Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Compression Ratio Vs Turbine Temp  
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8904 times:

Just to get things straight in me head, what exactly do an engine's compression ratio and turbine entry temperature affect/determine in terms of SFC, thrust and % of fuel combusted?

Faro


The chalice not my son
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBuzz From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 697 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8899 times:

Hi Faro, Buzz here. I don't know if I can answer "exactly"... in short: "more is better". More compression ratio before you burn the fuel causes a lower SFC. If the turbine nozzle and first stage turbine can withstand a higher temperature, you're able to get more work out of the fuel you burn: more thrust.

But there's a drawback to it all: you have to burn more fuel to get the extra thrust / shaft horsepower. So if you only need 75 horsepower to fly my favorite Aeronca Champ, you might not be able to find a turbine engine that's low powered.
So it seems that piston engines still have a place in the low power / low fuel burn end of the spectrum. Once you get to needing more than 350 horsepower, turbine engines start to make sense.

Percent of fuel combusted... not sure what you're getting at there. It all catches fire (grin) Mixture control on a piston engine?
You should look up some of John Deakin's articles about running "lean of peak" EGT. It's interesting... in a geeky sort of way (if you're a gear-head like many airplane fixer are) Some engines are made to run rich, for internal cooling.

g'day


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8842 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Just to get things straight in me head, what exactly do an engine's compression ratio and turbine entry temperature affect/determine in terms of SFC, thrust and % of fuel combusted?

Turbine entry temperature determines the maximum temperature that the working fluid can obtain. Compression ratio determines how hot the air coming in to the combustor is. The difference between these two temperatures is how much you can raise the working fluid temperature (how much fuel you can add per unit of air). So there is a trade...for a fixed turbine inlet temperature, higher compression ratio means you can't add as much fuel per unit of air.

On the thermodynamic side, the maximum possible efficiency of the Brayton cycle increases with compression ratio, so higher compression ratio means less fuel is required for a particular power output (roughly, thrust).

% of fuel combusted isn't really a function of either...a good combustor will burn effectively all of the fuel.

Holding all other properties equal, increasing compression ratio will lower SFC. I'm not sure about thrust because you have counteracting trends...less thrust due to less fuel added but more thrust due to more efficient power extraction. One of those is an exponential curve so it probably depends on exactly where your operating point is.

Holding all other properties equal, increasing turbine inlet temperature will increase thrust at constant SFC.

Tom.


User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8832 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):

Turbine entry temperature determines the maximum temperature that the working fluid can obtain. Compression ratio determines how hot the air coming in to the combustor is. The difference between these two temperatures is how much you can raise the working fluid temperature (how much fuel you can add per unit of air). So there is a trade...for a fixed turbine inlet temperature, higher compression ratio means you can't add as much fuel per unit of air.

I'm a little confused. In a previous thread we had said that denser air coming out of the HP compressor is desirable for efficiency since it represents a higher compression ratio. One way to acheive that is via cooling, though it was established that this is not technically feasible/desirable. But theoretically, if I cool the air coming in to my combustor, I lower its temp and increase the differential with respect to turbine entry temp, and hence the combustion fuel required. Non comprende.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineOryx From Germany, joined Nov 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8814 times:

All three features help to increase the efficiency: higher compression ratio, higher temperatures before the turbine as well as cooling before the compressor or between different compressor stages.
The limits to all are technological feasibility. Higher compressor ratios lead to higher temperatures before the combustion chamber. As the turbine inlet temperature is limited by the used materials (melting temperature or cooling efficiency) this limits the amount of fuel which can be burned leading to lower power density (thrust). Cooling before or inside the compressor requires large heat exchanger which are today to heavy and to bulky. The gain stems from the fact that compression becomes more efficient when the temperature level is lower.

In short is cool as possible before and after the compressor and as hot and as high pressure level as possible before the turbine.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8800 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 3):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
Turbine entry temperature determines the maximum temperature that the working fluid can obtain. Compression ratio determines how hot the air coming in to the combustor is. The difference between these two temperatures is how much you can raise the working fluid temperature (how much fuel you can add per unit of air). So there is a trade...for a fixed turbine inlet temperature, higher compression ratio means you can't add as much fuel per unit of air.

