «- g rt §
2 T)
a g5 e
02 !«« * S
o
EH
1
s ra ^, CO
in

CD

OJ
a o
c3
05 S o
0) o o in
m

31
 •p
as'
•p
01

o
O o

DO

-0 0)
0
$

s
09 10
•H
S"

o •H
a
09
00
•P
01
O W
o CIS

a> m
ft o S
c-
3 oa
.a„ o2
00 ^

§
Q
« to
0) m o o" O -P
•H C
fl •+•> & •P -H

| PH pq" OS O

0 <
<H 0
o e s
ffl
O rf °°
g T3 -g £- s
00
O
O
0)
>H

Q) T5
& o h^ o
* EJ %-*
a
Slifs
0 1 ^ 9 5 " J"
o
in
<4< H TO § eo 00 I
(N

0 bo
0 •H
O o o VI
o O) oo
W
H

32
 o
o
oo
fi
•H
in bo
CO
00 C!
o
o
s
00
IN

•<*" CO
CO r-t
0)
0)
CO

3" 0)
CO
o •H
O O
o
CO
•p
be
a o
m o

o •O
o C
CO oj
O
10
CM

O O
o •H
CQ

bJD
•H

O
O

o
o

•a
0
•p

o
o -

o
in
o o o o o Q>
o O5 oo t- co
tl

33
of this noise and then adding it to the engine systems noise. The arbitrary levels of flap
interaction noise will be defined in terms of delta levels above the jet noise level.

Figure 14 plots the engine system noise plus the flap interaction noise as a function of
flap interaction noise that is taken arbitrarily to be varying from 0 to 10 PNdB above
the jet noise. This is done for both engine configurations (A) and (B), for 100% and 80%
thrust and at three reference measurement stations (B), (C), and (D) of Figure S.
Several observations can be made from inspections of Figure 14:

• On Configuration (A) where jet noise is the dominant noise source at takeoff, effects
due to the addition of flap impingement noise is quite strong. A flap interaction
noise having an absolute level equal to the jet noise level will add about 2 PNdB
to the systems noise, thus bringing the 150 meter (5QO foot) sideline maximum
noise of 96. 5 to about 98. 5 PNdB. A flap interaction noise 10 PNdB above the
jet noise level would bring the total system noise to about 104 PNdB.

• On Configurations (B) and (C) where the jet noise levels are basically lower,
flap interaction noise impact on the systems noise is considerably smaller.
Nevertheless a flap interaction noise 10 PNdB above the jet noise would bring
the total system noise to about 98. 5 PNdB at the 150 meter (500 foot) sideline
point at takeoff.

• The above two observations suggest that fairly drastic reduction of the flap
impingement noise is mandatory for the 6.5 bypass ratio configuration (A)
engine, and a modest reduction is also necessary for the two higher bypass
ratio engines.

• At the measurement station (C) which is 700 foot directly beneath the aircraft,
a considerable amount of flap impingement noise can be tolerated if the power
is cut back to about 80%. Thus, the 95 PNdB limit can still be met for the
Configuration (A) engine even if the flap impingement noise level is as high as
6 PNdB above the jet noise level.

• At the measurement station (D) during approach, flap impingement noise does
not appear to present a serious problem unless its level exceeds the jet noise
by more than 10 PNdB for Configuration (A),

• The impact of flap interaction noise in causing the total systems noise to go over
the 95 PNdB limit can be reduced by lowering the engine noise - the payoff being
the largest when the major contributing constituent is reduced first. Thus, on
Configuration (A), lowering the jet source noise would help the most. On
Configuration (B) and (C), lowering the fan noise first would be more beneficial.
Of course, the most direct way is to reduce the flap impingement noise itself.

34
 4 Engines
Standard Day

Configuration A Configurations B & C

110 'HO
Station B Station B

100% Fn
100 ioe-
100% Fn
w
CO
M 80% Fn
O
90
H
0 2 6 8 1 0 0 2

100 100-

90 80% Fn
90:
tJ
U -I 1 1 i-
53
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 4 6 8 10
w
w
M
O
K
100 100
a8 Station D Station.D

90 90-
50% Fn
50% Fn

80 8Q
0 2 4 6 8 10 C 2 4 6 8 10
*-/

FLAP IMPINGEMENT NOISE (RELATIVE TO JET NOISE) - £>PNdB

* No flap
noise here

Station B -150m(500 ft) S . L . max PNdB ( a f t e r l i f t o f f )

Station C -21Om(700 ft) a l t - r a a x FNdB ( a f t e r l i f t o f f )
Station D'-150m(500 ft) ait. max PNdB (approach)

Figure 14 - Effect of Flap Impingement Noise Adder to Total System Noise.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Limitations of the Present Study

The foregoing study and noise estimates have made use of certain assumptions and pre-
diction procedures which are deemed to be appropriate based on today's knowledge, but
nevertheless have not been substantiated by actual engine testing. These include:

• Flight effect on jet noise according to the SAE method

• Static jet noise prediction for low velocity jets based on scale model results
i
• Design method for estimating fan suppression effectiveness for long splitters
: :
with small passage height. j
,• Design method for suppressing low frequency core engine noise
• Prediction method for low frequency core engine noise level
• Fan noise prediction for low pressure ratio low tip speed variable pitch fans

The probable accuracy for noise or noise suppression prediction on each of the above
items is believed to be not better than - 3 PNdB. While the possible errors introduced
on different noise components may not necessarily be cumulative on the total engine noise
estimate, it is easy to see that there is a great deal of room for possible significant dis-
crepancies between predicted systems noise and actual levels.

There are several possible noise sources which are not taken into consideration in the
present study but which may surface into prominence when the major noise sources as
we understand them now are drastically suppressed or reduced. These are:

• Casing radiation of the fan or core engine noise through the nacelle and core
engine walls.
• Flow noise in the fan duct associated with support struts, surface discontinuities,
and possibly with minor flow separations.
• Flanking path ^transmission of fan noise along the casing wall and splitter structure,
thus negating the full suppression effects of the treatment.
• Engine control and accessory noise including pumps, gears and other mechanical
vibration-related noise radiation.

These secondary sources of noise are known to exist. Data and state-of-the-art knowledge
in quantifying their levels are limited. It is anticipated that they may become limiting
items as the "major" noise sources are reduced. Adequate and special design and testing
attention must be given to these secondary noises if the extremely challenging 95 PNdB
objective is to be met.

36
STOL Operations Aspects on Noise
V

Table Xin quickly summarizes the four-engine noise levels of the two TF34
configurations:

TABLE Xni - SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS FOR BYPASS 6. 5 AND

13 ENGINES
Configuration (A), PNdB Configurations (B) and (C),
Position * 100%/90% Thrust PNdB 100% Thrust Objective. PNdB

A 97.5/96 93.5 95
B 96.5/95 95 95
C 94/ 93 95
D 91 (50% Thrust) 90 (50% Thrust) 95

The above Table shows that Configuration (B) and (C) will have maximum noise levels equal
to or significantly lower than the 95 PNdB limits at the four reference positions. Configur-
ation (A) maximum noise levels at maximum takeoff power, however, exceeded the 95 PNdB
limit at the two sideline positions. The slight excess at the sideline points may in reality
be less critical from several points of view described below:

• Station A refers to the sideline point receiving the maximum noise when the
airplane is static on the ground just before brake release. The maximum noise
impact area is relatively small since the sideline noise level will drop as soon
as the aircraft accelerates down the runway and enjoys the relative velocity effect
on the jet noise, Thus, when the aircraft is say 1/3 down the runway the projected
150 meter (500 foot) sideline noise is only about 94 PNdB. This can be indirectly
seen from the noise contour plots shown in Figure 15.

• The problem associated with static and early ground roll operation can be solved
by other means. For example, erection of barriers or locating airport buildings
on the sides of the runway can effectively attenuate the noise propagation.

• Since sound attenuates faster when propagating over ground (so-called extra
ground attenuation), noise levels at distances beyond the 150 meter (500 foot) sideline
points during static and ground roll operation become less intensive at a faster
rate as compared to the situation where a problem exists after the aircraft is in
the air. Calculations on Configuration (A) show that had the reference sideline been
taken at say 300 meters (1000 foot) sideline, the maximum noise level during static
operation would have been 3 PNdB less than that associated with after-liftoff
operation; instead of being 1 PNdB higher when using the 150 meter sideline
reference.

* See Figure 8 37
• STOL airplanes will takeoff with considerable thrust margin and climb a't a faster
rate than conventional aircraft. With automated equipment, it is not unreasonably
to consider that early power cutback may be feasible. Because of partial extra
ground attenuation and engine shielding effect, the maximum after-liftoff sideline
noise does not occur until the aircraft has achieved an altitude higher than about
75 meters (250 feet). Therefore, early power cutback operation, if it can be
performed,will tend to lower the after-liftoff maximum noise level.

The above discussions indirectly point out that sideline noise criteria, by themselves,
are probably not the most meaningful index for measuring STOL aircraft noise intrusion.
An alternative method may be the use of the noise exposure area concept where the area
within1 which noise exceeds a certain prescribed level, say 95 PNdB, is to be limited to
certain specified values, say X units of area, during takeoff and approach operation of
the aircraft. Estimations of the PNdB noise contours and the enclosed areas are relatively
simple once the engine noise levels and the aircraft operational characteristics are defined.

Figure 15a shows the 90, 95, and 100 PNdB noise contours for Configurations (A) and (B)
with the STOL aircraft takeoff and landing characteristics conforming to that specified in
Figures. No power cutback is used during takeoff operation. However, realistic STOL
takeoff and landing characteristics are believed to be somewhat different from that of
Figure 8 (takeoff climb angle being steeper and the approach angle less sharp). Figure 15b,
including a sketch of the new takeoff and landing profiles, shows the resulting noise contours.
Again, no power cutbacks are used. The Table below summarizes the noise exposure areas
for 90, 95 and 95 PNdB contours for Configuration (A) and (B) engines operating under two
sets of takeoff and approach profiles described above. Calculation was also made of the 95 PNdB
contour area assuming that the aircraft exactly meets the 95 PNdB noise limits at the four
reference measurement points. This equivalent "noise limit area" is included in the Table
also. It is seen that both configurations (A) and (B) have noise exposure areas (at 95 PNdB)
considerably less than that associated with the 95-PNdB-at-four-points criteria.

