See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312128456

Steady State Off-Design Performance of Double Spool Turbofan Engine Using

SIMULINK

Conference Paper · December 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 767

4 authors, including:

Bassam E. Saleh Ahmed Abdel Gawad

Zagazig University Zagazig University
4 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 266 PUBLICATIONS 624 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Abdel Gawad on 07 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of ICFD12:
Twelfth International Conference of Fluid Dynamics
19-20 December, 2016, Le Méridien Pyramids Hotel, Cairo, EGYPT

ICFD12-EG-5044

Steady State Off-Design Performance of Double Spool Turbofan Engine

Using SIMULINK

Bassam E. Saleh
Egyptian Armed Force, Corresponding author

Mohamed R. Shaalan Ahmed F. AbdelGawad Mohamed H. Gobran

Mech. Power Eng. Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt

ABSTRACT low-pressure compressor scaled pressure-ratio Zcl, high-

SIMULINK® platform was used to predict the steady
state off-design performance of a separate flow double spool
turbofan engine and with design-point (GE-CF6-50). Engine
performance characteristics were obtained. A numerical
symbolic presentation of maps of engine components were
carried out to fulfill the matching balance between engine
components; thus scaling these maps to the design point data
were done. Block modules of the program were built in
SIMULINK® using readymade program library or user-defined
functions. Initial guessing of seven dependent parameters were
set. The program continued execution based on solver iterating
until balancing was achieved between the dependent
parameters, which are altered from one iteration to another till
balancing. On the other hand, other independent parameters
(Mach number, altitude) and one base-line parameter were
chosen separately. After balancing was achieved, all
performance characteristics were ready and corrected to the
inlet conditions. Results were introduced in several conditions
(cruse, take-off and SLS static ground run up). Each case was
studied in various high-pressure -compressor corrected speeds.
The main outcome of this study is to explore that SIMULINK®
is an easy and effective tool in turbofan modeling and
performance estimation.
KEYWORDS:
Turbofan modeling, Engine off-design performance, Simulink.
INTRODUCTION
Off-design performance of the turbofan engine is one of the
most systematic analysis that turbofan is undergone through the
design process. Thus, many methods were introduced to predict
this type of performance.
In the present work, SIMULINK® was used as a design tool
to analyze the performance using seven dependent parameters,
namely: corrected fan-speed CNf, fan scaled pressure-ratio Zf,
pressure compressor scaled pressure-ratio Zch, fuel flow-rate wf,
high-pressure turbine flow-function TFTH, low-pressure
turbine flow-function TFTL) and one base-line parameter (
high-pressure compressor corrected-speed CNch) with varying
the flight conditions (Altitude and Mach number).Several
SIMULINK® blocks also named mask were established using
either the readymade library toolbox or were built by
interpreted Matlab function. Mask is just a face of the block
beneath it a number of subassembly blocks.
This study dealt with the steady state off-design
performance of separate flow double spool turbofan engine
with the aid of design point of the GE-CF6-50 turbofan.
A numerical but not realistic engine components maps were
presented to fulfill the matching balance between engine
components. Thus, scaling these maps to the design point data
were done to assure the reality of the used maps. The method of
solution could be either serial nested loops or matrix iteration
(MI). This study uses the (MI) to solve the partial differential
equations by the solver. After the balancing was achieved, the
performance characteristics were tabulated referring to input
conditions.
LITERATURE SURVEY
Fishbach and Koenig [8] introduced a GENENG II program
to calculate the design and off-design performance iteratively
of several types of turbofans. Szuch et. al. [14] made an
advanced way to deal with turbofan simulation using hybrid
analog-digital computers. Drummond et. al. [6] introduced a
different method to deal with the computer programs. They
used the object-oriented programming instead of mathematical
languages. Zhu and Saravanamuttoo [18] gave a method for the
matching calculations starting from the turbine rather than from
the compressor. Curnock et. al. [5] introduced a new method to
model high bypass double spool turbofan depending on its
radial profile. Walsh and Fletcher [16] discussed the possible

