International Journal of Green Energy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljge20

Comparative thermodynamic, environmental and

sustainability performance assessments of an
aero turboprop engine utilizing jet fuel and biofuel

Ozgur Balli & Alper Dalkiran

To cite this article: Ozgur Balli & Alper Dalkiran (2022) Comparative thermodynamic,
environmental and sustainability performance assessments of an aero turboprop engine
utilizing jet fuel and biofuel, International Journal of Green Energy, 19:13, 1466-1485, DOI:
10.1080/15435075.2021.2005606

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2021.2005606

Published online: 31 Dec 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 253

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ljge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY
2022, VOL. 19, NO. 13, 1466–1485
https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2021.2005606

Comparative thermodynamic, environmental and sustainability performance

assessments of an aero turboprop engine utilizing jet fuel and biofuel
a,b c,d
Ozgur Balli and Alper Dalkiran
a
Aeronautical Engineer at 1’st Air Maintenance Factory Directorate (1.HBFM), General Directorate of Military Factories (AFGM), Ministry of National
Defence (MND), Eskisehir, Turkey; bAviation Science and Technology, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Eskisehir Osmangazi
University, Batı Meselik Campus, Eskisehir, Turkey; cSchool of Aviation, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey; dRnD Projects Commission,
SARES, International Sustainable Aviation and Energy Society, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The main objective of this study is to investigate the thermodynamic, environmental and sustainability Received 15 July 2021
performances of turboprop engines used on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for jet fuel and biofuel Accepted 5 November 2021
usages. Energy efficiency of TPE is accounted as 18.304% for jet fuel and 18.309% for biofuel. Exergy KEYWORDS
efficiency reduces from 17.05% to 16.99% by biofuel usage. Ecological objective function of TPE is Exergy; environmental;
computed as -4388.55 kW for jet fuel and -4413.77 kW for biofuel. Ecological objective function index is sustainability; biofuel;
-3.863 for jet fuel and -3.885 for biofuel. Environmental effect factor of TPE is 4.863 for jet fuel and 4.885 for turboprop engine
biofuel, during the ecological effect factor of TPE is 5.863 for jet fuel and 5.885 for biofuel. Exergetic
sustainability index of TPE is assessed as 0.206 for jet fuel and 0.205 for biofuel while sustainable efficiency
factor of TPE is estimated as 1.206 for jet fuel and 1.205 for biofuel. Environmental impact is obtained as
9059.798 mPts/h for jet fuel and 86.654 mPts/h for biofuel when the environmental impact index is
computed as 7.976 mPts/kWh for jet fuel and 0.076 mPts/kWh for biofuel. Environmental damage cost of
the engine is calculated to be 192.673 €/h for jet fuel and 1.843 €/h for biofuel when the environmental
damage cost index of the engine is determined to be 0.170 €/kWh for jet fuel and 0.002 €/kWh for biofuel.
As a result, the energy and exergy-based performance metrics have gone wrong by biofuel usage while
the emission-based environmental impact analyses have improved by biofuel usage.

1. Introduction
Environmental sustainability is defined in several forms; how­
ever, the energy’s production, utilization, and transformation
cycle for this notion. Sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide
(CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) were popularly studied as
emissions factors four decades ago. On the other hand, envir­
onmental security has started to be considered in the literature
three decades ago. Later the 1990s, major environmental pro­
blems were defined as climate change because of the soaring air
pollution in the atmosphere. It has still been a big issue for the
world’s environmental future. Toxic air substances like CO
have been defined as the main thread for environmental secur­
ity (Caliskan 2015; Dincer and Rosen 2007). Still, energy use
and the consequences of chemical combustion are the primary
cause of environmental impacts that correlate these two phe­
nomena (Caliskan, Dincer, and Hepbasli 2012a). Annual
demand for energy used for chemical combustion increases,
and its predecessor named ‘global warming’ causes rising
energy consumption rates (Caliskan, Hong, and Jang 2019),
which correlates environmental impact and energy use again.
The Kyoto Protocol was signed to limit CO emission in the
world. The emissions from the aviation industry are observed
worldwide due to the nature of aviation as a global financial
activity. Aviation is responsible for 2.4% of global carbon
dioxide emissions, 905 billion kg in 2018 figures (Tuzcu,
Sohret, and Caliskan 2020). The aviation industry will be
responsible for 4.5% of global emissions annually in 2036 (Ji
et al. 2020).
Aero planes are generally equipped with three types of gas
turbine engines. All three types of engines produce thrust
through the propulsion of chemical combustion in the turbine:
turbofan, turboprop, and turbojet. Hence, this combustion
creates NOx, CO2, SOx, H2O, CO, and much other toxic
waste (Kesgin 2006). Propulsion technologies have improved
air transport’s essential role in near transonic speeds for endur­
ing flights hours with intense cargo (Balli and Hepbasli 2013;
Sehra and Whitlow 2004).
Turboprop engines have created many opportunities to
overcome high fuel prices, noise, and emissions-like problems
after the researches of scientists. The number of active turbo­
prop engines will reach 3300 by 2030 around the world
(Atilgan et al. 2013). Twin turboprop setup is economical
because of their efficient combustion. Since the efficient energy
utilization of turboprop engine operation creates low emis­
sions, in other words, low fuel utilization establishes percep­
tions of profitable flights{{year}} [11]. TPE knowledge becomes
crucial in terms of utilizing ecologically designed propulsion

CONTACT Ozgur Balli balli07balli@yahoo.com; balli.o@hvkk.tsk.tr Aeronautical Engineer at 1’st Air Maintenance Factory Directorate (1.HBFM), General
Directorate of Military Factories (AFGM), Ministry of National Defence (MND), Eskisehir, Turkey; Aviation Science and Technology, Graduate School of Natural and
Applied Sciences, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Batı Meselik Campus
© 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

systems. Therefore, launch ideas for safer, sustainable, efficient
turboprop engine setups can be reached by reducing
irreversibilities.
Environmental issues are essential for the performance of
sustainable aviation dilemmas because they may be considered
connected (Dincer and Rosen 2005). On top of that, environ­
mental impacts could be reduced by optimizing fuel use and
efficiency optimization (Aydin et al. 2013). Thus, mentioned
reduction lets fuel utilization, and the exergy method explores
any irreversibility and losses (Etele and Rosen 2001; Rosen
2002). Energy analysis must be performed for the whole system
on 1st law of thermodynamics before the exergy analysis. Then,
exergy analysis must be applied to determine the destructions
within the system and losses from the system (Balli, Aras, and
Hepbasli 2010; Caglayan and Caliskan 2021). Also, efficient
resource utilization and sustainability assessment are applic­
able through the exergy method (Caliskan, Dincer, and
Hepbasli 2012b).
The literature for the turboprop engine defines eight flight
phases. Aydin et al. (Aydin et al. 2013) have investigated these
eight phases with applied exergy studies. They have found the
maximum exergy efficiency as 29.2%. In the same study, the
minimum environmental effect factor, founded as 2.43.The
0.41, 70.8%, and 20.6% figures have been highlighted as the
irreversibility ratio, waste exergy, and the highest TPE sustain­
ability. Also, exergy efficiency and sustainability rates have
become the lowest for landing and taxi stages for the same
engine.An exergo-environmental analysis for a 640 Nm torque
and 1948 SHP power turboprop engine has been performed by
Atilgan et al. (Atilgan et al. 2013). This study has calculated that
the environmental impact of TPE is as follows; the compressor
is 9%, the combustion chamber is 69%, the turbine is 13%, and
the nozzle is 2%.The environmental impact of the total system
was calculated on operational and maintenance bases as 2.34
mPts/s and 2.26 mPts/s, respectively.
The four different operational modes of TPE’s energetic
and exergetic analyses have been performed: 75%, 100%,
military mode, and take-off mode by Balli and Hepbasli
(Balli and Hepbasli 2013). Two cases have been defined:
Case A and Case B for mechanical shaft power and kinetic
exergy rate of exhaust. Energetic and exergetic efficiency
rates have been observed on the take-off mode of TPE as
maximum. At this stage, also, highest irreversibility has
been observed in the combustion chamber. The environ­
mental, exergo-economic, and sustainability analyses have
also been conducted by Balli and Hepbasli (Balli and
Hepbasli 2014) on various loads of TPE. The engine energy
cost at the take-off mode is another essential indicator. The
shaft power was found as 75% on the opposite load of the
kinetic energy of exhaust exergy cost. The TPE’s environ­
mental parameter has been calculated as 665.85 $/h for the
take-off mode. The calculations also revealed that the mili­
tary mode parameter was 634.93 $/h while the 100% and
75% modes were 576.97 $/h and 423.94 $/h, respectively.
Hybrid genetic algorithm-artificial neural networks which
consider the following parameters: power, gas generator tor­
que, speed, and airflow have been used by Baklacioglu et al.
(Baklacioglu, Turan, and Aydin 2015).This algorithm assesses
TPE components’ exergy efficiency. The variables were
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 1467
considered artificial neural network inputs, TPE components’
exergy efficiencies will be used as outputs. It has been seen that
the results are pretty similar while compared with the actual
data. Balli (Balli 2017a) concluded the advanced exergy ana­
lyses and found that accurate, unavoidable case efficiency
results are 16.63% and 17.13%. Also, the inevitable exergy
destruction rate figure of 94% has been computed, which
proved it was tough to develop the system. Another finding
was that the endogenous irreversibility rate representing the
relation between the system components is 86%. This value
represents a weak relation.
As a TPE engine energy and exergo-environmental test,
Atilgan et al. (Atilgan, Turan, and Aydin 2019) is another litera­
ture example. They have analyzed the engine at six different
engine loads and calculated the minimum and maximum envir­
onmental impact rates are 2.44 Pts/h and 6.42 Pts/h inthe com­
bustion room and gas producer turbine. The minimum and top
environmental impact rates as irreversibility were found 31.30
Pts/h (at 630 Nm) and 4.94 Pts/h (at 230 Nm) in the combustion
chamber. In another example, exergo-economic analyses of TPE
have been conducted under 240 and 630 Nm torques by Atilgan
and Turan (Atilgan and Turan 2020). The cost of minimum
exergy has been found as 38.81 $/h and 102.46 USD/h for the
combustion chamber and producer turbine.
Aygun et al. (Aygun, Cilgin, and Turan 2021) have studied
TRS-18 TPE engine based on energy, exergy, and exergo-
sustainability analyses on varying engine loads. The efficiency of
the TRS-18 engine positively correlates with the speed of the
turbine, compressor, and combustion chamber. Nevertheless,
irreversibility rate and environmental effects factor are inversely
proportional with the engine speed. T56-A-15 TPE engine com­
bustion efficiency has been calculated by Sohret et al. (Sohret,
Kıncay, and Karakoç 2015) under various load factors. Power and
energy emission index parameters have been developed. Results
have been calculated as estimations and found as 97.8% and
99.9%. A computer code has been developed by the Dinc (Dinc
2015a) for the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) TPE. Dinc also
used Gasturb software to simulate specific fuel consumption,
mechanical power, and thrust. Dinc (Dinc 2015b) has developed
genuine code in his other study to evaluate the TPE parameters of
UAVs. This computer code was used to optimize or increase
multi-objective engine sizing in flight duration or power.
Aero turboprop engines using conventional jet fuel were evalu­
ated in many studies in the open literature. However, it was seen
that the effect of utilizing biofuels on the performance measures
of aero engines had not been sufficiently investigated. Habib
et al. (Habib, Parthasarathy, and Gollahalli 2010) investigated
the thrust, specific fuel consumption, thermal efficiency, and
exhaust emissions’ concentrations of a small-scale gas turbine
engine under controlled conditions for biofuels and the blends
with their jet fuel. The pure biofuel resulted in markedly higher
thermal efficiencies than jet fuel and its blends. The CO and NO
pollutant emissionsconcentrations reduced when biofuel was
utilized. Rojo et al. (Rojo et al. 2015) analyzed the environmental
impact of alternative jet fuels on aircraft-induced aerosols, while
Winchester et al. (Winchester et al. 2015) presented the impact
of advanced biofuels on aviation engine emissions and opera­
tions. On the other hand,
1468 O. BALLI AND A. DALKIRAN

