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

net/publication/45254182

Thermodynamic Analysis of Turbofan Engine

Article · January 2005

DOI: 10.1115/GT2005-68244 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
3 15,076

3 authors, including:

Abhay Pashilkar
National Aerospace Laboratories
87 PUBLICATIONS 521 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abhay Pashilkar on 02 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF TURBOFAN ENGINE
R. Yadav
Emeritus Professor of Mechanical Engineering,
MNNIT, Allahabad (U.P.)-211004
INDIA
email: ramashishy@yahoo.com
Chandrakant B. Jugseniya
Post Graduate Student,
Mechanical Engineering Department, MNNIT,
Allahabad (U.P.) – 211004
INDIA
email: chandrakant_jugseniya@yahoo.co.in
ABSTRACT
The present work deals with a detailed parametric
thermodynamic analysis of all the possible configurations of
turbofan engine (two and three spool with or without mixer
and/ afterburner) employing transpiration cooling technique for
turbine blade cooling. The study is focused on design point
performance and is of general nature rather than an application
specific parametric study. The analysis has been carried out by
selecting/developing models for various components of engine.
A computer program has been written which is capable of
predicting engine dependent parameters (i.e. specific thrust,
thrust specific fuel consumption, propulsive efficiency,
efficiency of energy conversion and overall efficiency) at
varying independent parameters at any flight condition and for
any set of operating parameters. A set of multi-dimensional
carpet plots predicting the effect of dependent in terms of
independent parameters has been presented considering
transpiration cooling for turbine blades and the temperature
effect on specific heat of air/gas. Besides giving the
comparative design point performance for a class of turbofan
engine, these results could also be useful in assessing the
relative benefits of extending technology to new engine
configurations. Though, for a realistic mission application, the
difference in performance at various thrust sizing conditions
and at cruise conditions critical for fuel burn is a key
characteristic in selecting the appropriate cycle, however this
study could be useful in selecting in general the cycle
configuration for a particular need with its optimum operating
parameters.
Proceedings of GT 2005
ASME Turbo Expo 2005: Power for Land, Sea and Air
June 6-9, 2005, Reno-Tahoe, Nevada, USA
GT2005-68244
Abhay A. Pashilkar
Scientist,
National Aerospace Laboratories, CSIR,
Bangalore (Karnataka) – 560017
INDIA
email: apashilkar@yahoo.com
INTRODUCTION
The turbofan engines, which are, now invariably used in
commercial and fighter planes, are basically a modified version
of turbojet engine with an aim to reduce jet noise and to
improve propulsive efficiency. In this engine, unlike turbojet
engines, a portion of total flow bypasses part of compressor,
combustor chamber, turbine and hot nozzle before being ejected
through a separate cold nozzle. This means thrust is made up of
two components, the cold stream or fan thrust and hot stream
thrust. In some cases, it is sometimes desirable to mix the two
streams and eject them as a single jet having reduced velocity.
The term bypass ratio (BPR) (the ratio of the flow through the
bypass duct i.e. cold stream to the flow at entry to the high-
pressure compressor i.e. hot stream) plays an important role on
the performance. It varies from 0.3 to 8 or even more. Fan
pressure ratio (rpFAN) and Mach number also plays important
roles on the performance. Turbofan engines may be double or
triple spool engine with or without mixer and/ afterburner. In
general, aircraft engines use either film or transpiration cooling
technique. The latter is considered for the present analysis.
A lot of research work has been carried out in the field of
aviation turbines. Some of the contributions include, the work
