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-energy-
institute

Combustion efficiency analysis and key emission parameters

of a turboprop engine at various loads
€ hret a, *, Olcay Kıncay b, Tahir Hikmet Karakoç c
Yasin Şo
a
Department of Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance, Graduate School of Sciences, Anadolu University, 26470 Eskisehir, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Yıldız Technical University, 80750 Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey
c
Department of Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance, Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Anadolu University, 26470 Eskisehir, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, combustion efficiency of a military type turboprop engine is determined at various loads
Received 23 July 2014 with the aid of emission data. Also, emission data collected from the engine run at various loads by
Received in revised form experimental methods is used to introduce emission parameters such as the emission index, the power
10 September 2014
emission index and the energy emission index. The calculation method of the power emission index and
Accepted 17 September 2014
Available online 13 November 2014
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 efficiency of the engine is found to be variable between 97.8% and 99.9%, as expected from a
Keywords:
Aircraft modern aircraft engine.
Turboprop © 2014 Energy Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Gas turbine engine
Emission
Combustion efficiency

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 benefit 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 first studies on modern aircraft gas turbine engines were performed in the 1900s during the Second World War. From that day
to the present time significant development was achieved [1e4]. At the present time, much research continues on to improve the per-
formance 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 efficiency, 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 efficiency of
combustor designs. Temperature pattern and pressure loss are essential criteria, as well as combustion efficiency. As a result of the texts that

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90 5347661416.

€ hret).
E-mail address: ysohret@gmail.com (Y. Şo

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. Şo 491

can be found in the literature; major parameters such as adiabatic flame temperature, equivalence ratio, emission distribution varieties with
different fuels and heat loss are proven [25e37]. This article aims to determine the combustion efficiency for a turboprop aero engine in the
LTO (landing and take-off) flight cycle with the aid of exhaust emission data. Whilst examining combustion parameters and fuel charac-
teristics, the neglect of combustion efficiency in other studies is clear [25e37]. However, combustion efficiency is significant for under-
standing 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 com-
bustion efficiency.

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-flow compressors, six can through-flow 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 flame 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 benefited from seven legs for attaching the probe to the engine tailpipe. As defined 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 flight 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.

492 €hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499
Y. Şo

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)
1 10000 76.92308 0.07119 0.0023184 0.2169972 0.00102312 0.000247212
13500 133.33333 0.08442 0.0011718 0.2622312 0.00043974 0.00057519
13800 44.44444 0.27405 0.0004158 0.8610336 0.00002142 0.002883888
13800 52.63158 0.23562 0.0004284 0.7401492 0.0000252 0.002585142
13800 83.33333 0.10836 0.0000504 0.3406536 0.0 0.000852768
13800 64.51613 0.17514 0.0002898 0.5502798 0.0 0.001771812
10000 76.92308 0.07119 0.0023184 0.2169972 0.00102312 0.000247212
13500 129.87013 0.08442 0.0011718 0.2622312 0.00043974 0.00057519
2 10000 80.00000 0.07056 0.0020412 0.2153592 0.00105084 0.000050526
13500 128.20513 0.08442 0.0008316 0.2638188 0.00010332 0.000517986
13800 45.66210 0.27405 0.001449 0.8578206 0.00052668 0.002975868
13800 47.61905 0.23562 0.0003276 0.7402248 0.00005292 0.001968246
13800 76.92308 0.10836 0.0005544 0.3398598 0.00000252 0.000609588
13800 63.69427 0.17514 0.000252 0.550242 0.00002646 0.001005354
10000 90.90909 0.07056 0.0020412 0.2153592 0.00105084 0.000050526
13500 135.13514 0.08442 0.0008316 0.2638188 0.00010332 0.000517986
3 10000 66.66667 0.071064 0.0018522 0.2177028 0.00090972 0.000266868
13500 128.20513 0.08442 0.0004536 0.2647512 0.0 0.000283878
13800 44.84305 0.27405 0.0006678 0.8607186 0.0 0.002323062
13800 45.45455 0.23562 0.0 0.7409052 0.0 0.002087442
13800 76.92308 0.10836 0.0005166 0.3398976 0.00000882 0.000530082
13800 65.78947 0.17514 0.0002268 0.550368 0.0 0.001402506
10000 76.33588 0.071064 0.0018522 0.2177028 0.00090972 0.000266868
13500 128.36970 0.08442 0.0004536 0.2647512 0.0 0.000283878
4 10000 70.92199 0.07119 0.001953 0.2176524 0.00093114 0.000262206
13500 140.84507 0.08442 0.0003024 0.2649906 0.0 0.00059913
13800 44.76276 0.27405 0.0001008 0.861588 0.0 0.00253008
13800 83.33333 0.23562 0.000315 0.7404138 0.0 0.002280348
13800 76.92308 0.10836 0.0001134 0.3405654 0.0 0.000821394
13800 63.29114 0.17514 0.0005544 0.5498388 0.0000063 0.001589742
10000 66.66667 0.07119 0.001953 0.2176524 0.00093114 0.000262206
13500 129.87013 0.08442 0.0003024 0.2649906 0.0 0.00059913
5 10000 76.92308 0.073836 0.0013734 0.2275938 0.00077364 0.000167076
13500 133.33333 0.08442 0.0008316 0.2635164 0.00020286 0.000442386
13800 44.44444 0.27405 0.0002898 0.8613108 0.0 0.00214578
13800 52.63158 0.23562 0.0000882 0.7407792 0.0 0.00192528
13800 83.33333 0.10836 0.0002268 0.3403764 0.0 0.000645624
13800 64.51613 0.17514 0.0001008 0.5505822 0.0 0.001323756
10000 76.92308 0.073836 0.0013734 0.2275938 0.00077364 0.000167076
13500 129.87013 0.08442 0.0008316 0.2635164 0.00020286 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 specified as 23.7 mm.

