Kaveri Engine

[ersakthivel]

..:: India Strategic ::. MoD News: Higher Self Reliance in Critical

As late as 2011, we don't have SCB tech as per GOI documents and the GTRE chief interview in Aeroseminar already posted here.

 

[ersakthivel]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5719&start=80

An overview of the Kaveri situation was provided by the GTRE director, T. Mohan Rao, who was accompanied by his senior scientists. The hall was packed, and the language and tone of his speech was sadly self-depracating and pleading. Almost as if DRDO has also started losing faith - he had to explain whats going on and why its happening. Sad to see, but there are clear silver linings in the story.

1. He pointed out that the change in IAF requirements and the increase in all up wt by 2 tons killed the Kaveri as they knew it, simply because it could not in any way be able to achieve the new requirements... he was quite angry that they had been blamed for what was obviously not their fault, ie, a low-performing Kaveri for the updated reqs. Bypass Ratio is 0.16 to 0.18... he pointed out that if it had to meet the new stds, the bypass would have to be at least 0.35 to 0.45.

2. 4 Cores and 8 Kaveris built, 1800 hrs testing done.

Thrsut demonstrated: 4774 kgf dry (design value reached). 7000 kgf reheat (2.5-3% shortfall)

3. Pressure ratio - 21.5 overall.

Fan - 3 stage, 3.4 pressure ratio, Surge margin>20.
Compressor 6.4 pressure,Surge>23.
Combustor - efficiency >99%, high intensity annular combustor. Pattern factor of 0.35 and 0.14

Note: These are ACHIEVED values.

4. The present Kaveri will not power combat LCAs, although it will be fitted to an LCA within 9 months. The new program, which is the Kaveri with Snecma Eco core of 90kN will be used. The preslim design studies and configuration have beeen completed.

5.Birdhit requirements of 85% thrust after hit at 0.4-0.5 Mach have been shown and achieved.

6. He pointed out the major factor in delays being them not being given enough infrastructure and testing facilities - Govt has not given funds, babus have sat on them. Instead, they have had to go to CIAM in Russia and Anecom in Germany for tests.

He mentioned that this was the biggest problem - one of the issues they have was in engine strain and the blade throws - they tried to isolate all the causes for 3 yrs, but only when they took it to CIAM for the Non Intrusive Strain Measurement (NSMS) tests did they realize that there were excess vibrations of the 3rd order of engine frequency being developed.... imagine if the facility was there in india.

Then, the compressor tests also, it was only at the Anecom that they could see that the 1st 2 stages were surged by 20%, while the rest were "as dead as government servants" (his quote - shows how low on confidence they are i guess). He pointed out that that would have saved a lot of time and money if that facility was in india. They have since fixed the issue.

Then, the afterburner tests, (the much highlighted high altitude failure) at CIAM - the reqt is for 50% thrust boost over dry thrust at 88% efficiency. The K5 prototype failed in 2003, after working perfectly in the GTRE. They realized that they could not achieve lightup at high altitudes (Dry thrust worked ok).

They took anothe new engine block and the afterburner worked perfectly and has been certified to 15 km.

7. The good news..... they will conduct complete engine trials in CIAM in March. If these trials are successful (and they are highly confident), the Kaveri will be integrated on the LCA within 9 months.

The KADECU FADEC system with manual backup has also been fully certified.

8. The bad news again - The present requirements would need the core to pump out 15-20% more power, which is impossible... hence the eco. Not that there is anything wrong with the core.

He mentioned that otherwise, the Kaveri has met the original requirements, or will meet within the next month, and is good for all other uses except a "combat LCA" - ie, CAT, LIFT, LCA Trainer, etc.

9. When asked where we lack, he mentioned 4 key areas

a. BLISK - integrated single Blade and Disk
b. Single Crystal blades - he categorically said - We do not have that tech at all.
c. Thermal Barrier Coatings - TBC - very critical for high temp engine operation. A talk on this by an American Indian prof attracted a house full audience. He mentioned that this is highly critical and export controlled, so they dont have it.

