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

CITATION

READS

453

3 authors, including:
Abhay Pashilkar
National Aerospace Laboratories
61 PUBLICATIONS 173 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Abhay Pashilkar

Retrieved on: 24 August 2016

Proceedings of GT 2005
ASME Turbo Expo 2005: Power for Land, Sea and Air
June 6-9, 2005, Reno-Tahoe, Nevada, USA

GT2005-68244
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.

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 highpressure 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.

Copyright 2005 by ASME

Otates [1] did not consider the effect of afterburner in his study
while Liew, et al [2] discussed the performance analysis of a
two spool, separate exhaust turbofan with interstage turbine
burners. Liu, et al [3] performed a thermodynamic analysis
wherein different Turbine-burner engines are shown to provide
significantly higher specific thrust with none or only small
increase in thrust specific fuel consumption compared to
conventional engines. Still the detailed parametric
thermodynamic study revealing the comparative performance
results for all the possible configurations of turbofan engine
employing transpiration cooling of turbine blades and
considering the temperature effect on specific heat of air/gas is
lacking. The present work is an attempt in this direction. This
work focuses the design point performance for a class of
turbofan engines employing the transpiration cooling of turbine
blades which may be useful for the design engineers in the
comparative cycle selection with its operating parameters for a
particular need.
In this work, analysis of two and three spool turbofan
engines with or without mixing and/ afterburning based on the
first law of thermodynamics was carried out by modeling their
various elements such as gas, fan, compressor, combustor,
cooled gas turbine, mixing chamber and jet nozzles (cold, hot
and mixed).
The main independent thermodynamic parameters, which
affect the performance of turbofan engine, are overall pressure
ratio (rpC), turbine inlet temperature (TIT), bypass ratio (BPR),
fan pressure ratio (rpFAN), blade cooling techniques, cruising
speed, altitude, configuration and safe blade surface
temperature.
The main dependent parameters included in the study are
specific thrust, fuel-air ratio, specific fuel consumption and
propulsive efficiency.
NOMENCLATURE
A = area
Alt = altitude
BPR= bypass ratio
C = constant
C = speed of sound
Ca = velocity of air at inlet
Cp = specific heat at constant pressure
F = thrust (uninstalled)
Fcold = thrust due to cold stream
Fhot = thrust due to hot stream
FAR= fuel air ratio
h = specific enthalpy
HP = high pressure
IP = intermediate pressure
k = mass transfer coefficient
LP = low pressure
LHV=lower heating value of fuel
m = mass flow rate of fluid
m a = mass flow rate of air at inlet

m bp = bypass air flow rate

(kg/s)

m co = core mass flow rate

m f = fuel mass flow rate

(kg/s)
(kg/s)

M = Mach number
p = total pressure
ps = static pressure
rpC = compressor pressure ratio (overall)
rpLC = low pressure compressor pressure ratio
rpFAN= fan pressure ratio
R = characteristic gas constant
s = specific entropy
SFC= specific fuel consumption
T = total temperature
Ts = static temperature
TIT = turbine inlet temperature
W = specific work
Greek Symbols
p = pressure loss
0 = overall cooling effectiveness
= specific heat ratio
= density
= efficiency (%)
Suffixes
a
= air
ab = afterburner
amb = ambient
ax = auxiliary
b
= burner
bl = blade
bp = bypass
c
= compressor (FAN, LP or HP)
cl = coolant, cooling
co = core
comb= combustor (burner or afterburner)
cr = critical
d
= diffuser
e
= at exit of component
ec = energy convertion
f
= fuel
g
= gas
i
= at inlet of component
t
= turbine (LP, IP or HP)
m = mechanical
mt = momentum
mx = mixer
n
= nozzle
o
= overall
pc = polytropic for compressor
pt = polytropic for turbine
p
= pressure
prop = propulsive
sl = sea level
sg = surface for gas heat transfer

(m2)
(m)

(m/s)
(m/s)
(kJ/kgK)
(N)
(N)
(N)
(kJ/kg)
(kg/m2s)
(kJ/kgK)
(kg/s)
(kg/s)

(bar)
(bar)

(kJ/kgK)
(kg/Nh)
(K)
(K)
(K)
(kJ/kg)