Coban et al. (Coban et al. 2017) studied the exergetic and temperature of the air. The mixed and burned fuel (3) and air
exergoeconomic performance of a small-scale turbojet engine (2)in the combustion process are transferred to the GT while
fueled biofuel. According to the results, biofuel usage increased the enthalpy of the working fluid increases (2–4). The combus­
the exergy destruction rate and potential improvement rate in tion resulted as increased momentum of gas particles (4–5) are
the engine’s combustion chamber. Additionally, utilizing biofuel move throughout the turbine to produce the rotational move­
in engines enhanced the cost rate of engine thrust from 79.08 ment by the turbine blades that propels the AC via the engine
$/h.kN to 91.89 $/h.kN. Akdeniz and Balli (Akdeniz and Balli shaft(8–9). After that, the increased momentum (5–6) is
2021a) evaluated a turbojet engine’s energetic and exergetic enlarged across the PT to generate the propeller’s rotation
performances powered by biofuel, hydrogen, and jet fuel. with PTMS (10–11). Finally, gases, air, and combusted fuel
According to the results, the engine’s energy efficiency increased emitted to the ambient air by the PT go through the ED.
from 16.39 to 16.43% when the engine was fed with biofuel. The investigated TPE has been designed for UAVs operated
Also,the exergetic efficiency of the engine decreased from15.34 at To = 288.15 K and Po = 101.325 kPa. The technical data of
to 15.25%. On the other hand, using biofuel, the engine’s envir­ TPEfuelled by JP-8 jet fuel is given in Table 1 (1.HBFM 0000):
onmental effect factor and exergetic sustainability index
increased from 5.52 to 5.56 and from 0.168 to 0.180, respectively.
As is seen from the detailed literature review, thermo- 2.2. Assumptions
environmental performance assessments of TPE fueled by bio-
This study assumes the below conditions:
fuel used UAV’s are objective of this study, have not been
studied before. This study has unique on the below items;
● The engineis operated in a steady-state situation.
● Both intake air and exhaust gasses are perfect gas
(i) The UAV type TPE engine will be studied for thermo­
mixtures.
dynamic, environmental, and sustainability first time,
● The process of combustion is perfectly concluded.
(ii) This paper indicates UAV type TPE engines instead of
commercial and transportationTPE engines,
(iii) Exact working data was used in this study instead of
working with simulation programs,
(iv) There is a comparison of jet fuel and biofuel usage, Table 1. The technical data of TPE fueled by JP-8 jet fuel (1.HBFM 0000; Balli
(v) Efficiency assessments have been conducted with both 2020b).
exhaust kinetic energy rates and shaft power. Data Value Unit
Maximum shaft power 1000.33 kW
Maximum residual power 135.6 kW
Air mass flow 8.66 kg/s
2. Material Fuel mass flow 0.145 kg/s
Air-fuel ratio 59.724
2.1. System description and operation modes Compressor pressure ratio 5.5
Gas generator turbine pressure ratio 2.68
A TPE consists of various parts asa compressor (AC), Power turbine pressure ratio 1.80
a combustor (CC), a gas generator turbine (GT), Pressure drop in the combustor 5 %
Compressor inlet pressure 101.325 kPa
a mechanical shaft of a gas turbine (GTMS) and power turbine Exhaust outlet pressure 107.55 kPa
(PTMS), a free power turbine (PT), an exhaust duct (ED), and Compressor inlet temperature 288.15 K
propeller (PP). An illustration of the TPEcan be seen in Gas generator turbine inlet temperature 1052.15 K
Power turbine inlet temperature 893.00 K
Figure 1. As a quick summary, air ducted from ambient air is Power turbine inlet temperature 807.20 K
dense to a higher compression by the AC (1–2) for efficient Exhaust outlet temperature 802.25 K
combustion. The CC increases the heat by the distributed Outlet velocity of exhaust gases 175.5 m/s

Figure 1. A simplified schematic of the investigated TPE.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 1469

● The chemical formula of jet fuel (JP-8) is C12H23 0:00590 0:01837 2 0:07339 3
cP;cg ðT Þ ¼ 0:99182 þ Tþ T T
(Akdeniz and Balli 2021a; Balli and Hepbasli 2014; 102
105 109
Coban et al. 2017) (4)
● The chemical formula of biofuel is C19H36O2(Akdeniz
and Balli 2021a; Coban et al. 2017; Habib, The specific heat capacity of air is accounted by (Balli and
Parthasarathy, and Gollahalli 2010) Hepbasli 2014; Balli, Sohret, and Karakoc 2018; Caglayan and
● All system components operated with adiabatic condi­ Caliskan 2021; Chen et al. 2020; Dinc 2015b; Ekici et al. 2019;
tions except the CC. Sohret et al. 2016)..
● A static condition test is considered for air entrance. 3:83719 9:45378 2 5:49031 3
● The fuel energy rates in the CC are assumed to be the cP;a ðT Þ ¼ 1:04841 þ Tþ T T
104 107 1010
same (6206 kW) for both JP-8 and biofuel. 7:92981 4
þ T
● The shaft power (1000.33 kW) and exhaust gas velocity 1014
(175.5 m/s) are considered the same for JP-8 fuel and (5)
biofuel.
Here T is the temperature in the Kelvin unit.
● The air componentsare 77.48% N2, 1.9% H2O, 20.59% O2
and 0.03% CO2.
3. Analysis methodology
3.1. Metrics for aviation performance
2.3. Combustion process and relations
Three performance parameters have widely accepted in avia­
The AC pressures the air and pressured gas mixes by sprayed tion for TPE engines are listed below (Balli 2020a, 2019; Balli,
fuel to go into the CC. The ignition of the air mixed jet fuel Ekici, and Th 2021);
burns in the CC. The air-fuel ratio keeps the desired level for
a stable burning. The stoichiometric ratio for completed fuel ● The specific fuel consumption (SFC),
burning in the CC is always lower than the air-fuel ratio in the ● The specific power (SP),
CC. Any decrease in CC gas temperature in the inlet of the GT ● The thermal limit ratio (TLR).
ruins this stoichiometric ratio. The CC reaction and JP-8 jet
fuel for 59.724 relations are written as following for the air-fuel The SFC fuel flow rate can be calculated by:
ratio:
2 3 2 3 m_3
0:7448N2 270:2490N2 SFC ¼ (6)
_EPr;TPE
6 þ0:2059O2 7 6 þ54:0676O2 7
C12 H23 þ 348:79856 7 6
4 þ0:0003CO2 5 !4 þ12:1046CO2 5
7
where m _ 3 is the flow rate of fuel and E_ Pr;TPE is engine power.
þ0:0190H2 O þ8:1272H2 O The TPE requires lower airflows or higher engine power for
(1) high SP results. The SP can be calculated by (Balli 2020a, 2019;
Balli, Ekici, and Th 2021);
After the combustion reaction, the mass compositions of com­
bustion gases are 5.24% CO2, 3.21% H2O, 17.03% O2, and E_ Pr;TPE
SP ¼ (7)
74.51% N2. The exhaust gases’ universal gas constant (Rg) is m_1
acquired to be 0.290136 kJ/kgK. The specific heat capacity of
The TLR is calculated for determining the temperature toler­
exhaust gases ðcP;cg Þ is calculated by:
ance for CC and other turbine parts. It is estimated as follows
0:01138 0:01540 2 0:06695 3 (Balli 2020a, 2019; Balli, Ekici, and Th 2021):
cP;cg ðT Þ ¼ 0:98836 þ Tþ T T
102 105 109 T4
(2) TLR ¼ (8)
T0
The combustion reaction relation of biofuel fuel for 52.189 air-
In this equation, T0stands for the environment temperature,
fuel ratios is obtained as follows:
and T4has defined turbine inlet temperature.
2 3 2 3
0:7448N2 418:453N2
6 þ0:2059O2 7 6 þ99:941O2 7
C12 H23 O2 þ 540:0786 7 6
4 þ0:0003CO2 5 !4 þ0:162CO2 5
7
3.2. Energy analysis and energetic metrics
þ0:0190H2 O þ11:162H2 O
Energy equilibrium equations lead the research with the effi­
(3) ciency metrics of the engine components and the mass balance
After the combustion reaction, the mass compositions of com­ equations. The fuel-product theory states the energy balance
bustion gases are 0.05% CO2, 1.34% H2O, 21.14% O2, and on each steady-state condition as the eqn. 9(Balli 2020a, 2019,
74.48% N2. The exhaust gases’ universal gas constant (Rg) is 2013; Balli and Hepbasli 2013):
acquired to be 0.291137 kJ/kgK. The specific heat capacity of E_ F ¼ E_ Pr þ E_ L (9)
exhaust gases for biofuel ðcP;cg Þ is estimated by:
1470 O. BALLI AND A. DALKIRAN

� � � �� � ��
In this equation, E_ F and E_ Pr are the fuel and product energy _ ¼m T P
Ex _ cP ðT Þ T T0 T0 ln þ RT0 ln (17)
rates, and heat loss rates(E_ L ) that do not convert to the pre­ T0 P0
ferred product, respectively. It is possible to assess the fuel
energy rate and the product energy rate by eq. 10(Balli 2020a, The kineticexergy rate of exhaust gases is estimated by(Balli
2019, 2013; Balli and Hepbasli 2013): 2020a, 2019, 2013; Balli and Hepbasli 2013):

E_ F ¼ E_ 3;F;TPE ¼ m
_ 3 LHVF (10) _ 7;kn ¼ m V7
Ex _7 (18)
2
The total engine power (shaft power plus kinetic energy power
of exhaust gases) is calculated by.. The fuel exergy rate is found from (Balli 2020a, 2019, 2013,
2020b; Balli, Ekici, and Th 2021; Balli and Hepbasli 2013; Balli,
E_ Pr;TPE ¼ E_ 11;PTMS þ E_ 7;kn (11) Sohret, and Karakoc 2018):

