1 / 49

Systems Design Review Presentation

Systems Design Review Presentation. Joe Appel Todd Beeby Julie Douglas Konrad Habina Katie Irgens Jon Linsenmann David Lynch Dustin Truesdell. Outline. Mission statement Design requirements Concept generation and selected concepts Technology and effects

hafwen
Download Presentation

Systems Design Review Presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Systems Design Review Presentation Joe Appel Todd Beeby Julie Douglas KonradHabina Katie Irgens Jon Linsenmann David Lynch Dustin Truesdell

  2. Outline • Mission statement • Design requirements • Concept generation and selected concepts • Technology and effects • Engine sizing and technology • Constraint diagrams • Sizing code • Stability, CoG and Tail Sizing • Summary of aircraft concepts • Next Steps

  3. Mission Statement • Design an Environmentally Responsible Aircraft (ERA) that lowers noise, minimizes emissions, and reduces fuel burn • Utilize new technology to develop a competitive medium-size aircraft that meets the demands of transportation for continental market • Deliver a business plan focusing on capitalizing on growing markets • Submit final design to NASA ERA College Student Challenge

  4. Major Design Requirements • NASA ERA Goals Large twin aisle reference configuration = Boeing 777-200LR

  5. Major Design Requirements • Market Goals • 200 passengers • Intra - Continental Range • 3200 Nautical Miles • Operability • Maintenance • Turnaround time • Production and operating costs

  6. Design Process • Concept Generation • Created functional flow block diagram • Brainstormed design features • Assembled morphological matrix • Designed 8 initial concepts • Two rounds of Pugh's method

  7. Concept Generation & Selection – Initial Concepts

  8. Selected Concepts: Concept 1

  9. Concept 1

  10. Concept 1: Cabin Layout

  11. Concept 2

  12. Concept 2

  13. Concept 2: Cabin Layout

  14. Technologies • Concept 1: • “Double bubble” fuselage • C - wing • Aft mounted engines • Concept 2: • High wing • Under wing engines • High aspect ratio wing

  15. Technologies • On both concepts • Laminar flow • Composite Materials Courtesy NASA

  16. Technology Effects • Double Bubble Fuselage • 19% fuel burn reduction, 15 min load/unload time reduction, pressurization difficulties • C – wing • 11% reduction in induced drag, increased wing weight • Aft mounted engines • 16 % fuel burn reduction, 5db noise reduction, maintenance issues

  17. Technology Effects • High Wing • Allows for GTF to be fixed in under wing configuration • Under Wing Engines • No increase in maintenance time or cost • High AR Wing • 1% increase in span = 1.7% decrease in induced drag • Laminar Flow • 25% laminar flow on wing = 25% reduction in parasite drag, no leading edge devices limits slow speed ability

  18. Technology Effects • Composite Materials • Fiber Laminate Core(FLC) reduces over 40% directional strength, 15% lower density then Al • Alcoa Wing Box, 20% wing weight reduction Photos courtesy of ALCOA

  19. Engine Selection • The Geared Turbo Fan (GTF) • Pros -Fuel economy-up to 15% savings • Noise-max of10dB reduction • Emissions –surpass CAEP/6 by 50% for NOx • Cons -Maintenance costs for gearbox http://www.aric.or.kr/trend/history/images/propellant/pw_geared_turbofan.jpg

  20. Engine Sizing • Modeling the baseline engine to the GEnx-1B64 • Modeled engine features: Weight=11,900 lbs; T:W=4.951; BPR=10; Pressure ratio 20:1 • Genx-1B64 features: Weight=12822 lbs ; T:W=5.21; BPR=19/2; Pressure ratio 23:1 Courtesy GE Aircraft Engines

  21. Engine Technology Effects • Cheverons-Improved exhaust and bypass air mixing reducing engine exhaust noise by 3 dB • Soft Vanes-Reduce fan noise by 1-2 dB by reducing unsteady pressure response on stator surface. http://memagazine.asme.org/articles/2006/november/Put_Nozzle.cfm Assessment of soft vane and metal foam engine noise reduction concepts-NASA Glenn

