0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Turbomachinery

A Preliminary Design Tradeoff Study for an Advanced Propulsion Technology Rotorcraft at Mission Level

[+] Author and Article Information
Fakhre Ali

Propulsion Engineering Centre,
School of Aerospace, Transport
and Manufacturing,
Cranfield University,
Bedfordshire MK430AL, UK
e-mail: f.ali@cranfield.ac.uk

Ioannis Goulos

Propulsion Engineering Centre,
School of Aerospace,
Transport and Manufacturing,
Cranfield University,
Bedfordshire MK430AL, UK
e-mail: i.goulos@cranfield.ac.uk

Vassilios Pachidis

Head Gas Turbine Engineering,
Propulsion Engineering Centre,
School of Aerospace,
Transport and Manufacturing,
Cranfield University,
Bedfordshire MK430AL, UK
e-mail: v.pachidis@cranfield.ac.uk

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Turbomachinery Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received July 14, 2015; final manuscript received July 29, 2015; published online August 25, 2015. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(1), 012602 (Aug 25, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-15-1302; doi: 10.1115/1.4031204 History: Received July 14, 2015; Revised July 29, 2015

This paper aims to present an integrated rotorcraft (RC) multidisciplinary simulation framework, deployed for the comprehensive assessment of combined RC–powerplant systems at mission level. The proposed methodology comprises a wide-range of individual modeling theories applicable to RC performance and flight dynamics, as well as the gas turbine engine performance. The overall methodology has been deployed to conduct a preliminary tradeoff study for a reference simple cycle (SC) and conceptual regenerative twin-engine-light (TEL) and twin-engine-medium (TEM) RC configurations, modeled after the Airbus Helicopters Bo105 and Aérospatiale SA330 models, simulated under the representative mission scenarios. The installed engines corresponding to both reference RC are notionally modified by incorporating a heat exchanger (HE), enabling heat transfer between the exhaust gas and the compressor delivery air to the combustion chamber. This process of preheating the compressor delivery air prior to combustion chamber leads to a lower fuel input requirements compared to the reference SC engine. The benefits arising from the adoption of the on-board HE are first presented by conducting part-load performance analysis against the reference SC engine. The acquired results suggest substantial reduction in specific fuel consumption (SFC) for a major part of the operating power range with respect to both RC configurations. The study is further extended to quantify mission fuel burn (MFB) saving limit by conducting an extensive HE tradeoff analyses at mission level. The optimum fuel burn saving limit resulting from the incorporation of on-board HEs is identified within realistically defined missions, corresponding to modern RC operations. The acquired results from the mission analyses tradeoff study suggest that the suboptimum regenerated RC configurations are capable of achieving significant reduction in MFB, while simultaneously maintaining the respective airworthiness requirements in terms of one-engine-inoperative. The proposed methodology can effectively be regarded as an enabling technology for the comprehensive assessment of conventional and conceptual RC–powerplant systems at mission level.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Reference mission A, PAT: (a) geographical definition and (b) time variations of deployed operational airspeed and AGL altitude

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Reference mission B, EMS: (a) geographical definition and (b) time variations of deployed operational airspeed and AGL altitude

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Reference mission C, O&G: (a) geographical definition and (b) time variations of deployed operational airspeed and AGL altitude

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Reference mission D, SAR: (a) geographical definition and (b) time variations of deployed operational airspeed and AGL altitude

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) HE optimization for TEL, regenerated RC, reference mission A, PAT mission and (b) reference mission A, ΔAUM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

TEL regenerated RC, reference mission B, EMS, ΔAUM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

(a) HE optimization for TEL, reference mission D, SAR mission and (b) reference mission D, SAR, ΔAUM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

(a) HE optimization for TEM, reference mission C, O&G mission and (b) reference mission D, O&G mission, ΔAUM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

TEM, reference SC and regenerated RC, reference mission C, SFC comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

(a) TEL, reference SC and regenerated RC, reference mission A, fuel flow comparison and (b) mission B, engine shaft power comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

(a) HE optimization for TEM, reference mission D, SAR mission and (b) reference mission D, SAR mission

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic layout of a two-spool regenerated turboshaft

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Architecture of integrated RC multidisciplinary simulation framework; preliminary design and analysis of conceptual RC powerplant configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) SFC VS (P/PDesign) for reference engine A1 and regenerated engine B1 turboshaft and (b) SFC VS (P/PDesign) for reference engine A2 and regenerated engine B2 turboshaft

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Fixed geometry tubular type HE specific weight

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In