The following equation estimates the velocity of exhaust gases _ 3;F ¼ Ex

Ex _ 3;F;TPE ¼ m
_ 3;F LHVF F (19)
due to the engine thrust is measured (Balli 2020a, 2019, 2013;
Balli and Hepbasli 2013): where F isexergy grade function of liquid fuel (Cx Hy Oz Sw Þ as
follows(Balli 2013):
_ 7 V7
ET ¼ ðm _ 1 V1 Þ þ ðA7 P7
m A1 P1 Þ (12)
y z
The V1 equals zero value while the entire TPE is set up at the F ¼ 1:0401 þ 0:011728 þ 0:0432
x x
ground on the test bench. The eq. 12 is used to compute the w� y�
þ 0:2196 1 2:0628 (20)
exhaust gases velocity (V7 Þ.The exhaust duct outlet has x x
a kinetical energy rate; this value can be calculated by (Balli Where F is estimated to be 1.07322 for the jet fuel because the
2020a, 2019, 2013; Balli and Hepbasli 2013): chemical formula of jet fuel (JP-8) is C12H23. It iscalculated to
V7 be 1.07739 for biofuel; hence the chemical formula of biofuel is
E_ 7;kn ¼ m
_7 (13) C19H36O2. The lower heating value of jet fuel and biofuel are
2
42800 kJ/kg and 37400 kJ/kg (Akdeniz and Balli 2021a; Coban
Energy efficiency and enthalpy ratio (ER) are chosen to analyze et al. 2017; Habib, Parthasarathy, and Gollahalli 2010)
the turbofan system’s energetic efficiency. TPE’s system effi­ Table 2 represents the entire TPE components and their exergy
ciency is found by (Balli 2020a, 2019, 2013; Balli and Hepbasli balance equations for the related component. The fuel-product
2013): approach has formed this Table 3 has tabulated as exergetic
E_ Pr;TPE performance metrics (Balli 2020a, 2017d; Balli, Ekici, and Th
TPE ¼ (14) 2021; Khounani et al. 2021; Zalazar-García et al. 2020).
E_ 3;F
The ER is calculated by (Balli 2020a, 2019, 2013):
3.4. Exergy-based environmental analysis and
h4;CC cP4 T4 performance metrics
ER ¼ ¼ (15)
h0 cP0 T0
The first introduction of the ecological function of the jet engines
The h4;CC represents the combustion gasesenthalpy, and h0 was done by Angulo-Brown (Angulo-Brown 1991). Ecological
demonstrates outer atmosphere enthalpy (Balli 2020a, 2019, Objective Function (EOF) can be estimated from (Balli and
2013). Caliskan 2021a, 2021b; Lucia and Açıkkalp 2017; Sohret 2018;
Yan 1993):

3.3. Exergy analysis and exergetic performance tools _

EOF ¼ W T0 Sgen (38)
This energy study states that energy has both quality and In this equation, T0 Sgen is the availability losses. The irreversi­
quantities, and fundamental mechanisms reduce energy qual­ bility is the other meaning of the availability loss that is
ity.Exergy (Ex) is also a valuable instrument for clarifying the obtained by (Balli and Caliskan 2021a, 2021b; Lucia and
engine’s energy transfer efficiency. Exergy approaches gener­ Açıkkalp 2017; Sohret 2018; Yan 1993);
ally defined in compliance with”Fuel-Product” law to be
(Cavalcanti, Carvalho, and Silva 2020; Chen et al. 2020; Dinc, _ D ¼ T0 Sgen
Ex (39)
Sohret, and Ekici 2020; Ekici et al. 2019; Khounani et al. 2021;
Kursun 2021; Sohret et al. 2016); The product of the engine is measured as the existing
output work for the aircraft. Also, loss of exergy happens
_ F ¼ Ex
Ex _ Pr þ Ex
_ WE ¼ Ex
_ Pr þ Ex
_ D þ Ex
_ L (16) to the outside air. So, EOF is expressed by (Balli and
_ is exergy rate. However, the F is fuel, Pr is the product, Caliskan 2021a, 2021b; Lucia and Açıkkalp 2017; Sohret
The Ex
2018; Yan 1993);
WE is waste, D is destruction, and L is loss as subscripts.
For the engine:
The exergy rate of air and exhaust gases can be found by
eqn. 17 (Cavalcanti, Carvalho, and Silva 2020; Chen et al. 2020; �
_ Pr;TPE
EOFTPE ¼ Ex _ D;TPE þ Ex
Ex _ L;TPE (40)
Dinc, Sohret, and Ekici 2020; Ekici et al. 2019; Khounani et al.
2021; Kursun 2021; Sohret et al. 2016): For k’th components:
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 1471

Table 2. Exergetic equations of TPE components byfuel-product theory.

Name of the TPE Schematic of Eqn.
comp. Components _ F
FuelEx _ Pr
ProductEx _ WE ¼ Ex
WasteEx _ D þ Ex
_ L No.
�
Air Compressor _
W9 _Ex2 Ex
_ 1 _ D;AC ¼ W_ 9
Ex _ 2
Ex _Ex1 (21)
(AC)

�
Combustion Chamber _ 3
Ex _ 4
Ex _ 2
Ex _ D;CC ¼ Ex
Ex _ 3 _ 4
Ex _ 2
Ex (22)
(CC)

�
Gas Turbine _ 4
Ex _ 5 W_ 8
Ex _ D;GT ¼ Ex
Ex _ 4 _ 5
Ex W_ 8 (23)
(GT)

GT Mechanical Shaft W_ 8 W_ 9 _ D;GTMS ¼ W_ 8

Ex W_ 9 (24)
(GTMS)

_ 5 _ 6 W_ 10 �
Power Ex Ex _ D;PT ¼ Ex
Ex _ 5 _ 6
Ex W (25)
Turbine 10
(PT)

PT Mechanical Shaft W_ 10 W_ 11 _ D;PTMS ¼ W

Ex W (26)
(PTMS) 10 11

Exhaust _ 6
Ex _ 7
Ex _ D;ED ¼ Ex
Ex _ 6 _ 7
Ex (27)
Duct
(ED)

� �
Turboprop Engine Ex _ 3 Ex
_ 1 þ Ex _ Pr;11 Ex
_ Pr;7 þ Ex _ WE;TPE ¼ Ex_ 1 þ Ex_ 3 Ex _ Pr;11
_ Pr;7 þ Ex (28)
(TPE) _ WE;TPE ¼ Ex
Ex _ D;TPE þ Ex_ L;TPE (29)
_ L;TPE ¼ Ex
Ex _ 7 Ex _ Pr;7 (30)
_ D;TPE ¼ Ex
Ex _ D;AC þ Ex_ D;CC þ Ex _ D;GT þ Ex
_ D;GTMS þ Ex
_ D;PT þ Ex
_ D;PTMS þ Ex
_ D;ED (31)
1472 O. BALLI AND A. DALKIRAN

Table 3. The metrics of TPE components’ exergetic performance (1.HBFM 0000; 3.5. Exergy-based sustainability analysis and
Balli 2017b, 2020a, 2020b; Balli, Sohret, and Karakoc 2018; Chen et al. 2020; Dinc,
Sohret, and Ekici 2020; Ekici et al. 2019; Sohret et al. 2016).
performance metrics
Metrics Relation Eqn. No. The sustainability phenomenon compromises social, nat­
Exergy efficiency
TPE ¼
_ Pr;TPE
Ex
_ 3;F
(32) ural, and economic parameters while subjecting resource
Ex
Exergy destruction ratio _ D;k
Ex (33) management. It has become an essential value subject if
ExDRk ¼ Ex
_
_ WE;k
D;tot;TPE
_ D;k þEx
_ L;k
environmental issues and control of environmental costs
Waste exergy ratio WExRk ¼ Ex
Ex Ex (34)
_ WE;TPE ¼ Ex _ WE;TPE have become the focus. We are using sustainability index
Fuel exergy waste ratio _ WE;k
Ex _ D;k þEx
Ex _ L;k (35)
FExWRk ¼ Ex _ F;TPE ¼ Ex _ F;TPE approaches to determine the level of sustainability of the
Productivity lack ratio _ExWE;k
PLRk ¼ Ex
_ L;k
_ExD;k þEx (36) basis. The environmental impact factor feature can be com­
_ Pr;TPE ¼ Ex _ Pr;TPE
Exergetic improvement potential _ ¼ ð1 ÞEx
_ D (37) puted by the ratio of zero to one (0–1) to assess the
ExIP
environmental effects. The high index rate value represents
the higher performance, and the low environmental impact
factor shows the waste exergy ratio. The exergy calculations
_ Pr;k
EOFk ¼ Ex _ D;k
Ex (41) help us to understand and assess variations in the process.
Environmental efficiency enhancement has become crucial
The ecological objective function index (EOFI) is identified as to make more efficient utilization, more effective use of
the ratio of the ecological objective function to product exergy. alternative sources, and mitigate environmental harm.
The EOFI is accounted by (Balli and Caliskan 2021a, 2021b; Decreasing the use of scarce resources and extend the
Lucia and Açıkkalp 2017): energy life spans is one of the main burdens of the public.
For the engine: The eq. 48 and 49 can be used to calculate the Exergetic
Sustainability Index (ExSI) (Akdeniz and Balli 2021a,
EOFTPE 2021b; Balli 2020c; Balli and Caliskan 2021a, 2021b; Balli,
EOFITPE ¼ (42) Ekici, and Karakoc 2021):
_ Pr;TPE
Ex
For components:
For k’th components: 1
ExSIk ¼ (48)
EEFk
EOFk
EOFIk ¼ (43) For the whole engine:
_ Pr;k
Ex
1
ExSIkTPE ¼ (49)
The eq. 44 is to estimate the environmental effect factor (EEF), EEFTPE
which is the assessment of the entire system (Akdeniz and Balli
The sustainable efficiency factor (SEF) is recognized to be
2021a, 2021b; Balli 2020c; Balli and Caliskan 2021a, 2021b;
a metric for assessment as follows(Akdeniz and Balli 2021a,
Balli, Ekici, and Karakoc 2021)..
2021b; Balli 2020c; Balli and Caliskan 2021a, 2021b; Balli, Ekici,
For components:
and Karakoc 2021)
For components:
FExWRk
EEFk ¼ (44)
k 1
SEFk ¼ (50)
1 k
For the whole engine;
For the whole engine:
FExWRTPE 1
EEFTPE ¼ (45) SEFTPE ¼ (51)
TPE 1 TPE

The ecological effect factor (EcoEF) can be derived by (Akdeniz

and Balli 2021a, 2021b; Balli 2020c; Balli and Caliskan 2021a, 3.6. Emission-based environmental impact analysis
2021b; Balli, Ekici, and Karakoc 2021):
For components: The emission index (EI), global warming potential (GWP),
environmental impact (EnI), and environmental damage cost
_ F;k (EDC) are used as the environmental effect and the impact
Ex 1
EcoEFk ¼ ¼ (46) indicators for the TPE emissions. The emission index is given
_ Pr;k k
Ex in grams of each emission per kilogram of fuel burned; hence the
emission rate is directly related to the fuel rate. The emission
For the whole engine: index (EI) of carbon dioxide emission is calculated by (Dallara
2011; Ekici and Sohret 2020);
_ F;TPE
Ex 1
EcoEFTPE ¼ ¼ (47) _ CO2
m
_ Pr;TPE TPE
Ex EICO2 ¼ (52)
m_F