of Otates [1], Liew, et al [2], Liu, et al [3], etc. Also various
textbooks including Mattingly [4], Cohen, et al [5], etc. are
available with the detailed parametric thermodynamic analysis
treatment but only for ideal cycle employing no cooling
technique for turbine blades and without considering the
temperature effect on specific heat of air/gas which are the
major key factors to be considered for real cycle analysis.
1 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
Otates [1] did not consider the effect of afterburner in his study m bp = bypass air flow rate (kg/s)
while Liew, et al [2] discussed the performance analysis of a
m co = core mass flow rate (kg/s)
two spool, separate exhaust turbofan with interstage turbine
burners. Liu, et al [3] performed a thermodynamic analysis m f = fuel mass flow rate (kg/s)
wherein different Turbine-burner engines are shown to provide M = Mach number
significantly higher specific thrust with none or only small p = total pressure (bar)
increase in thrust specific fuel consumption compared to ps = static pressure (bar)
conventional engines. Still the detailed parametric rpC = compressor pressure ratio (overall)
thermodynamic study revealing the comparative performance rpLC = low pressure compressor pressure ratio
results for all the possible configurations of turbofan engine rpFAN= fan pressure ratio
employing transpiration cooling of turbine blades and R = characteristic gas constant
considering the temperature effect on specific heat of air/gas is s = specific entropy (kJ/kgK)
lacking. The present work is an attempt in this direction. This SFC= specific fuel consumption (kg/Nh)
work focuses the design point performance for a class of T = total temperature (K)
turbofan engines employing the transpiration cooling of turbine Ts = static temperature (K)
blades which may be useful for the design engineers in the TIT = turbine inlet temperature (K)
comparative cycle selection with its operating parameters for a W = specific work (kJ/kg)
particular need. Greek Symbols
In this work, analysis of two and three spool turbofan ∆p = pressure loss
engines with or without mixing and/ afterburning based on the ε 0 = overall cooling effectiveness
first law of thermodynamics was carried out by modeling their
various elements such as gas, fan, compressor, combustor, γ = specific heat ratio
cooled gas turbine, mixing chamber and jet nozzles (cold, hot ρ = density
and mixed). η = efficiency (%)
The main independent thermodynamic parameters, which
Suffixes
affect the performance of turbofan engine, are overall pressure a = air
ratio (rpC), turbine inlet temperature (TIT), bypass ratio (BPR), ab = afterburner
fan pressure ratio (rpFAN), blade cooling techniques, cruising amb = ambient
speed, altitude, configuration and safe blade surface ax = auxiliary
temperature. b = burner
The main dependent parameters included in the study are bl = blade
specific thrust, fuel-air ratio, specific fuel consumption and bp = bypass
propulsive efficiency. c = compressor (FAN, LP or HP)
cl = coolant, cooling
NOMENCLATURE co = core
A = area (m2) comb= combustor (burner or afterburner)
Alt = altitude (m) cr = critical
BPR= bypass ratio d = diffuser
C ′ = constant e = at exit of component
C = speed of sound (m/s) ec = energy convertion
Ca = velocity of air at inlet (m/s) f = fuel
Cp = specific heat at constant pressure (kJ/kgK) g = gas
F = thrust (uninstalled) (N) i = at inlet of component
Fcold = thrust due to cold stream (N) t = turbine (LP, IP or HP)
Fhot = thrust due to hot stream (N) m = mechanical
FAR= fuel air ratio mt = momentum
h = specific enthalpy (kJ/kg) mx = mixer
HP = high pressure n = nozzle
IP = intermediate pressure o = overall
k = mass transfer coefficient (kg/m2s) pc = polytropic for compressor
LP = low pressure pt = polytropic for turbine
LHV=lower heating value of fuel (kJ/kgK) p = pressure
m = mass flow rate of fluid (kg/s) prop = propulsive
sl = sea level
m a = mass flow rate of air at inlet (kg/s) sg = surface for gas heat transfer