1 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

techniques of solution of the off-design performance analysis;
either by serial nested loop or matrix iteration. Chiu [4]
investigated the effect of using isothermal combustion inside
the high pressure turbine (HPTB) instead of the afterburner as a
method of augmentation and increasing the performance.
Alexiou and Mathioudakis [1] discussed an OOP with a
readymade components library using drag & drop technique for
model creation. They also discussed implementation of engine
dynamics and frequency response. Liew et. al. [7] introduced a
report of the performance of steady state, dual spool, separate
exhaust turbofan engine with interstage turbine burner, which is
a relatively new concept in increasing the specific thrust and
pollutant emissions reduction. Camporeale et. al. [3] discussed
the real-time dynamics for two cases of gas turbine; single shaft
heavy duty gas turbine engine, and double shaft aero-derivative
engine. They used the Matlab SIMULINK platform to run the
code based on lumped non-linear representation of the gas
turbine engine components. Martin et. al. [11] introduced the
development and validation of an aero-engine simulation model
for advanced controller design. Model implementation was in
the Matlab/Simulink environment. Full flight-envelope
validation of both the model and controller was performed with
the assistance of Alstom Aerospace, with the exception of
engine start-up as this was outside the validity of their model.
Andriani and Ghezzi [2] introduced a technique to recover the
thermal enthalpy in the exhaust by the principle of regeneration
which consisted of two addition cycles. Yarlagadda [17]
reported the performance analysis of J85 turbojet engine
matching thrust with reduced inlet pressure to the compressor
using SIMULINK platform. Simulink model for the J85 turbojet
engine was verified for performance accuracy with available
test data of the engine. Eastbourn [7] dealt with modeling and
simulation of a dynamic of a turbofan engine using MATLAB/
SIMULINK. The new engine model was then integrated with
the full “Tip-to-Tail” aircraft model, and then compared to a
previous “Tip-to-Tail” aircraft model to confirm accuracy.
Schur [13] discussed a transient model of a turbofan engine in
SIMULINK showing that thermal efficiencies of the high-
pressure compressor and high-pressure turbine are the most
important factors affecting the performance. A transient model
of the high-pressure system of an IAE V2500 was therefore
developed. Uysal [15] discussed the high-bypass turbofan
engines aerothermodynamics and optimization based on
building an (EDM) Engine Design Model with the aid of
optimization tool box in SIMULINK, and taking into account
Variable Specific Heat Model and the Flow Property
Calculations as a blocks modeling. More research work can be
found in [2] and [12].
ENGINE MODELING
Methodology
The program established under SIMULINK consists of four
main blocks, namely: off-design module block, error loop
block, errors due to variable change block and solver block as
well as two other supplementary results blocks (performance
block and data tables block) in which all resulted data were
obtained. The main idea is to use the matching constrains and
balancing technique with suitable initial guess to raise the
errors inside the off-design module block. The Matrix Iteration
method was used to alter these values until balance.
In matrix iteration, the equations are solved simultaneously.
This requires a numerical method that utilizes partial
derivatives, which are the effect of changing each matching
guess individually on the errors in all the matching constraints.
The basic steps in this methodology are as follows:
1. Choose initial values of matching guesses, vj.
2. Complete one iteration through the off-design module of
the engine.
3. Calculate the base error EBi between calculated values of
matching constraints and values from maps.
4. Make a small change in each matching guess vj in turn
and repeat the last two steps.
5. From the error values obtained, evaluate the partial
derivatives of the errors in each matching constraint with
respect to each matching guess. This step produces the
matrix of partial derivatives EMAT.
6. Invert the matrix of partial derivatives using lower-upper
(LU) decomposition.
7. Multiply the inverted matrix of partial derivatives by the
base error vector.
8. The new results of (vj) are multiplied by a relaxation factor
of 0.1
9. Simultaneously, change all matching guesses by the
amounts given in the previous step.
10. Repeat the above steps until the errors between calculated
