ISABE-2001-1005
`
`Propulsion Strategy for the 21st Century — A Vision into the Future
`
`By
`
`Dr. M.J. Benzakein
`
`General Manager — Advanced Engineering
`GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215
`USA
`
`Abstract
`
`GE Aircrafi Engines’ (GEAE) commercial and
`military customers are striving toward products with
`low cost of ownership. This drives GEAE to high
`performance, light weight, low noise and low emission
`designs. GEAE has adopted a two-part strategy. First is
`to develop single-stage high-pressure turbine (HPT)
`machines for the narrow body/regional market, and
`second, develop a two-stage I-IPT, high pressure ratio
`architecture for the wide body, long range operations.
`To this end GE has defined a two-step technology
`process: the TECH56, and the Ultra Efficient Engine
`Technology (UEET) programs. Work on fan.
`compressor, and turbine aerodynamics is in process.
`Great strides to improve the environmental impact of
`aircraft engines are being taken. GEAE is working on
`N0x reduction with the TAPS combustor and on noise
`control with chevron nozzles.
`
`The paper also describes GEAE’s Global Fmgineering
`and University initiatives.
`Introduction
`
`GE Aircrafi Engines’ strategy is driven by customer
`satisfaction. We must develop some key enabling
`technologies 1 to facilitate our product development
`vision for the next twenty years and our engine
`architecture for the years to come. We also need to
`develop and refine our tools to improve our Thruput and
`Quality. All of this can only come about by focusing
`the best talent available arolmd the world.
`Discussion
`Let us first talk about Customer Satisfaction. Our
`
`commercial and military customers have been telling us
`that we needed to drive towards a low cost of ownership
`and we have been listening. To accomplish this, we
`have been driving our engine designs in the direction of
`simplicity. reliability. improved performance. low noise.
`and low emissions. These quality parameters have set
`our product strategy for the future.
`Figure 1 shows this strategy. For the Regional and
`Narrow-Body market, we will maintain the CFM56/
`CF34-10 architecture in our future engines. This
`architecture incorporates a 2-shaft machine with a
`single-stage high-pressure turbine at a moderate
`pressure ratio. The product definition in that thrust-
`
`class is driven. primarily. by simplicity. low parts count.
`and high reliability dictated by the high cycle
`operations.
`Regional/Nanow Body Airplanes
`
`Wide Body - Medium/Long Range Airplanes
`
` Reduced Number of Stages
`Very Hrgh Pressure Ratio Single Stage Turbine
`
`I
`
`GE90 Architecture
`' mm. -2%?-I-'-e
`- Iv: Pusan: Rio
`-2‘-
`
`1
`KID-HISBS
`
`Figure 1. GEAE Product Strategy.
`
`Now, for the Wide-Body medium and long range
`markets we believe that the GE90-architecture, a 2-shaft
`machine with a 2-stage high pressure turbine. and high
`overall pressure ratio, yields the ultimate fuel burn
`performance and range so important for these
`applications.
`Our strategy is to eventually merge these two
`architectures and go to a single-stage high-pressure
`turbine configuration with very high pressure ratios and
`a reduced number of stages. We believe that the
`technologies necessary to make this happen should be
`available by the year 2010, and the resulting products
`become available in the following decade.
`What are we doing to get there? Well we start from
`two solid bases: o11r CFM56 and GE90 families. The
`
`first step is expressed by our Project TECH56 program
`where we are developing new technologies for every
`engine component (shown in Figure 2).
`Our goals for the program. depending on the
`application. are:
`0 a 4 to 7% fuel burn improvement relative to the
`current CFM56
`O a 15 to 20% lower maintenance cost
`
`0 a reduction ofNOX to 50% below the ICAO level,
`and
`
`O a cum 20dB noise level margin relative to FAR36
`Stage HI
`
`UTC-2016.001
`
`GE v. UTC
`
`Trial IPR20l6-00952
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 2. Project TECH56.
