See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338397711

Collaborative Aircraft Engine Preliminary Design using a Virtual Engine

Platform, Part B: Application

Conference Paper · January 2020

DOI: 10.2514/6.2020-0124

CITATIONS READS

6 377

8 authors, including:

Maximilian Vieweg Stanislaus Reitenbach

German Aerospace Center (DLR) German Aerospace Center (DLR)
13 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   100 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carsten Hollmann Markus Schnoes

German Aerospace Center (DLR) German Aerospace Center (DLR)
17 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   182 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PEGASUS View project

TIMECOP-AE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stanislaus Reitenbach on 03 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Collaborative Aircraft Engine Preliminary Design using a
Virtual Engine Platform, Part B: Application

M. Vieweg∗ , C. Hollmann† , S. Reitenbach‡ , M. Schnoes§ , T. Behrendt¶ , A. Krumme‖ R. Meier zu Ummeln∗∗ T. Otten††

German Aerospace Center (DLR), Cologne, Germany, D-51147

Digitalization is of growing importance for industries and research institutions as it simpli-

fies and accelerates product development. By that it also offers the ability to reduce risks and
costs. Among others, also the aircraft engine sector is facing such a shift of paradigm, entail-
ing a huge potential to support the preliminary design workflow of projected next generation
engine concepts.
For that purpose the German Aerospace Center (DLR) has started the development of the
virtual engine platform GTlab (Gas Turbine Laboratory). It offers a high degree of usability
and flexibility with its modular architecture comprising standardized interfaces and thus allows
a simple integration of arbitrary user-defined tools.
At the heart of the present paper is the application of GTlab in a realistic example of
an ultra high bypass-ratio (BPR ≈ 16) aircraft engine with an anticipated state of the art
technology of 2028. The design workflow starts with a 0D thermodynamic performance model
and continues with 1D and 2D mid-fidelity preliminary aerodynamic and structural design
tools. In this context, challenges are highlighted that were encountered in the course of the
process chains and during data handling processes between different fidelity-levels. The mid-
fidelity preliminary component designs are carried out by various departments of the DLR and
comprise the turbo-components as well as the combustor and structural parts. By that, also
the iterative procedure is highlighted, since the initial performance model is updated everytime
variations are encountered in the aerodynamic component designs. Also the assessment of
fan noise is integrated into the preliminary engine design procedure summing up the multi-
disciplinary design loop for the evaluation of future engine concepts.

I. Nomenclature

ACDC = Advanced Compressor Design Code

𝐴𝑁 2 = Structural loading parameter
BPR = Bypass Ratio
CAD = Computer Aided Design
CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics
ComDAT = Combustor predesign and thermal analysis tool
CoSMA = Combustor strength and modal analysis
CR = Cruise Condition
CSM = Computational Structural Mechanics
DLR = German Aerospace Center
DLRp2 = DLR Performance Program
EIS = Entry Into Service
EOF = End of Field Condition
FN = Net Thrust
∗ Research Associate, Institute of Propulsion Technology, Linder Hoehe, 51147 Cologne, Germany, maximilian.vieweg@dlr.de
† Research Associate, Institute of Propulsion Technology, Linder Hoehe, 51147 Cologne, Germany, carsten.hollmann@dlr.de
‡ Research Associate, Institute of Propulsion Technology, Linder Hoehe, 51147 Cologne, Germany, stanislaus.reitenbach@dlr.de
§ Research Associate, Institute of Propulsion Technology, Linder Hoehe, 51147 Cologne, Germany, markus.schnoes@dlr.de
¶ Research Associate, Institute of Propulsion Technology, Linder Hoehe, 51147 Cologne, Germany, thomas.behrendt@dlr.de
‖ Research Associate, Institute of Propulsion Technology, 37073 Goettingen, Germany, alexander.krumme@dlr.de
∗∗ Research Associate, Institute of Propulsion Technology, 10623 Berlin, Germany, robert.meierzuummeln@dlr.de
†† Research Associate, Institute of Propulsion Technology, Linder Hoehe, 51147 Cologne, Germany, tom.otten@dlr.de

1
GTlab = Gas Turbine Laboratory
ℎ𝑏 = HPC exit blade height
HPC = High Pressure Compressor
HPT = High Pressure Turbine
ISA = International Standard Atmosphere
LPT = Low Pressure Turbine
MTO = Maximum Take-Off Condition
MTOW = Maximum Take-Off Weight
OPR = Overall Pressure Ratio
PAX = Passengers Approximately
PEGASUS = Preliminary Gas Turbine Assessment and Sizing
PERFECT = Preliminary Design and evaluation of future engine concepts
PrEDiCT = Performance Prediction and Early Design Code for axial Turbines
RANS = Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
T = Temperature
TBC = Thermal Barrier Coating
TIT = Turbine Inlet Temperature
TOC = Top of Climb Condition
TOFL = Take-off Field Length
TSFC = Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption
UHBR = Ultra high bypass-ratio
𝑊 = Mass flow
Δ𝑇𝐼 𝑆 𝐴 = Temperature difference to standard atmosphere
𝜓 = Aerodynamic loading parameter
Π = Pressure ratio
3, 4, 45 = HPC exit, HPT inlet, LPT inlet station