The last two points were mentioned by Dir, DMRL as one of their areas of research, but I was not able to quiz him on it. PLEASE QUIZ ANY DMRL GUYS U MEET ON THIS.

Mohan Rao appealed that people should realize that this tech takes time, and money, and more importantly, willpower and support.... its not being given by foriegn nations, so if we have to develop, it needs support. This stance found strong support from Saraswat, Sundaram and Selvamurthy in the closing ceremony.

They are not looking at TVC just yet, and it is in the hands of other labs at the moment.

However, the ADE presentation on UCAVs showed a future Indian UCAV (2015) with no tail (MCA design), a non-conventional wingform, and a 3 axis TVC.

10. OK, some nos....

Fan - Successful tests at CIAM
Compressor: (nos in brackets are design values)

6 stage axial flow, 3 stage variable vanes with IGVs.
Corr. tip speed ~370 m/s
Inlet diam: 590 mm

Mass flow: 24.13 kg/s (24.3)
Pressure: 6.42 (6.38)
Efficiency: 85.4% (85%)
Surge %: 21.6 (20% designed)

Combustor:
Has undergone aero testing at CIAM
K8 V4 combustor is close to design.

Turbine:
Pressure = 3.6
Mass flow function= 1.1
Isentropic eff = 85%
Max. TET = 1700K

Is a success, has met design.

11. Future uses:

Navy - KMGT - 1 MW for small ships being developed, 5-6 MW KMGT is a sucess and runs on Diesel, instead of the usual kerosene aviation fuel.

The railways also wants a 7-8MW CNG run engine, which will be a challenge in terms of fuel supply, rather than teh combustion itself, which shouldn't be a problem.

This too is as late as 2011, I don't know whether the russians transferred the SCB tech after 2011 and HAL has already placed a AL-31 FP with HAL made SCBs on the first Sukhoi it produced.

To conclude so, What we need is proof.

After that this post details the local effort,

As per the info I got at Aero India we have developed single crystal blades aside from what we got from Russia with Su 30.

Here is how it is done. Ceramic cores are first made and blades are grown around the cores. The cores are later dissolved away leaving an internal structure that allows cooling.
Image shows ceramic cores

The squiggly bits are electrodes that are removed from the finished blade

Blurred close up shows hollow internal structure of blade created by preformed ceramic core that was removed

To conclude whether the above local effort combined with Russian TOT on SCB has bestowed SCB tech with a TWR of 8 (wet thrust) on HAL needs proof not some one's opinion.

 

[bennedose]

SCR tech by itself cannot cause TWR to reach a specific value. I think the overall deign of the engine matters - and some of those parameters are fixed when the design is frozen and it is impossible o go back without a major redesign.

Air commodore Pervez Khokar has a great article in the latest issue of Vayu about what is good and what is not good about the LCA. In the "not so good" part he clearly defines the fact that the GE 404 cannot develop its full rated thrust until the LCA intake is redesigned. I know this has nothing to do with Kaveri but it is an indicator of how some design factors cannot be corrected by simply having better components of a higher engine core temperature. In any case I think there is a huge gap between creating a few single crystal blades and actually running them in an engine so that they last for 1000 (or at least 500 hours). The technology may help in future engine developments. Unfortunately that is nit all. Engine design is all about computational fluid dynamics and even that capabality is useles without the materials. So we need blisk making capability and to make blisks we need the right alloys and we also need 6 axis CNC machine if possible assembled in India rather than the "imported from China" ones we use now.

The Russians (and the Chinese had a different philosophy here). If something goes phut in 50 hours, replace in 50 hours. But that increases the overall maintenance headaches. Nevertheless it is one way of bypassing issues.

 

[Twinblade]

Yeah right, we don't have any single crystal blade technology, all these single crystal blades made at DMRL are figments of my imagination.

Apologies to waste your time guys, Ersakthivel knows it all, I am just a liar, a fraud and a charlatan photoshopping pictures out of thin air. All hail ersakthivel.

