Design Innovation Paper: Design Innovation Paper

Optimizing Separate Exhaust Turbofans for Cruise Specific Fuel Consumption

[+] Author and Article Information
Syed J. Khalid

Gas Turbine Systems Solutions, LLC,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
e-mail: sjkhalid@hotmail.com

Contributed by the Turbomachinery Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received May 9, 2017; final manuscript received July 12, 2017; published online August 16, 2017. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(12), 125001 (Aug 16, 2017) (7 pages) Paper No: GTP-17-1162; doi: 10.1115/1.4037316 History: Received May 09, 2017; Revised July 12, 2017

Cruise specific fuel consumption (SFC) of turbofan engines is a key metric for increasing airline profitability and for reducing CO2 emissions. Although increasing design bypass ratio (BPR) of separate exhaust turbofan configurations improves cruise SFC, further improvements can be obtained with online control actuated variable geometry modulations of bypass nozzle throat area, core nozzle throat area, and compressor variable vanes (CVV/CVG). The scope of this paper is to show only the benefits possible, and the process used in determining those benefits, and not to suggest any particular control algorithm for searching the best combination of the control effectors. A parametric cycle study indicated that the effector modulations could increase the cruise BPR, core efficiency, transmission efficiency, propulsive efficiency, and ideal velocity ratio resulting in a cruise SFC improvement of as much as 2.6% depending upon the engine configuration. The changes in these metrics with control effector variations will be presented. Scheduling of CVV is already possible in legacy digital controls; perturbation to this schedule and modulation of nozzle areas should be explored in light of the low bandwidth requirements at steady-state cruise conditions.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Frost, T. H. , 1966, “ Practical Bypass Mixing Schemes for Fan Jet Aero Engines,” Aeronaut. Q., pp. 141–159. https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAECourses/aae537/Fall%202007/Frost%20paper
Khalid, S. J. , 2016, “ Aerothermodynamic Benefits of Mixed Exhaust Turbofans,” AIAA Paper No. 2016-4641.
Kurzke, J. , 2015, “ GasTurb 12 Software,” GasTurb GmbH, Aachen, Germany. http://www.gasturb.de/Gtb12Manual/GasTurb12.pdf
Khalid, S. J. , 2014, “ Gas Turbine Aerothermodynamics and Performance Calculations,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Khalid, S. J. , 2016, “ Performance Enhancement of Subsonic Turbofans,” SAE Paper No. 2016-01-2018.
Michel, U. , 2011, “ The Benefits of Variable Area Fan Nozzles on Turbofan Engines,” AIAA Paper No. 2011-226.
Khalid, S. J. , 1992, “ Role of Dynamic Simulation in Fighter Engine Design and Development,” J. Propul. Power, 8(1), pp. 219–226. [CrossRef]
Khalid, S. J. , 1998, “ Investigating Turbofan Engine Internal Aerodynamics,” SAE Paper No. 965630.
Litt, J. S. , Simon, D. L. , Garg, S. , Guo, T.-H. , Mercer, C. , Millar, R. , Behbahani, A. , Bajwa, A. , and Tensen, D. T. , 2004, “ Survey of Intelligent Control and Health Management Technologies for Aircraft Propulsion Systems,” J. Aerosp. Comput. Inf. Commun., 1(12), pp. 543–563. [CrossRef]
Khalid, S. J. , 2015, “ Gas Turbine Engine Performance Seeking Control,” Rolls-Royce Corporation, London, U.S. Patent No. US20150267619 A1. http://www.google.tl/patents/US20150267619
Brunell, B. J. , Mathews, H. K. Jr. , and Kumar, A. , 2004, “ Adaptive Model-Based Control Systems and Methods for Controlling a Gas Turbine,” General Electric Company, Boston, MA, U.S. Patent No. US6823675 B2. https://www.google.ch/patents/US6823675
Khalid, S. J. , and Faherty, M. F. , 1993, “ Propulsion System Flight Test Analysis Using Modeling Techniques,” Int. J. Turbo Jet Engines, 10(1), pp. 31–43. [CrossRef]
Khalid, S. J. , Sokhey, J. , Chakka, P. , and Pierluissi, A. , 2010, “ Ejector/Engine/Nacelle Integration for Increased Thrust Minus Drag,” AIAA Paper No. 2010-6501.
Khalid, S. J. , 2013, “ Gas Turbine Engine With Ejector,” Rolls-Royce Corporation, London, U.S. Patent No. US8572947 B2. http://www.google.ch/patents/US8572947
Khalid, S. J. , 2014, “ Gas Turbine Engine With Ejector,” Rolls-Royce Corporation, London, U.S. Patent No. US8844264 B2. http://www.google.ch/patents/US8844264
Simon, D. L. , and Garg, S. , 2009, “ Optimal Tuner Selection for Kalman Filter-Based Aircraft Engine Performance Estimation,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 132(3), p. 031601.
Volopini, A. , and Brotherton, T. , 2008, “ Empirical Tuning of an On board Real Time Gas Turbine Engine Model,” United Technologies Corporation, Farmington, CT, U.S. Patent No. US7472100 B2. http://www.google.ch/patents/US7472100
Smith, R. H. , Chisholm, J. D. , and Stewart, J. F. , 1991, “ Optimizing Aircraft Performance With Adaptive, Integrated Flight/Propulsion Control,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 113(1), pp. 87–94. [CrossRef]
Simon, D. , and Simon, D. L. , 2005, “ Aircraft Turbofan Engine Health Estimation Using Constrained Kalman Filtering,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 127(2), pp. 323–328. [CrossRef]
Simon, D. L. , 2006, “ Kalman Filter With Inequality Constraints for Turbofan Engine Health Estimation,” IEE Proc.: Control Theory Appl., 153(3), pp. 371–378. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

High level overview of design point calculation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Separate exhaust turbofan schematic showing station numbers and secondary flows

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Separate exhaust, twin spool turbofan engine

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Nozzle area variations, BPRdes = 8, FN = 10,000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Fan operating line migration with bypass nozzle area increase at cruise: design BPR = 12

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Booster operating point marches toward stall line with bypass nozzle opening: design BPR = 12

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Effect of bypass nozzle area variation on cruise HPT efficiency: design BPR = 12 configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Bypass nozzle and CVV variations, BPRdes = 8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Depiction of compressor variable geometry scheduling. Note: CVV/CVG angle is the angle IGVs subtend from the axial direction. The downstream few stators are ganged with the IGV's but their turning is less than that of IGV's.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Changes in core efficiency with bypass nozzle and CVV Variations: design BPR = 8 configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of bypass nozzle and CVV/CVG variations on Transmission efficiency: design BPR = 8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Booster operating point excursion during bypass nozzle and CVV variations: design BPR = 8 configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

HPC operating line during variations: design BPR = 8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Minimum excursion of LPT operating point during bypass nozzle and CVV variation: design BPR = 8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

SFC improvement with bypass nozzle and CVV variations: design BPR = 12 configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effect of bypass nozzle area opening on cruise SFC in the case of design BPR = 12 configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Design BPR = 12, bypass nozzle variation only at cruise

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Design BPR = 12, effect of bypass nozzle area increase on transmission efficiency



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