II. Introduction
Digitalization plays a dominant role in today’s industry and research institutions as it simplifies and eases development
of new products by providing a more holistic view of projected design concepts. Among others, also the aviation
industry is facing a trend towards digitalization with the objective of virtual certifications [1] and the representation of
the final product until its disposal in terms of the digital twin [2].
For that purpose the virtual engine platform GTlab (Gas Turbine Laboratory) has been under development at the
German Aerospace Center (DLR) for several years [3]. This platform suits the needs and requirements for addressing
future projects in the context of next generation jet engines. It comprises a modular architecture ensuring a high degree
of usability, expandability, and flexibility.
The collaborative process architecture within GTlab, which is inspired by the AGILE project [4, 5] is divided into
three majors domains to aid the management of the entire design process chain. A data server acts as the neutral domain
and includes the digital engine representation based on the central data model. The tools and procedures associated with
the individual disciplines such as engine performance, conceptual design, component aerodynamics, and mechanical
design are available via the service domain. The data exchange is realized via the neutral domain using the interfaces of
the central data model API. Finally, the administration domain is responsible for the management of the entire design
process chain. An integrator monitors the process, merges data and initiates additional design iterations. Further details
on the collaborative process architecture can be found in Part A of this paper series [3] (submitted at the time of writing)
in which the methodology is explored more extensively. The present paper contributes to the application of GTlab in a
DLR project-based example of the preliminary design of an ultra high bypass-ratio (UHBR) aircraft engine.
First the methodology will be presented, which incorporates the performance cycle along with its conceptual design.
Furthermore the detailed component design methodologies are presented, which include the compressor, combustor and
the turbines. Also, due to increasing bypass-ratios of modern aircraft engines and acoustical improvements of other
noise sources over the last decades, like the jet or compressor noise, the fan moved more and more into the spotlight of
noise assessment and became one of the major noise sources nowadays. Therefore, a preliminary acoustic evaluation of
the noise characteristics of the engine’s fan stage is conducted, including the assessment during the most demanding
engine condition. The main engine features are then descriped along with the general model layout. Finally, results at

2
engine’s and components’ level are presented.

III. Application Overview

The methodology of the virtual engine platform GTlab [3] is exemplified by an use case taken from DLR’s project
PERFECT (Preliminary design and evaluation of future engine concepts).
The engine model under investigation comprises a ultra high bypass-ratio (UHBR) of approximately 16 to achieve
high propulsive efficiency and is suited to a middle of the market aircraft configuration provided by DLR’s Institute of
System Architectures in Aeronautics, see Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Aircraft layout [7].

This configuration was designed on the basis of B767 reference aircraft, which is expected to fill the gap in the
current porfolio of aircrafts future customer request at best. The technology level for this aircraft is assumed to be
state of the art in 2028. It consists of high aspect ratio wings made with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer, for weight
reduction purposes. Furthermore, the aircraft was designed to operate at airports with short runways in order to expand
the potential customer market for operation. The design take-off field length was therefore set intentionally low, which
has a direct impact on the thrust requirements for the geared turbofan engine. Approximately 25 % of world’s major
airports offer a 2000 m runway or less, see [8]. This is accompanied by a slight overscaling of the engine, which makes
engine derating more efficient on the other side. The top level aircraft requirements for this project are summarized in
Table 1 and were considered constant throughout the subsequent design procedure.

Table 1 TOP LEVEL AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEW DESIGN

Parameter Unit Value

Number PAX [-] 250
Design Range [km] 8500
TOFL [m] 2000
MTOW [t] 140
Wing Span [m] 52

The critical mission points derived from aircraft requirements are listed in Table 2. Those dimension determining
operating points comprise the aerodynamic design point at cruise condition (CR) and three off-design points: The
maximum take-off (MTO) and end of field (EOF) points constitute the operating conditions that reveal the highest
mechanical and thermal loading and are therefore critical for specifying the required cooling air flow. Furthermore, the
top of climb point (TOC) is considered, portraying the highest corrected speeds and mass flows.
Also, reasonable assumptions were made to provide a power extraction of 105 kW of power from the high-pressure
shaft and 0.75 kg s−1 of bleed-air at cruise conditions for onboard electricity and air conditioning.

3
 Table 2 MISSION DESIGN POINT SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE UHBR-ENGINE

Parameter Unit CR MTO EOF TOC

FN [kN] 31 230 165 37
Altitude [m] 10688 0 0 10688
Mach [-] 0.83 0.0 0.25 0.83
Δ𝑇𝐼 𝑆 𝐴 [K] 0 15 15 10

IV. Design Workflow

The general procedure is based on [6] and is further extended by the preliminary propulsor design and corresponding
acoustic assessment. It is a highly iterative, multi-disciplinary and multi-fidelity design process involving several
simulation tools and experts from various departments at different DLR locations, see Fig. 2b.
The dashed boxes in Fig. 2a symbolize the specific workflow that is assigned to the thermodynamic and conceptional
design phase. Its main target is to create an initial performance cycle to serve as a basis for the subsequent more detailed
component designs. The workflow of the tasks assigned to the performance is depicted in more detail in Fig. 2b.
Another task that is dedicated to the thermodynamic discipline is to update the model using the results of the detailed
component designs of the different departments and to trigger a new iteration. This applies to thermodynamic as well as
geometric engine data.

Market Specification Requirements

research RFP

Preliminary studies Mission, TLARs

Concept
Cycle
Engine concept
Thermodynamic
Design Parametric studies
Thermodynamic
Off-Design Limits

Aerodynamic
Acoustics Fan/Compressor
Off-design Design point
Fan noise Burner
Turbine

Structure Geometry sketch Mass penalty

Disks
Blades
Shafts Mass estimation
Containment
(a) General process flow chart (b) Performance specific flow chart

Fig. 2 Flow charts for preliminary engine design.

Details of the various tasks triggered in the overall preliminary design process chain are shown in the following
subsections, comprising the performance cycle, the conceptual design as well as the aeordynamic design of the
compressors, turbines and combustor and the assessment of fan noise.
The assessment of the structural parts comprises the blades, blade foots, disks, shafts, casings and the gear box and
its methodology is described only briefly in here. The maximum stresses were determined based on the most demanding
operating condition and it was ensured that enough safety margin against failure was prevailing. Further details can be
found in [6].

