A Thermodynamic Analysis of a Turbojet Engine

ME 2334 Course Project

By Jeffrey Kornuta
Kornuta 2
Introduction
This paper looks into the thermodynamic analysis of an ideal turbojet engine,
focusing on the relationships between the compression ratio (R
C
), max temperature
(T
max
), mass specific thrust (MST), and thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC). Also,
this paper will explore the effects of an aircrafts Mach number on engine performance
and why supersonic flight differs so much from subsonic flight.

Figure A
The air-standard power cycle for a turbojet engine differs very little from the
well-known Brayton cycle; however, unlike the Brayton cycle, this engine relies on the
rapid acceleration of air, or thrust, to produce the desired power. Thrust is defined as


! = ! m
a
(1+ )V
6
"V
1
[ ]
, (1)
where

m
a
is mass flow rate of air, is the fuel to air ratio, and V is the velocity of the air.
As one sees from Equation 1, thrust relies on the difference in air velocities between the
intake and exhaust of the engine. As a result, a diffuser and nozzle is added to the basic
structure of this Brayton cycle to produce an overall increase in

!V
1"6
, thus forming a
basic jet propulsion cycle (Figure A).
Kornuta 3
Analysis and Results
The Matlab program included in this paper calculates and graphs MST kN ! s kg
[ ]

and TSFC kg kN ! s
[ ]
as a function of compression ratio R
C
for T
max
values of 1500,
1600, and 1700 K. For an engine traveling at subsonic Mach number 0.85, the MST
increases sharply, hits a maximum value, and then decreases slowly as R
C
increases. At
the same Mach number, TSFC decreases sharply then proceeds to decrease gradually as
R
C
increases.
These results make sense; as R
C
increases, the specific volume of the air will
decrease, causing the overall amount of air per unit volume to increase. As a result, the
ratio of air to fuel will increase until the mixture reaches optimum stoichiometric
conditions for combustion. After the ideal pressure is surpassed, the surplus air acts as a
cooling agent and absorbs the heat generated from the combustion process, thus
decreasing the availability of the gas. Availability is defined as
! = [h " T
0
s +
1
2
V
2
+ gZ] "[h
0
" T
0
s
0
+ gZ
0
], (2)
where h is specific enthalpy, s is specific entropy, and gZ represents specific potential
energy. After a few simplifications for our process, availability reduces to the following:


! = C
P
(T " T
0
)
! h
! " # $ #
+ T
0
(s
0
" s) +
1
2
V
2
, (3)
where C
p
is the constant pressure specific heat of the gas. As one may observe, this
cooling of the gas caused by the excess air passing through the combustor will overall
decrease the !T of the gas, thus decreasing the energy available for thrust. Similarly, as
T
max
increases, the conditions remain the same with an exception for a higher temperature
gas exiting the combustor. Thus, the same R
C
will yield a higher MST.
Kornuta 4
Likewise, TSFC decreases continually as R
C
increases because of the overall
increase in air per unit volume, resulting in a decrease of the fuel to air ratio . Realizing
that TSFC is defined as


! m
f
!
=
f
! ! m
a
=
f
(1+ f )V
6
"V
1
, (4)
one sees that a decrease in will ultimately decrease the TSFC. Similarly, realizing that
the fuel to air ratio is defined as
f =
T
4
T
3
!1
q
f
(C
p
T
3
) ! T
4
T
3
, (5)
where q
f
is the specific heat addition, a higher value for the max temperature T
4
will yield
a higher , resulting in greater TSFC.
Clearly, the optimum R
C
for mass specific thrust is given by a pressure ratio that
produces a maximum MST value. On the other hand, the optimum R
C
for the thrust
specific fuel consumption is given by a pressure ratio that produces a minimum TSFC
value. What is the overall optimum compression ratio when considering MST and TSFC?
The answer to this question depends on the application of the engine. If one is
considering a commercial airline aircraft, a low TSFC is crucial, so a compression ratio
which causes a low TSFC but produces just enough thrust to fly at cruise speed would be
ideal. However, if the application requires that the engine produce the maximum thrust
possible, the compression ratio needs to be set accordingly.
When considering the same analysis of the turbojet engine at Mach number 2.0,
the results change quite drastically. The max MST value occurs at a lower R
C
, and the rate
at which MST decreases is much greater than the previous Mach number (Figure D).
When considering the TSFC for the higher Mach number, one may observe that as R
C

Kornuta 5
increases, TSFC decreases, reaches a minimum, and then begins to increase to divergence
(Figure E).
The reasoning for the changes in the MST as a result of the increased Mach
number begins with the diffuser: as the air experiences a greater !V, the overall pressure
and temperature of the air will increase continually as it proceeds through the cycle. This
effect will ultimately reduce the availability ! of the gas as it passes through the
combustor by producing a smaller value for !T (Equation 3), thus resulting in a
maximum MST at a lower compression ratio and an overall lower MST. On the other
hand, the logic behind the changes in TSFC as a result of the increased Mach number is a
bit more puzzling. As compression ratio increases, the TSFC decreases as expected;
however, because the MST begins to decrease so rapidly, the TSFC begins to diverge
upward as the MST approaches zero (Equation 4).
Surprisingly, an optimum compression ratio for this Mach number is easier to
distinguish. Although actual results depend on the application, MST and TSFC have clear
maximum and minimum values, thus the mean R
C
value between the ratio producing the
maximum MST and minimum TSFC can most likely be considered ideal for supersonic
flight. In addition, assuming that the overall optimum R
C
for the lower Mach number will
usually be lower than the optimum R
C
for the Mach number 2.0, one concludes that the
ideal compression ratio decreases as Mach number increases. Again, this makes sense
when considering that the speed increase at the diffuser inlet will produce a greater
pressure entering the compressor, thus requiring a lower R
C
for optimum operation.