values of the matching constraints and the values looked up
from the component maps are within an allowable tolerance,
0.3%.
Engine Components and governing equations
The main components of the present engine are shown in
Fig. 1.
Fig.1: Main components of the present engine.
1. Engine Inlet
This component is modeled by two blocks. The first is a
readymade block from SIMULINK library (ISA Model). This
block has the altitude as an input and results in the inlet
conditions (temperature, pressure). The second is the ram block
which is built using interpreted Matlab function and has the
inlet total temperature, total pressure and Mach number
2 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12
resulting in the fan-inlet conditions (Tt2, Pt2) which are
functions in inlet conditions. Mach number (M) and pressure
recovery factor (PRF) for subsonic intakes are always unity.
The fan inlet conditions are modeled by the following
equations:
𝑇𝑡2 = (1 + 0.2𝑀𝑜2 )𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏 (1)
𝑃𝑡2 = (1 + 0.2𝑀𝑜2 )𝑃𝑎𝑚𝑏 𝑃𝑅𝐹 (2)
The fan-inlet total enthalpy and entropy are calculated using
gas properties relations.
2. Engine Fan
The air passes through the fan and is compressed
adiabatically by means of pressure difference between fan
upstream and downstream. The power consumed in the fan
which is derived by the low pressure turbine spool is given by
(𝑃𝑤)𝑓 = 𝑤𝑎2 (𝐻𝑡13 − 𝐻𝑡2 )
(3)
and by knowing Zf and CNf , operating point in the fan map can
be developed. Thus, fan mass flow parameter (MFP), pressure
ratio and efficiency are determined from map lookup tables and
by using aero-thermodynamic relations including gas properties
which are embedded in single block. All the fan outlet
conditions are known (Pt13,Tt13,S13,Ht13) and thus the inlet fan
mass flow rate wa2 is given by,
𝑀𝐹𝑃 𝛿
𝑤𝑎2 = (4)
√𝜃
Where 𝛿2 and 𝜃2 are inlet reference conditions
3. Low-Pressure Compressor
The air is then forced to the low-pressure compressor (LPC)
which is derived by the low-pressure turbine spool. The air is
adiabatically compressed to higher levels in the LPC. The
power delivered to LPC is given by
(𝑃𝑤)𝑐𝑙 = 𝑤𝑎13 (𝐻𝑡25 − 𝐻𝑡13 ) (5)
Because LPC has the same speed of the fan, then its corrected
speed is given by
𝜃 pressure loss is directly proportional to combustor inlet mass
𝐶𝑁𝑐𝑙 = 𝐶𝑁𝑓 √ (6)
𝜃
Knowing both CNcl and Zcl, the operating point was determined
on LPC map. Low-pressure compressor MFP, pressure ratio
and efficiency were developed from map lookup tables. Thus
using aero-thermodynamic relations which are also embedded
in a single block, All LPC outlet conditions are known
(Pt25,Tt25,S25,Ht25) and thus the inlet LPC mass flow rate wa13 is
given by,
𝑀𝐹𝑃 𝛿
𝑤𝑎13 = (7)
√𝜃
Where 𝛿13 and 𝜃13 are fan reference conditions.
4. High-Pressure Compressor
The air is then discharged to combustion pressure by high-
pressure compressor which is derived separately by a high-
pressure turbine spool and the power consumed in it is
evaluated by the following formula,
(𝑃𝑤)𝑐𝑕 = 𝑤𝑎25 (𝐻𝑡3 − 𝐻𝑡25 ) (8)
Knowing both CNch and Zch , the operating point was
determined on the HPC map. High-pressure compressor MFP,
pressure ratio and efficiency were developed from map lookup
tables and by using aero-thermodynamic relations which are
also embedded in a single block, All HPC outlet conditions are
known(Pt3,Tt3,S3,Ht3) and thus the inlet HPC mass flow-rate
wa25 is given by,
𝑀𝐹𝑃 𝛿
𝑤𝑎25 = (9)
√𝜃
Where 𝛿25 and𝜃25 are LPC reference conditions
5. Combustor
When the pressure reaches the combustion pressure, and
with addition of fuel to the combustor, a flame ignition occurs
and the fuel is burned stoichiometry. The product of
combustion is then expelled out the combustor with maximum
permissible turbine inlet temperature
9 (TIT), which also depends
on the turbine material durability.
Major factors that affect the combustion process are its
thermal efficiency b, which is defined as the ratio of actual
energy supplied to the air to energy in the fuel consumed.
Thermal efficiency depends on type of the combustor, fuel-to-
air ratio (F/A), combustor inlet and outlet conditions (Tt3, Pt3,
Tt4, Pt4), and fuel type (Lower heat value, LHV). The combustor
efficiency could be given by the following formula
[1+(𝐹⁄𝐴)]𝐻 −𝐻
b = (𝐹⁄𝐴)𝐿𝐻𝑉
(10)
Another problem raised to surface is the pressure drop
across the combustor as it affects the fuel consumption and the
output power. According to Fishbach and Koenig [8], the total
flow parameter and is given as follow,
2
∆𝑃 𝑤 √𝑇
= 𝐶 ( * (11)
𝑃 𝑃
Where C is obtained from the design condition as,
∆ .
𝐶 = ( ) (12)
√
( )
𝐷𝑒𝑠.
and thus the combustor outlet pressure is given by the