Copyright 2005 by ASME

1, 2, 3, 4, etc. =states in cycle

Cold Nozzle

Inlet Fan

ENGINE CONFIGURATION
Figures 1 (a) and 2 (a) show the schematic of the two spool
turbofan engine with mixed exhaust and afterburner and three
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.
HP & LP turbines
High-pressure
compressor Combustor
Mixer

Fan

Inlet

Free
stream

Nozzle

Afterburner

Free
stream
0

LP and HP
Compressors

6
7

5
62

Fig. 1 (a) Schematic representation of two-spool turbofan engine, with mixed

exhaust and afterburner

5 6 7 8

0 1
2
10
Fig. 2 (a) Schematic representation of three-spool turbofan engine, with
separate exhausts and no afterburner

Bypass Duct
1

HP, IP and LP
Turbines
Hot Nozzle
Combustor

6
7

2
9

9
10

0
s

6 - 62 Temperature drop in mixer

62 - 7 Pressure drop in mixer

Fig. 2 (b) T-s representation of three-spool turbofan engine, with separate

exhausts and no afterburner

s
Fig. 1 (b) T-s representation of two-spool turbofan engine, with mixed exhaust
and afterburner

MODELLINGS AND GOVERNING EQUATIONS

Thermodynamic analysis of a turbofan engine is carried
out by modeling its various components.
Atmospheric Model: Since the aircraft operating range varies
from ground level up to the height of 11 km or more, the
atmospheric air temperature and pressure varies according to
altitude (Alt).
For Alt <=11 km, i.e. below stratopause
Tamb = Tsl -0.00649Alt
(1)
pamb = psl (Tamb Tsl )

5.256

(2)

Gas Model: The specific heat of air /gas is assumed as a

function of temperature and FAR which is expressed in the
form of polynomial [6].

Cp = A0 + A1Tz + A2Tz2 + ... + A8Tz8

+ ( FAR (1 + FAR ) ) ( B0 + B1Tz + B2Tz2 + ... + B7Tz7 ) (3)

where A0 , A1 ,..., A8 and B0 , B1 ,..., B7 are constt. and Tz = Ts 1000

Diffuser Model: Ram action takes place in diffuser. The

concept of diffuser efficiency is incorporated in the model to
account for the inefficiency of diffuser caused by aerodynamic
losses.
The inlet and exit conditions of diffuser are expressed by,
At inlet,
Td ,i Tsd .i = Td ,i Tamb = 1 + ( ( a 1) 2 ) M 2 d ,i
a ( a 1)

pd ,i psd .i = pd ,i pamb = (Td ,i Tsd .i )

T
= d ,i
Tsd .i

, for M d ,i 1

(4)
(5)

a ( a 1)

(1 0.075(M d ,i 1)1.35 ) , for M d ,i > 1 (6)

Copyright 2005 by ASME

At exit,
Td , e = Td ,i

pd ,e pSd ,e = 1 + d ( ( d 1) 2 ) M 2d ,i

(8)

where d = ( Td,e Tsd .i ) ( Td ,e Tsd .i )

(9)

Fan, Low Pressure and High Pressure Compressor Model:

Fan, low-pressure compressor and high-pressure compressor
are subjected to various aerodynamic losses which are
accounted here by introducing the concept of polytropic
efficiency.
The mass and energy balance yield the compressor work
m co ,i = m co ,e + m cl
(10)

LHV = m g ,e he m i hi

pcomb,e = pcomb,i pcomb

Asg, Tbl

Fig. 3 (a) Transpiration air-cooling model for a single row of gas turbine

Cooled Turbine Model: There are two (HP and LP) and three
(HP, IP, and LP) turbines in two and three spool engines
respectively. Aerodynamic losses are accounted by introducing
polytropic efficiency.
Auxiliary power requirement for running accessories is
tapped out from high-pressure turbine.
Wc + Wax = mWt
(16)

a-b polytropic expansion process

b-c heat transfer process
c-d coolant mixing process
d-e isenthalpic process

a
p
i

b
d

pe

c
e

p'e
pe -p'e =

(14)

(15)

m cl ,i + m g ,i = m g ,e

m cl ,i , Tcl ,i

(11)