The GWP has the time-integrated radioactive forcing (RF). Time-
integrated RF causes pulse emissions of forcing agents over
a specified time, normalizes the CO2 emissions. Alternatively,
sustained GWPs may also be defined based on continuous emis­
sions over a specified time horizon. A hundred years is commonly
used andaccepted value by United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change for the Kyoto Protocol as
a GWP. The GWPs have been broadlyregistered for long-lived
gases containing CO2 (Dallara 2011; Fuglestvedt et al. 2010).
Lower GWP means that more environmentally friendly emission
comparing to the CO2 tons in a determined time. GWP value
represents a unit base typical result of measurement to estimate to
compile a GHG inventory to compare other results. GWP analysis
develops dexterity to authorities to be aware of emission reduction
opportunities by comparing the gaseous emissions through the
industries. The total GWP of emissions is calculated by (Eggleston
2006; Ekici and Sohret 2020)..
_ CO2 gwpv
GWP ¼ m (53)
Where the gwpv and m _ CO2 represents the global warming
potential value and mass flow rate of emission, respectively.
The environmental Impact (EnI) potential is spreading the
outputs of the burned gasses as a pollutant. In another way,
pollutant formation happens when a chemical reaction takes
place. The EnI of TPE’s CO2 emission is estimated by (Ekici
and Sohret 2020; Gurbuz, Sohret, and Akcay 2019; Sohret and
Gurbuz 2021):
_ CO2 bCO2
EnI ¼ m (54)
Here the b is the specific environmental impact factor (Eco99
Indicator).
The EDC analysis comprises flow and pollutant values
shown as a cost. The EDC can be explained as total pollution
damage cost because corresponding unit damage costs have
multiplied by the pollutants (Dallara 2011; Gurbuz, Sohret, and
Akcay 2019; Sohret and Gurbuz 2021; Toffolo, Lazzaretto, and
Lazzaretto 2002).The EDC of TPE emissions are obtained
from:
_ CO2 cCO2
EDC ¼ m (55)
Where the c represents the specific environmental cost (Eco-
cost).
Eco-cost (c) is a gauge to explain the amount of the envir­
onmental obligation to preventing before it happens. Eco-cost
can be defined as a virtual cost understood as a hidden burden
and can be integrated into the current production methodol­
ogy as a real-life cost soon. “Cradle to Cradle”is a relatively new
concept and is easily used to define the eco-cost of a product.
The significant advantage of eco-cost is to express a traditional
dimensionless financial value like $ or €.The eco-cost model is
easily understandable and computable when comparing to the
damage models (Vogtlander 2010). The values of global warm­
ing potential (GWP),specific environmental effect factor (b),
specific eco-cost value (c) for CO2 emission are taken as 1,
5.4545 mPts/kg and 0.116 €/kg (Meyer et al. 2009; Vogtlander
2010, (n.d.); Vogtlander and Bijma 2000).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 1473
The following environmental impact performance metrics
are proposed to compare the TPE engine’s environmental
effects that use different fuels. These are;
The global warming potential index (GWPI): The GWPI
can be defined as the ratio of the total GWP of the engine
toTPE’s power. It is estimated from:
GWP
GWPI ¼ (56)
_ExPr;TPE
In this equation, Ex_ Pr;TPE is the TPE’s total product power
(kW). The GWP is global warming potential (kg/h), the
GWPI is global warming potential index (kg/kWh).
The environmental impact index (EnII): The EnII is calcu­
lated from the ratio of the EnI values of TPE to the TPE’s total
power as follows:
EnI
EnII ¼ (57)
_ Pr;TPE
Ex
Where EnII symbolize the environmental impact index
(mPts/kWh).
The environmental damage cost index (EDCI): The EDCI is
obtained from the ratio of the EDC of TPE’s emission to the
TPE’s total power as follows:
EDC
EDCI ¼ (58)
_ExPr;TPE
Here EDCI represents the environmental damage cost
index (€/kWh).
4. Resultsand discussion
A TPE is investigated for jet fuel and biofuel usages at full
operation mode. The engine fueled by JP-8 was run experi­
mentally at the test cell when the engine fueled by biofuel was
theoretically analyzed.
4.1. The measured data and uncertainty analysis
This experiment’s uncertainties and possible errors are more
likely because of the instrument selection, calibration, condi­
tion, changing environment, missing observations, reading
mistakes, and test planning. Uncertainty analysis is required
to prove the accuracy of experiments. An uncertainty analysis
was done using the method published in the literature (Dogru,
Midilli, and Howarth 2002; Hepbasli and Akdemir 2004).
The measurement data of TPE were taken from Test Bench
at Eskisehir City, Turkey (1.HBFM 0000). The data measured
are listed below:
● Ambient pressure and temperature
● Compressor inlet pressure and temperature
● Compressor inlet and outlet pressure
● Turbine inlet and outlet temperature
● Turbine inlet an outlet pressure
● Exhaust duct outlet temperature and pressure
● Air and fuel mass flow
● Shaft power
● Residual thrust of exhaust gases
1474 O. BALLI AND A. DALKIRAN

Table 4. The main property of the measurement devices at the test bench. All parameters were considered as uncertainties in percen­
Tag tages as nominal values. Then, the uncertainties of engine
Number performance metrics (the specific fuel consumption, specific
and Station Type/Model of Operating Accuracy
Number Device range Unit (%) Uncertainty thrust, energy efficiency, the exergy efficiency) were esti­
P (0, 1) 331/BOURDON 88–111.75 (kPa) 0.1 ±0.10 mated. Because the uncertainties values of the measurement
P (2,4,5,6,7) 331/BOURDON 0–2068.38 (kPa) 0.3 ±1.50 affect the engine performance metrics lower than 0.07%, the
P (3) 331/BOURDON 0–690.45 (kPa) 0.1 ±0.50
T (0,1,3) PT-100/MESCON 233.15– (K) 0.1 ±0.25
deviations in the engine’s performance parameters may be
313.15 assumed to be negligible.
T(2,4,5,6,7) T/C-K/MESCON 273.15– (K) 0.5 ±1.25
1643.15
Dyno P633A model/ 0–36100 (lbf) 0.25 ±2.50
Torque Froude 4.2. Engine cycle data
Xact P633A model/ 0–500 (Nm) 0.25 ±1.20
Torque Froude The engine cycle data for JP-8 fuel and biofuel at full operation
RPM M13203000/ 0–50000 (RPM) 0.03 ±2.50 mode are given in Table 5, respectively.
Magnus The changes in performance metrics calculated for jet fuel
Fuel Flow Cox AN-8 flow 0–0.6 (kg/s) 0.3 ±0.001
meter and biofuel can be found from..
Air Flow ASME flow nozzles 0–20 (kg/s) 0.4 ±0.015
ðdata biofuelÞ ðdata jetfuelÞ
Δ% ¼ (59)
ðdata jetfuelÞ

Table 4 has tabulated the parameters of the device types, units,

the operating range, accuracy, and the uncertainty of the mea­
surements. The data measured for the temperature, pressure,
shaft power, thrust, exhaust residues units were repetitively
measured to prevail over the misreadings. This precaution is
to clear the determination errors for calculated values. The
below list is a summary of uncertainties.
● The uncertainty of exhaust gas velocity was found to
function of engine thrust and exhaust gas mass flow.
● The uncertainty of specific fuel consumption and specific
power was calculated as a function of engine power, air­
flow, and fuel flow.
● The specific heat capacity has been defined as a function
of the temperature.
● Estimating heat and work rates is considered a function of
the following three units; the specific heat capacity, the
temperature, and the mass flow.
● The function of the mass flow, the temperature, the spe­
cific heat capacity, and the pressure have defined the
streams of exergy.
4.3. The results of general aviation and exergetic
analyses
The TPEintakes 8.66 kg/s air mass for 0.145 kg/s jet fuel in
nominal conditions. According to an assumption that TPE is
fed up, the engine produces a 1000.33 kW-shaft power rate and
135.598 kW-kinetic energy power of exhaust gases. It con­
sumes a 6206.00 kW-fuel energy rate,the same fuel energy
rate (6206.00 kW) for jet fuel and biofuel. In this situation,
the 0.166 kg/s-biofuel shall be supplied to the engine because
the LHV of biofuel is 37400 kJ/kg. The engine fed up biofuel
generates a 1000.33 kW-shaft power rate and 135.921 kW-
kinetic energy power of exhaust gases. The facts for the ener­
getic performance of the TPE are shown in Table 7.
Table 6 has summarized, the SFC value of TPE is 0.460 kg/
kWh for jet fuel and 0.526 kg/kWh for biofuel consumption.
Even though the fuel mass flow consumption increases nearly
14.439% by biofuel usage, the energy efficiency rises by 0.028%
because the engine production rate increases approximately
0.028% viabiofuelusage (from 1135.928 kW to 1136.251 kW).
The specific fuel consumption (SFC) boosts by 14.406% with

Table 5. Jet fueled TPE cycle data at full operation mode.

�m� T P E Ex
Station kg cP (kJ/kgK)
s ðK Þ ðkPaÞ ðkW Þ ðkW Þ
number Streams
0 Air 0.000 288.150 101.330 1.00375 0.000 0.000
1 Air 8.660 288.150 101.330 1.00375 0.000 0.000
2 Air 8.660 498.150 557.290 1.02887 1933.804 1686.510
3 Jet fuel 0.145 298.150 250.090 6206.000 6660.403
4 Combustion gases 8.805 1052.150 529.420 1.20060 8576.536 5353.629
5 Combustion gases 8.805 893.000 197.550 1.16511 6615.135 3354.928
6 Combustion gases 8.805 807.200 109.750 1.14535 5594.451 2300.147
7 Combustion gases 8.805 802.250 107.550 1.14420 5536.434 2250.922
7” Kinetic exergy 135.598 135.598
8 Mechanical power 1961.401 1961.401
9 Mechanical power 1933.804 1933.804
10 Mechanical power 1020.684 1020.684
11 Mechanical power 1000.330 1000.330
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 1475

Table 6. Biofulled TPE cycle data at full operation mode.

