COMPOSITE FAN BLADE DESIGN AND

MANUFACTURING
VILNIUS GEDIMINAS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
ANTANAS GUSTAITIS' AVIATION INSTITUTE
DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

Diego Rodríguez Rodríguez

Bachelor's degree final work (project)

Aeronautical Engineering study programme
Aerospace Engineering study field.

August 22, 2020

1
 Contents
1. Design
a) Take-off thrust
b) Thermodynamic optimisation
c) Blade shape
2. CFD analysis
3. Manufacturing
a) Fan blade shape and material evolution
b) Mould manufacturing
c) Fibre lay up
d) Curing process
e) Blade edge machining
4. Conclusions

2
 DESCRIPTION OF AIRCRAFT ENGINES OPERATION

1. Adiabatic compression of the air.

2. The air reaches the combustion chamber were fuel is injected

and ignited, producing energy at constant pressure.

3. Hot air rotates the turbine blades transferring the kinetic

energy into rotational at the same specific entropy.

4. The air finally releases the rest of its energy to the atmosphere
on an isobaric process.

3
 TAKE-OFF THRUST
From EASA CS-25:
• VR may not be less than VLOF, which won’t be less that 110 % of VMU.
𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 2.5
• VFTO may not be less than 1.18 VS.
𝐶𝐿 θ𝑚𝑎𝑥 2.05
So this approximation is made: 𝑣LOF = 1.2𝑣𝑆 = 1.1𝑣MU .
θ𝑚𝑎𝑥 10°
MTOW 300 Tm
From kinematic relations at take-off conditions:
𝑊 (take-off) 2943000 N
144 𝐶𝐿 θ𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑊
𝑇 = 1− ≃ 408995 N
121 𝐶𝐿𝑚𝑎𝑥 sin θ𝑚𝑎𝑥

4
 THERMODYNAMIC OPTIMISATION
Inlet turbine temperature between 1500 and 1900 K,
varying OPR from 30 to 60 and B between 4-11.

TSFC plots, temperature decision: not beyond thermal 𝑚ሶ𝑓 𝑚ሶℎ 𝐹

limits but high enough for better efficiency. B range TSFC = =
reduced. 𝑇 𝑇

Pressure ratios variations: OPR 22.5-60, fan 1.2-2.5,

HPC 6-13, LPC according to them.

TSFC plots, pressure and bypass ratios decision for If unrealistic values
lower TSFC. or choked flow
reduce increment
of variations.
Check velocity and section dimensions, no chocked
flow conditions.

Engine diameters

5
 OPTIMISATION RESULTS
B=9
0.01225

0.01215

0.01205

0.01195

0.01185

0.01175

0.01165
TSFC [kg/(kN·s)]

0.01155

0.01145

0.01135

0.01125

0.01115

0.01105

0.01095

0.01085

0.01075

0.01065

0.01055

0.01045

0.01035
10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20

rHPC
1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900
6
 OPTIMISATION RESULTS
1850 K
0.01765

0.0169

0.01615

0.0154
TSFC [kg/(kN·s)]

0.01465

0.0139

0.01315

0.0124

0.01165

0.0109

0.01015

0.0094
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

B
10 11.66666667 13.33333333 15 16.66666667 18.33333333 20

7
 OPTIMISATION RESULTS
1800 K
0.017
0.0168
0.0166
0.0164
0.0162
0.016
0.0158
0.0156
0.0154
0.0152
0.015
0.0148
0.0146
TSFC [kg/(kN·s)]

0.0144
0.0142
0.014
0.0138
0.0136
0.0134
0.0132
0.013
0.0128
0.0126
0.0124
0.0122
0.012
0.0118
0.0116
0.0114
0.0112
0.011
0.0108
0.0106
0.0104
0.0102
0.01
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

B
10 11.66666667 13.33333333 15 16.66666667 18.33333333 20
8
 OPTIMISATION RESULTS
B=9, rHPC=6 B=9, rHPC=9

B=9, rHPC=12 OPR=60, rHPC=12

11 9
 OPTIMISATION RESULTS

rHPC 9.75 Stages Θ (K) P (N/m2)

rf 1.8 a 288.15 101325
rLPC 3.42
2 291.21 104948
OPR ~60
10 352.42 188906
B 11
vh 378.93 m/s 3 526.89 645833
vc 339.84 m/s 4 787.74 6296874
ṁh 128.42 kg/s 5 1800 6107968
ṁc 1412.61 kg/s 6 1573.40 3389082
ṁf 3.75 kg/s 7 783.77 144273
ṁa (out) 1541.029 kg/s
8 783.77 141387
ṁa (in) 1537.28 kg/s
* (hot) -- 76326
Sh 0.692 m2
9 721.18 101325
Sc 3.472 m2
F 0.02922 * (cold) -- 99796
TSFC 0.0091744 kg/(kN·s) 11 294.96 101325

10
• Free vortex method ➔ constant axial flow velocity and specific
work.
• Axial flow at the inlet ➔ α1 = 0°.

