Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Energy Institute

journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-the-energyinstitute

Combustion efciency analysis and key emission parameters

of a turboprop engine at various loads
hret a, *, Olcay Kncay b, Tahir Hikmet Karako c
Yasin So
a

Department of Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance, Graduate School of Sciences, Anadolu University, 26470 Eskisehir, Turkey
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Yldz Technical University, 80750 Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey
c
Department of Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance, Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Anadolu University, 26470 Eskisehir, Turkey
b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 23 July 2014
Received in revised form
10 September 2014
Accepted 17 September 2014
Available online 13 November 2014

In this study, combustion efciency of a military type turboprop engine is determined at various loads
with the aid of emission data. Also, emission data collected from the engine run at various loads by
experimental methods is used to introduce emission parameters such as the emission index, the power
emission index and the energy emission index. The calculation method of the power emission index and
the energy emission index for a turboprop engine is incorporated in literature by this study. Additionally,
the relationship between determined parameters is proven in this study. As a result of the study, the
combustion efciency of the engine is found to be variable between 97.8% and 99.9%, as expected from a
modern aircraft engine.
2014 Energy Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Aircraft
Turboprop
Gas turbine engine
Emission
Combustion efciency

1. Introduction
Gas turbine engines are the main power units of air vehicles and operated in power plants. The main purpose of aircraft gas turbine
engines that are used to run both commercial and military aircrafts, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the aviation industry known as air
breathing engines, generate thrust to provide movement of aircraft. A simple gas turbine is composed of an air inlet, air compressor,
combustion chamber, turbine and exhaust nozzle. Air taken into an air inlet is pressurized in the air compressor and warmed up. Afterwards,
fuel is burned with the benet of the pressurized air in the combustion chamber. Thus, high energy shows up. Exhaust gases carrying out
high energy leave the combustion chamber and generate the required compressor power by turning turbine blades. Then hot gases run out
through the exhaust nozzle to meet the thrust demand of the aircraft [1e3].
The emergence of gas turbine engines was in accordance with Newton's Third Law, which was presented in the years 1600e1700. In
addition, the rst studies on modern aircraft gas turbine engines were performed in the 1900s during the Second World War. From that day
to the present time signicant development was achieved [1e4]. At the present time, much research continues on to improve the performance of aircraft gas turbine engines. Amid this research, studies on design improvement to enhance component performance take an
important place right along with alternative fuel usage studies [5e9]. Therefore, many texts can be found about studies on performance
analysis of different aircraft gas turbine engines on the basis of thermodynamic principles and different component performance analysis.
Engine analysis with the aid of energy and exergy methods prove system efciency, improvement potential, environmental impacts and
sustainability indicators [10e18]. Also, numerical analysis and experimental studies examine other performance parameters of the engine
and its components [19e23].
In the manner of all power generation cycles, providing more energy to the gas turbine engine enhances generated power. As mentioned
before, energy purveyance to the gas turbine engine occurs in the combustion chamber [24,25]. In this case, many studies on performance
evaluation of combustion chambers can be found. It is clear that the main goal of the studies is improving combustion efciency of
combustor designs. Temperature pattern and pressure loss are essential criteria, as well as combustion efciency. As a result of the texts that

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 90 5347661416.

hret).
E-mail address: ysohret@gmail.com (Y. So
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2014.09.010
1743-9671/ 2014 Energy Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499

Y. So

491

can be found in the literature; major parameters such as adiabatic ame temperature, equivalence ratio, emission distribution varieties with
different fuels and heat loss are proven [25e37]. This article aims to determine the combustion efciency for a turboprop aero engine in the
LTO (landing and take-off) ight cycle with the aid of exhaust emission data. Whilst examining combustion parameters and fuel characteristics, the neglect of combustion efciency in other studies is clear [25e37]. However, combustion efciency is signicant for understanding the quality of the combustion process and the utilization ratio of the fuel heat value [36]. In this study, unlike others, emission data
collected from a turboprop engine by experimental methods is preferred to theoretical calculation methods for determination of combustion efciency.

