Patent Grant
10662880
The disclosure relates to turbofan engines. More particularly, the disclosure relates to low pressure turbine sections of turbofan engines which power the fans via a speed reduction mechanism.
There has been a trend toward increasing bypass ratio in gas turbine engines. This is discussed further below. There has generally been a correlation between certain characteristics of bypass and the diameter of the low pressure turbine section sections of turbofan engines.
One aspect of the disclosure involves a turbofan engine having an engine case and a gaspath through the engine case. A fan has a circumferential array of fan blades. The engine further has a compressor in fluid communication with the fan, a combustor in fluid communication with the compressor, a turbine in fluid communication with the combustor, wherein the turbine includes a low pressure turbine section. A speed reduction mechanism couples the low pressure turbine section to the fan. A bypass area ratio is greater than about 6.0. A ratio of the total number of airfoils in the low pressure turbine section divided by the bypass area ratio is less than about 170.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, the bypass area ratio may be greater than about 8.0 or may be between about 8.0 and about 20.0.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, a fan case may encircle the fan blades radially outboard of the engine case.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, the compressor may comprise a low pressure compressor section and a high pressure compressor section.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, the blades of the low pressure compressor section and low pressure turbine section may share low shaft.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, the high pressure compressor section and a high pressure turbine section of the turbine may share a high shaft.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, there are no additional compressor or turbine sections.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, the speed reduction mechanism may comprise an epicyclic transmission coupling the low speed shaft to a fan shaft to drive the fan with a speed reduction.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, the low pressure turbine section may have an exemplary 2 to 6 blade stages or 2 to 3 blade stages.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, a hub-to-tip ratio (RI:RO) of the low pressure turbine section may be between about 0.4 and about 0.5 measured at the maximum RO axial location in the low pressure turbine section.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, a ratio of maximum gaspath radius along the low pressure turbine section to maximum radius of the fan may be less than about 0.55, or less than about 0.50, or between about 0.35 and about 0.50.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, said ratio of low pressure turbine section airfoil count to bypass area ratio may be between is about 10 and about 150.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, an airfoil count of the low pressure turbine section may be below about 1600.
In additional or alternative embodiments of any of the foregoing embodiments, the engine may be in combination with a mounting arrangement (e.g., of an engine pylon) wherein an aft mount reacts at least a thrust load.
The details of one or more embodiments are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, objects, and advantages will be apparent from the description and drawings, and from the claims.
Like reference numbers and designations in the various drawings indicate like elements.
The engine extends along a longitudinal axis 500 from a fore end to an aft end. Adjacent the fore end, a shroud (fan case) 40 encircles the fan 42 and is supported by vanes 44. An aerodynamic nacelle around the fan case is shown and an aerodynamic nacelle 45 around the engine case is shown.
The low shaft portion 25 of the rotor shaft assembly 23 drives the fan 42 through a speed reduction mechanism 46. An exemplary speed reduction mechanism is an epicyclic transmission, namely a star or planetary gear system. As is discussed further below, an inlet airflow 520 entering the nacelle is divided into a portion 522 passing along a core flowpath 524 and a bypass portion 526 passing along a bypass flowpath 528. With the exception of diversions such as cooling air, etc., flow along the core flowpath sequentially passes through the low pressure compressor section, high pressure compressor section, a combustor 48, the high pressure turbine section, and the low pressure turbine section before exiting from an outlet 530.
The star gears 56 are positioned between and enmeshed with the sun gear and ring gear. A cage or star carrier assembly 60 carries the star gears via associated journals 62. The exemplary star carrier is substantially irrotatably mounted relative via fingers 404 to the case 22.
Another transmission/gearbox combination has the star carrier connected to the fan and the ring is fixed to the fixed structure (case) is possible and such is commonly referred to as a planetary gearbox.
The speed reduction ratio is determined by the ratio of diameters within the gearbox. An exemplary reduction is between about 2:1 and about 13:1.
The exemplary fan (
To mount the engine to the aircraft wing 92, a pylon 94 is mounted to the fan case and/or to the other engine cases. The exemplary pylon 94 may be as disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/832,107 (US2009/0056343A1). The pylon comprises a forward mount 100 and an aft/rear mount 102. The forward mount may engage the engine intermediate case (IMC) and the aft mount may engage the engine thrust case. The aft mount reacts at least a thrust load of the engine.
To reduce aircraft fuel burn with turbofans, it is desirable to produce a low pressure turbine with the highest efficiency and lowest weight possible. Further, there are considerations of small size (especially radial size) that benefit the aerodynamic shape of the engine cowling and allow room for packaging engine subsystems.