 

[p2prada]

@Twinblade

Logic and common sense doesn't work on some people. Give up.

But nice pics, thanks.

 

[venkat]

Hail@ersakthivel!!!!! he knows it all!!!

 

[sayareakd]

Keep it civil guys............thanks.

 

[ersakthivel]

Hail@ersakthivel!!!!! he knows it all!!!

I admit I don't know the full truth.

Who knows the truth fully,

please rise, and answer the following questions, with some credible source

1. Whether the indian made SCBs that were displayed in Aeroindia2013 had the benefit of Russian ToT for SU-30 MKI?

2. Is HAL, Koraput making or about to make SCBs for AL-31 with Russian TOT from minerals to casting with full metallurgy details handed over?

3. Or the HAL, Koraput facility using the AeroIndia - 2013 SCB tech to make SCB for SU-30 MKI, like in the same way composite air frame parts, mission computer and many other indigenous inserts into SU-30 MKI that have no russian tech?

4. Or russians supplying their SCB blades in casting stage ,

and HAL just machines heat treats and tests them,

with no knowledge of the metallurgical formula and the making process ,

while assembles them on AL-31?

If people can give proof , while answering it will be far better,

No one cares whether Indian tech or Russian TOT is involved in HAL SCB tech,

if it is made here from complete raw material basic minerals, molten in the furnace and poured into castings,

with metallurgical formula and composition of each basic element in the alloy mix known ,

along with heat treatment process in our hands,

is the question that needs to be answered.

 

[venkat]

^^^ sir, I salute your knowledge... but i am i am in no position to confirm or deny what ever you have posted....sorry no answers from me to your questions....

 

[Dinesh_Kumar]

****Cross Posting from LCA Thread***
Q: Whether Kaveri fitted on LCA will fly in 2013?

I hope so too, but the way I see it, following factors are important:

1> To fit Kaveri on the LCA, as a pure development exercise , we first need a spare LCA aircraft, stripped down of extra weight (ext. fuel tanks, mounting hardpoints, probably avionics, etc.) so we can have a lighter LCA by about 200-300 kg and have some advantage in thrust to weight ratio. As we are racing towards IOC 2 and FOC goals in 2014, spare aircraft for such an exercise may not be available among the 9 air frames presently with us. (LCA induction is higher priority than Kaveri development, and GE -404 engine is available) To prepare such an air frame, along with a Test Schedule, planning and procuring fuel, test pilots to be made available, (remember ADA and GTRE are different agencies), permission to use HAL runways. etc. will easily take a month's time. Also, special safety equipment on the LCA is required as the Kaveri engine is not yet proven and reliable. Maybe a different version of the FADEC control system for testing (only basic features available, not all modes, code is simpler and bug free) needs to be made available from ADA.

2> A reliable Kaveri engine having run around 150 + hours on the engine test bed, with about 50 KN thrust normal and 73 KN thrust with afterburner (de-rated for more reliability, higher power in later flights) should be made available. Also. special measuring equipment fitted at various points like air flow devices, temperature sensors, throttle position sensors, etc are to be integrated into the engine. Spare engine should also be made available, so if first engine is damaged, testing can go on. To prepare these engines, along with Test Schedules , a ground monitoring crew of engineers, as well as preparation of Test Reports after testing completed (for further actions in development) it will easily take 2 months.

3> Lot of infrastructure already available with HAL and ADA can be used to save time, for such a theoretical exercise (Test Pilot team, Runways and Comm. Tower, 2 Way Communication equipment, Fuel and Ground Handling) but permission to use it must be sought from high levels in MOD. Will anyone in MOD give such permission in absence of clarity? Will the Project Leader be strong, or a weakling?

Sir, your question throws up even more questions than answers.......

 

[Armand2REP]

I think it is obvious Russia didn't transfer SCB process or it would be on Kaveri.

