Local 149654
Local 149654
Local 149654
ISABE-2011-1314
Tomas Grönstedt
Chalmers University of Technology
Department of Applied Mechanics
Fluid dynamics division
SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
Abstract Nomenclature
BP R Bypass Ratio
This paper carries out an CO2 Carbon Dioxide
optimization study for a conventional DDT F Direct Drive Turbofan
and a geared turbofan engine by FPR Fan Pressure ratio
minimizing CO2 emissions for a GT F Geared Turbofan engine
given aircraft mission. Aircraft HP C High Pressure Compressor
performance and nacelle design data HP T High Pressure Turbine
have been generated with a preliminary IP C Intermediate Pressure Compressor
design and analysis tool for aircraft. LP T Low Pressure Turbine
Engine gas path design, mechanical OP R Overall Pressure Ratio
layout and weight estimation as well RP M Revolutions Per Minute
as performance were modeled using a SF C Specific fuel consumption
generic tool for gas turbine design,
analysis and optimization. Introduction
Although earlier studies have
been made where the specific fuel One of the main drivers in the
consumption for the different engine development of aircraft engines is to
configurations have been compared [1] minimize the environmental impact of
there is a need for a study where air transportation. It is commonly
the relative merits of a geared and acknowledged that combustion of
a conventional turbofan are compared hydrocarbons, leading to production of
for a given mission. carbon dioxide contributes to global
Results show that the geared warming. A relevant question is
turbofan can reach a 3% lower fuel therefore which engine configuration
consumption for the calculated for a given application has the
mission. lowest fuel consumption. Two of
the main contenders to power the
next generation short to mid range
narrow body aircraft are the geared
and the direct drive turbo fan. These
configurations are also two of the
alternatives that have come furthest
Copyright c 2011 by Linda Larsson. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
with permission.
2
ISABE-2011-1314
Copyright c 2011 by Linda Larsson. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
with permission.
3
ISABE-2011-1314
0.2
is 1225 K in hot day take off. The
maximum combustor outlet temperature 0
is 1850 K. −0.2
11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15
For the compressor outlet the BPR
maximum allowable temperature is
assumed to be around 970 K. Another
limitation is the minimum compressor Figure 1: Mission fuel burn
blade height. If the blades of the for varying bypass ratio with
compressor reaches below approximately corresponding optimal fan pressure
12 mm the tip clearance losses will ratio for a constant take off OPR for
begin to affect the efficiency of the the GTF engine
engine. What minimum blade height
and allowable compressor outlet
temperature that is chosen affects the This is because the limit in stage
permissible maximum overall pressure loading for the LPT is reached and
ratio (OPR) significantly. another stage is added at BPR 14.5
thus adding weight to the engine.
Optimization
In Figure 2 the SFC for varying
Three main parameters are varied bypass ratio is shown. When moving
when optimizing the engines. The from 13.5 to 12.5 in BPR the cruise
bypass ratio (BPR), the fan pressure SCF increases by 0.6 percent, around
ratio (FPR) and the overall pressure twice the variation of fuel burn. The
ratio. For a range of OPR the SFC also continues to improve with a
variation of BPR with corresponding higher BPR.
optimal FPR has been studied. When For the DDTF engine the fuel burn
BPR increases the fan diameter also curve with varying BPR is more
increases. This leads to increased discontinuous than for the GTF as
drag and weight. Thus it is not can be seen in Figure 3. This is due
possible to just look at the specific to higher stage loading of the low
fuel consumption (SFC) in cruise to pressure turbine. The number of LPT
judge the merits of the engine. In stages varies more, resulting in step
this mission optimization the weight changes in weight. When moving from
and nacelle drag are accounted for. 13.5 in bypass ratio to 12.5 the fuel
Because of the installation effects burn is increased by 0.2 % for the
the optimum fuel burn curve differs DDTF.
from, and is flatter than, the cruise Even though the mission optimization
SFC-curve. gives an optimum BPR and FPR it is
In Figure 1 it can be seen that when worth considering going to a slightly
moving from BPR 13.5 to 12.5 the fuel lower BPR than the optimum if the
burn increases by 0.3 %. There is a part count can be reduced. This is
discontinuity in the fuel burn curve. the case for the DDTF engine. When
Copyright c 2011 by Linda Larsson. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
with permission.
4
ISABE-2011-1314
2 1.4
1.2
1.5
1
0.8
0.5 0.6
0.4
0
0.2
−0.5
0
−1 −0.2
11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15
BPR BPR
Optimization Results
choosing a BPR of 12.5 instead of
the fuel optimal 13.5 the number of In Table 2 the performance
LPT-stages is reduced from 9 to 8 parameters for the chosen engine
stages. designs are presented. To be noted
Figure 4 shows the optimal is that the chosen engine design for
combination of BPR and FPR for a the DDTF engine differs slightly from
range of OPR. It can be seen that the the fuel optimal configuration seen
fuel burn decreases with increasing in Figure 3. This is due to fewer
OPR. There is a practical limit to turbine stages in the chosen design.
how much the pressure ratio can be Results show the SFC is 2.2% better
increased. Higher pressure ratio for the GTF. This translates for this
gives decreasing blade height of the mission into 3% lower fuel burn.
last stage HPC. In this comparison the It can be seen that the optimal
same overall pressure ratio is chosen bypass ratio does not differ
for both engine configurations in take significantly between the two engines.
off. Although in practice it may be In the DDTF configuration the booster
possible for the GTF to reach a higher does not contribute significantly
OPR. Since the rotational speed of the to the OPR. This results in a higher
GTF IPC is significantly higher than pressure ratio for the DDTF HPC. The
for the conventional engine, the stage number of HPC stages is therefore
pressure ratio is higher. Thus a higher. The HPT cooling flow does not
greater part of the over all pressure differ significantly between the two
ratio can be obtained in the IPC. This engines since they operate at the same
leads to a lower HPT loading. Because OPR. The cooling flow temperatures
of this the maximum HPC pressure ratio are therefore not very different. If
for a 2 stage turbine is reached at a different pressure ratios for the two
lower OPR for the DDTF. engines were to be chosen the cooling
flow requirements would differ.
