Ali Hashemi Sohi -AVIMA10-Mater thesis-New aero engine concepts1

New Aero-Engine Conpets- Economic and Environmental Analysis -

Prepared by: Ali Hashemi Sohi

Assessed by:Prof. Dr. rer.pol. Thomas BiermannDr.-Ing. Verena Ehrler

Master of Aviation Management

Technical Developments

Economic Aspects

Environmental Aspects

Comparison of engines

Conclusion and recommendation

$

20/09/2013 New Aero-Engine Concepts; Economic and Environmental Analysis 2

Outlines


Economic Aspects




$


Technical Improvement

Achievements Challenges

Bypass ratio • Fuel-efficiency• Lower jet noise

• Increasing drag• Increasing weight

TET • Fuel-efficiency • Increasing Nox emission• Thermal stress on blades (decreasing TOW)

OPR • Fuel-efficiency • Increasing mechanical stress (decreasing TOW)

Material • Lower weight• Realizing higher TET

• Supplying• Maintenance• Manufacturing and development costs

Fan diameter • Fuel-efficieny (by increasing of bypass ratio)

• Higher weight• Mechanical stresses

Compressor (BLISK)

• Higher pressure ratio per stage

• Maintenance • Bird strike reliability

Combustor • Low emission • Trade-off bw. NOx & UHC/CO


Economic Aspects




$


Direct Operating Costs of Airlines

A/C Capital21%

A/C Main-tenance

11%

Crew12%

Other30%

Engine DOC26%


Engine‘s related DOC

Eng. capital cost34%

Fuel Cost35%

Eng. Maintenance31%


Engine‘s related DOC

31%

22%

30%

8%

3% 4% 2%Lufthansa DOC in 2012

Fuel Cost• Largest share in DOC of airline (30%-

35%)

Maintenance cost• Nearly doubled in 12 years;

forecasted to increase by 30% until 2022

• Eng. Maintenance costs : 46% of total maintenance costs

Acquisition costs• Fix price comprises of development,

design and manufacturing costs• Continue after EIS of engine untill

disposal

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20172022

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

30.727.425.626.927.625.323.926.327.224.325.327.1

31.836.8

11.510.410.510.110.713.517.1

18.818.518

21.622.4

27.7

31.646.2%

Other Maintenance (Line, Components and HVM& Mod.)Engine Maintenance% Engine Maintenace Cost

in $

mill

ion


Economic Aspects




$



Point of concern for 2 groups:1. Environmental orginazations and public mind:

Growing share of producing NOx and other gaseous emissions Growing share of producing of CO2 emissions Growing noise footprint around vicinity of airports and the

number of people exposed to aircraft noise

2. Airlines

Direct impact on DOC through landing charges and fees for both noise and emissions

Increasing number of airports with stringent noise and emissions standards

Regarding noise emissions: restrications for night-movements


Environmental Aspects, NOx

NOx • Contribute in producing of Ozone in vicinity of

airport• Forecasts: Annual growth with rate of 3.6% to

6.2 % up to 2036

CO2• major GHG pollutant from fuel burning

• Forecasts: Annual growth with rate of 2.9% to 3.4% up to 2050

Noise• Affects population arround vicinity of airports• Forecasts: in 2050 more 26.6 mil. to 40 mil.

people will be affected by aircraft‘s noise


Environmental Aspects, Standards

ICAO Annex 16: standard for max allowable noise as well as pollutant emission

Increasing NOx standards during meetings of CAEP

Intensifying noise standards 15 EPNdB

10 EPNdB


Economic Aspects




$


Trent 1000 vs. Genx-1B for B787

Rolls Royce Trent 1000-C2 IP P/O Better HPC perfromnace Light Ti-Hollow blades; swept form

(FOD resistance) & Low rotational speed (Lower fan noise)

Fuel consumption improvement in 3 packages (A,B and C)

GE Genx-1B64/P1 Most stricking technologies are

inherited from GE90Proven technologies

Composite fan blades and case, claimed to be virtually maintenance free

TAPS combustor as for GE90


Trent 1000 vs. Genx-1B for B787

R.R. Trent 1000-C2 GE GEnx-1B64/P1

No. of Shafts: 3 2

Bypass ratio: 10-11 9

OPR: 50 45Maximum thrust

(kN): 334.7 298

Dry weight (kg): 5938 6147

Fan Diameter (m): 2.84 2.82

No. of fan blades 20 18

Length (m): 4.769 4.950

Core Configuration: 1 Fan/ 8 IPC/ 6 HPC/ 1 HPT/ 1

IPT/ 6 LPT1 Fan/ 4 LPC/ 10 HPC/ 2

HPT/ 7 LPT

Entry into Service 2011 2011


Geared Turbofan (GTF) concepts, Why? Restrictions for higher bypass ratio Fan is directly connected through LP-Shaft to LPT:

