0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Aircraft Engine

Aerodynamic Design of Separate-Jet Exhausts for Future Civil Aero-engines—Part II: Design Space Exploration, Surrogate Modeling, and Optimization

[+] Author and Article Information
Ioannis Goulos

Propulsion Engineering Centre,
Cranfield University,
Bedfordshire MK430AL, UK
e-mail: i.goulos@cranfield.ac.uk

John Otter

Propulsion Engineering Centre,
Cranfield University,
Bedfordshire MK430AL, UK
e-mail: j.j.otter@cranfield.ac.uk

Tomasz Stankowski

Propulsion Engineering Centre,
Cranfield University,
Bedfordshire MK430AL, UK
e-mail: t.stankowski@cranfield.ac.uk

David MacManus

Propulsion Engineering Centre,
Cranfield University,
Bedfordshire MK430AL, UK
e-mail: D.G.Macmanus@cranfield.ac.uk

Nicholas Grech

Installation Aerodynamics,
Rolls-Royce plc,
Trent Hall 2.2, SinA-17,
Derby DE24 8BJ, UK
e-mail: Nicholas.Grech@Rolls-Royce.com

Christopher Sheaf

Installation Aerodynamics,
Rolls-Royce plc,
Trent Hall 2.2, SinA-17,
Derby DE24 8BJ, UK
e-mail: Christopher.Sheaf@Rolls-Royce.com

Contributed by the Aircraft Engine Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received November 22, 2015; final manuscript received December 18, 2015; published online March 15, 2016. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(8), 081202 (Mar 15, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: GTP-15-1539; doi: 10.1115/1.4032652 History: Received November 22, 2015; Revised December 18, 2015

The aerodynamic performance of the bypass exhaust system is key to the success of future civil turbofan engines. This is due to current design trends in civil aviation dictating continuous improvement in propulsive efficiency by reducing specific thrust and increasing bypass ratio (BPR). This paper aims to develop an integrated framework targeting the automatic design optimization of separate-jet exhaust systems for future aero-engine architectures. The core method of the proposed approach is based on a standalone exhaust design tool comprising modules for cycle analysis, geometry parameterization, mesh generation, and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) flow solution. A comprehensive optimization strategy has been structured comprising design space exploration (DSE), response surface modeling (RSM) algorithms, as well as state-of-the-art global/genetic optimization methods. The overall framework has been deployed to optimize the aerodynamic design of two civil aero-engines with separate-jet exhausts, representative of current and future engine architectures, respectively. A set of optimum exhaust designs have been obtained for each investigated engine and subsequently compared against their reciprocal baselines established using the current industry practice in terms of exhaust design. The obtained results indicate that the optimization could lead to designs with significant increase in net propulsive force, compared to their respective notional baselines. It is shown that the developed approach is implicitly able to identify and mitigate undesirable flow-features that may compromise the aerodynamic performance of the exhaust system. The proposed method enables the aerodynamic design of optimum separate-jet exhaust systems for a user-specified engine cycle, using only a limited set of standard nozzle design variables. Furthermore, it enables to quantify, correlate, and understand the aerodynamic behavior of any separate-jet exhaust system for any specified engine architecture. Hence, the overall framework constitutes an enabling technology toward the design of optimally configured exhaust systems, consequently leading to increased overall engine thrust and reduced specific fuel consumption (SFC).

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by Rolls-Royce plc
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Notionally defined axisymmetric geometry for a very-high-BPR turbofan engine with separate-jet exhausts

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Upper-level overview of the developed software architecture

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Geometric design approach employed in GEMINI

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Developed framework for DSE and optimization

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Two-dimensional axisymmetric geometries of investigated engine architectures: (a) design representative of future engine architectures (E1) and (b) design representative of current engine architectures (E2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mach number contours for the baseline exhaust system designs at DP midcruise conditions: (a) design representative of future engine architectures (E1) and (b) design representative of current engine architectures (E2)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Design space definition: (a) bypass duct outer line position ybpout=Rbpout/Lductin, (b) ybpin=Rbpin/Lductin, (c) nozzle CP to exit area ratio Aratio=ACP/Aexit and length ratio κlenin=LinNozzle/h2, (d) outer line slope at the CP θCPout, (e) CP inner/outer curvature radius ratio κCPin/out=RcurveCP,in/out/h2, (f) core cowl length lcrcowl=Lcrcowl/Rfan, (g) zone 3 vent exit position lz3exit=Lz3exit/Lcrcowl, (h) zone 3 exit Mach number Mz3exit, and (i) core cowl angle θcrcowl and outer line angle θnozzleout

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Linear correlation estimation between design variables and performance metrics: (a) future E1 engine and (b) current E2 engine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

LOO cross-validation applied to the structured surrogate models for the E1 future engine model: (a) bypass nozzle discharge coefficient CDBypass and (b) overall thrust coefficient CVOverall

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

LOO cross-validation applied to the structured surrogate models for the E2 current engine model: (a) bypass nozzle discharge coefficient CDBypass and (b) overall thrust coefficient CVOverall

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Evolutionary computation for the optimization of CVOverall—convergence process

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Comparison between the baseline and optimum exhaust designs for the future E1 engine architecture: (a) baseline exhaust design and (b) exhaust design optimized for CVOverall

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison between the baseline and optimum exhaust designs for the current E2 engine architecture: (a) baseline exhaust design and (b) exhaust design optimized for CVOverall

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Related

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