An alternative may be an unshrouded blade with a rotational gap between the tip of the blade and a stationary blade outer air seal (BOAS)). Each exemplary shroud 224 has outboard sealing ridges which seal with abradable seals (e.g., honeycomb) fixed to the case. The exemplary vanes in stages 206 and 208 include airfoils 230 extending from ID platforms 232 to OD shrouds 234. The exemplary OD shrouds 234 are directly mounted to the case. The exemplary platforms 232 carry seals for sealing with inter-disk knife edges protruding outwardly from inter-disk spacers which may be separate from the adjacent disks or unitarily formed with one of the adjacent disks.
Each exemplary disk 210, 212, 214 comprises an enlarged central annular protuberance or “bore” 240, 242, 244 and a thinner radial web 246, 248, 250 extending radially outboard from the bore. The bore imparts structural strength allowing the disk to withstand centrifugal loading which the disk would otherwise be unable to withstand.
A turbofan engine is characterized by its bypass ratio (mass flow ratio of air bypassing the core to air passing through the core) and the geometric bypass area ratio (ratio of fan duct annulus area outside/outboard of the low pressure compressor section inlet (i.e., at location 260 in
By employing a speed reduction mechanism (e.g., a transmission) to allow the low pressure turbine section to turn very fast relative to the fan and by employing low pressure turbine section design features for high speed, it is possible to create a compact turbine module (e.g., while producing the same amount of thrust and increasing bypass area ratio). The exemplary transmission is a epicyclic transmission. Alternative transmissions include composite belt transmissions, metal chain belt transmissions, fluidic transmissions, and electric means (e.g., a motor/generator set where the turbine turns a generator providing electricity to an electric motor which drives the fan).
Compactness of the turbine is characterized in several ways. Along the compressor and turbine sections, the core gaspath extends from an inboard boundary (e.g., at blade hubs or outboard surfaces of platforms of associated blades and vanes) to an outboard boundary (e.g., at blade tips and inboard surfaces of blade outer air seals for unshrouded blade tips and at inboard surfaces of OD shrouds of shrouded blade tips and at inboard surfaces of OD shrouds of the vanes). These boundaries may be characterized by radii RI and RO, respectively, which vary along the length of the engine.
For low pressure turbine radial compactness, there may be a relatively high ratio of radial span (RO-RI) to radius (RO or RI). Radial compactness may also be expressed in the hub-to-tip ratio (RI:RO). These may be measured at the maximum RO location in the low pressure turbine section. The exemplary compact low pressure turbine section has a hub-to-tip ratio close to about 0.5 (e.g., about 0.4-0.5 or about 0.42-0.48, with an exemplary about 0.46).
Another characteristic of low pressure turbine radial compactness is relative to the fan size. An exemplary fan size measurement is the maximum tip radius RTmax of the fan blades. An exemplary ratio is the maximum RO along the low pressure turbine section to RTmax of the fan blades. Exemplary values for this ratio are less than about 0.55 (e.g., about 0.35-55), more narrowly, less than about 0.50, or about 0.35-0.50.
To achieve compactness the designer may balance multiple physical phenomena to arrive at a system solution as defined by the low pressure turbine hub-to-tip ratio, the fan maximum tip radius to low pressure turbine maximum RO ratio, the bypass area ratio, and the bypass area ratio to low pressure turbine airfoil count ratio. These concerns include, but are not limited to: a) aerodynamics within the low pressure turbine, b) low pressure turbine blade structural design, c) low pressure turbine disk structural design, and d) the shaft connecting the low pressure turbine to the low pressure compressor and speed reduction device between the low pressure compressor and fan. These physical phenomena may be balanced in order to achieve desirable performance, weight, and cost characteristics.
The addition of a speed reduction device between the fan and the low pressure compressor creates a larger design space because the speed of the low pressure turbine is decoupled from the fan. This design space provides great design variables and new constraints that limit feasibility of a design with respect to physical phenomena. For example the designer can independently change the speed and flow area of the low pressure turbine to achieve optimal aerodynamic parameters defined by flow coefficient (axial flow velocity/wheel speed) and work coefficient (wheel speed/square root of work). However, this introduces structural constraints with respect blade stresses, disk size, material selection, etc.
In some examples, the designer can choose to make low pressure turbine section disk bores much thicker relative to prior art turbine bores and the bores may be at a much smaller radius RB. This increases the amount of mass at less than a “self sustaining radius”. Another means is to choose disk materials of greater strength than prior art such as the use of wrought powdered metal disks to allow for extremely high centrifugal blade pulls associated with the compactness.
Another variable in achieving compactness is to increase the structural parameter AN2 which is the annulus area of the exit of the low pressure turbine divided by the low pressure turbine rpm squared at its redline or maximum speed. Relative to prior art turbines, which are greatly constrained by fan blade tip mach number, a very wide range of AN2 values can be selected and optimized while accommodating such constraints as cost or a countering, unfavorable trend in low pressure turbine section shaft dynamics. In selecting the turbine speed (and thereby selecting the transmission speed ratio, one has to be mindful that at too high a gear ratio the low pressure turbine section shaft (low shaft) will become dynamically unstable.