2. System description and experimental procedure

2.1. System description
Thrust generated with a propulsion system is required for an aerial vehicle to move. Many types of aircraft, especially commercial
aircrafts with short range and military aircrafts, use a turboprop engine for this purpose. Turboprop engines consist of a gas turbine core
engine and propeller. The core engine is similar to the turbojet engine with a few differences. The core engine, which expands all the hot
exhaust through the nozzle, is used to turn the turbine, not to produce thrust. Velocity of the exhaust gases released from the nozzle of the
turboprops is low and produces less thrust. This type of turboprop engine is called the single-shaft turboprop. Another type of the turboprop
engines includes an additional turbine stage which is connected to a drive shaft. The drive shaft transmits power to the gear box connected
to the propeller that generates the thrust. This second type of turboprop engine is called the free-turbine turboprop engine [1e4,18,38e40].
The T56-A-15 engine, investigated in this study, is a type of single-shaft turboprop engine. The propeller shaft of the engine is offset
above the core engine that is comprised of fourteen stage axial-ow compressors, six can through-ow combustors congregated in a single
annular chamber and four stage turbines, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The T56-A-15 turboprop engine is still in use as the power unit of the C-130
Hercules tactical transport aircrafts in the Turkish Air Forces [41e43].

2.2. Exhaust emission measurement

In this study, experimental data is obtained from the EPA Report [41]. The experimental data used was collected at the Detroit Diesel
Allison Plant as stated in the report. Measured quantities are listed below as stated in the text:






Unburned hydrocarbons,
Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide,
Nitric oxide and nitrogen oxide,
Smoke,
Aldehydes

The ame ionization detector, infrared analyser and electron chemiluminescent analyser are used to specify the composition of sample
exhaust gas during the measurement. In the course of measurement, a sampling probe with twenty-eight holes is used to soak up exhaust
gas. Also, the staff beneted from seven legs for attaching the probe to the engine tailpipe. As dened in the report, heated lines are used to
transfer sample exhaust gas from the engine to analysers. Further explanation about the measurement system can be found in the report
text. Data collected from the T56-A-15 engine is summarized in Table 1 as a result of the experimental study.
During this experimental study, engine power estimation is assumed, and the RPM equivalences of the ight phases are given in Table 2.
As given in Table 2, the test is performed on the basis of the ICAO LTO emission measurement methodology.

Fig. 1. Illustration of the T56-A-15 turboprop engine.

hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499

Y. So

492

Table 1
Emission data obtained from the T56-A-15 engine.[41].
Test#

RPM

AFR

m_ f (kg/s)

m_ CO (kg/s)

m_ CO2 (kg/s)

m_ UHC (kg/s)

m_ NO2 (kg/s)

10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500

76.92308
133.33333
44.44444
52.63158
83.33333
64.51613
76.92308
129.87013
80.00000
128.20513
45.66210
47.61905
76.92308
63.69427
90.90909
135.13514
66.66667
128.20513
44.84305
45.45455
76.92308
65.78947
76.33588
128.36970
70.92199
140.84507
44.76276
83.33333
76.92308
63.29114
66.66667
129.87013
76.92308
133.33333
44.44444
52.63158
83.33333
64.51613
76.92308
129.87013

0.07119
0.08442
0.27405
0.23562
0.10836
0.17514
0.07119
0.08442
0.07056
0.08442
0.27405
0.23562
0.10836
0.17514
0.07056
0.08442
0.071064
0.08442
0.27405
0.23562
0.10836
0.17514
0.071064
0.08442
0.07119
0.08442
0.27405
0.23562
0.10836
0.17514
0.07119
0.08442
0.073836
0.08442
0.27405
0.23562
0.10836
0.17514
0.073836
0.08442

0.0023184
0.0011718
0.0004158
0.0004284
0.0000504
0.0002898
0.0023184
0.0011718
0.0020412
0.0008316
0.001449
0.0003276
0.0005544
0.000252
0.0020412
0.0008316
0.0018522
0.0004536
0.0006678
0.0
0.0005166
0.0002268
0.0018522
0.0004536
0.001953
0.0003024
0.0001008
0.000315
0.0001134
0.0005544
0.001953
0.0003024
0.0013734
0.0008316
0.0002898
0.0000882
0.0002268
0.0001008
0.0013734
0.0008316

0.2169972
0.2622312
0.8610336
0.7401492
0.3406536
0.5502798
0.2169972
0.2622312
0.2153592
0.2638188
0.8578206
0.7402248
0.3398598
0.550242
0.2153592
0.2638188
0.2177028
0.2647512
0.8607186
0.7409052
0.3398976
0.550368
0.2177028
0.2647512
0.2176524
0.2649906
0.861588
0.7404138
0.3405654
0.5498388
0.2176524
0.2649906
0.2275938
0.2635164
0.8613108
0.7407792
0.3403764
0.5505822
0.2275938
0.2635164