Copyright c 2011 by Linda Larsson. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
with permission.
5
ISABE-2011-1314
DDTF GTF
2.5
Total engine weight [kg] 3100 2880
2 Fan weight [kg] 888 906
1.5
Booster/IPC weight [kg] 66 55
HPC weight [kg] 87 48
1
HPT weight [kg] 66 78
0.5 LPT weight [kg] 555 221
0 Gearbox weight [kg] - 170
LP-shaft weight [kg] 44 18
−0.5
Fan diameter [m] 1.84 1.87
−1 Nacelle length [m] 3.8 3.4
30 35 40 45
OPR Blade height
last stage HPC [mm] 12.3 13.5
Figure 4: Mission fuel burn optimal
BPR and FPR for a range of OPR for the
GTF engine of the last stage. This is due to
heavier discs in the geared turbofan
engine. The discs are on average 50%
heavier than the discs in the low
The chosen engine configuration for speed turbine. Despite the heavier
the DDTF engine has 4 booster stages, discs the effect of stage count on the
9 HPC stages, 2 HPT stages and 8 LPT turbine weight is a larger contributor
stages. The GTF design consists of 3 to weight.
IPC stages, 6 HPC stages, 2 HPT stages The difference in fan weight is due
and 3 LPT stages. to the slightly smaller diameter of
As is shown in Table 3 the the direct drive engine. The DDTF
optimization results in a 220 kg booster is somewhat heavier than the
lighter GTF engine. The main IPC for the GTF. This is due to the
difference between the two engines additional fourth stage. The HPC is
is the LPT weight. The average almost 40 kg heavier for the DDTF,
weight per stage is higher for the this is mainly due to the difference
GTF LPT despite the 16 % lower radius in stage count.
Because of the higher rotational
speed of the LP-shaft in the geared
configuration the torque is less.
Table 2: Performance of final engine
This makes it possible to design
configurations. The values are given
a slimmer and thus a much lighter
for take off unless stated otherwise
DDTF GTF shaft. This also means that the inner
BPR 12.5 13.5 diameter of the HPC may be decreased
further for a GTF since less space
T3 [K] 902 905
need to be available for the shaft.
T4 [K] 1850 1850
The bore radius in the HPT disc may be
FPR 1.47 1.45
decreased as well.
IPC PR 1.45 2.5
The reason for the lower blade
HPC PR 18.76 11.03
height of the last stage in the HPC
OPR 40 40
compressor for the DDTF is that the
HPT cooling % of W25 14.4 14.6 smallest possible radius and thus
SFC mid cruise base -2.2 % highest possible hub tip ratio is
Mission fuel burn base -3.0 % limited by the HPT stage loading.
Copyright c 2011 by Linda Larsson. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
with permission.
6
ISABE-2011-1314
Copyright c 2011 by Linda Larsson. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
with permission.
7
some point begin to drop rapidly due dependent on reaching the envisioned
to increased tip clearance losses. component efficiencies.
Exactly when this loss begins to
affect the efficiency is not evaluated Acknowledgment
in this paper. For this study a fixed
blade height limit is assumed and not I would like to thank dr. Anders
exceeded. The third limitation is Lundbladh at Volvo Aero for his
the maximum stage loading of the HPT. valuable comments and insights.
Especially in the DDTF configuration
where the HPC pressure ratio is high References
this might be a limiting factor. If
any conclusions about the optimal [1] Kurzke, J., 2009. ‘‘Fundamental
OPR are to be made and if it differs differences between conventional
between the two engine types more and geared turbofans’’.
detailed studies of these effects need Proceedings of ASME Turbo
to be made. Expo: Power for Land, Sea and
Air(GT2009-59745).
Conclusions
[2] Avellán, R., and Grönstedt, T.,
As was also concluded by Kurzke 2007. ‘‘Preliminary design
[1] one benefit of the geared of subsonic transport aircraft
configuration compared to the direct engines’’. ISABE 2007-1195.
drive configuration for a high
bypass ratio engine is the lower part [3] Grönstedt, T., 2000. ‘‘Development
count for the GTF. The number of low of methods for analysis and
pressure turbine stages increases more optimization of complex jet engine
rapidly with increasing BPR in the systems’’. PhD thesis, Chalmers
DDTF than in the GTF. If the direct University of Technology.
operating cost had been taken into [4] Kyprianidis, K. G., Au, D.,
account in the optimization, the DDTF Ogaji, S. O., and Grönstedt,
configuration could have ended up T., 2009. ‘‘Low pressure system
at a lower bypass ratio and overall component advancements and ist
pressure ratio. Although the fuel impact on future turbofan engine
consumption would have increased emissions’’. ISABE 2009-1276.
this would have been outweighed by
the reduction of maintenance cost and [5] Isight 3.5. www.simulia.com.
manufacturing cost due to lower part
count. [6] Grieb, H., 2004. Projektierung Von
A mission optimization was Turboflugtriebwerken. Birkhauser.
performed, including effects of engine
weight, nacelle drag and differences
in component efficiencies. It is
concluded that there is a potential
fuel benefit for the geared turbofan
engine. A part of the reason for
this benefit is that the GTF is a less
heavy engine. The largest contributor
to the difference is the possibility
of higher component efficiencies
due to lower stage loading in the
GTF. This also means that the fuel
consumption benefits are highly