The higher the design speed, the higher the gear ratio will be and the more massive the disks will become and the stronger the low pressure turbine section disk and blade material will have to be. All of these parameters can be varied simultaneously to change the weight of the turbine, its efficiency, its manufacturing cost, the degree of difficulty in packaging the low pressure turbine section in the core cowling and its durability. This is distinguished from a prior art direct drive configuration, where the high bypass area ratio can only be achieved by a large low pressure turbine section radius. Because that radius is so very large and, although the same variables (airfoil turning, disk size, blade materials, disk shape and materials, etc.) are theoretically available, as a practical matter economics and engine fuel burn considerations severely limit the designer's choice in these parameters.
Another characteristic of low pressure turbine section size is airfoil count (numerical count of all of the blades and vanes in the low pressure turbine). Airfoil metal angles can be selected such that airfoil count is low or extremely low relative to a direct drive turbine. In known prior art engines having bypass area ratio above 6.0 (e.g. 8.0-20), low pressure turbine sections involve ratios of airfoil count to bypass area ratio above 190.
With the full range of selection of parameters discussed above including, disk bore thickness, disk material, hub to tip ratio, and RO/RTmax, the ratio of airfoil count to bypass area ratio may be below about 170 to as low as 10. (e.g., below about 150 or an exemplary about 10-170, more narrowly about 10-150). Further, in such embodiments the airfoil count may be below about 1700, or below about 1600.
One or more embodiments have been described. Nevertheless, it will be understood that various modifications may be made. For example, when reengineering from a baseline engine configuration, details of the baseline may influence details of any particular implementation. Accordingly, other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims.
This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/599,175, filed Aug. 30, 2012, and entitled “Turbine Section of High Bypass Turbofan,” which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/475,252, filed May 18, 2012, and entitled “Turbine Section of High Bypass Turbofan”, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 11/832,107, filed Aug. 1, 2007, and entitled “Engine Mounting Configuration for a Turbofan Gas Turbine Engine” and benefit is claimed of U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 61/593,190, filed Jan. 31, 2012, and entitled “Turbine Section of High Bypass Turbofan” and U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 61/498,516, filed Jun. 17, 2011, and entitled “Turbine Section of High Bypass Turbofan”, the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entireties as if set forth at length.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3287906 | McCormick | Nov 1966 | A |
| 3327971 | Stewart et al. | Jun 1967 | A |
| 3754484 | Roberts | Aug 1973 | A |
| 3756623 | Whittler | Sep 1973 | A |
| 3843277 | Ehrich | Oct 1974 | A |
| 3892358 | Gisslen | Jul 1975 | A |
| 4037809 | Legrand | Jul 1977 | A |
| 4044973 | Moorehead | Aug 1977 | A |
| 4130872 | Harloff | Dec 1978 | A |
| 4220171 | Ruehr et al. | Sep 1980 | A |
| 4240250 | Harris | Dec 1980 | A |
| 4266741 | Murphy | May 1981 | A |
| 4313711 | Lee | Feb 1982 | A |
| 4595340 | Klassen et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
| 4722357 | Wynosky | Feb 1988 | A |
| 4966338 | Gordon | Oct 1990 | A |
| 4969325 | Adamson et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
| 5058617 | Stockman et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5136839 | Armstrong | Aug 1992 | A |
| 5174525 | Schilling | Dec 1992 | A |
| 5273393 | Jones et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
| 5275357 | Seelen et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5277382 | Seelen et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
| 5320307 | Spofford et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5372338 | Carlin et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5409184 | Udall et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
| 5433674 | Sheridan et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5443229 | O'Brien et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5447411 | Curley et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5452575 | Freid | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5474258 | Taylor et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5497961 | Newton | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5524847 | Brodell et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5746391 | Rodgers et al. | May 1998 | A |
| 5778659 | Duesler et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