following formula,
3 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12
𝑃𝑡4 = 𝑃𝑡3 − ∆𝑃𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑏 (13)
The stage outlet enthalpy is derived by the following formula,
𝐻𝑡4 = (𝑤𝑎25 . [1 − 𝑝𝑐𝑤𝑏2 ]. 𝐻𝑡3 + 𝑤𝑓 . 𝐿𝐻𝑉. 𝑏 )/𝑤𝑔4 (14)
𝑤𝑔4 = 𝑤𝑓 + 𝑤𝑎25 (1 − 𝑝𝑐𝑤𝑏2 ) (15)
𝐹⁄ = 𝑤 (𝑃𝑤)𝑡𝑙 = 𝑤𝑔45 . (𝐻𝑡45 − 𝐻𝑡5 )
𝐴 (16)
𝑤 −𝑤
while the combustor outlet temperature and entropy are
obtained from cycle iteration of the stage total pressure and
enthalpy.
6. High-Pressure Turbine
The high-pressure turbine is the component that delivers
power to the high-pressure compressor through the high-
pressure spool. The map of the turbine discussed here is of the
type turbine total enthalpy drop and the turbine efficiency vs
turbine corrected speed, at specified turbine flow functions
(TFF). The power delivered by HPT to high-pressure
compressor is given by the following formula,
(𝑃𝑤)𝑡𝑕 = 𝑤𝑔4 (𝐻𝑡4 − 𝐻𝑡45 ) (17)
and since the HPC corrected speed as a base-line parameter is
the only known and there is no value of the HPT corrected
speed. Thus, a relation should be introduced to connect the
HPC corrected speed (CNch) with HPT corrected speed (CNth),
which is as follows,
𝜃 100
𝐶𝑁𝑡𝑕 = 𝐶𝑁𝑐𝑕 (√ * (18)
𝜃 √𝑇
and with values of high pressure turbine flow function (TFTH)
and CNth, which are used to locate operating point on HPT map,
thus HPT corrected enthalpy drop (CHth) and efficiency (th)
should be determined.
Now, data of the HPT from turbine side is known from the
map. Thus, it is time to calculate the same values from HPC
side and examine how the turbine should satisfy the balance or
generate errors. Where, (TFTH)ch, side and (CHth)ch, side are
given by the following relations,
𝑤
√𝑇
(𝑇𝐹𝑇𝐻)𝑐𝑕 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 = 105 (19)
𝑃
𝑤 (𝐻 −𝐻 ) to the critical pressure, the flow is said to be sonic flow or
(𝐶𝐻𝑡𝑕 )𝑐𝑕 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 = (20)
𝑤 𝑇
Once HPT corrected enthalpy-drop was known, the total
enthalpy of the next stage (Ht45) is determined. By knowing
both (Ht45) and (F/A) and by iteration of thermodynamic
relations, (Tt45) should be determined and thus the remaining
characteristics of the stage (Pt45) and (S45).
7. Low-Pressure Turbine
The hot gases are then discharged to the LPT and all
upstream characteristics are known from the previous stage.
LPT is the component responsible for driving both the fan and
LPC by single spool called low-pressure spool. The power
delivered from LPT to those components is given by the
following formula,
(21)
A relation should be introduced to connect LPC corrected-
speed (CNcl) with LPT corrected-speed (CNtl) which is as
follows,
𝜃 100
𝐶𝑁𝑡𝑙 = 𝐶𝑁𝑐𝑙 (√ * (22)
𝜃 √𝑇
With values of TFTL and CNtl, which are used to locate
operating point on LPT map, LPT corrected enthalpy-drop
(CHtl) and efficiency (tl) should be determined.
Now data of LPT from turbine side is known from the map.
Thus, it is time to calculate the same values from LPC side and
examine how the turbine should satisfy the balance or generates
errors. Where,(TFTL)cl,side and (CHtl)cl,side are given by the
following relations,
𝑤 √𝑇
(𝑇𝐹𝑇𝐿)𝑐𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 = 105 (23)
𝑃
𝑤 (𝐻 −𝐻 )+𝑤 (𝐻 −𝐻 )
(𝐶𝐻𝑡𝑙 )𝑐𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 = [ ] (24)
𝑤 𝑇
Once LPT corrected enthalpy-drop was known, the total
enthalpy of the next stage (Ht5) is determined and by knowing
both (Ht5) and (F/A) and by iteration of thermodynamic
relations, (Tt5) should be determined and thus the remaining
characteristics of the stage (Pt5) and (S5).
8. Hot Nozzle
In the present model, a convergent nozzle is considered in
which the remaining of the pressure potential energy resulting
from the turbine is transformed to a kinetic energy resulting in a
change of momentum and produce engine thrust. Two possible
conditions may exist:
a. when the static pressure at exit is higher than the critical
pressure, the flow is said to be a subsonic flow.
b. when the static pressure at the exit is lower than or equal
chocked flow (Mexit) = 1
The nozzle jet velocity is expressed as follows,
𝑉𝑗 = √2𝑛 (𝐻𝑡 𝑕𝑛 − 𝐻) = 𝑀9 √𝛾𝑅𝑇𝑡9 (25)
4 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12
9. Cold Nozzle b- The second error represents the continuity mismatch
The cold nozzle in case of separate flow nozzles may be between HPT flow function TFTH and its amount
subsonic or chocked nozzle. Thus, this condition should also be calculated from the compressor side
examined by comparing the static exit pressure with critical (𝑇𝐹𝑇𝐻) −𝑇𝐹𝑇𝐻
𝑬𝟐 = (31)
pressure. Generally, it is dealt like the hot nozzle except that (𝑇𝐹𝑇𝐻)