Kornuta 6
Conclusions
The analysis and discussion of this turbojet engine assumes some ideal conditions.
In reality, the engine will experience losses in performance due to a number of factors.
One of the main factors that would hinder performance is heat loss throughout the
system. In this analysis, the diffuser, compressor, turbine, and nozzle are all assumed to
be adiabatic; however, in a real life scenario, the cycle would experience a loss in heat
from these components, causing the available energy of the gas to gradually decrease.
The second major assumption in this analysis is the elimination of entropy generation
within the diffuser and nozzle. In reality, the air would experience a greater temperature
leaving the diffuser and leaving the nozzle, affecting the engine performance. Finally,
this analysis negates pressure drops throughout the system. In a practical case, the flow of
air would experience pressure drops due to the friction within the pipes, causing an
overall decrease in engine performance.
In retrospect of the results from the analysis, one comes to the conclusion that
subsonic flight differs greatly from supersonic flight. In addition, realizing that the
Brayton-specific part of the analysis (mainly the compressor, combustor, and turbine)
remains constant, one may decide that the differences in the results for the different Mach
numbers lie with the diffuser and the nozzle. As the Mach number increases into
supersonic regions, the diffuser and nozzle must be redesigned in order to handle the high
velocity air. Ideally, supersonic turbojet engines would benefit from a diffuser that
created less of an increase in pressure and a nozzle that had more surface area facing the
rear of the engine, even though one might argue that the complete elimination of the
compressor and turbine (ie, a ramjet) would be best for high velocity situations.
Kornuta 7

Figure B

Figure C
Kornuta 8

Figure D

Figure E
Kornuta 9
Matlab Program
% Jeff Kornuta
% ME 2334-01
% Course Project

% Define constants
Cp = 1.004;
k = 1.4;
R = .287;
qf = 4.5e4;
Nc = .85;
Nt = .9;
M1 = .85;
T1 = 216.7;
P1 = 18.75;
Rc_array = 2:.01:100;
max1 = 0;
max2 = 0;
max3 = 0;

% Analyze diffuser
V1 = M1*sqrt(1000*k*R*T1);
T2 = V1^2/(1000*2*Cp) + T1;
P2 = P1*(T2/T1)^(k/(k-1));

% Start loop to vary temperatures
for T4 = 1500:100:1700
i = 0;
% Start loop to vary compression ratio Rc
for Rc = 2:.01:100
i = i + 1;
% Analyze compressor
T3 = (T2*Rc^((k-1)/k) - T2)/Nc + T2;
P3 = Rc*P2;
wc = Cp*(T3 - T2);
P4 = P3;
% Analyze turbine
wt = wc;
T5 = T4 - wt/Cp;
T5s = T4 - (T4 - T5)/Nt;
P5 = P4*(T5s/T4)^(k/(k-1));
% Analyze nozzle
P6 = P1;
T6 = T5*(P6/P5)^((k-1)/k);
V6 = sqrt(1000*2*Cp*(T5 - T6));


Kornuta 10
% Crunch numbers for different temperatures &
% find MST maxes
f = (T4/T3 - 1)/(qf/(Cp*T3) - T4/T3);
if T4 == 1500
MST1(i) = (1 + f)*V6 - V1;
TSFC1(i) = f/MST1(i);
if MST1(i) > max1
max1 = MST1(i);
Rc_max1 = Rc;
end
else if T4 == 1600
MST2(i) = (1 + f)*V6 - V1;
TSFC2(i) = f/MST2(i);
if MST2(i) > max2
max2 = MST2(i);
Rc_max2 = Rc;
end
else
MST3(i) = (1 + f)*V6 - V1;
TSFC3(i) = f/MST3(i);
if MST3(i) > max3
max3 = MST3(i);
Rc_max3 = Rc;
end
end
end
end
end
fprintf(1,'Max MST for M=%.2f and Tmax=1500 =
%.2f\n',M1,Rc_max1);
fprintf(1,'Max MST for M=%.2f and Tmax=1600 =
%.2f\n',M1,Rc_max2);
fprintf(1,'Max MST for M=%.2f and Tmax=1700 =
%.2f\n',M1,Rc_max3);

% Plot the data
plot(Rc_array,MST1,Rc_array,MST2,Rc_array,MST3);
axis([0 105 500 950]);
xlabel('Compression Ratio [P3/P2]');
ylabel('Mass Specific Thrust [kN-s/kg]');
title('Mass Specific Thrust as a Function of Compression
Ratio [Mach 0.85]');
% plot(Rc_array,TSFC1,Rc_array,TSFC2,Rc_array,TSFC3);
% axis([0 105 1.5e-5 5e-5]);
% xlabel('Compression Ratio [P3/P2]');
% ylabel('Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption [kg/(kN-s)]');
% title('TSFC as a Function of Compression Ratio [Mach
0.85]');