3. Methodology

3.1. Emission parameters

Defining 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 defined as the ratio of the mass (mass flow) of constituent to the mass (mass flow) of fuel reacted during the combustion
process. According to this definition Eq. (1) is written [45,46]:

mi m_
EI i ¼ ¼ i (1)
mf m_ f

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 efficiency [45].
Mass of any constituent can be defined 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. Şo 493

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

Engine operation Mode Operation duration (minute) Engine power setting Engine power (%) Engine RPM
Holding 4.0 Low speed ground idle 7 10000
Taxi 2.0 High speed ground idle 7 13500
Take-off 0.5 Take-off 100 13800
Climb-out 2.5 Normal 85 13800
Approach 4.6 Near flight idle 30 13800
Reverse 0.167 Reverse 30 13800
Holding 4.0 Low speed ground idle 7 10000
Taxi 2.0 High speed ground idle 7 13500

N i Mi
EI i ¼ (2)
N f Mf

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 flow of pollutant per power generated by the engine [45]:
,
mf EI i
PEIi ¼ (3)
W_
Similarly, the energy emission index can be defined as the mass flow 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

1 10000 76.92308 32.56637 3048.142 14.37168 3.472566
13500 133.33333 13.8806 3106.269 5.208955 6.813433
13800 44.44444 1.517241 3141.885 0.078161 10.52322
13800 52.63158 1.818182 3141.283 0.106952 10.97166
13800 83.33333 0.465116 3143.721 0 7.869767
13800 64.51613 1.654676 3141.942 0 10.11655
10000 76.92308 32.56637 3048.142 14.37168 3.472566
13500 129.87013 13.8806 3106.269 5.208955 6.813433
2 10000 80.00000 28.92857 3052.143 14.89286 0.716071
13500 128.20513 9.850746 3125.075 1.223881 6.135821
13800 45.66210 5.287356 3130.161 1.921839 10.85885
13800 47.61905 1.390374 3141.604 0.224599 8.353476
13800 76.92308 5.116279 3136.395 0.023256 5.625581
13800 63.69427 1.438849 3141.727 0.151079 5.740288
10000 90.90909 28.92857 3052.143 14.89286 0.716071
13500 135.13514 9.850746 3125.075 1.223881 6.135821
3 10000 66.66667 26.06383 3063.475 12.80142 3.755319
13500 128.20513 5.373134 3136.119 0 3.362687
13800 44.84305 2.436782 3140.736 0 8.476782
13800 45.45455 0 3144.492 0 8.859358
13800 76.92308 4.767442 3136.744 0.081395 4.89186
13800 65.78947 1.294964 3142.446 0 8.007914
10000 76.33588 26.06383 3063.475 12.80142 3.755319
13500 128.36970 5.373134 3136.119 0 3.362687
4 10000 70.92199 27.43363 3057.345 13.07965 3.683186
13500 140.84507 3.58209 3138.955 0 7.097015
13800 44.76276 0.367816 3143.908 0 9.232184
13800 83.33333 1.336898 3142.406 0 9.678075
13800 76.92308 1.046512 3142.907 0 7.580233
13800 63.29114 3.165468 3139.424 0.035971 9.076978
10000 66.66667 27.43363 3057.345 13.07965 3.683186
13500 129.87013 3.58209 3138.955 0 7.097015
5 10000 76.92308 18.60068 3082.423 10.47782 2.262799
13500 133.33333 9.850746 3121.493 2.402985 5.240299
13800 44.44444 1.057471 3142.897 0 7.829885
13800 52.63158 0.374332 3143.957 0 8.171123
13800 83.33333 2.093023 3141.163 0 5.95814
13800 64.51613 0.57554 3143.669 0 7.558273
10000 76.92308 18.60068 3082.423 10.47782 2.262799
13500 129.87013 9.850746 3121.493 2.402985 5.240299
494 €hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499
Y. Şo

