Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Why do turbine engines require a compressor section

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Why do turbine engines require a compressor section

Old 22nd Nov 2011, 14:18
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,347
Luc/MathFox/Dan and many others -- thank you for a fun discussion.

Note as to reasons why we use a compressor, per the original question.
Chris: Why do we compress - to release more energy to do useful work per unit time within the engine (be it piston or gas turbine).
Yes.
Slippery_Pete :It's so that less heat is added to the air over the entire cycle.
Not quite.

That may be an outcome of the process of burning oxygen to release energy in the fluid to get something to turn (shaft or turbine) but it isn't the reason to do it.

Other point made earlier: without a delta P, (Pressure differential between inside the turbine engine and the outside air) you get no work out of the turbine, be it in turbo shaft, turbo prop, turbofan, or turbojet.

You build turbine engines to get work out of them.

My degree isn't important, but I did take some thermogoddamics and a few courses on compressible flow and turbomachinery. Otto, Brayton, Carnot ... all familiar names.

Put energy in, get directed energy out to make something turn.

That is why you have an engine.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 16:18
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Hi Chris Weston, respectfully I disagree.

With compressed air you have more oxygen molecules in the combustion chamber
More oxygen molecules in the combustion chamber? Only in a turbine. In a piston engine, an 8:1 engine has the same volume of air in the combustion chamber as a 12:1 compression ratio engine. If your theory of more air was important, it would not effect a piston engine (which it does).

and you can burn more fuel per unit time
Burning more fuel per unit time has nothing to do with it. The entire CONCEPT of the original post is about thermodynamic efficiency (ie being able to get more useable work out of the same amount of fuel). Anyone can just increase the fuel flow and get more power out of an engine ... has nothing to do with thermodynamic efficiency.

Let's make it absolutely clear... we are talking about two identical engines, same size, same fuel flow, same RPM, same EVERYTHING - except one has a higher compression ratio - why is the one with higher compression getting more energy out of the same fuel? That's what we are talking about here.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 20:35
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Hi Blackhand.

Are you sure about this?
Look, I'm sure we all know that a piston engine with the same physicals can't have a different compression ratio, and in order to change it without changing the shape of the cylinder you would end up changing the volumetric capacity very slightly.
So, for the purposes of answering the original post, yes, if the capacity of the engines is the same, the compression ratio will not change the amount of air molecules. Lets say 2x 350 cubic inch engines - you will theoretically have the same amount of air in the cylinder at TOPD if it has a 8:1 or 15:1 compression ratio.

From work on performance engines, it is the compression pressures and not really the comp ratio that is important. Compression pressures are related to the comp ratio but are more influenced by valve and ignition timing. Of course the dynamics of the intake and combustion chambers has a direct affect.
I've talked about this before, and the fact that it relates to limitations of how a piston engine is operated (ie at inefficient high RPM or across a wide RPM band, low throttle settings etc). Not related to the OP, which was about how compression, and compression alone makes a difference in thermodynamic efficiency.

I work on the practical side, so is interesting talking to a theorist - unless of course you are just a sciolist.
Nope, no sciolist. Just someone with a basic knowledge of physics. As an engine tuner, I'm sure you know more about me on how to tune an engine on a dyno for best power and driveability over a large RPM range... interesting, but not related to the OP, nor the thermodynamic efficiency of an engine. It really is simple physics.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 03:23
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,151
1 Q 10 A

So typical of PPRuNe...

I love the technical questions, and really would like to learn the answer....but with so many answers I often end up more confused..
and it is almost Friday...

What about a mod filter, after say 1 week to concatinate all the answers, and make 1 complete response......

I must go to Friday Jokes Forum....

glf
Gulfstreamaviator is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 14:53
  #65 (permalink)  
Second Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wirral
Age: 72
Posts: 114
Slippery


I suspect trolling here so more fool me but I will have one final attempt and share some simple physics with you.


pV = nRT

so

p = n/V x RT

Putting that V R and T are constant we have that

p is directly proportionate to n

The greater pressure you have the more moles of gas you will have in a fixed volume.

CW
chris weston is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 20:47
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Chris,

I'll say it again REALLY SLOWLY so you can understand.

Your theory of more compression = more air molecules only applies in a turbine with a fixed volume combustion chamber. It doesn't apply in a fixed volume piston engine (because the swept volume determines the number of molecules you can get in there). And yet a higher compression piston engine is also more efficienct. If it was (as you argue) all about the number of oxygen molecules, a high compression piston engine would be no more thermodynamically efficienct than a low compression one.

