Energy 209 (2020) 118261

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Energy and performance optimization of an adaptive cycle engine for

next generation combat aircraft
Hakan Aygun a, Mehmet Emin Cilgin a, Ismail Ekmekci b, Onder Turan a, *
a
Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir, Turkey
b
Faculty of Engineering, Industrial Department, Istanbul Commerce University, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: For next generation aircraft, Adaptive Cycle Engine (ACE) is a candidate to fulfill the multi-mission re-
Received 20 November 2019 quirements of flight. This new concept is promising to complete deficiencies of conventional low by-pass
Received in revised form mixed turbofan engines because the ACE model incorporates different thermodynamic cycles (turbojet
28 May 2020
and turbofan) on the same air vehicle system. Firstly, performance and design results of the ACE model
Accepted 28 June 2020
Available online 26 July 2020
are compared with those of fixed cycle low by-pass turbofan engine by using specific fuel consumption
(SFC), specific thrust (ST), power and efficiency parameters. Moreover, verification of the newly devel-
oped ACE model is performed. Secondly, considering some design parameters, ST and SFC values of the
Keywords:
Adaptive cycle
ACE model are analyzed for double by-pass mode (DBM) and single by-pass mode (SBM). Considering
Energy performance analysis of the ACE, SFC value is determined as 17.85 g/kN.s at DBM and 42.18 g/kN.s at SBM.
Turbofan According to results of energy analysis, overall efficiency of the ACE is calculated as 23% for DBM and 9%
Military aircraft for SBM whereas fixed cycle engine has 18% for military mode and 7% for afterburner mode. Finally,
Optimization minimization of (SFC) is obtained with genetic algorithm approach. Based on the design variables such as
by-pass ratio and turbine inlet temperature, minimum SFC value for the ACE model is calculated as
17.41 g/kN.s at DBM and 40.45 g/kN.s at SBM.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction depends on propulsion and power capabilities. Namely, propulsion

With the rapid development of modern aircraft technology,
performance requirements of the propulsion system have become
more serious [1]. Due to the fact that performance characteristics of
the new generation aircraft put forward higher requirements, new
generation engines must keep pace with these innovations [2]. For
the aerospace industry, working more efficiently of aircraft and
propulsion systems is of paramount importance. The development
of propulsion systems has a complex challenge because of their
multidimensional and compact system. Propulsion systems with
higher efficiency would decrease the amount of fuel and hence the
environmental impact, especially the release of CO2 [3]. Overall
efficiency of thermal systems could be increased with technical
measures which lead to change in the design of components. Future
the development of subsonic and supersonic transport aircraft
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hakanaygun@eskisehir.edu.tr (H. Aygun), mecilgin@eskisehir.
edu.tr (M.E. Cilgin), iekmekci@ticaret.edu.tr (I. Ekmekci), onderturan@eskisehir.
edu.tr (O. Turan).
innovations have been the main tool for progress in air trans-
portation. Thanks to improvements in propulsion performance and
its efficiency, it would appear that aircraft will fly at higher speeds
over longer distances by carrying larger payloads for next years [4].
Nowadays, Adaptive Cycle Engine (ACE) concept holds out to meet
demands in terms of multi-purposed missions and performance
requirements. Because it promises low specific fuel consumption in
subsonic flight and high specific thrust in supersonic flight. The ACE
model involves two different thermodynamic cycles (turbojet and
turbofan) on the same system, which makes the aircraft replies
multi-purpose missions both in supersonic and subsonic flight [5].
Thanks to the changing of by-pass ratio (BPR), the ACE model would
have more advantages than conventional ones in efficiency, specific
fuel consumption (SFC) and flight range [6]. Because of capability of
adjusting its own variable components, it is necessary to analyze
the engine performance at DBM and SBM. A beneficial tool in
marking out cycle efficiency for aerothermodynamics system is
energy analysis. This analysis expresses that energy could be
different in forms during process but total amount of it does not
change. Energy efficiency is a general parameter and in practice

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118261
0360-5442/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261
various energy performance indicators usually exist based on
thermodynamics [7]. Also, parametric cycle analysis is widely used,
particularly for propulsion systems. Based on the first law of ther-
modynamics, performance studies illustrate effect of the parame-
ters, such as component efficiencies, mechanical efficiencies, and
pressure loss coefficients on overall performance. Potential en-
hancements of propulsion systems are evaluated through para-
metric studies on a baseline model. The performance of aircraft
engines has improved through optimization of some design pa-
rameters and improvement of material properties. Recently, the
first and second law analyses together have been highly employed
in evaluation of propulsion systems for more efficient energy-
utilization. Employing both the first law efficiency and the second
law efficiency gives more information about system performance.
In other words, the quality or work potential of energy in the light
of the second law analysis could be quantified [8]. Therefore, energy
and entropy modeling techniques are of huge significant to
comprehend efficiency of an aero propulsion systems. Also, opti-
mizing the performance of these systems could be achieved with
minimization of irreversibility in components. Naturally, the en-
tropy generation minimization is challenge issue in practical ap-
plications because of complex boundary conditions and the off-
design operating point [9]. The performance optimization of en-
ergy systems incorporates either modifying the system structure or
changing design parameters according to one or more paramount
design objectives. Feasible aircraft propulsion systems and the
decreased fuel consumption as well as environmental constraints
such as emission and noise reduction are current optimization
goals in air transportation [9].
In the literature, various design and performance studies on
different ACE models have been carried out. Xin et al. [10] per-
formed the performance optimization of the ACE model during
subsonic climb with genetic algorithm and compared the climb
results for different modes. Zheng et al. [11] improved a new
method for the ACE model to help the optimization of matching
control schedule and to increase efficiencies. Namely, this method
employed makes component working points close to their optimal
matching lines and match the related components better than the
original control schedule. Chen et al. [12] carried out performance
assessment of the ACE model during subsonic and supersonic
throttling. In the related study, it is found that via the combined
control of variable geometries, the thrust decreases from 100% to
60.36% during subsonic cruise and to 59.81% without spillage drag
during supersonic cruise with constant airflow. Zheng et al. [13]
performed matching mechanism analysis on the ACE model. The
aim of related study is to evaluate the effect of variable components
on matching relationship between engine components and the
overall engine performance.
In the open literature, the studies about the thermodynamic and
parametric cycle evaluation of the ACE model are relatively limited
in comparison with other conventional propulsion systems.
Through a literature review, it is realized that any studies based on
the first and second law together assessment as well as SFC opti-
mization for the ACE model have not appeared to the best of the
authors’ knowledge. Also, energy and performance results of fixed
cycle turbofan are compared with the developed ACE model. This
comparison shed light on the existed improvement at the ACE
model. So, the model developed in the study provides the first
attempt to evaluate design parameters, which are BPR, high pres-
sure compressor pressure ratio (HPC PR) and turbine inlet tem-
perature (TIT) and to optimize these variables by using genetic
algorithm (GA) at DBM and SBM. A new computer code is devel-
oped in MATLAB environment for energy calculations and optimi-
zation in this study. In summary, the main goals of this contribution
are ranked and the study has differences from the other studies
regarding the ACE model because of following reasons:

to derive the energy, entropy and parametric equation relations
for the ACE model.