  22. Major Performance Constraints • Top of Climb: • Alt = 42,000 ft, Mach = 0.75 • 2-G Maneuver: • Alt = 10,000 ft, V = 250 Kts, • Landing Braking Ground Roll @ High-Hot Cond. : • Length = 4000 ft, (Alt = 5000 ft, T = +15 F) • Takeoff Accel. Ground Roll @ High-Hot Cond. : • Length = 2000 ft • Second Segment Climb @ High-Hot Cond.: • 1 engine out, FAA min. climb gradient (2.4%)

  23. Basic Assumptions • Concept 1 – Double Bubble • Concept 2 – High Wing

  24. Constraint Diagram: Concept 1 Tsl/W0 = 0.29 (lbf/lb) W0/S = 103 (lbs/ft2)

  25. Constraint Diagram: Concept 2 Tsl/W0 = 0.26 (lbf/lb) W0/S = 84 (lb/ft2)

  26. Trade Studies • Aspect Ratio • Varied aspect ratio between 9 & 20 • Mach Number • Target performance specifications yielded a mach number of 0.75 • Sweep • Researched the effects of sweep between 0 ° & 35° on both concepts and chose appropriate sweep angles

  27. Aircraft Design Mission 3 Norange descent CruiseClimb Loiter (30 min) Loiter (30 min) 2 6 7 No range descent Climb 32000 ft Climb 4’ 5’ 0 Attempt to Land 5 9 1 4 8 Taxi & takeoff Land Land 6800 ft Range: 3200 nmi 4950 ft Fuel Reserves

  28. Code Status Current Status Validated Code for Boeing 757-200 and 767-200ER Split up sizing code into weight and drag components Location of center of gravity for Hybrid Concepts Validation using similar a/c: Boeing 757-200 TOGW = 255000 lb, OEW = 127000 lb, Wfuel = 74510 lb

  29. Basic Assumptions • Concept 1 – Double Bubble • Concept 2 – High Wing

  30. Sizing Approach • Empty Weight • Statistical equations for components from Raymer Text • Weights added to Payload & Fuel to estimate TOGW • If fuel weight isn’t sufficient, weights adjusted (iteration) • Fuel Weight • Segment fuel fractions using Range and Endurance eqns • Drag • Component drag build-up • Parasite, for each exposed aircraft component • Induced, for wing and tail surfaces • Wave, neglected for cruse Mach ~ 0.75

  31. Concept Descriptions • Concept 1 – Double Bubble • Concept 2 – High Wing

  32. Component Weight Breakdown Double Bubble High Wing

  33. Sizing Output Double Bubble High Wing

  34. Center of Gravity • Concept 1 – Double Bubble Static Margin = -20 a.c. 93’ c.g. 73’ Datum 65’ 69’ 122’ 125’ 130’

  35. Center of Gravity • Concept 2 – High Wing Static Margin = -18 a.c. @ 88’ Datum c.g. @ 70’ 56’ 69’ 75’ 145’ 150’

  36. Tail Sizing • Relate wing aspects to tail • Wing yaw moments countered by wing span • Pitching moments counted by wing mean chord • Correlate using volume coefficients • Equations 6.28 & 6.29 from Raymer

  37. Concept 1: Exterior 15.6’ 130’ 160’ 20’

  38. Concept 1: Interior • Cabin height = 7ft 2in

  39. Concept 1: LOPA

  40. Concept 2: Exterior 17.8’ 150’ 231’ 17.5’

  41. Concept 2: Interior • Cabin height = 7ft 2in

  42. Concept 2: LOPA

  43. Compliance Matrix

  44. Next Steps • Drag component build up • Carpet plots and more in-depth trade studies • C.G. travel diagram • Additional technology integration • Improve engine model accuracy

  45. On a scale of one to ten,

  46. Concept Generation & Selection • House of Quality

  47. AppendixMorphological Matrix

  48. AppendixPugh’s Method

More Related