mass flow-rate across the cold nozzle is given by c- The third error represents the failure to satisfy the power
balance between HPT and HPC
(𝐶∆𝐻) −(𝐶∆𝐻)
𝑤𝑎19 = 𝑤𝑎2 − 𝑤𝑎13 (26) 𝑬𝟑 = (32)
(𝐶∆𝐻)
d- The fourth error represents the failure to satisfy continuity
Components map scaling
mismatch between LPT flow function TFTL and its
As the real maps of the engine were not available and by
amount calculated from the compressor side
using the numerical data maps mentioned in ref. [8], scaling (𝑇𝐹𝑇𝐻) −𝑇𝐹𝑇𝐿
law is applied to obtain the required data for the components 𝑬𝟒 = (33)
(𝑇𝐹𝑇𝐻)
maps. This is done by comparing the design point of the given e- The fifth error represents the failure to satisfy the
engine component with corresponding design point of the power balance between LPT and its corresponding
available map. LPC and fan and is given by,
−1 (𝐶∆𝐻) −(𝐶∆𝐻)
𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 = [ ][ 𝑚𝑎𝑝 − 1] + 1 (27) 𝑬𝟓 = (34)
−1 (𝐶∆𝐻)
𝑤 f- The sixth error represents the continuity mismatch
𝑤𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 = [ ] 𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑝 (28)
𝑤 between gas generator and hot nozzle
 𝑃 −𝑃
𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 = [  ] 𝑚𝑎𝑝 (29) 𝑬𝟔 =
𝑃
(35)
After map scaling is done, each map data were tabulated in g- The seventh error represents the continuity
table format and saved as a “.mat” file in the MATLAB mismatch between gas generator and cold nozzle
𝑃 −𝑃
workspace. All the maps were grouped together and saved. In 𝑬𝟕 = (36)
𝑃
starting the program, those maps should be initialed before
running the program, otherwise an error will be generated. 2. Matrix iteration balancing technique
Initially, the guessed dependent parameters (7 variables) are
Matching constraints and balancing technique checked whether they satisfy the matching constraints or not. If
1. Matching constraints they do then the engine is said to be balanced. If not then the
The method for determining the equilibrium run points of engine is failed to satisfy its matching constraints and a set of 7
the turbofan engine is to search for the fan running point, which errors will be generated. These errors represent the amount of
in turn matches with the LPC running point, thus, locating point which the engine fails to satisfy the constraints as mentioned in
of HPC that matches with LPC. Simultaneously, search for the the previous section. Those errors are function of the dependent
point of the HPT that matches the HPC point and also the LPT parameters (7 variables) and expressed as a set of partial
point that matches with LPC point. All these matches should differential equations. With neglecting second and higher order
have constraints to connect them together and hence introduce terms of these equations, the linearized form can be written as
the full capable engine in all off-design regimes. follows,
These matching constraints are summarized as follow:
a- Continuity across the gas generator components and across 𝜕𝐸 𝜕𝐸
the gas generator-nozzles combinations. = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 (37)
𝜕𝑣 𝜕𝑣
b- Power balance between HPT and its related HPC, and the Where
LPT and its related fan and LPC. 𝑖 = 1  𝑛 … … 𝑛 is the number of generated errors
c- Mixer static pressure balance which is not applicable here 𝑗 = 1  7 is the number of dependent parameters
for separate flow nozzles.
Simplifying the last equation, it can be written as follows,
During the simulation process, if these constraints are 𝜕𝐸
satisfied then the engine is said to be balanced. However, if not ∆𝐸𝑖 = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 ∆𝑣𝑗 (38)
𝜕𝑣
then errors will be generated related to the number of the 𝜕𝐸 ∆𝐸
Where is approximately equal to and represents the
dependent variables. These errors can be summarized as follow: 𝜕𝑣 ∆𝑣
a- The first error represents the failure to satisfy the sensitivity of the error (i) due to the variation in the variable (j).
continuity between LPC and HPC Since the equation is really non-linear, LHS term ∆𝐸𝑖 is
𝑤 −𝑤
𝑬𝟏 = (30) given by
𝑤
∆𝐸𝑖 = 𝐸𝑖 − 𝐸𝐵𝑖 , where 𝐸𝐵𝑖 is the ith base-error generated from
the 1st run or iteration. For zero error, 𝐸𝑖 equals to
∆𝐸𝑖 = −𝐸𝐵𝑖 and the equation (38) can be written as follow,