to compare performance, power and entropy results of the ACE
model with those of fixed cycle turbofan.

to evaluate effects of design variables such as the BPR, HPC PR
and TIT on the SFC value for the ACE model at DBM and SBM.

to optimize SFC value of the ACE model with genetic algorithm
tool for the both two modes.
2. System description of the adaptive cycle engine
Adaptive Cycle Engine (ACE) is conceived to enhance specific
thrust (ST) and decrease fuel consumption to extend flight range
and improve heat dissipation capacity of military aircraft. Fixed-
cycle engines installing to current aircrafts were conceived for
either high thrust or high fuel efficiency, which affect adversely
aircraft performance. Thanks to ACE model which automatically
alternates between a SBM for high-thrust and DBM for high-
efficiency, engine performance would be optimized [14]. The
drawing of the ACE model is shown in Fig. 2 [15]. The ACE model
incorporates several main components such as fan, core driven fan
stage (CDFS), high pressure compressor (HPC), combustion cham-
ber (CC), high pressure turbine (HPT), low pressure turbine (LPT),
afterburner (AB) and exhaust nozzle (EN) [16]. This model also
involves a mode selector valve (MSV), front variable bypass (FVABI)
and rear variable bypass injector (RVABI) to direct the flow due to
various requirements. While upper side shown in Fig. 2 represents
double by-pass mode, down side expresses single by-pass mode.
The main principle is that by changing the geometry of engine parts
(FVABI, RVABI) and adjusting the flow and bypass ratio are at the
best engine performance in the corresponding flight condition [5].
At DBM, the engine operates under subsonic cruise conditions
and the total bypass ratio is of 1.8 value. In order to meet this mode
requirements, MSV, RVABI and FVABI are opened. Angle of Fan
guide vane increases while angle of CDFS and HPC vanes which
affect core air decrease in order to increase total by-pass ratio [5].
At SBM, the total bypass ratio is of 0.3 value. Angle of the Fan
guide vane alternates to have the ability to match the inlet flow of
the aircraft. In order to produce high specific thrust without critical
performance losses, MSV is fully closed and RVABI slightly is closed.
Most of the airflow passes through the CDFS and HPC components
[5]. Note that the energy and performance of the ACE model are
evaluated on design mode and off-design for optimization in this
study. Main parameters used parametric cycle analysis for fixed
cycle turbofan and the ACE model are given Table 1. The ACE model
may be applicated to new generation military aircrafts. One of
candidate fighter aircrafts so as to install the ACE model is a F35A
[17]. Fig. 1 shows a number of component stations for the ACE.
3. Thermodynamic analysis: energy and entropy equations
Energy can be defined as a property which leads to motion. The
first law of thermodynamics puts forward that energy is a ther-
modynamics property that is of ability of the change its own form
in but the total quantity of energy remains constant [18]. The dif-
ference between the energy input and output can be determined
from the change energy content of a system. Aero-propulsion sys-
tems use generally air as the working fluid and obtain thrust force
thanks to the difference kinetic energies between inlet air and
burnt gases after combustion [19]. The cycle study of the propulsion
system incorporates temperatures and pressures in inlet and out-
lets of components, mass flows and figure of merits of the engine
 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261 3

Table 1
Main parameters used at modes of the fixed cycle turbofan and the ACE model.

Fixed cycle low by-pass turbofan

Parameter h (m) M m_ a (kg/s) MSV BPRtot Tt4 Tt7 pFan pCDFS pHPC ptot:
K K

Military 0 0 101.69 e 0.67 1850 e 4.03 e 7 28.2

Afterburner 0 0 101.69 e 0.67 1850 2050 4.03 e 7 28.2
The ACE model
DBM 0 0 101.69 Open 1.8 1850 e 3.1 1.3 7 28.21
SBM 0 0 101.69 Closed 0.3 1850 2050 3.1 1.3 7 28.21

Fig. 1. Illustration of a number of component stations for the ACE model components [15].

Fig. 2. The schematic illustration of an adaptive cycle engine [15].

such as efficiencies, power values. The second law of thermody- 3.1. Energy equations
namics consolidates initial energy assessment. According to this
law, an actual process takes place in the direction of diminishing The first law analysis is carried out via the continuity and energy
the quality of energy [7]. Entropy production occurs in a system equations for corresponding system process. On a rate basis, the
because of the state change and it is desired to be a minimum in conservation of mass may be expressed in integral form manner
order to achieve maximum efficiency. With this point of view, in- [21,22].
efficiency results from an irreversible process where entropy gen-
eration takes place. In this context, balance of entropy is applied to
a system after energy assessment, thereby inefficiency of energy
conversion systems can be determined. Because of irreversibility in
aircraft engine systems, entropy is employed to analyze the loss of
efficiency [20]. ð ð
v ! !
An energy analysis based on the balance of energy and entropy rdV þ r V: d A ¼ 0 (1)
vt
is carried out to determine the thermodynamic properties of the CV CS
unknown states and to calculate irreversibility, the heat transfer
At left hand-side of equation, while the first term represents
and work interaction between the system and the environment. In
time rate of change of mass inside control volume, second term
this study, the steady-state form of mass (Eq. (1)) and energy (Eq. !!
(2)) rate and entropy balances (Eq. (4)) around the control volumes denotes rate of mass flow across control surfaces. rV , A denote
enclosing each components of the ACE model are implemented density, velocity vector for fluid and area vector, respectively.
respectively. On a rate basis, the conservation of energy may be expressed in
integral form manner [22,23].
4 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261

ð ð
v ! !
Q_  W_ s W_ _
shear  W other ¼ erdV þ ðe þ pvÞr V: d A (2) ðT
cp ðTÞdT
vt sðTÞ ¼ (8)
CV CS T
Tstd
where heat transfer rate is denoted by Q, _ work transfer rate at
Combining Gibbs equation, perfect gas definition and from
_
surface is represented by W s and work rates due to shear forces and definition of h(T), the temperature and pressure changes in inlet and
other forms is denoted by W _ _
shear and W other respectively. At right outlet of each the ACE components can be determined as follows
hand-side of equation, first term represents the change of energy in [25]:
time inside control volume (CV), the second term denotes energy
flux across control surface (CS).  
s0 ðTÞ  s0 ðTi Þ
Total enthalpy is defined as the sum of the internal energy, the pðTÞ ¼ pðTi Þexp h±1
poly
(9)
R
flow energy, and the kinetic energy and its rate of change can be
therefore written as [24]:
where the h±1
poly
is polytrophic efficiency of related component, the
! exponent is þ1 for the compression and 1 for the expansion.
V2
V $ ðrdhi VÞ ¼ V $ ðrdeVÞ þ p0 V $ V þ V $ ðp  p0 ÞV þ V$ r V
2
(3)