• By rotating at same rotational speed→ further increment of diameter leads to additional mechanical stresses on blades

• To decrease the rotational speed of fan→LPT stages should be increased → additional weight and cost

Solution of P&W: Decoupling of direct connection of fan and LPT through a reduction

gearbox, allows low rotational speed of fan and higher speed for LPT stages;

• → Increment of fan diameter, higher bypass ratio, higher propulsive eff. and lower fuel consumption

• → Reduction of fan noise due to low rotating fan blades• → Reduction No. of LPT stages and blades, lower weight and

cost


PW1100G-JM vs. CFM Leap-1A for A320neo Pratt & Whitney PW1100G-JM

Gearbox system High bypass ratio Less LPT and LPC stages Hyprid Metal fan blades

CFM International Leap-1A Most stricking technologies are

inherited from GE90Proven technologies

Composite fan blades and case, claimed to be virtually maintenance free

TAPS combustor as for GE90


PW1100G-JM vs. CFM Leap-1A for A320neo

PW1100G-JM CFM Leap-1A

No. of Shafts: 2 2

Bypass ratio: 12 11

OPR: - 50Maximum thrust

(kN): 116.7 109-146

Dry weight (kg): - -

Fan Diameter (m): 2.05 1.98

No. of fan blades 18 18

Length (m): - -

Core Configuration: 1 Fan/ 1Gearbox / 3 LPC/ 8

HPC/ 2 HPT/ 3 LPT1 Fan/ 3 LPC/ 10 HPC/ 2

HPT/ 7 LPT

Entry into Service 2011 2011


Future Concepts

Counter Rotating Propfan (CRPF) Ultra-High Bypass ratio: 40

Counter Rotating Turbofan (CRTF)

Moderate bypass ratio: 20 Solution for noise problem of CRPF

Intercooled recuperative engine (IRA-GTF)

Decreasing of fuel consumption through intecooler and recuperator

• More than one engine‘s option → Unavoidable competetive environment among manufacturers

• Trade-off between technical parameters → engine‘s options with different features

• The trend is continuing today

• Dramatically development of technical specificationas of new engines → The same potential for addressing requirements of today‘s and near future‘s demands

• Development of technical parameters and components: have reached nearly its limits

• Investigate on developing novel technologies as well as future engine concepts

• A considerable competition among manufacturers to introduce future concepts


Introduction

• 3 case studies: to evaluate effect of technical development of new ATF on each economic and environmental factor:


Case Studies

Designation Engines / Concepts

Case study 1 GEnx-1B64/P1 vs. Trent 1000-C2; wide-body market

Case study 2 PW1100G-JM vs. CFM Leap-1A, narrow-body market

Case study 3 CRPF, CRTF and IRA-GTF; future concepts

Factors comprise acquisition cost:

• Design and developments to manufacturing and also until disposal

• Engine‘s configuration (No. Of components, stages,...)

• Applying of novel technologies (Costs of researches, prototyping and tests)

• After sale services

Actual price far less than published list prices; offeing huge amount of discounts to customers

• Capturing of the market

• To include after sales supports and maintenance services20/09/2013 New Aero-Engine Concepts; Economic and Environmental Analysis 22

Acquisition cost


Acquisition Cost, C.S.1

Genx-1B64 Trent 1000

Development costs

• Technologies inherited from GE90

• Technologies inherited from previous Trent models

Novel technologies • Composite fan case • No significant novel

technology

Manufatuting costs

• Composite fan blades and case• 2 stages HPC and 1 stage LPT

more than Trent 1000

• 3 shafts configuration• Lighter and smaller than

GEnx-1B

List prices • $22.5 million • $20 million



PW1100G CFM Leap-1A

Development costs

• Huge investments for research programs (20 years)

• Most of Technologies inherited from GE90

• Applying CMC and TiAl• Developing of care with very

high OPRNovel

technologies • GTF • Composite fan case

Manufatuting costs

• Gearbox; but not too much• Reducing of 6 stages and

1800 blades relative to CFM

• 6 stages and about 1800 blades more relative to PW1100G

List prices • No information • $12.8 million



CRPF CRTF IRA-GTF

Development costs

• Integrating on aircraft

• Counter rotating system (Pusher)

• Result of research programs as VITAL

• Developing of care with very high OPR

• Research Program NEWAC

Manufatuting costs

• Counter rotaing propeller

• Installing in trubine section (Pusher)

• Two counter rotating packages

• Manufacturing and Integrating of IC and Recuperator

• Piping system • 3-shafts

configuration

Fuel cost contitutes about one third f airline‘s DOC

Fuel price has the same trend as crude oil price

Regarding forecasts for fuel price, fuel- efficiency can be the major concern of engine manufacturer and airlines