 

[bennedose]

It may not be such a big deal to make single crystal blades. But it is a big deal to use single crystal blades, blisks and composite fan blades make a light, powerful, fuel efficient and reliable engine from all this, never mind if it is not as good as engines from existing, experienced manufacturers. We simply have to keep working ant not give up. In this business failure means a lesson learnt and not something to self flagellate and wail. All of us - even some of the older fuddy duddies like me are too young to remember the failures of turbine tech that western nations went through in the 1940s and 50s. We look at Indian failures in 2013 and imagine that we are losers. In 1945 India had only a handful of civil, mechanical and chemical engineers. Only a national inferiority complex can explain the way many people look at anything done in India.

 

[sayareakd]

It may not be such a big deal to make single crystal blades. But it is a big deal to use single crystal blades, blisks and composite fan blades make a light, powerful, fuel efficient and reliable engine from all this, never mind if it is not as good as engines from existing, experienced manufacturers. We simply have to keep working ant not give up. In this business failure means a lesson learnt and not something to self flagellate and wail. All of us - even some of the older fuddy duddies like me are too young to remember the failures of turbine tech that western nations went through in the 1940s and 50s. We look at Indian failures in 2013 and imagine that we are losers. In 1945 India had only a handful of civil, mechanical and chemical engineers. Only a national inferiority complex can explain the way many people look at anything done in India.

It is not national inferiority complex, but their small mind which think that way, if this is not the case, we wont have made the progress which we have made in this short period after independence.

I am all in for pumping more money and fresh brains for R&D. In long run R&D pays.

 

[p2prada]

Kaveri K-9 is supposedly set for installation after 2014, I guess 2015, and first flight in 2017.

 

[rvjpheonix]

What is the current weight of the kaveri? in wiki its given as 1235 kg. Along with a thrust of 81kn it comes to TWR of 6.7 which is very sad. the rd 33 has a TWR of 7.8 I guess which is already very old and outdated .If we can shave of 150 kilos we can get the kaveri to comparable levels.

 

[Twinblade]

What is the current weight of the kaveri? in wiki its given as 1235 kg. Along with a thrust of 81kn it comes to TWR of 6.7 which is very sad. the rd 33 has a TWR of 7.8 I guess which is already very old and outdated .If we can shave of 150 kilos we can get the kaveri to comparable levels.

That's the aim for production standard.

Kaveri K-9 is supposedly set for installation after 2014, I guess 2015, and first flight in 2017.

That is the aim for K-9+ or K-10 whatever designation it is (the full thrust engine with SCB at 81KN, not the reduced thrust engine running on DS blades currently). The current engine would be flight certified on Tejas before it is equipped on AURA prototype.

 

[ersakthivel]

What is the current weight of the kaveri? in wiki its given as 1235 kg. Along with a thrust of 81kn it comes to TWR of 6.7 which is very sad. the rd 33 has a TWR of 7.8 I guess which is already very old and outdated .If we can shave of 150 kilos we can get the kaveri to comparable levels.

just weight and thrust comparison is not enough,Since engines like RD-93 are not flat rated their design TWR of 7.8 won't be achievable in hot and humid Indian climates.

In Kaveri flat rating was implemented to give optimum thrust at variable Indian hot arid and cold climatic conditions.

So even though it appears to have a lesser TWR fig of 6.7 , when operated in Indian climatic conditions in practical terms the gap in performance would be much lesser than it seems on specs.

It achieved its dry thrust figure of 52 Kn and short fall is only in wet thrust component ,

GTRE GTX-35VS Kaveri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Feb. 2006, the US experts told pti that "Kaveri is truly a world-class engine." "We are ready to join in partnership with the Defence Research and Development Organisation to make Kaveri work," General William J Begert of Pratt and Whitney, told PTI. But DRDO secretary Natrajan told PTI that "But Kaveri is and would remain an Indian project

Kaveri is FADEC equipped twin spool low bypass modern engine with a design aim of having comparable specific fuel consumption along with modern 1990s engine tech level.