2 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. =states in cycle Inlet Fan Cold Nozzle

ENGINE CONFIGURATION
HP, IP and LP
Figures 1 (a) and 2 (a) show the schematic of the two spool Turbines
turbofan engine with mixed exhaust and afterburner and three LP and HP Combustor Hot Nozzle
Compressors
spool turbofan engine with separate exhausts and no
afterburner, respectively. Their respective T-s representations
are shown in figures 1 (b) and 2 (b).
From these two configurations shown in Figures 1 and 2
other possible configurations of the engine can be easily
derived simply by removing or adding mixer and/ afterburner.
Inlet Fan High-pressure HP & LP turbines Free
compressor Combustor Mixer Nozzle 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
stream

Afterburner 0 1 2 10
Fig. 2 (a) Schematic representation of three-spool turbofan engine, with
separate exhausts and no afterburner
Free
stream 5
Bypass Duct
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4
Fig. 1 (a) Schematic representation of two-spool turbofan engine, with mixed 6
exhaust and afterburner
7
4 3
5 8 8
3
6
62 7
2
9
2 9
T

1
10
T

1 0

6 - 62 Temperature drop in mixer s

Fig. 2 (b) T-s representation of three-spool turbofan engine, with separate
0 62 - 7 Pressure drop in mixer exhausts and no afterburner
s
Fig. 1 (b) T-s representation of two-spool turbofan engine, with mixed exhaust
Cp = A0 + A1Tz + A2Tz2 + ... + A8Tz8
and afterburner
+ ( FAR (1 + FAR ) ) ( B0 + B1Tz + B2Tz2 + ... + B7Tz7 ) (3)
MODELLINGS AND GOVERNING EQUATIONS where A0 , A1 ,..., A8 and B0 , B1 ,..., B7 are constt. and Tz = Ts 1000
Thermodynamic analysis of a turbofan engine is carried
Diffuser Model: Ram action takes place in diffuser. The
out by modeling its various components.
concept of diffuser efficiency is incorporated in the model to
Atmospheric Model: Since the aircraft operating range varies account for the inefficiency of diffuser caused by aerodynamic
from ground level up to the height of 11 km or more, the losses.
atmospheric air temperature and pressure varies according to
The inlet and exit conditions of diffuser are expressed by,
altitude (Alt).
For Alt <=11 km, i.e. below stratopause At inlet,
Tamb = Tsl -0.00649Alt (1)
Td ,i Tsd .i = Td ,i Tamb = 1 + ( ( γ a − 1) 2 ) M 2 d ,i (4)
pamb = psl (Tamb Tsl )
5.256
(2)
γ a ( γ a −1)
Gas Model: The specific heat of air /gas is assumed as a pd ,i psd .i = pd ,i pamb = (Td ,i Tsd .i ) , for M d ,i ≤ 1 (5)
function of temperature and FAR which is expressed in the γ a (γ a −1)
⎛T ⎞
form of polynomial [6]. = ⎜ d ,i ⎟ (1 − 0.075(M d ,i − 1)1.35 ) , for M d ,i > 1 (6)
⎝ Tsd .i ⎠

3 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

At exit,
Td , e = Td ,i (7) m g ,i ,Tg,i
pd ,e pSd ,e = 1 + η d ( ( γ d − 1) 2 ) M 2d ,i (8) Ag Tg,e
where ηd = ( Td′,e − Tsd .i ) ( Td ,e − Tsd .i ) (9)
Fan, Low Pressure and High Pressure Compressor Model:
Asg, Tbl
Fan, low-pressure compressor and high-pressure compressor m cl ,i + m g ,i = m g ,e
are subjected to various aerodynamic losses which are
m cl ,i , Tcl ,i
accounted here by introducing the concept of polytropic
efficiency. Fig. 3 (a) Transpiration air-cooling model for a single row of gas turbine
The mass and energy balance yield the compressor work
m co ,i = m co ,e + ∑ m cl (10) a a-b polytropic expansion process
b-c heat transfer process
Wc = m co,e he + ∑ m cl hcl − m co ,i hi (11) c-d coolant mixing process
p d-e isenthalpic process
Combustor Model: Combustor (burner and afterburner) suffer i
b
from inefficiency and pressure loss. They are modeled by c
introducing the concept of combustor efficiency and percentage d e
pressure drop of combustor inlet pressure. pe