TF34 CONFIGURATIONS (A) (B) & (C) - ESTIMATED TF34 NOISE EXPOSURE AREA
T.O. Approach Total Engine Requiremer
Flight Config-
Paths uration PNdB m 2 xlO~ 3 (acres) m2x!03 (acres) m 2 xlO~ 3 (acres) m2xlO-3 (acres)
_
See A 90 1150 (284) 295 (73) 1445 (357) _ _
Figure A 95 542 (134) 113 (28) 656 (162) 750 - (185)
15a A 100 267 (66) 40 (10) 308 (76) - -
B/C 90 955 (236) 219 (54) 1174 (290) - -'
95 425 (105) 81 (20) 506 (125) 750 (185)
100 194 (48) 32 (8) 219 (54) - -
See A 90 664 (164) 403 (99.5) 1068 (264) - -
Figure A 95 340 (84) 154 (38) 494 (122) 750 (185)
15b A 100 186 (46) 57 (14) 243 (60) - -
B/C 90 550 (136) 300 (74) 850 (210) -
B/C 95 267 (66) 113 (28) 380 (94) • 750 (185)
B/C 100 134 (33) 40 (10) 174 (43) -
Equivalent to area enclosed by 95 PNdB at 1. 52 meter (500 foot) sideline, 910 meter(. 5 N. mile)
from landing threshold; 1850 meter (1 N. mile) from brake release.
 Lateral Distance - 100 Meters
rH IN CO CO IN rH O

•rl
ho
C
W

o
<^x

73
C
OS

^
a

O
•H
•P
OS
^
3
bO
•H
<H
a
o

i
3
O

bO
c

§
O

0)
(0
•H

£
CO

Q) 73

^
e -o
•H a
-P (8
01 +J
H CO
I
eg
in

bo
OOOT OOOT

39
 W
0)
C
•H
bo
Pi
W
Lateral Distance - 100 Meters
rH IN CO « <M

I I ' |.§ III T3

C
0)

§
•H
•P
a
FH
bO

o
o

!H
O

bC
•H
(0

.g•p
o
o
0)
CO
•H
o

0) TJ
-P fn
rt oj
S *O
•H C
•P 05
CO -P

in

bfi
OOOT

40
Prospects for Further Noise Reduction

Depending on the magnitude of the flap impingement noise and the degree to which it can
be practically reduced, and depending on the accuracy of the noise estimates, the amount
of additional noise reduction required for configurations (A) and (B/C) relative to the
ultimate objective will obviously vary. For configuration (A) which starts with the noisier
and unmodified engine/fan system, and where the jet noise is marginal, prospects for
further significant noise reduction are relatively limited. Four possibilities, however,
do exist: (1) The engine cycle may be further rematched and the exhaust system resized
(possibly with some cruise performance decrement) to drop the exhaust velocity and the
jet noise by a small amount. (2) A larger amount of engine air bleed and/or horsepower
extraction required for certain external blown flap STOL systems than that considered in the
present study may also drive the exhaust velocity and the jet noise lower. A -1-1.5
PNdB drop in jet noise may be envisioned. (3) Additional fan noise suppression (say
3 PNdB more) may be obtained by using full MDOF linings and longer splitter lengths.
(4) The external mixer device necessary for controlling flap interaction noise may have
some small benefit on the exhaust jet noise level providing that special care is given
to its design from the viewpoint of low velocity jet operation.

It should be mentioned that a 3 to 4 PNdB reduction in fan noise may be achieved through
a modest modification of configuration (A) engine; namely opening the spacing between the
rotor and the outlet guide vanes. The basic engine cycle is retained. The net effect on
the systems noise is, however, only about 1.5 PNdB.

The prospects for further noise reduction are significantly greater on configurations (B)
and (C) for two primary reasons: (1) the jet noise and flap interaction noise levels are
less limiting because of the higher bypass ratio cycle, and (2) additional nacelle treat-
ments can be provided since the current design has only one inlet and one aft splitter,
just sufficient to meet the objective. It should be pointed out, however, that installation
of additional splitters on the very high bypass ratio configuration (B) or (C) cycle will
have a stronger adverse effect on the performance, as will be seen from the thrust and
sfc influence factors of duct pressure loss given in.Appendix II.

41
 4. FAN TURBINE - ENGINE (A) AND (B>

The TF34-2 four-stage fan turbine is utilized in both Engines (A) and (B). Somewhat
different operating conditions were selected for the two engines. Engine (A) is a mixed
flow cycle with a partial mixer. Matching of static pressures at the mixer was one of
the factors determining the fan turbine operating point, while reducing exhaust velocities
as low as possible for minimum jet noise. Table XIV shows the sea level takeoff oper-
ating point compared to the YTF34-2 engine. The 7620m (25, 000 ft) Mach . 8 cruise
operating point is also shown. Since cruise performance is not emphasized for the pro-
jected experimental aircraft, a two-position jet nozzle is not recommended despite the
lower fan turbine efficiency.

Engine (B) fan turbine operating conditions are also shown on Table XIV both at takeoff and
cruise conditions. A higher turbine speed was selected for Engine (B) to permit operation
of the turbine at higher efficiency, a flexibility made possible by the geared design. The
fan turbine energy extraction was set by the objective of reducing core noise to the fan jet
noise level. The maximum fan turbine speed within the experimental aircraft cruise
operation envelope is 785 rad/s (7500 RPM).

Table XIV indicates that no area adjustment to the low pressure turbine will be required
for either modified Engines (A) or (B).

Fan Turbine - Engine (C)

A newly designed fan turbine was required for Engine (C) since this 1.25 pressure ratio
fan is driven at 513 rad/s (4900 RPM), whereas the YTF34-2 turbine is designed to run at
733 rad/s (7000 RPM). By increasing the turbine loading and also increasing turbine
diameter to a maximum of . 737 m (29 inches) it was possible to retain four stages.

The alternative of five stages with its greater complexity was not considered attractive
since the combination of loading and diameter change provides an acceptable flowpath
from the high to the low pressure turbine while keeping the aerodynamic design within
proven state of the art. The selection of four stages is also consistent with the results
of numerous optimization studies made on low pressure turbines for other similar turbofans.

The design employs high swirl in the first three stages and low swirl, low energy extraction
in the last stage. The efficiency assumed is consistent with performance levels demonstrated
on an air turbine of similar loadings designed and tested under NASA Contract NAS 3-14304.

Several key parameters are tabulated in Tables XV and XVI.

A weight breakdown is shown in Table XVII.

42
 in co c-
CD IN
t- eo co
o O O 05
o eo o CO 00
co t-

oo 05
IO
CD
CD oo o CO
o O O t- o
o CO C- co 05
<N c-

0>
10
co exi co oo
o o 05 o CO O5
o CO CD T-I oo •

I
t- $H

IO co
oo <M O5
oo co •
o CO o co o
o o CD OO ID O5 u
CO CM CO ci a

!H

I
a.
(M CO

•*
CO
10
o
CO
oo
co
o
05
•*
CD' O
I
fe o o fl
o CD (M O5

I
CO
H CD
o
o
a X

<M
x
03
I
£•
O
a o
o
CO
IO~

o £ o
§ a (M
•Frf CD CO
-l-> CO t-
O
fl CO CQ
"S
O
U *
.'&1> bo
(H
<3
.2o
(U
a § s
1-1
W w H

43
 t-l
coi 05
I CO

in" CO"
oo
s.s| in as in
os
co
• ! CO

. N
I> 05 t~ c- oo
in in oo in oo
in TH CO o o co
• I co

t- 00
CO
*
CO co" co"
CO | CO OS I-J
co! in ^^
CO 0
in CO TH
.j CO CO

05 o. t- 00 OO TH O t- CO
10
in eg oo Tf CO t- O Tl< CO 00 OQ
in 0 CD 00 CO CO TH CO
rH •• F™t i"H
~—r co" T-J
oo
co"
CO CO
o
t- t>
W • CO
in
• coj in" o
co! in

CO TH oo CO OO OS ^^ t- t-
CO TH in os CO CO m 00 00 CO
10 CO
,*
O CO os. in, CO co in
K CO , , i-J iH iH
^•^ CO iH
00
2
I
, s-
oof os
mi
col in
b • CO
W in ^_^ • ao
oo OS .00
o in P" C5
CO CO* iH
I CO 00, CO,

OS o CO CD OS OS CO OS
in 00 in TJ< OS CO CO
in co' OS O CO oo m CO rf in
-1 <N • • • TH in TH
-

Q) flj

s fc)
0)
•O
&D
m
T3 M CO
C. be T) T)
"w C3 TO
p
f" I-i
g)

1-1 ^ a i s
X § o a>
* 1 -a
Reaction

w S W -Co
*^ §5 3
!^ ^s
o «
a) sa
3 $
m
^5
> S
o*
S p H « S 02 O •<

44
 TABLE XVI - COMPARISON: NASA 3-STAGE FAN DRIVE TURBINE AIR TEST VEHICLE
AND PROPOSED 4-STAGE TF34 STOL CONFIGURATION.

OVERALL PARAMETERS, DESIGN POINT NASA

TF34 Fan Turbine, Air
STOL Test Vehicle
Number Stages 4 3
N (RPM//QR)
Corrected Speedy rad/s//°K 48. 8 (112. 5) 28.1 (87.7)

Energy Function— -, J/kg °K (BTU/lb °R) 270 (.0645) 266 (.0635)

Vim* Vnrvr-tinn W/ T
^ .kg/S/OK /lb/sec/°R \
.00142 (28.99) .00532 (108.4)
P ' N/m2 V lb/ln.2 )

Pressure Ratio 3.33 3.4

gJAh
Loading \|i = „ . . % 1.38 1.50

Tip Diameter, Max m (in.) . 737 (29. 0) .726 (28.6)

Objective Efficiency 89.0 89.0

Test Efficiency - 89.3

STAGE PARAMETERS

STAGE 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

Loading f = |^jr 1.66 1.57 1.47 .81 2.07 1.76 .85

Prad .698 .628 . 087 .775 .703 .052
Pitch Swirl T ' 646
(degree) (37) (40) (36) (5) (44.4) (40.3) (3.0)
Work Split Ah stg / Ahtotal .281 .279 .283 .156 .409 .384 .207
Root Reaction . 0505 . 052 . 048 . 057 .05 .14 -.19
Root Inlet Relative „„
.564 .600 .447 .80 .78 .63
Mach Number
Root Turning^ otor, rad 1. 902 1. 920 1.867 1.222 1.972 1.937 1.414
(degree) (109) (110) (107) (70) (113) (111) (81)

45
 d
•rH

Oi

Si-
a
h1-™
IT™
00
rH rH O)
O *tf OO 00 OO O
^ 5
.fi « iH -^ oo CM <N oo
-o
w °*'
5-i

