Performance evaluation of aeroderivative gas turbine models derived from a high bypass turbofan for industrial power generation

Figures & data

Table 1. Turbomatch inputs for design point and cruise conditions (Palmer, 1999; Roux, 2011; Walsh & Fletcher, 2004)

Parameter	Design point input (take-off conditions)	Off-design input (cruise conditions)
Altitude (m)	0.0	10668
Mach number	0.0	0.8
Mass flow (kg/s)	465.8	–
Fan pressure ratio (FPR)	1.58	–
Low pressure compressor pressure ratio (LPCPR)	2.0	–
High pressure compressor pressure ratio (HPCPR)	9.96835	–
Overall pressure ratio	31.5	–
Bypass ratio (BPR)	6.6	–

Figure 1. Brick code arrangements for the turbofan model.

Table 2. Assumed values for the turbofan turbomatch simulation related to GT models (Lefebvre, 1998; Nkoi et al., 2013a; Palmer, 1999; Sethi, 2014)

Parameter	Station numbering	Isentropic efficiency	Mass of air bled (%)	Pressure loss
Intake duct	1–2	–	–	0.00
Fan	2–3	0.89	–	–
LPC (booster)	4–5	0.89	–	–
HPC	6–7	0.87	–	–
Combustor	9–10	0.99	–	5.0
HPT	11–12	0.91	–	–
LPT	12–13	0.92	–	0.0
HPT (cooling)	7–8	0.91	13.0	0.0
Main bypass duct	14–15	–	600 (BPR=6.6)	–
Accessory bleed	–	–	1.0	0.0

Figure 2. Block diagram of aeroderivative and turbomatch brick arrangement for (a) and (b) Model I—Two-spool with FPT, (c) and (d) Model II—Two-spool with integrated power turbine on LPS, and (e) and (f) Model III—Single spool with FPT.

Table 3. Comparison of simulated results for the HPTE with published data (CFM International, 2000; Palmer, 1999; Roux, 2011; Safran Snecma, 2011)

Parameter	Take-off condition (Design point)		Cruise condition (Off-design)
	LTR	SR	LTR	SR
Altitude (m)	0.0	0.0	10,668	10,668
ISA deviation	15	15	0	0
Mach number	0.0	0.0	0.8	0.8
Static inlet temperature (K)	303.2	303.2	218.8	218.8
Total inlet temperature (K)	303.2	303.2	246.9	246.9
Total mass flow (kg/s)	465.8	465.8	–	200.3
Core mass flow (kg/s)	61.29	61.29	–	27.55
Bypass mass flow (kg/s)	404.5	404.5	–	172.8
Fan PR	1.58	1.58	–	1.68
Bypass ratio	6.6	6.6	–	6.27
LPC PR (booster)	–	2.0	–	2.03
HPCPR	10	9.968	–	11.01
Overall PR	31.5	31.5	37.40	37.44
COT (K)	1,633	1,633	–	1,481.7
TET (K)	–	1,542.7	–	1,397.2
Net thrust (N)	138,784	138,110	30,759	30,752
SFC (mg/N.s)	9.1	8.9	15.4	16.2
Fuel flow rate (kg/s)	1.263	1.222	NA	0.498
Specific thrust (N/kg/s)	297.95	296.50	–	153.54
$\left(\frac{\dot{\text{m}}\sqrt{\text{T}}}{\text{P}}\right){\text{aero HPC}}_{\text{in}}\text{Model I}$	–	405.09	–	434.60
$\left(\frac{\dot{\text{m}}\sqrt{\text{T}}}{\text{P}}\right){\text{aero HPC}}_{\text{in}}\text{Model II}$	–	57.40	–	56.91
$\left(\frac{\dot{\text{m}}\sqrt{\text{T}}}{\text{P}}\right){\text{aero HPC}}_{\text{in}}\text{Model III}(\text{without cooling})$	–	81.24	–	81.29
$\left(\frac{\dot{\text{m}}\sqrt{\text{T}}}{\text{P}}\right){\text{aero HPC}}_{\text{in}}\text{Model III}(\text{with cooling})$	–	264.35	–	265.69
Exhaust nozzle area (m^2)	–	1.605	–	1.605

Table 4. Comparison of simulated results at DP for the aeroderivative Models I, II & III

Design point results	Model I	Model II	Model III	Model III (without HPT cooling)
Power output (MW)	10.67	10.60	3.46	4.15
Thermal efficiency (%)	38.4	38.1	29.8	31.1
Fuel flow (kg/s)	0.647	0.647	0.270	0.310
SFC (μg/N.s)	60.6	61.0	78.0	74.7
Specific power (MW/kg/s)	0.252	0.250	0.146	0.175
Exhaust temperature (K)	664.3	657.2	613.9	653.19
Exhaust velocity (m/s)	135.7	135.9	130.6	134.6
Exhaust area (m^2)	0.583	0.583	0.311	0.322

Figure 3. Part-load performance (off design): power output vs. combustion outlet temperature (COT).

Figure 4a. Part-load performance (off design): thermal efficiency vs. combustion outlet temperature.

Figure 4b. Part-load performance (off design): specific fuel consumption vs. combustion outlet temperature.

Figure 5. Part-load performance (off design): Thermal efficiency vs. % DP of power.

Figure 6. LP map and running lines for Models I and II at pat load performance.

Figure 7. LP compressor map and running line with scheduled bleed valves for Model II.

Figure 8. LP Compressor map and running line with scheduled variable stator vanes for Model II.

Palmer, J. R. (1999). The TURBOMATCH scheme for aero/industrial gas turbine engine design point/off-design performance calculation (SoE, User Guide). Bedfordshire: Department of Power and Propulsion, Cranfield University.

 Google Scholar

Roux, E. (2011). Turbofan and turbojet engines database handbook (2nd ed.). Elodie Roux.

 Google Scholar

Walsh, P. P., & Fletcher, P. (2004). Gas turbine performance (2nd ed.). Delhi: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470774533

 Google Scholar

Lefebvre, A. H. (1998). Gas turbine combustion (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.

 Google Scholar

Nkoi, B., Pilidis, P., & Nikolaidis, T. (2013a). Performance assessment of simple and modified cycle turboshaft gas turbines. Propulsion and Power Research, 2, 96–106. doi:10.1016/j.jppr.2013.04.009

 Google Scholar

Sethi, V. (2014). Gas turbine combustors (Thermal Power MSc course manual, Lecture). Bedfordshire: Department of Power and Propulsion, Cranfield University.

 Google Scholar

CFM International. (2000). CFM56-5 training manual (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Author.

 Google Scholar

Safran Snecma. (2011). Commercial aircraft engines CFM56-5C. Evry Cedex: Engine Specification Brochure.

 Google Scholar