`
`We have been working on Project TECH56 for close
`to 3 years and the program is right on track. I will
`describe some of the results a little later.
`
`Our second step is to move to what we call the Ultra
`Eflicient Engine or UEET that we are developing with
`NASA. The GE goals for this program are:
`0 a 10% filel burn reduction relative to the current
`
`industry state of the art represented by our GE90
`0 a l0dB noise reduction
`0 a further 20% reduction in NOX relative to the
`GE90 and
`
`0 a 50% reduction in operating costs
`
`Big challenges! To accomplish these goals we will
`have to attack every engine component for radical
`improvements as shown in Figure 3. We are starting by
`significantly increasing the pressure ratio from 42. to
`55-60. We will raise the temperatures in the engine by
`l00°F at the exit of the compressor, and 200°F at the
`turbine inlet for improved performance. At the same
`time, we will reduce the stage count from 22 to 15 to
`
`
`
`Figure 3. Ultra Efficient Engine Cycle.
`
`lower maintenance cost. We intend to redefine the state
`of the art.
`
`We plan to develop a 20 to 1 pressure ratio, single
`stage turbine core. We see that core going into:
`1. A military transport engine with a bypass ratio of 8
`to 10.
`
`2. A long range bomber engine with a bypass ratio of
`around 2.
`
`3. A destaged compressor allows insertion in a long-
`range fighter engine with a bypass ratio of arolmd
`one.
`
`4. It could also be applied to a Turbine Combined
`Cycle engine for Mach 4 to 6 applications.
`On the commercial side, it makes an ideal application
`for a commercial turbofan at a bypass ratio about 10. It
`could be used in a Supersonic Business jet with a
`variable fan desigl.
`It could also be the nucleus for a Marine and
`
`Industrial engine application for power generation. This
`advanced technology machine fulfills our future needs
`in a multitude of applications
`Figure 4 shows that we are looking at:
`0 a high speed swept fan with suction side bleed,
`0 case treatment in the booster for improved stall
`margin
`0 a 20 to 1 pressure ratio 6-stage compressor.
`0 a high delta-T ultra low emission combustor with
`ceramic matrix composite liner.
`a single-stage 5.5 pressure ratio high-pressure
`turbine.
`
`O a counterrotating low pressure turbine,
`O non-deteriorating low leakage seals,
`0 advanced materials.
`
`0 robust high speed bearings. and
`0 advanced diagnostics.
`
`Slim 51 Used
`Ifihspe_qIs_-qnran-in
`
`C021]! fl CIC LII!
`II-AruIn|.o-assoc:
`
`
`
`singlesugasszirmrr
`znmssugurc
`counmuaiutrr-innuuua
`mnauwfigunlanapnus
`PmsamLium-aunsputgrmne
`
`305315‘
`nu-nw
`
`Figure 4. Ultra Efficient Engine Technologies.
`
`This engine will indeed transform the state of the art.
`It’s obviously not around the comer, but we are
`developing these technologies now to enable us to get
`there. It permits us to focus our eflbrts on the right
`technologies and incorporate our findings in our
`products.
`2 vs. 3—Shaft Machines. We strongly believe that in
`the foreseeable future, the optimum commercial engine
`architecture is a 2-shafi, direct—drive, high bypass ratio
`(that is 8 to 10) machine. We do not believe that 3-shaft
`or gear—driven fan engines offer any benefit at this time.
`I will explain why! Let me start with a 2 versus 3-shaft
`comparison. A direct comparison of an Engine Alliance
`GP7200 and a Trent 900 engine shows both engines
`incorporate a 116” diameter fan. Figure 5 indicates the
`GP7200 incorporates 2 shafts while the Trent 900
`
`UTC—20l6.002
`
`

`

`utilizes 3 shafts. Our comparison indicates that the
`engines have the same length. The GP7200 has: 3 less
`stages than the Trent; incorporates one less frame; has 5
`bearings opposed to 7, and has one hot sump opposed to
`2. Bottom line, the 2-shafl machine is simpler and
`should be more reliable all the way around.