| 5810287 | O'Boyle et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5857836 | Stickler et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5860276 | Newton | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5871175 | Demouzon et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5871176 | Demouzon et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5871177 | Demouzon et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5915917 | Eveker et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5921500 | Ellis et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5927644 | Ellis et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5975841 | Lindemuth et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6106233 | Walker et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6126110 | Seaquist et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6138949 | Manende et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6189830 | Schnelz et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6223616 | Sheridan | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6318070 | Rey et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6474597 | Cazenave | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6478545 | Crall et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
| 6517027 | Abruzzese | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6524072 | Brownell et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6607165 | Mayr et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
| 6619030 | Seda et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6652222 | Wojtyczka et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6708925 | Udall | Mar 2004 | B2 |
| 6814541 | Evans et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
| 6899518 | Lucas et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
| 6935591 | Udall | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 7021042 | Law | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7021585 | Loewenstein et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7055330 | Miller et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7134286 | Markarian et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7374403 | Decker et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7445433 | Chivers et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
| 7591754 | Duong et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
| 7654075 | Udall | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7677493 | Diochon et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7694505 | Schilling | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7824305 | Duong et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7841165 | Orlando et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7926260 | Sheridan et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 8205432 | Sheridan | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8545167 | Cheung | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8834099 | Topol et al. | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8869504 | Schwarz et al. | Oct 2014 | B1 |
| 20010010798 | Dailey et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
| 20060090448 | Henry | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060228206 | Decker et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248900 | Suciu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20090056343 | Suciu | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090092487 | McCune et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090185908 | Chung et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090304473 | Holze et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090304518 | Kodama et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100148396 | Xie et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100331139 | McCune | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110056183 | Sankrithi et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110123326 | DiBenedetto et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
| 20120124964 | Hasel et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120251306 | Reinhardt et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
| 20120291449 | Adams et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20130186058 | Sheridan et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130224003 | Kupratis et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20140174056 | Suciu et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20150089958 | Suciu et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150233303 | Sheridan et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
| 20150377122 | Adams et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 1617044 | Jan 2006 | EP |
| 2025898 | Feb 2009 | EP |
| 2359975 | Aug 2011 | EP |
| 2535548 | Dec 2012 | EP |
| 3115576 | Jan 2017 | EP |
| 1516041 | Jun 1978 | GB |
| 2010969 | Jul 1979 | GB |
| 2041090 | Sep 1980 | GB |
| 2440345 | Jan 2008 | GB |
| 2007038674 | Apr 2007 | NO |
| 2014152101 | Sep 2014 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Knip, “Analysis of an Advanced Technology Subsonic Turbofan Incorporating Revolutionary Materials”, NASA Technical Memorandum, May 1987. |