A. Performance Cycle
For the thermodynamic simulations the DLR Performance Program (DLRp2) was used [9]. DLRp2 is a modularly
structured performance synthesis code developed at the engine department of the Institute of Propulsion Technology

4
at DLR. It allows for steady-state and transient simulations of gas turbines and aero-engines to address topics in the
fields of power generation and aviation propulsion systems. It provides interfaces that enable its integration into other
framework programs, for instance GTlab.
A great effort is spent to model the performance cycle as accurate as possible, which entails the inclusion of a
broad range of parameter limitations to provide realistic conditions for the subsequent component designs. That is to
allow only physically reasonable performance cycles to be pursued further. At the same time, with the prescription
of corresponding technology descriptors for year 2028, the target was to maximize the engine’s efficiency. For that
purpose parametric studies were conducted to evaluate the overall design space along with the inclusion of constraints
(Fig. 2b). That is, to sort out apparently promising designs by taking into account limiting off-design operating points
and aerodynamic as well as structural loading parameters. The off-design analysis also supports the estimation of the
required cooling air flow for the design point.

B. Conceptual Design
The procedure shown in Fig. 2b also includes estimates of initial components’ masses, the overall engine mass
as well as the annulus shape. The applied tools are designed to deliver fast results in order to serve as a basis for the
subsequent more detailed component design tools. The mass estimation is based on a statistical part based approach
[10]. A detailed explanation of the underlying methodology and its implementation within the GTlab framework can
be found in [11] and is used in here. The maximum values occuring during the mission design points with regards to
temperatures and rotational speeds were taken as the performance input data for the weight calculation procedure.
Furthermore, the annulus shape is generated within this low-fidelity cycle design process. This methodology is also
described in more detail in [11] and yields, among others, the main engine dimensioning parameters such as engine
length and fan diameter. The geometry and weight estimations can be used to take into account engine installation
effects: Increased weight and diameter lead to higher thrust requirements and to higher nacelle drag. This is typically an
iterative process involving also the aircraft design, because if engine weight and dimension alter, also the pylon and
wing require a redesign leading to an iterational process comprising aircraft and engine design. For the present study,
however, the aircraft is assumed to remain constant.

C. Compressors
The compressor design is conducted with the streamline curvature program ACDC developed at DLR [12]. The main
feature of the tool is a novel airfoil family, which is based on a parametric study on optimal airfoil shapes for varying
design requirements. These requirements include the geometric variables blade stagger angle, pitch-chord ratio and
profile area as well as aerodynamic variables of the design point, which comprise the inflow Mach number, streamtube
contraction, Reynolds number and aerodynamic load. For more than 2000 design requirements, airfoil geometries
were optimized with the aim to increase the working range and minimize the losses. Based on the resulting database,
methods from the field of machine learning are applied to estimate the airfoil geometry for new design requirements.
These functional relations are the foundation of the new airfoil family, which is embedded in the throughflow code. The
design workflow, including the airfoil series, is given in Fig. 3. Inside ACDC the blade rows are described by loss and
deviation correlations for compressor airfoils which are calibrated based on computations with the Euler-boundary
layer code MISES [13]. Additionally, correlations for 3D flow phenomena are included in the blade row model. These
include correlations to estimate secondary flow and clearance losses. The losses are distributed over blade span by
prescribed functions. Span-wise mixing is accounted for by a turbulent diffusion process. The compressor design
system is validated for different multi-stage compressors. Particularly, the design of the compression system of another
geared turbofan engine was studied in detail in [14]. For the current engine, the geometry of the booster, the inter
compressor duct and the first two stages of the high pressure compressor have been validated with 3D CFD.

D. Combustor
The combustor preliminary design is performed by the tool ComDAT (Combustor preDesign and thermal Analysis
Tool). A typical run consists of the following 4 steps: First, thermodynamic and geometric boundary conditions are used
for combustor sizing and geometry estimation. Then, a detailed design and optimization process of the selected cooling
concept is conducted. This is followed by an optimization of the air flow distribution and the design of staging concept
for lean combustors. Optionally, a fourth step comprises the calculation of the spatially resolved wall temperatures for
liner and thermal barrier coating (TBC), which is used as input data for the stress analysis.

5
 Compressor Throughflow computations
Design requirements (Streamline curvature)

VCC airfoil series

Airfoil design
requirements

Loss and
deviation

Parametric airfoils Blade generation

Fig. 3 Overview of the ACDC workflow.

ComDAT runs with a small set of input data from the compressor exit plane and the combustor exit plane. These
data include total pressure and temperature, mass flow and Mach number together with characteristic radii. In the
first three steps the optimization problems are solved e.g. minimization of the liner surface area or minimization of
the cooling air consumption for a parameterized cooling concept. An evolutionary algorithm varies the respective
parameters within defined boundaries in order to minimize an objective function. Additional constraints are taken
into account as penalties in the objective functions, e.g. combustor height or wall temperature homogeneity. By this
means actual multi-objective optimizations are translated into single-objective optimizations for a more automatic work
flow. After the third step the geometry of the combustor, the air flow distribution including burner and staging concept
(if applicable) together with the parameters of the cooling concept are defined. A more detailed description of this
combustor predesign process is given in [15]. In the optional step a spatially resolved wall temperature distribution is
calculated. A longitudinal slice is extracted out of the combustor liner and is meshed automatically. A trust region
solver is used to determine the temperatures of all cells by balancing the heat transfer of each cell with its neighbours
across the respective interface surfaces. Conduction, convection and radiation are taken into account. Convective heat
transfer coefficients are calculated from correlations. Different single-skin and dual-skin cooling concepts like film
cooling and effusion cooling with optional impingement cooling are implemented together with a TBC. Effusion cooling
holes are not resolved in the mesh and heat transfer inside effusion cooling holes is handled by heat sinks in the cells
adjacent to the cooling holes. A description of this step and how the temperature distribution is used for a low-order
stress analysis is provided in [6].

