Energy 259 (2022) 124936

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Exergo-economic analysis of a CFM56-7B turbofan engine

Onder Turan a, b, 1, *
a
Istanbul Ticaret University, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Eskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper deals with the exergoeconomic cost analysis of a high bypass turbofan engine and its components
CFM56-7B based on exergy analysis and selected economical parameters. CFM56-7B is selected for this analysis which
Exergoeconomy powers Boeing 737 medium range transportation aircraft widely utilized all over the world. It has accumulated
Gas turbine
more than 105 million flight hours. Exergoeconomic analysis of engine is conducted in component level and can
Aircraft
Turbofan
be performed by integration of exergy analysis and engine economic parameters. Thanks to exergoeconomic
analysis, the system costs as well as exergy destructions costs within each engine components can be calculated.
The study reveals out that maximum exergy cost of CFM56-7B occurs at HPT inlet as 5365.65 US$/h, however
the lowest exergy cost rate as belongs to low pressure compressor work as 112.57 US$/h. Fuel cost is 2202 US$/h
with unit exergy cost value of 10.33 US$/GJ based on selected fuel and economic parameters. Although unit
exergy costs are around 18.5 US$/GJ value for LPT and HPT, it’s calculated to be around 24–25 US$/GJ for HPC
and LPC. It is thought that the cost results can be beneficial for airline customer as well as engine designer.

1. Introduction taxes costs and insurance. Through exergoeconomic study, the real cost
sources may be pointed out as follows: (i) capital investment costs of
Exergy is basically maximum amount of useful work that can be components, (ii) maintenance and operating costs (iii) costs due to
provided by a system. At a certain thermodynamic state system’s exergy destruction and loss of exergy [4].
is defined as maximum amount of work that can be obtained when the The exergoeconomic approach can be a powerful method to inves­
system moves from that particular state to a state of equilibrium with the tigate and optimize an energy system. It can be applied on the produc­
surroundings. Main benefit of exergetic approach is to bring to light the tion plants utility cost evaluation and also energy cost of an energy
magnitudes of exergy destructions and their locations in the system converter through process and operations. These costs are can be taken
components providing information the areas need to be improved [1]. in consideration during investment decisions, comparing operating
The exergoeconomic analysis is a cost analysis method accomplished conditions and alternative techniques, feasibility studies, equipment’s
in component level by integration of exergy analysis and engine eco­ installation cost and energy system exchange and expansion [5].
nomic parameters. Final product and exergy destruction costs of com­ The requested target from aircraft engine is to supply the power
ponents can be calculated by exergoeconomic analysis. It also needed to fly the airplane. While achieving this goal the thrust should be
contributes to find out the cost of inefficiencies. With exergoeconomic augmented as much as possible for the certain fuel consumption to have
analysis method, the average cost is determined for each exergy flow, higher kinetic exergy of hot gases from fuel chemical exergy. That will
which than enable us to calculate the cost rates at inlet and outlet of result both to decrease the operational cost of Airline Company and also
components [2,3]. the exhaust emissions to environment. Hence, improvement of engine
Main goal of exergoeconomic analysis is to optimize the overall efficiency which results in less fuel consumption is vital for aviation
system with help of exergy and cost calculations. For the investigated industry because of economic and environmental benefits. And also, it’s
system the economic analysis should be carried out for system’s entire evident that there’s a direct interrelation between appliance environ­
life. These will cover related costs including the maintenance and mental performance and reduced fuel consumption. Roughly, each tone
operating expenses, fuel consumption costs, capital investment costs, of fuel saving will decrease CO2 emissions approximately 3.15 tones.

* Istanbul Ticaret University, Istanbul, Turkey.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected].
1
The corresponding author, Onder Turan, is responsible for ensuring that the descriptions are accurate and agreed.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124936
Received 23 April 2022; Received in revised form 14 July 2022; Accepted 23 July 2022
Available online 5 August 2022
0360-5442/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
O. Turan Energy 259 (2022) 124936

