Integrated Comparative Simulation and Ablation Analysis of the Bozkurt Motor Upgrade Architecture: A Safety-First Digital-Twin Methodology Combining CLF-CBF Control, Topology-Constrained Flow Design, Thermal Management, and Infrared-Radiance Reduction
This work presents the fourth and integrating paper in the Bozkurt Motor Upgrade (BMU) research series and develops a safety-first digital-twin methodology for the comparative evaluation of the complete BMU architecture. The study combines the three preceding research layers within a common simulation and verification environment: the CLF–CBF safety, stability, and actuator-reserve architecture developed in Paper 1; the topology-constrained compressor and combustor flow-design methodology developed in Paper 2; and the thermal-management and infrared-radiance-reduction framework developed in Paper 3. The nominal Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) remains the primary authority. BMU is formulated as a bounded and subordinate supervisory layer whose optional performance, aerodynamic, thermal, and infrared objectives are permitted only when hard safety, operability, actuator, and reserve constraints remain satisfied. Five system configurations are evaluated through a controlled ablation structure: nominal FADEC; FADEC with the safety-filter layer; FADEC with safety and topology-informed flow models; FADEC with safety and thermal/infrared management; the complete integrated BMU architecture. All configurations are tested under identical mission profiles, initial conditions, disturbances, model uncertainties, sensor errors, execution delays, and actuator limits. The scenario matrix includes representative cruise, acceleration, hot-day climb, high-power operation, compressor-operability disturbance, sensor bias, cooling-capacity loss, actuator saturation, model mismatch, and supervisory-layer timeout cases. The comparative framework evaluates: preservation of the defined safe operating set; compressor surge-margin and flow-distortion proxies; turbine and wall temperatures; transient thermal gradients; cooling demand and thermal actuator reserve; MWIR and LWIR radiance proxies; actuator saturation and control-authority reserve; fallback activation; optimization feasibility; execution-time compliance; and performance-objective changes within the admissible safety region. A central integration proposition establishes that adding topology, thermal, and infrared objectives does not weaken the safety conditions inherited from Paper 1, provided that all module outputs are routed through the same robust constraint filter and that the BMU command is inhibited whenever feasibility, timing, estimator integrity, or minimum-reserve conditions are not satisfied. The paper also defines a staged validation pathway covering deterministic simulation, Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis, software- and processor-in-the-loop testing, hardware-in-the-loop verification, subsystem rig testing, calibrated thermal and radiometric measurements, and—only after independent safety review—controlled engine-level testing. The numerical results are synthetic, normalized, and illustrative. They are not production-engine data, high-fidelity engine calibration results, experimental measurements, certification evidence, or evidence for any specific aircraft or operational platform. Their purpose is to demonstrate the comparison logic, module interactions, ablation structure, uncertainty handling, safety-priority hierarchy, and reproducibility requirements of the proposed methodology. The contribution of this final series paper is therefore not a claim of a completed or improved engine. It is the definition of a transparent, modular, falsifiable, and progressively verifiable integration framework through which future engine-specific BMU implementations may be assessed without confusing conceptual simulation, high-fidelity analysis, hardware-in-the-loop evidence, rig validation, and physical engine testing.