T
The mass and energy balance are given by p'e
m g ,e = m i + m fcomb (12)
pe -p'e = pressure loss
ηcomb m f comb
LHV = m g ,e he − m i hi (14) due to coolant mixing
pcomb,e = pcomb,i − ∆pcomb (15) s
Fig. 3 (b) T-s representation of the expansion path in a single cooled row of
Cooled Turbine Model: There are two (HP and LP) and three turbine with various losses due to coolant mixing
(HP, IP, and LP) turbines in two and three spool engines
respectively. Aerodynamic losses are accounted by introducing Mixer Model: In the mixer, there is a mixing of hot and cold
polytropic efficiency. stream causing mixing losses, which are accounted by
Auxiliary power requirement for running accessories is considering stagnation pressure loss. The final mixture is
tapped out from high-pressure turbine. calculated by enthalpy balance of two streams.
Wc + Wax = η mWt (16) m g ,i Cpg ,iTmx ,i + m bp ,i Cpa ,i Tmx ,i = m g ,eCpg ,eTmx , e (21)
where Wax = 10% of Wt m g ,e = m g ,i + m bp (22)
= auxiliary power requirement for accessories Jet Nozzle Model: The jet nozzle suffers from the aerodynamic
Here, it is assumed that turbines are cooled by transpiration losses mainly due to skin friction, which is modeled by
air-cooling technique. The model is based on the work of introducing the concept of nozzle efficiency [5]. The nozzle
Horlock, et al [7], which is shown in figure 3 (a). The complete may be choked or unchoked.
expansion path in a single cooled row of turbine with various a) Choked Nozzle
losses due to coolant mixing is shown in figure 3 (b). The critical pressure ratio is expressed as
γ n ( γ n −1)
The ratio of mass of coolant to gas needed for transpiration pcr pn ,i = 1 − η n ⎡⎣( γ n − 1) ( γ n + 1) ⎤⎦ (23)
air-cooling is expressed as
if pn ,i psd ,i > pn ,i pcr , then nozzle is choked and the
m cl m g ,i = C ′ ln ⎡⎣1 (1 − ε 0 ) ⎤⎦ , where C ′=0.03 (17)
calculation is based on following equations.
ε 0 = (Tg ,i − Tbl ) (Tg ,i − Tcl ,i ) (18) Tsn ,e = Tcr = ⎣⎡ 2 (γ n + 1) ⎦⎤ Tn ,i (24)
It is assumed that the temperature of the coolant does not psn ,e = pcr (25)
fully reach the temperature of the metal before it leaves the
The jet velocity is given by
blade, i.e., Tcl , e < Tbl .Hence, the concept of a cooling efficiency
Cn,e = γ n RTsn, e (26)
is introduced as
ηcl = ( Tcl ,e − Tcl ,i ) ( Tbl − Tcl ,i ) (19) The mass flow rate is expressed by
m g , e = ( ρ AC )n ,e (27)
The total pressure losses in mixing of coolant and mainstream
are expressed as where ρ n,e = psn ,e RTsn ,e (28)
∆p p = 0.07 m cl ,i m g ,i (20) b) Unchoked Nozzle
Bypass-duct Model: This is modeled by considering pressure If pn ,i psd ,i < pn,i pcr , then nozzle is unchoked and calculation
loss only and no temperature loss is considered. is performed using following equations.

4 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

psn ,e = pamb (29) 5) Overall Efficiency

{ }
( γ n −1) γ n
Using above models and governing equations, parametric
Tn ,i − Tsn , e = η nTn ,i 1 − ⎡⎣1 ( pn ,i pamb ) ⎤⎦ (30) study has been carried out by constructing a code in MATLAB
and using the input data given in Table 1.
The jet velocity is given by
Cn , e = 2Cpg (Tn ,i − Tsn , e ) (31) RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Figure 4 shows the variation of coolant requirement with
Table 1: Input data for analysis TIT for cooled rows of turbine blades. As expected, it increases
Component Parameters with TIT linearly with higher value in first row stator and
Sea level condition Tsl=288K, Psl =1.013 bar, lowest in the last rotor.
R=287 kJ/kgK, m a =1 kg/s 0.035

COOLANT REQUIREMENT PER ROW OF TURBINE (mcl,i/mg,i)

Row 1 of HPT
Row 2 of HPT M = 0.9
Alt = 11000 m
Diffuser η = 93.0 %
Row 1 of IPT
Row 2 of IPT BPR = 5
0.03
d Row 1 of LPT rpC = 24
Row 2 of LPT rpFAN = 2
Compressor (FAN, LP and HP) η pc = 90.0 % , η m = 99.0% 0.025
rpLC = 2

Burner ηb = 98.0 % ,
0.02

∆ pb=2.5 % of entry pressure

Fuel ( Diesel) LHV=42000 kJ/kg 0.015

0
T f = 15 C
0.01

Turbine (LP, IP and HP) η pt = 90.0 % , Tbl = 1123 K ,

0.005

η cl = 80.0 %
0
By-pass duct ∆ pbp=1.0 % of entry pressure 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000

TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE, T I T

Mixer ∆ pmx=2.0 % of entry pressure Fig. 4 Variation of turbine coolant requirement ( m cl ,i m g ,i ) with TIT for
Afterburner η ab = 98.0 % , three-spool engine
∆ pab=2.5 % of entry pressure Figures 5, 6 and 8, 9 depict the variation of specific fuel
Nozzle (cold, hot and mixed) η n = 95.0 % consumption with specific thrust for various rpC and TIT for all
chosen configurations of two and three spool turbofan engines,
respectively. It is observed that three-spool engine offers less
PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS SFC and higher specific thrust for all cases such as separate
The performance parameters are expressed as follows [5]. exhausts, mixed exhaust and mixed exhaust with afterburner at
1) Specific Thrust: Under different nozzle conditions it is all rpC and TIT considered. This is because of the fact that due
expressed as given below. to three spools, compressor pressure and expansion ratio are
If nozzle is choked, the net specific thrust is comprised of better distributed and they may be run at different speeds
following two components, namely resulting in higher jet velocity as compared to two-spool in all
a) Momentum thrust cases.
Fmt = m g ,i ( Cn ,e − Ca ) (32) At any rpC, increase in TIT causes an increase in SFC and
specific thrust whereas an increase in rpC at any TIT decreases
where Ca = M d ,i γ amb RTamb (33) SFC and initially results in an increase in specific thrust but
b) Pressure thrust eventually leads to a decrease; and the optimum pressure for
Fp = An ,e ( pn ,e − pamb ) (34) maximum thrust increases as the value of TIT is increased. At
the same rpC and TIT lower SFC is found to occur with three-
Thus, net specific thrust, spool, mixed exhaust engine while the higher specific thrust is
F = Fmt + Fp (35) exhibited by three-spool, mixed exhaust with afterburner.
If nozzle is unchoked, net sp. thrust is directly expressed as Figures 5, 7 and 8, 10 show the variation of propulsive
F = m g ,i Cn ,e (36) efficiency with specific thrust for various rpC and TIT for all
chosen configurations of two and three spool turbofan engines,
For engine configuration with separate exhausts, specific
respectively. In all cases at any TIT propulsive efficiency
thrust is calculated separately for cold and hot stream and then
increases with rpC while at any rpC, propulsive efficiency
both are added to yield total specific thrust, i.e.
decreases with increase in TIT. But specific thrust, at any TIT,
F = Fcold + Fhot (37)
initially increases with increase in rpC and then decreases.
2) Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption Among all configurations, at any rpC and TIT, propulsive
3) Propulsive Efficiency efficiency is higher in the case of three-spool engine with
4) Efficiency of Energy Conversion

5 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

separate exhausts while slight higher specific thrust is found to 0.12
M = 0.9
0.8

Alt = 11000 m 2000

occur in the case of two-spool, mixed exhaust with afterburner. 1400
40 BPR =5
0.13 0.8 rpFAN =2
1900

THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

40 1400 M = 0.9 rpLC =2
Alt = 11000 m
1800
BPR =5 2000

PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY
0.12 rpFAN =2 0.78 TIT TIT
THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

1900 0.1 1700 0.75

rpC = 10
TIT TIT 1800
0.11 0.76 1600

PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY
1700
rpC = 10 1500
0.1 1600 0.74
1400
rpC = 10
1500 0.08 2000 0.7
0.09 0.72 15
1400
rpC = 10
20

0.08 15 0.7 25
2000 3-Spool, Separate exhausts,
30
20
35
No Afterburner
25
40
0.07 0.68 0.06 0.65
30 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
35 2-Spool, Separate exhausts, SPECIFIC THRUST (N)
40 No Afterburner
0.06 0.66 Fig. 8 Variation of thrust specific fuel consumption and propulsive efficiency
200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
SPECIFIC THRUST (N) with specific thrust for three-spool engines, with separate exhausts and no
Fig. 5 Variation of thrust specific fuel consumption and propulsive efficiency afterburner
0.09
with specific thrust for two-spool engines, with separate exhausts and no
M = 0.9 TIT= 1400 1500 1600 1900 2000
afterburner Alt = 11000 m 1700 1800 10 =rpC
0.1 0.085 BPR = 5

THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

TIT = 1400 rpFAN = 2
M = 0.9 rpLC = 2 20
0.095 1500 0.08 mfab = 0.005 Kg/s
Alt = 11000 m 2000
1600 15
BPR =5
THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

1700 1800 1900 2000

rpFAN =2 1900 25
0.09
mfab = 0.005 Kg/s 10 = rpC 0.075 1800 30
35
T I T = 1700
0.085 TIT = 2000 15 1600 40
1900 0.07
1500
20
1800 1400
0.08 1700 25 10
1600
1400 1500 30 0.065
3-Spool, Mixed exhausts,
0.075 rpC = 10 35
40
With Afterburner
0.06
0.07 15