EI i
EEIi ¼ (4)
Hf

3.2. Combustion efficiency

Theoretically, combustion efficiency is defined as the heat released in the combustion process over the heat potential in the burnt fuel
[36,45]. However, combustion efficiency 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 efficiency are ignored in this approximation. Therefore, Eq. (5) can be written to calculate combustion efficiency
[46]:

10109 EI CO EI UHC
hc ¼ 100   (5)
10Hf 10

In Eq. (5), hc and Hf notates the combustion efficiency 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
efficiency. 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 efficiency 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

1 10000 76.92308 69.92493 6544.822 30.85818 7.456126
13500 133.33333 6.652705 1488.775 2.496553 3.265548
13800 44.44444 2.181023 4516.437 0.112356 15.12705
13800 52.63158 2.247115 3882.354 0.132183 13.56002
13800 83.33333 0.264366 1786.853 0 4.473081
13800 64.51613 1.520107 2886.419 0 9.293803
10000 76.92308 69.92493 6544.822 30.85818 7.456126
13500 129.87013 6.652705 1488.775 2.496553 3.265548
2 10000 80.00000 61.56434 6495.418 31.69424 1.523908
13500 128.20513 4.721274 1497.788 0.586583 2.940782
13800 45.66210 7.600536 4499.584 2.76263 15.60952
13800 47.61905 1.718382 3882.75 0.277585 10.32417
13800 76.92308 2.908031 1782.689 0.013218 3.197513
13800 63.69427 1.321832 2886.221 0.138792 5.27345
10000 90.90909 61.56434 6495.418 31.69424 1.523908
13500 135.13514 4.721274 1497.788 0.586583 2.940782
3 10000 66.66667 55.86394 6566.103 27.43794 8.048968
13500 128.20513 2.57524 1503.082 0 1.611671
13800 44.84305 3.502856 4514.785 0 12.18531
13800 45.45455 0 3886.319 0 10.9494
13800 76.92308 2.709756 1782.888 0.046264 2.780474
13800 65.78947 1.189649 2886.882 0 7.356658
10000 76.33588 55.86394 6566.103 27.43794 8.048968
13500 128.36970 2.57524 1503.082 0 1.611671
4 10000 70.92199 58.90416 6564.583 28.08398 7.908358
13500 140.84507 1.716827 1504.441 0 3.401463
13800 44.76276 0.528733 4519.345 0 13.2712
13800 83.33333 1.65229 3883.742 0 11.96126
13800 76.92308 0.594825 1786.39 0 4.308513
13800 63.29114 2.908031 2884.106 0.033046 8.33878
10000 66.66667 58.90416 6564.583 28.08398 7.908358
13500 129.87013 1.716827 1504.441 0 3.401463
5 10000 76.92308 41.42292 6864.424 23.33365 5.039155
13500 133.33333 4.721274 1496.072 1.151705 2.511575
13800 44.44444 1.520107 4517.891 0 11.2554
13800 52.63158 0.462641 3885.658 0 10.0988
13800 83.33333 1.189649 1785.399 0 3.386535
13800 64.51613 0.528733 2888.005 0 6.943585
10000 76.92308 41.42292 6864.424 23.33365 5.039155
13500 129.87013 4.721274 1496.072 1.151705 2.511575
 €hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499
Y. Şo 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 pro-
duction. 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 under-
standing. 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 efficiency is the main goal of the combustion chamber design in this century. As given in Table 6, the combustion
efficiency of the engine varies between 97.8% and 99.98%. According to the results of each test, the combustion efficiency enhances while the
RPM rises. In another scope, to see the combustion efficiency 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 efficiency 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 efficiency 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 efficiency exists for a minimum RPM while the AFR is
around 75. As mentioned before, the combustion efficiency varies with the emitted amount of unburned hydrocarbons and carbon mon-
oxide from the engine. For this reason, correlation of unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emission indexes are similar to
combustion efficiency 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