`Let us now look at weight. A propulsion system
`comparison for the 747-airplane application indicates
`that the 3-shafi engine is indeed 300 pounds heavier
`
`GP7200 RR Trent 900
`
`Engine Length, inches
`Number of Shafts
`
`Number of Stages
`Number of Frames
`
`Number of Bearings
`
`Number of Hot Sumps
`
`179
`2
`
`19
`3
`
`5
`
`1
`
`179
`3
`
`22
`4
`
`7
`
`2
`
`Figure 5. 2 vs. 3-Shaft Engine Comparison.
`
`than the GE machine. A comparison on the A330
`shows again, that the Trent is a 100 pounds heavier.
`Looking at future engines, the latest Rolls gine, the
`Trent 900, is about 125-lbs. heavier than our 2-shaft
`machine, the GP7200. When we look at the propulsion
`systems designed in our industry (Figure 6), we find that
`weight is primarily driven by the fan diameter. Their
`relative position on the curve is very much a fimction of
`execution.
`
` PropublonSystemWelght.(000)lbs
`
`
`
`
`
`HI!
`
`no
`
`
`
`uE
`
`7|
`
`5
`
`Fan Diameter, inches
`
`Figure 6. Engine Weight Trends.
`
`A compressor matching comparison between the
`GP7200 and a Trent 900 shows that a 2-shaft machine
`
`has a higher pressure ratio for fewer mnnber of
`compression stages, achieves lower loading. and obtains
`better efliciencies. Figure 7 shows we are better
`matched on a 2-shafi machine for better performance
`and operability. Reliability results speak for
`themselves. On the A330, the 2-shafi CF6-80E1 has
`significantly better In-Flight Shutdown, Unscheduled
`Engine Removal, and Delay & Cancellation statistics
`compared to the 3—shaft Trent 700.
`In summary, 3-shaft designs require: additional speed
`for stall margin, additional frames, bearings, more
`
`Compressor Matching
`2-Shaft
`
`Engine Overall
`Pressure Ratio
`
`42
`
`Efficiency
`
`Stage Count
`
`Loading
`
`Figure 7. Compressor Architecture.
`
`stages, and more srmips, therefore, more complication.
`The 2-shaft machine indeed provides a better product.
`Direct vs. Gear-Driven Fans. Our competition has
`been talking about gear-driven fans for the last 10,
`maybe even 15 years. We took an in-depth look at a
`direct vs. gear-driven installation for a 35,000-lb. class
`engine. We defined a common core and installed a 76”
`direct drive fan. To achieve the right operating pressure
`ratio, we incorporated a 6-stage booster and a 6-stage
`low-pressure turbine. For the gear-driven configuration
`we employed a slower 76” fan, a 3-stage booster. and a
`3-stage low-pressure turbine. There are indeed fewer
`stages on the gear-driven machine, however, we needed
`to add a 640-lb. gearbox to drive the fan.
`As we first look at the weight (Figure 8), we note that
`the Fan / Low Pressure Compressor is lighter for the
`Gear-Driven configlnation. The core is the same. The
`low-pressure turbine is lighter. The controls and
`accessories are about the same. The nacelle is slightly
`lighter. So the Gear-Driven machine appears lighter
`until you add the Gearbox. Then we sit at parity with
`basically the same weight for both configurations.
`
`Lbs.
`
`'
`
`DDF
`
`GDF
`
`Figure 8. Engine Architecture Comparison.
`
`When we look at fuel brnn, we get basically the same
`result with no inherent performance advantage due to a
`gear drive. Let us now see in Figure 9 how both designs
`compare in fuel burn as a fimction of bypass ratio. You
`will first note that a minimum in fuel burn is achieved at
`
`bypass ratios of about 8 to 10 irrespective of the
`configuration. As we grow in bypass ratio we
`significantly loose in fuel burn. By the time we get to a
`
`UTC—20l6.003
`
`

`

`_
`
`Predict,
`
`K
`i ————— —.’°" ,4’
`I
`\
`s‘
`
`(July 2000)
`
`GE90—115B Test Data I
`\ \ \ \ \
`|
`
`
`MMIUIIWO1
`
`I181!