• NACA 65 series typical foil for compressor and fan blades,

specially for constant chord.

• Not the same foil at all blade sections, thinner as higher the
radius.
• Supersonic velocity at the fan tip (M=1.5 guessed).

HUB (R=0.4 m) MEAN (R=0.95 m) TIP (R=1.5 m)

α2 73.3° α2 54.6° α2 41.7°
TIP
β1 24.7° β1 47.6° β1 60°
β2 -70.8° β2 -17.2° β2 40°
twist 95.56° twist 64.82° twist 19.97°
va ≡ v1h 243.606 m/s va ≡ v1m 243.606 m/s va ≡ v1t 243.606 m/s
v2h 848.35 m/s v2m 420.019 m/s v2t 326.040998
uh 112.23 m/s um 266.55 m/s ut 420.875818
HUB
w2h 268.22 m/s w2m 361.103 m/s w1t 486.29244
MEAN
w2h 741.55 m/s w2m 255.068 m/s w2t 317.85482

ω ≈ 2680 rpm
BLADE DESIGN 11
 CFD ANALYSIS
• Take-off conditions.
• Fan assembly scaled to ¼ of real dimensions, based on Rolls-Royce Ultrafan. Red: model 1
• K-ω SST turbulence model. Blue: model 2
• Coupled solver for transient simulation of 4 revolutions (720 time steps of 3.333 e-5 s).
• 2 blade models analysed, with different chords and twist.

12
 CFD RESULTS

Model 1 Model 2

• Higher flow velocity in model 2, located at the men blade section.

• Undesirable potential shock wave formation section.
• Lower stream turbulence in model 1. 13
 CFD RESULTS

Model 1 Model 2

• High velocity area at the blade tip, greater and with higher velocity in model 2.
• Not favourable because of stronger shock waves and flow separation ➔ reduced efficiency.
• Model 1 is chosen for manufacturing. 14
 FAN BLADE SHAPE EVOLUTION
• Fan blades where similar to compressor blades but bigger diameter.
• Longer and thin blades suffered from stresses caused by aerodynamic and centrifugal forces.
• New lighter materials allowed for wider chords and better performance → no high stress as before.
• Fewer but wider blades, more space between them.
• More blade twist ➔ better aerodynamic efficiency and less possibility of flow separation.

15
 FAN BLADE MATERIALS
• Titanium allow is the traditional material → lighter and stronger than many steels.
• Hollow Ti6Al4V alloy fan blades from Rolls-Royce → wider chord without much more weight.
• Composites: carbon fibre, glass fibre with epoxy → easy manufacturing, less tensile strength; but far lighter and
higher specific resistance.
• CFRP is used for fan blades, hand layup or automatic tape or fibre laying on a mould.

16
 MOULD MANUFACTURING
• Mould of aluminium alloy 7075.
• High speed machining, dry, using 5-axis gantry milling centre. 1500 x-axis, 1000 y-axis, 600 z-axis.
• Roughing: Using a 100 mm face mill capable of ramping and high feed rates, wall offset of at least 1.5 mm, smaller
diameter for high twist areas.
• Finishing: Using an 8 mm ball endmill for good surface quality, small increments on each tool path for a smooth
surface, fillet milling.

Mould and frame

assembly
17
 FIBRE LAY UP
• UD prepreg fabrics → Anisotropic behaviour, great strength at the same fibre direction.
• Several layers with different orientations achieve isotropic properties, although the overall strength is reduced.
• Orientation used: 4 layers at 0°, 90°, 45°, and -45°. 45°, 90°, 45°

0°, 90°
0°, 90°, 45°, -45°

18
0°, 90°, 45°
 COMPOSITE CURING PROCESS
• CFRP weaves from Toray Composites: Torayca
T1100G Fibre with 3960 epoxy resin at 33.5 %.
• Single weave thickness: 0.18 mm ➔ Around 55
layers needed (theoretically).
• More layers in reality because of dovetail
thickness, vacuum that compresses the fabrics,
thickness not constant in all the blade ➔ ~73
m2 of material needed.
• Curing temperature is 177 °C in an autoclave for
a minimum of 120 min, vacuum pressure less
than 560 mmHg, and an hydrostatic pressure of
5.9 bar up to 260 min.