The technological advancement in industry leads to improve fuel effi­ Kinetic and potential exergy can be computed as follows (for unit
ciency as a result of improved aircraft and engine efficiency [6–8]. mass);
For the aircraft engine, while the system efficiency is kept at
V2
maximum level, the cost values and environmental impacts need to be exkn = (2a)
2
minimized to have cost-effective and eco-friendly aviation. To achieve
these goals, running the engine at optimum engine operational condi­ expt = gz (2b)
tion that will reduce the fuel consumption and the exergy destruction
and lost, and also selection of higher fuel quality, the minimizing of The specific physical exergy in respect to temperature, pressure and
capital cost should be considered. In this circumstance, for aircraft en­ specific heat values can be computed with below formula;
gines performance evaluation, exergy-energy, sustainability, exer­ [ ( )]
T
( )
P
goeconomic, and environmental analysis methods can be applied. exph = cP(T) T − To − To ln + RTo ln (3)
To Po
Meanwhile, exergoeconomic analyses are used to evaluate for the
aircraft propulsion systems for cost effectiveness while energy and Equation (4) makes enable to calculate the unit specific chemical
exergy analyses are used to find which engine is more efficient [9]. So, exergy for liquid fuels [2];
exergoeconomical assessments are also used to determine whether en­ ( )
exch,f H O S H
gine and aircraft is the most economically benign. At the end of the = γ f ≅ 1.0401 + 0.01728 + 0.0432 + 0.2196 1 − 2.0628
hPR C C C C
exergoeconomic analysis, the effects of various parameters, such as
(4)
exergy destruction, system lifetime, system annual operation hour and
fuel price on the costs can be calculated. For C12H23 jet fuel chemical formula, γf (fuel exergy grade function
Up to know many studies have been performed on turbo machinery for liquid fuel) is found as 1.068 from Equation (4).
and stationary/aero gas turbines’ energy, exergy analyses [9–31] Exergy efficiency (ηex,sys) can be calculated by different methods
Additionally, exergy and exergoeconomic analysis of varies engine depending on which component to be considered. For whole system or
configurations like turbojet, turbofan and turbofan with afterburner engine, it can basically be found out by ratio of exergy out to total inlet
have also been studied by many investigators [2,4,5,18,24]. It’s thought exergy of engine;
that exergoeconomic investigation results can be used in classification of
aircraft engines based on their cost formation which may be beneficial Ėxout Ėxin − ĖxLD ĖxLD
ηex,sys = = =1− (5)
for airline operators. Ėxin Ėxin Ėxin
Boeing 737–800 which is a recent version of family consume does For compressor (LPC, HPC);
have relatively less fuel consumption by 48% per-seat basis. In the
world, currently more than 8000 of CFM56-7B engines installed on ηex,LPC,HPC =
Ėxout − Ėxin
(6)
Boeing 737 aircrafts are being operated. It has accumulated over 105 Ẇ LPC,HPC
million flight hours so far. Airbus A320 is another popular airframe on
For turbine (HPT, LPT);
which CFM56 are installed that the latest generation is about 40% less
expensive and more fuel-efficient to previous ones. With more than Ẇ LPT,HPT
ηex,LPT,HPT = (7)
33,000 CFM56 turbofan engines delivered to date and it powers more Ėxin − Ėxout
than 600 airline operators worldwide. The engine for the A320 family,
While exergetic performance evaluation of a system, various exer­
having been selected to power nearly 60% of the aircraft ordered.
getic parameters such as fuel depletion rate and relative irreversibility
Furthermore, the CFM56-7B is the exclusive engine for the Boeing Next-
rates of engine and its main components may be reviewed [19,20]. Fuel
Generation single-aisle airliner. In total, more than 15,000 CFM56-7B
depletion rate of turbofan engine is basically calculated by division of
engines have been delivered to power B737, making it the most popu­
destructed exergy inside the kth component to fuel chemical exergy
lar engine-aircraft combination in commercial aviation history [6,7].
consumed in the combustor.
This paper deals with the exergoeconomic analysis of CFM56-7B
turbofan engine installed on B737 commercial airplane. Main contri­ Ėxdest,k
bution of exergoeconomic analysis makes enable us to evaluate the all δk = (8)
Ėxfuel,tot
the costs including exergy destruction costs for engine and main engine
components. To achieve this aim, (i) investigation of the operational and Irreversibility which is the ratio of destructed exergy inside the kth
economical parameters pertain to engine and main engine components component to total destructed exergy of whole engine;
(ii) formation of cost balance equations and supplementary equations
Ėxdest,k
for engine and main components (ii) calculation of exergy flow costs and Xk = (9)
Ėxdest,tot
unite exergy costs of engine components with solution of cost balance
equations. ‘Exergetic improvement potential’ is another exergy parameter
In the open literature, its observed exergoeconomic analysis of a developed by Van Gool [21];
commercial turbofan (CFM56-7B) engine has not been carried out. That
was the main motivation for authors and makes this study original. I Ṗ = (1 − ηex )(Ėxin − Ėxout ) (10)
In order to carry out the detailed exergy analysis, the exergy pa­
2. Exergo-economic analyses: theoretical background rameters like temperature, pressure, air flow and consumed fuel etc. are
need to be measured. Once the required parameters obtained, the exergy
2.1. Exergy formulations flow rates at component inlet and outlet can be determined by applying
the Equations (2)–(4).
The flow of matter’s total exergy through a system is calculated by In exergy analysis, the assumptions accepted are listed below:
sum of each exergy constituent;