`
`I
`
`‘A
`\\
`
`GE90-948 Radid Blade
`
`‘\
`
`3573 SBIIIIIIIIZIBIIIIIISIKIITIHIISIII
`W1”!
`
`Swept Fan Blade
`
`Figure 11. GE90 Swept Fan Blade.
`
`We also tested a 9-Stage derivative of the GE90
`Compressor shown in Figure 12. This is the
`configuration plarmed for the GE90-115B and the
`GP7000. Here again we gained about a point in
`efliciency. exceeding our goals and pennitting a
`significant temperature reduction at takeoff. and
`improved performance at cruise. We believe that this
`compressor is setting a new standard for the industry.
`
`
`
`IE IS ISI 2“ III
`
`221 3
`
`I|lelCon:chdAilbw_I|I2c
`
`Figure 12. 9-Stage GE90 HP Compressor.
`
`We have been working on the development of a low
`stage number compressor for the Project TECH56.
`There we increased the pressure ratio from 11.4 to close
`to 15 as shown in Figure 13 while reducing the number
`of stages from 9 to 6. We have reduced the airfoil count
`by over a third. We ran the first build of the compressor
`and met or exceeded the stall margin objective.
`achieved the desired airflow. and experienced low
`stresses throughout the machine. We are preparing for
`the second build where we hope to achieve our best
`efficiency.
`
`CFM56
`
`Proiecf
`TECH56
`
`Number of Stages
`Pressure Ratio
`
`Pressure Ratio per stage
`Number of Airfoils
`
`Variable Stage Count
`
`9
`1 1 .4
`
`1.31
`1 51 8
`
`4
`
`6
`14.1
`
`1.57
`968
`
`3
`
`Figure 13. HP Compressor Technology.
`
`UTC—2016.004
`
`1:I-
`
`3G 3
`
`.a O
`
`.:1
`u_
`0
`g\
`4.F‘ c
`
`Fuel Burn vs. BPR
`
`0~.0
`
`Figure 9. Installed Engine Performance Trends
`— Fuel Burn vs. Bypass Ratio.
`
`bypass ratio of 14. the gear-driven design offers
`between a half and a 1% advantage but you have to go
`there at significant weight and performance penalties.
`On noise. no significant difference as shown in Figure
`10. if anything the Direct-Drive offers larger noise
`margins. Both designs offer benefits as you move
`toward a very high bypass ratio. of course at the
`expense of weight. fuel burn. and range. In summary.
`Gear-Driven and Direct-Driven Fans appear comparable
`in fuel burn. performance. and noise. The conventional
`direct-drive offers the performance without the
`reliability issues associated with a gear. This study
`which I shared with you as well as other studies we
`performed confirms that the architecture of choice for
`GE/CFM engines remains a 2—shafi. direct-drive design.
`
`
`
`Figure 10. Installed Engine Performance
`Trends — Engine Noise Margin vs. Bypass Ratio.
`
`Aerodynamics
`Let us begin our discussion about the technologies we
`are working on to permit us to move forward. with fan
`aerodynamics. We have just completed last year. a
`series of tests to optimize the fan blade for the GE90-
`1l5B engine. The winning configuration (Figure 11)
`mined out to be a high flow swept fan. With this
`configuration we exceeded our goals and demonstrated
`world-class flow and efliciency superior to any in the
`industry. This represents a real achievement in fan
`aerodynamics.
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 16. Seal Test Results.
`
`extensively on the rig with no increase in leakage. We
`are looking here at a 12°C improvement in engine
`temperature. as well as a reduction in deterioration in
`service. Significant more time on wing. Very nice
`results. We are in the process of endurance testing a
`CFM56 engine with these new seals. We’re looking
`forward to this step-change in technology.