4. Governing equations

To develop the ACE model, mass and energy equilibrium equa-

3.2. Entropy equations
Second Law or ‘irreversibility’ analysis takes account of the en-
ergy source in terms of its thermodynamic quality. However, en-
ergy law obtains energy or heat losses to be predicted. This limited
information is not adequate to improve conversion of energy. As for
the Second law of thermodynamics, it expresses that conversion
rates of work and heat to each other are different. Namely, work can
be fully transformed to heat but heat can be converted partly to
useful work on a rate basis, the equation of entropy may be
expressed in integral form manner [22].
ð ð
dQ_ ! ! dS
þ sr V: d A þ S_gen ¼ CV
T dt
path CS
where dQ_ is heat transfer across surface(s) dependent on path, s
and S_gen represent specific entropy (kJ/kg.K) and entropy genera-
tion, respectively. At right hand-side, the term expresses change of
entropy in CV.
The Gibbs function gives a relation between entropy and inter-
nal energy. In time averaged form, it can be given as follows [24]:
1 specific heat for CC outlet flow.
TVs ¼ Ve þ pV
r ✓ For HPT unit, m_ 4:5 identifies mass flow of HPT outlet whereas
Embedding the steady-state expression of the internal energy
[24].
≡ ✓ For MC unit, T06 denotes temperature of mixing chamber outlet,
V:ðrdeVÞ ¼  pV:V þ ðtVÞ:V  Vq
Gas flows through the ACE model are taken to be mixtures of
perfect gases with variable Cp(T). The each constituent in the flow
has own gas constant, enthalpy of formation and specific heat,
which is function of temperature. The enthalpy h(T) and entropy
terms for these flows can be determined [25].
tions should be applied to the main components of the ACE
considering them as a control volume at steady-state. The magni-
dutes of enthalpy, work rate and entropy for the inlet stream and
outlet stream of each component may be figured out with the
governing equations. Application of governing equations to the Fan,
CDFS, HPC, CC, HPT, LPT, mixing chamber and AB are expressed in
Table 2 [26]. Before thermodynamic balance equations of compo-
nents are presented, some explanations are given regarding these
components.
✓ For Fan unit, temperature of Fan inlet and Fan outlet is repre-
sented by T02 and T2:1 , whereas m_ 1:3 and m_ 2:1 denote mass flow of
first by-pass inlet and CDFS inlet, respectively. Moreover,
(4) _ Fan illustrates required work for Fan unit.
W
✓ For CDFS unit, temperature of second by-pass inlet and CDFS
outlet is represented by T1:5 and T2:4 , whereas m_ 1:5 and
m_ 2:4 denote mass flow of second by-pass inlet and HPC inlet,
respectively.
✓ For HPC unit, m_ 0:3 represents mass flow of CC inlet whereas T0:3
is temperature of HPC outlet. Furthermore, phpc and hhpc express
pressure ratio and isentropic efficiency of HPC respectively.
✓ For CC unit, m_ f is fuel mass flow of combustor whereas
T04 represents temperature of HPT inlet. Also, cp; cc denotes
(5)
T4:5 represents temperature of HPT outlet.
✓ For LPT unit, m_ 05 is mass flow of LPT outlet whereas T05 expresses
temperature of LPT outlet.
(6)
whereas m_ 06 represents mass flow of mixing chamber outlet.
✓ For AB unit, m_ 07 and m_ fab identify mass flow of AB outlet and AB
fuel, respectively T07 represents temperature of afterburner
outlet. Also, hab expresses burner efficiency of AB.
For the choked nozzle;

ðT pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V9 ¼ gh RT9 (41)
hðTÞ ¼ hF þ cp ðTÞdT (7)
When the exhaust nozzle is unchoked, the exhaust pressure
Tstd
equals ambient one. The velocity of the exhaust gases is calculated
from the relation [18].
 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261 5

Table 2
Thermodynamic equations for main components of the ACE [26].

Components Eqs.

" !#
1
T2:1 ¼ T02 1 þ pfðgc1Þ=gc  1 (10)
hf

Pt;2:1 ¼ pf Pt;02 (11)

m_ 02 ¼ m_ 2:1 þ m_ 1:3 (12)

_ Fan ¼ m_ ðh  h Þ
W (13)
02 2:1 02

" !#
1 ðgc1Þ=gc
T2:4 ¼ T2:1 1 þ pcdfs 1 (14)
hcdfs

Pt;2:4 ¼ pcdfs Pt;2:1 (15)

m_ 2:1 ¼ m_ 2:4 þ m_ 1:5 (16)

_ _ 2:1 ðh2:4  h2:1 Þ

W cdfs ¼ m (17)

m_ 2:4 ¼ m_ 3 (18)

" !#
1 ðgc1Þ=gc
T03 ¼ T2:4 1 þ phpc 1 (19)
hhpc

Pt;03 ¼ phpc Pt;2:4 (20)

_ _ 03 ðh03  h2:4 Þ
W hpc ¼ m (21)

m_ 04 ¼ m_ 03 þ m_ f (22)

m_ 03 cp;03 T03 þ hcc mf QLHV ¼ m_ 04 cp;04 T04 (23)

Pt;04 ¼ ð1  DPÞPt;03 (24)

m_ 4:5 ¼ m_ 04 (25)

hm WHPT ¼ WCDFS þ WHPC (26)

hm cp;g m_ 04 ðT04  T4:5 Þ ¼ cp;a m_ 2:1 ðT2:4  T2:1 Þ þ hm cp;g m_ 3 ðT3  T2:4 Þ (27)

" #gg =ðgg 1Þ

½1  ðT4:5 =T04 Þ
P4:5 ¼ P04 1  (28)
hhpt

m_ 05 ¼ m_ 4:5 (29)

hm WLPT ¼ WFan (30)

hm cp;g m_ 4:5 ðT4:5  T05 Þ ¼ cp;a m_ 02 ðT2:1  T02 Þ (31)

 
½1  ðT05 =T4:5 Þ gg =ðgg 1Þ
P05 ¼ P4:5 1  (32)
hLPT

(continued on next page)

6 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261

Table 2 (continued )

Components Eqs.