E. Turbines
The turbine predesign program is called PrEDiCT and provides a methodology of evolving and constantly
recalculating the design while adapting axial velocity levels, stage loadings, spacings and dimensionless blade
parameters [16]. This resembles the first and most important step of the preliminary turbine design process. PrEDiCT
enables to design all turbine sections, considering possibly different spool speeds, at the same time and to tailor not only
each section but also their connecting interducts. Beside a complete annulus geometry and performance data for each
stage of all turbine spools, another important result of PrEDiCT is the input data for the DLR BladeGenerator tool that is
used to create numerous 2D blade profile contours for each row and at several radial positions [17]. Further improvement
of these geometries to create more profound profiles is carried out by the turbine designer using 2D throughflow
calculation tools. Ultimately, an initial 3D geometry can be created from the profiles using DLR BladeGenerator again,
accompanied by further checking and eventually correcting for radial stacking and 3D throat area evolution. Despite its
predesign character, such a geometry is ready to be directly transferred to higher fidelity tools and processes involving
3D RANS CFD and 3D FEM CSM.

F. Noise
An analytical approach is applied in order to predict the fan noise [18]. This approach is incorporated in a fast
in-house tool called PropNoise. The approach is well suited during preliminary design because no detailed but rather

6
general input about the geometry and aerodynamics of the fan is necessary. Furthermore, robust as well as uniform
models help to understand the physics behind the acoustic calculations. The analytical approach is able to predict tonal
and broadband noise for ducted and open configurations.
For the aeroacoustic assessment of fan noise, information about the flow field around the fan is required. PropNoise
has an integrated aerodynamic module that calculates the flow on a meanline station. It also features an interface
to RANS simulated flow data [19]. These two user modes are shown in Fig. 4 on the right and left hand side. But
since throughflow solvers are more popular and appropriate for preliminary design studies, an interface [20] to ACDC
was established and integrated into GTlab. It automatically receives the required data from the engine’s data model
and converts it to the appropriate input for the acoustical evaluation. The input is collected from the performance
results (shaft speed, ambient conditions), flow solver (losses, pressure, temperature, flow velocities and flow angles)
and geometry (blade count, duct contour, blade geometry and geometry of profiles). Most of these parameters are
interpolated from the flow solver’s grid to the radial stations needed for the aeroacoustical calculations. The method
used for calculation of unsteady aerodynamics for the aforementioned meanline approach is applied to every radial
station, assuming that the streamlines are independent from each other.

stand-alone PropNoise throughflow-informed PropNoise RANS-informed PropNoise

engine and steady aero. 2D throughflow solution 3D RANS solution

fan design

extraction of flow extraction of flow

meanline unsteady aero.
and geometry and geometry
approach

radial extrapolation
extrapolation of wake
and potential field

acoustic model

Fig. 4 Overview of the three hybrid modes for calculating fan acoustics within PropNoise.

G. Iterative Procedure
The component designs generated by the component departments revealed deviations in the geometry and dimensions
of the components compared to the initial conceptual design. These deviations were consequently fed back into the
geometric datamodel of GTlab. This was done within each engine design procedure step of the overall iteration, see Fig.
2a. This affected especially the turbo-component inlet and outlet conditions. Also, it was important to match the outlet
radial dimensions of the compressor to the inlet radial dimensions of the combustor. A regular exchange between the
compressor and combustor design was necessary in order to bring the radii to convergence. The reason for that was that
the initial estimate of the compressor outlet radius, estimated within the conceptual design, is not meant to be targeted
by the more detailed compressor design. Thus the input geometry for the combustor was constantly varied.
Next to the geometric variations, also the performance of the components were changed. That influenced mainly the
efficiencies of the turbo-components. The initial assumptions of the efficiencies in the performance model of these
components were updated consequently throughout the design process. Another valuable feedback of the component
design was whether or not the initial targeted technology limits were feasible and not subject to any further constraints
in the realsitc component design, like e.g. too small core sizes or structral limiations.

V. Engine Design Features and Constraints

This section covers the main features of the engine as well as the underlying technology assumptions and the
subsequent design and off-design constraints of the thermodynamic cycle design. The projected high bypass engine is
based on a technology status of approximately year 2028.
The improvements of this engine compared to current technology levels are based on an evolutionary enhanced
design concept. The trend of feasable turbine inlet temperatures (𝑇4 ) over technology years has been explored by
many previous works already [8] and stem from rarely published data. Generally, the gap between 𝑇4 and maximum

7
permissible metal temperatures increased over the years due to advancements in additive manufacturing allowing for
more efficient turbine cooling technologies and thus higher 𝑇4 . Extrapolating published temperature data into the time
domain of 2028 end up at 𝑇4 ’s of approximately 2050 K or higher, which is applied for instance to a projected engine for
EIS of 2035 in [21]. In the current case lower values were selected to decrease thermal loading upfront, see Table 3.
The LPT inlet temperature 𝑇45 was limited to allow for uncooled blades in the low pressure turbine section. Within this
projected engine the customer bleed air is drawn from the thermodynamic cycle instead of a separate source, as it is
done in other engine concepts [21].
Next to the temperature limitations the core size was constraint against lower limits using an approximation of the
HPC exit blade height ℎ 𝑏 as a descriptor. Furthermore, the LPT exit metric 𝐴𝑁 2 was constraint to maintain reasonable
structural loading and the aerodynamic loading parameter 𝜓 of each turbine was examined as well. A summary of all
constraints is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