5 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

 ∆𝐸
−𝐸𝐵𝑖 = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 ∆𝑣𝑗 (39)
∆𝑣
The above equation is solved for ∆𝑣𝑗 in which the new
values of the dependent parameters (variables) is corrected by
the following correlation,
𝑣𝑗 𝑛𝑒𝑤 = 𝑣𝑗 𝑜𝑙𝑑 + ∆𝑣𝑗 (40)
For the non-linearity of the system, the equations (39), and
(40) should be run several iterations until balance is reached.
∆𝐸
For every iteration, the amount is updated. Also,
∆𝑣
a relaxation factor of 0.1 is multiplied by ∆𝑣𝑗 to avoid the
overshooting of the results and make the iteration runs
smoothly.
When the iteration does not reach balance after specified
number of iterations, the matching initial guessed parameters
should be changed and the cycle is repeated again.
Steady State off-design performance in SIMULINK
1. Off-Design Module Block
It is the main program block in which all engine
components and their corresponding thermodynamic relations
are introduced and set, (Fig. 2). The block has 10 input
terminals and 10 output terminals. This block initially generates
base-errors. If the balance is not satisfied, one more iteration is
carried out to alter all the seven dependent parameters. This
gives another error if not balanced. This cycle is repeated
several iterations until the errors are within certain limit. In
such case, the system is balanced. And the condition signal
comes true and permits the run of the two blocks (performance
and data tables) to calculate the engine performance and record
in data tables. The other three block inputs are altered manually
according to flight régime (Sea level standard, SLS) with zero
Mach, Take-off with 0.5 Mach, Cruse flight with 0.85 Mach)
and at which, corrected high-pressure speed is chosen.
2. Error-loop block
This block has a fourteen input ports, eight output ports, and
two jobs done every iteration, (Fig. 3). First, it is a mixer in
which the seven base-errors EBi are combined in one
concatenate vector. Second, the seven dependent parameters are
altered into base-incremental amount Vj.
3. Error due to vj block
The objective of this block is to alter each dependent
parameter by a small increment in each iteration separately and
show the resulting errors from this change, (Fig. 4). These
resulting errors are the base-constitute of the error matrix
EMAT developed in the next section. It is almost about seven
identical blocks similar to the off-design module block in all its
input and output ports except that in each block of these seven
blocks, it has only one input port that its value changes
separately ( vj + vj ). Also, these blocks have no output ports
for the performance, data tables, or condition signal.
4. Solver block
This is the major subroutine block, (Fig. 5). It is the solver
that solves the partial differential equations by the matrix
iteration balance technique. The block collects all parameters
needed for solving, then manipulates those inputs with matrix
operations to give the amount of variable increment vj needed
for the next iteration step.
This block consists of a major EMAT block and some
other blocks. EMAT block collects the following block inputs (7
errors due to vj – 7 base variable increments vj) and builds
EMAT matrix using equation (39) and the matrix inversion
block. Solving for Vj as in equation (39) using matrix
multiply, the initial variables should be altered by the amount of
Vj. Using equation (40), the new value of Vj is developed and
a new iteration cycle carried out until the errors reach a
specified limit (balance).
5. Performance and data-tables blocks
These two blocks are conditioned blocks that were
established using the embedded Matlab function property in
program library, (Fig. 6). The two blocks almost run after the
system reaches balance and all variables are settled. In the first
block, all performance relations are given with the inputs of all
data necessary from the Off-design module.
The other block is for storing these data and additional data
referenced to the inlet conditions (2,2) in tabulated form that
are used, later on, in figures handling.
The outputs of the performance block are: net thrust,
corrected net thrust, corrected fuel flow rate, specific thrust,
specific fuel consumption, bypass ratio, engine pressure ratio.
These outputs are needed for exploring the performance of the
engine in different flight regime. While, the data tables block
outputs are all the stages outlet conditions referenced to the
engine inlet conditions (2,2).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of this study are related to CF6-50 double spool
turbofan engine with separate exhausts. The high-pressure
compressor speed CNCH is taken as a base-line parameter.
Thus, three sets of different flight configurations, corrected
to flight inlet conditions, are developed. These sets are:
a.The steady state performance at SLS (Altitude= 0 m) and
Mach number (Mo=0).
b. The steady state performance at take-off (Altitude = 0 m)
and Mach number (Mo=0.5).
c.The steady state performance at cruise flight (Altitude =
10670 m) and Mach number (Mo=0.85).
Figures 7-10 show the corrected net thrust CFt, corrected
fuel flow-rate cwf, gas generator pressure ratio G.G, and bypass
ratio , respectively, as function of CNCH. In Fig. 7, the
corrected net thrust increases with increasing the core corrected
speed, and decreases by increasing both Mach number and
Altitude. In Fig. 8, the corrected fuel flow rate increases by
increasing the core corrected speed, and the Mach number,
however, altitude almost doesn’t affect the corrected fuel flow
6 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12
rate. In Fig. 9, the gas generator pressure-ratio increases by Zf = fan scaled pressure-ratio
increasing the core corrected speed. While, the gas generator
pressure-ratio decreases by increasing both Mach number and Symbols
altitude in point lower than 1.821 of gas generator pressure- EBi = base-error
ratio. In Fig. 10, the core corrected speed decreases by Ei = generated error number i
increasing the bypass ratio. Figure 11 shows the relation F/A = fuel to air ratio
between the specific fuel consumption (SFC) and specific ht = total enthalpy
thrust (FS). It is a parabolic relation divided into two regions. H = hot nozzle outlet static enthalpy
The first region shows that by decreasing the specific fuel Ht,hn = total enthalpy across the hot nozzle
consumption the specific thrust increases. The second region M = Mach number
shows that increasing the specific fuel consumption, increases Pcwb2 = percent of the bleed air mass flow rate from HPC
the specific thrust. Figure 12 shows the engine operation-line in Pt = total pressure
high-pressure compressor map also known as line of Pw = power
equilibrium run. Figure 13 shows a comparison between this Tt = total temperature
study and another study [12] in case of specific fuel vj = dependent variable
consumption (SFC) with thrust. Figure 13 shows that the results Vj = jet exit velocity
of the present SIMULINK program are almost the same as wa = air flow-rate
results of the computer program that was written in 1972 [12] wg = gas flow-rate
and the engine specifications. wf = fuel flow-rate

