Thermodynamics Optimization of The Turbofan Cycle

Thermodynamic optimization of the
turbofan cycle
Yousef S.H. Najjar
Mechanical Engineering Department, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan, and
Sharaf F. Al-Sharif
King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Abstract
Purpose To develop and nd the effect of combination of four cycle design variables that minimizes the specic fuel consumption (sfc) of a turbofan
engine.
Design/methodology/approach After choosing the four variables, namely bypass ratio (B), fan pressure ratio, overall pressure ratio, and turbine
inlet temperature (T
04
), rst the sfc was minimized without a minimum thrust constraint. Then, a minimum specic thrust constraint was introduced.
Findings The unconstrained-specic thrust is a two-dimensional optimization problem, whereas the specic thrust constrained problem was found
to be a three-dimensional one.
Research limitations/implications The variables B and are limiting factors to further improvement, as set by their maximum practical values,
whereas the other two variables are to be optimized.
Practical implications A very useful work, in which numerical optimization program was developed, for a turbofan cycle and could be extended to
other cycles.
Originality/value This paper offers a great help to those intending to optimize certain cycles with a number of variables.
Keywords Optimization techniques, Fuel consumption
Paper type Research paper
Nomenclature
A area, m
2
A
s
specic area (area/unit mass owrate), m
2
s/kg
alt. altitude, m
B bypass ratio
C velocity magnitude, m/s
c
p
constant pressure specic heat, J/kg K
F thrust, N
F
s
specic thrust (thrust/total air mass ow rate),
Ns/kg
f fuel air ratio of core ow(mass owrate of fuel/
mass ow rate of core air ow)
H
c
enthalpy of combustion of air, MJ/kg
M mach number
_ m mass ow rate, kg/s
n polytropic index of compression
P pressure, bar, Pa
R ideal gas constant, J/kg K
sfc specic fuel consumption (mass ow rate of
fuel/unit thrust produced), g/kN s
T temperature, K
Greek symbols
g specic heat ratio
h
i
isentropic efciency of the intake
h
c
polytropic efciency of the compressor and fan
h
t
polytropic efciency of the turbine
h
m
mechanical efciency of the shaft
h
b
combustion efciency of the burner
h
j
isentropic efciency of the jet nozzles
p
in
intake pressure ratio
p
f
fan pressure ratio
p
c
overall pressure ratio
p
b
burner pressure ratio
p
t
turbine pressure ratio
t
in
intake temperature ratio
t
f
fan temperature ratio
t
c
overall compression temperature ratio
t
t
turbine temperature ratio
Subscripts
0 stagnation state
1, 2, . . . 8 station numbering
a air
b burner
c compressor, combustion, critical, cold
(bypass ow)
f fan
g combustion gas
h hot (core ow)
i inlet
in inlet
ISA international standard atmosphere
j jet nozzle
m mechanical
p constant pressure
s specic
t turbine
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1748-8842.htm
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal
78/6 (2006) 467480
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842]
[DOI 10.1108/00022660610707139]
467
Introduction
After the intended application of the aircraft is decided, the
serious stages of engine design may commence. These include
most importantly thermodynamic cycle design, aerodynamic
design of turbomachinery, mechanical design, and off-design
performance prediction.
This work deals specically with thermodynamic cycle
design. This consists of detailed calculations on the
thermodynamic changes that the working uids (air and
combustion gases) experience as they ow through the engine
components, taking into account component losses as
realistically as possible (Mattingly, 1996; Kerrebrock, 1992).
The purpose of these calculations is to evaluate the
performance of a turbofan engine, for different
combinations of design choices and operating conditions
(Cohen et al., 1987; Mattingly, 1996; Kerrebrock, 1992).
It is important to note that the characteristic behavior of a
specic engine under different operating conditions depends
on its geometry (blade angles and dimensions). Since,
geometry is not accounted for in cycle design, the trends
and plots that result do not represent the behavior of a specic
engine, but different engines each operating at its own
design-point and having the geometry that will produce that
combination of cycle design variables (Kurzke, 1999).
In other words, the aim of cycle design is to select the values
of the cycle design variables that are favored mainly by
thermodynamic considerations. After that the
turbomachinery that will actualize these values of the cycle
design variables when operating at the design-point are
developed. And in turn after that, the behavior of the engine
at off-design conditions is investigated.
This reveals the importance of cycle design, especially when
considering the enormous cost of developing an aircraft gas
turbine engine, and the long life cycle that successful engines
have (Cohen et al., 1987). The cycle must be properly
designed because it is the foundation for all subsequent work.
Traditionally, cycle design involves extensive parametric
variations (Powel, 1991). The performance parameters are
studied for a large number of combinations of design choices.
The task quickly becomes difcult as the number of cycle
design variables increase, as in the case of the turbofan engine.
It becomes difcult to present and visualize the trends for
multi-dimensional variations. The problem becomes even
more complicated when design constraints are introduced.
The alternative to that is to employ a numerical
optimization algorithm that searches for the optimum of a
selected gure of merit automatically. A program that
performs such an optimization would be a very useful and
powerful tool for cycle design. Design constraints may also be
incorporated in the optimization program to nd a truly
feasible optimum.
After the optimum combination of cycle design variables is
found, parametric studies may be carried out in the vicinity of
the optimum to determine its sensitivity to each of the cycle
design variables. In this case the region and number of
combinations that must be examined in the parametric study
is greatly reduced.
In this work a numerical optimization program is developed
and used to nd the combination of four cycle design
variables that minimizes the specic fuel consumption (sfc) of
a turbofan cycle subject to a number of simple constraints.
Theoretical analysis and methodology
In what follows the model of the cycle to be used in this work
will be derived, based mainly on the development in Cohen
et al. (1987) with some of the notation adopted from
Mattingly (1996) and Kerrebrock (1992).
A schematic diagram of the turbofan engine is shown in
Figure 1.
Input:
.
Properties of working uids: c
pa
; c
pg
; g
a
; g
g
; R; H
c
.
Component performance parameters: h
i
,h
c
,h
m
,h
b
,h
t
,h
j
,p
b
.
Operating conditions: alt:; M
a
.
Cycle design parameters: B; p
f
; p
c
; T
04
The thrust produced by the engine is the sum of the
momentum and pressure thrust components of each nozzle:
F _ m
h
C
7
2C
a
_ m
c
C
8
2C
a
A
7
P
7
2P
a
A
8
P
8
2P
a
1
If any of the nozzles is unchoked, its exhaust gas expands to
ambient pressure, and its pressure thrust is then zero.
Dividing equation (1) by _ m
a
; and dening the bypass ratio B
as:
B ;
_ m
c
_ m
h
;
and noting that:
m
a
m
h
m
c
;
equation (1) is rewritten in terms of specic thrust as:
F
s