�m� m_ T T P P E E_ Ex Ex_
Station kg cP (kJ/kgK) ðkW Þ ðkWÞ ðkW Þ ðkWÞ
s ðkg=sÞ ðK Þ ðKÞ ðkPaÞ ðkPaÞ
number Streams
0 Air 0.000 288.150 101.330 1.00375 0.000 0.000
1 Air 8.660 288.150 101.330 1.00375 0.000 0.000
2 Air 8.660 498.150 557.290 1.02887 1933.804 1686.510
3 Jet fuel 0.166 298.150 250.090 6206.000 6686.273
4 Combustion gases 8.826 1067.120 529.420 1.17481 8512.740 5389.505
5 Combustion gases 8.826 903.900 197.550 1.14106 6551.069 3377.882
6 Combustion gases 8.826 815.880 109.750 1.12240 5530.240 2316.013
7 Combustion gases 8.826 810.985 107.550 1.12136 5474.311 2267.645
7” Kinetic exergy 135.921 135.921
8 Mechanical power 1961.671 1961.671
9 Mechanical power 1933.804 1933.804
10 Mechanical power 1020.829 1020.829
11 Mechanical power 1000.330 1000.330

Table 7. The energetic performance metrics of TPE fueled by jet and biofuels. Table 10. The exergy efficiency of TPE components and entire TPE for jet fuel and
biofuel use.
Metrics Unit Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ
Components and engine Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ
m _F kg/s 0.145 0.166 14.439
E_ F kW 6206.000 6206.000 0.000 AC 87.21 87.21 0.00
CC 55.06 55.38 0.59
E_ Pr kW 1135.928 1136.251 0.028
GT 98.13 97.52 −0.63
η (%) 18.304 18.309 0.028 GTMS 98.59 98.58 −0.01
SFC kg/kWh 0.460 0.526 14.406 PT 96.77 96.14 −0.65
SP kW/kg/h 0.036 0.036 0.028 PTMS 98.01 97.99 −0.01
TLR (-) 3.651 3.703 1.423 ED 97.86 97.91 0.05
ER (-) 4.367 4.335 −0.755 TPE 17.05 16.99 −0.36

Table 8. Exergy rates of the UAV TPE components and the entire TPE for jet fuel
usage.
the biofuel burnt, the thermal limiting ratio (TLR) increases by
Component and 1.423%, while the enthalpy ratio (ER) reduces by 0.755% from
engine _ F (kW)
Ex _ Pr (kW Ex
Ex _ D (kW _ L (kW
Ex _ WE (kW
Ex
4.367 to 4.335.
AC 1933.804 1686.510 247.293 0.000 247.293
CC 6660.403 3667.119 2993.284 0.000 2993.284
GT 1998.702 1961.401 37.301 0.000 37.301
GTMS 1961.401 1933.804 27.597 0.000 27.597 4.4. Results of exergy analysis
PT 1054.781 1020.684 34.097 0.000 34.097
PTMS 1020.684 1000.330 20.354 0.000 20.354 The components of TPE and the entire TPE are established per
ED 2300.147 2250.922 49.225 0.000 49.225 fuel-product theory for exergy rates. These values are listed in
_ 7;Pr
Ex 135.598 Table 8 for jet fuel and Table 9 for biofuel.
_ 11;Pr
Ex 1000.330
According to the data given in Table 8 and Table 9:
TPE 6660.403 1135.928 3409.151 2115.324 5524.475

● Maximum irreversibility in TPE components occurs in the

CC as 2993.284 kW for jet fuel usage and 2983.278 kW for
Table 9. Exergy rates of the UAV TPE components and the entire TPE for biofuel
usage.
biofuel usage. These results are atypical situations if the
Component and
combustion process entails high irreversibilities.
engine _ F (kW)
Ex _ Pr (kW Ex
Ex _ D (kW _ L (kW Ex
Ex _ WE (kW ● TheTPE fueled by jet fuel has a 2115.324 kW-exergy
AC 1933.804 1686.510 247.293 0.000 247.293 losses rate while a 2103.857 kW-exergy losses rate for
CC 6686.273 3702.995 2983.278 0.000 2983.278 biofuel usage.
GT 2011.623 1933.804 77.819 0.000 77.819 ● The TPE feed with jet fuel produces 1135.928 kW-total. The
GTMS 1961.671 1933.804 27.867 0.000 27.867
PT 1061.869 1020.829 41.041 0.000 41.041 TPE engine’s product exergy rate become 6660.403 kW-fuel
PTMS 1020.829 1000.330 20.499 0.000 20.499 exergy rate. On the other hand, the engine is supplied by
ED 2316.013 2267.645 48.368 0.000 48.368
_ 7;Pr 135.921
a 6686.273 kW-biofuel exergy rate. The TPE generates
Ex
_ 11;Pr
Ex 1000.330 a 1136.251 kW-total product exergy rate.
TPE 6686.273 1136.251 3446.165 2103.857 5550.022
Jet fuel and biofuel have been applied to the TPE. The results and
the differences in percentages in exergetic performance are also
biofuel usage. The specific power (SP) of the TPE is approxi­ accountable for the TPE components. According to exergy ana­
mately the same for each fuel usage with 0.036 kW/kg/h. With lysis results:
1476 O. BALLI AND A. DALKIRAN

100
90
80 Jet fuel

Exergy efficiency (%)

70
Biofuel
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
AC CC GT GTMS PT PTMS ED TPE

TPE and its subsystems

Figure 2. The exergy efficiencies of TPE and its components for jet fuel and biofuel.

Table 11. The ratio of exergy destruction of TPEs subcomponents for jet fuel and
biofuel usages. 60

Waste Exergy Ratio (%)

Jet fuel
Components Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ 50
Biofuel
AC 7.25 7.23 −0.27
CC 87.80 87.27 −0.60 40
GT 1.09 1.46 33.56
GTMS 0.81 0.82 0.71 30
PT 1.00 1.20 20.04
PTMS 0.60 0.60 0.44 20
ED 1.44 1.41 −2.00
10

0
90 AC CC GT GTMS PT PTMS ED Losses
Exergy Destruction Ratio (%)

(7")
80 Jet fuel TPE's subsystems
70 Biofuel
Figure 4. Waste exergy ratios of TPE’s components and TPE’s losses to the
60 environment for jet fuel and biofuel usages.
50
40
30
20 except forCC and ED. The bio-fueled TPE exergy efficiency
10 increasesto17.05% from16.99%. The CC has minimumex­
0 ergy efficiency values of 55.06% for jet fuel and 55.38% for
AC CC GT GTMS PT PTMS ED biofuel usage. The TPE’s components’ exergy efficiency have
TPE's subsystems shown in Figure 2.
● Exergy destruction ratios (ExDR) of TPE’s components are
Figure. 3. The exergy destruction ratios of TPE’s components for jet fuel and
biofuel usages
founded and exhibited in Table 11. Jet fuel usage and biofuel
usage have been compared as the ExDR values of TPE. The
ExDR values of the GT and PT components enhance sig­
nificantly by 33.56% and 20.04% for biofuel usage when the
Table 12. The ratio of waste exergy of TPEs components for jet fuel and biofuel ExDR values of AC, CC, and ED reduce little. The ExDR
usages.
values of TPE’s parts are shown in Fig.3.
Components Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ
AC 4.48 4.46 −0.46
CC 54.18 53.75 −0.79 Waste exergy ratio (WExR) values of the TPE’s components
GT 0.68 0.90 33.30 and the losses (7”) to the environment arecalculated and tabu­
GTMS 0.50 0.50 0.51 lated in Table 12. The maximum waste exergy ratios happen in
PT 0.62 0.74 19.81
PTMS 0.37 0.37 0.25 the CC by 54.18% for jet fuel. Biofuel use and losses(7”) from
ED 0.89 0.87 −2.19 the engine to the environment were founded as 53.75%. Those
Losses (7”) 38.29 38.41 0.31 figures have founded as 38.29% for jet fuel and 38.41% for
biofuel. At biofuel running, the WExR values of the GT and
PT components growth 33.30% and 19.81%, while the WExR
values of the AC, CC, and ED lower 0.46%, 0.79%, and 2.19%,
● The exergy efficiency of TPE components and the entire TPE
respectively. The CC has the highest WExR values. The waste
fueled by jet fuel and biofuel can be seen in Table 10. All
exergy ratios of TPE’s components and TPE’s losses (7”) are
exergetic efficiencies have been reduced for biofuel usage,
presented in Figure 4.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 1477

Table 13. Fuel exergy waste ratios and their percentage variations of TPEs Table 14. Productivity lack ratios and their percentage variations of TPE, TPE’s
subcomponents for jet fuel and biofuel usages. exergy losses, and TPEs subcomponents for jet fuel and biofuel usages.
Components/Engine Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ Components/Engine Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ
AC 3.71 3.70 −0.39 AC 21.77 21.76 −0.03
CC 44.94 44.62 −0.72 CC 263.51 262.55 −0.36
GT 0.56 0.75 33.40 GT 3.28 4.40 33.88
GTMS 0.41 0.42 0.59 GTMS 2.43 2.45 0.95
PT 0.51 0.61 19.90 PT 3.00 3.61 20.33
PTMS 0.31 0.31 0.32 PTMS 1.79 1.80 0.68
ED 0.74 0.72 −2.12 ED 4.33 4.26 −1.77
Losses (7”) 31.76 31.88 0.39 Losses (7”) 186.22 187.61 0.75
TPE 82.95 83.01 0.07 TPE 486.34 488.45 0.43

Fuel exergy waste ratios (FExWR) of theTPE, TPE’s losses
(7”), and TPE’s components are assessed and given in Table 13.
The highest FExWRis 44.94% for jet fuel and 44.62% for
biofuel in the CC component. On the other hand, the
FExWR of TPE’s exergy losses (7”) is calculated to be 31.76%
for jet fuel and 31.88% for biofuel. However, the FExWR of
TPE is determined to be 82.95% for jet fuel and 83.01% for
biofuel. The FExWR value of the GT, GTMS,PT, PTMS, losses
point (7”),and TPE increases by biofuel usage, while the
FExWR values of the AC,CC, and ED are less used by biofuel
usage. The fuel exergy waste ratios of TPE and its components
are indicated in Figure 5.
Productivity lack ratios (PLR) of the TPE, TPE’s components,
and TPE losses (7”) are investigated and tabulated in Table 14.
Between the system parts, the highest PLR rate is obtained to be
263.51% for jet fuel and 262.55% for biofuel in the CC compo­
nent. The exergy losses from exhaust outlet create 186.22%-PLR
for jet fuel and 187.61%-PLR for biofuel. The PLR of the whole

90
80
Fuel Exergy Waste Ratio (%)

Jet fuel
70 Biofuel
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
AC CC GT GTMS PT PTMS ED Losses TPE
(7")

TPE and its subsystems

Figure 5. Fuel exergy waste ratios of the engine, engine losses (7”),and engine components for jet fuel and biofuel usages.