For DBM;

m_ 1:3 cp;1:3 T1:3 þ m_ 1:5 cp;1:5 T1:5 þ m_ 05 cp;05 T05 ¼ m_ 06 cp;06 T06 (33)

For SBM;

m_ 1:5 cp;1:5 T1:5 þ m_ 05 cp;05 T05 ¼ m_ 06 cp;06 T06 (34)

Pt;06 ¼ ð1  DPÞPt;05 (35)

Tt06 ¼ Tt07 (36)

m_ 06 cp;06 T06 þ hab m_ fab QLHV ¼ m_ 07 cp;07 T07 (37)

Pt;07 ¼ ð1  DPÞPt;06 (38)

 
P7 gh þ 1 lh =ðlh 1Þ
¼ (39)
Pc 2

If the nozzle is choked

   
T7 l þ1
¼ h (40)
T9 2

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
" ffi station, gases leave from engine the exhaust area (Ae) at (2) station.
u
u  ðgh 1Þ=gh # The velocity and pressure over station (1) are represented with u
P
V9 ¼ t2cp;h T7 1 
a
(42) (which is also flight velocity) and Pa (ambient pressure at same
P7
altitude), respectively. Over the station (2), velocity and pressure
are same value with at station except over the exhaust area (Ae)
where the values are to be (ue) and (Pe). It is assumed that the flow
is steady within the control volume and external flow is reversible.
5. Equations for performance and power parameters
The continuity equation gives Eq. (43) (a) for the control volume
[26],
Considering a schematic diagram for an engine model shown in
Fig. 3, thrust force equation of the ACE model can be derived from
basic conservation laws of mass and momentum in their integral
forms. Control volume extends between the inlet (1) and exhaust
(2) of the engine. In Fig. 3, the two sides of the control volume are v
parallel to the flight velocity (u). The surface area at stations (1) and ∭ rdv þ % rudA ¼ 0 (43)
vt CV CS
(2) are equal and represented by A.
While air entering the engine passess from inlet area (Ai) at (1) According to the momentum equation [26],

Fig. 3. Simplified model of the forces acting on the control volume and various powers for the ACE model [15,26].
 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261
X v
F¼ ∭ rudv þ % uðrudAÞ ¼ 0 (44)
vt CV CS
From Eq. (43) and Eq. (44), net thrust force can be yielded for an
aero engine as follows [26]:

model is chosen to characterize the ACE model performance. SFC of
T ¼ ma ½ð1 þ f Þue  u þ ðPe  Pa ÞAe (45)
In scope of this study, performance indicator regarding the ACE
model incorporates some parameters such as specific thrust (ST),
specific fuel consumption (SFC), engine efficiencies and power
values (wasted power, thrust power). With above mentioned gov-
erning equations, exhaust velocity of the ACE model is calculated
for both modes. After calculation of the velocity, ST, SFC and power
values could be easily determined. In this study, engine efficiencies
are calculated by means of power values which are illustrated in
Fig. 3.
5.1. Specific thrust
The specific thrust (ST) can be found by dividing thrust to air
mass flow. The maximization of ST with some design variables such
as optimum air flow rate or inlet area is usually main aim in cycle
analysis [27,28].
T and SBM. For more clarity, the obtained results were compared
ST ¼ (46)
m_ a
5.2. Specific fuel consumption
This parameter can be determined by dividing fuel mass flow to
thrust force. By consuming minimum fuel, achievement of the
required thrust is usually aimed in cycle analyses [27,28].
m_ f
SFC ¼ (47)
T
Propulsion, thermal and overall efficiencies [27];
✓ Propulsion efficiency: It is ratio of thrust power to total power
(wasted power plus thrust power).
✓ Thermal efficiency: It is ratio of total power to fuel power.
✓ Overall efficieny: It is multiplication of propulsion and thermal
efficiencies.
6. Optimization of the ACE model with genetic algorithm
Genetic algorithms (GAs) denote a robust, general-purpose
optimization paradigm on the basis of natural genetics and selec-
tion [29].Thanks to GA approach, the accumulated information
which is obtained from initially unknown search space can be used
to later search towards feasible regions [30]. In GAs, possible so-
lutions for any problem are represented with a randomly produced
population of parent chromosomes. GAs start with these initial
populations. The constituents of a chromosome are denoted with
genes [29]. The chromosomes are assessed by employing an iden-
tified fitness function. With respect to their fitness values, some of
the chromosomes are opted for the process of reproduction
incorporating genetic operations such as crossover and mutation
[31,32]. An exchange of one or set of genes between parent chro-
mosomes is realized by crossover operator and the newly produced
ones are named as offspring. In addition, the alteration process
related to the genes of the chromosomes are accomplished muta-
tion operator thereby, new gene values are attached by these
7
produced offspring which results in a better population set [30]. At
the end of the process, produced good offspring replaces parent
chromosomes in the initial population. This state continues until a
prespecified termination criterion is provided.
In this study, an application of genetic algorithms to perfor-
mance of the ACE model is accomplished. SFC parameter for this
the ACE is aimed to minimize by employing some paramount
design parameters such as by-pass ratio, turbin inlet temperature
and HPC pressure ratio for two modes. Genetic algorithms are of
ability which optimize a complicated system quickly. While this
approach is applicated, required input parameters shown in Tablo 3
are employed. Also, Matlab code for performance optimization was
written with respect to the flowchart illustrated in Fig. 4.
7. Results and discussion
In this study, firstly, the equations of energy and performance
were applied to the ACE model. These approaches help finding
unknown thermodynamic properties in inlet and outlet of com-
ponents. Thus, the heat transfer and work interaction and entropy
production in components were determined. Secondly, the paper
presents parametric cycle assessment of the ACE model. Thanks to
parametric equations, some performance parameters such as ST,
SFC, power values and engine efficiencies were achieved at DBM
with those of fixed cycle turbofan at design point. On the other
hand, the ACE model was verified through GasTurb model [15].
Furthermore, for the ACE model, effects of design variables on
performance parameters were investigated to determine effective
parameters for optimization. The optimization methods help
investigating challenges and possibilities of propulsion systems for
sustainable aviation and the decrease of fuel emissions as much as
possible. For implementations where the constraints such as
weight or cost of fuel are paramount, minimization of SFC is
necessary. Because aircraft engines involve these constraints, the
SFC of the ACE model was aimed to minimize with by-pass ratio,
HPC pressure ratio and turbine inlet temperature variables.
In this paper, the reference altitude was considered to be sea
level and the atmospheric pressure and temperature are
101.325 kPa and 288.15 K, respectively. To verify the developed ACE
model and to show that the engine can work properly at the off-
design operating point, variable cycle engine (VCE) module in
GasTurb software was employed [15]. Therefore, the obtained re-
sults from the program were attached to this study.
Fig. 5 presents SFC values regarding the fixed cycle turbofan, the
ACE model and the GasTurb model for DBM and SBM. It should be
kept in mind that DBM and SBM correspond military condition and
AB condition, respectively for the fixed cycle turbofan. From Fig. 5,
the by-pass change in the ACE clearly leads to decrease SFC value
from 21.58 g/kN.s to 17.85 g/kN.s at DBM and from 50.69 g/kN.s to
42.18 g/kN.s at SBM. As can be seen in Fig. 5, GasTurb model results
corroborate the ACE model in spite of slight differences between
SFC values for two modes. The reason for this discrepancy could be
attributed to differences in auxiliary input parameters such as
polytropic and mechanical efficiencies of components.
Fig. 6 illustrates specific thrust values (ST) of three engine
models. It can be known that there is trade-off between engine
parameters. For example, the decrease in ST can lead to experience
performance loss. Compared with fixed cycle turbofan, ST magni-
tude of the ACE model decreases with 23.86% at DBM. However, the
ACE can compensate this performance loss by lowering by-pass
ratio when required. On the other hand, ST value is almost equal
to fixed cycle’s at SBM, even slightly larger. This improvement
shows that components of the ACE work in compliance with each
8 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the ACE model performance optimization.