Ėx = Ėxkn + Ėxpt + Ėxph + Ėxch (1) ✓ Air and exhaust gases are ideal.
✓ Environment pressure and temperature as 288 K and 101.4 kPa.
Here, Ėxkn , Ėxpt , Ėxch and Ėxph represent kinetic, potential, chemical ✓ Consumed fuel in the combustor is JET A1 with C12H23 chemical
and physical exergy rates respectively. formula.

2
O. Turan Energy 259 (2022) 124936

✓ Adiabatic compression and expansion

Prṁf 3600τ
✓ Complete combustion reaction F Ċe = (21)
ρER
✓ Potential and kinetic energies are neglected.
✓ Chemical exergy neglected except combustor. ( )
F Ċe hPR
(22)
f
Ċ =
τ Exch
Total inlet exergy (Ėxin ) of system equals to the sum of the loss and
destruction (ĖxLD ) and outlet (Ėxout ) exergies from the system (Ėxout ); where Pr, mf,ER and hPR denotes the fuel price (TL or USD$), and fuel
Ėxin = Ėxout + ĖxLD (11) flow rate (kg/s), exchange rate and kerosene lower heating value. Ċf ,
hourly fuel cost is calculated by Equation (22) [2,5,9].
In this study, Specific Exergy Costing method developed by Lazzar­
2.2. Exergoeconomic formulations etto and Tsatsaronis [22] has been applied.
The exergoeconomic cost of a component can be obtained by sum of
Thanks to exergoeconomic methodology the final product costs both capital and operation and maintenance exergy cost of that
including the exergy destruction costs within components can be component. In this regard, kth system component cost balance equation
determined, which can also be used during energy conversion system take considers the total costs associated with exergy stream equals to the
design. As an exergy-aided cost reduction method, exergoeconomic sum of input exergy stream costs plus the costs come from operating and
analysis is simply combined of economic and exergetic analyses. Exer­ maintenance and costs. For a component, the exergoeconomic cost
goeconomic analysis uses exergy costing principle to identify exergy equation can be expressed by below equation [2,4,5,20].
destructions incurred in components as well as to assign monetary costs ∑ ∑
of energy [27]. As combination of exergy and cost analysis, exer­ (23)
T
Ċk + Ż k = Ċk + ĊW
goeconomic analysis is executed at component level, which provides in out

airline operator and designer essential information on component costs.

The trade-offs mainly between fuel costs and capital-investment-related Ċk = cĖxk (24)
costs are investigated.
The calculation of economic parameters for the engine and its ĊW = cẆ (25)
components that will be applied during exergoeconomic analysis are
(26)
T CIC OM
explained by below equations; Ż k = Ż k + Ż k
OM CIC
PWCFM56 = CICCFM56 − SCFM56 PWF(i, n) (12) C and c express exergy flow and unit exergy flow costs, Żk , Żk , and
T
Żkare operating and maintenance, capital investment, total equipment
SCFM56 = j × CICCFM56 (13)
hourly costs.
where, PW, CIC, S, and j are present worth, capital cost, salvage value Exergoeconomic cost balance equations for whole turbofan engine
and salvage rate (%). and its main engine components including Fan, LPC, HPC, Combustor,
Present Value Factor; HPT and LPT have been generated using Equation (23) and supple­
mentary assumptions. Exergetic flow cost rates for each component have
PWF =
1
(14) been calculated with solution of cost balance equations application of F
(1 + i)n rule [22,23]. Thermo-economic parameters are listed in.
Engine Yearly Capital Cost;
3. CFM56-7B turbofan engine description
ACICCFM56 = PẆ CFM56 CRF(i, n) (15)
CFM56-7B is a high by pass ratio (5.1) turbofan engine that produce
Capital Recovery Factor;
121 kN thrust. The total pressure ratio is 32.8, fan has one stage, LPC has
i(1 + i)n 3-stage axial, HPC has 9-stage axial, an annular combustion chamber,
CRF = (16)
(1 + i)n − 1 HPT has one stage rotor and LPT has 4 stage rotors. Engine stations are
illustrated in Fig. 1. The specific fuel consumption (SFC) is 10.63 g/(kN.
Engine hourly total hourly cost;
s) at the maximum power. Engine thermal efficiency is around 0.453
φACICCFM56 [25].
(17)
T
Ż CFM56 =
τ
Engine hourly capital investment cost; 4. Exergoeconomic cost balance equations

