THERMOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF T56 TURBOPROP ENGINE UNDER DIFFERENT LOAD CONDITIONS

Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, T56 turboprop engine was theoretically modelled for 75% load, 100% load, military (MIL) mode, and Take-off mode conditions.

📊

Key Findings & Data:For each load conditions, thermoeconomic analyses of T56 turboprop engine were performed to allocate the unit costs of shaft work and thrust and to determine exergy destruction cost rates for system equipment.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:The exergoeconomic factor of overall system was determined to be 23.07% in SPECO method, and 54.16% in MOPSA method for Take-off mode

🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Uçak motoru · Ekserji analizi · Termoekonomi

Abstract

In this study, T56 turboprop engine was theoretically modelled for 75% load, 100% load, military (MIL) mode, and Take-off mode conditions. For each load conditions, thermoeconomic analyses of T56 turboprop engine were performed to allocate the unit costs of shaft work and thrust and to determine exergy destruction cost rates for system equipment. In thermoeconomic analyses, Specific Exergy Costing (SPECO) and Modified Productive Structure Analysis (MOPSA) methods were used. MOPSA method gave higher unit cost values for shaft work and thrust compared to SPECO method. As a result, for Take-off mode, the unit cost of shaft work transferred to propeller was determined to be 78.87 $/GJ in SPECO method, while this value was calculated to be 84.68 $/GJ with MOPSA method. The unit cost of negentropy of T56 turboprop engine decreased with increasing in engine load and ranged from 14.98 $/GJ to 11.08 $/GJ. The exergy destruction cost rates obtained with MOPSA method for the system equipment were considerably lower than the results obtained with SPECO method. For instance, in Take-off mode, exergy destruction cost rate of combustion chamber was calculated to be 865.10 $/h in SPECO method, whereas it was calculated to be 247.94 $/h in MOPSA method. The exergoeconomic factor of overall system was determined to be 23.07% in SPECO method, and 54.16% in MOPSA method for Take-off mode

Özet

Bu çalışmada, T56 turboprop motor %75, %100, askeri (MIL) ve kalkış (Take-off) yük koşulları için teorik olarak modellenmiştir. Her bir yük koşulunda, şaft işinin ve itme kuvvetinin birim maliyetlerinin ayrıklaştırılması ve sistem ekipmanlarının ekserji yıkım maliyetlerinin belirlenmesi için T56 turboprop motorun termoekonomik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Termoekonomik analizlerde, Specific Exergy Costing (SPECO) ve Modified Productive Structure Analysis (MOPSA) metotları kullanılmıştır. MOPSA metodu şaft işi ve itki kuvveti için SPECO metoduna kıyasla daha yüksek birim maliyetler vermektedir. Sonuç olarak, kalkış modu için, pervaneye iletilen şaft işinin birim maliyeti MOPSA metodu ile 84.68 $/GJ olarak hesaplanırken, SPECO metodunda 78.87 $/GJ olarak belirlenmiştir. T56 turboprop motorun negentropi birim maliyeti motor yükünün artmasıyla azalmaktadır ve 14.98 $/GJ’den 11.08 $/GJ’e kadar sıralanmaktadır. Sistem ekipmanları için MOPSA metodu ile elde edilen ekserji yıkımı maliyetleri SPECO metodu ile elde edilen sonuçlardan oldukça düşüktür. Örneğin, kalkış modu için, yanma odasının ekserji yıkımı maliyeti SPECO metodunda 865.10 $/h olarak hesaplanmıştır, oysa bu değer MOPSA metodunda 247.94 $/h olarak hesaplanmıştır. Toplam sistemin ekserjoekonomik faktörü, kalkış modu için, SPECO metodunda %23.07 ve MOPSA metodunda %54.16 olarak belirlenmiştir

Keywords

Uçak motoru Ekserji analizi Termoekonomi MOPSA SPECO Aircraft engine Exergy analysis Thermoeconomics

🔖

Cite This Article

OZEN, D., UYSAL, C., BALLI, O. (2020). THERMOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF T56 TURBOPROP ENGINE UNDER DIFFERENT LOAD CONDITIONS. Isı Bilimi ve Tekniği Dergisi, Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 2, 251–265. https://ajindex.com/articles/133238

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

Altuntas, O., Karakoc, T. H. and Hepbasli, A., 2012, Exergetic, exergoeconomic and sustainability assessment of piston-prop aircraft engine. Int J Therm Sci Technol, 32, 133-43.
Aksu, B., 2019, Thermoeconomic Analysis Of A Water To Water Heat Pump Under Different Condenser And Evaporator Conditions. Journal of Thermal Engineering, 5(3), 198-209.
Balle, J.K.O., 2016, About the Rolls-Royce T56, Forecast International. Balli, O., 2019, Thermodynamic, thermoeconomic and environmental performance analyses of a high bypass turbofan engine used on commercial aircrafts. Sakarya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(3), 453-461.
Balli, O., Aras, H., Aras, N. and Hepbasli, A., 2008, Exergetic and exergoeconomic analysis of an Aircraft Jet Engine (AJE). International Journal of Exergy, 5(5), 567. Balli, O. and Hepbasli, A., 2013, Energetic and exergetic analyses of T56 turboprop engine. Energy conversion and management, 73, 106-120.
Balli, O. and Hepbasli, A., 2014, Exergoeconomic, sustainability and environmental damage cost analyses of T56 turboprop engine. Energy, 64, 582-600.
Bejan, A., Tsatsaronis, G. and Moran, M., 1996, Thermal Design and Optimization John Wiley and Sons. Inc. New York. Gorji-Bandpy, M. and Ebrahimian, V., 2006, Exergoeconomic analysis of gas turbine power plants, International Energy Journal 7, 35-41.
Haydargil, D. and Abuşoğlu, A., 2018, A comparative thermoeconomic cost accounting analysis and evaluation of biogas engine-powered cogeneration. Energy, 159, 97-114.
Jung, J. Y., Lee, H. S., Kim, H. J., Yoo, Y., Choi, W. Y. and Kwak, H. Y., 2016, Thermoeconomic analysis of an ocean thermal energy conversion plant. Renewable Energy, 86, 1086-1094.
Keçebaş, A., 2013, Effect of reference state on the exergoeconomic evaluation of geothermal district heating systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 462-469.
Kecebas, A., 2013, The modified productive structure analysis of Afyon geothermal district heating system for economic optimization. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research (IJRER), 3(1), 60-67.
Kim, S. M., Oh, S. D., Kwon, Y. H. and Kwak, H. Y., 1998, Exergoeconomic analysis of thermal systems. Energy, 23(5), 393-406.
Kwak, H. Y., Byun, G. T., Kwon, Y. H., and Yang, H., 2002, Cost Structure of CGAM Cogeneration System. In ASME 2002 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (pp. 225-232). American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection. Kwak, H. Y., Lee, H. S., Jung, J. Y., Jeon,