O o 5 00 0
i-i in
w S bO •* in
B
o 1
2 §
J m O <N t-
!z; w • . t- • O

' art ^-5

^ ^ hn '
CD O f- <M (M Tj<
W Tf< CM T-H i-H i-l i-H
i WJJ

-+-i
CO en
ra •i-i
< •* b£)
!H
§ OS
H &
fc
i—i
PQ t
• CM
. «
H
/ § rH
K ' 00 ^2 » t-
OS
CO
CO
Tj<
OO
CO
(M
< CD rH

fa ? T
_JJ "^^

1 0 in
fa 2 in 0
« ^
h
Tf CO
EH H
CM
*#
X ^1 to o . in
L
JsJ 00 rt< m in o
W Tt< iH iH iH
J
<D
PQ bO
< <S
-£H •+j
cn CO

s -s
CO
•*
1C
d
at
§
rH

?-i ^ «
fl rS
o fa • •
•FH O O
f-l
a tS ' » fc
J-l 2 ^ rH rH
O' O " ™ cS cS cct
S
i^
4->
O
CC
FH
,£3
X
-M
0
4->
O •g
CO K EH H EH EH EH

46
5. TF34 COMPATIBILITY

Engine (A)

All operating conditions are within the YTF34-2 specification flight envelope. All speeds
and engine temperatures fall well within demonstrated limits. The only significant modi-
fications requiring proper design and evaluation result from the change from a separate
to a mixed flow exhaust. A fan duct transition must be provided as part of the nacelle
design to ensure that no local flow separation occurs which could result in forward dis-
tortion into the fan and compressor as well as reduced effectiveness of the fan duct
acoustic treatment.

The core exhaust duct will require the addition of a longer plug to support combustor/
turbine noise suppression devices. Methods of mounting this extended core duct from
existing aft flanges within specification load limits would have to be reviewed at a time
when installation details are defined. These interface areas are being reviewed for the
NASA TF34 ground test nacelle. A more complete design analysis would be required for
the eventual experimental flight application targeted in this study.

• Engine (B)

All operating conditions are within the demonstrated capability of the core engine, which
performs nearly like anunboosted core. Unboosted cores have been run frequently during
the course of the YTF34-2 development, and the performance simulation includes all
effects, such as Reynolds Number and lower absolute fuel flows, which have been measured.

The effect of a new fan and compressor transition on the core compressor must of course
be calculated. The severity of the inlet gooseneck has not increased from the YTF34-2.
The ratio between the fan discharge hub radius and the compressor inlet hub radius has
been maintained equal to that of the YTF34-2.

A gear ratio was chosen to run the low pressure turbine at 790 rads/sec (7500 RPM),
higher than in the YTF34-2 (723 rads/sec at takeoff power). Unless high altitude operating
conditions are required, this is compatible with the life capability of the fan turbine. This
can also be considered in the selection of the cruise fan nozzle area.

Compatibility of the engine to the shaft dynamics of a shorter low pressure shaft driving
into the gearbox must be evaluated during the design and development of this engine.
Well-established analytical tools which correlate accurately with test data are available
for shaft dynamic behavior prediction.

Similarly, the compatibility of the core to the distorted reverse inlet flow during thrust
reversal is an essential part of this development. The basic YTF34-2 fuel control is
compatible with the variable pitch fan with the addition of suitable functions described in
the control portion of this report.

47
 Engine (C)

Most of the statements relative to Engine (B) apply also to Engine (C). In addition, the
new low pressure turbine and shaft system require a new turbine casing and a new turbine
rear frame. The compatibility of these parts needs to be established with respect to
mounting loads and the overall engine dynamic system. No problems are anticipated.
They were not considered in detail since the nacelle design was not within the scope of
this study.

ENGINE LIFE ESTIMATES

The Work Statement of the study contract did not provide ah experimental aircraft mission
as a basis for life estimates but typical research and ferry missions were established
after consultation with NASA personnel. Figure 15 shows the mission profiles used for
ferry and research missions. A total of 300 experimental flights and 10 ferry flights was
used. The duty cycle used is shown in Table XVIII.

TABLE XVin - MISSION DUTY CYCLE

Power Setting and Time Per Flight Time Per Flight

Flight Condition Research Mission Ferry Mission Cumulative Time
Sec. (Hrs) Sec. (Hrs) Sec. x ].O-3 (Hrs)
Idle 680 (.188) 680 (.188) 218 (60. 5)

50-70% Max Continuous 300 (.083) 300 (.083) 100 (27.6)

Max Continuous, 900 (.250) 2500 (.700) 295 (82.0)

. 8 Mach No.
7620m (25000 ft)

Max, Sea Level 270 (.075) 270 (.075) 90 (24.8)

50 m/s (100 knots)

Total 2150 (.596) 3750 (1.046) 700 (194.8)

All mechanical design calculations were made using this mission profile, based on
YTF34-2 temperature ratings.

Recent information indicates that maximum power will not be used during takeoff or
landing except in the case of an engine-out emergency. To this extent the life estimates
are conservative.

48
 o; IXBI,
0
o
S
C
to
X
n
0)
§ o
o
qoBOjddv 0

C
v to
x ^•^M^M
-co
CS
CO
S
o a
-t->

m <Do
ra
d>
Q
0

co a
o
•H
CO
CQ
J3
o
CO
S
+J

ontinuous
00 ft) 0. 8
SH
OS

o O
m" .;
g-
Se conds

Minutes
(M *
OS
co
Cruise

OS^
IM
•§5(-, fc®ft to
c-
01
C
Q>
--O C
0)
m -^-~w-. -35 i
•H
h
(U
- H ft
5 ? <u
ra
S S '3^
o
O
0 0
<^
-.0 I
O N 0 in
^ .2 iH

X ^
s2
o/x
-u
-

0
•^
<D

3
bfi

ung punoao o/x

[ 0 >>
-M
.- £
OS
n

3
o
r
"'

g H «
o _o
o
o

S i ' i (-1
P
2.
5
O 0 IM rH O
O CO
O
"S •8^
QJ *4H
II

PQ
6. VARIABLE-PITCH FAN MECHANICAL DESIGN

Variable Pitch Fan Blade Description

The configuration (B) and (C) fan blades are similar in all mechanical respects. The
major difference between the two is that, due to blade reduced velocity torsional stability
criteria requirements, fan (C) has 16 blades rather than 20 and the blade chord is increased
correspondingly. A summary of the major aerodynamic and physical characteristics of
both fans is given in Tables IV, V, and VI.

The attempt to maintain a very conservative blade torsional frequency margin coupled
with the low solidity design produced fans with a low number of blades. The blades are
forged and machined out of titanium 8-1-1. This was consistent with the near-term
technology period when this design could be utilized. However, the conventional material
and construction did produce high blade bearing loads. -It also led to very high centrifugal
blade couples that always tend to drive the blade toward the flat pitch (or closed) position.

Since it was felt that blade torsional stability would be most important in this application,
the General Electric Twisted Blade Analysis program was used to obtain the expected
vibrational response of the blade. Campbell diagram plots of the results are given in
Figures 16 and 17. The first four modes of vibration as a function of fan speed are shown.
For both blade designs, the third mode of response was the first torsional response mode.

Boundary conditions were applied at the blade stem root at the bevel gear that led to a
more accurate torsional response model. The blade trunnion was only assumed as being
fixed against movement at the midpoint at the sector.gear, to let the blade model reflect
the full torsional softness of the response. The model was softer in flexural response
than is actually the case. The restraint of the thrust bearing against the blade trunnion
was not completely applied. Thus, the flexural response acted as though the blade extended
down to the sector gear when, in actuality, the blade flexural restraint extends only down
to the thrust bearing resulting in a shorter blade beam than modeled. Therefore, the
flexural responses, as shown, are lowered. This would especially be true for the first
flexural response mode. However, the Campbell diagram plot is reasonably representative
of the variable pitch blade response and indicates that both the (B) and (C) blade designs
are feasible.

When the number of blades for both fans was picked, a very conservative reduced velocity
parameter Vr was applied. Vr was chosen to be 1.18 for the (B) and 1.27 for the (C)
configuration fan. These values were based on initially predicted torsional response fre-
quencies of 410 Hz and 386 Hz for the (B) and (C) fan blade respectively. However the
Twisted Blade Analysis indicated that the maximum speed blade torsional response fre-
quencies would be approximately 325 Hz and 290 Hz, increasing the Vr values to 1.49 and
1.69. These are less conservative designs, but still reasonable based on existing GE
fan blade experience. The drop in calculated torsional frequencies was due to three factors,
two of which were because the blade aerodynamic designs were biased toward better reverse
pitch performance: The first two factors relate to blade camber, and blade twist.

* Vr = Air Velocity relative to Airfoil (5/6 span)

chord (5/6 span). Blade Torsional Frequency (rad/s)
2 I .
50
<B CD CO <0
!H f-i !H SH
CO •* CO

R)

OJ

cj
•H
Q

oj
U

bC

51
 <0

1 I
co
s
IM

OJ

1
a!

OS
O
I
IS

bD
•H

52
Both blades were designed to have a lower camber and a smaller twist than where no
reverse mode is needed. Thus, much of the usual induced blade torsional stiffness was
lost. The third factor was the effect of having the blade suspended on a stem (or trunnion)
rather than on an axial dovetail all along the root chord, which also tended to drop the
blade torsional stiffness. This has been anticipated to some extent and chords were made
long enough to give reasonable Vr values, but the increase in Vr was more than expected.

A steady state stress analysis of both blade designs was also made using estimated aero-
dynamic loads. Plots of the centrifugal and Von Mises-Hencky stresses along the blade
span from the thrust bearing retainer area to the tip are shown in Figure 18 through 21.
No unusually high stresses were found and it is believed that the design is feasible from
a stress standpoint.

The blade centrifugal loading is applied to the disk through a tapered roller thrust bearing
and a steel retainer nut that is threaded onto the blade stem. Although the stress levels
in the threaded blade stem area are not exceptionally high, a thread relief is required
to prevent a low cycle fatigue problem. The thread and retainer system should be more
than adequate to retain the blade.

The blade platform is circular and fits into the counterbored disk. Due to the flowpath
taper in the blade root area, the platform and disk surface will be exactly flush at only
one blade orientation. However, for small changes in orientation angle from the design
value, say ± . 175 radians (10°), the misalignment of the blade platform edge and the
disk surface will be very small and the chamfered edges will minimize aerodynamic inter-
ference. At the reverse pitch orientation, the platform-to-disk misalignment will be
much greater, but since no useful aerodynamic work will be done in the root area, this
is not considered significant. The circular platform was considered to be the best solution
to excessive fan blade leakage in the root area.

