Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2020), xxx(xx): xxx–xxx

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com

Applications of structural efficiency assessment

method on structural-mechanical characteristics
integrated design in aero-engines
Jie HONG a,b, Tianrang LI a, Huaqiang ZHENG c, Yanhong MA a,b,*

a
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China
b
Collaborative Innovation Center of Advanced Aero-Engine, Beijing 100083, China
c
AECC Hunan Aviation Powerplant Research Institute, Zhuzhou 412002, China

Received 7 January 2019; revised 25 March 2019; accepted 17 November 2019

KEYWORDS Abstract In the design process of advanced aero-engines, it is necessary to carry out an effective
Aero-engines; analysis method between structural features and mechanical characteristics for a better structural
Integrated design; optimization. Based on the structural composition and functions of aero-engines, the concept
Mechanical characteristics; and contents of structural efficiency can reflect the relation between structural features and mechan-
Structural efficiency; ical characteristics. In order to achieve the integrated design of structural and mechanical charac-
Structural optimization teristics, one quantitative analysis method called Structural Efficiency Assessment Method (SEAM)
was put forward. The structural efficiency coefficient was obtained by synthesizing the parameters
to quantitatively evaluate the aero-engine structure design level. Parameterization method to
evaluate structural design quality was realized. After analyzing the structural features of an actual
dual-rotor system in typical high bypass ratio turbofan engines, the mechanical characteristics and
structural efficiency coefficient were calculated. Structural efficiency coefficient of high-pressure
rotor (0.43) is higher than that of low-pressure rotor (0.29), which directly shows the performance
of the former is better, there is room for improvement in structural design of the low-pressure rotor.
Thus the direction of structural optimization was pointed out. The applications of SEAM shows
that the method is operational and effective in the evaluation and improvement of structural design.
Ó 2020 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author at: School of Energy and Power Engineer-
ing, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China.
E-mail address: mayanhong@buaa.edu.cn (Y. MA).
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
1. Introduction
Aero gas turbine engine is a kind of complicated rotating
mechanical system. Reasonable structural arrangements are a
direct expression of the design level integrated with technolog-
ical disciplines. For an advanced structural design,1 it need to
ensure the structural integrity and reliability requirements, and
meet the goals of performance and fuel efficiency in service life.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
1000-9361 Ó 2020 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
2 J. HONG et al.
Unfortunately in modern aero-engines, loads increase substan-
tially and operation environments are more harsh for the pur-
suit of high thrust weight ratio and high thermal efficiency.
Thrust weight ratio is a common performance indicator for
aero-engines. It has become particularly important in struc-
tural design on how to obtain the best engine performance
by the least weight. However, trust weight ratio cannot directly
evaluate the mechanical characteristics of structures, and also
cannot clearly guide the structural optimization.
The processes of structure and its components design are
interwoven and iterative in nature on account of meeting var-
ious requirements. The purpose of structural design is to
obtain excellent mechanical characteristics, which are the func-
tion of the structure feature parameters such as mass, stiffness
(Strictly, stiffness belongs to mechanical characteristic param-
eters, however, it can reflect the material and structural com-
position, so put it here.), etc. When mass or stiffness of the
structures change, it can affect the response characteristics of
the structural systems. Conversely, the loads generated by
structural response can affect the design requirements of mass
and stiffness. Therefore, the best mechanical characteristics
can only be obtained by optimizing structural parameters,
which is so called the structural-mechanical characteristics
integrated design. The concept of structural efficiency is often
used to represent the relation between structural features and
mechanical characteristics in engineering design. It can quanti-
tatively describe the payoffs of structural improvement design.
Popularly speaking, its physical meaning is the performance to
mass ratio, namely, the less mass used in structures to achieve
specific performance requirements, the higher the structure
efficiency.
In aviation field, the concept of structural efficiency was
first proposed by NASA’s Dow et al.2,3 and was applied to
the structural design of aircraft support composite panels. Wil-
liams et al.4–6 respectively, applied the structural efficiency to
cylindrical shells subjected to axial compression for the weight
optimization, and through the replacement of aluminum alloy
using composite materials and the optimization of cross-
section shape, a 42% weight loss could be achieved. In 1976,
Fischler7 of McDonnell Douglas also applied the structural
efficiency evaluation method in the structural design of super-
sonic cruise vehicle. Jegley8 compared the profits of different
structural forms of the stiffened plates for the aircraft design
by numerical calculation and experimentation with defining
the structural efficiency as the ratio of the maximum load-
carrying capacity to the structural weight. Buckney et al.9 opti-
mized the topology of the wind turbine blade by defining the
stress shape factor and the stiffness shape factor as structural
efficiency evaluation parameters. Obviously in the literatures
described above, the researchers mostly focused on the design
and optimization of some aircraft components by the use of
structural efficiency concepts.
In 1989, Storace10 of General Electric Aircraft Engines first
applied the structural efficiency to quantify the improvement
design of the engine structure, focusing on analytical methods
and design concepts developed to enhance the structural effi-
ciency of turbine engines in considering the specific strength,
engine system vibration and turbomachinery clearance clo-
sures. Zhang et al.11,12 made a basic research about the concept
and contents of structural efficiency aiming to assess the struc-
tural design quality in modern aero-engines. However, the
exploration is limited to the establishment of evaluation
Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
parameters and calculation methods for specific objects, such
as rotors, bearings, or the whole engine, and do not form an
universal analysis method for structural assessment or inte-