Fig. 5. SFC values of the different engine models (Fixed cycle, GasTurb model, ACE
model) for DBM and SBM.
Fig. 6. Specific thrust values of three engine models for DBM and SBM at take-off
design point.

other well. Namely, the ACE model can reply requirements of both
modes by changing running modes. Considering results of GasTurb
model for ST value, there is a deviation with 13.41% at DBM and
6.11% at SBM in comparison with ST of the ACE.
Another comparison parameter for propulsion systems is
efficiency values. There are some different approaches for calcu-
lating of efficiency. Efficiency of the ACE and fixed cycle turbofan
was computed by considering wasted and thrust powers in the
study. Clearly from Fig. 7, the ACE model has higher efficiency at
 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261
both two modes. When compared fixed cycle turbofan, propulsive,
thermal and overall efficiencies of the ACE were determined as
higher with 4%,6% and 5% respectively at DBM.
Moreover, Fig. 8 presents that difference for these efficiencies is
calculated in favour of the ACE with 5% for propulsive, 2% for
thermal and 2% for overall at SBM. Considering operating point
from DBM to SBM, overall efficiency of the ACE model decreases
from 23% to 9% whereas thrust efficiency of the ACE model reduces
from 66% to 49%. These results could be acceptable since thrust
efficiency is inversely proportion with exhaust velocity.
One of aims for aero-breathing systems is to recover or decrease
wasted power. If aircraft engines continuously run at high power,
wasted power would increase depending on it. As mentioned
above, fixed cycle turbofan has fixed by-pass ratio. Even the times
when high thrust is not required, this engine (Fixed cycle) con-
tinues generating relatively high power at lower engine operating
point. High power means exhaust gases with high velocity. For the
ACE model, velocity of exhaust gasses from governing equations is
computed as 475 m/s at DBM and 795 m/s at SBM, respectively. As
for fixed cycle turbofan, exhaust velocity is found as 550 m/s at
military condition and 805 m/s at AB condition. Inlet air velocity is
determined as 160 m/s for both two engines. Based on above given
power equations, wasted power, thrust power and total power
values are calculated for the fixed cycle turbofan and the ACE
model.
According to Fig. 9, the ACE model has the lower wasted power
with 2.75 MW at DBM. It should be kept in mind that approxi-
mately half of this difference converts into thrust power for fixed
cycle turbofan. As for SBM, Fig. 10 shows that wasted powers of
both engines are highly close to each other. However, thrust power
of the ACE model is higher than that of fixed cycle turbofan with
2.85 MW.
Up to this point, performance and energy analyses for both two
engines are evaluated. After that point, the results of second law
assessment of thermodynamics are presented through Fig. 11.
Because entropy term depends on temperature and pressure
values, specific entropy values are the same for DBM and SBM
except AB unit. All components of the fixed cycle turbofan and the
ACE model are assumed as irreversible and adiabatic (except
combustor). The entropy of the air in the main components could
be attributed to friction, turbulence, separation through these
components. In addition to this, the outlet temperatures of these
components are higher than the isentropic temperature. Entropy
Fig. 7. Efficiency values of the fixed cycle turbofan and the ACE model for DBM at take-
off design point.
9
Fig. 8. Efficiency values of the fixed cycle turbofan and the ACE model for SBM at take-
off design point.
generation represents loss characterization of components. This
parameter is the most principal merit of loss for all physical pro-
cesses and mechanisms. By this technique, system also can be
evaluated in detail such as individual components. In Fan, CDFS and
HPC components, the higher temperature difference means the
higher work rate. Namely, the power consumption is the higher
than the required ideal power. Increment in temperature depends
on the isentropic efficiencies of these components. Entropy differ-
ences between these components of the both engines could be
associated with isentropic and polytropic efficiencies which are
input values for performance calculation of the ACE model. As seen
Fig. 11, specific entropy production occurs more at Fan of the fixed
cycle turbofan with 0.096 kJ/kgK. However, HPC component of the
ACE model has higher irreversibility with 0.066 kJ/kgK. Core driven
fan stage (CDFS) newly existed has relatively low specific entropy
production with 0.0095 kJ/kgK. Friction at the diffuser before
entering combustor decreases the total pressure in HPC outlet and
leads to the entropy increment. As for combustor, properties of the
fuel, inefficient combustion and thermal losses lead to losses in the
combustion chamber. The burner efficiency represents these losses.
The maximum specific entropy production occurs in combustor of
the ACE model with 1.055 kJ/kgK for two modes. However, it is
followed by AB component of fixed cycle turbofan with 0.868 kJ/
kgK at SBM. The reason of the increase of entropy in turbines is
friction again. Finally, the highest specific entropy value is calcu-
lated at AB components to be 2.03 kJ/kgK for fixed cycle turbofan
and 1.935 kJ/kgK for the ACE model. When specific entropy pro-
duction is multiplied with mass flow through the engine, this
approach could result in more accurate conclusion about irrevers-
ibility of the components.
After that point, design and performance parameters of the only
ACE model is evaluated. Because one aim of this study is to inves-
tigate ways that enhance performance of the ACE model, design
parameters are handled in terms of overall efficiency and wasted
power. Namely, effects of by-pass ratio and turbine inlet tempea-
ture on wasted power and overall efficiency are investigated for
only DBM. Because main aim of SBM is to obtain high thrust, effi-
ciency value is of secondary importance.
As given in Fig. 12, changing BPR, ranging from 1 to 1.8, increases
overall efficiency and decreases wasted power at DBM. The incre-
ment in BPR leads to increase overall efficiency with 3.1% at DBM.
However, wasted power decreases from 6.45 MW to 4.9 MW. If by-
pass ratio could not be increased, more energy than 1.55 MW is
wasted through exhaust. The increase in BPR is desired until tur-
bine work meets required power for Fan, CDFS and HPC.
10 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261

Fig. 9. Power values of the fixed cycle turbofan and the ACE model at DBM.

Fig. 10. Power values of the fixed cycle turbofan and the ACE model at SBM.

Fig. 11. Specific entropy values of the fixed cycle turbofan and the ACE model at DBM and SBM.
 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261 11

Fig. 12. Effects of BPR on overall efficiency and wasted power value at DBM.