0.00102312
0.00043974
0.00002142
0.0000252
0.0
0.0
0.00102312
0.00043974
0.00105084
0.00010332
0.00052668
0.00005292
0.00000252
0.00002646
0.00105084
0.00010332
0.00090972
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00000882
0.0
0.00090972
0.0
0.00093114
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0000063
0.00093114
0.0
0.00077364
0.00020286
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00077364
0.00020286

0.000247212
0.00057519
0.002883888
0.002585142
0.000852768
0.001771812
0.000247212
0.00057519
0.000050526
0.000517986
0.002975868
0.001968246
0.000609588
0.001005354
0.000050526
0.000517986
0.000266868
0.000283878
0.002323062
0.002087442
0.000530082
0.001402506
0.000266868
0.000283878
0.000262206
0.00059913
0.00253008
0.002280348
0.000821394
0.001589742
0.000262206
0.00059913
0.000167076
0.000442386
0.00214578
0.00192528
0.000645624
0.001323756
0.000167076
0.000442386

2.3. Fuel analysis

The aviation fuel consumed during the experimental study is completely analysed. As a result of this enquiry;





Flash point is 266 K.

Initial boiling point is measured to be 340 K.
Heating value of the fuel is determined to be 43465.96 kJ/kg.
Smoke point is specied as 23.7 mm.

3. Methodology
3.1. Emission parameters
Dening emission parameters of a combustion system is useful for comparison, environmental impact assessment and performance
analysis. In accessible literature, various parameter descriptions can be found in [45].
The emission index is the most commonly used parameter to compare environmental impact of exhaust gas ingredients. An exhaust gas
constituent is dened as the ratio of the mass (mass ow) of constituent to the mass (mass ow) of fuel reacted during the combustion
process. According to this denition Eq. (1) is written [45,46]:

EI i

mi
m_
i
mf
m_ f

(1)

In Eq. (1), mi notates the mass of the exhaust gas constituent even as mf is the mass of the fuel. The unit of the emission index is preferred
to be g/kg. The emission index is used to understand the amount of the pollutant per fuel consumption clearly. However, the emission index
is a kind of indicator for combustion efciency [45].
Mass of any constituent can be dened as the product of the molecular weight and the mole fraction. Thus, Eq. (2) can be derived from Eq.
(1) as follows [45,46]:

hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499

Y. So

493

Table 2
Engine power settings at test.[41,44].
Engine operation Mode

Operation duration (minute)

Engine power setting

Engine power (%)

Engine RPM

Holding
Taxi
Take-off
Climb-out
Approach
Reverse
Holding
Taxi

4.0
2.0
0.5
2.5
4.6
0.167
4.0
2.0

Low speed ground idle

High speed ground idle
Take-off
Normal
Near ight idle
Reverse
Low speed ground idle
High speed ground idle

7
7
100
85
30
30
7
7

10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500

EI i

N i Mi
N f Mf

(2)

Another parameter depending on emission measurement is the power emission index. As expressed in Eq. (3) unambiguously, the power
emission index with the unit of g/kWh is the mass ow of pollutant per power generated by the engine [45]:
,

PEIi

mf EI i
_
W

(3)

Similarly, the energy emission index can be dened as the mass ow of pollutant per fuel energy supplied to the engine. The unit of the
energy emission index is g/MJ [45].

Table 3
Emission indexes of exhaust gas constituents at various loads.
Test#

RPM (1/min)

AFR

EI, Emission Index (g/kg)

CO

CO2

UHC

NO2

10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500

76.92308
133.33333
44.44444
52.63158
83.33333
64.51613
76.92308
129.87013
80.00000
128.20513
45.66210
47.61905
76.92308
63.69427
90.90909
135.13514
66.66667
128.20513
44.84305
45.45455
76.92308
65.78947
76.33588
128.36970
70.92199
140.84507
44.76276
83.33333
76.92308
63.29114
66.66667
129.87013
76.92308
133.33333
44.44444
52.63158
83.33333
64.51613
76.92308
129.87013

32.56637
13.8806
1.517241
1.818182
0.465116
1.654676
32.56637
13.8806
28.92857
9.850746
5.287356
1.390374
5.116279
1.438849
28.92857
9.850746
26.06383
5.373134
2.436782
0
4.767442
1.294964
26.06383
5.373134
27.43363
3.58209
0.367816
1.336898
1.046512
3.165468
27.43363
3.58209
18.60068
9.850746
1.057471
0.374332
2.093023
0.57554
18.60068
9.850746