500
Productivity Lack Ratio (%)

450 Jet fuel

400
Biofuel
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
AC CC GT GTMS PT PTMS ED Losses TPE
(7")

TPE and its subsystems

Figure 6. Productivity lack ratios of the engine, engine losses (7”),and engine components for jet fuel and biofuel usages.
1478 O. BALLI AND A. DALKIRAN

Table 15. Exergetic improvement potential of TPE components and the entire TPE Table 16. Ecological objective function values of TPE and its components.
for jet and biofuel usages. Components/Engine Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ
Components/Engine Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ AC 1439.22 1439.22 0.00
AC 31.62 31.62 0.00 CC 673.83 719.72 6.81
CC 1345.23 1331.08 −1.05 GT 1924.10 1911.72 −0.64
GT 0.70 1.24 78.18 GTMS 1906.21 1905.94 −0.01
GTMS 0.39 0.40 1.95 PT 986.59 979.79 −0.69
PT 1.10 1.59 43.91 PTMS 979.98 979.83 −0.01
PTMS 0.41 0.41 1.42 ED 2201.70 2219.28 0.80
ED 1.05 1.01 −4.11 TPE −4388.55 −4413.77 0.57
TPE 2827.72 2837.40 0.34

4.5. Results of exergy-based environmental analysis

engine is 488.34% for jet fuel and 488.45% for biofuel consump­
tion. The productivity lack ratios of TPE, TPE’s exergy losses, Three parameters that define the environmental impacts of
and TPE’s parts are illustrated in Figure 6. TPE, based on the exergy; are:

● In theory, the exergetic improvement potential (ExIP)
defines the recovery magnitude of the exergy destruction
rate after technological developments and improvements.
The ExIP value estimation for the TPE components and
the entire TPE can be seen in Table 15. Again, the CC has
the highest ExIP rateas1345.23 kW for jet fuel usage and
1331.08 kW for biofuel usage. The ExIP values of TPE
and its components are shown in Figure 7.
● The objective ecological function (EOF),
● The environmental effect factor (EEF),
● The ecological effect factor (EcoEF).
This study has calculated the EOF, EEF, and EcoEF para­
meters for jet fuel and biofuel conditions. Table 16 shows
the calculated EOF values; higher values represent product
exergy is higher the waste exergy. Lower values imply the

Figure 7. Exergetic improvement potentials of the TPE components and the entire TPE for jet fuel and biofuel usages.

3000

2000
Ecologic al Objective Function (kW)

1000

0
AC CC GT GTMS PT PTMS ED TPE
-1000

-2000 Jet fuel

Biofuel
-3000

-4000

-5000
TPE and its subsystems

Figure 8. EOF values of TPE components and the entire TPE.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 1479

Table 17. Ecological objective function index values of TPE components and the Table 18. Environmental effect factor values of TPE and its components.
entire TPE. Components/Engine Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ
Components/Engine Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ AC 0.043 0.042 −0.39
AC 0.853 0.853 0.00 CC 0.816 0.806 −1.30
CC 0.184 0.194 5.77 GT 0.006 0.008 34.24
GT 0.981 0.975 −0.66 GTMS 0.004 0.004 0.60
GTMS 0.986 0.986 −0.01 PT 0.005 0.006 20.69
PT 0.967 0.960 −0.70 PTMS 0.003 0.003 0.34
PTMS 0.980 0.980 −0.01 ED 0.008 0.007 −2.17
ED 0.978 0.979 0.06 TPE 4.863 4.885 0.43
TPE −3.863 −3.885 0.55

The ecological objective function index (EOFI) values of TPE

and its subsystems are accounted for and listed in Table 17. Per
product exergy is more likely close to the waste exergy. Table 17, the CC has the minimum EOFI value of 0.184 for jet
Contrary, negative values signify that waste exergy is higher fuel and 0.194 for biofuel. However, the EOFI value of the engine
than produced exergy. is estimated to be -3.863 for jet fuel cases and -3.885 for biofuel
According to Table 16, the CC has the lowest EOF cases. The negative values indicate that the waste exergy rate is
values for jet fuel and biofuelcases because this component higher than the product exergy rate. The EOFI values of TPE
has the worst exergy efficiency and maximum irreversibility. components and the entire TPE are presented in Figure 9.
The engine has the -4388.55 kW-EOF value for jet fuel case EEF parameter indicates components’ effectiveness on
when it has -4413.77 kW for biofuel case. These negative the environmental impact of the TPE. Table 18 has tabu­
values signify that waste exergy is higher than produced lated the calculated EEF results. The EEF results consist of
exergy. The EOF values are illustrated in Figure 8. the TPE components and the entire TPE. The CC has the

2
Ecological Objective Function Index (EOFI)

0
AC CC GT GTMS PT PTMS ED TPE
-1

-2
Jet fuel
Biofuel
-3

-4

-5
TPE and its subsystems

Figure 9. The EOFI values of TPE components and the entire TPE.

TPE

ED
TPE and its components

PTMS

PT

GTMS Biofuel
Jet fuel
GT

CC

AC

0 1 2 3 4 5
Environmental Effect Factor (EEF)

Figure 10. EEF values of the TPE components and the entire TPE.
1480 O. BALLI AND A. DALKIRAN

Table 19. EcoEFvalues of TPE and its components. Table 20. Exergetic sustainability index values of TPE and its components.
Components/Engine Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ Components/Engine Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ
AC 1.147 1.147 0.00 AC 23.489 23.580 0.388
CC 1.816 1.806 −0.58 CC 1.225 1.241 1.317
GT 1.019 1.025 0.63 GT 175.227 130.532 −25.507
GTMS 1.014 1.014 0.01 GTMS 237.947 236.523 −0.598
PT 1.033 1.040 0.66 PT 189.023 156.622 −17.141
PTMS 1.020 1.020 0.01 PTMS 320.703 319.627 −0.336
ED 1.022 1.021 −0.05 ED 132.411 135.350 2.220
TPE 5.863 5.885 0.36 TPE 0.206 0.205 −0.432

highest environmental impact among the TPE components. The CC has a maximum ecological effect factor of 1.816
The CC has the highest environmental impact as 0.816 for for jet fuel and 1.806 for biofuel cases. The EcoEF of the
jet fuel case and 0.806 for biofuel case because the CC has TPE is described to be 5.863 for jet fuel and 5,885 for
the maximum waste exergy rate. The EEF of the TPE is biofuel cases. However, the EcoEF values of CC and ED
determined as 4.863 for jet fuel case and 4.885 for biofuel components reduce due to the exergy efficiency of these
case. The EEF rates of TPE components and the entire TPE components increase. Conversely, the EcoEF values of GT,
are shown in Figure 10. PT, and TPE rise because the exergy efficiency of these
The EcoEF shows the level of impacts among the TPE components and the whole engine goes down. The EcoEF
components as the ecology. Table 19 reveals the estimated rates of UAV TPE components and the entire TPE are
EcoEF values of the TPE components and the entire TPE. presented in Figure 11.

TPE

ED
TPE and its components

PTMS

PT

GTMS Biofuel
Jet fuel
GT

CC

AC

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Ecological Effect Factor (EcoEF)

Figure 11. EcoEF values of the TPE components and the entire TPE.

TPE

ED
TPE and its components

PTMS

PT

GTMS Biofuel
Jet fuel
GT

CC

AC

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Exergetic SustainabilityIndex (ExSI)

Figure 12. ExSI values of TPE components and the entire TPE.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 1481

Table 21. SEF values of TPE and its components. Table 22. The emission-based environmental impact metrics of TPE.
Components/Engine Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ Data/Metrics Unit jet fuel biofuel
� �
AC 7.820 0.000 _ CO2
m kg 1660.975 15.887 −99.04
h
CC 2.225 2.241 0.725 � �
GT 53.583 40.272 −24.843 _F
m kg 522.000 597.369 14.44
h
GTMS 71.072 70.393 −0.956 _ Pr;TPE ðkW Þ 1135.928 1136.251 0.03
PT 30.935 25.874 −16.360 Ex Ex
Pr;TPE
� �
PTMS 50.147 49.799 −0.693 EI kg CO2 3.182 0.027 −99.16
ED 46.728 47.883 2.473 � kg�fuel
TPE 1.206 1.205 −0.074 GWP kg 1660.975 15.887 −99.04
h
� �
GWPI kg 1.462 0.014 −99.04
kWh
mPts
�
EnI 9059.789 86.654 −99.04
4.6. Results of exergy-based sustainability analysis h �
mPts
EnII 7.976 0.076 −99.04
�
kWh
The sustainable efficiency factor (SEF) determines the level of EDC 192.673 1.843 −99.04
h �
sustainability of TPE components and the entire TPE, like the EDCI kWh
0.170 0.002 −99.04
exergetic sustainability index (ExSI) in exergy meaning. Table 20
shows both jet fuel and biofuel results of ExSI results of TPE.
Sustainability factor getting worst if the ExSI value is getting lower.
The CC has minimum ExSI rates compared with the biofuel case, the SEF values of GT, GTMS, PT, PTMS, and
other components by 1.225 for jet fuel cases and 1.241 for TPE decrease because the TPE and these components’
biofuel. Hence, the CC has the highest irreversibility and exergy efficiency go down. On the other hand, the SEF
the lowest exergetic efficiency. Contrary, the PTMS has the values of the CC and ED have increased with biofuel
best ExSI values. Nevertheless, the ExSI resultsare 0.206 for usage. The CC component has the worst SEF values with
the jet fuel case and 0.205 for the biofuel case. The exer­ 2.225 for jet fuel usage and 2.241 for biofuel usage among
getic sustainability index rates of TPE components and the system parts. There can be predictions possible in this
entire TPE are presented in Figure 12. situation because the CC has the lowest exergetic efficiency
The SEF rates of TPE components and the entire TPE and the highest irreversibility rate. The SEF values of TPE
are obtained for jet fuel and biofuel usages and are given in are projected to be 1.206 for jet fuel cases and1.205 for
Table 21. The exergy and the efficiency have become worse biofuel. The sustainable efficiency factor data ofTPE com­
if the SEF value becomes smaller than it would be. In the ponents and the entire TPE in Figure 13.

80

70
Sustainable Efficiency Factor (SEF)

60 Jet fuel
Biofuel
50

40

30

20

10

0
AC CC GT GTMS PT PTMS ED TPE

TPE and its components

Figure 13. The SEF values of the TPE components and the Entire TPE.