grated design technique of structural and mechanical
characteristics.
In view of the above research, this paper established an
analysis method considering the relation between structural
features and mechanical characteristics based on structural
efficiency for improvement design in aero-engines. An univer-
sal and relatively standardized evaluation procedure of Struc-
tural Efficiency Assessment Method (SEAM) was proposed.
The calculation program of SEAM and structural efficiency
coefficient algorithm were introduced. A typical high bypass
ratio turbofan engine was taken as an example to analyze
and discuss the application of SEAM in structural design qual-
ity evaluation and structural-mechanical characteristics inte-
grated design from components to overall engine systems.
2. Structural and mechanical characteristics
2.1. Structural and mechanical parameters
Structural systems can be components or the overall machine
assembled with several parts by connection interface in aero-
engines. The most important structural systems in aero-
engines including: rotor system, bearing system and overall
structure system. Due to different roles and functions, their
design goals are different.
In order to quantitatively describe the relation between
structural features and mechanical properties, two types of
parameters, structural parameters and mechanical characteris-
tic parameters are set.
Structural parameters include geometric parameters and
material parameters. Geometric parameters refer to the aspects
of key dimension and configuration, such as length, cross-
sectional area, second moment of area etc. Material parame-
ters refer to the physical properties of materials, such as den-
sity, elastic modulus, Poisson ratio etc.
Similarly, mechanical characteristic parameters are what
reflect structural-mechanical properties. In aero-engines, there
are many mechanical parameters, some of the most typical are
stiffness, specific strength, mechanical impedance, modal par-
ticipation factor etc.
2.2. Structural efficiency
Structural efficiency13,14 is an quantitative expression of envi-
ronmental adaptability and performances of structural sys-
tems. Its essence is to describe the influence of structural
parameters (geometric and material) on its mechanical charac-
teristic parameters (strength, stiffness, vibration mode, etc.),
which aims to quantitatively assess the benefits of new struc-
tures and new materials used in the design of structural
optimization.
Structural design of aero-engines is a repeated optimization
process to structural weight, strength, stiffness, dynamic char-
acteristics and aerodynamic performance in given working
environments. Regularly, much of the weight is used to obtain
the structural strength required to withstand huge static and
vibrational loads. On the another hand, structures must also
have sufficient stiffness to control rotor to stator clearance,
Applications of structural efficiency assessment method
which has significant impact on the aerodynamic efficiency and
safety of aero-engines. Besides, in order to achieve high aero-
dynamic efficiency, a low dynamic sensitivity to rotor unbal-
ance loads and other cases, such as airflow disturbance, is
required. As a consequence, the structural efficiency method
as an quantitative assessment of structural design quality must
contain the following three aspects:
(1) Bearing capacity. Which is used to describe the relation
between structural mass and strength property. The pur-
pose is to reflect the stress distribution under designed
loads, so as to find the minimum structural mass with
the most reasonable stress distribution, that is, the opti-
mal strength performance.
(2) Resistance to deformation (anti-deformation ability).
Which is used to describe the relation between structural
mass and stiffness property. The purpose is to reflect the
deformation distribution under limit loads, so as to find
the minimum structural mass with the coordinated
rotor-stator deformation distribution, that is, the opti-
mal stiffness performance.
(3) Dynamic environment adaptability. Which is used to
describe the relation between response properties and
dynamic environment. The purpose is to reflect the
dynamic response of the structural system under com-
plex dynamic loads, so as to find the minimum vibration
response, that is, the optimal dynamic sensitivity.
Obviously, from the above three aspects, the contents of
structural efficiency established the contact between structural
features and mechanical characteristics. This analysis method
of structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design is
so called Structure Efficiency Assessment Method (SEAM).
2.3. Structural efficiency coefficient
Based on the contents of structural efficiency, structural effi-
ciency coefficient15 was used to quantitatively characterize
structural efficiency. Definition of the structural efficiency
coefficient in aero-engines is as follows:
I ¼ a1 ES þ a2 DC þ a3 DS
Fig. 1
Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
3
where ES is engine strength item, representing the structural
bearing capacity; DC is deformation coordination item, repre-
senting resistance to deformation; DS is the dynamic sensitivity
item, representing the adaptability of the structure to dynamic
environments. In order to facilitate the calculation and com-
parison of the coefficients, ES , DC and DS should be normal-
ized. The determination of normalized method depends on
the specific evaluation purpose. In improvement design pro-
cess, prototype engine can be chosen as the benchmark; in
evaluation of new structures, design goals can be chosen as
the benchmark. In consequence of different performances in
specific structures, representing items ES , DC and DS have dif-
ferent contributions to the structural efficiency coefficient. This
difference is revealed by the weight coefficient ai ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ,
and it satisfies:
X
3
ai ¼ 1 ai P 0 ð2Þ
i¼1
Usually, the weight coefficient is constant in improvement
design process. For a new structure design procedure, it
depends on the design systems or the accumulated engineering
data.
3. Structural efficiency assessment method
3.1. Analysis purposes
The SEAM is substantially to obtain structural mechanical
parameters with normalization methods and normalized
parameters, which can represent the mechanical characteristic
from three aspects, see Fig. 1. And then according to Eq. (1),
the structural efficiency coefficient is calculated by synthesizing
the parameters to quantitatively evaluate the structural design
quality. Through carrying out integrated design of structural-
mechanical characteristics, the weak link of structural design
can be obtained.
For different structural systems, the content and scope of
mechanical evaluation parameters are different, but they must
include the above mentioned three aspects. Considering the
ð1Þ difference in structural features and design requirements,
Scheme of SEAM.
4 J. HONG et al.