I'm a little confused. In a previous thread we had said that denser air coming out of the HP compressor is desirable for efficiency since it represents a higher compression ratio. One way to acheive that is via cooling, though it was established that this is not technically feasible/desirable. But theoretically, if I cool the air coming in to my combustor, I lower its temp and increase the differential with respect to turbine entry temp, and hence the combustion fuel required. Non comprende.

I don't think we're disagreeing. I was assuming that we weren't using intercooling in the compressor since, as the other threat discussed, it's technically tricky right now. If you intercool, you could have a higher compression ratio while maintaining temperature margin to the turbine so that you wouldn't have to reduce the power density.

The most efficient possible cycle, as Oryx correctly notes, would be to fully intercool with maximum compression, so your air coming into the combustor is as high pressure as you can achieve but still at ambient temperature. Then you can add the maximum amount of fuel (right up to the temperature limit of the turbine). This gives you the highest SFC and highest thrust for a particular package.

If you want to be really efficient, you use recuperators to transfer the energy extracted by the intercoolers to reheat the exhaust as it's going through the turbines. However, that has even more technical problems in an aircraft setting than intercoolers. Power plants that use gas turbine cycles can do this and get spectacular efficiency.

Tom.


User currently offlineAirgypsy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 130 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8783 times:

Checkout the website for the ATF-3 engine for a look at an engine designed as close to the "ideal" engine as you can get.
http://www.pocketprotectors.com/atf3/Engine.htm
Cooling in the right places improves mass flow. Heating the right places increases operating pressures/velocities.


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 8730 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):
If you want to be really efficient, you use recuperators to transfer the energy extracted by the intercoolers to reheat the exhaust as it's going through the turbines. However, that has even more technical problems in an aircraft setting than intercoolers. Power plants that use gas turbine cycles can do this and get spectacular efficiency.

But cooling the exhaust in a jet engine would reduce the thrust by a fair bit wouldn't it? Might reduce fuel use too, so it is possible that SFC would be increased by this, just doubtful IMO. Different for a land based gas turbine as there is no power derived after the turbine.

Combined cycle power plants achieve their 60% efficiency by driving a steam plant off the exhaust. I highly doubt that a recuperator is used in this scenario, as it would only increase pressure on turbine inlet temperature and the heat is profitably used without one. In fact, I would expect a more modest pressure ratio in this application to allow lower airflow for the same amount of fuel used (wasted energy in the exhaust equals airflow times exhaust temperature increase over ambient). Intercoolers? Not sure. But if you are wasting heat to the atmosphere, that is a loss; perhaps you could use the steam plant's feed water.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8724 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 7):
But cooling the exhaust in a jet engine would reduce the thrust by a fair bit wouldn't it? Might reduce fuel use too, so it is possible that SFC would be increased by this, just doubtful IMO. Different for a land based gas turbine as there is no power derived after the turbine.

A recuperator doesn't cool the exhaust, it heats it (using heat taken from the intercoolers in the compressor stage). This lets you get more energy out of the turbines, since the energy extracted by the intercoolers would otherwise be wasted to atmosphere.

You're right that land based turbines don't pull any power after the turbines, but that's what you're going for in a high-bypass turbofan as well. It's more efficient to extract power in the turbine and drive the fan with it than it is to get thrust directly from the core exhaust. Adding turbines is a process of diminishing returns, which is why you don't extract 100% in the turbines on aircraft engines but the trend, for decades, has been increasing power extraction in the turbines and decreased core thrust.

Tom.


User currently offlineOryx From Germany, joined Nov 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8723 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 8):
A recuperator doesn't cool the exhaust, it heats it (using heat taken from the intercoolers in the compressor stage).

I think the temperatures after the turbine are still higher than what one would get from the intercooler. In my opinion it would make more sense to use the heat from the exhaust gas to heat the flow after the compressor and before the combustion chamber. This would reduce trust but also the heat (burnt fuel) which has to be added during combustion. This trade off yields only possitive results when the required heat exchangers can be made a lot lighter and cheaper than today.