`
`Environment
`
`The environment has influenced our lives in the past
`and we know that it will in the future. Let us first look
`
`at emissions. The key emissions concerns are CO2 and
`NOx as they affect the ozone layer and global warming.
`We have been reducing CO2 emissions for a number of
`years as we made our engines more eflicient and
`therefore btun less fuel. We have also been working to
`reduce NOX emissions as we see stringency increasing
`(Figure 17) . The ICAO NOx standard first set in 1981.
`became 20% more stringent in 1996 and will get 16%
`tougher in 2004. The good story here is that all
`GE/CFM products alreafl meet all these standards.
`The fact remains however. that these standards will
`
`continue to become more stringent in the ICAO rules
`and in local communities. So we have to continue to
`
`work on reducing emissions.
`
`Let us now talk about Turbines. We have run a new
`
`High Pressure Turbine for the Project TECH56
`followed by a new counterrotating low-pressure turbine
`on our unique Dual Shaft Rig. This represents our third
`generation single-stage turbine. shown in Fi -
`e 14.
`x
`.
`
`
`
`.
`
`E -
`
`10% Fewer Airfoils
`
`-50% Reduction in
`
`Trailing Edge Shock ‘,
`Strength
`:2,
`
`-22% Reduction in
`
`Blade Cooling Flow
`
`Figure 14. Project TECH56 HP Turbine
`Technology Features.
`
`The high-pressure turbine was higher in loading. had a
`10% reduction in airfoil colmt. and incorporated new
`features to reduce the shock strength going downstream.
`The low-pressure turbine also was highly loaded and
`incorporated a 19% reduction in airfoils. The high-
`pressure turbine results (Figure 15) were impressive.
`exceeding any efficiency ever experienced in a single-
`stage turbine. We reduced the number of airfoils by
`10%. increased the loading by 15%. and improved the
`efficiency by almost a point. We are very pleased with
`the results! On the Low Pressure Turbine. we exceeded
`
`our turbine efliciency prediction by close to a point
`while reducing the number of airfoils by 19%. We plan
`to evaluate additional designs later this year. We are
`indeed working to set a new standard in low-pressure
`turbine design.
`0.91
`
`HPTStage GEa7
`
` z TECH56
`cmscsa/P
`F404
`
`cmsesc
`
`Rio Test
`
`Efliciency
`
`on
`
`us
`
`on
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`HPT Pressue Ratio
`
`5
`
`Figure 15. HP Turbine Test Results.
`
`Good seals are essential for good new engine
`performance as well as for performance retention. As
`part of the Project TECH56 program. we have been
`developing Brush Seals for key locations in the High
`Pressure Turbine and testing them in a full-scale high-
`pressure rig. Our latest configurations are yielding
`significant results (shown in Figure 16) with a 40%
`reduction in leakage. We have cycled these seals
`
`ICAO N0
`Standards
`Standard
`
`;:.«:e* -‘-/2
`
`1996
`
`Current
`GE Engines
`
`N0x 80
`
`60
`
`40
`
`20
`
`
`
`5
`:0
`35
`4:
`45
`Engliie Pressure Ratio
`Figure 17. Emissions Stringency Increasing.
`
`At GE we started with a Low Emission Single
`Amrular Combustor which we optimized for the CF6
`family. When the enviromnental pressure in Europe
`demanded lower NOx. we developed a Dual Armular
`
`UTC-2016.005
`
`

`

`are using the Universal Propulsion Simulator, so called
`UPS. We worked jointly with NASA on a program
`where we tested different type CF6 fans (Figure 19).
`
`
`
`9-qflllgand
`
`I&fiiVz|eFl:In
`
`Figure 19. High Speed Scale Model Fan Test.
`
`Here We tested diflerent rotors and different outlet guide
`vanes. We determined that we could reduce fan noise
`
`by as much as 3-EPNdB with swept and leaned guide
`vanes. This could significantly help the current fleet.