Fig. 2 Overall engine deformation in transverse overload.

Fig. 3 Mechanical characteristics on bearing system.

mechanical characteristics assessment of the overall aero-
engine and its components has different emphasis.
3.1.1. Overall engine
For overall engine analysis,16–19 its emphasis is on the dynamic
sensitivity of the whole structural system to internal and exter-
nal excitation sources, and the coordination ability of rotor to
stator deformation under the limit loads, such as overload,
bird impact,20 blade loss21 etc. The former is to reduce modal
coupling between the rotor and stator structures to allow the
rotor speed to be increased to improve the thermodynamic effi-
ciency. The latter is to achieve minimal tip clearance contribut-
ing to aerodynamic efficiency of the turbine, and successfully
avoiding rubbing at the same time.
For example, the engine structure subjected to transverse
overload will occur the deformation as shown in Fig. 2(a).
Due to asymmetric constraints and loads, the stator compo-
nents deformation may be different in the vertical and horizon-
tal, as a consequence the total deformation tends to oval.
Whereas the rotor rotates in circular shape as usual, leading
to different clearance between the rotor and the stator in the
circumference, which probably cause the local rubbing as
shown in the Fig. 2(b).
3.1.2. Components
Component structures mainly include the rotor system and
bearing system. For rotor system, it is mainly to assess control
level in structural mass, deformation and vibration character-
istics; for bearing system, the focus is to evaluate dynamic stiff-
ness, vibration isolation or vibration attenuation ability of
support frame structures.
For example, as shown in Fig. 3(a), x is the operating
speed, K is the stiffness. If working speed is close to the
abruptly-dropping points of dynamic stiffness, it will greatly
reduce the anti-deformation capability of bearing structures,
which affects the clearance control. In addition, as shown in
Fig. 3(b), if the isolation efficiency is low or there exists vibra-
tion amplification in the operating speed range, the vibration
response will not be effectively controlled, and the vibrations
will be transmitted to the supporting structures, increasing
vibration level of the whole engine as well as the aircraft.
3.2. Analysis procedures
Fig. 4 shows the procedures of SEAM in structural-mechanical
characteristics integrated design, which can be divided into
four following steps:
Step. 1 Analyze the structural features and functions to
determine the most close evaluation items related to its
mechanical characteristics.
Step. 2 Take structural loads and design requirements into
consideration, establish quantification parameters or sub-
parameters for evaluation items.
Step. 3 Determine the normalization method, obtain nor-
malized parameters of evaluation, take into account the syn-
thesis method of detailed parameters.

Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
Applications of structural efficiency assessment method 5

parameters, two algorithms are proposed: logic multiplication

is used in the processing of single-state sub-parameters and all-
state sub-parameters; logical addition is used between parallel
representing items ES , DC and DS . The detailed calculation
procedure is shown in Fig. 5.

4. Applications of SEAM in aero-engines

The mechanical characteristics of a typical dual-rotor system

are calculated and analyzed by using the SEAM established
in this paper to clarify the assessment procedures and point
out the direction of structural-mechanical characteristics inte-
grated design.