User currently offlineDakota123 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8692 times:



Quoting Oryx (Reply 9):
I think the temperatures after the turbine are still higher than what one would get from the intercooler. In my opinion it would make more sense to use the heat from the exhaust gas to heat the flow after the compressor and before the combustion chamber. This would reduce trust but also the heat (burnt fuel) which has to be added during combustion. This trade off yields only possitive results when the required heat exchangers can be made a lot lighter and cheaper than today.

I can only speak of full-power condition from memory, but the power generation version of the CF6-80 has a compressor discharge temp of about 1,015 deg. F and an exhaust temp of only about 850 deg. F

The only recuperated unit on the market (AFAIK) is the Solar Mercury 50, http://mysolar.cat.com/cda/layout?m=41105&x=7

The only factory-intercooled unit available is the GE LMS100, a marriage of the CF6-80 and part of a heavy frame unit. http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/pro...s/en/downloads/lms100_brochure.pdf

Mike


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8672 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 8):
A recuperator doesn't cool the exhaust, it heats it (using heat taken from the intercoolers in the compressor stage). This lets you get more energy out of the turbines, since the energy extracted by the intercoolers would otherwise be wasted to atmosphere.

This disagrees with not only (cough) wikipedia (cough), but also dictionary.com, and my understanding of gas turbines. Even if the figures above are correct that the compressor outlet temp is hotter than the exhaust temp, compressor outlet temp isn't the relevant figure, as an intercooler (by definition) is between the stages, so the intercooler input temp would have to be cooler that 1015 deg F. Very little could be gained, then, by sinking heat into the exhaust at 850 deg F. And your intercooler's usefulness will be s***.

The idea of a recuperator is to recover heat from the EXHAUST that would otherwise be wasted to atmosphere, which is then applied to the compressor outlet air. This is heating achieved for free other than a slight pressure loss and some weight. The weight would be the problem on an aircraft. But really, the idea of the combined cycle gas turbine with a steam plant has made this obselete for large stationary installations (like power stations).


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8669 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 11):
The idea of a recuperator is to recover heat from the EXHAUST that would otherwise be wasted to atmosphere, which is then applied to the compressor outlet air. This is heating achieved for free other than a slight pressure loss and some weight. The weight would be the problem on an aircraft. But really, the idea of the combined cycle gas turbine with a steam plant has made this obselete for large stationary installations (like power stations).

You're totally right...I've been using the word "recuperator" incorrectly. I can't remember what the thing I'm thinking of is called now, but it's how you get a Brayton cycle to approximate an ideal (Carnot) cycle.

A recuperator would take heat from the exahaust and inject it downstream of the compressor and upstream of the combustor.

Nice catch, thanks for setting me straight.

Tom.


User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8650 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 7):
Combined cycle power plants achieve their 60% efficiency by driving a steam plant off the exhaust.

What is the energy efficiency of contemporary high-bypass tubofans BTW?

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8638 times:



Quoting Faro (Reply 13):
What is the energy efficiency of contemporary high-bypass tubofans BTW?

The best pressure ratios around right now are in the low 40's, which gives you an idea Brayton cycle efficiency limit in the low 60%'s for normal turbine inlet temperatures. Knock off a little bit for less than ideal compressors and turbines and the actual energy efficiency should be around 60%.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):

You're totally right...I've been using the word "recuperator" incorrectly. I can't remember what the thing I'm thinking of is called now, but it's how you get a Brayton cycle to approximate an ideal (Carnot) cycle.

Found it...reheat. Should have known it would be the same term as an afterburner. In the classical case, reheat is doing combustion between turbine stages to bring the temperature back up.

Tom.


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8593 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 14):
The best pressure ratios around right now are in the low 40's, which gives you an idea Brayton cycle efficiency limit in the low 60%'s for normal turbine inlet temperatures. Knock off a little bit for less than ideal compressors and turbines and the actual energy efficiency should be around 60%.

This claim is somewhat bold. The theoretical (Carnot) efficiency of a combined cycle power plant with a turbine inlet temperature of 1727 deg C, and a discharge temp of 127 deg C is 80%, but in practice it only achieves 60%. I'd be surprised if a regular high bypass turbofan achieves a 50% efficiency. Can you back that up?