As they say on mythbusters, myth BUSTED.

In fact, thermodynamic efficiency has nothing to do with how many oxygen molecules are there - the only time that becomes important is if there are not enough oxygen molecules to combust all the fuel.

When will all the lies and myths end? Every new page on this thread brings more people with more false arguments. So far we've had volumetric efficiency (consequence of operating a piston engine inefficiently), faster burning fuel, incomplete combustion, valve timing, ignition timing... it goes on and on and on.

These are all important things for tuning or selecting and engine for an application, because they make it practical and useable over a large RPM range (rather than super-efficienct at one particular RPM), and because we have to manage inadequacies of the fuel, and the temperature of the components.

But the fact remains, the only thermodynamic reason a higher compression or pressure ratio engine is more efficient (THE QUESTION IN THE OP) - is because by the end of the cycle, less waste heat has been transferred to the air. IT'S SIMLPE FN PHYSICS.

You put in an amount of energy (X) into an engine in the form of fuel, you want to get some of that energy out in the form of useful work (Y), but unfortunately you get a lot of waste heat (W). Maximum thermodynamic efficiency is the concept of ... for a given amount of fuel energy (X), you get the maximum useful work (Y). High compression or pressure ratio engines do this better because less of the original fuel energy (X) is converted to waste heat (W).

Conservation of energy - I would expect most high school students to know this.

Anyway, let the next round of myths begin on thermodynamic efficiency at higher compression. I wonder what we'll get next...

Last edited by Slippery_Pete; 26th Nov 2011 at 01:59. Reason: Typo
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 22:30
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Isle Dordt
Posts: 272
Taking the brayton cycle to the next level
Supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton Cycle turbines promise giant leap
That seems to apply to stationary power generation, as a replacement for steam turbines. I don't see it replace turbo jet engines as these CO₂ turbines require an external heat source.
MathFox is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2011, 07:30
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 394
the propeller on a turboprop is in such a point of view also a "compressor" but its main work is to create thrust, it has very little effect on pre compressing the air which enters the inlet for combustion, regardless if its a multishaft free turbine ( eg.pt6a) or a singleshaft fixed turbine ( rr dart, tpe331 e.g ) .

when it comes again to ( 4 stroke) pistons the amount of air in the cylinder is determined on the suction cycle and the suction, as we all know it ends with the piston at bottom dead centre. the amount of air being able to suck in is describes in volumentric efficiency. - at natural aspirated engines typically below 1 , at turbocharged engines above 1 - here the engine not just sucks the air, it is forced into the cylinder. the the piston moves up again and compresses the amount that was sucked in.

so when the amount of sucked air in suction cycle stays the same a low compression engine will have the same amount of air as the high compression engine at end of the compression cycle. at the higher compression engine this amount of air is just squeezed more .

its the same when you take an airballon , put an amount of air in it and then squeeze it. sqeezing it more will rise the compression inside the ballon, not the amount of air in it ( since no further air is forced inside when you squeeze it)

cheers !
aerobat77 is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2011, 08:57
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,647
The prop is a compressor; the fan in a turbofan is a compressor; and so is the compressor (doh!) in a straight jet or a turboprop
Erm, I have to query that.
Does a prop actually compress? If so what is it's actual practical effect on the overall compression cycle?

The gas turbine section of a turboprop can be (but isn't always) de-linked from the prop, a free power turbine drives the prop. I would have to see the numbers but I'm not sure what contribution to the overall compression cycle the prop will actually give. Especially in some of the more complex reverse flow turbine engines.
In a directly linked turboprop such as the RR Dart, would there be any compression effect from the prop? I can't see how there would be much flow increase from the root of the blade into the intake. Discuss.

The fan in a turbofan can be referred to as the LP compressor (EG RR RB211) and I can see how that would work.

In an aft-fan config of course it would have no effect on the compression at all. Maybe that's one of the reasons the idea was only used briefly. Convair 880 is the only on I can think of, no idea what make/model the engine is.)

No axe to grind just trying to understand what the OP is after.
TURIN is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2011, 12:21
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 637
Slippery_pete:

It doesn't apply in a fixed volume piston engine (because the unswept volume determines the number of molecules you can get in there [there being the combustion chamber])
Wrong again. The "unswept volume" is the combustion chamber (or at least part of it depending how semantic you want to be). It is the swept volume x the volumetric efficiency that determines the number of molecules you get in - not the "unswept volume".