2-Spool, Mixed exhaust, 0.055

15 rpC = 20
0.065 With Afterburner
25 3-Spool, Mixed exhausts,
20 0.05
0.06 30 No Afterburner
25 35
40
0.055 30 2-Spool, Mixed exhaust, 0.045
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
35 No Afterburner
40 SPECIFIC THRUST (N)
0.05
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Fig. 9 Variation of thrust specific fuel consumption with specific thrust for
SPECIFIC THRUST (N)
three-spool engines, with mixed exhaust and a) no afterburner and b) with
Fig. 6 Variation of thrust specific fuel consumption with specific thrust for two-
afterburner
spool engines, with mixed exhaust and a) no afterburner and b) with afterburner 0.7 1000
0.64 950
M = 0.9 rpC =
Alt = 11000 m M = 0.9
1400 BPR =5 10
2000 Alt = 11000
0.62 40 rpFAN =2 900 BPR = 5
15
mfab = 0.005 kg/s rpFAN = 2
rpC TIT 1900 20 rpLC = 2 rpC = 10
PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY

25 0.65 mfab = 0.005 kg/s 2000 900

10 30 15

AFTERBURNER EXIT TEMP

AFTERBURNER EXIT TEMP

1800
PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY

0.6 850
35 1900 20
2000 40 25
1400
1700 40 1800 30
TIT
0.58 800 rpC 35
2-Spool, Mixed exhaust, 10 1700
1600 40
0.6 800
No Afterburner
2000 1600
0.56 1500 750
1400 1500
3-Spool, Mixed exhaust,
TIT= 1400
No Afterburner TIT = 1400
0.54 700 1400
0.55 700
TIT
TIT
2000
2000
40
0.52 650 40

2-Spool, Mixed exhaust, rpC 3-Spool, Mixed exhaust, rpC

10 With Afterburner 10
With Afterburner
0.5 600 0.5 600
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
SP. THRUST (N)
SPECIFIC THRUST (N)
Fig. 7 Variation of propulsive efficiency and Tab, e with specific thrust for two- Fig. 10 Variation of propulsive efficiency and Tab,e with sp. thrust for three
spool engines, with mixed exhaust and a) no afterburner and b) with afterburner spool engines, with mixed exhaust and a) no afterburner and b) with
afterburner.
Figures 7 and 10 also show the variation of afterburner exit
The effects of fan pressure (rpFAN) for various by-pass
temperature with specific thrust at various rpC and TIT. The
ratios (BPR) on SFC and specific thrust are shown in figures 11
high value of afterburner exit temperature is observed at low rpC
and 12. For two and three spool engines with separate exhausts
and high TIT in the case of two-spool than three-spool engine.

6 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

there exists an optimum (rpFAN)opt for each BPR. At higher BPR 0.13
M = 0.9
it lies in the range of 3 to 4 while at low BPR, it may lie beyond 0.12
BPR = 2 Alt = 11000 m
rpC = 24
BPR = 5
6. Further, low SFC is found at high BPR while higher thrust is

THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

BPR = 9 TIT = 1700 K
mfab =0.005 kg/s
found at low BPR. The three-spool engine offers lower SFC 0.11 For 3-Spool Engine
rpLC = 2

and higher thrust as compared to two-spool engine at all BPR. 0.1 BPR = 2
Three-spool engine with mixed exhaust and no afterburner
gives the minimum thrust at BPR greater than 2. 0.09

The configurations (Two and three spool) with mixed 0.08

5
exhaust and with or without afterburner have low specific thrust 9
0.07
compared to the ones with separate exhausts. This is due to the
fact that in case of two and three spool engines with separate 0.06
2-Spool,Separate Exhausts, No Afterburner
exhausts, with the increase in BPR, air mass flow rate through 2-Spool,Mixed Exhausts, No Afterburner
2-Spool,Mixed Exhausts,with Afterburner
0.05
the core becomes lesser and lesser. Moreover, if fan pressure 3-Spool,Separate Exhausts, No Afterburner
3-Spool,Mixed Exhausts, No Afterburner
3-Spool,Mixed Exhausts,with Afterburner
ratio is increased then the LP turbine has to do more work but 0.04
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
with much lesser mass of gas. In doing so its exit pressure FAN PRESSURE RATIO