19
 BLADE EDGE MACHINING 1
• To achieve correct tolerance after demoulding and hand sanding.
• Routing of blade edges → horizontal mill with a vertical travel of at least 1500 mm.
• Ti alloy plate place on the LE for better resistance against bird and debris ingestion, CFRP are more brittle.
• Machining of CFRP has these drawbacks:
• Excessive operational temperature above 180 °C can degrade the matrix → viscosity changes → lose of matrix-
reinforcement cohesion.
• High thermal conductivity of CFRP → heat generated during machining is dissipated onto the part. Undissipated
heat → increase in cutting temperature. Use of coolant → mechanical properties modified due to the
absorption of fluids.
• Difference in coefficients of thermal expansion of fibres and matrix ➔ residual stress at curing stage, that could
be released while machining and fracture the working part.
• Cutting of the fibres is abrasive ➔ carbide and specially coated tools must be used.

20
BLADE EDGE MACHINING 2

21
 BLADE EDGE MACHINING 3

Cutting damage at different

fibre orientation.

Better cutting performance at

45°, also good at 0° but high
speed machining, at 90° fibres
can be deformed, and at -45°
are sheared.

22
 BLADE EDGE MACHINING 4

• High speed machining improves surface finishing → fibres bend

instead of a complex buckling.
• Up milling technique & high spindle speed, low feed rate and cut
width → avoid delamination, better surface quality.
• Special helix geometry tools → no axial force normal to the ply →
reduced delamination and fibre damage.

23
 CONCLUSIONS 1

• Lift coefficient ratio at take-off configuration is a key value to obtain realistic take-off thrust.
• Pressure and bypass ratios have big impact on fuel efficiency → better as higher.
• Fan pressure ratio has a big relation with exhaust sections → smaller as higher the pressure ratio is.
• Higher fly velocity → higher fuel consumption. Check cruise conditions: lower air pressure and density → lower efficiency.
• Free vortex method → high twist ➔ higher loads on the blade. Twist avoid flow separation at bigger radii → better
aerodynamics.
• Wider chord blades suck more air → fewer blades needed, more spacing and mass flow rate.

• CFD showed two differentiated flow areas → Ultrafan blade design already distributes flow for cold and hot sections.
• Small change on chord and twist can produced undesirable high velocity areas → potentially shock waves.

24
 CONCLUSIONS 2

• Big mould dimensions → slow an expensive manufacturing process for aluminium, although very durable → GFRP/CFRP.
• Fibre orientation and lay up are crucial → achieve isotropic characteristics from anisotropic UD weaves.
• CFRP machining is abrasive → special coatings and carbide tools.
• High speed machining required because of unfavourable fibre orientations → avoid laminate damage and good surface
finish.
• Special helix geometry tools → prevent delamination and reduce tool wear and surface damage.

25
 REFERENCES 1
[1] A. F. El-Sayed, Fundamentals of aircraft and rocket propulsion. Springer, 2016.
[2] M. P. Boyce, Gas turbine engineering handbook. Elsevier, 2011.
[3] A. McAlpine, M. Fisher, and B. Tester, “buzz-saw” noise: A comparison of measurement with prediction," Journal of sound and
vibration, vol. 290, no. 3-5, pp. 1202-1233, 2006.
[4] B. Fehrm, “Bjorn's Corner: Geared turbofans”. https://leehamnews.com/2017/01/13/bjorns-corner-geared-turbofans/, Jan 2017.
[5] N. E. Prasad and R. J. Wanhill, Aerospace materials and material technologies, vol. 3. Springer, 2017.
[6] F. C. Campbell Jr, Manufacturing technology for aerospace structural materials. Elsevier, 2011.
[7] S. Zhang and D. Zhao, Aerospace Materials Handbook. CRC Press, 2016.
[8] L. M. Amoo, “On the design and structural analysis of jet engine fan blade structures”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 60, pp.
1-11, 2013.
[9] P. Spittle, “Gas turbine technology”, Physics education, vol. 38, no. 6, p. 504, 2003.
[10] K. Vallons, The Behaviour of Carbon Fibre - Epoxy NCF Composites under Various Mechanical Loading Conditions. PhD thesis, 01
2009.
[11] S. G. Miller, K. Handschuh, M. J. Sinnott, L. W. Kohlman, G. D. Roberts, R. E. Martin, C. R. Ruggeri, and J. M. Pereira, “Materials,
Manufacturing, and Test Development of a Composite Fan Blade Leading Edge Subcomponent for Improved Impact Resistance”,
2015.
[12] EASA, “Certication Specications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes CS-25”, tech. rep., Tech. rep.,
Amendment 25, European Aviation Safety Agency, https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/cs-25_amendment_25.pdf.,
2020.