Effect of turbine inlet temperature (TIT or Tt4) on these pa-
rameters is presented through Fig. 13. The increase in TIT affects
favourably overall efficiency, but adversely wasted power in terms
of the engine performance at DBM. TIT increases exhaust velocity,
so both wasted power and thrust power increase. The improvement
in overall efficiency occurs with 4.1%. However, wasted power in-
creases from 4.22 MW to 5.09 MW at DBM. In a short, the increase
in TIT is desired up to a point that turbine materials can withstand.
Before optimization assessment of SFC is mentioned, effect of
by-pass ratio on ST and SFC for the both two modes is evaluated by
means of Figs. 14 and 15. BPR of the ACE model is modulated,
ranging from 0.3 to 1.8. For the ACE model, the reason why BPR not
exceed to 1.8 is that turbine components can not satisfy required
power to Fan, CDFS and HPC components. Dimension constraints of
core components do not allow increasing of by-pass ratio more.
Considering high by-pass turbofans, these have turbines with high
diameter which is not suitable for supersonic aircraft. Clearly from
Fig. 14, the increase in by-pass ratio decreases SFC value from
20.15 g/kN.s to 17.85 g/kN.s at DBM. This decrease corresponds ratio
of 11.4%. It is noted that this effect analysis is evaluated under TIT
and HPC PR variables. These are 1800 K and 7 respectively. As for ST
parameter, because less air mass flow is accelerated in core engine
with the increasing by-pass ratio, ST value decreases from
845.3 N.s/kg to 678.4 N.s/kg at DBM. Namely, ST value changes with
ratio of 19.7%. In addition, ST parameter could be modulated with
partial throttling, which results in performance loss such as spillage
drag. These issues are mentioned several articles. This study does
not extend to flow matching problems.
As for SBM given in Fig. 15, the increase in BPR is not a desired
condition because BPR increases SFC value from 42.18 g/kN.s to
48.03 g/kN.s. Moreover, ST value decreases with the increasing BPR.
In this mode, BPR is desired as low as possible in terms of perfor-
mance parameters. Therefore, the ACE model works as turbojet
cycle in the SBM. With the increasing BPR, the ST value decreases
with ratio of 12.19% at SBM.
Effects of the other two design parameters, which are HPC PR
and TIT, on SFC value are investigated through Figs. 16e17. Note that
BPR value is 1.8 at DBM and 0.3 at SBM. In addition, TIT is 1800 K for

Fig. 13. Effects of TIT on overall efficiency and wasted power value at DBM.
12 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261

Fig. 14. Effects of the changing BPR on specific fuel consumption and specific thrust values at DBM.

Fig. 15. Effects of the changing BPR on specific fuel consumption and specific thrust values at SBM.

Fig. 16. Effects of HPC pressure ratio on SFC at DBM and SBM.
 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261
Fig. 17. Effects of Turbine inlet temperature on SFC at DBM and SBM.
both modes. Firstly, effect of HPC PR is presented at DBM and SBM
through Fig. 16. Increasing of this parameter enhances performance
of the ACE model at DBM. Namely, SFC changes from 18.23 g/kN.s to
17.53 g/kN.s. The SFC decrease corresponds ratio of 3.83% at DBM. It
is known that trade-off analysis between the design parameters
and performance parameters is necessary, so design variables do
not have same effect on performance characteristics for all modes.
Likewise, the increase in HPC PR has different effects on SFC at SBM.
As for SBM, SFC is adversely affected by increasing pressure ratio of
HPC. SFC changes from 41.72 g/kN.s to 42.81 g/kN.s Namely, SFC
increases with ratio of 2.63%.
Fig. 17 presents effect of TIT on SFC parameter at DBM and SBM.
In contrast to HPC PR parameter, TIT affects favourably SFC value for
both modes. Note that pressure ratio value of HPC is entered as 7. As
seen in Fig. 17, when compared two modes, effect of TIT is higher at
SBM. Namely, the increase in TIT decreases SFC value from 18.64 g/
kN.s to 17.66 g/kN.s at DBM. The decrease is calculated as 5.25%.
Moreover, SFC value decreases from 45.73 g/kN.s to 41.35 g/kN.s
with the increasing TIT at SBM. The decrease corresponds 9.57%.
Investigating these effects of design parameters help in optimizing
effectively performance parameters because each design parame-
ters affect performance parameters at different magnitudes.
Figs. 18 and 19 present power rates of turbomachinery compo-
nents according to by-pass ratio and HPC pressure ratio. Prior to
optimization application, it should be researched if the ACE model
runs or not in aforementioned operating points. It can be known
that change in BPR and HPC PR variables substantially affect the
engine behaviour. In this context, for the selected design variables
ranges, Figs. 18 and 19 show that each component of the ACE model
can run in compliance with the component that is on same shaft at
DBM and SBM. When looking at 1.8 BPR and 8 HPC PR in Figs. 18 and
19, at DBM, power rate of HPT is calculated as 16.3 MW whereas
those of HPC and CDFS are determined as 14.83 MW and 1.42 MW,
respectively. Moreover, Fan and LPT power rates are computed as
13.17 MW and 14.92 MW, respectively. On the other hand, since
SBM has the lower BPR, power rates for HPT and HPC increase.
Namely, HPT power rate is estimated as 25.38 MW, while HPC and
CDFS ones are determined as 23.07 MW and 2.26 MW, respectively
at SBM. Also, Fan an LPT power rates are determined as 13.17 MW
and 13.76 MW, respectively. As is the this case, for the other
running points, HPT power rate satisfies those of HPC and CDFS
13
whereas LPT one satisfies power rate of Fan.
Fig. 20 illustrates thrust change according to design variables at
DBM and SBM. This is given to show that the ACE model is stably
works at selected opeating ranges. Thrust parameter is obtained by
employing ACE cycle equations. Namely, if operating parameters
are selected at out of working points, thrust parameters can not be
calculated properly. According to Fig. 20(a), thrust of ACE varies
between 65.79 kN and 75.99 kN at DBM and between 109.06 kN
and 114.36 kN at SBM. With respect to Fig. 20(b), thrust value of ACE
changes 107.42 kN and 118.54 kN at SBM, whereas it varies
48.75 kN and 64.98 kN at DBM. It should be kept in mind that rise in
TIT increases thrust value for all operating modes.
Figs. 21 and 22 present high pressure compressor mappings at
DBM and SBM. These can ensure that HPC can stably works for
selected operating points. These mappings are obtained for the ACE
model by means of GasTurb programme. These incorporate surge
line, efficiency line and speed line. As can be understood that cor-
rected HPC mass flow, which is determined with relative temper-
ature ratio and pressure ratio, changes with by-pass ratio and
working modes. The efficiency contours for HPC show adiabatic
efficiency, varying between 0.85 and 0.86. Operating ranges are
showed in two Figs. As can be seen in Figs. 21 and 22, HPC PR can
change between 6 and 8 without surge event.
When considering above analyses, approximate values of design
variables can be partially predicted. With genetic algorithm ap-
proaches, these values are determined as certain. In Matlab envi-
ronment, the special code which is divided to two parts as
performance equations and optimization process is improved.
Before starting SFC optimization, parametric cycle equations were
written in Matlab language. After, objective function (SFC) is
determined. Firstly, BPR and TIT are chosen as design variables.
Their ranges are given in Table 3. According to optimization results
given in Fig. 23, minimum SFC value of the ACE model at DBM are
determined as 17.413 g/kN.s BPR and TIT values which correspond
this result are 1.8 and 1850 K respectively. Before optimization re-
sults, SFC value is calculated as 17.85 g/kN.s with 1.8 of BPR value,
1800 K of TIT value and 7 of HPC pressure ratio. In terms of SFC, the
obtained benefit through optimization tool is computed as 2.71% at
DBM. As for SBM, minimum SFC value is calculated as 40.47 g/kN.s
at SBM. For this aim, BPR and TIT values are determined to be 0.3
and 1850 K respectively. Considering initial value of SFC, GA
14 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261

Fig. 18. Power rates (MW) of main components for the ACE at DBM.