F
_ m
a
1
B 1
C
7
2C
a

B
B 1
C
8
2C
a

A
7
_ m
a
P
7
2P
a
A
8
_ m
a
P
8
2P
a
:
It is more convenient to write the third and fourth terms in
terms of specic area A
s
, the area per unit mass ow through
each nozzle. Thus:
F
s

1
B 1
C
7
2C
a

B
B 1
C
8
2C
a

_ m
h
_ m
h
A
7
_ m
a
P
7
2P
a
_ m
c
_ m
c
A
8
_ m
a
P
8
2P
a
F
s

1
B 1
C
7
2C
a
A
s7
P
7
2P
a

B
B 1
C
8
2C
a
A
s8
P
8
2P
a
2
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the turbofan engine with station
numbering
Thermodynamic optimization of the turbofan cycle
Yousef S.H. Najjar and Sharaf F. Al-Sharif
Volume 78 Number 6 2006 467480
468
It is now necessary to nd expressions for the unknown
variables C
7
; C
8
; P
7
; P
8
; A
s7
; A
s8
in terms of input variables.
Starting with the core nozzle, the denition of stagnation
temperature gives:
c
pg
T
07
c
pg
T
7

C
2
7
2
Rearranging:
C
7

2c
pg
T
07
2T
7

_
The duct is assumed to be adiabatic so that T
07
T
06
, and:
C
7

2c
pg
T
06
2T
7
_
3
An expression for T
06
is found by making an energy balance
over the gas-generator on a unit mass basis:
1
B 1
1 f c
pg
T
04
2T
06

c
pa
h
m
B
B 1
T
02
2T
01
1
B 1
c
pa
h
m
T
03
2T
01
T
04
2T
06

c
pa
h
m
c
pg
1
1 f
T
01
B
T
02
T
01
21
_ _
T
03
T
01
21
_ _ _ _
4
Making the following denitions:
t
in
;
T
01
T
a
; p
in
;
P
01
P
a
t
f
;
T
02
T
01
; p
f
;
P
02
P
01
t
c
;
T
03
T
01
; p
c
;
P
03
P
01
t
t
;
T
06
T
04
; p
t
;
P
06
P
04
equation (4) can be rewritten:
t
t
1 2
c
pa
h
m
c
pg
1
1 f
T
a
T
04
t
in
Bt
f
21 t
c
21; 5
which, except for the fuel air ratio f, is in terms of known or
calculable quantities. Specically:
t
in
1
C
2
a
2c
pa
T
a
;
t
f
p
na21=na
f
;
t
c
p
na21=na
c
The fuel air ratio will be dealt with shortly.
T
06
is now given as:
T
06
T
04
t
t
Similarly, P
06
is given by:
P
06
P
a
p
in
p
c
p
b
p
t
in which:
p
in
1 h
i
C
2
a
2c
pa
T
a
_ _
ga21=ga
;
and:
p
t
t
ng=ng21
t
An expression for T
7
is found from knowledge of the pressure
ratio and the denition of the isentropic efciency of nozzle:
h
j

T
06
2T
7
T
06
2T
0
7
;
T
7
T
06
1 2h
j
1 2
T
0
7
T
06
_ _ _ _
;
T
7
T
06
1 2h
j
1 2
P
7
P
06
_ _
gg21=gg
_ _
At this point the calculations will depend on whether the
nozzle is choked or unchoked. For the core nozzle, the critical
pressure ratio is given by:
P
06
P
c
1
1 2
1
hj
gg21
gg1
_ _ _ _
gg=gg21
If P
06
=P
a
$ P
06
=P
c
; the nozzle is choked and:
P
7
P
c