I'd think that the efficiency would vary, with the most efficient point being top of climb, probably at full throttle.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 8566 times:



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 15):

This claim is somewhat bold. The theoretical (Carnot) efficiency of a combined cycle power plant with a turbine inlet temperature of 1727 deg C, and a discharge temp of 127 deg C is 80%, but in practice it only achieves 60%. I'd be surprised if a regular high bypass turbofan achieves a 50% efficiency. Can you back that up?

I don't have anything to back it up beyond the data I already provided...the Brayton cycle efficiency for normal temperatures and pressure ratios in the low 40's really is in the low 60%'s. How much to knock off for turbine/compressor inefficiencies is open for debate, but I've seen 94% used in numerous preliminary design calculations.

Tom.


User currently offlineDakota123 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 6 days ago) and read 8507 times:

Quoting Thegeek (Reply 15):
This claim is somewhat bold. The theoretical (Carnot) efficiency of a combined cycle power plant with a turbine inlet temperature of 1727 deg C, and a discharge temp of 127 deg C is 80%, but in practice it only achieves 60%. I'd be surprised if a regular high bypass turbofan achieves a 50% efficiency. Can you back that up?

Again looking at a land-based unit (instructive here, I think), the power generation equivalent of the CF6-80 is ~36% thermally efficient on a higher heating value (HHV) basis (~40% lower heating value -- I love how turbine manufacturers always quote efficincy and consumption in LHV when fuel is consumed -- and bought! -- HHV). The RR Trent used in power generation is ~1% - 2% better.

Doesn't the efficiency hit compared to ideal come from compressing air that 'just' goes into cooling?

I can provide the raw fuel consumption and power output numbers if somone wants to check my work...

Mike

[Edited 2008-01-07 16:55:22]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Compression Ratio Vs Turbine Temp
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Lift-to-Drag Ratio Vs. Velocity For An SST...? posted Tue Oct 4 2005 03:36:06 by Lehpron
De-rated T/Os Vs. Assumed Temp posted Sat Jul 10 2004 03:44:04 by Duce50boom
Aborted Landing: 747 Vs A380 posted Tue Dec 25 2007 17:52:08 by Qslinger
Winglets Vs Blended Wings posted Tue Dec 25 2007 11:01:47 by Kamboi
Acmi Vs. Wet Lease posted Tue Dec 18 2007 14:51:54 by Bok269
787-8/9 Vs 777-200LR posted Thu Dec 13 2007 19:43:06 by CO787EWR
Original Spec DH121 Vs B727 posted Mon Dec 10 2007 12:54:28 by PMN1
A320 Vs. 752/ BOS-SFO Flight Plan Differential posted Sat Dec 8 2007 06:47:49 by Highflier92660
Bleed Air Ratio Question. posted Fri Dec 7 2007 20:18:12 by Iwok
Ford Truck VS C123 posted Thu Nov 29 2007 11:54:53 by 1PHXramper
De-rated T/Os Vs. Assumed Temp posted Sat Jul 10 2004 03:44:04 by Duce50boom
Supersonic Compressor Blades Vs Ram Compression posted Tue Jun 17 2008 15:54:48 by Blackbird
Latest 77Ws Vs First 77Ws posted Sat Oct 15 2011 09:46:39 by SSPhoenix
APB Winglets On 737 Vs Raked Wingtips On P-8 posted Sun Oct 2 2011 12:36:36 by rydawg82
CRJ700 Vs Dash 8 Q400 posted Fri Sep 23 2011 05:29:22 by ozark1986
Pros And Cons Of Speed Vs Vector Stabilty posted Tue Sep 20 2011 15:50:09 by Chamonix
United Vs Continental 757 posted Sun Sep 18 2011 08:45:29 by dla320
PCF Vs SF posted Thu Sep 15 2011 18:41:34 by blueflyer
Pressure Above Vs Below Wing posted Thu Sep 15 2011 04:44:29 by faro
Fuel Consumption Window Vs Window Less A/c posted Fri Feb 21 2014 03:50:55 by Owleye

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format