Variable Pitch Actuation System and Blade Suspension

The blade variable pitch actuation system is basically the conversion of a fore and aft
axial motion of a hydraulically actuated piston-cylinder assembly to circumferential
motion through a pitched spline and a bevel ring gear. As shown in the engine cross-sections,
Figures 2 and 3, the hydraulic control function is transmitted to the piston-cylinder
assembly through a rotating seal and then through drilled holes in the piston rod.
As the cylinder wall moves axially, a spline drum attached to the cylinder moves through two
sets of spline followers. The aft set of splines on the drum is pitched and thereby imparts a
rotary motion to the spline drum as it moves fore and aft. The forward set of splines is
straight so that the spline follower-ring gear rotates with the drum as the drum moves fore
and aft.

53
Von Mises - Hencky Stress Von Mises - Hencky Stress
Newton/Meter 2 x 10 ~7 PSI x 10 ~3

Radial Distance from Blade Retainer -»- inches

4 6 8 10 12 14 16
~1 1 1 1 I—- -f

B @ 426 rad/s (4070 rpm) - .30

- .25

• -20

• -15

• -10

.10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40

Radial Distance from Blade Retainer — Meters

Figure 18. Von Mises-Hencky Stresses from Blade Tip to Retainer.

54
 Centrifugal Stress Centrifugal Stress
2
Newton/Meter x 10 ~7 - PSI x 10"3

Radial Distance from

Blade Retainer - inches
8 10 12 14 16

30

Fan B <?426 rad/s (4070 rpm)

25

15
20

15
10
-Airfoil Beginning

10

.05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40

Radial Distance from
Blade Retainer - Meters

Figure 19 - Centrifugal Stresses from Blade Tip to Retainer.

55
 Centrifugal Stress— Centrifugal Stress
Newton/Meter 2 x 10 ~7 . -PSI x 10 ~3

30
Radial Distance from
Blade Retainer — inches
10 12 14 16 18
40

25
35
Fan C(?524 rad/s (5000 rpm)

30

25

• Airfoil Beginning
15
20

15
10

10

.05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40

Radial Distance from
Blade Retainer — Meters

Figure 20 - Centrifugal Stresses from Blade Tip to Retainer.

56
Von Mises - Hencky Stress Radial Distance From Von Mises - Hencky Stress
-Newton/Meter 2 x 10 "7 Blade Retainer ~ inches ~PSI x 10~3

2 4 8 10 12 14 16 18
30

40

Fan C @ 524 rad/s (5000 rpm)

35

30
20

Convex
25

15 Concave
20

• Airfoil Beginning
15
10

10

0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40

Radial Distance From
Blade Retainer ~ Meters

Figure 21 - Von Mises-Hencky Stresses from Blade Tip to Retainer.

57
 The master ring gear is held in place axially by the large thrust bearing mounted in the fan
disk but can still rotate freely. This ring gear motion is translated into blade orientation
changes by individual sector bevel gears mounted on each blade.

In Table XIX, some actuation loads and blade pitch change design data are presented. All
loads are those that result when the blade orientation is moved toward the engine centerline
(open) position from the nominal design orientation. As can be seen, the largest actuation
loads result from the centrifugal couples tending to drive the blade toward flat pitch (closed).

The actuation control system, as now envisioned, would be an active one, in that a constant
hydraulic pressure would have to be maintained to keep any desired blade orientation.
Expected maximum hydraulic actuation pressures are given in Table XIX and should be
well within the capability of an engine-driven pump. However, the pressures required to
hold the blade in a given orientation will be much lower than (perhaps half)-the maximum
pressures given in Table XDC .

Attention was given to the gear tooth stresses in this application and very conservative
gear design practices were applied. It is anticipated that gear and bearing lubrication for
the actuation system will be grease and dry lubricants. An oil mist or direct oil spray
system would be complex if it were to avoid large overboard oil losses.

The bearing system is composed of a heavy duty cageless tapered roller thrust bearing and
a radial roller bearing. As can be seen in Table XIX, the blade dead loads taken through
the thrust bearing are very high and the bearing must be considered to be the highest risk
part in the system. No experience in bearings loaded this heavily has been accumulated in
aircraft gas turbines, but talks with various bearing companies indicate these loadings are
common in large, heavy machinery when loading is smoothly applied and well known.

A series of tests was run by the Timken Bearing Company on a smaller bearing of the series
used in this design loaded at a value of approximately 1 C0 (where C0 is defined as the
load that causes a permanent deformation of . 1% of the rolling element diameter in the
roller-race system).

The testing indicated that the bearing would survive a load of 1 C0 under an oscillating
condition of as little as ± . 175 radian (10°). In Table XIX, it can be seen that the config-
uration (B) maximum loading is 78% of Co and the configuration (C) maximum loading is
97% C0. The test report on the smaller bearing and the load application method is included
in this report, Appendix in. On the basis of the testing and industry-wide experience, it
is felt that both the configuration (B) and (C) thrust retention systems are feasible. Since
the bearings tested employed coined races and non-selective roller fits, additional bearing
strength margins could be achieved with ground races and selectively-fitted rollers.

Since it can be expected that the thrust bearing mount would deflect significantly under
these loads, the problem of maintaining square bearing surfaces must be solved. An
approximate analysis of the configuration (C) mount showed that under the maximum loads,
deflection would be at least . 01 mm (. 0004 inches) at the inner diameter of the bearing
mount relative to the outer diameter. This could be compensated for by grinding the top

58
 TABLE XIX - (S.I. Units) VARIABLE PITCH ACTUATION DATA AT MAXIMUM SPEED.

Fan B (Gear Drive) Fan C (Direct Drive)

Maximum Rotation ~2.44rad ~2.44rad

Design Rotation ~1. 57 rad ~1.40rad

Actuation Torques

Centrifugal Couple/Blade 253 N-m (closed) 732 N-m (closed)

Aero Couple/Blade 62.1 N-m (open) 65.5 N-m (open)
Thrust Bearing Strut Torque -76 N-m (opp. rotation) ~124 N-m (opp. rotation)
Max. Resultant/Blade 267 N-m (to open) 791 N-m (To open)

Stage Actuation Torque 5333 N-m • 12654 N-m

Assumed Piston Stroke .10 m .10 m

Design Actuation Piston Force 171 kN 265 kN

Max. Design Pressure 20.7 MN/m2 20. 7 MN/m 2

Working Pressure 9.4 MN/m 2 (. 15m Piston) 10. 7 MN/m2

Max Bevel Gear Stresses 217 MN/m2 bending 238 MN/m2 bending
Bevel Gear Tooth 10 pitch 10 pitch
Actuation Efficiency 88% 88%
(excluding Blade Bearing)
Blade Bearing Load 294 kN 489 kN

Bearing Approximate Co Rating 378 kN 503 kN

59
 TABLE XIX - (F.P.S. Units) VARIABLE PITCH ACTUATION DATA AT MAXIMUM SPEED.

Fan B (Gear Drive) Fan C (Direct Drive)

Maximum Rotation -140° ~ 140° .

Design Rotation ~ 90° ~ 80°

Actuation Torques

Centrifugal Couple/blade 2240 in-lb (closed) 6480 in-lb (closed)

Aero Couple/blade 550 in-lb (open) 580 in-lb (open)
Thrust Bearing Strut Torque ~ 670 in-lb (opp. rotation) ~ 1100 in-lb (opp. rotation)
Max Resultant/blade 2360 in-lb (to open) 7000 in-lb (to open)
Stage Actuation Torque 47200 in-lb 112000 in-lb

Assumed Piston Stroke 4 inches 4 inches

Design Actuation Piston Force 38500 Ib 59500 Ib

Max Design Pressure 3000 psi 3000 psi

Working Pressure 1370 psi (6" piston) 1550 psi (7" piston)

Max Bevel Gear Stresses 31500 psi bending 34500 psi bending

Bevel Gear Tooth 10 pitch 10 pitch

Actuation Efficiency 88%

(excluding Blade Bearing)

Blade Bearing Load 66000 Ib 110000 Ib

Bearing Approximate Co Rating 85000 Ib 113000 Ib

60
and bottom surfaces of the bearing out of square or grinding the outer bearing mount surface
of the disk out of square so that everything squares up at the maximum load condition. This
is a detail that cannot be neglected in heavily-loaded bearings such as these.
The radial bearing located just above the blade bevel section gear serves two purposes. First,
it helps take out expected blade overturning moments and second, it resists the gear thrust
loads. For instance, at maximum speed, it is expected that the configuration (C) blade sector
gear would feel a 6230 N (1400 Ib) thrust due to gear loads only. However, the radial bearing
has an excess load capacity and should pose a very small risk to the blade suspension system.

As shown, the roller bearing is prevented from contacting either the titanium blade or the
titanium disk by the blade retainer, and a bearing spacer. This was done to forestall any
fretting problems in high stress areas.

The threaded blade retainer is steel and should have an adequate capacity for the blade dead
loads. Careful stress relieving must be done, however, to keep the retainer stress
largely compressive and to prevent the typical first thread failure mode.

The sector gear is shown as being retained by a washer-nut system. Since the thrust loading
on the gear is aft and upward, tensile loading should be negligible on the nut due to actuation
loads. As designed, it was anticipated that the gear would be broached with a square hole for
a close fit with a square blade stem seat. This would ease assembly and provide the torque
capability required with the cheapest manufacturing methods. Sector gears were chosen so
that the largest gear radius possible could be used to reduce tooth loads and crushing
pressures. As designed, a 2.44 radian (140°) sector gear is used. This is the only item
that prevents a larger blade rotation than the planned 1.40 to 1. 57 radian (80 to 90°) for
this system.

It may be concluded from the above discussion of the various design features required to
cope with the large centrifugal and untwist loads that a much improved and lighter design
would result by using some form of lightweight blade construction instead of solid titanium.
High strength fiber plus plastic matrix composite construction is a typical example of a
lightweight technique. Another construction is the use of a metal spar with a composite
plastic airfoil fairing. The weight saving resulting from such blade constructions would be
in the attachment, disks, pitch actuation and hydraulic system, as well as in the blades
themselves, and thus would be greater in a variable- than in a fixed-pitch fan.