P
06
P
06
=P
c
;
T
7
T
c

2T
06
g
g
1
Substituting for T
06
and T
7
in equation (3):
C
7

2C
pg
T
04
t
t
1 2
2
g
g
1
_ _
choked
The density of exhaust gas is given by:
r
7

P
7
RT
7
;
knowledge of which is employed in the continuity equation to
nd the specic area:
A
s7

A
7
_ m
h
1
r
7
C
7
Otherwise, if P
06
=P
a
, P
06
=P
c
the nozzle is unchoked,
P
7
P
a
; and T
7
is given by:
T
7
T
06
1 2h
j
1 2
P
7
P
06
_ _
gg21=gg
_ _ _ _
T
7
T
04
t
t
1 2h
j
1 2
1
p
in
p
c
p
b
p
t
_ _
gg21=gg
_ _ _ _
Substitution into equation (3) yields:
C
7
2c
pg
T
04
t
t
h
j
1 2
1
p
in
p
c
p
b
p
t
_ _
gg21=gg
_ _ _ _
1=2
unchoked
Similarly, for the bypass nozzle, the denition of stagnation
temperature gives:
c
pa
T
08
c
pa
T
8

C
2
8
2
from which:
C
8

2c
pg
T
08
2T
8
_
Again the duct is assumed to be adiabatic so that T
08
T
02
, and:
469
C
8

2c
pa
T
02
2T
8
_
6
T
02
T
a
t
in
t
f
As before, the nozzle pressure ratio must be checked against the
critical pressure ratio, which is given by:
P
02
P
c
1
1 2
1
hj
ga21
ga1
_ _ _ _
ga=ga21
If P
02
=P
a
$ P
02
=P
c
; the nozzle is choked:
P
8
P
c

P
02
P
02
=P
c
;
T
8
T
c

2T
02
g
a
1
C
8

2C
pa
T
a
t
in
t
f
1 2
2
g
a
1
_ _
choked
r
8

P
8
RT
8
;
A
s8

A
8
_ m
c
1
r
8
C
8
If P
02
=P
a
, P
02
=P
c
; the nozzle is unchoked, P
8
P
a
; and
T
8
is given by:
T
8
T
02
1 2h
j
1 2
P
8
P
02
_ _
ga21=ga
_ _ _ _
T
8
T
a
t
in
t
f
1 2h
j
1 2
P
a
P
a
p
in
p
f
_ _
ga21=ga
_ _ _ _
Substitution into equation (6) and some algebraic manipulation
yields:
C
8
2c
pa
T
a
t
in
t
f
h
j
1 2
1
p
in
p
f
_ _
ga21=ga
_ _ _ _
1=2
unchoked
The expressions for theunknownvariables inequation(2), which
we had set out to nd, are now complete, and the specic thrust
may be evaluated. It remains now to address the sfc.
The sfc is given by:
sfc
_ m
f
F