The general arrangement of the Kaveri is very similar to other contemporary combat engines, such as the Eurojet EJ200, General Electric F414, and Snecma M88 with a design fan pressure ratio of 4:1 and an overall pressure ratio of 27:1(achieved 22). There are some shortfalls in achieving this figures which will be improved with further development .


The peak turbine inlet temperature is designed to be a little lower than its peers to enable the engine to be flat-rated to very high ambient temperatures.

A higher tech level SCB implementation along with high Turbine Entry level temp will give a higher thrust version comparable to modern engines ,of course we need to develop BLISK, better SCB tech for this.

But it validates many important design calculations and gives a reliable brief of empirical data for further development. Even the engines on RAFALE have 75 kn thrust only, of course they weigh less, but still RAFLE is a world class fighter. So if we have a modern reliable engine model even with lower TWR number of 7 , we can always design a twin engine fighter with comparable close combat specs and a bit lesser range and payload .

So it is not a sad wasted effort.

 

[p2prada]

That is the aim for K-9+ or K-10 whatever designation it is (the full thrust engine with SCB at 81KN, not the reduced thrust engine running on DS blades currently). The current engine would be flight certified on Tejas before it is equipped on AURA prototype.

K-10 is a decade away. Apparently they will finish in 5 to 6 years.

Anyway, K9 won't be equipped on LCA. GTRE has divided the Kaveri program into K-9+ and K-10. The K-9+ is what they are waiting to certify on Tejas.

In an IDRW report,

GTRE still plans to integrate Kaveri K-9+ engine with Tejas once the Engine is ready to complete its development , A older Tejas test aircraft operated by India's Aeronautical Development Agency will be used for the integration . Since its first run in 1996 nine Kaveri engines were built. Although, due to the delays in development and insufficient thrust, Kaveri is not destined for the Tejas Indigenous Fighter Aircraft, new engine for AMCA will need to generate at least 90 KN of thrust. "Development and flight-testing of the new engine will take at least five to six years."

 

[Twinblade]

K-10 is a decade away. Apparently they will finish in 5 to 6 years.

Anyway, K9 won't be equipped on LCA. GTRE has divided the Kaveri program into K-9+ and K-10. The K-9+ is what they are waiting to certify on Tejas.

The new engine whose tender is out doesn't seem to match the information available about the K-10 program. K-10 was supposed to be 81KN with SCB and reduced weight by 150Kg. This was one of the reasons that K-10 even if it materialises would never power the Tejas after an MLU as the current GE-f404IN20 installed on the Tejas is rated at 9163Kg (89.85 KN). From what I have gathered by talking to people in the know, the current design has very little growth potential even with the right technologies and one of the Snecma proposals was a clean sheet design with the French designing the LP stage and Indians designing the HP stage. If you look at the tender details, the project seems to be headed the way of a clean sheet design with the partner designing LP stage and GTRE doing the HP stage (but via the open tender route as the project value is quite high). The numbers available about the thrust level also represent a 30-40% jump in thrust levels, that cannot be most likely derived out of evolution of current design. This implies three possible scenarios:-

a) We are being silly again.
b) We intend to get the necessary technology to make the HP stage in the garb of LP stage (which actually makes very little sense)
c) We are making steady progress in SCB technology, enough to fructify the full potential of the current design and to design a next gen engine ?? Only time will tell.

 

[p2prada]

The new engine whose tender is out doesn't seem to match the information available about the K-10 program. K-10 was supposed to be 81KN with SCB and reduced weight by 150Kg.

Isn't K-9+ what you are talking about, the one with domestic SCB and weight reduction on the Kabini core while K-10 is an entirely new core, phoren maal.

a) We are being silly again.
b) We intend to get the necessary technology to make the HP stage in the garb of LP stage (which actually makes very little sense)
c) We are making steady progress in SCB technology, enough to fructify the full potential of the current design and to design a next gen engine ?? Only time will tell.

I'll tell you what, we must be planning to go the C route as much as possible and end up with A.