7. REDUCTION GEAR

A 1.9:1 speed reduction gearbox is used in the TF34 with the fan configuration (B) to transmit
low pressure turbine power to the fan rotor. A five-branch, double helical star gear was
chosen, which results in a compact, lightweight gearbox while minimizing gear noise.
The gearset is positioned inside the fan rotor stub shaft to decrease engine length. This is
possible due to the compactness of the gear designed for the short life mission requirement.
The large bore roller and thrust bearings are from GE TF39 and CFG engines respectively,
simplifying procurement. .

61
 The gearset is made up of a sun gear, five star gears and a split ring gear. These are of
the double-helical type with the helix angle selected so that the split ring gear halves are
clamped together by the resultant axial forces during the drive mode.

The input power is extracted at 780 rad/s (7500 RPM) from the power turbine shaft through
an adapter shaft which is integral with the low pressure turbine thrust bearing adapter. On
the aft end, the adapter supports the thrust bearing, and on the front end it supports and drives
the . 152m (6 inch) pitch diameter sun gear. This feature allows the use of the present turbine shj

The sun gear drives five . 0635 m (2. 5 inch) pitch diameter star gears which are mounted to
a ribbed stator cantilevered from an internal sump flange. Each star gear is supported in
the stator by a set of flanged M50 roller bearings. The star gears in turn drive a flexibly-
mounted ,279m (11 inch) pitch diameter ring gear.

Power is transmitted at 415 rad/s (3950 RPM) from the ring gear to the fan rotor through
a flexible, splined shaft.

The sunning and star gears will be made of AISI 9310 CLVM (AMS 6365), and the gear teeth,
splines and bearing journals will be case-carburized and ground. Star gear bearings will
have locked inner and outer races. A minimum journal radial wall thickness of 1.5 times
bearing inner race thickness will be provided on the star gear stub shafts. The driving ring
will be made from nitralloy nickel forging with its internal splines nitrided. This will result
in hard cases with low friction coefficients and excellent wear characteristics.

The gear teeth have been conservatively designed for the application life (see Table XX).
Tooth root bending and compress ive stresses are well within acceptable design limits under
the load conditions imposed and the scoring indices are below general practice limits.
Low oil inlet temperatures coupled with good tooth flank finishes will assure elasto-
hydrodynamic lubrication.

All cylindrical roller bearings are of CEVM M50 tool steel with silverplated steel cages.
The bearing life has been calculated to be in excess of 1000 hours Bl life for each bearing.

Generally, all bearings will be oil jet lubricated. Oil entry into the bearings will be
between the outer diameter of the inner race and the inner diameter of the cage. Star
gears will be spray jet lubricated coming out of the sun-star and star-ring meshes.
Estimated oil flow rate required is 2. 95 m3/s (13 GPM). Maximum heat rejection of
the gearbox is 62, 980W (3584 BTU/min.).

62
 ^_^' 0 o o
t-> ^^ IO in •«* co
0> s •* oo o CO
x_ rH £• CM eo
o ^^
^
ft

<eCO OO
00
o
TH
CM
05
CM
A ^ O iH IO t-
CO Si
^ iH IO TH CM

T>
0) MH
0>
a PH
1 o"
o
TH
TH
o"
IO
05
CO
0~
IO
c-
CM
O~
oo
t-
co
CO C- CO
3a co 0
e.i
H
•H t3 in "# 00 CO
5 CO TH TH oo 05
CO
co
O P TH CM CO co
** £5 CO
0
i—i a
en
H o" o" o~
oo
H CM yf^ "d"
o
K
W
§
cr
?
J2
i—*
o"
05
CO
CM
OO
CD
O
CM,
CO
CM
^H

z
£
•v»
o
CM
a
^^
S 8 ^ o
0
J2
I— 1 •a *
o
w H 0
o
CO
0
^ m
a 05
IO
CO
CO
05
CO
co
§
i— . o . IO
eo"
o-
w
I
i—i 55
CM
in
10
CO
t-
CM
CD.
co
P

S
co"
IO
CO
CM

P5
H
fn o* 0~
o
O~ s~ <
3 -o § co
IO
CM
CM
oo
o ft O5 H
TH

£
O a «_
TH D- 10 t-
s
§
CO
55
w •e CO CM
Q a -o m 10 t- CM .a
. »—di CO 0 00
•*
IO
IO
t> ij *•* CQ

8 J-i , CM D- f-t

g
V^

PQ
I •
i s a
HH o o 05
o
3
W
^
< ^
0
05
T-l
I-l
O Co" ao~ CD" 0 H
"co" • •
(-1 0 •rj< t- CD" O
1 CM O5
1-1
CD
£S
M
X
I
3
fVl

H CO Tj< >5
OO CD S3
§H CO
^
'TH
CM
C5°
00
O5
O5
•

•<*•
CO
o
^o
"flj
!
6£ CD
O CO
! t-
^_^^ o 0) O
J
CO 10 ^3
•8
d
^^*
X
S
o
2 SI CO CO K
o o 3
o P 2 £"

w 10 O
d o
o
T3
i—i
OT
ss O X
O
cfl

O co oo
o CO CQ t-

63
8. CONTROL SYSTEM

Summary

The control system for the variable pitch fan/TF34, engines (B) and (C), will meet the
following requirements:

Permit rapid power changes, safely, under all aircraft operating conditions.
Permit fan speeds and blade angles to be achieved in a controlled manner over
the full range of experimental interest for low noise, efficiency and reverse
thrust performance.
Utilize the present TF34 control as the "power control" modified as required
to adapt to reverse thrust operation.
Be compatible with current commercial aircraft propulsion controls for
operational safety and full experimental capability.

The key modification to the present TF34 control is to separate the fuel stopcock and
incorporate a heart-shaped power input cam. The separate stopcock will be connected
to the main fuel control to continue the capability of an "automatic starting control".
It will also be used to shut down the engine and to switch control of the engine to the
power control lever. This will leave the pilot free to use the power control lever, (PCL)
for all power changes including single line movement (backward) into reverse thrust and
return (advance PCL) to forward thrust. Movement into reverse thrust and back again
to forward thrust is preceded by automatic switching of fan blade angle and a variable
area system which opens up the flow area to the fan "inlet" in reverse. While the fan
blades are reversing through fine pitch, the power control is calling for the safe
minimum power schedule to prevent fan overspeed.

While the power control setting determines the power delivered to the fan rotor, a second
control sets the fan condition of speed and blade angle. This is a simple speed governor
that calls for that blade angle required to achieve and maintain the speed setting. To
operate at a particular fan blade angle and speed, the PCL may need to be adjusted to
change the blade angle while the fan governor holds the speed.

To protect against failure in any part of the fan governor-blade actuation system, mech-
anical stops limit the range of blade angle and an emergency fan overspeed governor
will cut back engine power. The mechanical stops permit operation over the useful range
of blade angle with safety to avoid fan stall or excessive speed decrease due to overload
at the high end and an acceptable and safe minimum blade angle on the low end. The fan
overspeed governor is for emergencies only and will automatically cut back fuel flow to
the gas generator to prevent excessive overspeed.

For the engine with a fixed blade position fan, the control will be only slightly changed from
the present TF34 configuration. These changes, like inactivating the automatic gun gas
ingestion control, will be done in the simplest, lowest cost, manner.

64
The use of the variable pitch fan to obtain reverse thrust requires a small actuator to
remove the low pitch stop and a set of actuators to increase the airflow area behind the
fan. The removable low pitch stop is similar to those used on reversible propellers.
The additional area at the fan "inlet" during reverse can be provided by opening up the
fan nozzle area or by deploying auxiliary scoops which could take advantage of ram air.

Pilot's Control Levers - Operation

The control of each engine will be through three separate levers. For the most part, oper-
ation will be in a hands off, automatic fashion, and only one lever need be moved at a time.
The schedule for each lever is shown in Figure 22.
!

To start, the starter button is depressed and the "condition lever" is moved from OFF to
the START position. Ignition comes on and will be turned off automatically after the engine
reaches an appropriate speed. The control will automatically supply fuel through both
primer and main fuel nozzles to quickly and safely bring the engine to idle speed. By
advancing the lever to RUN, control of the engine is switched to the PCL. By retarding
the condition lever to OFF, the engine can be shut down, manually, at any time from any
operating condition.

The PCL can be moved between Idle and Maximum at any rate or movement pattern. This
is the same linear power schedule used for the TF34. Movement into the reverse thrust
region will require manual movement of a lock to prevent inadvertent action. Releasing
the PCL lock will (a) trigger the removal of the minimum flight pitch stop on the fan blades,
allowing them to move; to reverse and (b) deploy the increased area system behind the fan.
After the fan blades pass a predetermined position, the PCL is released and may be moved
from idle power into the increasing (reverse thrust) power region. Appropriately designed
pilot's quadrants will permit an operator to make these motions fast enough to change the
gas generator and fan output from maximum forward thrust (takeoff) or normal landing
condition thrust to maximum reverse thrust in less than two seconds.

There will be no restrictions in advancing the PCL from reverse thrust to forward thrust.
At the end of a landing run with fan braking, the pilot's manual movement will be expected
to be at moderate speed to a low power setting. The fan blades will be triggered to move
to forward thrust angle. Taxiing power can be adjusted with the PCL near idle. By setting
the fan speed governor to a low value, the blades will move into the normal operating
region and the minimum fan blade angle stop will lock into place.

In the case of a landing abort, the PCL can be burst to maximum forward thrust position.
The time to 90% of maximum forward thrust will be roughly two seconds or less, depending
on the initial position of the fan blades, their rate of change and the specific characteristics
of the fan overspeed goyernor.

The fan speed control lever will permit the achievement of a wide range of fan speeds and
fan blade angles for normal flight and experimental purposes. These functions can be
adjusted for optimization during takeoff, climb, cruise, landing approach and landing. By
using the speed governor approach, the pilot is prevented from inadvertently establishing
conditions which may result in fan overspeed.
 P C L
Control

Idle

Fuel Off
Ignition Off •* I •» Ignition Normal
Off Start Run
Condition Lever

I
Reverse Forward
Thrust
Max.

Power

Idle '

-.85 .21 .32 1.0 1.36 1.75

Power Control Lever Angle - Radians

100%

Fan Speed

Min.
Fan Speed Control Lever, Radians 1.0

Figure 22 - VP Fan Cockpit Control Levers.

66
 Max. Power

w
fl

I
<o

ft
H

Idle
|Min. Max.j
Stop
Stop I
(Removable)

Fan Blade Angle

Figure 23 - Normal Range of Fan Operation (Excluding Reverse Thrust)

67
 Fan speed is controlled via blade angle change. Should the pilot call for less power than
required to maintain fan speed, the blades will move toward the minimum blade angle
stop. Further reduction in power will result in a fan speed fall-off with the blades against
the stop. Conversely, if the fan speed setting is too low for the power generated, the fan
speed will increase (safely below 100%) with the blades against the high blade angle stop.
The interrelated parameters are shown in Figure 23.