3048.142
3106.269
3141.885
3141.283
3143.721
3141.942
3048.142
3106.269
3052.143
3125.075
3130.161
3141.604
3136.395
3141.727
3052.143
3125.075
3063.475
3136.119
3140.736
3144.492
3136.744
3142.446
3063.475
3136.119
3057.345
3138.955
3143.908
3142.406
3142.907
3139.424
3057.345
3138.955
3082.423
3121.493
3142.897
3143.957
3141.163
3143.669
3082.423
3121.493

14.37168
5.208955
0.078161
0.106952
0
0
14.37168
5.208955
14.89286
1.223881
1.921839
0.224599
0.023256
0.151079
14.89286
1.223881
12.80142
0
0
0
0.081395
0
12.80142
0
13.07965
0
0
0
0
0.035971
13.07965
0
10.47782
2.402985
0
0
0
0
10.47782
2.402985

3.472566
6.813433
10.52322
10.97166
7.869767
10.11655
3.472566
6.813433
0.716071
6.135821
10.85885
8.353476
5.625581
5.740288
0.716071
6.135821
3.755319
3.362687
8.476782
8.859358
4.89186
8.007914
3.755319
3.362687
3.683186
7.097015
9.232184
9.678075
7.580233
9.076978
3.683186
7.097015
2.262799
5.240299
7.829885
8.171123
5.95814
7.558273
2.262799
5.240299

hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499

Y. So

494

EEIi

EI i
Hf

(4)

3.2. Combustion efciency

Theoretically, combustion efciency is dened as the heat released in the combustion process over the heat potential in the burnt fuel
[36,45]. However, combustion efciency can be calculated on the basis of enthalpy. Due to this approach, unburned hydro carbons and
carbon monoxide are subtracted from 100%. As known, ineffectiveness of combustion is based on the scanty burn of hydrocarbons. As a
result of this combustion process, the proportion of the hydro carbons and carbon monoxide in exhaust gas increases. The effects of other
ingredients on combustion efciency are ignored in this approximation. Therefore, Eq. (5) can be written to calculate combustion efciency
[46]:

hc 100 

10109 EI CO EI UHC

10Hf
10

(5)

In Eq. (5), hc and Hf notates the combustion efciency and the heat value of the fuel respectively.

4. Results and discussion

In this study, experimental data taken from the T56-A-15 turboprop engine is used to prove major emission parameters and combustion
efciency. To that end, exhaust emissions data for various loads given in Table 1 is assessed according to the aforementioned methods.
Calculated quantities which are the emissions index, power emissions index, energy emissions index and combustion efciency for each
load and test run of the T56-A-15 engine are presented in Tables 3e6 respectively.

Table 4
Power emission indexes of exhaust gas constituents at various loads.
Test#

RPM (1/min)

AFR

PEI, Power emission index (g/kWh)

CO

CO2

UHC

NO2

10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500

76.92308
133.33333
44.44444
52.63158
83.33333
64.51613
76.92308
129.87013
80.00000
128.20513
45.66210
47.61905
76.92308
63.69427
90.90909
135.13514
66.66667
128.20513
44.84305
45.45455
76.92308
65.78947
76.33588
128.36970
70.92199
140.84507
44.76276
83.33333
76.92308
63.29114
66.66667
129.87013
76.92308
133.33333
44.44444
52.63158
83.33333
64.51613
76.92308
129.87013

69.92493
6.652705
2.181023
2.247115
0.264366
1.520107
69.92493
6.652705
61.56434
4.721274
7.600536
1.718382
2.908031
1.321832
61.56434
4.721274
55.86394
2.57524
3.502856
0
2.709756
1.189649
55.86394
2.57524
58.90416
1.716827
0.528733
1.65229
0.594825
2.908031
58.90416
1.716827
41.42292
4.721274
1.520107
0.462641
1.189649
0.528733
41.42292
4.721274

6544.822
1488.775
4516.437
3882.354
1786.853
2886.419
6544.822
1488.775
6495.418
1497.788
4499.584
3882.75
1782.689
2886.221
6495.418
1497.788
6566.103
1503.082
4514.785
3886.319
1782.888
2886.882
6566.103
1503.082
6564.583
1504.441
4519.345
3883.742
1786.39
2884.106
6564.583
1504.441
6864.424
1496.072
4517.891
3885.658
1785.399
2888.005
6864.424
1496.072