Parameter Unit Max. Value Min. Value

𝑇3 [K] 970 -
𝑇4 [K] 1900 -
𝑇45 [K] 1250 -
ℎ𝑏 [mm] - 13
𝐴𝑁 2 LPT [m2 s−2 ] 13000 -
𝜓 HPT [-] 2 -
𝜓 LPT [-] 2 -

The targeted ultra high bypass-ratio of the turbofan engine is accompanied with a gear box between the low-pressure
shaft and the fan to alleviate fan tip mach numbers whilst maintaining a sufficiently high circumferential speed in the
LPT. This reduces stage number compared to conventional direct drive turbofans and thus weight and installation
penalties. The performance representation of the gear box was included within the fan component using a single
parameter description to translate the rotational speed of the low-pressure shaft into the fan rotational speed. The
accompanied losses were summarized in the low-pressure shaft mechanical efficiency. For the preliminary design of the
gear box the tool GtGearbox was used [22]. This tool features an optimization for the minimization of width, diameter
and mass whilst fulfilling safety factor requirements.
The fan pressure ratio reduces as the BPR increases to maintain optimum ratio of nozzles speed ratio [23]. This
introduces new challenges because the fan operating line is shifted closer to the surge line at part load when the
propelling nozzle un-chokes [24]. To circumvent this issue some form of variability must be introduced: Either a
variable area nozzle or a variable pitch fan aid to alleviate the stability issue encountered at low speeds. The variable
pitch fan modifies the characteristic while the variable area nozzle shifts the operating point to higher mass flows as it
opens. For the current BPR a variable area nozzle seemed promising as the opening area is low and the fixed weight of
a variable pitch fan concept would over-penalize the overall system.

VI. Model Description

The thermodynamic cycle scheme of the engine model within GTlab’s performance model editor is depicted in
Fig. 5. It features a cooled HPT with cooling air extracted from the HPC, additionally a bleed splitter is used between the
HPC and the combustor to bleed air from the exit of the HPC. This simplifies the corresponding HPC component design.
Also, the cooling air for the first turbine nozzle guide vane is extracted from the burner module. The required amount of
cooling air was determined by means of design-off-design simulations to limit the turbine blade metal temperatures at
the most demanding operating conditions and was further refined by the turbine component design. At the same time
the detrimental cooling influence on efficiency was taken into account [25].
Generic maps were applied for the simulation of off-design performance behavior of the turbo-components. These
maps were scaled during design accordingly to match the prevailing massflow and pressure ratio requirements. For the
first estimation of turbo-component efficiencies, correlations based on [25] were used along with appropriate technology

8
 DUCT3
16
13 18
BYPNOZZLE
SAS

8
1 2 21 22 24 25 3 31 4 44 45 5
DUCT1 DUCT2 BURNER
BLEED DUCT4
BOOSTER HPC LPT CORENOZZLE
HPT

INTAKE FAN HPSHAFT

LPSHAFT

Fig. 5 Thermodynamic cycle schematic of the UHBR engine model.

factors that suit the targeted state of the art technology of year 2028. These correlations were embedded into the overall
design laws that were manifested in the equation system of the performance solver.
Additionally, the equation system features a fixed averaged circumferential speed of the HPC inlet rotor blade
using the high-pressure shaft rotational speed as the independent parameter. That is to control excessive mechanical or
aerodynamic loading within the parametric study when different core sizes are investigated. Also, the fan pressure
ratio is adjusted so that the ideal nozzle speed ratio is matched to the transmission efficiency, which leads to highest
efficiencies according to [23]. The compression split ratio is set to a value of Π 𝐵𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 /Π 𝐻 𝑃𝐶 = 0.2 to ensure that the
HPT is loaded sufficiently for the LPT to be uncooled. The gear ratio was selected to allow for a maximum relative fan
tip mach number of 1.1 while the LPT 𝐴𝑁 2 parameter is maintained to stay within its limit.
The selection of initial hub to tip ratios and mach numbers of the components is in line with the suggestions denoted
in [25].

VII. Results

A. Performance and Conceptual Design

Figure 6 shows part of the performance studies conducted to find adequate starting points for the subsequent
more detailed preliminary component designs. Increasing 𝑂𝑃𝑅 and 𝑇4 leads to a reduction in the thrust specific fuel
consumption 𝑇 𝑆𝐹𝐶. However, due to density reduction at the HPC exit the corresponding blade height ℎ 𝑏 decreases.
Yet, according to Fig. 6 the core size constraint was not the limiting parameter. Instead, increasing OPR directly
translates into increasing the loading of the HPT and the temperature at the HPC exit (𝑇3 ). Furthermore, the temperature
limitation at the HPT inlet 𝑇4 is strongly affecting the design decision. Highest temperatures are observed during end of
field and take-off conditions and the 𝑇4 limit is first met, before the highest bearable 𝑇45 is reached. This is due to the
MTO point being - although a high BPR engine is considered - comparatively highly loaded as compared to the cruise
point, because the take-off field length is set intentionally low.
Fig. 6 also presents the carpet of 𝑂𝑃𝑅 and 𝑇4 variation at cruise conditions for the assumption of a fixed amount of
cooling air drawn from the HPC for the HPT. As can be seen, this simplifying assumptions would lead to a much higher
relative reduction in 𝑇 𝑆𝐹𝐶 and hence engine improvement for higher temperatures. However, the core size would
drastically shrink due to an increase in specific thrust and the temperature limitations in the turbines would become
more critical. The more realistic design space carpet utilizing an off-design cooling air iteration also features the design
with minimum 𝑇 𝑆𝐹𝐶 marked with a star.
The mass estimation by means of a statistical method based on key component’s performance parameters [10] is also
shown in Figure 6. A higher OPR increases the mass at constant T4, because the engine mass flow also increased. When
the temperature is increased at constant OPR a lower mass flow is required to provide the same thrust, consequently the
engine becomes smaller entailing a lower mass.
The main thermodynamic results are presented in Table 4 and shows that the final values, especially the temperatures
are well below the technology limits set a priori, see Table 3 for reference.