Table 23. The comparing the results of this study with another study.
This study Ref. (Akdeniz and Balli 2021a)
Metrics Unit Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ Jet fuel Biofuel Δð%Þ
Product energy or exergy kW 1135.928 1136.251 0.028 1130.62 1133.63 0.266
Energy efficiency (%) 18.304 18.309 0.028 16.39 16.43 0.244
Exergy efficiency (%) 17.05 16.99 −0.360 15.34 15.25 −0.587
Ecological objective function (EOF) (kW) −4388.55 −4413.77 0.570 −6237.65 −6300.18 1.002
EOF index (-) −3.863 −3.885 0.550 −5.517 −5.558 0.743
Ecological effect factor (-) 5.863 5.885 0.360 6.519 6.557 0.583
Environmental effect factor (-) 4.863 4.885 0.430 5.520 5.560 0.725
Exergetic sustainability index (-) 0.206 0.205 −0.432 0.181 0.180 −0.552
Sustainable efficiency factor (-) 1.206 1.205 −0.074 1.181 1.180 −0.085
1482 O. BALLI AND A. DALKIRAN

4.7. Results of emission-based environmental impact productivity lack ratios are meaningfully inthe same group.
analysis Furthermore, the exergetic sustainability index and the sus­
tainable efficiency factor have been calculated as almost the
The emission index (EI), global warming potential (GWP),
same.
global warming potential index (GWPI), environmental
The most significant results for the whole engine have been
impact (EnI), environmental impact index (EnII), environ­
calculated and supported that the idea for biofuel is 104.95
mental damage cost (EDC), and environmental damage cost
times fewer effect son the environment. All indicators, global
index (EDCI) are calculatedto determine the environmental
warming potential, global warming potential index, environ­
effects and impacts for the TPE emissions. The calculated
mental impact index, environmental impact index, environ­
values are listed in Table 22. Per Table 22, the usage of biofuel;
mental damage cost index, and environmental damage cost
● Decreases the emission index (EI) of CO2 from 3.182 to
index have all differentiated 104.95 times. All of those findings
are guiding that biofuel use is effective, and there must be new
0.027 kg-CO2/kg-fuel.
● Lessens the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 from
studies by the exergetic improvement potential, which is sig­
nificantly on the jet fuel side.
1660.975 to 15.887 kg/h.
● Goes down the global warming potential index (GWPI)
In conclusion, the aviation, energy, and exergy-based
performance metrics point to the advantage of jet fuel
of CO2 from 1.462 to 0.014 kg/kWh.
● Reduces the environmental impact (EnI) of CO2 from
usage. Conversely, the results of emission-based environ­
mental impact analyses have improved by biofuel usage.
9059.798 to 86.654 mPts/h.
● Cut the environmental impact index (EnI) of CO2 from
For all components mentioned earlier of the TPE, the
combustion chamber has a maximum irreversibility ratio,
7.976 to 0.076 mPts/kWh.
● Pares the environmental damage cost (EDC) of CO2 from
waste exergy ratio, fuel exergy waste ratio, environmental
effect factor and ecological effect factor, and minimum
192.673 to 1.843 €/h.
● Shortens the environmental damage cost index (EDCI) of
exergetic efficiency, objective ecological function, exergetic
sustainability index, and sustainable efficiency factor rates.
CO2 from 0.170 to 0.002 €/kWh.
As a general conclusion, the CC should be improved for
better performance.

4.8. Comparing the results Nomenclature

In this study, a turboprop engine that produces
1135.93 kW-power for jet fuel and 1136.25 kW-power
for biofuel usage is investigated in terms of energetic, A area (m2)
AC impeller air compressor
exergetic, environmental, and sustainability performances.
AFR air-fuel ratio
To compare the study results, when the open literature is
b environmental impact (mPts/kg)
reviewed, a similar study was done by Akdeniz and Balli
c eco-cost value (€/kg)
(Akdeniz and Balli 2021a) for a turbojet engine that gen­ cP specific heat capacity (kJ/kg.K)
erates 1130.62 kW-power for jet fuel 1133.63.63 kW- CC combustion chamber
power for biofuel usage. The performance metrics of this E_ energy rate (kW)
study and ref.(Akdeniz and Balli 2021a) are presented in EcoEF ecological effect factor
Table 23. When comparing the performance metrics, the EEF environmental effect factor
results of the turboprop engine fueled by biofuel are better ED exhaust duct
than the turbojet engine’s results fueled by biofuel. On the EDC environmental damage cost (€/h)
other hand, the changes in the turbojet engine’s perfor­ EDCI environmental damage cost index (€/kWh)
mance metrics are more significant than the turboprop EI emission index (kg-CO2/kg-fuel)
engine’s metrics. EnI environmental impact (mPts/h)
EnII environmental impact index (mPts/kWh)
EOF ecological objective function (kW)
5. Conclusion EOFI ecological objective function index
ER entalphy ratio
This study presents the results of aviation, thermodynamic ET engine thrust (N)
(energy and exergy), environmental (based on exergy and Ėx exergy rate (kW)
based on emission), and sustainability (based on exergy) ana­ ExDR exergy destruction ratio (%)
lyses of a turboprop engine (TPE) used on unmanned aerial E_x lp exergetic improvement potential (kW)
vehicles. The investigation was done on both jet and biofuel ExSI exergetic sustainability index
usages. FExWR fuel exergy waste ratio (%)
The TPE-specific fuel consumption for biofuel has been GT gas turbine
found 14.34% higher compared to the jet fuel; however, the GTMS gas turbine mechanical shaft
enthalpy ratio is lower than jet fuel. This finding is in line GWP global warming potential (kg/h)
with the exergetic improvement potential, which is 14.42%. GWPI global warming potential index (kg/kWh)
Specific power factors, energy efficiency, enthalpy ratio, and gwpv global warming potential value
(Continued)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 1483

(Continued). ORCID
h enthalpy
Ozgur Balli http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6465-8387
LHV lower heating value of fuel (kJ/kg) Alper Dalkiran http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6607-637X
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
p pressure (kPa)
PLR productivity lack ratio (%) References
PT power turbine
PTMS power turbine mechanical shaft 1.HBFM. 1st air maintenance factory directorate. Engine Test Cell Report
R universal gas constant (kJ/kg.K) Document. Eskisehir, Turkey.0000
S entropy (kJ/kg.K) Akdeniz, H. Y., and O. Balli. 2021a. Energetic and exergetic assessment of
operating biofuel, hydrogen and conventional JP-8 in a J69 type of
SEF sustainable efficiency factor
aircraft turbojet engine. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry
SFC specific fuel consumption (kg/kWh)
146 (4):1709–21. doi:10.1007/s10973-021-10879-z.
SP specific power (kW/kg/h) Akdeniz, H. Y., and O. Balli. 2021b. Effects of bypass ratio change trend on
T temperature (K) performance in a military aircraft turbofan engine with comparative
TPE turboprop engine assessment. Journal of Energy Resources Technology 143 (12):120905.
TLR thermal limiting ratio doi:10.1115/1.4051297.
UAV unmanned aerial vehicle Angulo-Brown, F. 1991. An ecological optimization criterion for finite
V velocity (m/s) time heat engines. Journal of Applied Physics 69 (11):7465–69.
doi:10.1063/1.347562.
W_ work rate (kW)
Atilgan, R., and O. Turan. 2020. Economy and exergy of aircraft turbo­
WExR waste exergy ratio (%) prop engine at dynamic loads. Energy 213 (118827):1–11. doi:10.1016/j.
energy.2020.118827.
Atilgan, R., O. Turan, and H. Aydin. 2019. Dynamic exergo-environmental
analysis of a turboprop aircraft enginen at various torques. Energy
Greek Letters 186 (115894):1–9. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.115894.
Atilgan, R., O. Turan, O. Altuntas, H. Aydin, and K. Synylo. 2013.
η energy efficiency (%) Environmental impact assessment of a turboprop engine with the
� fuel exery grade function aid of exergy. Energy 58:664–71. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.064.
Ψ exergy efficiency (%) Aydin, H., O. Turan, T. H. Karakoc, and A. Midilli. 2013. Exergo-
Δ percentage change (%) sustainability indicators of a turboprop aircraft for the phasesof a
flight. Energy 58:550–60. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.04.076.
Aygun, H., M. E. Cilgin, and O. Turan. 2021. Exergo-sustainability indi­
cators of a target drone engine at dynamic loads. Energy
Subscripts 221 (119803):1–15. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.119803.
Baklacioglu, T., O. Turan, and H. Aydin. 2015. Dynamic modeling of
A air exergy efficiency of turboprop engine components using hybrid genetic
AC air compressor wheel algorithm-artificial neural networks. Energy 86:709–21. doi:10.1016/j.
CC combustion chamber energy.2015.04.025.
g combustion gas Balli, O., and A. Hepbasli. 2013. Energetic and exergetic analyses of T56
turboprop engine. Energy Conversion and Management 73:106–20.
D destruction
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2013.04.014.
ED exhaust duct Balli, O., and A. Hepbasli. 2014. Exergoeconomic, sustainability and
F fuel environmental damage costanalyses of T56 turboprop engine. Energy
gen generated 64:582–600. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.09.066.
GT gas turbine Balli, O., H. Aras, and A. Hepbasli. 2010. Thermodynamic and thermo­
GTMS gas turbine mechanical shaft economic analyses of a trigeneration (TRIGEN)system with a gas–
k the k’th component diesel engine: Part II – an application. Energy Conversion and
L losses Management 51 (11):2260–71. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2010.03.020.
P pressure Balli, O., and H. Caliskan. 2021a. On-design and off-design operation
performance assessmentsof an aero turboprop engine used on
Pr product
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in terms of aviation, thermody­
PT power turbine namic, environmental and sustainability perspectives. Energy
PTMS power turbine mechanical shaft Conversion and Management 243:114403. doi:10.1016/j.
T temperature enconman.2021.114403.
tot total Balli, O., and H. Caliskan. 2021b. Turbofan engine performances from
TPE turboprop engine aviation, thermodynamic and environmental perspectives. Energy
WE waste exergy 232:121031. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2021.121031.
0 dead (environment or reference) state Balli, O., S. Ekici, and K. Th. 2021. TF33 engine in every respect: Performance,
environmental, and sustainability assessment. Environmental
Progress&Sustainable Energy. doi:10.1002/ep.13578.
Balli, O., S. Ekici, and T. H. Karakoc. 2021. Achieving a more efficient and
Disclosure statement greener combined heat and power system driven by a micro gas turbine
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).AU: The engine: Issues, oppurtunities, and benefits in the presence of thermo­
disclosure statement has been inserted. Please correct if this is inaccurate. dynamic perspective. International Journal of Energy Research
45 (6):8620–38. doi:10.1002/er.6398.
1484 O. BALLI AND A. DALKIRAN
Balli, O., Y. Sohret, and H. T. Karakoc. 2018. The effects of hydrogen fuel
usage on the exergetic performance of a turbojet engine. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 43 (23):10848–58. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2017.12.178.
Balli, O. 2013. Afterburning effect on the energetic and exergetic perfor­
mance of an experimental turbojet engine. International Journal of
Exergy 14 (2):212–43. doi:10.1504/IJEX.2014.060278.
Balli, O. 2017a. Advanced exergy analyses of an aircraft turboprop engine
(TPE). Energy 124:599–612. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.121.
Balli, O. 2017b. Advanced exergy analyses to evaluate the performance of
a military aircraft turbojet engine (TJE) with afterburner: Splitting
exergy destruction into unavoidable/ avoidable and endogenous/exo­
genous. Applied Thermal Engineering 111:152–69. doi:10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2016.09.036.
Balli, O. 2017d. Exergy modeling for evaluating sustainability level of
a high by-pass turbofan engine used on commercial aircrafts. Applied
Thermal Engineering 123:138–55. doi:10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2017.05.068.
Balli, O. 2019. Maximum operation performance evaluation of a turbojet
engine designed for missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) with
exergy analysis methodology. Erciyes University Journal of the Institute
of Science and Technology 35 (1):13–32. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/
erciyesfen/issue/44838/505474.
Balli, O. 2020a. General aviation and thermodynamic performance ana­
lyses of a micro turbojet engine used on drones and unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV). Journal of Aviation Research 2 (2):115–41. https://
dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jar/issue/56600/726860.
Balli, O. 2020b. Performance assessment of a medium-scale turboprop
engine designed for unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based on exergetic
and sustainability metrics. Journal of Thermal Engineering
6 (5):697–711. doi:10.18186/thermal.796753.
Balli, O. 2020c. exergetic, exergoeconomic, sustainability and environ­
mental damage cost analyses of j85 turbojet engine with afterburner.
International Journal of Turbo & Jet-Engines 37 (2):167–94.
doi:10.1515/tjj-2017-0019.
Caglayan, H., and H. Caliskan. 2021. Advanced exergy analyses and
optimisation of a cogeneration system for ceramic industry by con­
sidering endogenous, exogenous, avoidable and unavoidable exergies
under different environmental conditions. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 140 (110730):1–23. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.110730.
Caliskan, H., H. Hong, and J. K. Jang. 2019. Thermodynamic assessments
of the novel cascade air cooling system including solar heating and
desiccant cooling units. Energy Conversion and Management
199 (112013):1–8. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112013.
Caliskan, H., I. Dincer, and A. Hepbasli. 2012a. Thermodynamic analyses
and assessments of various thermal energy storage systems for
buildings. Energy Conversion and Management 62:109–22.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2012.03.024.
Caliskan, H., I. Dincer, and A. Hepbasli. 2012b. A comparative study on
energetic, exergetic and environmental performance assessments of
novel M-cycle based air coolers for buildings. Energy Conversion and
Management 56:69–79. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2011.11.007.
Caliskan, H. 2015. Novel approaches to exergy and economy based enhanced
environmental analyses for energy systems. Energy Conversion and
Management 89:156–61. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2014.09.067.
Cavalcanti, E. J. C., M. Carvalho, and D. R. S. Silva. 2020. Energy, exergy
and exergoenvironmental analyses of a sugarcane bagasse power
cogeneration system. Energy Conversion and Management
222:113232. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113232.
Chen, P., G. He, Y. Gao, X. Zhao, and D. Cai. 2020. Conventional and
advanced exergy analysis of an air-cooled type of absorption-ejection
refrigeration cycle with R290-mineral oil as the working pair. Energy
Conversion and Management 210:112703. doi:10.1016/j.
enconman.2020.112703.
Coban, K., Y. Sohret, C. O. Colpan, and T. H. Karakoc. 2017. Exergetic
and exergoeconomic assessment of a small-scale turbojet engine fuelled
with biodiesel. Energy 140:1358–67. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.096.
Dallara, A. S. 2011. Aircraft design for reduced climate impact. A Doctoral
Dissertation submitted to Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. Stanford University. http://purl.stanford.edu./
yf499mg3300
Deloitte, Global Aerospace Market Outlook and Forecast https://aiac.ca/
wp-content/uploads/2015/11/AIAC-Phase-3-Report_FINAL.pdf
(Ontario, Canada: AIAC) AIAC Phase 3 Accessed1 June 2021
Dinc, A., Y. Sohret, and S. Ekici. 2020. Exergy analysis of a three-spool
turboprop engine during the flight of a cargo aircraft. Aircraft
Engineering and Aerospace Technology 92 (10):1495–503. doi:10.1108/
AEAT-05-2020-0087.
Dinc, A. 2015a. Sizing of a turboprop unmanned air vehicle and its
propulsionsystem. Journal of Thermal Science and Technology
35 (2):53–62.
Dinc, A. 2015b. Optimisation of a turboprop UAV for maximumloiter
and specific power using genetic algorithm. International Journal of
Turbo and Jet Engines 2015:1–9.
Dincer, I., and M. A. Rosen. 2005. Thermodynamic aspects of renewables
and sustainable development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 9 (2):169–89. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2004.02.002.
Dincer, I., and M. A. Rosen. 2007. Exergy: Energy environment and
sustainable development. First. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. 472: 978-
0080445298 .
Dogru, M., A. Midilli, and C. R. Howarth. 2002. Gasification of sewage
sludge using a throated downdraft gasifier and uncertainty analysis.
Fuel Process Technology 75 (1):55–82. doi:10.1016/S0378-3820(01)
00234-X.
Eggleston, H. S. 2006. Intergovernmental panel on climate change,
national greenhouse gas inventories programme, 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, available at:
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm
Ekici, S., I. Orhan, Y. Sohret, O. Altuntas, and T. H. Karakoc. 2019.
calculating endogenous and exogenous exergy destruction for an
experimental turbojet engine. International Journal of Turbo & Jet-
Engines in press. doi:10.1515/tjj-2019-0005.
Ekici, S., and Y. Sohret. 2020. A study on the environmental and economic
aspects of aircraft emissions at the Antalya International Airport.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 28(9):10847–59. avail­
able at. 10.1007/s11356-020-11306-w.
Encarnaçao, A.C.G. 2012. Embrarer Corporate and Business Strategy.
May_2012. Embrarer, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Accessed June 1, 2021,
https://ri.embraer.com.br/Download.aspx?Arquivo=
QrXcOQO4ziDEEV229C/XKg==&IdCanal=
Nhqvlo6cT0TV9wfjLtVtLw==
Etele, J., and M. A. Rosen. 2001. Sensitivity of exergy efficiencies of aero­
space engines toreference environment selection. International Journal
of Exergy 1 (2):91–99. doi:10.1016/S1164-0235(01)00014-0.
Fuglestvedt, J. S., K. P. Shine, T. Bernsten, J. Cook, D. S. Lee, A. Stanke,
R. B. Skeie, H. J. M. Velders, and I. A. Waitz. 2010. Transport impacts
on atmosphere and climate: Metrics. Atmospheric Environment
44 (4648):4677. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.044.
Gurbuz, H., Y. Sohret, and H. Akcay. 2019. Environmental and enviroe­
conomic assessment of an LPG fuelled SI engine at partial load. Journal
of Environmental Management 241:631–36. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.02.113.
Habib, Z., R. Parthasarathy, and S. Gollahalli. 2010. Performance and
emission characteristics of biofuel in a small-scale gas turbine engine.
Applied Energy 87 (5):1701–09. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.10.024.
Hepbasli, A., and O. Akdemir. 2004. Energy and exergy analysis of
a ground source (geothermal) heat pump system. Energy Conversion
and Management 45:737–53.
Ji, Z., M. M. Rokni, J. Qin, S. Zhang, and P. Dong. 2020. Energy and
configuration management strategy for battery/fuel cell/jetengine hybrid
propulsion and power systems on aircraft. Energy Conversion and
Management 225 (113393):1–16. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113393.
Kesgin, U. 2006. Aircraft emissions at Turkish airports. Energy
31 (2):372–84. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2005.01.012.