Fuel-Efficiency

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 204020406080

100120140160180200220240260

High Oil Price Low Oil Price Reference

$/Ba

rrel

2011


Fuel-Efficiency, C.S.1


Claim • 15% less than CF6-80E • 13%-14% less than Trent 700

Specification • Composite fan case and blades • 2 fan blades less than trent

• Light• Compact• Higher OPR• Higher bypass

Improvemnet packages • Package I and II (PIP I and II) • Package A, B and C

• Trent 1000-Ten



PW1100G CFM Leap-1A

Claim • 15% less than previous A320‘s engines: IAE V2500 and CFM56

Specification

• Higher bypass ratio than CFM• Lower weight due to 6 less

stages and 1800 less blades (LPT&LPC)

• 2 less HPC stages (all BLISK)

• Higher OPR• Composite fan case and

blades• 5 of 10 HPS stages: BLISK



CRPF CRTF IRA-GTF

Claim• 25% less relative

to ACARE reference*

• 17% less relative to ACARE reference

20% less relative to ACARE reference

Specification

• Ultra-high bypass ratio

• Moderate bypass ratio

• Using intercooler and recuperator to reduce amounf of fuel burning in Combustor

* ACARE Reference: CFM56 and IAE V2500

Engine maintenance cost constitutes largest maintenance cost among others; 46%

Contitutes about one third of engine‘s related DOC

Factors to consider by comparing:

Configuration of engine, especially core

Maintenance programs and after sale supports

Similarity in maintenance principles with other engines in fleet


Maintenance cost


Maintenance cost, C.S.1


Configuration

• 2 shafts configuration• Maintenance free fan blades • Less corresion in composite fan case • 3 stages BLISK• Integrated Diagnostic Technology (ECM)

• 3 shafts configuration• 1 stage LPT and 2 stage HPC

less than Genx• 3 stages BLISK• Data Systems and Solutions (ECM)

After sale support

programs

• OnPointSM Diagnostics • TRUEngine™, helps to enhance

marketability and asset valuation of their engine

• TotalCare®

Synergy in maintenance

principles

• Split engine into cor and fan• Synergy with Genx-2B, GE90 and

CFM Leap X• With other Trent models



PW1100G CFM Leap-1A

Configuration

• Less stages and blades (LPC and LPT and HPC)

• 8 stages BLISK• Gerabox maintenance

• Core operates at higher temperature and pressure than PW1100

• Composite fan blades and case: maintenance free

After sale support

programs• PureSolution • OnPointSM Diagnostics

Synergy in maintenance

principles

• Some common maintenance principles with turboprops regarding gearbox

• Best choice for fllet with CFM56, GE90 and GEnx



CRPF CRTF IRA-GTF

Configuration

• Counter rotating system

• Additional load on turbine section by pusher

• Pitch mechnism of each blade

• Two counter rotating sections

• Complex system with intercooler, recuperator and gearbox

Stringent standards, especially regrading NOx emission

Reducing of CO2 emission is directly proportional to reduction of fuel consumption

For NOx, comparisons are made based on margin to CAEP stabdards especially the current CAEP/6


Reducing of emissions


Reducing of emissions, C.S.1


NOx• 46% below CAEP/6*• 35.19 g/kN • 25% below CAEP/6

• 65.48 g/kN

CO2• Higher CO2 emisions, regarding

(probable) higher fuel consumption

• 12% less CO2 emissions than Trent 800

• Less fuel consumption = Less CO2 than GEnx

*According to ICAO Emissions Databank



PW1100G CFM Leap-1A

NOx • 55% below CAEP/6• Amount of emitted Nox cannot

be calculated, as OPR of PW1000Gs is not especified

• 50% below CAEP/6• NOx emission will be less than 40

g/kN.

CO2 • Regarding reducing of fuel consumption by 15%, the same amount can be considered for CO2 of both engines



NOx reduction:

IRA-GTF : 52% relative to CAEP/6

No information for other concepts

CO2 reduction:

Base on comparison for fuel efficiency, CRPF concept achieves highest degree of

CO2 reduction. IRA concept and CRTF will be in next places.

Stringent standards, especially in most busiest aiports (As Heathrow)

Intensified standards: new standard will impose noise margine of -10 to -12 EPNdB relative to Ch.4 of ICAO

Intensified airport‘s standards as well as increasing charges

Lunching new standards as QC, for impose more restriction on night-movements

Factors for comparing of engines and concepts:

Technologies to reduce noise emission

Claims regarding to margin to Ch.4 or ACARE reference


Reducing of Noise


Reducing of noise, C.S.1


Technology• Swept fom fan blade• Composite baldes• Chevron nozzle

• Swept fom fan blade• Chevron nozzle

Margin to Ch.4 • 14.8 dB margin to Chapter 4 • about 9dB margin to Chapter 4



PW1100G CFM Leap-1A

Technology • Low speed fan • Composite fan blades

Margin to Ch.4 20EPNdB margin to chapter 4 15EPNdB margin to chapter 4



CRPF: highest noise emissions among other concepts, due to large diameter of fan

However, by a test conducted by NASA: 10-13 dB margin to Ch.4 is announced

CRTF is claimed to have 20-22EPNdB cumulative noise reduction relative to ACARE reference.