9
 13,65 1
40 1450
𝑂𝑃𝑅𝐶 𝑅 𝑇4,𝐶 𝑅
13,6 45 1493
50 1516 𝐴𝑁 2 = 11000𝑚 2 𝑠−2
1600
13,55 0.9
Cooling air iteration
1535.7
TSFC [g/kNs]

Rel. Engine Mass [-]

13,5
1600
13,45 𝑇3,𝐸𝑂𝐹 = 970𝐾 0.8

13,4 𝑇4,𝐸𝑂𝐹 = 1920𝐾 ℎ 𝑏 = 13𝑚𝑚

𝑇45,𝐸𝑂𝐹 = 1250𝐾
13,35 0.7

13,3
Final Design Fixed cooling air
13,25 0.6
60 65 70 75 80 85
𝐹𝑁 /𝑊
Fig. 6 Design exploration of the variation of 𝑂𝑃𝑅 and 𝑇4 at cruise condition and its off-design limitations, with
and without cooling air iteration.

Table 4 PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Parameter Unit CR MTO EOF TOC

FN [kN] 31 230 165 37
OPR [-] 44.5 45.9 45.0 49.8
TSFC [g/(kN s)] 13.5 6.2 8.8 13.9
𝑇3 [K] 795 968 971 864
𝑇4 [K] 1516 1893 1894 1674
𝑇45 [K] 1003 1269.6 1270 1113.7

B. Compressors
Each component of the compression segment was designed separately with cruise condition as aerodynamic design
point. Based on an initial design, the work distribution along axial and radial direction was refined. Rotors were
described by means of a total pressure ratio distribution along the radial height. Outflow angles were assigned to stator
blade rows. The stage matching was adjusted manually until typical stage and blade row coefficients were inside limits
determined by experience. These parameters include the stage loading, flow, reaction and diffusion coefficient.
Taking a closer look at the components, the fan features a bypass stagnation pressure ratio of 1.31 with 20 blades
and a hub-tip-ratio of 0.31. All four stages of the booster are subsonic with the maximum relative inlet Mach number
just below one. The 10-stage high pressure compressor has highly loaded front stages with diffusion factors up to 0.48
in the design point. The blade height of the rear stages is a critical design parameter. For the final design, the height of
the last rotor is about 15 mm. The meridional Mach number distributions of the three components is depicted in Fig. 7.

C. Combustor
Based on the high temperature and pressure levels in the combustor, a lean combustor architecture was chosen in
order to meet anticipated future regulations for the emission of nitric oxides. A sketch of the combustor geometry
after the first step (see section IV.D) is shown in the left hand side of Fig. 8. The staging concept of the lean burner

10
 Fig. 7 Aerodynamic design results of the fan, booster and HPC.

Fig. 8 Sketch of lean combustor geometry (left) and detail extracted from local temperature distribution of
inner liner (right).

is a result of the air flow redistribution step. A fraction of 70 % of the total combustor air flow is directed to the
lean burner. The combustor walls made from Inconel 718 with a TBC thickness of 0.5 mm are cooled by a dual-skin
impingement-effusion approach. The local wall temperature distribution extracted from the inner liner is shown on the
right hand side of Fig. 8 as a result of the cooling optimization. This temperature distribution can be used as input data
for a low-order stress analysis, see [6]. The validity of a combustor design is then assessed based on both the thermal
and the mechanical design process.

D. Turbines
The left part in Fig. 9 compares the initial conceptual design of the turbine annulus (red) versus the final design
using PrEDiCT (blue). The inlet and exit radii as well as areas are almost perfectly matched, even axial length is nearly
identical. As this was not a specific goal for the PrEDiCT design but rather an orientation, this effectively highlights
the good quality of the initial output concerning global section dimensions. It was chosen to implement a structurally
relevant strut in the HP-LP interduct connecting both turbine sections that is also turning the flow significantly, thus
eliminating the need for a dedicated smaller first LP stage stator. This is a concept also realized with the Pratt & Whitney
GTF, that ultimately saves weight but poses higher requirements on strut, duct and first rotor aerodynamic design and

11
harmonization. The 2-stage shroudless HP turbine features cooling in all four rows with adapted mass flows compared
to initial estimated data. The 4-stage high-speed LP turbine features a considerably high average total pressure ratio of
1.77 per stage at cruise condition but still shows relatively moderate and uncritical aerodynamic loadings. The benefit of
the gear box directly manifests in the latter aspect together with low stage count; a combination normally mutually
exclusive in conventional direct drive concepts considering the large, high-BPR fan. The blade design was carried out
for each row yielding 3D geometries in a smooth annulus depicted in the middle and right part of Fig. 9 that can be
considered sound for predesign purposes.

Fig. 9 left: PrEDiCT 1D turbine design (blue) compared to initial annulus estimate (red), middle: smooth 2D
annulus & 3D blades, right: isometric view of 3D blade pairs and throat areas.