1 10000 76.92308 749238.5 70127094 330642.2 79891.63
13500 133.33333 319344.1 71464395 119839.9 156753.3
13800 44.44444 34906.43 72283804 1798.21 242102.5
13800 52.63158 41830.01 72269962 2460.589 252419.5
13800 83.33333 10700.7 72326041 0 181055.9
13800 64.51613 38068.32 72285124 0 232746.4
10000 76.92308 749238.5 70127094 330642.2 79891.63
13500 129.87013 319344.1 71464395 119839.9 156753.3
2 10000 80.00000 665545.4 70219149 342632.6 16474.3
13500 128.20513 226631.3 71897054 28157.22 141163.8
13800 45.66210 121643.6 72014072 44214.81 249824.2
13800 47.61905 31987.66 72277344 5167.237 192184.3
13800 76.92308 117707.7 72157505 535.0351 129425
13800 63.69427 33102.89 72280158 3475.803 132064
10000 90.90909 665545.4 70219149 342632.6 16474.3
13500 135.13514 226631.3 71897054 28157.22 141163.8
3 10000 66.66667 599637.7 70479866 294515.9 86396.78
13500 128.20513 123617.1 72151156 0 77363.68
13800 44.84305 56061.84 72257359 0 195021.1
13800 45.45455 0 72343780 0 203822.9
13800 76.92308 109682.2 72165530 1872.623 112544.6
13800 65.78947 29792.6 72296710 0 184234.1
10000 76.33588 599637.7 70479866 294515.9 86396.78
13500 128.36970 123617.1 72151156 0 77363.68
4 10000 70.92199 631152 70338835 300917 84737.24
13500 140.84507 82411.37 72216398 0 163277.5
13800 44.76276 8462.164 72330345 0 212400.3
13800 83.33333 30757.36 72295798 0 222658.7
13800 76.92308 24076.58 72307314 0 174394.7
13800 63.29114 72826.36 72227194 827.5722 208829.6
10000 66.66667 631152 70338835 300917 84737.24
13500 129.87013 82411.37 72216398 0 163277.5
5 10000 76.92308 427936.8 70915794 241058 52059.09
13500 133.33333 226631.3 71814643 55284.3 120561
13800 44.44444 24328.72 72307074 0 180138.3
13800 52.63158 8612.062 72331477 0 187989
13800 83.33333 48153.16 72267187 0 137076
13800 64.51613 13241.16 72324847 0 173889.5
10000 76.92308 427936.8 70915794 241058 52059.09
13500 129.87013 226631.3 71814643 55284.3 120561
496 €hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499
Y. Şo

Table 6
Combustion efficiency of the T56-A-15 turboprop engine at various loads.

Test# RPM (1/min) AFR hc (%)

1 10000 76.92308 97.80543
13500 133.33333 99.15628
13800 44.44444 99.9569
13800 52.63158 99.94702
13800 83.33333 99.98918
13800 64.51613 99.96152
10000 76.92308 97.80543
13500 129.87013 99.15628
2 10000 80.00000 97.83791
13500 128.20513 99.64851
13800 45.66210 99.68485
13800 47.61905 99.9452
13800 76.92308 99.87868
13800 63.69427 99.95143
10000 90.90909 97.83791
13500 135.13514 99.64851
3 10000 66.66667 98.11368
13500 128.20513 99.87504
13800 44.84305 99.94333
13800 45.45455 99.91902
13800 76.92308 99.88098
13800 65.78947 99.96988
10000 76.33588 98.11368
13500 128.36970 99.87504
4 10000 70.92199 98.054
13500 140.84507 99.91669
13800 44.76276 99.99145
13800 83.33333 99.96891
13800 76.92308 99.97566
13800 63.29114 99.92278
10000 66.66667 98.054
13500 129.87013 99.91669
5 10000 76.92308 98.51962
13500 133.33333 99.5306
13800 44.44444 99.97541
13800 52.63158 99.99129
13800 83.33333 99.95132
13800 64.51613 99.98661
10000 76.92308 98.51962
13500 129.87013 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. Şo 497

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

Fig. 4. AFR-Combustion efficiency-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 efficiency with the emissions indexes. According to the graph; the
emitted unburned hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide decrease yields increase of the combustion efficiency. 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 find combustion efficiency of a turboprop engine to the best of the authors' knowledge.
Additionally, the emission indexes of exhaust gas ingredients are identified 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 briefly:
498 €hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499
Y. Şo

 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 in-
gredients in the exhaust gas. On the other hand, the energy emission index of carbon dioxide rises at the same time.
 Combustion efficiency of the T56-A-15 engine is found to be acceptable for a modern aircraft engine [47]. Variation of combustion
efficiency 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 beneficial to investigate combustion efficiency of various combustors, burners and energy
systems experimentally.
 Defined 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_ mass flow rate (kg/s)