drops to very low level, even below nozzle exit pressure and Fig. 12 Effects of rpFAN and BPR on thrust specific fuel consumption for various
the thrust through hot nozzle becomes negative. However, the configurations
Gross thrust is mainly thrust through the cold nozzle. This Figures 13 and 14 show the effect of inlet Mach number on
situation becomes serious with the further increase of BPR and SFC and specific thrust for two altitudes (Alt = 0 and 11 km).
rpFAN as the hot thrust continues to be a large negative value and At any altitude, specific thrust decreases while specific fuel
hence the total thrust becomes negative. consumption increases with the increase of inlet Mach number
The reason for lower SFC for 'mixed' configuration is for all configurations. At any Mach number, with increase in
initial higher thrust at the same mass of fuel as compared to altitude, specific thrust increases while SFC decreases for all
separate exhausts case. On the other hand in the 'mixing with configurations of two and three spool engines. This is due to the
afterburner' configuration, thrust is higher but it is at the effect of decreasing density of air with altitude.
expense of more fuel in afterburner. Hence, the SFC also Figure 15 (bar chart) show the comparison for all the
increases along with thrust. important parameters for all possible configurations of two and
At low BPR and higher values of rpFAN the thrust for the three spool turbofan engine for given input data.
mixed exhaust cases becomes higher than the separate exhaust The results of parametric study presented in figures 5 to 14
case. In the 'mixing with afterburner’ case and 'mixing with no are the useful design monograms obtained for the cruising
afterburner', the thrust is negative with the increase in BPR and conditions and for a very general set of parameters. They may
rpFAN. Due to the presence of the afterburner the decrease is not be directly used to select the operating parameters, but the
over a longer rpFAN range. Thus, the selection of (rpFAN)opt and code is capable of producing the results, which may be used in
BPR play an important role for the design of a turbofan engine. a sequence to decide a set of operating parameters for any flight
Though, the higher BPR gives lower thrust, but noise level mission.
is less, which is important in the case of commercial planes. This can be understood as follows. Let us consider that the
With all these conflicting performance, the designer has to flight mission requirement is: Thrust = F (N), Altitude = Alt
make a compromise to meet all the requirements satisfactorily. (m) and Mach No. = M. Then the code can be iterated with
FAR for a very general set of operating parameters until we get
700 M = 0.9
Alt = 11000 m
the result within the range of thrust, which includes the required
rpC = 24
TIT = 1700 K
2-Spool,Separate Exhausts, No Afterburner
2-Spool,Mixed Exhausts, No Afterburner
thrust value. Then using figures 5 to 10, for a particular
BPR = 2
600 mfab = 0.005 kg/s
For 3-Spool Engine
2-Spool,Mixed Exhausts,with Afterburner
3-Spool,Separate Exhausts, No Afterburner
BPR = 5 configuration, we will get a range of rpC and TIT corresponding
BPR = 9
rpLC = 2 3-Spool,Mixed Exhausts, No Afterburner
3-Spool,Mixed Exhausts,with Afterburner
to the required thrust for different SFC. Selection of any desired
500
SPECIFIC THRUST (N)

value of SFC will fix rpC, TIT and also propulsive efficiency for
400
BPR = 2
that configuration. Now the obtained values of these three
parameters for the required thrust can be optimized using other
300 figures presented here in sequence to get the set of operating
5
parameters. Using figure 11 and 12 we will get optimum BPR
200
9
and (rpFAN)opt. Similarly, using figure 13 and 14 Mach No. and
altitude can be optimized for the configuration considered.
100
Now, for this optimized set of operating parameters the
program can be used freshly to produce a complete set of
0
2 2.5 3 3.5
FAN PRESSURE RATIO
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 results for all the possible configuration of turbofan engine and
Fig. 11 Effects of rpFAN and BPR on specific thrust for various configurations the comparison can be done to select the most suitable
configuration. Similar procedure can be followed if the mission
is based on SFC.

7 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 Thus these monograms may be helpful in selecting the
configuration with its operating parameters as per requirements.
Though, the final selection will be based on many factors such
as off design performance, cost and weight considerations, etc.
700
600
Alt = 0 m
Alt = 11000 m 2-Spool,Separate Exhausts, No Afterburner
2-Spool,Mixed Exhausts, No Afterburner
2-Spool,Mixed Exhausts,with Afterburner
3-Spool,Separate Exhausts, No Afterburner
3-Spool,Mixed Exhausts, No Afterburner
3-Spool,Mixed Exhausts,with Afterburner
CONCLUSION
A parametric thermodynamic study has been carried out for
a class of turbofan engines presenting a summary of point
design performance estimates using simplified component
technology assumptions. The results presented are useful as a
presentation of the implications of these technology
assumptions. They could also be useful in assessing the relative
benefits of extending technologies to new engine

500
configurations. Though, the results cannot be used directly to
choose configuration and its optimum for a particular
SP. THRUST (N)