E. Noise
The considered UHBR-engine of this study features low fan speeds due to the gear box but it still has a very high fan
diameter of almost 2.7 m leading to high flow velocities at the fan blade tip and large wetted surfaces. Fig. 10 shows an
overall sound power level spectrum of the propagated noise sources during the critical mission points used in this study.
The stochastic part of noise is represented by the broadband noise. The peaks protruding from the broadband noise are
the tones. The high-amplitude peaks represent the blade passing frequencies which are associated with the rotation
frequency of the fan, the number of rotor blades and multiples of these. In this case, the tones are only calculated up to
the fifth harmonic of the blade passing frequency. The multiple smaller peaks are generated by a nonlinear supersonic
fan noise source, known as the buzz-saw noise, which occurs due to shock waves attached to the fan rotor and a randomly
distributed small deviation of stagger angles.
The considered operating points are all located in the higher fan speed region of the performance map and therefore,
they feature shocks in the fan tip area. The incidence and rotation frequency of the cruise condition are comparatively
low. Thus, the amplitudes in the spectrum and the blade passing frequencies are low as expected. The first harmonic
is cut-off. For the top of climb point, the flow solver predicts higher losses which increase the turbulence in the flow
and as a result, the broadband noise is increased. The amplitudes of the fan tones are also high due to the dominant
shock-related noise source. Since the flight speed and fan speeds are similar for the MTO and EOF operating points,
these two graphs essentially overlap.

12
 140
CR
MTO
PWL [dB, 1e-12W]

EOF
120
TOC

100

80
102 103 104
Frequency 𝑓 [Hz]

Fig. 10 Overall sound power level (PWL) spectrum comparing the different operating points.

VIII. Final Engine Design

The application of the multi-disciplinary design process, which involved contributions of a numerous amount of
different departments addressing different disciplines and which contained several iterative steps led to a final engine
design which is presented in the following.

Fig. 11 Cross section of the UHBR preliminary engine design.

The cross section of the final design of the anticipated UHBR engine concept is shown in Fig. 11. The overall axial
and radial dimensions become thus clear. The propulsor, the compressors as well as the combustor and the turbines
are depicted. As can be seen, it also features structural components like blade foots and disks. Additionally, to the
main components also the gear box is presented. For the present engine a planetary gear box was selected. Due to the
comparatively high gear ratio of 4 a rotating planet carrier (planetary configuration) was selected over a rotating ring
(star configuration) in order to keep the gear box diameter low. The planet carrier drives the fan while the sun gear is
driven by the core engine.
Eventually, the final 3-D CAD model of the UHBR engine is shown in Figure 12. It features all relevant
turbo-components as well as the combustor, which were determined during the iterative preliminary engine design
process.

13
 Fig. 12 Final 3-D CAD model of the UHBR turbofan engine.

IX. Conclusions
In today’s industry and research landscapes digitalization is the key tool towards faster product design by providing a
more holistic view of projected design concepts. As a contribution to this new paradigm efforts had been undertaken at
the DLR to provide a multi-disciplinary simulation platform which allows for the evaluation of innovative technologies
in the context of aircraft propulsion system. This platform provides standardized interfaces for the integration of different
tools and inherits a data management system to easily exchange data throughout different fidelity levels and different
diciplines.
In order to convey a more vivid view of this rather abstract approach, the key part of this paper was the establishment
of a multi-disciplinary preliminary design process in order to evaluate an aircraft engine comprising a technology level
of year 2028. By that, this paper extends part A of this paper series [3] based on an example extracted from a DLR
internal preliminary engine design project.
The aircraft engine under investigation resembles an ultra high bypass-ratio (UHBR) aircraft engine (BPR ≈ 16),
desgined for a fixed aircraft mission similar to the B767 aircraft. The general approach is outlined briefly, followed by a
detailed description of the individual tools that address the thermodynamic, aerodynamic and noise emission discipline
to design the overall cycle as well as the different engine components.
The thermodynamic cycle design contains several design laws that simplify the subsequent component design by
pre-assessing limitations set by temperature limits of anticipated technology levels (𝑇3 , 𝑇4 , 𝑇45 ) as well as aerodynamic
(𝜓) and simplified structural limits (ℎ 𝑏 , 𝐴𝑁 2 ). Design studies were conducted to explore a possible design space using
a broad range of anticipated overall pressure ratios and turbine inlet temperatures. The aforementioned contraints
were used to define an initial valid design with minimum specific fuel consumption which was used to design the
turbo-components as well as the combustor and to conduct noise assessment. A key challenge of this approach has
manifested itself to be the iterative character that this multi-disciplinary process chain inherits: The initial estimates
of component efficiencies and annulus shapes, defined using correlations from the open literature and using single
parameter descriptors were changed during the more detailed aerodynamic component designs. Feeding back the
updated data into the thermodynamic cycle has led to a further slight variation in the corresponding output parameters
after performing the parametric design study of 𝑂𝑃𝑅 and 𝑇4 . Therefore, several iterations had to be undertaken to bring
the thermodynamic cycle design and the component design to convergence.
Calibration of the tools is a key prerequisite for successful evaluation of future engine concepts. Because of the
fact that calibration on future engine components imposes an impossible challenge generally known in the community
due to the inavailability of real designs the calibration of the tools used herein was successfully performed on existing
engines but skipped for brevity. Therefore, it gives reason to believe that the multi-disciplinary process chain was

14
applied successfully on a real hands-on example, as was shown in the final cross section and 3D view of the projected
UHBR engine.

References
[1] Tabaste, O., “A Route Toward Virtual Certification of Aircraft,” Proceedings of 27th Congress of the International Council of
the Aeronautical Sciences, Nice, France, 2010.