4.1. Structural features

Fig. 6 is a typical high bypass ratio turbofan engine with dual-

rotor structural system, mainly including single-stage fan,
3rd-stage booster, 9th-stage High-Pressure Compressor
(HPC), 1st-stage High-Pressure Turbine (HPT), 4th-stage
Fig. 4 Analysis procedures of SEAM in integrated design of Low-Pressure Turbine (LPT), cases and bearing frames. These
structural-mechanical characteristics. component structures transmit major static and dynamic loads
associated with rotor imbalance, maneuvers, and internal
engine loads etc.
Step. 4 Analyze mechanical characteristics and calculate the The Low-Pressure Rotor (LPR) has an elongated structure
structural efficiency coefficient, after obtaining the weak link designed as flexible rotor with the 0-2-1 supporting form. The
of structures, carry out optimization design to meet the opti- High-Pressure Rotor (HPR) is designed as rigid rotor with a
mal structure performances. drum shape structure, and the 1-0-1 supporting form along
This analysis method can quantitatively evaluate the design with an inter-shaft bearing is used. The maximum design
level of structural systems, if there are different structural
schemes for comparison, the structural design quality can be
uniformly quantified to determine the optimal structure
scheme. What’s more, the evaluation parameters cannot vio-
late the principle of strength design or dynamic design specifi-
cations. It notes that, just meeting the requirements of existing
structural design standards can only ensure the performance of
aero-engine structures, but cannot guarantee the optimal struc-
tural design.

3.3. Structural efficiency coefficient algorithm

From the above analysis, it can be seen that the evaluation

parameters of mechanical characteristics include multiple lay-
ers. The structural efficiency coefficient is the top layer param-
eter, called the coefficient term. It covers three parameter
items, namely bearing capacity, anti-deformation and dynamic
environment adaptability. For each parameter item, it can be
quantified through setting a number of evaluation parameters,
collectively referred to as sub-parameters, further divided into
single-state sub-parameters and all-state sub-parameters
according to the calculation conditions. The single-state sub-
parameters corresponding to one calculation condition. For
example, in anti-deformation assessment for overall engine
structural system, deformations respectively under transla-
tional loads (g-loads) and rotor gyroscopic loads are single-
state sub-parameters. Evidently, all-state sub-parameters need
to synthesize all the single-state sub-parameters in the states.
To reflect the level of structural design intuitively, it is nec-
essary to set up a unified algorithm to synthesize multi-levels
parameters for the calculation of structural efficiency coeffi-
cient. According to the logical relation between different Fig. 5 Calculation procedure of structural efficiency coefficient.

Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
6 J. HONG et al.

Fig. 6 Typical high bypass ratio turbofan engine with dual-rotor system.

speeds for low and high-pressure rotors are 5280 r/min and into account. Average stress coefficient and stress distribution
15,000 r/min respectively. were taken as the evaluation parameters.
According to the dynamical modeling of aero-engines,22 a
three-dimensional finite element overall engine model was 1) Average stress coefficient
established in ANSYS, as shown in Fig. 7, where different col-
ors represent different materials. Average stress of the rotor in working condition can
The data of structural feature parameters of this analysis directly reflect the structural bearing capacity. Increasing the
model can be achieved from the appendix or be available from average stress level can make full use of the material properties
the corresponding author upon request. to achieve the reduction of structure mass. It is calculated as
follows:
4.2. Mechanical characteristics P
n
ri mi
4.2.1. Bearing capacity rave ¼ i¼1
Pn ð3Þ
The bearing capacity mainly reflects the relation between struc- mi
i¼1
tural mass and stress. From the perspective of structural effi-
ciency, through optimizing the structural geometry to make where ri and mi denote the stress and mass of the ith element in
full use of the material, the greatest bearing capacity can be the discretized structure, respectively.
obtained with the lightest mass cost. For comparison purposes, a normalized treatment is per-
Disk is the most important load-bearing component in formed to define the average stress coefficient:
rotors, which is chosen as the evaluation object of bearing Zr ¼ rave =rb ð4Þ
capacity. In bearing capacity analysis in rotor systems, the
load environment includes aerodynamic forces acting on where rb is the ultimate strength stress.
blades, thermal stress distribution on disks and centrifugal Zr must be less than 1 because of strength design criteria.
loads. As the blades were simplified as mass and moment of So Zr varies from 0 to 1, and the greater the value, the higher
inertia in the finite element model, aerodynamic loads acting the material utilization.
on disks were ignored. In order to simplify the calculation,
the thermal stress on the discs was neglected and only the influ- 2) Stress distribution
ence of centrifugal stress was considered. In structural effi-
ciency evaluation of specific objects, influences of Stress distribution is the volume proportion of different
aerodynamic forces and thermal stress should also be taken stress levels, calculated as:
Vðri Þ
Fðri Þ ¼  100% ð5Þ
V
where Vðri Þ denotes the element volume with ri in stress level
and V is the total volume of the structure.
Stress distribution can accurately describe the proportion of
the high-stress regions in the whole structure, so as to evaluate
the level of optimization design, for further improving of the
material use efficiency.
Fig. 8 shows the stress distribution in different disks,
according to Eqs. (3) and (4), the average stress rave and aver-
age stress coefficient Zr results are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 8 and Table 1 illustrate the utilization rate of bearing
capacity for LPR is low. The range of average stress coefficient
is: 0:20 6 Zr 6 0:54. Particularly, in the fan Zr ¼ 0:20, in the
Fig. 7 Finite element model for overall engine. 1st to 3rd stage of booster Zr ¼ 0:25. To increase the struc-

Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
Applications of structural efficiency assessment method 7

tural use efficiency of fan disk, an multi-disc structure shown

Table 1 Average stress and average stress coefficient.
in Fig. 9(a) may be considered to be adopted. For the 1st to
3rd stage of booster, use circumferential dovetail groove struc- Component Location rave (MPa) Zr
ture to replace double-deck ring may be an optimization way Fan 1st stage 178.01 0.20
to improve bearing capacity, shown as Fig. 9(b). Booster 1 st to 3rd stage 225.77 0.25
In order to analyze internal stress distribution, stress is LPT 1st stage 288.55 0.22
divided into several intervals. Take low-pressure turbine disk 4th stage 394.60 0.26
as an example, according to Eq. (5), stress distributions of HPC 1st stage 427.14 0.54
the 1st stage and 4th stage disk were calculated. In Fig. 10 3rd stage 258.15 0.33
5th stage 589.95 0.49
(a), the 1st stage turbine disk stress is mainly between
9th stage 522.26 0.44
250 MPa and 350 MPa (85.85%). In Fig. 10(b), stress distribu- HPT 1st stage 580.74 0.50
tion in the 4th stage turbine disk is relatively uniform, from
200 MPa to 550 MPa. As a result of small radius and low tan-
gential velocity, stress level is not high in the 1th stage disk.
However, the average stress may be higher in the actual condi- mum angular deformation hmax was set to be the evaluation
tion, if thermal stress and aerodynamic force were taken into parameter in anti-deformation ability analysis. Calculation
account. results of fan and turbine under gyroscopic moment are shown
in Table 2.
4.2.2. Resistance to deformation As can be seen from Table 2, turbine has the largest angular
deformation under the action of gyroscopic moment, which
In maneuver flight of aircrafts, overload acting on the overall
illustrates that the angular stiffness of turbine is lower than
engine, and gyroscopic moment acting on the rotor system are
that of fan. An optimization scheme was proposed as shown
the main causes of structural deformation. The change
in Fig. 12. Bolt connection was used in the original scheme,
between rotor and stator clearance may lead the aerodynamic
see Fig. 12(a). The bolt weight is heavy and the stiffness is
efficiency decline, even cause safety problems. The structural
low because of the connection sections. In the improved
anti-deformation ability and the rotor-stator deformation
scheme, see Fig. 12(a), an integral structure was adopted
compatibility play an important role in ensuring the normal
instead of bolt joints, stiffness loss in connection section was
operation of the engine. The evaluation of structural deforma-
avoided. The conical shell was also optimized to increase the
tion is a standard to measure the quality of engine design.
bending stiffness. However, excellent material properties and
The deformation coordination term DC in Eq. (1) is based
processing techniques were required in the new structure.
on the worst maneuver flight condition which includes transla-
For HPR system, compressor outlet and turbine inlet are
tional acceleration, angular acceleration load, and rotor gyro-
the key sections which affect aerodynamic efficiency. There-
scopic moment. Fig. 11 shows the engine components
fore, equivalent specific stiffness of these sections should be
centerline deflection in maneuver flight. Relatively large defor-
calculated as evaluation parameters in analysis of anti-
mation values occur in the middle part of low-pressure rotor
deformation ability. Table 3 is the transverse equivalent stiff-
and turbine of high-pressure rotor, where clearance closure
ness and equivalent specific stiffness in compressor outlet
may occur. These are the key points in design to avoid rubbing
and turbine inlet sections.
and ensure aerodynamic efficiency.
The results show that the equivalent stiffness of the calcu-
Since rotational inertia of fan and turbine component is
lated sections both reach to 108 N/m with a high specific stiff-
large in LPR, a significant angular deformation may occur in
ness, implying that the HPR has high rigidity with a low mass
disk-shaft connection part during maneuver flight. The maxi-

Fig. 8 Stress distribution shown by Von Mises stress contour.

Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
8 J. HONG et al.

Fig. 9 Structural optimization for fan and booster.

Fig. 10 Stress distribution in LPT.