Combustor Model: Combustor (burner and afterburner) suffer

from inefficiency and pressure loss. They are modeled by
introducing the concept of combustor efficiency and percentage
pressure drop of combustor inlet pressure.
The mass and energy balance are given by
m g ,e = m i + m fcomb
(12)
comb

Tg,e

Ag

Wc = m co,e he + m cl hcl m co ,i hi

comb m f

m g ,i ,Tg,i

(7)

pressure loss
due to coolant mixing

s
Fig. 3 (b) T-s representation of the expansion path in a single cooled row of
turbine with various losses due to coolant mixing

Mixer Model: In the mixer, there is a mixing of hot and cold

stream causing mixing losses, which are accounted by
considering stagnation pressure loss. The final mixture is
calculated by enthalpy balance of two streams.
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

= auxiliary power requirement for accessories

Here, it is assumed that turbines are cooled by transpiration
air-cooling technique. The model is based on the work of
Horlock, et al [7], which is shown in figure 3 (a). The complete
expansion path in a single cooled row of turbine with various
losses due to coolant mixing is shown in figure 3 (b).
The ratio of mass of coolant to gas needed for transpiration
air-cooling is expressed as
m cl m g ,i = C ln 1 (1 0 ) , where C =0.03
(17)

Jet Nozzle Model: The jet nozzle suffers from the aerodynamic
losses mainly due to skin friction, which is modeled by
introducing the concept of nozzle efficiency [5]. The nozzle
may be choked or unchoked.
a) Choked Nozzle
The critical pressure ratio is expressed as

0 = (Tg ,i Tbl ) (Tg ,i Tcl ,i )

(18)

It is assumed that the temperature of the coolant does not

fully reach the temperature of the metal before it leaves the
blade, i.e., Tcl , e < Tbl .Hence, the concept of a cooling efficiency
is introduced as
cl = ( Tcl ,e Tcl ,i ) ( Tbl Tcl ,i )

(19)

The total pressure losses in mixing of coolant and mainstream

are expressed as
p p = 0.07 m cl ,i m g ,i
(20)
Bypass-duct Model: This is modeled by considering pressure
loss only and no temperature loss is considered.

(22)

n ( n 1)

pcr pn ,i = 1 n ( n 1) ( n + 1)
(23)
if pn ,i psd ,i > pn ,i pcr , then nozzle is choked and the

calculation is based on following equations.

Tsn ,e = Tcr = 2 ( n + 1) Tn ,i
psn ,e = pcr

(24)

(25)

The jet velocity is given by

Cn,e = n RTsn, e

(26)

The mass flow rate is expressed by

m g , e = ( AC )n ,e

(27)

where n,e = psn ,e RTsn ,e

(28)

b) Unchoked Nozzle
If pn ,i psd ,i < pn,i pcr , then nozzle is unchoked and calculation

is performed using following equations.

Copyright 2005 by ASME

Tn ,i Tsn , e = nTn ,i 1 1 ( pn ,i pamb )

( n 1) n

(29)
(30)

The jet velocity is given by

Cn , e = 2Cpg (Tn ,i Tsn , e )

(31)

Table 1: Input data for analysis

Component
Parameters
Sea level condition
Tsl=288K, Psl =1.013 bar,
R=287 kJ/kgK, m a =1 kg/s
Diffuser
= 93.0 %
d

Compressor (FAN, LP and HP)

pc = 90.0 % , m = 99.0%

b = 98.0 % ,

Burner
Fuel ( Diesel)

pb=2.5 % of entry pressure

LHV=42000 kJ/kg
0

T f = 15 C

Turbine (LP, IP and HP)

pt = 90.0 % , Tbl = 1123 K ,

cl = 80.0 %

By-pass duct
Mixer
Afterburner

pbp=1.0 % of entry pressure

pmx=2.0 % of entry pressure
ab = 98.0 % ,

Nozzle (cold, hot and mixed)

pab=2.5 % of entry pressure

n = 95.0 %

PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
The performance parameters are expressed as follows [5].
1) Specific Thrust: Under different nozzle conditions it is
expressed as given below.
If nozzle is choked, the net specific thrust is comprised of
following two components, namely
a) Momentum thrust
Fmt = m g ,i ( Cn ,e Ca )
(32)
where Ca = M d ,i amb RTamb

b) Pressure thrust
Fp = An ,e ( pn ,e pamb )
Thus, net specific thrust,
F = Fmt + Fp