`Another program was conducted in cooperation with
`Boeing with the GE UPS rtmning in their facility
`(Figure 20) . We evaluated 3 types of GE90-1 15B fan
`blades and confirmed that the High Flow Swept Blade, I
`discussed earlier, provided the optimum configuration
`for reducing both community and cabin noise. Very
`nice results.
`Acoustic Evaluauon 01 Three
`Diflerenr Fan Blade Types
`
`
`
`V
`
`
`V
`.0-.l.\I1
`\
`
`...~,».‘)»‘.‘ull||\
`.
`lmlllllllllllw:
`
`
`
`Figure 20. GEAE/Boeing GE90-115B Acoustic
`Test — August 2000.
`
`To reduce jet noise we have been working on
`Chevron Nozzles. We have, by now, tested over 50
`Chevron nozzles in our Anechoic Facility. We have
`also tested Chewons on two full-scale engines: the CF6-
`80C2 and the CF34-8C5, pictured in Figure 21. Results
`have confirmed as much as a 3.5 EPNdB reduction in
`
`jet noise with minimal performance loss. We have
`flown the chevron nozzles and confirmed the benefits
`
`gound testing predicted. Super results. As the noise
`stringency increases, you will see more and more
`Chevrons on our upcoming products.
`
`UTC-2016.006
`
`Radial Staged Combustor. It has two combustion zones.
`A pilot zone optimized for ignition and low power
`hydrocarbon and C0 emissions, and a lean main stage
`for N0x. It has achieved NOx levels 50% below ICAO
`
`CAEP/2 levels setting a new NOx standard for the
`whole industry. We have by now almost 8 million
`hours of successful in-service operation with this
`configuration. Now we are pushing the envelope again
`with the TAPS configuration pictured in Figure 1 8.
`
`
`
`Figure 18. TAPS Combustion System
`
`Here we have a co-armular pre-mixed swirler and the
`staging occurs within this swirler which permits lean
`burning at high power. Our goal is to be at 50% of
`ICAO CAEP/2 levels over a range ofpressure ratios
`with a simplified design. The TAPS configuration has
`not only met, but exceeded our expectations and yielded
`NOx levels at about 38% of the ICAO Standards. This
`
`will be setting a new state of the art for the industry.
`The TAPS combustor has been installed in a CFM56
`
`engine and has been rlmning successfully since
`December of last year. We have demonstrated not only
`great emission levels but also outstanding operability.
`We plan to confirm the TAPS combustor’s reliability
`through extensive endurance testing by the end of this
`year. We believe that we have made a breakthrough in
`emissions reduction and we want to make sure that the
`
`TAPS combustor is well tested, and service ready
`before we release it to the operators.
`Let us now talk about noise. We have been working
`at making engines quieter for the last thirty years
`providing significant margins relative to FAR36 Stage
`III requirements. The GE90, with its low-pressure-
`ratio-fan exemplifies our efforts towards making the
`quietest engines in the world. Now these requirements
`will change with the coming of Stage IV, which will be
`at Stage III -10. We are attacking the two main sources
`of noise, the Fan and the Jet. To work on fan noise we
`
`

`

`We will get a 14% reduction in weight. a 44% reduction
`in parts count and a 30%r+ improvement in reliability.
`We have rim the system on the GP7000 core with good
`results and are planning to install this new configuration
`on an engine in the next year.
`
`Materials
`
`Improved materials are an essential part our
`development strategy as we strive for improved
`performance and Low Cost of Ownership. We are
`working on an improved blade material MX4 with
`improved thermal barrier coatings (TBC) going from
`TBCI to TBC2 (see Figure 22) . We are looking to
`F in)OO
`
`° 5(
`
`
`
`MXAITBC-2
`
`8
`
`5QmC
`
`)
`era\_
`3(UL.
`Q)
`Q.
`E
`‘:1;
`<
`
`198l=rociii(i:t Dléggignzliiotrodfitlon
`
`Figure 22. Blade Alloy / TBC Development.