There are two main ways to ensure the stable operation of

the engine in working speed: one is to drive the critical speed
out of the operating speed range by adjusting the mass and
stiffness distribution of the rotor; the other is to reduce the
dynamic sensitivity of rotor systems to unbalance and other
excitation sources.
Based on the above analysis, the analysis of dynamics envi-
ronment adaptability in dual-rotor systems set evaluation
parameters as follows:

1) Stiffness-mass coordination factor

Stiffness-mass coordination factor is defined as follows:

sffiffiffiffiffi
Fig. 11 Aero-engine components centerline deflection. ki
fi ¼ ð6Þ
mi
level. But the integral rigidity may be further improved by
geometry change of the drum structure, shown in Fig. 13. where ki and mi are defined as equivalent stiffness and the
Besides, utilizing counter-rotating design may be a better direc- equivalent mass of the ith sub-structure of the rotor system.
tion for the reduction of loads and weight. Obviously, the dimension of fi is same with circular frequency.
For the sake of comparison, the dimensionless stiffness-
4.2.3. Dynamic environment adaptability mass coordination factor is used in the assessment process:
In modern aero-engines, it is common that rotor bending crit-  fi
fi ¼ ð7Þ
ical speed occurs in the operating range, especially for LPR. fmin

Table 2 Mechanical evaluation parameters for LPR.

Component Maximum speed (r/min) Precession speed (r/min) Rotational inertia (kgm2) hmax (10–3 rad)
Fan 5280 30 26.57 0.566
Turbine 10.13 2.861

Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
Applications of structural efficiency assessment method 9

Fig. 12 Structural optimization for LPT conical shell.

Table 3 Mechanical evaluation parameters for HPR.

Section Transverse equivalent stiffness (108 N/m) Equivalent specific stiffness (106 N/(mkg))
Compressor outlet 2.29 0.99
Turbine inlet 6.04 2.64

where fmin is the minimum value of fi for sub-structures. the overall vibration modes without local vibration modes
The variation of stiffness-mass coordination factors along within 500 Hz, as shown in Fig. 15.
the rotor axis reflects coupling possibilities of the sub-
structure dynamic characteristics. If stiffness-mass coordina- 2) Strain energy distribution coefficient
tion factor of the sub-structure is lower than or close to the
main shaft, local vibration may be generated during the oper- Strain energy distribution coefficient is the ratio of rotor
ation. The physical meaning of high stiffness-mass coordina- structure strain energy to the total rotor-support system strain
tion factor can be understood as the sub-structure has high energy at critical speed. It can be expressed as:
resonance frequency, where vibrations will not easily occur. Wrotor;i
For typical dual-rotor system in aero-engines, the recom- gi ¼  100% ð8Þ
Wsys;i
mended sub-structure division of LPR and HPR are shown
in Fig. 14. The LPR was divided into four parts, 1 to 4 are where i is the critical speed order, Wrotor;i and Wsys;i respectively
sub-structure numbers. The HPR was divided into sub- represent the strain energy of rotor structure and rotor-
structure No.1 and No.2. Stiffness-mass coordination factor support system.
calculation results for LPR and HPR are shown in Table 4. The ideal state is that the rotor system has no strain energy,
Analyzing the stiffness-mass coordination factors of sub- all deformation energy is concentrated in the support struc-
structures, it can be drawn that the fan, booster and turbine tures and then consumed by damping. So strain energy ration
components of LPR have higher numerical value (5.94, 8.12 of the support can be set as the evaluation parameter, which
and 4.24 respectively) compared with the main shaft part, so can be expressed as the percentage of support strain energy
local vibration does not easily occur in these parts. For to total system energy:
HPR, although the 1st and 2nd stage disk is a cantilever struc-
 Wsup;i
ture, the stiffness-mass coordination factor is relatively high gi ¼  100% ð9Þ
(3.98). Vibration modes of the whole structure in operating Wsys;i
speed will appear as the No.2 sub-structure of HPR. It can where Wsup;i is the strain energy concentrated in support struc-
be verified from the free mode analysis. Where there are only 
tures. The maximal value of gi is 1, means all strain energy can

Fig. 13 Structural optimization for HPT shaft.

Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
10 J. HONG et al.

Fig. 14 Sub-structure division for LPR and HPR.

Table 4 Stiffness-mass coordination factor for dual-rotor system.