[2] Glaessgen, E., and Stargel, D., “The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and US Air Force Vehicles,” 53rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2012. Pa-
per No. AIAA 2012-1818.

[3] Reitenbach, S., Becker, R., Hollmann, C., Wolters, F., Vieweg, M., Schmeink, J., Otten, T., and Siggel, M., “Collaborative
Aircraft Engine Preliminary Design using a Virtual Engine Platform, Part A: Architecture and Methodology,” AIAA SciTech
Forum, 2020.

[4] Ciampa, P. D., and Nagel, B., “The AGILE Paradigm: The Next Generation of Collaborative MDO,” 18th AIAA/ISSMO
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2017. Paper No. AIAA 2017-4137.

[5] Ciampa, P. D., and Nagel, B., “AGILE the Next Generation of Collaborative MDO: Achievements and Open Challenges,” 2018
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2018. Paper No. AIAA 2018-3249.

[6] Reitenbach, S., Krumme, A., Behrendt, T., Schnös, M., Schmidt, T., Hönig, S., Mischke, R., and Mörland, E., “Design and
Application of a Multidisciplinary Predesign Process for Novel Engine Concepts,” Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines
and Power, Vol. 141, No. 1, 2019.

[7] Woehler, S., Hartmann, J., Prenzel, E., and Kwik, H., “Preliminary Aircraft Design for a Midrange Reference Aircraft taking
Advanced Technologies into Account as Part of the AVACON Project for an Entry into Service in 2028,” Deutscher Luft- und
Raumfahrtkongress DLRK, 2018. Paper No. DLRK2018-480224.

[8] Larsson, L., Groenstedt, T., and Kyprianidis, K. G., “Conceptual Design and Mission Analysis for a Geared Turbofan and an
Open Rotor Configuration,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2011: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition, 2011.
ASME Paper No. GT2011-46451.

[9] Becker, R., Wolters, F., Otten, T., and Nauroz, M., “Development of a Gas Turbine Performance Code and its Application to
Preliminary Design,” Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress DLRK, 2011. Paper No. DLRK2011-241485.

[10] Sagerser, D. A., Lieblein, S., and Krebs, R. P., “Empirical Expressions for Estimating Length and Weight of Axial-Flow
Components of VTOL Powerplants,” Tech. Rep. No. NASA TM X-2406, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, USA,
1971.

[11] Häßy, J., and Schmeink, J., “Knowledge-Based Conceptual Design Methods for Geometry and Weight Estimation of Rubber
Aero Engines,” ICAS, 2020.

[12] Schnoes, M., Voß, C., and Nicke, E., “Design Optimization of a Multi-Stage Axial Compressor Using Throughflow and a
Database of Optimal Airfoils,” Journal of the Global Power and Propulsion Society, Vol. 2, 2018, pp. 516–528.

[13] Drela, M., and Youngren, H., A User’s Guide to MISES 2.53, MIT, Cambridge, United States, 1998.

[14] Immery, T., Schnoes, M., Vieweg, M., and Nicke, E., “Design of the Compression System of a Geared Turbofan,” Deutscher
Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2018, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt - Lilienthal-Oberth e.V., 2018.

[15] Tietz, S., and Behrendt, T., “Development and application of a pre-design tool for aero-engine combustors,” CEAS Aeronautical
Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2011, pp. 111–123.

[16] Krumme, A., “Konzeption, Implementierung und Anwendung eines automatisierten aerothermodynamischen Vorentwurf-
sprozesses für Axialturbinen,” Ph.D. thesis, Universität Kassel, 2016.

[17] Voss, C., and Nicke, E., “Automatische Optimierung von Verdichterstufen,” AG Turbo COOREFF-T FKZ, 2008. Fachlicher
Abschlussbericht Forschungsvorhaben, FKZ:0327713B, AG Turbo COOREFF-T.

[18] Moreau, A., “A unified analytical approach for the acoustic conceptual design of fans of modern aero-engines,” Doctoral Thesis,
Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Jul. 2016. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-5935.

15
 [19] Jaron, R., “Aeroakustische Auslegung von Triebwerksfans mittels multidisziplinärer Optimierungen,” Doctoral Thesis,
Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, May 2018. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-7057.

[20] Meier zu Ummeln, R., and Moreau, A., “Eine Methode zur schnellen Fanlärmberechnung basierend auf einem aerodynamischen
Mehrschnittverfahren,” DAGA 2019 - 45. Jahrestagung für Akustik, DEGA, Rostock, 2019, pp. 319–322.

[21] Bijewitz, J., Seitz, A., and Hornung, M., “Architectural Comparison of Advanced Ultra-High Bypass ratio Turbofans for
medium to long range Application,” Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress DLRK, 2014. Paper No. DLRK2014-340105.

[22] Otten, T., Becker, R.-G., Reitenbach, S., and Engler, A., “Development and application of a predesign tool for aero engine power
gearboxes,” 24rd International Symposium on Air-Breathing Engines, Canberra, Australia, 2019, ISABE-2019-24136, 2019.

[23] Guha, A., “Optimum Fan Pressure Ratio for Bypass Engines with Separate or Mixed Exhaust Streams,” Journal of Propulsion
and Power, Vol. 17, 2001, pp. 1117–1122. doi:10.2514/2.5852.

[24] Alexiou, A., Aretakis, N., Roumeliotis, I., Kolias, I., and Mathioudakis, K., “Performance Modelling of an ultra-high bypass
ratio geared Turbofan,” 23rd International Symposium on Air-Breathing Engines, Manchester, United Kingdom, 2017. Paper
No. ISABE-2017-22512.

[25] Grieb, H., Projektierung von Turboflugtriebwerken, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, 2004. ISBN 978-3-0348-7938-5.

16

View publication stats