POWER CONTROL

Starting/Shut D own

A separate package containing a stopcock, receives the pilots input commands to "start"
and "shut down" the engine. The modified main fuel control continues to provide all
automatic control functions. The new input device permits a single, linear PCL for all
other operations. A schematic of the major control elements is shown in Figure 24.

Forward/Reverse Thrust Schedule

The present TF34 main fuel control input cam has a linear schedule of power from idle to
maximum, controlling both gas generator speed and turbine gas temperature. This will be
retained. The balance of the heart-shaped input cam will call for an increase in power to
a maximum predetermined value for reverse thrust. The cam can be moved continuously
between extreme positions except for an external lock and switch arrangement. This
mechanism assembly will prevent movement to "reverse" until the pilot's quadrant signals
a removal of its lock and the fan blades are moving beyond a predetermined position.
Removal of the pilot's quadrant lock will also signal the opening of the fan as reverse inlet
area. The PCL will have adjustable stops at either end.

FAN SPEED BLADE ANGLE CONTROL

The typical turboprop approach of governor control of propeller-fan speed via actuation of
blade angle will be used. A shaft-mounted electric alternator will provide both the speed
signal and electric power for the governor. The electro-hydraulic governor will be mounted
forward of the engine accessories.

Two major differences fromturboprops are evident. (1) The higher fan speeds result in
much higher blade twisting moments due to centrifugal forces. The counteracting aero-
dynamic loads are, proportionately, very much smaller. This results in relatively large
friction forces, load gradients and the need for large actuators. (2) The blade angle/torque
relationship is much, lower than for a propeller, requiring higher rates of change for desired
response and stability. A dynamic response and stability study as performed for the GE-T64
and other turboprops will be an important part of the control design activity.

High rates of blade angle change are also required for thrust reversal. Based on studies
described below, a rate of 0. 7 radians per second or more may be desired. This corresponds
, to oil flow rates to the actuator of 950 cm per second (15 gpm). An established aircraft
hydraulic pump of 4.2 kilograms is available to meet a 0. 7 radian per second requirement.
; The hydraulic system is shown in Figure 25. This system shows a hydraulic pump as the
primary flow supply. A small accumulator may be needed to smooth out the pressure char-
68; acteristic of the system. p
A study was made of a system using a large accumulator with a small charging pump. The
charging pump must be sized after detail study of normal operation consumption, emergency
requirements and leakage. A prime advantage of this system is that it would reverse the fan
blades in a calculated time of 0.6 seconds. A prime disadvantage is the large size. A two-
charge accumulator (reverse and forward) requires a 11, 500 cm3 (700 in.3) internal (oil
and nitrogen) volume.

All stops of blade angle travel are adjusted into the actuator assembly. Normal operation
for forward thrust is between a removable low blade angle stop and a fixed high blade angle
stop. The reverse blade angle stop is also fixed.

The removable stop is cylindrical in shape and is located between the actuation cylinder
and the fan disk. The cylindrical structure consists of a rigid cylinder attached to the
actuator cylinder butting a deeply serrated or finger-like unit. The fingers are held tightly
in a slightly tapered, cylindrical shape surrounded by a locking device. By hydraulic force,
the locking device is moved out of position to allow the fingers : to spread open, releasing
the rigid cylinder to move within the spread fingers. By appropriate choice of configuration,
the hydraulic force for opening and relocking can be kept very small.

The position sensor for fan blade angle will be a linear variable differential transformer
(LVDT) located at the rear of the hydraulic transfer sleeve in the gear reduction configuration
as shown on Figure 26. The armature will be at the end of a long thin rod located on the
engine centerline and rotating with the fan assembly. The stator will be mounted on the
stationary portion of the hydraulic transfer sleeve. The stator will contain graphite bushings
to act as bearings for the armature.

When no gear reduction is used, the configuration requires the position sensor to be in a
rotating location. The most probable location is between the actuator and fan disk, just
outside of the minimum blade angle stop. The signal transmission will be via slip rings
mounted next to the hydraulic transfer sleeve.

The operating characteristic of the LVDT will be a combination of five linear schedules.
These will emphasize maximum accuracy in the normal forward thrust blade angle region,
the switching point in the flat pitch region and the end of travel in the reverse thrust region.
The two long regions between these will be with lower gradients.

REVERSE THRUST

An approximate picture of the transition to reverse thrust can be obtained by combining

TF34 transient performance data and assumed characteristics for a variable blade angle fan.
Such explorations indicate that the TF34 gas generator responds very rapidly to its power
lever input. Also, the response of the variable blade angle fan will be even faster than the
fixed fan. In going from forward to reverse thrust, the rate of blade angle change is the
dominant factor in determing the elapsed time. These ballpark studies also indicate that,
assuming reasonably rapid PCL movement and fan blades moving 0. 7 radian per second
and 1. 05 radian per second respectively, the reverse thrust will begin in about 1. 0 and 0. 8
seconds respectively and reach 95% of full value in about 1. 8 and .33 seconds respectively,
after initiation. Although the gas generator power can be "chopped" very rapidly to the
69
 Amplifier N 0 (N
\\\\\\\ \ \ \\
Alternator

N Main Fuel
g
Control Overspeed
r

Control
In

Condition^
Lever Q. Primer Fuel Flow

Main Fuel Flow To Flow Distributor

High Pressure
Lever Supply
..Reverse Thrust
Stabilization Override
Nf Gov.
Transfer
Valve • Oil Return

Variable Hydraulic Transfer Sleeve

Pitch
Actuator

f
Removable
Stop Actuator

Figure 24 - Variable Pitch Fan Control Including Modified TF34 Control.

70
 Tank

Filter

Variable
Displacement
Pump

Cooler

Accumulator

to Stop Valve

Speed Control
Control Valve

lol
Blade Actuator
1
Stop
Actuator

Stop Stop
Valve Switch

Figure 25 - Hydraulic System Schematic.

71
 o
•H
•P
•H
01
O

a
0)

o
•o
o;
05
01
CQ

•P

i0)

.w
rt
0)

bC

0)
•o
oi

I- ' 0
(H
.•-P
(8 0 •

U —i •P ^v
•H
C^4
•P
h
O

d> a)
r-l 3
,Q -P
01 O

0) '

I I
CO
N
0)
03 h
M
o
M
•i-l

72
minimum fuel schedule and "burst" very rapidly to maximum power, the fan remains the
dominant thrust producer through most of this cycle as its speed decays only about 10% to
15% before rising again.

In the process of landing, the fan governor should be set at 100% speed. This will permit
flight maneuvering and landing at appropriate power settings and allow full power potential
immediately in case of wave-off, and all controlled by the PCL alone. After touchdown, to
reverse thrust, the PCL is rapidly retarded to cut power. Automatically, the fan blades will
move toward flat pitch to try to maintain the .high fan speed setting. The low blade angle stop
must then be removed and the actuator call for full reverse blade position. Simultaneously,
the fan reverse "inlet" area should be increased. These three actions are triggered by the
pilot's manual removal of a "reverse" lock,on the PCL. A second "reverse" lock on the
PCL is released when the fan blades pass a predetermined angle near flat pitch. This latter
action allows the PCL to be burst to maximum reverse thrust without the fan experiencing
undesirable overspeed or correction by the overspeed governor.

Overspeed Emergency Control

Safety during potential failure conditions require the addition of a fan overspeed emergency
control which will reduce engine fuel flow. Preliminary work on such a control indicates
that it may be able to hold a safe, high, fan speed allowing the pilot to take corrective action.
The prominent potential failures are:
i
a. Any part of the fan governor or hydraulic system which will drop the hydraulic
pressure in the actuator. The fan blade twisting moment will turn the blades against
the minimum blade angle stops and if the PCL is calling for maximum power, the fan
speed will exceed 100% by an amount dependent on the minimum stop setting.
Either PCL position or minimum stop setting, or both, may prevent distructive
overspeed without the overspeed governor.

b. Waveoff after starting reverse thrust operation. In this "landing failure", the pilot
is required to regain maximum forward thrust as fast as possible. A PCL "burst"
from reverse will bring the fan into overspeed as it moves through fine pitch. The
overspeed governor will limit the rate of acceleration of the gas generator as the
fan blades move to absorb the load and reduce speed below the "overspeed" setting.
The time to maximum forward thrust will depend primarily on rate of blade angle
movement. If the PCL "burst" is replaced by a more restrained movement of the
PCL, the overspeed governor may not be activated, the result being a slight increase
in time to maximum thrust.

c. Aerodynamic or mechanical unloading of the fan without corresponding unloading

of the gas generator. This may take the form of partial inlet blockage.

73
 9. ENGINE WEIGHT

A complete weight breakdown of engines (B) and (C) is given in Appendix IV. The total
weights a r e . . . . . .

Engine kg Ib

A 615.5 1358
B 1082 2386 i
C 975 2150

These weights are for the engines without suppression.

74
10. CONCLUSIONS

1. Of the noise measurement locations defined, which represent typical takeoff, approach
and landing situations, the sideline noise after liftoff is the most critical. Inasmuch
as the noise levels at the other locations were only slightly below the sideline noise
level, all locations should continue to be used for assessment since such items as actual
flight operational procedures (for example, power cutback) and airplane characteristics
(for example drag as affecting approach power level) can vary from those assumed in
this study. Also, the positions of the measuring points themselves are arbitrary and
subject to modification.

2. For the standard 6.5 bypass TF34 engine, extensive suppressive treatment is required:
in the inlet, 3 splitters plus wall treatment; in the fan exhaust, 2 splitters plus wall
treatment of several different thicknesses for attenuation at different frequencies; in
the core exhaust, thick wall treatment for combustor noise plus thinner treatment on
multiple radial struts for turbine noise. With this treatment the sideline noise is slightly
above (2 PNdB) the objective of 95 PNdB at 100% power and meets the objective at 90%
power. Reducing the noise to 95 PNdB would require increasing the fan noise suppression
about 5-7 PNdB, an amount which is considered excessive relative to the state-of-the-art.
The jet noise would also be limiting if fan noise were to be suppressed further. A wider
blade/vane spacing of 1. 5 - 2. 0 instead of 0. 6 chords would reduce the overall noise
1.5 PNdB.