Khounani, Z., H. Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, F. Nazemi, M. Shaeifi,
K. Karimi, M. Tabatabaei, M. Aghbashlo, and S. S. Lam. 2021. Exergy
analysis of a whole-crop safflower biorefinery: A step towards reducing
agricultural wastes in a sustainable manner. Journal of Environmental
Management 279:111822. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111822.
Kursun, B. 2021. Theoretical energy and exergy analysis of a combined
cooling, heating and power system assisted by a low concentrated
photovoltaic recuperator. Energy Conversion and Management
228:113659. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113659.
Lucia, U., and E. Açıkkalp. 2017. Irreversible thermodynamic analysis and
application for molecular heat engines, chemical physics. Journal of
Colloid and Interface Science 494:47–55. doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2017.01.057.
Meyer, L., G. Tsatsaronis, J. Buchgeister, and L. Schebek. 2009.
Exergoenvironmental analysis for evaluation of the environmental
impact of energy conversion systems. Energy 34 (1):75–89. doi:10.1016/
j.energy.2008.07.018.
Rojo, C., X. Vancassel, P. Mirabel, J. L. Ponche, and F. Garnier. 2015.
Impact of alternative jet fuels on aircraft-induced aerosols. Fuel
144:335–41. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2014.12.021.
Rosen, M. A. 2002. Assessing energy technologies and environmental
impacts with theprinciples of thermodynamics. Applied Energy
72 (1):427–41. doi:10.1016/S0306-2619(02)00004-1.
Sehra, A. K., and J. W. Whitlow. 2004. Propulsion and power for 21st
century aviation. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 40:199–235.
Sohret, Y., and H. Gurbuz. 2021. A comparison of gasoline, liquid petro­
leum gas, and hydrogen utilization in an spark ignition engine in terms
of environmental and economic indicators. Journal of Energy Resources
Technology 143 (5):052301. doi:10.1115/1.4048527.
Sohret, Y., O. Kıncay, and T. H. Karakoç. 2015. Combustion efficiency
analysis and key emission parametersof a turboprop engine at various
loads. Journal of the Energy Institute 88 (4):490–99. doi:10.1016/j.
joei.2014.09.010.
Sohret, Y., Z. M. Sogut, T. H. Karakoc, and O. Turan. 2016. Customised
application of exergy analysis method to PW120A turboprop engine for
performance evaluation. International Journal of Exergy 20 (1):48–65.
doi:10.1504/IJEX.2016.076678.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 1485
Sohret, Y. 2018. Exergo-sustainability analysis and ecological func­
tion of a simple gas turbine aero-engine. Journal of Thermal
Engineering 4 (4):2083–95. doi:10.18186/journal-of-thermal-
engineering.414990.
Toffolo, A., A. Lazzaretto, and A. Lazzaretto. 2002. Evolutionary algo­
rithms for multi-objective energetic and economic optimisation in
thermal system design. Energy 27 (6):549–67. doi:10.1016/S0360-
5442(02)00009-9.
Tuzcu, H., Y. Sohret, and H. Caliskan. 2020. Energy, environment and
enviroeconomic analyses and assessments of the turbofan engine used
in aviation industry. Environ Prog Sustainable Energy. doi:10.1002/
ep.13547.
Vogtlander, J. G., and A. Bijma. 2000. The virtual pollution preven­
tion costs ‘99ʹ: A single lca-based indicator for emissions. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5 (2):113.
doi:10.1007/BF02979733.
Vogtlander, J. G. 2019 data on eco-costs. Delft University of
Technology. (n.d.)
Vogtlander, J. G, Baetens, B., Bijma, A., Brandjes, E., Lindeijer, E., Segers,
M., Witte, F. 2010. LCA-based assessment of sustainability: The eco-costs
/value ratio (EVR). First Brezet, J.C., and Hendiks, Ch.F. The
Netherlands: VSSD. 240. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
258220975
Winchester, N., R. Malina, M. D. Staples, and S. R. H. Barrett. 2015.
The impact of advanced biofuels on aviation emissions and opera­
tions in the. U.S. Energy Economics 49:482–91. doi:10.1016/j.
eneco.2015.03.024.
Yan, Z. 1993. Comment on ‘‘An ecological optimization criterion for
finite-time heat engines’’. Journal of Applied Physics [J. Appl.
Phys.69, 7465 (1991)]. 73 (7):3583–3583. doi:10.1063/1.354041.
Zalazar-García, D., E. Torres, L. Rodriguez-Ortiz, Y. Deng, J. Soria, V. Bucala,
R. Rodriguez, and G. Mazza. 2020. Cleaner and sustainable processes for
extracting phenolic compounds from bio-waste. Journal of Environmental
Management 273:11154. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111154.