(33)
(34)

(35)

If nozzle is unchoked, net sp. thrust is directly expressed as

F = m g ,i Cn ,e
(36)
For engine configuration with separate exhausts, specific
thrust is calculated separately for cold and hot stream and then
both are added to yield total specific thrust, i.e.
F = Fcold + Fhot
(37)
2) Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption
3) Propulsive Efficiency
4) Efficiency of Energy Conversion

5) Overall Efficiency
Using above models and governing equations, parametric
study has been carried out by constructing a code in MATLAB
and using the input data given in Table 1.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Figure 4 shows the variation of coolant requirement with
TIT for cooled rows of turbine blades. As expected, it increases
with TIT linearly with higher value in first row stator and
lowest in the last rotor.
0.035

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

psn ,e = pamb

0.03

Row 1 of HPT
Row 2 of HPT
Row 1 of IPT
Row 2 of IPT
Row 1 of LPT
Row 2 of LPT

M
= 0.9
Alt
= 11000 m
BPR = 5
rpC
= 24
rpFAN = 2
rpLC = 2

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURE, T I T

Fig. 4 Variation of turbine coolant requirement

( m

cl ,i

m g ,i )

2000

with TIT for

three-spool engine

Figures 5, 6 and 8, 9 depict the variation of specific fuel

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
SFC and higher specific thrust for all cases such as separate
exhausts, mixed exhaust and mixed exhaust with afterburner at
all rpC and TIT considered. This is because of the fact that due
to three spools, compressor pressure and expansion ratio are
better distributed and they may be run at different speeds
resulting in higher jet velocity as compared to two-spool in all
cases.
At any rpC, increase in TIT causes an increase in SFC and
specific thrust whereas an increase in rpC at any TIT decreases
SFC and initially results in an increase in specific thrust but
eventually leads to a decrease; and the optimum pressure for
maximum thrust increases as the value of TIT is increased. At
the same rpC and TIT lower SFC is found to occur with threespool, mixed exhaust engine while the higher specific thrust is
exhibited by three-spool, mixed exhaust with afterburner.
Figures 5, 7 and 8, 10 show the variation of propulsive
efficiency with specific thrust for various rpC and TIT for all
chosen configurations of two and three spool turbofan engines,
respectively. In all cases at any TIT propulsive efficiency
increases with rpC while at any rpC, propulsive efficiency
decreases with increase in TIT. But specific thrust, at any TIT,
initially increases with increase in rpC and then decreases.
Among all configurations, at any rpC and TIT, propulsive
efficiency is higher in the case of three-spool engine with

Copyright 2005 by ASME

separate exhausts while slight higher specific thrust is found to

occur in the case of two-spool, mixed exhaust with afterburner.
2000
0.78

TIT

TIT

0.11

0.76

1700

10

0.1

0.74

1600
1500

0.09

0.72

1400
10

rpC =
0.08

15

0.7

2000

1600

1500
1400
rpC = 10

0.06
200

210

220

230

240

20
25

250

0.66
270

260

1800

2000

1900

10 = rpC

0.085

TIT = 2000
1900
1800

0.08
1600

1400

15
20

1700

25
30
35

1500

0.075 rpC = 10
40
0.07

2-Spool, Mixed exhaust,

With Afterburner

15

0.065

0.08

0.075

0.07

0.05
200

0.065

1500 1600

1700

1800

2000
10 =rpC

1900

20
2000

15
25
30
35

1400
10

3-Spool, Mixed exhausts,

With Afterburner
0.06
15
0.055

rpC = 20
25

0.045
250

2-Spool, Mixed exhaust,

No Afterburner

3-Spool, Mixed exhausts,

No Afterburner

30
35
40
300

350

400

450

500

550

600

SPECIFIC THRUST (N)

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Fig. 6 Variation of thrust specific fuel consumption with specific thrust for twospool engines, with mixed exhaust and a) no afterburner and b) with afterburner
0.64

Fig. 9 Variation of thrust specific fuel consumption with specific thrust for
three-spool engines, with mixed exhaust and a) no afterburner and b) with
afterburner
0.7