3. For the bypass 13 engines, noise treatment was selected to just meet the 95 PNdB
objective. It consists of: in the inlet and fan ducts, a single splitter plus wall treatment;
in the core exhaust, similar treatment as in the bypass 6. 5 engine. There, was no differ-
ence between the geared and direct drive engines as regards noise or treatment, on the
assumption that gear noise was not an additive element, and that turbine noise was the
same for both engines.
4. Noise levels were in the range 90-94 PNdB for all three engines except for the sideline
noise for engine A, as noted above, using full power for the takeoff measurement point.
These values do not, however, include flap impingement noise.
5. Several additional sources of noise are known, such as casing radiation, splitter supports,
direct transmission along casings,and accessories. These may well become important
and possibly limiting as the major sources are increasingly suppressed. Some unknown
sources may also exist, with similar results. Such sources could be primary and fan
exhaust noise caused by upstream turbulence.
6. The variable pitch fan was designed around solid titanium blades. The resulting centri-
fugal and untwist loads on these blades are high. The use of lighter weight blade con-
struction such as plastic composite or combined metal and plastic composite is clearly "
indicated as a promising direction for further work.
7. The variable fan pitch feature resulted in some compromises to the aerodynamic design.
These were: a reduction in solidity to 0.95 to permit the blades to pass through zero
pitch without clashing, and a reduced amount of camber and twist to make the blades
more suitable for reverse pitch operation. The reduced solidity resulted in a 2 point
reduction in fan (B) efficiency and a further loss of about 1 point in fan (C) efficiency
75
 resulting from its higher tip relative Mach number. The absolute levels of efficiency
were still quite acceptable, however,, at 87 and 86% respectively. The camber and
twist resulted in some loss of induced blade torsional stiffness. However the overall
stiffness was considered satisfactory.

8. A comparison of the geared and direct drive fan systems showed that the main difference
was a weight reduction of 107 kg (240 Ib) f or the direct drive system.

Reference 1

Latham, D; McCann, E. O., et al "TF34 Engine Detail Noise Data and Analysis",
Report prepared by General Electric Company for NASA (Lewis) under contract
No. NAS 3-15545, July 8, 1971.

76
I
I
§w
Q

77
 APPENDIX I - ENGINE CYCLE DATA

ENGINE (A) (S.1. Units)

100% Inlet Recovery

Heating Value of Fuel 42. 8 MJ/kg

Altitude m 0 0 7620
Ambient Temperature OK 288. 15 288.15
Flight Velocity 0 36 m/s • 8 Mach
Power Extraction w 18,640 18,640 18,640
Bleed Flow, Stage 10 kg/s .226 .226 0
Net Thrust N 39624 34914 9915
Specific Fuel Consumption
MI SFC
SFC n kg/Ns 10.43 11.88 20.75
Total Engine Airflow kg/s 151.9 153.1 92.9
Fan Speed % 98.10 98.25 98.25
Fan Tip Pressure Ratio 1.477 1.474 1.414
1

Fan Hub Pressure Ratio 1.425 1.423 1.394

Engine Core Airflow kg/s 20.29 20.37 11.25
Gas Generator Speed % 108. 52 108. 55 103.58
Pressure Ratio 14.293 14.250 13.854
Turbine Rotor Inlet Temperature
perature °K 1487 1487 1365
High Pressure Turbine 4.38 4.38 4.36
Pressure Ratio
rature
Fan Turbine Inlet Temperature °K 1081 1082 988
Low Pressure Turbine 3.16 3.17 3.34
Pressure Ratio
:ity
Fully Expanded Jet Velocity < m/s 287.5 289.5 380.7
Exhaust Exit Area m2 .5868 .5868 .5868
Exhaust Flow Coefficient .9731 . 9733 .9823
Fan Exit Velocity
Fan Exit Area
Fan Flow Coefficient

78
 APPENDIX I

SfGINE (B) (S.I. Units)

Altitude m 0 0 7620
Ambient Temperature °K 288.15 288.15
Flight Velocity 0 - 36 m/s .8 Mach
Power Extraction W 18640 18640 18640
Bleed Flow, Stage 10 kg/s .226 .226 0
Net Thrust N 45092 37552 9199
Specific Fuel Consumption SFC iakg/Ns 8.26 9 . 96 20.75
Total Engine Airflow kg/s 247.2 250.2 148.7
Fan Speed . % 101.1 101.7 100.9
Fan Tip Pressure Ratio 1.245 1.242 1.256
Fan Hub Pressure Ratio 1.138: 1.137 1. 142
Engine Core Airflow kg/s 17.85 17.93 10.20
Gas Generator Speed % . 107.62 107.65 103. 1
Pressure Ratio 15.762 15.716 15.371
Turbine Rotor Inlet Temperature
re °K 1487 1487 . 1365
High Pressure Turbine 4.358 4.357 4.38
Pressure Ratio
Fan Turbine Inlet Temperature °K 1080 1080 985
Low Pressure Turbine 3.291 3. 302 4.05
Pressure Ratio
Fully Expanded Jet Velocity m/s 255.8 257.2 355.7
Exhaust Exit Area m2 .1909 .1909 .1909
Exhaust Flow Coefficient .9588 .9589 .9622
Fan Exit Velocity m/s 184.3 186.8 307.8
2
Fan Exit Area m 1.045 1. 045 .836
Fan Flow Coefficient .9916 .9917 .9896

79
 APPENDIX I

SINE (C) (S.I. Units)

m 0 0 7620
Altitude
Ambient Temperature °K 288.15 288.15
Flight Velocity 0 36 m/s . 8 Mach
Power Extraction W 18640 18640 18640
Bleed Flow, Stage 10 kg/s .226 .226 0
Net Thrust N 45336 37809 9274
Specific Fuel Consumption SFC tikg/Ns 8.24 9. 92 20.65
Total Engine Airflow kg/s 248.6 251.9 149. 7
Fan Speed % 99.26 99.83 98.95
Fan Tip Pressure Ratio 1. 2448 1.2422 1.2566
Fan Hub Pressure Ratio 1. 1385 1-1384 1-1437
Engine Core Airflow kg/s 17. 89 17.98 10.24
Gas Generator Speed % 107.61 107.64 103.13
Pressure Ratio 15.799 15.75 15.416
Turbine Rotor Inlet Temperature °K 1488 1488 1365
High Pressure Turbine 4.345 4.344 4.373
Pressure Ratio
Fan Turbine Inlet Temperature °K 1079 1079 984
Low Pressure Turbine 3.348 3.36 4.127
Pressure Ratio
Fully Expanded Jet Velocity m/s 256.1 257.5 356.3

Exhaust Exit Area m2 .1908 . 1908 . 1908

Exhaust Flow Coefficient .9589 .9589' .9623
Fan Exit Velocity m/s 184.2 186.8 308.0
Fan Exit Area m2 1.052 1.052 0.842
Fan Flow Coefficient .9775 .9778 .9896

80
 APPENDIX I

JINE (A) (FPS Units)

Recovery
Lue of Fuel 18400 BTU/lb

Altitude ft 0 0 25K
Ambient Temperature OF 59 59
Flight Velocity 0 70 kts .8 Mach
Power Extraction hp 25 25 25
!
Bleed Flow, Stage 10 Ib/sec 0.5 0.5 |o
Net Thrust Ibf 8908 7849 2229
Specific Fuel Consumption SFC Ibm/lbf hr .3683 .4194 .7324
Total Engine Airflow Ib/sec 325.0 337.7 204.8

Fan Speed % 98.10 98.25 98.85

Fan Tip Pressure Ratio 1.4779 1.4745 1.4145

Fan Hub Pressure Ratio 1.4251 1.4239 1. 3940
Engine Core Airflow Ib/sec 44.74 44.92 24.81

Gas Generator Speed % • - ' • 108.52 108. 55 103.58

Pressure Ratio 14.293 14.250 13.854
Turbine Rotor Inlet Temperature °R 2678 2678 2458

High Pressure Turbine 4.38 4.38 4.36

Pressure Ratio
Fan Turbine Inlet Temperature °R 1947 1947 1778
Low Pressure Turbine 3.16 3.17 3.34
Pressure Ratio
Fully Expanded Jet Velocity ft/sec 943.4 949.8 1249.2
Exhaust Exit Area in2 909. 5 909.5 909.5
Exhaust Flow Coefficient .9731 .9733 .9823
Fan Exit Velocity
Fan Exit Area
Fan Flow Coefficient

81
 APPENDIX I

HNE (B) (FPS Units)

Altitude ft 0 0 25K .
Ambient Temperature OF 59 59
Flight Velocity 0 70 kts . 8 Mach
Power Extraction hp 25 25 25
Bleed Flow, Stage 10 Ib/sec 0.5 0.5 0 ,
Net Thrust Ibf 10137 8442 2068
Specific Fuel Consumption SFC Ibm/lbf hr .2917 .3517 .7327
Total Engine Airflow Ib/sec 545.0 551.8 327.9
Fan Speed % 101. 1 101.7 100.9
Fan Tip Pressure Ratio 1.245 1.242 . 1.256
Fan Hub Pressure Ratio 1.138 1.137 1.142
Engine Core Airflow Ib/sec 39.35 39.54 22.48
Gas Generator Speed % 107.62 107.65 103.1
Pressure Ratio 15.762 15.716 15.371
Turbine Rotor Inlet Temperature °R 2678 2678 2458
High Pressure Turbine 4.358 4.357 4.38
Pressure Ratio
Fan Turbine Inlet Temperature °R 1944 1944 1773
Low Pressure Turbine 3.297 3.302 4.05
Pressure Ratio
Fully Expanded Jet Velocity ft/sec 839.4 843.9 . Il67.1
Exhaust Exit Area in2 295.9 295.9 295.9
Exhaust Flow Coefficient .9588 .9589 .9622
«i

Fan Exit Velocity ft/sec 604.7 612.9 1010.0

Fan Exit Area in. 2 1619. 1 1619.1 1295.3
Fan Flow Coefficient .9916 .9917 .9896

82
 APPENDIX I

SINE (C) (FPS Units)

Altitude ft 0 0 25K

Ambient Temperature oF 59 59

Flight Velocity 0 . 70 kts .8 Mach

Power Extraction hp 25 25 25

Bleed Flow, Stage 10 Ib/sec 0.5 i 0.5 '(I .

