This study analyses the feasibility of an engine architecture using bypass cooled cooling air as a method for reducing specific fuel consumption of current and future high bypass turbofan engines. As cooled cooling air reduces required turbine cooling massflow, a major source of
...
This study analyses the feasibility of an engine architecture using bypass cooled cooling air as a method for reducing specific fuel consumption of current and future high bypass turbofan engines. As cooled cooling air reduces required turbine cooling massflow, a major source of loss in modern aeroengines, it is believed that the concept can improve engine efficiency. No extensive or explicit study on the merits of this concept has been performed, however.
Using the 0-D engine analysis software GSP, engine performance parameters at Take-Off and Cruise, such as, specific fuel consumption and (specific) thrust were evaluated against altering feed cooling air temperature by 0 to -300K and heat exchanger induced pressure losses of 0 to 8% in the bypass. This was done for two test cases; the Leap-1A engine (TOC OPR 50, CRZ BPR 11.1, TO FN 121kN) representing current conventional technology and GTF2050, a geared turbofan engine (TOC OPR 75, CRZ BPR 17.1, TO FN 174kN) with entry into service of 2050. For the Leap-1A engine the specific fuel consumption increased up to 1.9% at cruise and for GTF2050, the increase was up to 4.1%. It is shown that the change in fuel consumption is linear with the decrease in cooling fraction, as for both engines the specific fuel consumption increases by +0.34% per percent cooling air reduction.
With a reduction in cooling fraction, the exhaust pressure of the core increases, resulting in a higher thrust (up to 2.3%). It is shown that the optimal take-off bypass ratio for minimum fuel consumption shifts up, for the GTF2050 engine from 16.4 to 17.5.
Furthermore, scenario tests and an exergy analysis were performed to find that the impact of different mechanisms; the pressure loss in heat exchanger has minor impact on performance; change in turbine efficiency has small impact; the effect of changed turbine massflow and heat rejection into the bypass are the dominant phenomena.
It is concluded that as a method for reducing fuel consumption, cooled cooling air with the bypass as a heat sink is not feasible for conventional architectures even with extreme design parameters such as high OPR and BPR. Heat rejection to the bypass cannot be effectively utilised and no improvement in core efficiency from reduced cooling air can compensate. In the edge case where there is no heat transfer in cruise, there is an observed specific fuel consumption benefit of up to 4%. The achievable benefit will be lower, however, when accounting for installation penalties.
It is recommended to focus turbine cooling studies on the impact and feasibility of active cooling massflow control without heat rejection, investigate alternative heat sinks for cooled cooling air (e.g. cryogenic fuel), and only consider bypass cooled cooling air as last resort when up-flowing cooling
schemes is not permissible or ineffective.