950

40
TIT

rpC

= 0.9
= 11000 m
=5
=2
= 0.005 kg/s

900

15
1900

20
25
30
850
35
40

1800
2000
1700

0.58

800

2-Spool, Mixed exhaust,

No Afterburner

1600
1500

0.56

750

1400
TIT=

1400

0.54

700

0.65

2000
40

0.52

250

300

350

400

450

0.6

1400
40
rpC
10

35
1700
2000

3-Spool, Mixed exhaust,

No Afterburner
TIT = 1400

40

800

1600

1500

1400

700
TIT
2000

650

40

3-Spool, Mixed exhaust,

With Afterburner

10
550

900

15
20
25
30

1800

TIT

rpC

500

rpC = 10
2000
1900

0.55

TIT

2-Spool, Mixed exhaust,

With Afterburner

M
= 0.9
Alt
= 11000
BPR = 5
rpFAN = 2
rpLC = 2
mfab = 0.005 kg/s

10

2000

10
0.6

1000

rpC =

AFTERBURNER EXIT TEMP

M
Alt
BPR
rpFAN
mfab

1400

0.5
200

1400

40

40

SPECIFIC THRUST (N)

0.62

TIT=

1500

0.05

30
35

0.65
270

260

1800

25
0.055

250

T I T = 1700
1600

20

0.06

240

1900

PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY

THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

1500
1700

M
= 0.9
Alt
= 11000 m
BPR = 5
rpFAN = 2
rpLC = 2
mfab = 0.005 Kg/s

0.085

1400
1600

230

0.09

THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

TIT =
= 0.9
= 11000 m
=5
=2
= 0.005 Kg/s

220

Fig. 8 Variation of thrust specific fuel consumption and propulsive efficiency

with specific thrust for three-spool engines, with separate exhausts and no
afterburner

0.1

0.09

3-Spool, Separate exhausts,

No Afterburner

SPECIFIC THRUST (N)

Fig. 5 Variation of thrust specific fuel consumption and propulsive efficiency

with specific thrust for two-spool engines, with separate exhausts and no
afterburner
M
Alt
BPR
rpFAN
mfab

0.7

15

40
0.06
210

SPECIFIC THRUST (N)

0.095

2000

0.08

0.68

2-Spool, Separate exhausts,

No Afterburner

0.75

10

30

40

PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY

1700
rpC =

35

30

TIT

TIT
0.1

20

35

1900
1800

25
0.07

2000

AFTERBURNER EXIT TEMP

rpC =

1800

PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY

1900

= 0.9
= 11000 m
=5
=2
=2

PROPULSIVE EFFICIENCY

0.12

= 0.9
= 11000 m
=5
=2

THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

M
Alt
BPR
rpFAN

1400

40

0.8
M
Alt
BPR
rpFAN
rpLC

1400
40

0.8

0.13

THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

0.12

0.5
250

600
600

SPECIFIC THRUST (N)

Fig. 7 Variation of propulsive efficiency and Tab, e with specific thrust for twospool engines, with mixed exhaust and a) no afterburner and b) with afterburner

Figures 7 and 10 also show the variation of afterburner exit

temperature with specific thrust at various rpC and TIT. The
high value of afterburner exit temperature is observed at low rpC
and high TIT in the case of two-spool than three-spool engine.

300

350

400

450

10
500

550

rpC
600
600

SP. THRUST (N)

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.

The effects of fan pressure (rpFAN) for various by-pass

ratios (BPR) on SFC and specific thrust are shown in figures 11
and 12. For two and three spool engines with separate exhausts

Copyright 2005 by ASME

700

SPECIFIC THRUST (N)

600

M = 0.9
Alt = 11000 m
rpC = 24
TIT = 1700 K
mfab = 0.005 kg/s
For 3-Spool Engine
rpLC = 2