| Wendus, et al.,. “Follow-On Technology Requirement Study for Advanced Subsonic Transport”, NASA/CR-2003-212467, Aug. 2003. |
| Rauch, Dale, “Design Study of an Air Pump and Integral Lift Engine ALF-504 Using the Lycoming 502 Core”, NASA/CR-120,992, Jul. 1972. |
| Conference on Engineering and Physics: Synergy for Success 2006. Journal of Physics: Conference Series vol. 105. London, UK. Oct. 5, 2006. |
| Kurzke, J. (2009). Fundamental differences between conventional and geared turbofans. Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air. 2009, Orlando, Florida. |
| Agarwal, B.D and Broutman, L.J. (1990). Analysis and performance of fiber composites, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York: New York. |
| Carney, K., Pereira, M. Revilock, and Matheny, P. Jet engine fan blade containment using two alternate geometries. 4th European LS-DYNA Users Conference. |
| Brines, G.L. (1990). The turbofan of tomorrow. Mechanical Engineering: The Journal of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,108(8), 65-67. |
| Faghri, A. (1995). Heat pipe and science technology. Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis. |
| Hess, C. (1998). Pratt & Whitney develops geared turbofan. Flug Revue 43(7). Oct. 1998. |
| Grady, J.E., Weir, D.S., Lamoureux, M.C., and Martinez, M.M. (2007). Engine noise research in NASA's quiet aircraft technology project. Papers from the International Symposium on Air Breathing Engines (ISABE). 2007. |
| Griffiths, B. (2005). Composite fan blade containment case. Modern Machine Shop. Retrieved from: http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/composite-fan-blade-containment-case. |
| Hall, C.A. and Crichton, D. (2007). Engine design studies for a silent aircraft. Journal of Turbomachinery, 129, 479-487. |
| Hague, A. and Shamsuzzoha, M., Hussain, F., and Dean, D. (2003). S20-glass/epoxy polymer nanocomposites: Manufacturing, structures, thermal and mechanical properties. Journal of Composite Materials, 37 (20), 1821-1837. |
| Brennan, P.J. and Kroliczek, E.J. (1979). Heat pipe design handbook. Prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration by B & K Engineering, Inc. Jun. 1979. |
| Horikoshi, S. and Serpone, N. (2013). Introduction to nanoparticles. Microwaves in nanoparticle synthesis. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. |
| Kerrebrock, J.L. (1977). Aircraft engines and gas turbines. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. |
| Xie, M. (2008). Intelligent engine systems: Smart case system. NASA/CR-2008-215233. |
| Knip, Jr., G. (1987). Analysis of an advanced technology subsonic turbofan incorporating revolutionary materials. NASA Technical Memorandum. May 1987. |
| Willis, W.S. (1979). Quiet clean short-haul experimental engine (QCSEE) final report. NASA/CR-159473. |
| Kojima, Y., Usuki, A. Kawasumi, M., Okada, A., Fukushim, Y., Kurauchi, T., and Kamigaito, O. (1992). Mechanical properties of nylon 6-clay hybrid. Journal of Materials Research, 8(5), 1185-1189. |
| Kollar, L.P. and Springer, G.S. (2003). Mechanics of composite structures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. |
| Ramsden, J.M. (Ed). (1978). The new European airliner. Flight International, 113(3590). Jan. 7, 1978. |
| Langston, L. and Faghri, A. Heat pipe turbine vane cooling. Prepared for Advanced Turbine Systems Annual Program Review. Morgantown, West Virginia. Oct. 17-19, 1995. |
| Oates, G.C. (Ed). (1989). Aircraft propulsion systems and technology and design. Washington, D.C.: American Institute of Aeronautics, Inc. |
| Lau, K., Gu, C., and Hui, D. (2005). A critical review on nanotube and nanotube/nanoclay related polymer composite materials. Composites: Part B 37(2006) 425-436. |
| Shorter Oxford English dictionary, 6th Edition. (2007). vol. 2, N-Z. p. 1888. |
| Lynwander, P. (1983). Gear drive systems: Design and application. New York, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. |
| Sweetman, B. and Sutton, O. (1998). Pratt & Whitney's surprise leap. Interavia Business & Technology, 53.621, p. 25. |
| Mattingly, J.D. (1996). Elements of gas turbine propulsion. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. |
| Pyrograf-III Carbon Nanofiber. Product guide. Retrieved from: http://pyrografproducts.com/Merchant5/merchant.mvc?Screen=cp_nanofiber. |
| Nanocor Technical Data for Epoxy Nanocomposites using Nanomer 1.30E Nanoclay. Nnacor, Inc. |
| Ratna, D. (2009). Handbook of thermoset resins. Shawbury, UK: iSmithers. |
| Wendus, B.E., Stark, D.F., Holler, R.P., and Funkhouser, M.E. (2003). Follow-on technology requirement study for advanced subsonic transport. NASA/CR-2003-212467. |
| Silverstein, C.C., Gottschlich, J.M., and Meininger, M. The feasibility of heat pipe turbine vane cooling. Presented at the International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition, The Hague, Netherlands. Jun. 13-16, 1994. |
| Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary, 11th Ed. (2009). p. 824. |
| Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary, 10th Ed. (2001). p. 1125-1126. |
| Whitaker, R. (1982). ALF 502: plugging the turbofan gap. Flight International, p. 237-241, Jan. 30, 1982. |