Last edited by oggers; 25th Nov 2011 at 13:03.
oggers is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2011, 12:55
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
TURIN:
Erm, I have to query that.
Does a prop actually compress? If so what is it's actual practical effect on the overall compression cycle?
Well, a prop blade is an airfoil, and Bernoulli tells us all about that. Static pressure is increased on the aft face of the blade. This may have little or no effect on the ENGINE cycle, but it's this pressure rise that integrates to propeller thrust i.e. the motive force for the airplane.

Granted the pressure rise is not huge, but the prop disc area is relatively large, and F=p x A. The prop moves a large mass of air at relatively low pressure.

Now if the prop has many blades and is enclosed in a shroud (i.e. a ducted fan), then the pressure rise is greater although the area may be less. This higher pressure acts to supercharge the downstream core engine.
barit1 is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2011, 01:58
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Hi Oggers.

Wrong again. The "unswept volume" is the combustion chamber (or at least part of it depending how semantic you want to be). It is the swept volume x the volumetric efficiency that determines the number of molecules you get in - not the "unswept volume".
Sorry mate, that was a typo, you are correct - I'll fix it up.

I'd really like to hear Oggers explain how ignition timing, or valve timing, or mixtures, or flame fronts, or pumping losses, or any other of his false arguments explain why a high compression turbine engine is more efficient than a low compression turbine.
I'm still listening for a response to this, and have been listening for the last 3 pages of this post, and to the PM I sent and which you ignored.

Are you still debunking the simple concept I explained on page 1? Here it is for you to ignore again:

It's about the total fluid heat change from start to finish (once the fluid is returned to atmospheric pressure). It is lower in a high compression engine.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2011, 02:13
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 65
Posts: 1,192
I am surprised this is still going. Without the turbines the engine would just be a venturi, symmetrical (as far as the air can tell) front and back. Light it up on the ground and which way will the hot exhaust go ? Both ways ie bonfire with no thrust. Add an 'exhaust' turbine and the obstruction will encourage the exhaust to go the other way, ie out of the front. Need to create a preferred route, preferably backwards.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2011, 03:15
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,342
Suck squeeze bang boom. How many times does this need to be said to kill this thread.
grounded27 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2011, 02:33
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: On the lake
Age: 77
Posts: 659
Isn't it amazing that such a simple question can generate so much heat???
twochai is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2011, 03:18
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 1,349
Back to the original question

"Why do turbine engines require a compressor section"? Simply to make the engine work efficiently. Adding to the pressure ratio results in better specific fuel consumption for a given thrust. Higher pressure ratio = improved specific fuel consumption, one of the reasons axial flow compressors are favoured in high thrust engines.
Old Fella is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2011, 07:33
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 42
Posts: 394
well, the original question is really self explanatory i think. like written above- when no compressor , for what a turbine disk in a TURBINE engine ???

for what do you need a piston in a piston engine would be a similar question .
aerobat77 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2011, 08:43
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 637
I'd really like to hear Oggers explain how ignition timing, or valve timing, or mixtures, or flame fronts, or pumping losses, or any other of his false arguments explain why a high compression turbine engine is more efficient than a low compression turbine...I'm still listening for a response to this, and have been for the last 3 pages of this post, and to the PM I sent and which you ignored.
Slippery_pete: the answers at #43 and #47 are still there.

Are you still debunking the simple concept I explained on page 1?
No. Multiple posters have disagreed with you along the way, and your latest "concept" bears no resemblance to your original, so job done.
oggers is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2011, 11:11
  #79 (permalink)  
Second Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wirral
Age: 72
Posts: 114
Barit, sir.
81
Nicely put.
Agree.
CW
chris weston is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2011, 11:57
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 340
Multiple posters have disagreed with you along the way, and your latest "concept" bears no resemblance to your original
My explanation from page 1 until page 5 has remained unchanged, and until the laws of physics change - will remain so.

the answers at #43 and #47 are still there.
Posts 43 and 47 do not answer my question. In fact, they (like your most recent post) deliberately avoid it. AGAIN.

Since you are still unable to explain why a high pressure ratio turbine is more thermodynamically efficient, I'm going to assume you are admitting you really don't know.
Slippery_Pete is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.