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

500

BPR = 2
BPR = 5
BPR = 9

BPR = 2
400

300
5

200
9

100

0
2

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

FAN PRESSURE RATIO

Fig. 11 Effects of rpFAN and BPR on specific thrust for various configurations

0.13
M = 0.9
Alt = 11000 m
rpC = 24
TIT = 1700 K
mfab =0.005 kg/s
For 3-Spool Engine
rpLC = 2

BPR = 2
BPR = 5
BPR = 9

0.12

THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

there exists an optimum (rpFAN)opt for each BPR. At higher BPR

it lies in the range of 3 to 4 while at low BPR, it may lie beyond
6. Further, low SFC is found at high BPR while higher thrust is
found at low BPR. The three-spool engine offers lower SFC
and higher thrust as compared to two-spool engine at all BPR.
Three-spool engine with mixed exhaust and no afterburner
gives the minimum thrust at BPR greater than 2.
The configurations (Two and three spool) with mixed
exhaust and with or without afterburner have low specific thrust
compared to the ones with separate exhausts. This is due to the
fact that in case of two and three spool engines with separate
exhausts, with the increase in BPR, air mass flow rate through
the core becomes lesser and lesser. Moreover, if fan pressure
ratio is increased then the LP turbine has to do more work but
with much lesser mass of gas. In doing so its exit pressure
drops to very low level, even below nozzle exit pressure and
the thrust through hot nozzle becomes negative. However, the
Gross thrust is mainly thrust through the cold nozzle. This
situation becomes serious with the further increase of BPR and
rpFAN as the hot thrust continues to be a large negative value and
hence the total thrust becomes negative.
The reason for lower SFC for 'mixed' configuration is
initial higher thrust at the same mass of fuel as compared to
separate exhausts case. On the other hand in the 'mixing with
afterburner' configuration, thrust is higher but it is at the
expense of more fuel in afterburner. Hence, the SFC also
increases along with thrust.
At low BPR and higher values of rpFAN the thrust for the
mixed exhaust cases becomes higher than the separate exhaust
case. In the 'mixing with afterburner case and 'mixing with no
afterburner', the thrust is negative with the increase in BPR and
rpFAN. Due to the presence of the afterburner the decrease is
over a longer rpFAN range. Thus, the selection of (rpFAN)opt and
BPR play an important role for the design of a turbofan engine.
Though, the higher BPR gives lower thrust, but noise level
is less, which is important in the case of commercial planes.
With all these conflicting performance, the designer has to
make a compromise to meet all the requirements satisfactorily.

0.11

0.1

BPR = 2

0.09

0.08

5
9

0.07

0.06

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

0.05

0.04
2

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

FAN PRESSURE RATIO

Fig. 12 Effects of rpFAN and BPR on thrust specific fuel consumption for various
configurations

Figures 13 and 14 show the effect of inlet Mach number on

SFC and specific thrust for two altitudes (Alt = 0 and 11 km).
At any altitude, specific thrust decreases while specific fuel
consumption increases with the increase of inlet Mach number
for all configurations. At any Mach number, with increase in
altitude, specific thrust increases while SFC decreases for all
configurations of two and three spool engines. This is due to the
effect of decreasing density of air with altitude.
Figure 15 (bar chart) show the comparison for all the
important parameters for all possible configurations of two and
three spool turbofan engine for given input data.
The results of parametric study presented in figures 5 to 14
are the useful design monograms obtained for the cruising
conditions and for a very general set of parameters. They may
not be directly used to select the operating parameters, but the
code is capable of producing the results, which may be used in
a sequence to decide a set of operating parameters for any flight
mission.
This can be understood as follows. Let us consider that the
flight mission requirement is: Thrust = F (N), Altitude = Alt
(m) and Mach No. = M. Then the code can be iterated with
FAR for a very general set of operating parameters until we get
the result within the range of thrust, which includes the required
thrust value. Then using figures 5 to 10, for a particular
configuration, we will get a range of rpC and TIT corresponding
to the required thrust for different SFC. Selection of any desired
value of SFC will fix rpC, TIT and also propulsive efficiency for
that configuration. Now the obtained values of these three
parameters for the required thrust can be optimized using other
figures presented here in sequence to get the set of operating
parameters. Using figure 11 and 12 we will get optimum BPR
and (rpFAN)opt. Similarly, using figure 13 and 14 Mach No. and
altitude can be optimized for the configuration considered.
Now, for this optimized set of operating parameters the
program can be used freshly to produce a complete set of
results for all the possible configuration of turbofan engine and
the comparison can be done to select the most suitable
configuration. Similar procedure can be followed if the mission
is based on SFC.