f _ m
h
F
s
_ m
a
1
B 1
f
F
s
;
The fuel air ratio f is found by making an energy balance over
the combustor:
_ m
h
c
pa
T
03
2298 f _ m
h
h
b
H
c
_ m
h
f _ m
h
c
pg
T
04
2298
where H
c
is the enthalpy of combustion at 258C. Solving for f
and employing some previously dened quantities, the above
equation becomes:
f
c
pg
T
04
2298 2c
pa
T
a
t
in
t
c
2298
h
b
H
c
2c
pg
T
04
2298
It is implemented in TK-Solver 3.0 in the rule function
SpecFuelCons and auxiliary rule functions Nozzle,
IsNozzleChoked and NozzleThrust. Having formulated the
objective function, we may now direct our attention to the
optimization method.
Optimization technique
The method of optimization that is used is called the
conjugate gradient method. In general, optimization
techniques can be grouped into two main categories:
methods that use gradient information, and direct search
methods. As its name implies, the conjugate gradient method
falls into the rst category.
In all gradient computing methods the optimization
problem is subdivided into two sub-problems:
1 determining a suitable search direction; and
2 taking the optimum step size in that direction.
The different members of the family vary in the way they
address the rst sub-problem.
The simplest of these methods is the method of steepest
descents. In this method the local gradient is evaluated in
each step, and the search direction is taken (in the
minimization problem) as the negative of the gradient,
which is, by denition of the gradient, the direction of
steepest descent. This method is usually the least efcient of
the family, especially when the scales of the design variables
are not similar such that the objective function has a narrow,
stretched contour map. This results from two facts:
1 the local gradient of a function (i.e. its negative) does not
generally point to the minimum; and
2 at the minimum along some search direction the local
gradient is perpendicular to the search direction.
What this means is that the algorithm will zigzag its way along
small mutually perpendicular steps, even if it is relatively close
to the minimum (Arora, 1989).
The conjugate gradient method results from the idea of
searching along non-interfering directions (Arora, 1989).
Simply put, minimization along one direction should not
interfere or ruin previous minimizations. Based on this idea a
sequence of arguments are made which lead to the derivation
of the method.
The two situations that are considered can be listed as
follows:
1 The sfc is to be minimized with no constraint on specic
thrust. The optimization will be run for a combination of
different operating conditions and maximum B
constraints given in the Table I.
2 sfc is to be minimized subject to a constraint of minimum
specic thrust.
The combination of operating conditions can be seen in
Table I.
Discussion of results
Minimizing sfc with no constraint on specic thrust
The results of the optimization runs for the previously
mentioned conditions are summarized in Table II. Each case
is given a number in the table for easy referral. A parametric
variation of T
04
and p
c
around the optimum in each of the
cases was performed, and the results were plotted in the form
of carpet plots of sfc versus F
s
in Figures 2-5. The effect of p
f
is considered separately in Figures 6-8, where case 8 is taken
470
as the reference cycle. Finally, a sensitivity plot for the
reference case is shown in Figure 9.
Throughout this work, a constraint will be called active if
the value of the constrained variable in its respective optimum
cycle is found to be equal to its limiting value (whether
maximum or minimum). Thus, if in an optimization run, B is
constrained to a maximum of ve, for example, and the value
of optimum B found by the optimization process is also ve,
then the constraint on B is called an active constraint. If, on
the other hand, the optimum value of the constrained variable
does not reach its limiting value, the constraint will be called
passive.
The concept of active and passive constraints helps in
determining the real limiting factors to further improvement
under the conditions considered.
General observations
A number of points are observed in Table II and the
corresponding carpet plots of Figures 2-5. These may be
listed as follows:
.
The constraints on bypass ratio and overall pressure ratio
are active constraints in all cases.
.
The optimum p
f
is a function of bypass ratio, and
decreases as B is increased. For example, in cases 7 and 8,
where B is doubled from 5 to 10 while all other variables
are kept constant, sfc decreases 9.3 percent from 1.93 to
1.75.
.
The optimum p
f
increases as Mach number increases (all
other variables kept constant). This is seen, for example,
when cases 8 and 11 are compared, in which optimum p
f
increases from 1.75 to 1.8 (2.8 percent) when M is
increased from 0.9 to 0.8 (12.5 percent).
.
The optimum T
04
increases as B is increased. This is
exemplied by cases 8 and 9 where increasing B 50 percent
from 10 to 15 increases optimum T
04
by 14.4 percent from
1,600 to 1,830K.
.
The optimum T
04
increases as p
c
is increased. This is seen
in the carpet plots where the optimum T
04
consistently
shifts to the right when p
c
is increased. This may be easier
to observe on the B 15 carpets because of their higher
curvature, but it is applicable to all cases.
.
Increasing B signicantly lowers specic thrust, as can be
seen when comparing cases 8 and 9. Increasing B from 10
to 15 (50 percent) decreases F
s
of the optimum cycle
from 137.1 to 124Ns/kg (210.6 percent).
.
The effect of increasing T
04
in increasing specic thrust is
stronger at lower bypass ratios. For example, in Figure 1,
when moving from T
04
1,400 to 1,550 K (an increase of