| Hughes, C. (2010). Geared turbofan technology. NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation Project. Green Aviation Summit. NASA Ames Research Center. Sep. 8-9, 2010. |
| File History for U.S. Appl. No. 12/131,876. |
| Cusick, M. (1981). Avco Lycoming's ALF 502 high bypass fan engine. Society of Automotive Engineers, inc. Business Aircraft Meeting & Exposition. Wichita, Kansas. Apr. 7-10, 1981. |
| Fledderjohn, K.R. (1983). The TFE731-5: Evolution of a decade of business jet service. SAE Technical Paper Series. Business Aircraft Meeting & Exposition. Wichita, Kansas. Apr. 12-15, 1983. |
| Dickey, T.A. and Dobak, E.R. (1972). The evolution and development status of ALF 502 turbofan engine. National Aerospace Engineering and Manufacturing Meeting. San Diego, California. Oct. 2-5, 1972. |
| Gunston, B. (Ed.) (2000). Jane's aero-engines, Issue seven. Coulsdon, Surrey, UK: Jane's Information Group Limited. |
| Ivchenko-Progress D-436. Jane's Aero-engines, Aero-engines—Turbofan. Feb. 8, 2012. |
| Ivchenko-Progress AI-727M. Jane's Aero-engines, Aero-engines—Turbofan. Nov. 27, 2011. |
| Ivchenko-Progress D-727. Jane's Aero-engines, Aero-engines—Turbofan. Feb. 7, 2007. |
| Turbomeca Aubisque. Jane's Aero-engines, Aero-engines—Turbofan. Nov. 2, 2009. |
| Aviadvigatel D-110. Jane's Aero-engines, Aero-engines—Turbofan. Jun. 1, 2010. |
| Rolls-Royce M45H. Jane's Aero-engines, Aero-engines—Turbofan. Feb. 24, 2010. |
| Honeywell LF502. Jane's Aero-engines, Aero-engines—Turbofan. Feb. 9, 2012. |
| Honeywell LF507. Jane's Aero-engines, Aero-engines—Turbofan. Feb. 9, 2012. |
| Honeywell TFE731. Jane's Aero-engines, Aero-engines—Turbofan. Jul. 18, 2012. |
| NASA Conference Publication. Quiet, powered-lift propulsion. Cleveland, Ohio. Nov. 14-15, 1978. |
| “Civil Turbojet/Turbofan Specifications”, Jet Engine Specification Database (Apr. 3, 2005). |
| Kandebo, S.W. (1993). Geared-turbofan engine design targets cost, complexity. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 148(8), p. 32. |
| Hendricks, E.S. and Tong, M.T. (2012). Performance and weight estimates for an advanced open rotor engine. NASA/TM-2012-217710. |
| Guynn, M. D., Berton, J.J., Fisher, K. L., Haller, W.J., Tong, M. T., and Thurman, D.R. (2011). Refined exploration of turbofan design options for an advanced single-aisle transport. NASA/TM-2011-216883. |
| Zalud, T. (1998). Gears put a new spin on turbofan performance. Machine Design, 70(20), p. 104. |
| Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,844,265. |
| Declaration of Reza Abhari, Ph.D., dated Jun. 28, 2016. |
| Preliminary Design, Aero-Engine Design: From state of the Art Turbofans Towards Innovative Architectures (Mar. 3-7, 2008), Joachim Kurzke. |
| Fan Root Aerodynamics for Large Bypass Gas Turbine Engines: Influence on the Engine Performance and 3D Design (2009), Giulio Zamboni, et al. |
| European Search Report for European Application No. 16178668.6 dated Nov. 22, 2016. |
| Sabnis, Jayant et al., “The PW1000G Pure Power New Engine Concept and Its Impact on MRO,” System Functional Design, Av Week Engine MRO Forum, Dec. 1, 2010, pp. 1-45. |
| European Search Report for European Application No. 16178691.8 dated Dec. 7, 2016. |
| European Search Report for European Application No. 16178679.3 dated Dec. 1, 2016. |
| Office Action dated Feb. 21, 2014 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/102,764. |
| Kandebo, Stanley, Geared-Turbofan Engine Design Targets Cost, Coplexity, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Feb. 23, 1998. |
| General Electric F101, Jane's Aero-Engines, dated Oct. 11, 2012, IHS Global Limited, Coulsdon, United Kingdom. |
| General Electric F101, Scramble—The Aviation Magazine, Oct. 24, 2011, downloaded May 17, 2013 from http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php?title=General_Electric_F101#F101-GE-100. |
| Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/475,252, dated May 27, 2014 and allowed claims. |
| Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/102,764, dated May 30, 2014 and allowed claims. |
| Jane's Aero-Engines, Edited by Bill Gunston, Issue Seven, Mar. 2000, pp. 510-512, United Kingdom. |
| Applicant-Admitted Prior Art: V2500 Fact Sheet, International Aero Engines, http://i-a-e.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/facts.pdf Jun. 15, 2012. |
| Applicant-Admitted Prior Art: Diagram “GE 90 Engine Airflow” http://ctr-sgi1.stanford.edu/CITS/ge90.html downloaded Jun. 15, 2012. |
| Applicant-Admitted Prior Art: TFE 731-20 PR Sheet, http://design.ae.utexas.edu/subject/work/TFE731_4.jpg downloaded Jun. 15, 2012. |
| Applicant-Admitted Prior Art: Rolls Royce Trent 800, cutaway view, http://www.epower-propulsion.com/epower/gallery/ABP-RR%°Trent%20800%20cutaway.htm downloaded Jun. 15, 2012. |
| Applicant-Admitted Prior Art: Rolls-Royce Trent cutaway view from http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/labs/gtl/early_GT_history.html downloaded Jun. 15, 2012. |
| Applicant-admitted prior art: Garrett TFE 731-3 sectional view from http://perso.ovh.net/˜caeaxtke/fr/coll/falcon50_5.html downloaded Jun. 15, 2012. |