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.
Alt = 0 m
Alt = 11000 m

700

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

600

SP. THRUST (N)

500

400

300

200

100

Alt =11000
BPR = 5
rpC = 24
rpFAN=2
TIT = 1700 K
mfab =0.005 kg/s
For 3-Spool Engine
rpLC = 2

Alt =11000

Alt = 0

Alt = 0

0
0.5

1.5

2.5

MACH NO AT INLET

Fig. 13 Effects of inlet Mach number and altitude on specific thrust

THRUST SP. FUEL CONSUMPTION (Kg/Nh)

0.15

BPR =5
rpC = 24
rpFAN=2
TIT = 1700 K
mfab =0.005 kg/s
For 3-Spool Engine
rpLC = 2

Alt =11000

Alt = 0

Alt = 0

Alt =11000

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
configurations. Though, the results cannot be used directly to
choose configuration and its optimum for a particular
configuration in the absence of off-design analysis but it can
give some idea of parameters very close to the realistic study
for specific applications. The results obtained shows that the
three-spool engine offers low SFC than the two-spool at all
BPR. Further, among all the configurations considered threespool engine with mixed exhaust and no afterburner need low
SFC. At any rpC and TIT, propulsive efficiency is higher in the
case of three-spool engine with separate exhausts while slight
higher specific thrust is found to occur in the case of two-spool,
mixed exhaust with afterburner. For two and three spool
engines with separate exhausts, there exists an optimum
(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
beyond 6. At any altitude specific thrust decreases while SFC
increases with increase in Mach number, whereas reverse is
true with increase in altitude at any Mach number.

0.1
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

0.05

0.5

1.5

2.5

MACH NO AT INLET

Fig. 14 Effects of inlet Mach number and altitude on thrust specific fuel
consumption

REFERENCES

M=0.9,
BPR=5
Alt =11000 m
rpC = 30
rpFAN = 2
mfab=0.005kg/s
For 3-Spool Engine
rpLC = 2
2-Spool,

2-Spool,

Nomixing

Mixing

24.16099

34.68579

86.2

60

Propulsive Efficiency in %

72.71

Efficiency of Energy Conversion in %

4.59

Overall Efficiency in %

Thrust ( x10) in N
Thrust Sp. Fuel Consumpsion in

2-Spool,

3-Spool,

3-Spool,

3-Spool,

Nomixing

Mixing

51.2225

26.45441

41.21232

59.51004

75.8

76.3

49

64.2

59.91

53.54

69.52

58.85

52.55

5.16

5.7

5.29

6.09

6.4

3.34

3.09

3.05

3.68

3.59

3.36

75.58203

81.45465

Mixing,
Afterburner

Mixing,
Afterburner

mg/Nh

Afterburner Exit Temp ( x10) in K

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The first author is grateful to All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE), New Delhi, for providing
opportunity and financial help to carry out the research work.
The help extended by AICTE is greatly acknowledged. The
second and third authors are grateful to Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi and National
Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore for providing opportunity
and reference materials to carry out the present research work.

Fig. 15 Comparison of various parameters for different configurations of two

and three spool turbofan engines

[1] Otates, G. C., May-June 1985, Performance Estimation for

Turbofans with and without Mixers, Journal of Propulsion and Power,
vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 252-256.
[2] Liew, K. H., Urip, E., Yang, S. L., Mattingly, J. D., and Marek, C.
J., July 2004, Performance Cycle Analysis of a Two-spool, Separate
exhaust Turbofan with Interstage Turbine Burner, 40th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit.
[3] Liu, F., and Sirignano, W. A., May-June 2001, Turbojet and
Turbofan Engine Performance Increases Through Turbine Burners,
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol.17, No. 3, pp. 695-705.
[4] Mattingly, J. D., 1996, Elements of Gas Turbine Propulsion,
McGraw-Hill Inc, Singapore.
[5] Cohen, H., Rogers, G. F. C., Saravanamutto, H. I. H., 1998, Gas
Turbine Theory, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, England.
[6] Walsh Philip P., and Fletcher Paul, 1998, Gas Turbine
Performance, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
[7] Horlock, J. H., Watson, D.T., and Jones, T.V., 2001, Limitations on
Gas Turbine Performance Imposed by Large Turbine Cooling Flows,
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 123, pp. 487-493.

Copyright 2005 by ASME