10.7 percent) on the p
c
45 line of the B 5 carpet, F
s
increases from 153.8 to 192.7 Ns/kg. This represents a
25.3 percent increase in F
s
. While a comparable
10.5 percent increase in T
04
from 1,900 to 2,100 K on
the p
c
45 line of the B 15 carpet produces a thrust
increase of only 18.3 percent (from 120 to 142Ns/kg.)
The reason for that is that T
04
represents the energy input
to the core ow. As the bypass ow increases, the core
ow becomes relatively less important, and a larger
increase in T
04
is needed to obtain the same specic thrust
increase.
Impact of the bypass ratio constraint
An outstanding observation in Table II is that the B and p
c
constraints are always active constraints. This means that (in
this situation, where no minimum F
s
constraint is placed) they
are limiting factors. That is to say, sfc can be further lowered
if these constraints were not present, or if they could be
extended. However, while it is true that the sfc calculated
from cycle analysis appears to improve continuously as B is
increased (provided T
04
can also be increased), this does not
hold true when installation effects (inlet and nozzle drag) are
Table II Results of optimization at different operating conditions and maximum B constraint (with no constraint on F
s
)
Operating cond. Constraints Optimum cycle sfc F
s
Case No. Altitude Mach B T
04
(K) p
c
B p
f
T
04
(K) p
c
(g/kNs) (N s/kg)
1 9,000 0.8 5 2,000 40 5 1.94 1,450 40 18.1 173.4
2 9,000 0.8 10 2,000 40 10 1.76 1,700 40 16.75 141.6
3 9,000 0.8 15 2,000 40 15 1.7 1,950 40 16.15 129
4 9,000 0.9 5 2,000 40 5 1.97 1,500 40 19.4 169.5
5 9,000 0.9 10 2,000 40 10 1.8 1,775 40 18.1 139.3
6 9,000 0.9 15 2,000 40 15 1.7 2,000 40 17.46 122.1
7 11,000 0.8 5 2,000 40 5 1.93 1,360 40 17.5 167.5
8 11,000 0.8 10 2,000 40 10 1.75 1,600 40 16.23 137.1
9 11,000 0.8 15 2,000 40 15 1.68 1,830 40 15.65 124
10 11,000 0.9 5 2,000 40 5 1.96 1,410 40 18.76 163.8
11 11,000 0.9 10 2,000 40 10 1.8 1,675 40 17.5 134.4
12 11,000 0.9 15 2,000 40 15 1.72 1,925 40 16.92 122.3
Table I Combinations of operating conditions and bypass ratio
constraints
Case Altitude Mach B
max
1 9,000 0.8 5
2 9,000 0.8 10
3 9,000 0.8 15
4 9,000 0.9 5
5 9,000 0.9 10
6 9,000 0.9 15
7 11,000 0.8 5
8 11,000 0.8 10
9 11,000 0.8 15
10 11,000 0.9 5
11 11,000 0.9 10
12 11,000 0.9 15
471
Figure 2 Parametric variation of T
04
and p
c
around optima at 9,000 m, 0.8 Mach
04
and p
c
472
04
and p
c
04
and p
c
473
Figure 6 sfc versus T
04
at different p
f
Figure 7 sfc versus B at different p
f
474
Figure 8 sfc versus p
c
at different p
f
Figure 9 Sensitivity of the sfc of the reference cycle to deviations from optimum values the design variables
475
accounted for. To account for this difference some references
such as Mattingly (1996) and Kerrebrock (1992) differentiate
between the two quantities installed sfc (tsfc), which includes
installation losses, and uninstalled sfc (sfc), from cycle
calculations. The installed sfc depends on how the engine is
installed in the nacelle, and is related to the uninstalled sfc
through the relation:
tsfc
sfc
1 2f
inlet
2f
noz
where f
inlet
; f
noz
are the inlet and nozzle loss coefcients,
respectively, and are dimensionless measures of their drag.
Wilson (1984) points out that due to increasing nozzle losses,
the installed specic fuel consumption (tsfc) reaches a
minimum at about B 20. This of course, cannot be
veried by cycle calculations, because cycle calculations do
not account for installation effects. The point of this
elaboration is to stress that the continuously improving
trend of sfc with increasing B, as predicted by cycle
calculations alone can be misleading if installation effects
are not kept in mind.
In addition to that, as the bypass ratio is increased, the
specic thrust of the engine decreases, as can be seen clearly
in Figures 1-4. This means that for a given thrust requirement
(not specic thrust), if B is increased the engine diameter
must be increased to increase the air mass ow rate.
Consequently, the weight and (external) aerodynamic drag
of the engine also increase. Thus, even if the sfc decreases, the
load on the engine, the thrust it must provide to overcome the
drag, will also increase. This means that if the actual amount
of fuel consumed (e.g. kg) is considered, instead of the sfc
(e.g. kg/kN), the optimum B is further lowered (Wilson,
1984). One study, mentioned in Wilson (1984), which
considered this point found that there was not much fuel
efciency to be gained beyond a bypass ratio of about eight.
Ultimately, for any accurate conclusions to be made in this
regard, the engine must be studied with proper consideration
of installation effects and weight implications.
Impact of the pressure ratio constraint
It is seen in Figures 1-4 that, above a certain T
04
, increasing
p
c
improves sfc. For example, in Figure 1 in the B 5 carpet
at T
04
1,400K, there is little improvement in sfc when
moving from p
c
40 to p
c
45. Below this temperature sfc
actually deteriorates as can be seen on the 1,350 K line, where
the sfc increases from about 18.7 to slightly more than 19 g/
kN s when moving from p
c
40 to 45. But above a certain
temperature, about 1,400K in this case, sfc decreases with
increasing p
c
.
Is this trend continuous? Figure 8 suggests that if the other
cycle design variables are held constant, there will be a value
of p
c
after which sfc will start to increase. However, if T
04
is
allowed to increase the trend is practically continuous.
The maximum overall pressure ratio is limited by the
temperature limit of the compressor materials, which is
currently 920K (Press et al., 1988). If standard air at 288.2 K,
and a polytropic efciency of 0.9 are assumed, this
corresponds to a pressure ratio of:
p
c