| Applicant-admitted prior art: Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 cutaway view from http://hackedgadgets.com/2011/08/02/how-to-build-a-rolls-royce-trent-1000-jet-engine-used-in-the-boeing-787/ downloaded Jun. 15, 2012. |
| Applicant-admitted prior art: Rolls-Royce Trent cutaway view from http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/planet-earth-the-serious-stuff-non-mil-news/a-380-emergency-landing!/ downloaded Jun. 15, 2012. |
| Eric S. Hendricks and Michael T. Tong, “Performance and Weight Estimates for an Advanced Open Rotor Engine,” 48th Jount Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Jul. 30, 2012, NASA/TM-2012-217710, AIAA-2012-3911, NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio. |
| Michael Cusick, “Avco Lycoming's ALF 502 High Bypass Fan Engine,” SAE Technical Paper 810618, 1981,, doi:10.4271/810618, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA. |
| Karl R. Fledderjohn, “The TFE731-5: Evolution of a Decade of Business Jet Service,” SAE Technical Paper 830756, 1983, doi:10.4271/830756, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA. |
| T.A. Dickey and E.R. Dobak, “The Evolution and Development Status of the ALF 502 Turbofan Engine,” SAE Technical Paper 720840, 1972, doi:10.4271/720840, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, PA. |
| Jane's Aero-Engines, Ivchenko-Progress AI-727M, 2011, IHS Global Limited, Coulsdon, United Kingdom. |
| Jane's Aero-Engines, Rolls-Royce M45H, IHS Global Limited, Coulsdon, United Kingdom. |
| Jane's Aero-Engines, Turbomeca Aubisque, IHS Global Limited, Coulsdon, United Kingdom. |
| Jane's Aero-Engines, Aviadvigatel D-110, IHS Global Limited, Coulsdon, United Kingdom. |
| Jane's Aero-Engines, Honeywell LF502, IHS Global Limited, Coulsdon, United Kingdom. |
| Jane's Aero-Engines, Honeywell LF507, IHS Global Limited, Coulsdon, United Kingdom. |
| Jane's Aero-Engines, Honeywell TFE731, IHS Global Limited, Coulsdon, United Kingdom. |
| Jane's Aero-Engines, Ivchenko-Progress D-727, IHS Global Limited, Coulsdon, United Kingdom. |
| Jane's Aero-Engines, Ivchenko-Progress D-436, IHS Global Limited, Coulsdon, United Kingdom. |
| Applicant-Admitted Prior Art: Flight International, Avco Lycoming ALF502F-2 Cutaway, 2007, http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/aeroenginesjetcutaways/avco-lycoming-alf502r-2-cutaway-5582.aspx. |
| Applicant-Admitted Prior Art: Flight International, Avco Lycoming LF507F Cutaway, 2007, http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/aeroenginesjetcutaways/avco-lycoming-alf502r-2-cutaway-5582.aspx. |
| Applicant-Admitted Prior Art: Flight International, Avco Lycoming TFE531 Cutaway, 2007, http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/aeroenginesjetcutaways/avco-lycoming-alf502r-2-cutaway-5582.aspx. |
| NASA Conference Publication 2077, “Quiet, Powered-Lift Propulsion”, Conference held at Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Nov. 14-15, 1978, pp. 79-81. |
| Stanley W. Kandebo, “Geared-Turbofan Engine Design Targets Costs, Complexity”, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Feb. 23, 1998, vol. 148, p. 32, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, NY. |
| Decision for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,844,265. Claims 1, 2, 6-16, and 20. General Electric Company, Petitioner v. United Technologies Corporation, Patent Owner. Entered Date of Jan. 3, 2017. |
| Gliebe, P.R. and Janardan, B.A. (2003). Ultra-high bypass engine aeroacoustic study. NASA/CR-2003-21252. GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, Ohio. Oct. 2003. pp. 1-103. |
| Moxon, J. How to save fuel in tomorrow's engines. Flight International. Jul. 30, 1983. 3873(124). pp. 272-273. |
| European Search Report for European Patent Application No. 19184028.9 completed Oct. 10, 2019. |
| Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,920,653. General Electric Company, Petitioner, v. United Technologies Corporation, Patent Owner. IPR2019-01489. Aug. 12, 2019. |
| Groweneweg, J.F. (1994). Fan noise research at NASA. NASA-TM-106512. Prepared for the 1994 National Conference on Noise Control Engineering. Fort Lauderdale, FL. May 1-4, 1994. pp. 1-10. |
| Groweneweg, J.F. (1994). Fan noise research at NASA. Noise-CON 94. Fort Lauderdale, FL. May 1-4, 1994. pp. 1-10. |
| Heidelberg, L.J., and Hall, D.G. (1992). Acoustic mode measurements in the inlet of a model turbofan using a continuously rotating rake. NASA-TM-105989. Prepared for the 31st Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Reno, NV. Jan. 11-14, 1993. pp. 1-30. |
| Heidelberg, L.J., and Hall, D.G. (1992). Acoustic mode measurements in the inlet of a model turbofan using a continuously rotating rake. AIAA-93/0598. 31st Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Reno, NV. Jan. 11-14, 1993. pp. 1-30. |
| Howe, D.C., and Wynosky, T.A. (1985). Energy efficient engine program advanced turbofan nacelle definition study. NASA-CR-174942. May 1985. pp. 1-60. |
| Howe, D.C., and Wynosky, T.A. (1985). Energy efficient engine program advanced turbofan nacelle definition study. NASA-CR-174942. May 1985. University of Washington dated Dec. 13, 1990. pp. 1-14. |