Fig. 19. Power rates (MW) of main components for the ACE at SBM.

Fig. 20. Thrust change with operating parameters at DBM and SBM.
 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261 15

Fig. 21. HPC mapping for 1.3 and 1.8 of BPR at DBM [15].

Fig. 22. HPC mapping for 0.3 and 0.8 of BPR at SBM [15].

Table 3
Main input parameters used at GA.

GA parameters

Encoding type Binary

Population size 80
Selection operator Roulette-wheel
Crossover operator Two-point
Mutation operator Uniform
Crossover rate 0.85
Mutation rate 0.05

The Design variables Range

By-pass ratio (DBM) 1.3<BPR<1.8

By-pass ratio (SBM) 0.3<BPR<0.8
Turbine inlet temperature 1650<TIT<1850
HPC pressure ratio 6<HPC PR < 8

provides the less SFC value with 1.77%
As for Fig. 24, minimization of SFC value is performed with by-
pass ratio and HPC pressure ratio for both modes. Thanks to
application of genetic algorithm, minimum SFC value is found as
17.65 g/kN.s with 1.8 of BPR value and 7.65 of HPC PR at DBM. Gain
from GA approach is obtained as 1.28%. As for SBM, optimization
process is concluded minimum SFC value with 40.60 g/kN.s. This
objective function value is obtained with 0.3 of BPR value and 6.5 of
HPC PR value. When compared the optimization value of SFC with
its initial value which is 42.18 g/kN.s, the decrease is computed as
3.74%. Finally, when compared TIT design variable with HPC PR for
optimization of SFC, increasing TIT, namely improving turbine
16 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261

Fig. 23. Minimum SFC value with the BPR and TIT variables at DBM (left side) and SBM (right side).

Fig. 24. Minimum SFC value with the BPR and HPC pressure ratio design variables at DBM (left-hand side) and SBM (right hand-side).