920
288:2
_ _
0:93:5
38:7
The value of p
c,max
has been assumed to be 40 throughout
this work.
An important point to make here is that, when p
c
is
increased beyond current limits, the value of polytropic
efciency assumed in the model becomes questionable. It has
been assumed that polytropic efciencies of the
turbomachinery are constant at 0.9, a value that reects
current technology up to the current limit of pressure ratio
(Press et al., 1988). Even if technological advances allow the
pressure ratio of the turbomachinery to increase, it becomes
harder to maintain high polytropic efciencies. Therefore,
trying to draw conclusions from plots that go too far beyond
current limits is not reliable.
Several references such as Mattingly (1996, 1999),
Kerrebrock (1992) and Kurzke (1999) point out that the
validity of the results of parametric cycle analysis depends on
the realism with which the variation of efciency with pressure
ratio is accounted for. Mattingly (1999) gives correlations for
turbine and compressor polytropic efciency variation with
the respective pressure ratios that represent current
technology levels for industrial gas turbines. However, it is
mentioned that the correlations over estimate the losses for
multispool aircraft engines. According to Press et al. (1988),
polytropic efciencies of 0.9 up to the current limit of
pressure ratio can be achieved for aircraft engines.
The observation in Table II that the B and p
c
constraints
are always active constraints, suggests that the problem of
minimizing sfc without considering a minimum specic thrust
is actually a two-dimensional optimization problem. After
setting B and p
c
to their maximum practical values, the
optimum T
04
and p
f
combination must be found.
Illustrating the two-dimensional nature of the problem
Figure 6 shows a plot of sfc versus T
04
for different p
f
, with B
and p
c
set to their maximum values for the reference case.
Two points are visible in this gure:
1 for each p
f
there is an optimum T
04
that minimizes sfc;
and
2 of these pairs of (p
f
, T
04,opt
), there is one pair (p
f,opt
,
T
04,opt
) that gives the minimum sfc among the set, in this
case: 1.75,1600 K, respectively.
Since, it has been shown that increasing B or p
c
would
improve sfc, and since they are set to their maximum, it
follows that this pair (p
f,opt
, T
04,opt
) is the global minimum of
the problem as it is currently dened.
This is further shown in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 7 shows a
plot of sfc versus bypass ratio at different p
f
, while T
04
and p
c
are held at 1,600 K and 40, respectively. The plot shows that
there is an optimum B for each p
f
, and that as p
f
decreases
the optimum B increases. When the maximum B is marked, it
can be seen that p
f
of 1.75 gives the lowest sfc. If p
f
is
increased or decreased sfc increases, but if B is increased
beyond ten, then sfc can be decreased.
The same concept is seen in Figure 8, which is a plot of sfc
versus p
c
at different p
f
, while holding B and T
04
at 10,
1,600 K, respectively. Again when the maximum p
c
is
marked, it becomes apparent that p
f
1.75 gives the lowest
sfc, and that sfc can be lowered by increasing p
c
beyond its
current limit.
Sensitivity of sfc to deviations from optimum cycle
Figure 9 shows a sensitivity plot for the reference optimum
case. The plot was generated by holding the cycle design
476
variables at their optimum values (B 10, p
c
40,
p
f
1.75, T
04
1,600 K), and then systematically changing
one of the variables while holding the others constant.
The plot shows that the sfc of the cycle is most sensitive to
T
04
and p
f
, with deviation in T
04
being more detrimental
below the optimum and p
f
above. As expected, sfc improves
when p
c
and B increase, but the plot shows sfc to improve
slightly and then to deteriorate when B is increased. This is
because when B is increased the optimum p
f
changes
(decreases), but p
f
is held constant so sfc decreases slightly
until B reaches an optimum and then starts to increase. This
can also be seen in Figure 6. Table III is constructed from the
results in Figure 9 to summarize the effect of a 5 percent
decrease in each of the design variables on the sfc of the
optimum cycle.
Generally, the plot shows that if T
04
and p
f
can be
controlled within ^5% of their optimum value, an sfc within
about 2.65 percent of the minimum can be achieved. It also
shows that B can be decreased to 80 percent of its maximum
value (220 percent) with only a 5 percent penalty in sfc. The
penalty may be even smaller if T
04
and p
f
are optimized for
the new B. Similarly, p
c
may be decreased 20 percent of its
maximum with a penalty of about 2.8 percent in sfc.
Minimizing sfc for a given specic thrust requirement
The problem becomes more meaningful when a minimum
specic thrust constraint is introduced. As mentioned
previously, if the specic thrust of an engine decreases the
engine must ingest more air to produce a given required
thrust. This means the engine diameter must be increased,
which introduces a number of penalties. Most importantly,
the weight and aerodynamic drag will increase. Other factors
include ground clearance and landing gear length, and
transportation difculty for engines above 3 m in diameter
(Wilson, 1984).
A minimum specic thrust requirement for a given
application may be obtained by knowledge of the required
thrust and forward speed, and by specifying a maximum
allowed engine diameter.
Table IV summarizes the results of a series of optimization