CONCLUSIONS Greek
Steady state off-design performance is a single step in the = corrected total temperature
modeling and simulation of the turbofan engine; followed by Pt,comb= total pressure drop across the combustor
transient response and finally the controller design. In the step vj = change in dependent variable
of the steady state that is under study, SIMULINK showed good b = combustor efficiency
estimation of the performance characteristics regarding the n = nozzle efficiency
other programming languages or any other readymade GG = gas generator pressure ratio
software. The results are accurate, clear, and almost the same in
comparison to some other studies. Further investigation will be  = corrected total pressure
established for the transient response and controller design
using SIMULINK.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES
I hereby pray to Allah to bless me. Thanks are extended to [1] A. Alexiou, and K. Mathioudakis, “Development of Gas
my family for their support; my professors for their continuous Turbine Performance Models Using a Generic Simulation
help, and finally to anyone pray to Allah for my support. Tool”, ASME Turbo Expo 2005: Power for Land, Sea, and
Air, Reno, Nevada, USA, June 6-9, 2005. Paper No.:
NOMENCLATURE GT2005-68678, pp. 185-194. Doi: 10.1115/GT2005-68678.
[2] R. Andriani, and U. Ghezzi, "Performance Analysis of High
Abbreviations
CNch = corrected HPC speed by Pass Jet Engine with Intercooling and Regeneration”,
CNcl = corrected LPC speed 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
CNf = corrected fan speed & Exhibit, Denver, Colorado, USA, 2-5 August 2009. AIAA
2009-4800.
(CHth)ch, side= corrected enthalpy drop in HPT from HPC side
[3] S. M. Camporeale, B. Fortunato, and M. Mastrovito,
EMAT= errors matrix
"A Modular Code for Real Time Dynamic Simulation of
HPC = high-pressure compressor
Gas Turbines in SIMULINK", ASME Journal of
HPT = high-pressure turbine
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 128, No. 3,
LPC = low-pressure compressor
pp. 506-517, 2002. Doi: 10.1115/1.2132383.
LPT = low-pressure turbine
[4] Y.-T. Chiu, "A Performance Study of a Super-cruise Engine
LHV = lower heat value
with Isothermal Combustion inside the Turbine", Ph.D.
LU = lower upper decomposition
Dissertation, Mechanical Engineering Dept., Virginia Tech,
MFP = mass flow parameter
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, 2004.
PRF = pressure recovery factor
[5] B. Curnock, J. Yin, R. Hales, and P. Pilidis, “High-Bypass
TFTH = high-pressure turbine flow-function
Turbofan Model Using a Fan Radial-Profile Performance
TFTL = low-pressure turbine flow-function
Map“, Aircraft Design, Vol. 4, No. 2-3, pp. 115-126, June-
Zcl = LPC scaled pressure-ratio
September 2001.
Zch = HPC scaled pressure-ratio

7 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

[6] C. K. Drummond, G. J. Follen, and C. W. Putt, “Gas Vol. 114, No. 2, pp. 180-185, 1 April 1992. Doi:
Turbine System Simulation: An Object-Oriented 10.1115/1.2906568.
Approach“, Annual Pittsburgh Conference on Modeling and
Simulation, 23rd, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 30 Apr.- 1 May
1992. Paper No.: NASA-TM-106044, E-7632, NAS
1.15:106044.
[7] S. M. Eastbourn, ”Modeling and Simulation of a Dynamic
Turbofan Engine Using MATLAB/SIMULINK”, M.Sc.
Thesis in Engineering, Wright State University, 2012.
[8] L. H. Fishbach, and R. W. Koenig, “A Program for
calculating design and off-design performance of two and
three spool turbofans with as many as three nozzles”,
Technical Report, NASA Lewis Research Center,
Cleveland, Ohio, USA, 1972. Report No.: NASA-TN-D-
6553, E-6356.
[9] A. Elzahaby, ”Research Bulletin on the Determination of
Double Spool Turbofan Engine Flight Performance”
University Of Helwan Engineering Research Bulletin, Vol.
4, 1992.
[10] K. H. Liew, E. Urip, S. L. Yang, J. D. Mattingly, C. J.
Marek, "Performance (Off-Design) Cycle Analysis for
Turbofan Engine with Interstage Turbine Burner" , NASA-
TM-2005-213659, July 2005.
[11] S. Martin, I. Wallace, and D. G. Bates, “Development and
Validation of an Aero-engine Simulation Model for
Advanced Controller Design”, 2008 American Control
Conference, Westin Seattle Hotel, Seatttle, Washington,
USA, June 11-13, 2008.
[12] S. J. Morris, “Computer Program for the Design and Off-
Design Performance of Turbojet and Turbofan Engine
Cycles”, Technical report, NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA, USA, June 1978. Report No.: NASA-TM-
78653.
[13] F. Schur, “A Transient Model of a Turbofan Engine in
SIMULINK”, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress,
2013. Paper No.: 301478.
[14] J. R. Szuch, S. M. Krosel, and W. M. Bruton, “An
Automated Procedure for Developing Hybrid Computer
Simulations of Turbofan Engines”, ANSS '81 Proceedings
of the 14th Annual Symposium on Simulation, pp. 79-94.
Paper No.: NASA-TP-1851, 1982
[15] S. C. Uysal, “High By-pass Ratio Turbofan Engines
Aerothermodynamics Design and Optimization”, M.Sc.
Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, February
2014.
[16] P. P. Walsh, and P. Fletcher, Gas Turbine Performance, 2nd
Edition, Blackwell Science Ltd, 2004. ISBN: 0-632-06434-
X.
[17] S. Yarlagadda, "Performance Analysis of J85 Turbojet
Engine Matching Thrust with Reduced Inlet Pressure to the
Compressor", M.Sc. Thesis, The University of Toledo,
May 2010.
[18] P. Zhu, and H. Saravanamuttoo “Simulation of an
Advanced Twin-Spool Industrial Gas Turbine”, ASME
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power,