materials is more benefical in terms of the less fuel consumption. Modulation of by-pass ratio substantially affects the specific
thrust and specific fuel consumption of the ACE model for the both
modes. At SBM, owing to the rise of by-pass ratio from 0.3 to 0.8, the
8. Conclusions
SFC value of the engine dramatically increases whereas ST value
decreases. However, for DBM, both SFC and ST values decrease due
The study consists of application of first and second law of
to the increase of by-pass ratio from 1.3 to 1.8.
thermodynamics and optimization processes for the ACE model at
double by-pass mode and single by-pass mode. Firstly, these ana-
Compared with the fixed cycle turbofan, ACE model has the
lyses allow to measure performance parameters, power values and
lower SFC value with 17.51% for DBM and with 16.78% for SBM.
entropy production in the ACE and its components. By employing
Moreover, ST value of ACE model has the lower with 12% at DBM,
these parameters such as SFC, ST, power and efficieny values, fixed
but it has the higher ST value with 11.69% at SBM.
cycle turbofan and the ACE model are compared in detail. Secondly,
ST and SFC values of the ACE model were assessed with respect to
Considering energy analysis that involves engine efficiencies at
some design parameters. Finally, SFC minimization of the ACE
design point, it is realized that ACE model has the higher efficiency
model was carried out several design variables at DBM and SBM. In
in comparison with fixed cycle turbofan.
order to perform these evaluations, the parametric cycle equations
of the ACE model and genetic algorithm were encoded in Matlab
Overall efficiencies of the engines are 23% for the ACE model and
language. For the ACE model, the performance findings were pre-
18% for the fixed cycle turbofan at DBM. These efficiencies are
sented with by-pass ratio, ranging from 0.3 to 1.8, HPC pressure
calculated as 9% for the ACE and 7% for the fixed cycle at SBM.
ratio, ranging from 6 to 8, and turbine inlet temperature, ranging
The idea to use the ACE model for next generation aircraft can be
from, 1650 Ke1850 K. The main results obtained from the assess-
supported with these results.
ments of the present study may be listed as follows:
 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261
The higher efficiency of ACE is in part attributable to lowering
wasted power for DBM. According to this.
Wasted power of the ACE model and fixed cycle turbofan was
figured out as 4.9 MW and 7.65 MW, respectively at DBM
whereas this parameter was computed as 22.14 MW for the
Fixed cycle and 21.57 MW for the ACE.
When considering specific entropy value of the two engines
throughout components.
Maximum entropy increment was found in combustor with
1.055 kJ/kgK for the ACE model and 0.978 kJ/kgK for the fixed
cycle turbofan. Focusing on the combustor design or combustion
process might be beneficial to reduce entropy production.
Up to this point, the comparison results were summarized. After
that, design and performance results of the ACE model are
mentioned in short.
Considering effect of the increasing by-pass ratio on SFC, SFC
value decreases from 20.15 to 17.85 g/kN.s at DBM while it in-
creases from 42.18 to 48.03 N.s/kg at SBM.
Considering effect of the increasing HPC PR on SFC, SFC varies
from 18.23 g/kN.s to 17.53 g/kN.s at DBM, but it increases
41.71 g/kN.s from to 42.81 g/kN.s at SBM.
Considering effect of TIT change on SFC, the increase in TIT de-
creases SFC from 18.64 g/kN.s to 17.66 g/kN.s at DBM and from
45.73 g/kN.s to 41.35 g/kN.s at SBM.
Finally, the obtained results of SFC optimization shows that
combination of turbine inlet temperature and by-pass ratio as the
design variables is more appropriate to minimize SFC.
Minimum SFC value was found as 17.41 g/kN.s at DBM, and
40.45 g/kN.s at SBM. These calculated values show improvement
in SFC with 2.71% at DBM and 1.77% at SBM with respect to the
initial value of SFC.
The combination of performance and aerothermodynamics
methods along with optimization approach also lead to new ways
of thinking about the ACE model at the design phase. Also, the
performance, first and second law efficiencies of the ACE model
could be investigated for different phases of flight. As a conclusion,
for analysis and design work of the next generation propulsion
systems, parametric cycle analysis along with the first and second
law approaches are necessary for comprehending and explaining
the effect of any parameter on the performance of an engine model.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Hakan Aygun: Software, Methodology, Writing - review &
editing, Validation. Mehmet Emin Cilgin: Methodology, Writing -
review & editing. Ismail Ekmekci: Supervision, Conceptualization,
Validation. Onder Turan: Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing -
review & editing, Validation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
17
Acknowledgement
Authors would like to thanks Eskisehir Tehnical University in
Turkey for financial and technical support. This study was sup-
ported by Eskisehir Tehnical University Scientific Research Projects
Commission under the grant no: 20DRP056.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118261.
References
[1] Chen H, Zhang H, Hu Z, Zheng Q. The installation performance control of three
ducts separate exhaust variable cycle engine. IEEE Access 2018;7:1764e74.
[2] Chen M, Zhang J, Tang H. Interval analysis of the standard of adaptive cycle
engine component performance deviation. Aero Sci Technol 2018;81:179e91.
[3] Rosen MA. Assessing energy technologies and environmental impacts with
the principles of thermodynamics. Appl Energy 2002;72:427e41.
[4] Sehra AK, Whitlow Jr W. Propulsion and power for 21st century aviation. Prog
Aero Sci 2004;40:199e235.
[5] Chen H, Zhang H, Wang Y, Zhen Q. Installation characteristics of variable cycle
engine based on inlet flow matching. Int J Turbo Jet Engines 2019. https://
doi.org/10.1515/tjj-2018-0031.
[6] Zhang J, Tang H, Chen M. Robust design methodologies to the adaptive cycle
engine system performance: preliminary analysis. Energy Procedia 2019;158:
1521e9.
[7] Turan O. Exergetic effects of some design parameters on the small turbojet
engine for unmanned air vehicle applications. Energy 2012;46:51e61.
[8] Dincer I, Cengel Y. Energy, entropy and exergy concepts and their roles in
thermal engineering. Entropy 2001;3:116e49.
[9] Baklacioglu T, Turan O, Aydin H. Dynamic modeling of exergy efficiency of
turboprop engine components using hybrid genetic algorithm-artificial neural
networks. Energy 2015;86:709e21.
[10] Xin M, Zhu-li ZHU, Min C. Performance optimization of adaptive cycle engine
during subsonic climb. Energy Procedia 2019;158:1613e9.
[11] Zheng J, Tang H, Chen M. Optimal matching control schedule Research on an
energy system. Energy Procedia 2019;158:1685e93.
[12] Chen M, Zhang J, Tang H. Performance analysis of a three-stream adaptive
cycle engine during throttling. Int J of Aerosp Eng 2018. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2018/9237907.
[13] Zheng J, Chen M, Tang H. Matching mechanism analysis on an adaptive cycle
engine. Chin J Aeronaut 2017;30:706e18.
[14] Aviation G. GE adaptive cycle engine. 2016. Available at: https://www.
geaviation.com/military/engines/ge-adaptive-cycle-engine. [Accessed 5 April
2019].
[15] Kurzke J. Design and Off-Design Performance of Gas Turbines. Gas Turb; 2007.
[16] Wang S, Wang J, Jiang B, He X. Research of variable cycle engine modeling
technologies. In: Chinese intelligent systems conference. Springer; 2016.
[17] International A. Detailed design complete for GE’s revolutionary adaptive
fighter engine. 2019. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/03/01/detailed-
design-complete-for-gesrevolutionary-adaptive-cycle-fighter-engine/.
[Accessed 25 April 2019].
[18] Dincer I, Hussain M, Al-Zaharnah I. Analysis of sectoral energy and exergy use
of Saudi Arabia. Int J Energy Res 2004;28:205e43.
[19] Saravanamuttoo HI, Rogers GFC, Cohen H. Gas turbine theory. Pearson Edu-
cation; 2001.
[20] Cilgin ME, Turan O. Entropy generation calculation of a turbofan engine: a
case of CFM56-7B. Int J Turbo Jet Engines 2018;35:217e27.
[21] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M, Moran MJ. Thermal design and optimization.
USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1996.
[22] Bejan A. Advanced engineering thermodynamics. John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
[23] Doty JH, Camberos JA, Moorhouse DJ. Benefits of exergy-based analysis for
aerospace engineering applicationsdPart I. Int J of Aerosp Eng 2009. https://
doi.org/10.1155/2009/409529.
[24] Arntz A, Atinault O, Merlen A. Exergy-based formulation for aircraft aero-
propulsive performance assessment: theoretical development. AIAA J
2014;53:1627e39.
[25] Hall DK. Performance limits of axial turbomachine stages. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; 2011.
[26] El-Sayed AF. Aircraft propulsion and gas turbine engines. USA: CRC press;
2017.
[27] Turan O. Energy and entropy analyses of an experimental turbojet engine for
target drone application. Anadolu University J of Science and Technol A-Appl
Sciences and Eng. 2016;17:936e52.
[28] Balli O, Hepbasli A. Energetic and exergetic analyses of T56 turboprop engine.
Energy Convers Manag 2013;73:106e20.
[29] Cook DF, Ragsdale CT, Major R. Combining a neural network with a genetic
algorithm for process parameter optimization. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2000;13:
18 H. Aygun et al. / Energy 209 (2020) 118261

391e6. SBM: :Single Bypass mode

[30] Mohamed MH. Rules extraction from constructively trained neural networks ST: :Specific thrust (N.s/kg)
based on genetic algorithms. Neurocomputing 2011;74:3180e92. T: :Temperature(K)
[31] Alba E, Martí R. Metaheuristic procedures for training neural networks, vol. TIT: :Turbine inlet temperature
35. Springer Science & Business Media; 2006. _ :Thrust(kN)
T:
[32] Cheng CH, Shu SL. Application of GA-based neural network for attitude control K: :Kinetic
of a satellite. Aero Sci Technol 2010;14:241e9. Q_ : :Heat transfer rate(MW)
V: :Velocity (m/s)
W:_ :Work rate (MW)
Nomenclature
Greek letters
A: : Area (m2)
ACE: : Adaptive cycle engine
h: :Energy efficiency
AB: : Afterburner
p: :Pressure ratio
BPR: : By-pass ratio
g: :Specific heat constant
Cp : :Specific heat (kJ/(kg.K))
D: :Difference
CC: :Combustion chamber
CDFS: :Core driven fan stage
DBM: :Double bypass mode Subscripts
_ :Energy rate (MW)
E:
EN: :Exhaust nozzle a: :Air
FVABI: :Front variable bypass injector ab: :Afterburner
HPC PR: :High Pressure Compressor Pressure Ratio f : :Fuel
h: :Altitude (m) g: :Gas
HPT: :High Pressure Turbine gen: :Generation
LPC: :Low Pressure Compressor e: :Exit, specific energy
LPT: :Low Pressure Turbine c: :Cold
LHV: :Lower heat value(kJ/kg) h: :Hot
M: :Mach number in: :Inlet
MC: :Mixing chamber k: :kth component
m:_ :mass flow rate (kg/s) out: :Outlet
P: :Pressure(kPa) t: :Total
R: :Specific gas constant(kJ/kg.K) 0: :Ambient
RVABI: :Rear variable bypass injector 1,2,..k: :Station numbers of engine components
s: :Specific entropy (kJ/kg.K)
SFC: :Specific fuel consumption(g/kN.s)