runs for progressively increasing F
s,min
. The optimization runs
were carried out for an altitude of 11 km and a ight Mach
number of 0.8. The constraints were xed at B
max
10,
p
c,max
40, T
04,max
2,000 K, except for F
s,min
which
progressively increases from 100 to 580Ns/kg. The table
lists the optimum cycle design variables, and the status of the
constraints in each case. An A in a constraint status column
denotes an active constraint, while a P denotes an inactive
or passive constraint.
The table shows that, except in the rst case, the minimum
F
s
constraint becomes a limiting factor in minimizing sfc.
Specically, this begins above an F
s,min
of 137Ns/kg for these
conditions. To explain this gure, the table shows that in the
rst case when F
s,min
is set to 100Ns/kg, the constraint is
passive, and the specic thrust of the resulting optimum cycle
is found to be 137Ns/kg. This practically means that for
these conditions this minimum specic thrust is guaranteed
but if F
s,min
is increased above this value, it becomes an active
constraint and a penalty on sfc is incurred. Another
outstanding feature is that B is no longer a limiting factor
except at low F
s,min
values. This means that with the
introduction of the minimum F
s
constraint the problem has
become three-dimensional (p
c
is still an active constraint).
The table also shows that when B steps out as a limiting
factor (moving down the table), T
04
steps in. After that, T
04
continues to be a limiting factor until the optimum B becomes
low enough to allow the required F
s,min
to be achieved with a
lower T
04
. This occurs somewhere between 400 and 450Ns/
kg (between B 3 and 1.5).
Comparison with the graphical method
A graphical method for cycle optimization involving extensive
parametric variations is described in Cohen et al. (1987). This
method involves nding the pairs of (T
04
,p
f,opt
) at xed B and
p
c
, plotting sfc versus F
s
for these pairs, repeating for several
B, and nally repeating the whole process altogether at
different p
c
. The envelope curve for the family of different B
curves at constant p
c
gives the plot of optimum variation of
sfc with F
s
at that p
c
.
Since, Table IV shows that p
c
is always a limiting factor,
this only needs to be done at the maximum p
c
. Figure 10
shows the result of this parametric variation performed at
p
c
40, with B ranging from 0.1 to 10. Each constant B
curve was obtained by varying T
04
from 900 to 2,000 K,
nding the optimum p
f
at each T
04
, and plotting the
corresponding sfc versus F
s
. Superimposed on this plot is the
plot of optimum sfc versus F
s
obtained from Table IV, shown
as a dashed line, which incidentally happens to be the
envelope curve that the graphical method seeks to nd.
The obvious advantage of the numerical optimization
approach is the saving in calculation and plotting effort. But
more importantly, the identity of the cycle is difcult to
determine from the graph. The graph may outline the trend of
optimum variation, but the corresponding cycle design
variables B, T
04
and p
f
cannot be read directly (unless
constant parameter lines are drawn, but that adds to the
effort).
Introducing additional constraints with: single stage fan
Another advantage of the numerical optimization approach
is the ease of incorporating practical design constraints.
Powel (1991) mentions that for a single stage fan p
f
, 1.9.
This constraint was added to generate Table V, which
shows that when this constraint is added p
f
becomes the
limiting factor instead of T
04
, and the optimum B quickly
decreases as F
s,min
increases. The impact of this constraint
on sfc can be visualized in Figure 11, in which the dashed
line is the plot of (constrained) optimum sfc versus F
s
from Table V.
Conclusions
Consideration of the problem of minimizing sfc without a
constraint for minimum F
s
has revealed a number of points.
Table I showed that the maximum B and p
c
are limiting
factors for all cases, which means that the problem is
Table III Sensitivity of optimum cycle to 5 percent decrease in design
variables
Design variable Dsfc (percent)
p
f
1.10
p
c
0.65
B 0.78
T
04
2.65
477
essentially a two-dimensional optimization problem.
Generally, sfc continues to improve as B and p
c
are
increased, provided T
04
and p
f
are optimized. Practical
considerations, however, limit the potential improvements.
Some general trends were observed, which might be
summarized as follows:
.
optimum T
04
increases when either B or p
c
is increased;
.
optimum p
f
decreases as B is increased; and
.
increasing B signicantly decreases F
s
.
The sensitivity analysis of the reference optimum cycle
showed that sfc is not very sensitive to small deviations from
optimum design values. It further revealed that the sfc of the
optimum cycle is relatively most sensitive to T
04
and p
f
. A
5 percent decrease from optimum value in T
04
and p
f
was
found to incur a penalty of 2.65 and 1.1 percent. This is
compared to a 0.652 and 0.776 percent penalty incurred by a
comparable decrease in p
c
and B, respectively.
The nature of the problem changes when a minimum F
s
constraint is introduced. B no longer becomes a limiting
factor, and the problem becomes three-dimensional (B, p
f
,
T
04
). The overall pressure ratio, however, remains to be
limiting factor in all the cases studied.
Using numerical optimization had a number of advantages.
First, it allowed a better (and quicker) understanding of the
problem by revealing key features such as trends and limiting
Figure 10 Optimum variation of sfc with F
s
at p
c
40