IRA-GTF concept will has -20 to -30dB margin relative to Chapter 4


Result of comparison, C.S.1

GEnx-1B64: Reducing of maintenance cost as well as noise and pollutant emissions

Trent 1000-C2: Reducing of acquisition and fuel costs

Acquisition Cost

Fuel-Effeciency

Maintenance costEmissions Reduction

Noise Reduction

0

1

2

3

4

5

Genx-1B Trent 1000-C2



PW1100G: Reducing of maintenance and fuel costs as well as noise emission CFM Leap-1A: the same potential for Reducing of emissions and acquisition

cost as by PW1100G Fleet commonality of CFM Leap-1A with CFM56, could change the result for

maintenance cost

Acquisition Cost

Fuel-Effeciency


Noise Reduction

0

5

CFM Leap-1A PW1100G-JM



CRPF: Reducing fuel cost IRA-GTF: Reducing of noise and pollutant emissions, nearly the same potential

for fuel-efficiency as CRPF CRTF: Less maintenance costs among the others; Moderate concept in other

aspects

Acquisition Cost

Fuel-Effeciency


Noise Reduction

0

5

CRPF CRTF IRA-GTF


Economic Aspects




$

Oil price will rocket to more than $200 in next 30 years

• fuel-efficiency could be the paramount criterion and first priority for most airlines to select an engine, then: Trent 1000 for B787 and PW1100G for A320neo could be the best decision

Oil price will take a decreasing trend in next 30 years, then

1. For major airlines that operate flight to large airports and with stringent noise standards: Genx-1B for B787 and PW1100G for A320neo could be the best decision

2. For airlines (small one or LCCs) that operate flights with very high frequency of landing/take-off cycle, down-stream costs regarding maintenance will affect their choice; then: Genx-1B for B787 and PW1100G for A320neo could be the best decision


Conclusion, ATF engines

Mid- and Long-term solution:• IRA-GTF and CRPF will be the best option, for increasing fuel price • IRA-GTF hast the best potential to reduce noise and NOx level• Both CRPF anf IRA-GTF are based on complex systems• Integrating and noise problem for CRPF• Too late EIS as well as highest maintenance costs are the challenges for

IRA-GTF• Deciding about long-term solution: depends on rate of technology

development in CRPFand IRA-GTF to solve hese problems Short-term solution• CRTF, a moderate concept in all aspect and could be the best short-

term option for applying in civil aviation


Conclusion, Future concepts

In addition to technical features, non-technical factors also affect priority list of airlines for selecting of an engine:

1. Fleet commonality 2. commonality regarding maintenance costs as well as degree of

technical synergy between new and currently in fleet existing engines

3. airline’s past and current cooperation with engine manufacturer


Conclusion (Non-technical factors)

Wide-body market:

• For airlines with GE CF6, GE90 or Genx-2B , GEnx-1B will be the best option

• For airlines with Trent 700, Trent 1000 is the best decision

Narrow-body marekt: the choice is totally depends on the engine that power their

A320 fleet• CFM Leap-1A best choice for airlines with CFM56-5B or-7B models as well as

with GEnx and GE90

• PW1100G best selection for airlines operates turboprop aircrafts with P&W engines, as ATR 74, or if their fleet contains aircrafts as B747 and B767 with P&W engine can be the right decision.


Conclusion (Non-technical factors)

1. Revise the information with considering GEnx with PIPII and Trent 1000-Ten and after both CFM Leap and PW1100G will have been entered into market

2. Compare technological development of new Trent XWB and GE9X with GEnx and Trent 1000 and effect of such technological leap on economic and environmental aspects

3. Include non-technical factors; to what extend considering of such factors can diminish the effect of technological developments by decision for selecting an engine


Recommendations


Sources

Pictures: • http://www.fargeo.com/images/blog/airplane-noise-over-home.jpg

• http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-air-transport-perspective/2012-10-22/cfm-gears-leap-production

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fan_blades_and_inlet_guide_vanes_of_GEnx-2B.jpg

• http://events.aviationweek.com/html/meu12/C2%20DALE_CARLSON.pdf

• http://www.epower-propulsion.com/epower/gallery/ABP-GE%20UDF.htm

• http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/IMG_3370.jpg

Documents

Ali Hashemi Sohi -AVIMA10-Mater thesis-New aero engine concepts1