| Wie, Y.S., Collier, F.S., Wagner, R.D., Viken, J.K., and Pfenniger, W. (1992). Design of a hybrid laminar flow control engine nacelle. AIAA-92-0400. 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit. Jan. 6-9, 1992. pp. 1-14. |
| Mattingly, J.D. (1996). Elements of gas turbine propulsion. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. pp. 1-18, 60-62, 223-234, 462-479, 517-520, 757-767, and 862-864. |
| Turner, M. G., Norris, A., and Veres, J.P. (2004). High-fidelity three-dimensional simulation of the GE90. VASA/TM-2004-212981. pp. 1-18. |
| Davies, D. and Miller, D.C. (1971). A variable pitch fan for an ultra quiet demonstrator engine. 1976 Spring Convention: Seeds for Success in Civil Aircraft Design in the Next Two Decades. pp. 1-18. |
| Kurzke, J. (2008). Preliminary Design, Aero-engine design: From state of the art turbofans towards innovative architectures. pp. 1-72. |
| Wilfert, G. (2008). Geared fan. Aero-Engine Design: From State of the Art Turbofans Towards Innovative Architectures, von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Belgium, Mar. 3-7, 2008. pp. 1-26. |
| Hughes, C. (2002). Aerodynamic performance of scale-model turbofan outlet guide vanes designed for low noise. Prepared for the 40th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, NV. NASA/TM-2001-211352. Jan. 14-17, 2002. pp. 1-38. |
| Wright, G.H. and Russell, J.G. (1990). The M.45SD-02 variable pitch geared fan engine demonstrator test and evaluation experience. Aeronautical Journal., vol. 84(836). Sep. 1980. pp. 268-277. |
| Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 9,709,070. General Electric Company, Petitioner, v. United Technologies Corporation, Patent Owner. IPR2020-00083. Oct. 23, 2019. |
| Kaplan, B., Nicke, E., Voss, C. (2006), Design of a highly efficient low-noise fan for ultra-high bypass engines. Proceedings of GT2006 for ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea and Air. Barcelona, SP. May 8-11, 2006. pp. 1-10. |
| Mattingly, J.D. (1996). Elements of gas turbine propulsion. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. pp. 1-18, 60-62, 85-87, 95-104, 121-123, 223-234, 242-245, 278-285, 303-309, 323-326, 462-479, 517-520, 563-565, 630-632, 673-675, 682-685, 697-699, 703-705, 802-805, 862-864, and 923-925. |
| Walsh, P.P. and Fletcher, P. (2004). Gas turbine performance, 2nd Edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science. pp. 186-191. |
| Koff, B.L. (2003). Gas turbine technology evolution—A designer's perspective. AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition. Jul. 14-16, 2003. AIAA 2003-2722. pp. 1-15. |
| Tapken, U., Raitor, T., and Enghardt, L. (2009). Tonal noise radiation from an UHBR fan-optiized in-duct radial mode anlysis. AIAA/CEAS Aerocoustics Conference. May 11-13, 2009. AIAA 2009-3288. pp. 1-15. |
| Notice of Opposition for European U.S. Pat. No. 2535548 (13813216.2) dated Apr. 29, 2019 by Safran Aircraft Engines. |
| Gray, D.E. and Gardner, W.B. (1983). Energy efficient engine program technology benefit/cost study—vol. 2. NASA CR-174766. Oct. 1983. pp. 1-118. |
| Riegler, C., and Bichlmaier, C. (2007). The geared turbofan technology—Opportunities, challenges and readiness status. Porceedings CEAS. Sep. 10-13, 2007. Berlin, Germany. pp. 1-12. |
| Datasheet. CFM56-5B for the Airbus A320ceo family and CFM56-7B for the Boeing 737 family. https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/. |
| Engine Alliance GP7200. Jane's Aero-Engines. Jane's by IHS Markit. Jul. 12, 2010. |
| Rolly-Royce RB211. Jane's Aero-Engines. Jane's by IHS Markit. Feb. 24, 2010. |
| Product Brochure. The ALF 502R turbofan: technology, ecology, economy. Avco Lycoming TEXTRON. |
| Treager, I.E.. (1995). Aircraft gas turbine engine technology, 3rd Edition. GLENCOE Aviation Technology Series. McGraw-Hill. p. 445. |
| Newsletter. PurePower PW1000G Engine News. vol. 3(3). Dec. 2010. |
| Walsh, P.P. and Fletcher, P. (2004). Gas turbine performance, 2nd Edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science. pp. 1-658. |
| Orbit Search Results. “bypass area ratio”. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2019. |
| Edkins, D.P., Hirschkron, R., and Lee, R. (1972). TF34 turbofan quiet engine study. Final Report prepared for NASA. NASA-CR-120914. Jan. 1, 1972. pp. 1-99. |
| The European Search Report for EP Application No. 19184027.1, dated Nov. 25, 2019. |
| Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings for EP Application No. 16178679.3 dated Sep. 17, 2019. |
| Third Party Observation submitted by Rolls-Royce Plc for European Patent Application No. 18184558.7 dated Dec. 17, 2019. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20150345404 A1 | Dec 2015 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61498516 | Jun 2011 | US | |
| 61593190 | Jan 2012 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 13599175 | Aug 2012 | US |
| Child | 14692090 | US | |
| Parent | 13475252 | May 2012 | US |
| Child | 13599175 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 11832107 | Aug 2007 | US |
| Child | 13475252 | US |