30.85818
2.496553
0.112356
0.132183
0
0
30.85818
2.496553
31.69424
0.586583
2.76263
0.277585
0.013218
0.138792
31.69424
0.586583
27.43794
0
0
0
0.046264
0
27.43794
0
28.08398
0
0
0
0
0.033046
28.08398
0
23.33365
1.151705
0
0
0
0
23.33365
1.151705

7.456126
3.265548
15.12705
13.56002
4.473081
9.293803
7.456126
3.265548
1.523908
2.940782
15.60952
10.32417
3.197513
5.27345
1.523908
2.940782
8.048968
1.611671
12.18531
10.9494
2.780474
7.356658
8.048968
1.611671
7.908358
3.401463
13.2712
11.96126
4.308513
8.33878
7.908358
3.401463
5.039155
2.511575
11.2554
10.0988
3.386535
6.943585
5.039155
2.511575

hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499

Y. So

495

The emissions index indicates the emitted gas amount in consequence of 1 kg of fuel combustion. An increase of the RPM brings
reduction of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbon indexes along. However, the proportion of nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide in
the exhaust gas increases at the same time. This situation is understood from Table 3 obviously.
As it is mentioned before, the power emission index is a parameter to evaluate the amount of the emitted gases based on power production. The RPM is directly proportional with the generated power. Thus, more power generation causes more pollution. According to Table
4, this can be stated, especially when the nitrogen dioxide emission reaches its peak point while the engine is running at full power. On the
other hand, the increase of the power gained from the engine reduces unburned hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions.
The energy emissions index variation of the T56-A-15 with RPM is represented in Table 5. It can be stated that the carbon dioxide energy
emission index is approximately one and the same. However, the energy emission index of all other constituents in the exhaust gas dwindle
down while the RPM increases.
Especially the variation of unburned hydro carbon energy emission index is remarkable and demonstrated in Fig. 2 for better understanding. It is clear in the graph that the energy emissions index of unburned hydrocarbon rises at the AFR range of 60e90 while the engine
RPM reaches maximum and minimum RPMs. Especially during the take-off phase, the engine power is maximum and the energy emissions
index peaks.
High combustion efciency is the main goal of the combustion chamber design in this century. As given in Table 6, the combustion
efciency of the engine varies between 97.8% and 99.98%. According to the results of each test, the combustion efciency enhances while the
RPM rises. In another scope, to see the combustion efciency variation with the AFR, Fig. 3 is illustrated. The AFR is around 60e90 when
engine RPM reaches minimum and maximum values. This situation results in the low combustion efciency cause of the power decrease.
Most of the turboprop engine is designed and optimized for an optimum RPM range.
On the basis of Fig. 3, it can be stated that combustion efciency reaches the peak point whilst the AFR is out of the range of 60e90
depending on the engine RPM. On the other hand, a minimum value of the combustion efciency exists for a minimum RPM while the AFR is
around 75. As mentioned before, the combustion efciency varies with the emitted amount of unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from the engine. For this reason, correlation of unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emission indexes are similar to
combustion efciency variation with AFR and RPM variations.

Table 5
Energy emission indexes of exhaust gas constituents at various loads.
Test#

RPM (1/min)

AFR

EEI, Energy emission index (g/MJ)

CO

CO2

UHC

NO2

10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500

76.92308
133.33333
44.44444
52.63158
83.33333
64.51613
76.92308
129.87013
80.00000
128.20513
45.66210
47.61905
76.92308
63.69427
90.90909
135.13514
66.66667
128.20513
44.84305
45.45455
76.92308
65.78947
76.33588
128.36970
70.92199
140.84507
44.76276
83.33333
76.92308
63.29114
66.66667
129.87013
76.92308
133.33333
44.44444
52.63158
83.33333
64.51613
76.92308
129.87013

749238.5
319344.1
34906.43
41830.01
10700.7
38068.32
749238.5
319344.1
665545.4
226631.3
121643.6
31987.66
117707.7
33102.89
665545.4
226631.3
599637.7
123617.1
56061.84
0
109682.2
29792.6
599637.7
123617.1
631152
82411.37
8462.164
30757.36
24076.58
72826.36
631152
82411.37
427936.8
226631.3
24328.72
8612.062
48153.16
13241.16
427936.8
226631.3