Net Thrust Ibf 10192 8500 2085

Specific Fuel Consumption SFC Ibm/lbf hr . 291 .3503 .7292

Total Engine Airflow Ib/sec 548.2 555.5 330.2

% 99.26 99.83 98.95
Fan Speed
].2448 1.2422 1.2566
Fan Tip Pressure Ratio
1.1385 1.1384 1.1437
Fan Hub Pressure Ratio
Ib/sec 39.45 39.64 22. 57
Engine Core Airflow
% 107.61 107.64 103.13
Gas Generator Speed
15.799 15.75 15.416
Pressure Ratio
Turbine Rotor Inlet Temperature °R ' 2678 2678 2458
4.345 4.344 4.373
High Pressure Turbine • •
Pressure Ratio
Fan Turbine Inlet Temperature °R 1944 1944 1772

Low Pressure Turbine 3.348 3.36 4.127

Pressure Ratio
Fully Expanded Jet Velocity ft/sec 840.4 844.8 1169

Exhaust Exit Area in2 295.7 295.7 295.7

Exhaust Flow Coefficient .9589 .9589 .9623

Fan Exit Velocity ft/sec 604.4 612.8 1010.4

in2 1631.5 1631.5 1305.2
Fan Exit Area
.9775 .9778 .9896
Fan Flow Coefficient

83
 APPENDIX H

Derivative Table - Inlet Losses

Exhaust Areas Resized

Thrust vs. AFNSFC vs. A SFC

Pressure Loss Pressure SFC
Derivative ApP/pl Loss A [ P/p]
Derivative

Sea lev,el, 288 K (59 F), maximum power

no bleed, no power extraction

Engine A 2.42 1.47

B 3.92 3.12

C 3.93 3.11

Mach 0.8
7620m (25, 000 ft), ho bleed, no power extraction

Engine A - 3.52 2.49

B - 5.97 5.33

- 6.00 5.36

84
 APPENDIX

Derivative Table Fan Duct Pressure Losses

Exhaust Areas Resized

Thrust vs. A FN SFC vs. A SFC

Pressure Loss FN Pressure ! FN
Derivative AfAP/pl Loss Derivative! A[ P/p]

Sea level, 288 °K (59 °F), maximum power

no bleed, no power extraction

Engine A - .95 .98

B - 2.38 2.54
C - 2.38 2.54

Mach 0. 8
7620m (25, 000 ft), no bleed, no power extraction

Engine A 2.10 2.17

B 4.32 4.80
C 4.33 4.82

85
 APPENDIX H

Derivative Table - Core Duct Pressure Losses

Exhaust Areas Resized

Thrust vs. A FN SFC vs. A SFC

Pressure Loss FN Pressure SFC
Derivative AT P/pl Loss Derivative Ar,P/p~|

Sea level, 288 °K (59 °F), maximum power

no bleed, no power extraction

Engine A ,60 .63

B .67 .66

C ,67 .67

Mach 0.8
7620m (25, 000 ft), no bleed, no power extraction

Engine A

B .48 .49

C .55 .50

86
 APPENDIX m

Timken Physical Laboratories Report - Test No. 266.3-H

Torque and High Load Characteristics of the T-127. Thrust Bearing

Test Objective

The objective of this test was to determine if the T-127 thrust bearing would be capable
of withstanding extremely high loads (249 kN (56, 000 Ib) thrust) without severe damage
to the rollers or races. Ten T-127 series thrust bearings were tested with the retainers
removed.

Conclusion

When the full test load of 249 kN (56, 000 Ib) - approximately 7 1/2 times the Basic
Thrust Rating of the bearing-was applied to these bearings statically, there was slight
brinelling of the races. This resulted in erratic torque readings. However, when the
bearings were being oscillated while the load was being applied, there was uniform
deformation over the races. One set of bearings was subjected to 445 kN (100,000 Ib)
thrust load which is 13 times the Basic Thrust Rating. This load resulted in severe
plastic deformation of the races; however, there were no cracked races or rollers from
this load. The one broken roller in the tests with 249 kN (56, 000 Ib) load was apparently
caused by not having the bearing properly assembled.

It is felt that the T-127 thrust bearing is capable of withstanding the excessive loads for
short periods of time without severe bearing damage. A short period of running-in the
bearings at maximum load would probably result in lower bearing torque, by causing
uniform plastic deformation of the races.

Method of Testing

The metal bearing retainers were removed from the T-127 thrust bearings. The thrust
bearings were then lubricated with Sinclair L-300 grease and installed in the test set-up.
A Baldwin Press was used for applying thrust load to the bearing test set-up.

The loading procedure consisted of the following method:

1. Apply 26. 7 kN (6000 Ib) load and record torque.

2. Increase load statically to 249 kN (56, 000 Ib) and record torque.
3. Reduce load to 26. 7 kN (6000 Ib) and record torque.
4. Increase load to 249 kN (56, 000 Ib), oscillate the bearings for 600s (10 minutes)
and record torque.
5. Reduce load to 26. 7 kN (6000 Ib) and record torque.
87
 This procedure was used for the first eight bearings with four being oscillated 1. 57 rad
(90°) and four being oscillated 0.17 rad (10°). The final two bearings were installed in
the rig and oscillated approximately 0.17 rad (10°) while the load was increased to
445 kN (100, 000 Ib) in an attempt to determine the bearings ultimate strength.

Test Results

The following 1 able lists the torque values for eaeh load applied and appropriate
comments for the condition of each set of thrust bearings tested:

Bearing Thrust Bearing

Number Load Torque Remarks
kN Ib N-m Ib-ft

1 &2 26.7 6, 000 7 5 This set of bearings was

249 56, 000 87-141 64-104 oscillated approximately
26.7 6,000 7-14 5-10 . 17 rad (10°) resulting
249 56, 000 71-119 52-88 in slight plastic disformation
26.7 6,000 4-7 3-5

3 & 4 26.7 6,000 9 7 This set of bearings was

249 56, 000 136 100 oscillated approximately
26.7 6,000 5-10 4-8 .. 17 rad (10°) resulting in
249 56,000 81-136 60-100 slight plastic deformation.
26.7 6,000 4-8 3-6

5 & 6 26.7 6,000 8 6 This set of bearings was

249 56, 000 87-141 64-104 oscillated approximately
26.7 6,000 5 4 1. 57 rad (90°). Note: Roll
249 56, 000 125 92 overlap eliminate erratic
26.7 6,000 8 6 torque.

7 & 8 26.7 6,000 5 4 This set of bearings was

249 56, 000 81 60 oscillated approximately
26.7 6,000 5 . . 4 1. 57 rad (90°) and also •
249 56, 000 125 92 oscillated while applying loac
26.7 6,000 6 5 One roller was broken result
in higher final torque.

88
 CO
oo
CM eo
CM

I t-
bfi
H Jd co
10 co

co
co CD ~-.
0 . CO . . c- CM ^^ —. . •*
I CM CM .CM
CM CM CO CM
CD" t- OS
CO CM
00
co co
. . rH O CO •
CO <M in rf t-

00 CD
CD CO CM CM O CO O in CM o t- . co in CM • en
CM . CO
co' 10 o o Ti< o rH CM' co CO" rH CO Tf CD CO CM O OJ
CD IO rH rH rH CM T* co eo en oq csi co

O
in t-
en
CO
<N m ra o CM
co CSI

8
I
EH
CM
co •* O
in eo
m

I O r4 _ _ ". «
CQ rH CO 00 CXI t- IO
in
CT^
Tf CO
CO CO
co
. t-
N CO
CO _, ^
• co o
in .
t- CO rH ^
• .
. t-H CM r-l
co en 05 CM in *f c-
• TJ<
.

Tf t- oo c- eo eo • cn t- eo
bfi .CD . CM i-l 00 . . Tf
Tf O r-l CM . CXI 10 in* i 00 . . . CO CO
in IO rH rH IO rH CM CO ^ Tf OJ CM rH CO

h CO
C3 IH

i
_0 CO

1
CO

§ •a £ •a B
cd
scellane

CO
m § §
1c* § Q
cs
o 1—4 CO

3£ m 0
I
I— »

15
CO
o
t4
CO SI
s 1
s
CO CO

oS5m
V 0)
O ]§ ® A
"S
<D vj

CO
$ 3 \_l

K
d p •s
CO a CO
CO CO
> s CO CD

89
 •* CO
CO CM ^< CO o
rH CM t- 10
CO CM to t- 00 co •* CO.
00 co IM O5 CM

in oo
in
co t- in
co
en •*' O O CM 00 CO t-
co CD ca 00 CM in

2
<
Fn
O CM CO ,-. CO
in r-c CM ci in
•a
I
iH
o
S3 CM . CM 0> Tj<
o CM in rH .CM
o

I CM

CO
rj<
rH
CM CD
•*
•*'
ST

o
^

CO
^
>*'
CD
oo
CO
00 CO CM CM en CM

t> CD co OO <J>
< ^
bo in
CD
OJ in in rH
t-
o CM t- rH
CM
00
O
CO tj> CM Ifl
^N
m
PQ

1—1 «n
to g o CM" CD" .—. co"
in rH CM CM in
W
1 S
>
|_|
S oo
T)< rH
bo CM" . CM Ol ^
X J<! CM in rH . <M

H
04 CO
ra
51 fcj ILi
2 S
CO

1 S 01 •o
K CO
01 _o S
cu
0} c
V
G "3h r—t
3
CO
"3
©
CO
3
O J2 S
M
Jo
p
-4-»
Q
CO
f* CJ
1
O CD r- ^ CO
ffi 3
o
O
•R OJ CO
? 3 l "8 H
cu
H
a> «3 CO
K CJ CO
§
V
G
SfiSs «
co ^ gj ^m 2 ^
3 3
I
m CO
3
o §
§

c CO
S
Pressi

Actuat:

fn 0
cellane*

CO
CO
S-, CO fe a a 'So o
to
£ wHS H
£ -u
01 3
S
3
S01 rH
CO
H
PH 3 w CO CO S
S cu CO 3i
?
r

o in S A "• •-
o CO C5 gy
h 0 S O X <: 0 CJ CO o
to O
-I iJ w < S r4 rH

90
 jfi&v-'-1 • ' A FOLDOUT FRAME
FOLDOUT FRAME ->~

APPENDIX V

Figure 1 - Engine A, YTF34-2.

91
 E0LDOUT FRAM£J. EOLPQUT £fiAM§

Figure 2 - Engine B, TF34 Core and LP Turbine with Geared Variable Pitch Fan.

92
 FOLDOUT FRAMf
EOLDOUT FRAME

Figure 3 - Engine C, TF34 Core, Direct Drive Variable Pitch Fan.

93
 ,; . EO^PQUT FRAME
EOLDOUI FRAME 1

Figure 4 - Engine A Installed.

94
vfOLPOUI

Figure 5 - Engine B Installed.

95
 FOLDOUI ERAME
1 EOLDOUT fRAME

Figure 6 - Engine G Installed.

96