8 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

Fig.2: Off-design module block.

9 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

Fig.3: Error-loop block.

10 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

Fig.4: Error due to vj block.

11 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

Fig.5: Solver block.

12 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

Fig.6: Performance and data-tables blocks.

13 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

 400000
Mo=0.85 Alt. = 10670
ENGINE CORREECTED NET THRUST FNc
350000

Mo=0 Alt.=0
300000

250000 Mo=0.5 Alt.=0

200000

150000

100000

50000

0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

HPC RELATIVE CORRECTED SPEED CNCH

Fig.7: Engine corrected net thrust against HPC corrected speed.

14 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

 6

CORREECTED FUEL FLOW RATE wfc Mo=0.85 Alt.=10670

5

Mo=0 Alt.= 0
4

Mo=0.5 Alt.=0

0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

HPC RELATIVE CORRECTED SPEED CNCH

Fig. 8: Corrected fuel flow rate against HPC corrected speed.

15 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

 3

2.5
Mo=0.85 Alt.=10670
GAS GENRATOR PRESSURE RATIO G.G

Mo=0 Alt.=0
2

Mo=0.5 Alt.=0

1.5

0.5

0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
HPC RELATIVE CORRECTED SPEED CNCH

Fig.9: Gas generator pressure ratio against HPC corrected speed.

16 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

 7

6.5

6
ENGINE BYPASS RATIO 

5.5

5
Mo=0.85 Alt.=10670

4.5
Mo=0 Alt.=0
4

3.5 Mo=0.5 Alt.=0

2.5

2
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
HPC RELATIVE CORRECTED SPEED CNCH

Fig.10: Bypass ratio against HPC corrected speed.

17 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

 0.09

0.08
SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION sfc (Kg/N.Hr)

0.07

0.06

0.05 Mo=0.85 Alt.=10670

Mo=0 Alt.=0

0.04
Mo=0.5 Alt.=0

0.03

0.02
0 100 200 300 400 500
SPECIFIC THRUST FS (N/(Kg/sec))

Fig.11: Specific fuel consumption against specific thrust.

18 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

 corr. speed 0.5662

26
corr. speed 0.674

24
corr. speed 0.787

22
corr. speed 0.899

20
corr. Speed 1.0

18
HPC RESSURE RATIO

corr. Speed 1.034

16

corr. Speed 1.067

14

corr. Speed1.124
12

corr. Speed 1.236

10

corr. Speed 1.292

8

surge line
6

Operalting line Mo=05 Alt=0.

4

Operating line Mo=0.85 Alt.=10670

2

operating line Mo=0 Alt=0

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

HPC CORRECTED MASS FLOW RATE

Fig.12: HPC operating line.

19 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

 case 1:NASA-TM-78653 Computer prediction [12]
M=0.8 Alt.=25000ft CAE
0.08 case2: NASA-TM-78653 Engine specifications [12]
case3: Off-Design results with SIMULINK
M=0.5 Alt.=25000ft CAE
M=0.8,Alt.=25000, simulink

M=0.4 Alt.=0 CAE

M=0.8,Alt.=25000, computer
0.07

M=0 Alt.=0 CAE

M=0.8,Alt.=25000, Engine Spec.

M=0.8 Alt.=25000ft Engine Spec.

M=0.5,Alt.=25000, simulink
SFC (Kg.N/Hr)

0.06
M=0.4,Alt. =0, computer
M=0.4,Alt. =0, simulink M=0.5 Alt.=25000ft EngineSpec.

M=0.4,Alt. =0, Engine spec.

M=0.4 Alt.=0 Engine Spec.

M=0.5,Alt.=25000, Engine spec.

0.05
M=0.5,Alt.=25000, computer M=0 Alt.=0 Engine Spec.

M=0.8 Alt.=25000ft SIMULINK

M=0,Alt. 0, computer
0.04 M=0.5 Alt.=25000ft SIMULINK

M=0,Alt. 0, Engine spec.

M=0,Alt.= 0, simulink
M=0.4 Alt.=0 SIMULINK

M=0 Alt.=0 SIMULINK

0.03
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Thrust (N)

Fig.13: SFC against thrust.

20 Copyright © 2016 by ICFD12

View publication stats