70127094
71464395
72283804
72269962
72326041
72285124
70127094
71464395
70219149
71897054
72014072
72277344
72157505
72280158
70219149
71897054
70479866
72151156
72257359
72343780
72165530
72296710
70479866
72151156
70338835
72216398
72330345
72295798
72307314
72227194
70338835
72216398
70915794
71814643
72307074
72331477
72267187
72324847
70915794
71814643

330642.2
119839.9
1798.21
2460.589
0
0
330642.2
119839.9
342632.6
28157.22
44214.81
5167.237
535.0351
3475.803
342632.6
28157.22
294515.9
0
0
0
1872.623
0
294515.9
0
300917
0
0
0
0
827.5722
300917
0
241058
55284.3
0
0
0
0
241058
55284.3

79891.63
156753.3
242102.5
252419.5
181055.9
232746.4
79891.63
156753.3
16474.3
141163.8
249824.2
192184.3
129425
132064
16474.3
141163.8
86396.78
77363.68
195021.1
203822.9
112544.6
184234.1
86396.78
77363.68
84737.24
163277.5
212400.3
222658.7
174394.7
208829.6
84737.24
163277.5
52059.09
120561
180138.3
187989
137076
173889.5
52059.09
120561

hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499

Y. So

496

Table 6
Combustion efciency of the T56-A-15 turboprop engine at various loads.
Test#

RPM (1/min)

AFR

hc (%)

10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500
10000
13500
13800
13800
13800
13800
10000
13500

76.92308
133.33333
44.44444
52.63158
83.33333
64.51613
76.92308
129.87013
80.00000
128.20513
45.66210
47.61905
76.92308
63.69427
90.90909
135.13514
66.66667
128.20513
44.84305
45.45455
76.92308
65.78947
76.33588
128.36970
70.92199
140.84507
44.76276
83.33333
76.92308
63.29114
66.66667
129.87013
76.92308
133.33333
44.44444
52.63158
83.33333
64.51613
76.92308
129.87013

97.80543
99.15628
99.9569
99.94702
99.98918
99.96152
97.80543
99.15628
97.83791
99.64851
99.68485
99.9452
99.87868
99.95143
97.83791
99.64851
98.11368
99.87504
99.94333
99.91902
99.88098
99.96988
98.11368
99.87504
98.054
99.91669
99.99145
99.96891
99.97566
99.92278
98.054
99.91669
98.51962
99.5306
99.97541
99.99129
99.95132
99.98661
98.51962
99.5306

Fig. 2. Variation of the unburned hydro carbon energy emission index with AFR at various loads.

hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499

Y. So

497

Fig. 3. AFR-Combustion efciency variation of the T56-A-15 engine.

Fig. 4. AFR-Combustion efciency-Emission index variation of unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in exhaust gas for test #1.

Evaluation of Fig. 4 illustrates the correlation of the combustion efciency with the emissions indexes. According to the graph; the
emitted unburned hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide decrease yields increase of the combustion efciency. On the basis of the combustion
theory, more hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide production indicates that carbons and hydrogens in the composition of the fuel react with
the oxygen constituent of the air at a high level.

5. Conclusion remarks
In this study, a novel method is used to nd combustion efciency of a turboprop engine to the best of the authors' knowledge.
Additionally, the emission indexes of exhaust gas ingredients are identied while presenting the power emission index and the energy
emission index for an aircraft engine as a novelty. The results of the analysis prove that the emitted gas amount depends on combusted fuel,
generated power and provided energy. The main conclusions of this study are stated briey:

hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499

Y. So

498

 As the emission index of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbon decrease, the nitrogen dioxide emission index increases and the
carbon dioxide emission index is approximately constant; meanwhile RPM increases.
 Depending on the RPM increase, the power emission index of carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide decrease;
meanwhile, the power emission index of nitrogen dioxide reaches maximum value.
 An RPM increase causes the energy emission index reduction for carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbon and nitrogen dioxide ingredients in the exhaust gas. On the other hand, the energy emission index of carbon dioxide rises at the same time.
 Combustion efciency of the T56-A-15 engine is found to be acceptable for a modern aircraft engine [47]. Variation of combustion
efciency between 97.8% and 99.9% indicates that oxidation of the fuel is very close to ideal combustion conditions.
 Methodology explained in this study can be benecial to investigate combustion efciency of various combustors, burners and energy
systems experimentally.
 Dened new emission parameters can be useful to evaluate the environmental impact of gas turbines with a different point of view.
In a future study, an investigation of the environmental impact of the T56-A-15 engine on the basis of emission data is planned.
Application of the explained methodology on another type of aircraft engine can be considered for a new study.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the TUSAS Engine Inc. and is a development of work carried out on a collaborative project with Anadolu
University. The authors are very grateful both for their support and for the useful help. Also, the authors are very grateful to the reviewers for
their valuable comments, which have been utilized in improving the quality of the paper.
Nomenclature