Structure system Sub-structure No. Mass (kg) Equivalent Stiffness-mass coordination Dimensionless stiffness-mass
stiffness (108 N/m) factor (rad/s) coordination factor
LPR 1 127.60 7.92 2492.0 5.94
2 31.47 3.65 3403.4 8.12
3 85.54 0.15 419.3 1.00
4 117.11 3.70 1778.0 4.24
HPR 1 22.20 4.46 4484.3 3.98
2 185.35 2.348 1125.5 1.00

Fig. 15 First three order free modes of HPR.

be absorbed by support structures, there is no strain energy
distribution in the rotor.
For dual-rotor systems, LPR and HPR are coupled
together through the inter-shaft bearing, so the coupling effect
must be considered in calculation of critical speed for strain
energy analysis. Using the Reduction Method23 to calculate
the critical speed of co-rotating dual-rotor system. Campbell
diagram for critical speed analysis is shown in Fig. 16. The
points AL, BL, AH, BH, etc. are critical speeds of the system,
where subscript L, H means excited by LPR and HPR respec-
tively. Strain energy distribution and vibration mode descrip-
tion are respectively shown in Table 5 and Fig. 17.
There are three-order critical speeds (AL, BL, FH) in operat-
ing speed range. For HPR, the dynamic environment adapt-
ability is better with low strain energy distribution coefficient
in each critical speed, 0.05, 1.24 and 13.06 respectively.
Whereas for LPR, strain energy distribution coefficient is high
in AL and BL, 42.71% and 45.86% respectively, which implies
that the bending strain energy probably has a great bad influ-
ence on the robustness of connecting structures. In structural
design process, corresponding measures should be taken to
reduce strain energy distribution for LPR, e.g. the use of dam-
per or high-speed flexible rotor dynamic balancing technology.
4.3. Calculation of structural efficiency coefficient
In above analysis, structural-mechanical characteristics were
evaluated form bearing capacity, resistance to deformation
and dynamic environment adaptability three aspects. Evalua-
tion parameters were calculated in each step of the analysis.
According to the calculation procedure of structural efficiency
coefficient shown in Fig. 5, evaluation items ES , DC and DS for
LPR and HPR can be obtained and shown in Table 6. Then
the final structural efficiency coefficient I was calculated
according to Eq. (1).
In Eq. (2), the values of weight coefficient a = (i = 1, 2, 3)
depend on specific design objective. Both fan/turbine disk and
rotor shaft structures were considered in the LPR and HPR
systems. The requirements for structural bearing capacity of
disks (ES ) and for deformation resistance abilities (DC ),
dynamic environment adaptabilities (DS ) of shafts are almost
the same. The empirical formula may be set as
I ¼ 0:4ES þ 0:3DC þ 0:3DS or I ¼ 13 ES þ 13 DC þ 13 DS (equally-
weighted coefficients). The latter was adopted in structural effi-
ciency coefficient calculation in Table 6. The final calculation
results are as follows.

Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
Applications of structural efficiency assessment method 11

Fig. 16 Campbell diagram for critical speed analysis in dual-rotor system.

Table 5 Strain energy distribution of dual-rotor system under critical speeds.

Critical speed point Excitation source Speed (r/min) Strain energy ratio (%)
LPR HPR Support LPR HPR
AL LPR 3126 12,652 57.29 42.71 0.05
BL LPR 3777 13,349 52.90 45.86 1.24
FH HPR 2225 11,487 79.13 7.81 13.06

Fig. 17 Vibration modes of dual-rotor system under critical speeds.

From the results of structural efficiency evaluation, it can
be concluded that the efficiency of LPR is relatively low,
mainly embodied in low bearing capacity and non-
deformability (0.20). It is also proved the coefficient term
can reflect the evaluation items synthetically. In subsequent
improvement design, it is necessary to optimize the above men-
tioned two aspects by integrated design of structural and
mechanical characteristics, finally achieve high structural effi-
ciency design.
5. Conclusions
Structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design is an
efficient and effective way for structural optimization in design

Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
12
Table 6 Structural efficiency coefficient evaluation results.
Evaluation item LPR
system
Bearing capacity ES 0.20
Resistance to deformation DC 0.20
Dynamics environment adaptability DS 0.48
Structural efficiency coefficient I 0.29
of aero-engines. Structural efficiency can evaluate the struc-
tural design quality quantitatively. SEAM was proposed to
conduct the implementation of integrated design in a standard
and uniform approach. The following conclusions can be
drawn in this paper:
1) The concept of structural efficiency was introduced to
establish links between structural feature parameters
and mechanical characteristic parameters. The way of
optimizing mechanical characteristics by improving
structural features was provided, which aims to quanti-
tatively assess the design quality of structures and guide
the direction of optimal design.
2) Procedures of SEAM and structural efficiency coeffi-
cient algorithm were presented. For different parts, com-
ponents, overall structure systems in aero-engines, the
method can be used to consider bearing capacity, anti-
deformation ability and dynamics environment adapt-
ability under static loads, quasi-static loads and dynamic
loads. One parameter can be used to comprehensively
quantify the structural design.
3) For applications in a typical dual-rotor system of aero-
engines, structural efficiency coefficient of HPR (0.43) is
higher than LPR (0.29). The mechanical weaknesses
were manifested in bearing capacity (0.20) and anti-
deformation ability (0.20). Base on structural features,
functions and working conditions of analysis objects,
the results can be a good visualized appraisal with
appropriate evaluation parameters selection, ultimately
achieve the integrated design of structural and mechan-
ical characteristics.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to AECC Commercial Aircraft Engine
Co., LTD for providing the financial support for this work
and for giving permission to publish this work.
References
1. Liu H, Tian YL, Gao Y, Bai JP, Zheng JG. System of systems
oriented flight vehicle conceptual design: perspectives and pro-
gresses. Chin J Aeronaut 2015;28(3):617–35.
2. Dow NF, Hickman WA. Comparison of the structural efficiency
of panels having straight-web and curved-web Y-section stiffeners.
J Trauma 1949;56(4):915–7.
Please cite this article in press as: HONG J et al. Applications of structural efficiency assessment method on structural-mechanical characteristics integrated design in
aero-engines, Chin J Aeronaut (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2019.12.030
J. HONG et al.
3. Dow NF, Rosen BW. Structural efficiency of orthotropic cylin-
drical shells subjected to axial compression. Proceedings of the 2nd
HPR aerospace sciences meeting. Reston, VA: AIAA; 1965.
system 4. Williams JG, Mikulas MM. Analytical and experimental study of
structurally efficient composite hat-stiffened panels loaded in axial
0.33
compression. Proceedings of the ASME/AIAA/SAE 16th struc-
0.38
tures, structural dynamics, and materials conference. Denver, USA.
0.59
Reston: AIAA; 1975.
0.43
5. Williams JG, Stein M. Buckling behavior and structural efficiency
of open-section stiffened composite compression panels. AIAA J
1976;14(11):1618–26.
6. Stein M, Williams JG. Buckling and structural efficiency of
sandwich-blade stiffened composite compression panels. Washing-
ton, D.C.: NASA; 1978, Report No.: TP-12691.
7. Fischler JE. Structural design of supersonic cruise aircraft.
Proceedings of the NASA conference publication. Reston,
VA: AIAA; 1976.
8. Jegley DC. Structural efficiency and behavior of pristine and
notched stitched structure. Proceedings of the SAMPE fall
technical conference. Fort Worth, USA: ISTC; 2011.
9. Buckney N, Pirrera A, Green SD, Weaver PM. Structural
efficiency of a wind turbine blade. Thin-Walled Struct 2013;67
(2):144–54.
10. Storace A. Turbine engine structural efficiency determination. 25th
joint propulsion conference; 1989 Jul 12-16; Monterey,
USA. Reston: AIAA; 1989.
11. Zhang DY, Ma YH, Liang ZC, Hong J. Evaluation method on
whole engine structural design—structural efficiency. J Aerospace
Power 2010;25(10):2170–6 [Chinese].
12. Zhang DY, Hong J, Ma YH, Liang ZC. Novel structural design of
mixed-flow compressor with high structural efficiency. J Aerospace
Power 2013;28(4):866–71.
13. Ma YH, Chen LL, Zhang DY, Hong J. Assessment parameters
and calculation methods of structural efficiency on rotor system in
aero engine. J Aerospace Power 2013;28(7):1598–606.
14. Ma YH, Cao C, Li X, Hong J. Assessment method of structural
efficiency on bearing system in aero-engine. J Aerospace Power
2016;31(2):274–81.
15. Yu PC, Ma YH, Wang C, Cao C, Hong J. Evaluation parameters
and calculation of structural efficiency on whole aero-engine. J
Aerospace Power 2016;31(7):1744–53.
16. Boratgis E, Coffin JB. Turbine engine bearing support. United
States Patent: 6428269. 2001 Apr 18.
17. Allen JW, Udall KF. Turbofan with frangible rotor support.
United States Patent: 6109022. 2000 Aug 29.
18. Van Duyn K G. Turbine engine bearing. United States Patent:
6331078. 2001 Dec 18.
19. Van Duyn K G. Bearing support. United States Patent: 7097413.
2006 Aug 29.
20. Liu J, Li YL, Yu XC, Gao XS, Liu ZX. Design of aircraft
structures against threat of bird strikes. Chin J Aeronaut 2018;31
(7):1559–67.
21. Kalinowski P, Bargen O, Liebich R. Vibrations of rotating
machinery due to sudden mass loss. Proceedings of the 8th
IFToMM International Conference on Rotor Dynamics; 2010;
Seoul, Korea. IFToMM; 2010.
22. Zhang DY, Liu YH, Hong J, Ma YH. Investigation on dynamical
modeling and vibration characteristics for aero engine. J Propul
Technol 2015;36(5):768–73.
23. Zhang DY, Liu YH, Liang ZC, Ma YH, Hong J. Prediction for
critical speed of double spools system in aero engines. J Propul
Technol 2015;36(2):292–8.