`
`introduce this technology in an engine in 3 years. It
`should provide a 4 to 1 life improvement ir1 turbine
`blades pennitting a significant reduction in maintenance
`costs and extend time on wing. Great progress. Setting
`new industry standards. We have also been working on
`a new disk material, ME3. It should provide a
`significant life improvement compared to current
`materials like INCO7l8 and R88DT. It is lighter with
`increased temperature capability. We should have this
`material ready in 3 years. ME3 will provide a major
`improvement in life limited parts and reduce
`maintenance costs. Composites. specifically Ceramic
`Matrix Composites. offer some significant possibilities
`for combustor liners (Figure 23). They give us a
`significant temperature capability increase. with a 2 to 1
`life improvement relative to current liners with thermal
`barrier coating. In parallel. they permit a reduction in
`liner cooling flow, which can now be incorporated in
`
`combustor Liner Life
`
`
`
`Figure 23. CMC Cornbustor Liner.
`
`UTC—2016.007
`
`
`
`
`CF6-80C2
`
`CF34-8C
`
`Figure 21. Chevron Nozzle Static Engine Test.
`
`Controls & Accessories
`Let us now talk about Controls and Accessories. We
`
`want to provide you with controls that are modular and
`have a low maintenance cost. We have focused our
`
`technology in two key areas for the short term:
`1. Improved Electronic System Capacity and
`Functionality
`2. High Reliability Accessories
`Let me give you a couple of examples. We are using
`a building block approach to design optimum flexibility
`into our third—generation FADEC, we call it FADEC-3.
`It will have 10 times higher throughput and 16 times
`more memory capacity relative to its predecessor. It
`will provide more flexible readings and faster
`computations. Our plan is to introduce FADEC-3 on
`the GE90-115B this year and the GP7000 next year. Its
`application will follow on other products and should
`bring a substantial enhancement to our engines.
`We are working also on Hydraulic Multiplexing. so
`called HMUX. This is a drive towards simplification.
`We have here a single motor driving multiple valves
`eliminating the need for actuators and complex systems.
`
`

`

`the dome for a 20% reduction in N0x. We have
`
`designed such a combustor and will be running it in a
`full-scale rig later this year. We are also working on
`improved materials for bearings where we would see the
`replacement of steel balls with ceramic for a significant
`improvement in life. We believe that we need fliis
`technology as we strive for faster, higher pressure ratio
`machines with reduced stage colmts and lower
`maintenance cost.
`
`Design Tools
`Before I conclude I want to say a couple ofwords
`about om Design Tools. We have worked diligently to
`reduce our engine certification cycle time from 58 to 24
`months as shown in Figure 24. We have used our Six
`Engine
`Certification
`
`
`
`-40
`
`- 8
`-30 -24
`0ye|eTIne, Ins.
`
`-10
`
`-50
`
`Figure 24. Better Design Tools.
`
`Sigma design and reliability methodology to measure,
`analyze, and improve our processes. We achieved this
`capability in late 1998 which has placed us well ahead
`of the industry. We are implementing this Thruput
`standard on all the new products we are developing.
`We mature our technologies before we put them in our
`products. This short cycle permits us to incorporate the
`latest customer/airfi'amer requirements. Truly a win-
`win process. We have decided to take another step and
`strive towards an 18-month certification cycle capability
`by the year 2002. This accelerated Thruput will be
`provided primarily by the incorporation of improved
`design and analytical tools. We are developing an
`Intelligent Master Model (shown in Figure 25) which
`permits us to optimize an overall engine design taking
`into accoimt all the design rules and lessons learned in
`the past, and do it in record time. We then can take any
`engine part and, in a linked environment, go through a
`detailed design, thermal and stress analysis, perform
`many iterations for its optimization, and define the
`associated features and tooling for production. In
`parallel the Analytical Tools will generate a linked
`Digital Mockup which can be used for maintenance
`optimization and airframe integration. The cycle time
`reductions, as well as the quality improvents
`provided by the Six Sigma fidelity of these tools, are
`truly impressive.