Table IV Results of optimization with a progressively increasing minimum F
s
constraint
Constraints Optimum cycle Constraint status
F
s,min
B p
f
T
04
p
c
B p
f
T
04
p
c
F
s
sfc F
s,min
B p
f
T
04
p
c
100 10 2,000 40 10 1.75 1,600 40 137 16.17 P A P A
150 10 2,000 40 10 1.85 1,683 40 150 16.2 A A P A
200 10 2,000 40 9.7 2.3 2,000 40 200 16.8 A P A A
250 10 2,000 40 7 2.84 2,000 40 250 18 A P A A
300 10 2,000 40 5.2 3.54 2,000 40 300 19.3 A P A A
350 10 2,000 40 4 4.44 2,000 40 350 20.7 A P A A
400 10 2,000 40 3 5.6 2,000 40 400 22.14 A P A A
450 10 2,000 40 1.5 6.1 1,658 40 450 23.63 A P P A
500 10 2,000 40 0.5 6.08 1,407 40 500 25.12 A P P A
550 10 2,000 40 0.2 6 1,333 40 550 26.4 A P P A
580 10 2,000 40 0.1 6 1,333 40 580 27.15 A P P A
Notes: A, active constraint; P, passive constraint
478
criteria. Second, it signicantly narrowed down the region of
interest for parametric study. Third, it allowed design
constraints to be easily incorporated in the study.
References
Arora, J.S. (1989), Introduction to Optimum Design, 1st ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Cohen, H., Rogers, G.F.C. and Saravanamuttoo, H.I.H.
(1987), Gas Turbine Theory, 3rd ed., Longman, London.
Kerrebrock, J. (1992), Aircraft Engines and Gas Turbines, 2nd
ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kurzke, J. (1999), Gas turbine cycle design methodology: a
comparison of parameter variation with numerical
optimization, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 121, p. 6.
Mattingly, J. (1996), Elements of Gas Turbine for Propulsion,
McGraw-Hill, Singapore, International edition.
Mattingly, J. (1999), Need info for BSc project, November
23, 1999, Technical correspondence, E-mail: Jack@
aircraftenginedesign.com
Powel, D.T. (1991), Propulsion systems for twenty rst
century commercial transports, Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs, J.
of Eng. for Gas Turbine and Power, Vol. 205, p. 13.
Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A. and Vetterling,
W.T. (1988), Numerical Recipes in C, 1st ed., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Wilson, D.G. (1984), The Design of High Efciency
Turbomachinery and Gas Turbines, 1st ed., MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Figure 11 Optimum variation of sfc with F
s
with a constraint of p
fmax
1.9
Table V Results of optimization with a progressively increasing minimum F
s
constraint and an additional constraint of p
f
# 1.9
Constraints Optimum cycle Constraint status
F
s,min
B p
f
T
04
p
c
B p
f
T
04
p
c
F
s
sfc F
s,min
B p
f
T
04
p
c
100 10 1.9 2,000 40 10 1.75 1,600 40 136.5 16.17 P A P P A
150 10 1.9 2,000 40 10 1.85 1,683 40 150 16.2 A A P P A
200 10 1.9 2,000 40 5.45 1.9 1,573 40 200 18.26 A P A P A
250 10 1.9 2,000 40 2.1 1.9 1,303 40 250 20.55 A P A P A
300 10 1.9 2,000 40 1 1.9 1,213 40 300 22.13 A P A P A
350 10 1.9 2,000 40 0.5 1.9 1,167 40 350 23.28 A P A P A
400 10 1.9 2,000 40 0.185 1.9 1,142 40 400 24.14 A P A P A
420 10 1.9 2,000 40 0.1 1.9 1,137 40 420 24.4 A P A P A
430 10 1.9 2,000 40 0.063 1.9 1,134 40 430 24.56 A P A P A
Notes: A, active constraint; P, passive constraint
479
Further reading
Vanderplaats, G.N. (1984), Numerical Optimization Techniques
for Engineering Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
About the authors
Yousef S.H. Najjar, Founding Director of the
Energy Center, Fellow ASME (USA), Fellow
the Institute of Energy (UK), PE, C.Eng.
Professor of Mechanical Engineering. BSc,
Mech. Eng. (Power), Cairo University (1969);
MSc and PhD, Mech. Eng. (Thermal Power),
Craneld Institute of Technology (UK) 1976
and 1979, respectively. Industrial experience: Chief Power
Engineer-Irbid District Electricity Company, Jordan (1969-
1975); Specialized industrial training with General Electric
(GEC) and related power industries (UK) (1973-1974).
Academic experience: Yarmouk University (1980-1986): The
founding chairman of the Mech. Eng. Dept., 1980-1982;
Member University Council (1985-1986). King Abdulaziz
University-Jeddah (1986-2001): participated effectively in
two funded research projects and ABET accreditation.
Published 123 papers in international refereed journals and
conferences; granted a patent by British Patent Ofce (1988);
two patent publications; lectured in 24 international
conferences; member of the Editorial Advisory Board for
the International Journals of: Energy and Environment, and
Applied Thermal Engineering. Awards: The 1995 Award for
excellence for an outstanding paper in J. Aircraft Eng. and
Aerospace Technology; Fellowship of ASME-USA (1999);
Fellowship of Institute of Energy-UK (1990); Professional
Engineer; Chartered Engineer. Specialization: Energy-
Thermal Power including Gas Turbines: Fuels,
Combustion, Turbomachines and Advanced Energy
Systems; Internal Combustion Engines and Autotronics.
Initiated a course on Autotronics. Authored three books
and manuals. Latest research: Autotronics and Fuel cell
gas turbine hybrid power. Founded Pioneering Labs for:
automotive diagnosis energy audit and autotronics.
Yousef S.H. Najjar is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: y_najjar@hotmail.com
Sharaf F. Al-Sharif is a Researcher at King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
480
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Thermodynamics Optimization of The Turbofan Cycle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thermodynamics Optimization of The Turbofan Cycle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thermodynamic optimization of the

You might also like