CIC
Ż CFM56 =
ACICCFM56
(18) The exergoeconomic cost balance equations for turbofan engine and
τ the main components are listed below:
CIC Fan:
kth component’s hourly capital investment cost (Żk );
( ) (27)
T
PECk Ċ1 + ĊW,fan + Ż fan = Ċ13 + Ċ18
(19)
CIC CIC
Ż k = Ż CFM56 ∑
PECCFM56
where Ċ1 = 0
OM
Żk , kth component hourly operating and maintenance cost;
Ẇ fan xcw,LPT + Ż fan = (Ėx13 + Ėx18 )xc13 (28)
OM ( )
ĊCFM56 PECk
(20)
OM
Ż k =
τ
∑
PECCFM56 65.1xcw,LPT − 56.34xc13 = − 73 (29)

OM
LPC:
where τ,n,i,PEC and Ċ denotes yearly operation hour, engine life,
(30)
T
interest rate, the component and operating and maintenance exergy Ċw,LPC + Ċ13 + Ż LPC = Ċ25
costs, respectively.
Yearly fuel cost as energetic terms (FCe);

3
O. Turan Energy 259 (2022) 124936

Fig. 1. High bypass turbofan engine schematic [25].

T
Ẇ LPC xcw,LPT + Ėx13 xc13 + Ż LPC = Ėx25 xc25 (31) Main engine component costs (PEC) are approximately assessed with
averaged cost of engine neglecting the accessory equipment costs. For
CIC
29.4xcw,LPT + 4.7xc13 − 29.7xc25 = − 43.9 (32) each component, the capital investment (Żk ) and operating and
OM
HPC: maintenance costs (Żk )
are computed by using Equations (12)–(22)
based on selected economic parameters listed in Table 1. The capital,
(33)
T
Ċw,HPC + Ċ25 + Ż HPC − ĊB1 − ĊB2 = Ċ3 operating and maintenance and total costs for engine components are
presented in Table 2.
(34)
T
Ẇ HPC xcw,HPT + Ėx25 xc25 − ĖxB1 xcB1 − ĖxB2 xcB2 + Ż HPC = Ėx3 xc3 The fuel cost per year (FCe), and hourly fuel consumption cost (Ċf )
are determined as below,
109.1xcw,HPT + 29.7xc25 − 122xc3 = − 66.9 (35)
F Ċ = Prṁf τ3600 = 8, 465925$ (50)
Combustor (CC):
T
(36) F Ċ
Ċ3 + Ċfuel + Ż CC = Ċ4 Ċf = = 2, 202$ (51)
τ
T
Ėx3 c3 + Ėxfuel cfuel + Ż CC = Ėx4 c4 (37) With fuel price assumed as 1.1$/kg and taking into account cruise
flight fuel consumption rate, the average hourly fuel consumption (Ċf ) is
119.5xc3 − 283.8xc4 = − 2258.4 (38) calculated as 2202 US$ per hour.
Exergy flows in main engine components have been calculated thru
HPT:
exergy analysis by Aydin et al. [25]. Component unit exergy costs (c)
T
Ċ4 + ĊB1 + ĊB2 + Ż HPT = Ċ45 + Ċw,HPT (39) have been calculated by solution of exergoeconomic Equations (23)–
(51). Components exergy costs (Ċ) are basically calculated by multipli­
T
Ėx4 xc4 + ĖxB1 xcB1 + ĖxB2 xc3 + Ż HPT = Ėx45 xc45 + Ẇ HPT xcw,HPT (40) cation of exergy flow (GJ/h) rates with unit cost values of related
component. The exergy and unit exergy cost values of high bypass en­
113.1xc4 + 1.58xcB1 + 2.52xc3 − 109xcw,HPT = − 99.2 (41) gine components are shown in Table 3.