26
 REFERENCES 2
[13] J. Roskam, Airplane Design: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes, vol. 1. Darcorp, Lawrence, KS.
[14] S. McAllister, J.-Y. Chen, and A. C. Fernandez-Pello, Fundamentals of combustion processes, vol. 302. Springer, 2011.
[15] I. Staell, “”The energy and fuel data sheet," University of Birmingham, UK, 2011.
[16] P. P. D. GN, “Characteristics of Petroleum Products Stored and Dispensed”, tech. rep.,
https://web.archive.org/web/20170116182103/http://ftp.nirb.ca/01-SCREENINGS/COMPLETED%20SCREENINGS/2016/16XN003-
GN-CGS-Tank%20Farm%20Expansion/01-APPLICATION/160204-16XN003-Petroleum%20Products%20Strored%20and%20Dispensed-
IA2E.pdf, 2016.
[17] E.-S. Ahmed F., Aircraft Propulsion and Gas Turbine Engines. CRC Press, second edition ed., 2017.
[18] A. L. Martnez, M. R. Fernandez, and F. H. Anton, Mecánica de Fuidos. ETSI Industriales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 2006.
[19] A. El-Sayed, M. Emeara, and M. Fayed, “Performance Analysis of Cold Sections of High BYPASS Ratio Turbofan Aeroengine”,
Journal of Robotics and Mechanical Engineering Research, vol. 2, pp. 18-27, 10 2017.
[20] I. M. Asoliman, M. Ehab, A. M. Mahrous, A. F. El-Sayed, and M. S. Emeara, “Performance analysis of high bypass turbofan engine
trent 1000-a," 2018.
[21] S. Farokhi, Aircraft Propulsion. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
[22] AIRBUS SAS, A330 Aircraft Characteristics, Airport and Maintenance Planning, 2020.
[23] AIRBUS SAS, A350 Aircraft Characteristics, Airport and Maintenance Planning, 2020.
[24] K. Anandavel and R. V. Prakash, “Effect of three-dimensional loading on macroscopic fretting aspects of an aero-engine
blade{disc dovetail interface”, Tribology International, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 1544-1555, 2011.

27
 REFERENCES 3
[25] C. Nguyen, “Turbulence Modeling”, 2005.
[26] D. Wilcox, Turbulence Modeling for CFD. No. v. 1 in Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, 2006.
[27] F. R. Menter, “Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications”, AIAA Journal, vol. 32, pp. 1598-1605, Aug.
1994.
[28] K. Homann and S. Chiang, “Computational fluid dynamics, vol. 3”, Wichita, KS: Engineering Education System, 2000.
[29] ANSYS, Inc, Fluent 2020 R1 User's Guide, 2020.
[30] ANSYS, Inc, Fluent 2020 R1 Theory Guide, 2020.
[31] MatWeb, “Aluminum 7075-O”. http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=da98aea5e9de44138a7d28782f60a836,
June 2020.
[32] R. M. Coroneos and R. S. R. Gorla, “Structural analysis and optimization of a composite fan blade for future aircraft engine”, International
Journal of Turbo & Jet-Engines, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 131-164, 2012.
[33] Torayca, “3960 prepreg system," Tech. Rep. Rev. 4, Toray Composite Materials America, Inc., Tacoma, WA, Nov 2017.
[34] D. Kumar and S. Gururaja, “Machining damage and surface integrity evaluation during milling of UD-CFRP laminates: Dry vs Cryogenic”,
Composite Structures, p. 112504, 2020.
[35] D.Wang, M. Ramulu, and D. Arola, “Orthogonal cutting mechanisms of graphite/epoxy composite. Part I: unidirectional laminate”,
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 1623-1638, 1995.
[36] E. Uhlmann, S. Richarz, F. Sammler, and R. Hufschmied, “High speed cutting of carbon fibre reinforced plastics”, Procedia Manufacturing,
vol. 6, pp. 113-123, 2016. Available Open Access published Version at https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/handle/11303/7639.
[37] P. Janardhan, J. Sheikh-Ahmad, and H. Cheraghi, “Edge trimming of CFRP with diamond interlocking tools”, tech. rep., SAE Technical
Paper, 2006.
[38] J. Y. Sheikh-Ahmad, Machining of polymer composites, vol. 387355391. Springer, 2009.

28