m_
AFR
EEI
EI
Hf
ICAO
LTO
PEI
RPM
UAV

hc

mass ow rate (kg/s)

air-fuel ratio (kg air/kg fuel)
energy emission index (g/MJ)
emission index (g/kg)
heat value of the fuel (kJ/kg)
The International Civil Aviation Organization
landing and take-off ight cycle
power emission index (g/kWh)
revolution per minute (1/min)
unmanned aerial vehicle
combustion efciency (%)

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]

J.D. Mattingly, Elements of propulsion gas turbines and rockets, AIAA Educ. Ser. Va. (2006).
J.L. Kerrebrock, in: Aircraft Engines and Gas Turbines, second ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992.
M.P. Boyce, Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook, fourth ed., Elsevier Inc., U.S.A., 2012.
C. Soares, Gas Turbines a Handbook of Air, Land and Sea Applications, Elsevier Inc., U.S.A., 2008.
E. Benini, S. Giacometti, Design, manufacturing and operation of a small turbojet-engine for research purposes, Appl. Energy 84 (2007) 1102e1116.
B. Nkoi, P. Pilidis, T. Nikolaidis, Performance assessment of simple and modied cycle turboshaft gas turbines, Propuls. Power Res. 2 (2013) 96e106.
T. Sato, H. Taguchi, H. Kobayashi, T. Kojima, K. Fukiba, D. Masaki, K. Okai, K. Fujita, M. Hongo, S. Sawai, Development study of a precooled turbojet engine, Acta Astronaut.
66 (2010) 1169e1176.
M. Badamia, P. Nuccio, D. Pastrone, A. Signoretto, Performance of a small-scale turbojet engine fed with traditional and alternative fuels, Energy Convers. Manag. 82
(2014) 219e228.
M.H. Gobran, Off-design performance of solar centaur-40 gas turbine engine using simulink, Ain Shams Eng. J. 4 (2013) 285e298.
C. Tona, P. Antonio, L.F. Pellegrini Jr., S. de Oliveira, Exergy and thermoeconomic analysis of a turbofan engine during a typical commercial ight, Energy 35 (2010) 952e959.
O. Turan, Exergetic effects of some design parameters on the small turbojet engine for unmanned air vehicle applications, Energy 46 (2012) 51e61.
E. Turgut, T.H. Karakoc, A. Hepbasli, Exergetic analysis of an aircraft turbofan engine, Int. J. Energy Res. 31 (2007) 1383e1397.
H.Z. Hassan, Evaluation of the local exergy destruction in the intake and fan of a turbofan engine, Energy 63 (2013) 245e251.
A.M. Al-Ibrahim, A. Varnham, A review of inlet air-cooling technologies for enhancing the performance of combustion turbines in Saudi Arabia, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30
(2010) 1879e1888.
R. Atilgan, O. Turan, O. Altuntas, H. Aydin, K. Synylo, Environmental impact assessment of a turboprop engine with the aid of exergy, Energy 58 (2013) 664e671.
H. Aydin, Exergetic sustainability analysis of LM6000 gas turbine power plant with steam cycle, Energy 57 (2013) 766e774.
V.C. Tai, P.C. See, C. Mares, Optimisation of energy and exergy of turbofan engines using genetic algorithms, Int. J. Sustain. Aviat. 1 (2014) 25e42.
H. Aydin, O. Turan, T.H. Karakoc, A. Midilli, Component based exergetic measures of an experimental turboprop/turboshaft engine for propeller aircrafts and helicopters,
Int. J. Exergy 11 (2012) 322e348.
~ oz, A.R. Uribe-Ramrez, J.M. Belman-Flores, Use of bioethanol in a gas turbine combustor, Appl. Therm. Eng. 61 (2013) 481e490.
J.A. Alfaro-Ayala, A. Gallegos-Mun
P. Gobbato, M. Masi, A. Toffolo, A. Lazzaretto, G. Tanzini, Calculation of the ow eld and NOx emissions of a gas turbine combustor by a coarse computational uid
dynamics model, Energy 45 (2012) 445e455.
J.M. Owen, Theoretical modelling of hot gas ingestion through turbine rim seals, Propuls. Power Res. 1 (2012) 1e11.
A. Lazzaretto, Toffolo, Prediction of performance and emissions of a two-shaft gas turbine from experimental data, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28 (2008) 2405e2415.
L. Xiaohua, S. Dakun, S. Xiaofeng, W. Xiaoyu, Flow stability model for fan/compressors with annular duct and novel casing treatment, Chin. J. Aeronautics 25 (2012) 143e154.
A. Bejan, D.L. Siems, The need for exergy analysis and thermodynamic optimization in aircraft development, Exergy Int. J. 1 (2001) 14e24.
N.S. Kaisare, D.G. Vlachos, A review on microcombustion: fundamentals, devices and applications, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 38 (2012) 321e359.
N. Hashimoto, H. Nishida, Y. Ozawa, Fundamental combustion characteristics of Jatropha oil as alternative fuel for gas turbines, Fuel 126 (2014) 194e201.
H.L. Cao, J.L. Xu, Thermal performance of a micro-combustor for micro-gas turbine system, Energy Convers. Manag. 48 (2007) 1569e1578.
A.K. Gupta, Gas turbine combustion: prospects and challenges, Energy Convers. Manag. 38 (1997) 1311e1318.
M.A. Nemitallaha, M.A. Habib, Experimental and numerical investigations of an atmospheric diffusion oxy-combustion ame in a gas turbine model combustor, Appl.
Energy 111 (2013) 401e415.

hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499

Y. So

499

[30] L. Li, X.F. Peng, T. Liu, Combustion and cooling performance in an aero-engine annular combustor, Appl. Therm. Eng. 26 (2006) 1771e1779.
[31] E. Benini, S. Pandolfo, S. Zoppellari, Reduction of NO emissions in a turbojet combustor by direct water/steam injection: numerical and experimental assessment, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 29 (2009) 3506e3510.
[32] A. Datta, S.K. Som, Combustion and emission characteristics in a gas turbine combustor at different pressure and swirl conditions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 19 (1999) 949e967.
[33] A.B. Lebedev, A.N. Secundov, A.M. Starik, N.S. Titova, A.M. Schepin, Modeling study of gas-turbine combustor emission, Proc. Combust. Inst. 32 (2009) 2941e2947.
[34] L.Y.M. Gicquel, G. Staffelbach, T. Poinsot, Large Eddy simulations of gaseous ames in gas turbine combustion chambers, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 38 (2012) 782e817.
[35] A.H. Lefebvre, Fuel effects on gas turbine combustion-liner temperature, pattern factor and pollutant emissions, J. Aircr. 21 (1984) 887e898.
[36] D.R. Ballal, A.H. Lefebvre, Combustion performance of gas turbine combustors burning alternative fuels, J. Energy 3 (1978) 50e54.
[37] B.S. Brewster, S.M. Cannon, J.R. Farmer, F. Meng, Modeling of lean premixed combustion in stationary gas turbines, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 25 (1999) 253e385.
[38] http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/aturbp.html (Access: July 11, 2014).
[39] R.H. Lange, A review of advanced turboprop transport aircraft, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 23 (1986) 151e166.
[40] H.I.H. Saravanamuttoo, Modern turboprop engines, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 24 (1987) 225e248.
[41] J.M. Vaught, S.E. Johnsen, W.M. Parks, R.L. Johnson, Collection and Assessment of Aircraft Emissions Base-line Data Turboprop Engines (Allison T56-A-15), Final Technical
Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Ofce Air Programs, Ann Arbor, Michigan, September 1971. EDR 7200. EPA Contract No: 68-04-0029.
[42] O. Balli, A. Hepbasli, Energetic and exergetic analyses of T56 turboprop engine, Energy Convers. Manag. 73 (2013) 106e120.
[43] Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, C-130J Super Hercules: Whatever the Situation, Well Be There.
[44] ICAO, Doc 9889: Airport Air Quality Manual, rst ed., 2011.
[45] S. Turns, An Introduction to Combustion, second ed., McGraw-Hill, 2000.
[46] Y. Sohret, Determination of Combustion Efciency of an Experimental Turbojet Engine by Engine Emissions, Master thesis, Anadolu University Graduate School of
Sciences, 2013.
[47] A.H. Lefebvre, D.R. Ballal, Gas Turbine Combustion Alternative Fuels and Emissions, third ed., CRC Press, 2010.