400 configuration in the absence of off-design analysis but it can

give some idea of parameters very close to the realistic study
300
Alt =11000 for specific applications. The results obtained shows that the
BPR = 5 Alt =11000 three-spool engine offers low SFC than the two-spool at all
200 rpC = 24
rpFAN=2
TIT = 1700 K
BPR. Further, among all the configurations considered three-
Alt = 0

100
mfab =0.005 kg/s
For 3-Spool Engine
spool engine with mixed exhaust and no afterburner need low
rpLC = 2 Alt = 0
SFC. At any rpC and TIT, propulsive efficiency is higher in the
0 case of three-spool engine with separate exhausts while slight
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
MACH NO AT INLET higher specific thrust is found to occur in the case of two-spool,
Fig. 13 Effects of inlet Mach number and altitude on specific thrust mixed exhaust with afterburner. For two and three spool
engines with separate exhausts, there exists an optimum
0.15
BPR =5
rpC = 24 Alt = 0 Alt =11000 (rpFAN)opt with reference to SFC for each BPR. At higher value
of BPR, it lies in the range of 3 to 4 while at low BPR it may lie
THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

rpFAN=2
TIT = 1700 K
mfab =0.005 kg/s
For 3-Spool Engine
Alt = 0
beyond 6. At any altitude specific thrust decreases while SFC
rpLC = 2
increases with increase in Mach number, whereas reverse is
Alt =11000
true with increase in altitude at any Mach number.
0.1

Alt = 0 m
Alt = 11000 m
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The first author is grateful to All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE), New Delhi, for providing
2-Spool,Separate Exhausts, No Afterburner
2-Spool,Mixed Exhausts, No Afterburner
opportunity and financial help to carry out the research work.
0.05
2-Spool,Mixed Exhausts,with Afterburner
3-Spool,Separate Exhausts, No Afterburner
The help extended by AICTE is greatly acknowledged. The
3-Spool,Mixed Exhausts, No Afterburner
3-Spool,Mixed Exhausts,with Afterburner
second and third authors are grateful to Council of Scientific
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi and National
MACH NO AT INLET Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore for providing opportunity
Fig. 14 Effects of inlet Mach number and altitude on thrust specific fuel and reference materials to carry out the present research work.
consumption

M=0.9, REFERENCES
[1] Otates, G. C., May-June 1985, Performance Estimation for
BPR=5
Turbofans with and without Mixers, Journal of Propulsion and Power,
Alt =11000 m vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 252-256.
rpC = 30 [2] Liew, K. H., Urip, E., Yang, S. L., Mattingly, J. D., and Marek, C.
rpFAN = 2 J., July 2004, Performance Cycle Analysis of a Two-spool, Separate
mfab=0.005kg/s exhaust Turbofan with Interstage Turbine Burner, 40th
For 3-Spool Engine AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit.
rpLC = 2 [3] Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., May-June 2001, Turbojet and
2-Spool, 2-Spool,
2-Spool,
3-Spool, 3-Spool,
3-Spool, Turbofan Engine Performance Increases Through Turbine Burners,
Mixing, Mixing,
Nomixing Mixing
Afterburner
Nomixing Mixing
Afterburner Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol.17, No. 3, pp. 695-705.
Thrust ( x10) in N 24.16099 34.68579 51.2225 26.45441 41.21232 59.51004 [4] Mattingly, J. D., 1996, Elements of Gas Turbine Propulsion,
Thrust Sp. Fuel Consumpsion in 86.2 60 75.8 76.3 49 64.2 McGraw-Hill Inc, Singapore.
mg/Nh
[5] Cohen, H., Rogers, G. F. C., Saravanamutto, H. I. H., 1998, Gas
Propulsive Efficiency in % 72.71 59.91 53.54 69.52 58.85 52.55
Turbine Theory, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, England.
Efficiency of Energy Conversion in % 4.59 5.16 5.7 5.29 6.09 6.4
[6] Walsh Philip P., and Fletcher Paul, 1998, Gas Turbine
Overall Efficiency in % 3.34 3.09 3.05 3.68 3.59 3.36
Performance, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
Afterburner Exit Temp ( x10) in K - - 75.58203 - - 81.45465
[7] Horlock, J. H., Watson, D.T., and Jones, T.V., 2001, Limitations on
Fig. 15 Comparison of various parameters for different configurations of two Gas Turbine Performance Imposed by Large Turbine Cooling Flows,
and three spool turbofan engines ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 123, pp. 487-493.

8 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

View publication stats