`
`Standardization ’
`
`Parametric, Rules
`Based Design
`- Rapid Design
`Optimization
`- Design Process
`
`'-
`
`- Design Reuse
`
`Linked Analysis 5
`Mtg Canter! Models
`- Concurrent Product
`- Reduced Cycle Time
`Development
`- Fewer Error
`Opportunities
`
`fl" ;
`
`Llnl(¢d Digital Mockup
`~ Maintenance Madonna 6
`Optimlzanan
`« Airframe Integration
`
`I 4
`
`»
`1-
`i ) < ) X
`llruod Mm Moon:
`
`‘ 7‘
`
`Lumod man“ 4 Yooling Lmnd Duwinq
`
`I
`
` Lmlvod Ru./wu
`
`Figure 25. Intelligent Master Model.
`
`Some examples:
`1 . CF680-G2 Fan Disk Design was reduced from 1 5
`to 8 months
`
`2. CF34-10 Stages 1 & 2 High Pressure Compressor
`Disk analysis reduced from 2 weeks to 1 day
`3. CF34»l0 Combustion configuration iteration
`reduced from 1 week to less than 2 hours.
`
`The examples go on and on; impressive results. We
`are not only cutting the cycle times but also providing
`better Six Sigma designs through better processes.
`
`Global Engineering
`Let me now conclude by discussing where and how
`we do our engineering. By now we are a global
`engineering organization, see Figure 26. Our Key
`Engineering Centers are located in Evendale and Lyim
`for, respectively, large and small engines, both
`commercial and military. Key technologies are being
`
`//I717“
`
`5 —
`
`
`
`
`Figure 26. Global Engineering Sites.
`
`developed at the General Electric Corporate Research &
`Development Center in Schenectady, New York. Our
`product definition design analysis is being done at CIAT
`in Mexico. Some key repair development is taking
`place at Celma in Brazil. We have created an
`Engineering Design Center in Poland where we have
`started some demonstrator designs. EACOE right here
`in Bangalore has become a significant cter for
`structural analysis for all our commercial engines. We
`
`UTC-2016.008
`
`

`

`have also a Manufacturing Process Technology Center
`in Turkey and Manufacturing and Repair Support
`Centers in Malaysia and Singapore. These centers
`around the globe are linked electronically and permit us
`to accomplish our engineering work in the most
`eflective way using the best talent available around the
`world.
`
`We are doing the same thing using academia by
`creating what we call Strategic University Alliances
`where we have specific disciplines developed in some
`key universities indicated in Figure 27. At Stanford, we
`have turbine cooling, heat transfer, and six sigma design
`work going on. At the University of Cincinnati, we are
`working on acoustics and aerodynamics. We have Ohio
`State doing full-scale turbine testing and working on
`aeromechanics. Georgia Tech is developing
`probabilistic design methodology and new propulsion
`technologies. Clemson is working on film cooling and
`computational fluid dynamics. Duke is performing
`aeromechanics work, and MIT is working on
`compressor aerodynamics. Abroad, we have the
`University of Aachen in Germany doing both
`ctrifugal compressor and computational fluid
`dynamic compressor design. At the Swiss Federal
`Institute of Technology in Zurich, we have
`computational fluid dynamic work on both the
`compressor and turbine taking place. This permits us to
`use the best new talent available in our research efforts.
`
`
`
`Figure 27. University Strategic Alliances.
`
`In conclusion, this is a technology driven business. The
`market demands a constant commitment to develop new
`advanced products. We need to remain focused on
`Customer requirements and customer satisfaction, they
`represent the overwhelming parameters for success.
`Our business requires aggressive short and long range
`technology development and we are committed to do it.
`We have held the technology leadership in this industry
`in the past and we are committed to keep it for product
`generations to come.
`
`UTC-2016.009
`
`