AFR air-fuel ratio (kg air/kg fuel)
EEI energy emission index (g/MJ)
EI emission index (g/kg)
Hf heat value of the fuel (kJ/kg)
ICAO The International Civil Aviation Organization
LTO landing and take-off flight cycle
PEI power emission index (g/kWh)
RPM revolution per minute (1/min)
UAV unmanned aerial vehicle
hc combustion efficiency (%)

References

[1] J.D. Mattingly, Elements of propulsion gas turbines and rockets, AIAA Educ. Ser. Va. (2006).
[2] J.L. Kerrebrock, in: Aircraft Engines and Gas Turbines, second ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, 1992.
[3] M.P. Boyce, Gas Turbine Engineering Handbook, fourth ed., Elsevier Inc., U.S.A., 2012.
[4] C. Soares, Gas Turbines a Handbook of Air, Land and Sea Applications, Elsevier Inc., U.S.A., 2008.
[5] E. Benini, S. Giacometti, Design, manufacturing and operation of a small turbojet-engine for research purposes, Appl. Energy 84 (2007) 1102e1116.
[6] B. Nkoi, P. Pilidis, T. Nikolaidis, Performance assessment of simple and modified cycle turboshaft gas turbines, Propuls. Power Res. 2 (2013) 96e106.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] M.H. Gobran, Off-design performance of solar centaur-40 gas turbine engine using simulink, Ain Shams Eng. J. 4 (2013) 285e298.
[10] C. Tona, P. Antonio, L.F. Pellegrini Jr., S. de Oliveira, Exergy and thermoeconomic analysis of a turbofan engine during a typical commercial flight, Energy 35 (2010) 952e959.
[11] O. Turan, Exergetic effects of some design parameters on the small turbojet engine for unmanned air vehicle applications, Energy 46 (2012) 51e61.
[12] E. Turgut, T.H. Karakoc, A. Hepbasli, Exergetic analysis of an aircraft turbofan engine, Int. J. Energy Res. 31 (2007) 1383e1397.
[13] H.Z. Hassan, Evaluation of the local exergy destruction in the intake and fan of a turbofan engine, Energy 63 (2013) 245e251.
[14] 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.
[15] 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.
[16] H. Aydin, Exergetic sustainability analysis of LM6000 gas turbine power plant with steam cycle, Energy 57 (2013) 766e774.
[17] 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.
[18] 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.
[19] J.A. Alfaro-Ayala, A. Gallegos-Mun ~ oz, A.R. Uribe-Ramírez, J.M. Belman-Flores, Use of bioethanol in a gas turbine combustor, Appl. Therm. Eng. 61 (2013) 481e490.
[20] P. Gobbato, M. Masi, A. Toffolo, A. Lazzaretto, G. Tanzini, Calculation of the flow field and NOx emissions of a gas turbine combustor by a coarse computational fluid
dynamics model, Energy 45 (2012) 445e455.
[21] J.M. Owen, Theoretical modelling of hot gas ingestion through turbine rim seals, Propuls. Power Res. 1 (2012) 1e11.
[22] A. Lazzaretto, Toffolo, Prediction of performance and emissions of a two-shaft gas turbine from experimental data, Appl. Therm. Eng. 28 (2008) 2405e2415.
[23] 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.
[24] A. Bejan, D.L. Siems, The need for exergy analysis and thermodynamic optimization in aircraft development, Exergy Int. J. 1 (2001) 14e24.
[25] N.S. Kaisare, D.G. Vlachos, A review on microcombustion: fundamentals, devices and applications, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 38 (2012) 321e359.
[26] N. Hashimoto, H. Nishida, Y. Ozawa, Fundamental combustion characteristics of Jatropha oil as alternative fuel for gas turbines, Fuel 126 (2014) 194e201.
[27] H.L. Cao, J.L. Xu, Thermal performance of a micro-combustor for micro-gas turbine system, Energy Convers. Manag. 48 (2007) 1569e1578.
[28] A.K. Gupta, Gas turbine combustion: prospects and challenges, Energy Convers. Manag. 38 (1997) 1311e1318.
[29] M.A. Nemitallaha, M.A. Habib, Experimental and numerical investigations of an atmospheric diffusion oxy-combustion flame in a gas turbine model combustor, Appl.
Energy 111 (2013) 401e415.
 €hret et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (2015) 490e499
Y. Şo 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 flames 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, Office 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, We’ll Be There.
[44] ICAO, Doc 9889: Airport Air Quality Manual, first ed., 2011.
[45] S. Turns, An Introduction to Combustion, second ed., McGraw-Hill, 2000.
[46] Y. Sohret, Determination of Combustion Efficiency 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.