LPT:
5. Results and discussion
(42)
T
Ċ45 + Ż LPT = ĊW,LPT + Ċ5
This paper deals with the exergoeconomic cost analysis of selected
turbofan engine and their components based on exergy analysis and
(43)
T
Ėx45 c45 + Ż LPT = Ẇ LPT cW,LPT + Ėx5 c5
economical parameters. Energy and exergy analyses can be applied to
determine the energetic and exergetic efficiencies, exergy destructions
97.7xc4 − 94.7xcw,HPT = − 54.6 (44)
of main engine components and exergetic parameters of system. The
CFM56-7B turbofan engine: temperature and pressure distributions of the turbofan engine stations
are outlined in Figs. 2 and 3.
(45)
T
Ċ3f + Ż CFM56 = Ċ8 + Ċ18 The energy and exergy flows are obtained by exergy and energy

2262 + 394 = Ċ8 + 12.44xċ18 (46)

Table 1
Assumptions: Selected economic parameters for high bypass turbofan engine [25].
c3 + c25 Item Unit Value
cB1 ≅ (47)
2 CIC US$ 11,000,000
OM US$/yr 612,000
Ċ4 Ċ45 Ċ5 I % 5
= = = cf (48)
Ėx41 Ėx45 Ėx5 J % 10
N yr 22
F-rule τ h/yr 3,600
PR US$/kg 0.6
cW,LPT = cW,LPC , cw,HPT = cw,HPC (49) LHV kJ/kg 43,400

4
O. Turan Energy 259 (2022) 124936

Table 2
Turbofan engine and main components equipment, capital investment and
operating and maintenance costs [25].
Component PEC(US$) CIC
Żk (US$ /h)
OM
Żk (US$ /h)
T
Żk (US$ /h)

FAN 2750000 56 17 73
LPC 1320000 26.9 17 43.9
HPC 2200000 44.8 22.1 66.9
Combustor 1100000 22.4 34 56.4
HPT 2200000 44.8 54.4 99.2
LPT 1430000 29.1 25.5 54.6
Engine 11000000 224 170 394

Table 3
Exergy flow, exergy cost unit exergy cost in Engine components and stations.
Component Exergy flow (MW) Ex(GJ/h) C($/h) c($/GJ)

Fan (0) 0 0 0 0
Fig. 3. Pressure values at turbofan engine component inlet and outlet.
Fan (13 + 18) 15,65 56.34 0.00 0.00
LPC (13) 1,3 4.68 112.57 24.05
18 12,446 44.81 1077.75 24.05
LPC (25) 8255 29.72 735.97 24.77
HPC (25) 8255 29.72 735.97 24.77
HPC (3) 33,2 119.52 2996.61 25.07
CC (3) 33,2 119.52 2996.61 25.07
3f 59,2 213.12 2202.00 10.33
CC (4) 78,85 283.86 5255.67 18.52
HPT (4) 80,5 289.80 5365.65 18.52
HPT (45) 49,13 176.87 3274.71 18.52
LPT (45) 49,8 179.28 3319.37 18.52
LPT (5) 22,66 81.58 1510.38 18.52
Whpt 30.30 109.08 2255.56 20.68
Wlpt 26,3 94.68 1863.11 19.68
Whpc 30,3 109.08 637.00 20.68
Wlpc 8,17 29.412 637.00 19.68
Wfan 18,1 65.16 637.00 19.68
B1 0,44 1.584 637.00 24.90
B2 0,7 2.52 637.00 25.07

Fig. 4. Turbofan engine components energy and exergy flows (kW).

Fig. 2. Temperature values at turbofan engine component inlet and outlet.

analysis, the values for each engine components are presented Fig. 4.
Maximum exergy flow observed at combustor outlet as about 80 MW
value, meanwhile energy flow is over 100 MW at this location. It should Fig. 5. Exergy flow rate (GJ/h) for the turbofan engine stations and work
be noted that exergy destructions of each can be obtained with the total interactions.
exergy differences of component inlet and outlet. The detailed exergy
analysis containing exergy efficiencies, exergy destructions and The reason why HPT inlet exergy flow slightly higher than combustor
improvement potential rates have been obtained in a previous study outlet is the attribution of exergy flow rate of cooling air extracted from
done by Aydin et al. [25]. HPC to cool the hot section parts.
Fig. 5 shows the exergy flow rates in GJ/h of the overall engine The component exergy (US$/h) and unit exergy cost rates (US$/GJ)
station flow and work interactions. Focusing our attention on this figure, are displayed in Figs. 6 and 7.
the highest exergy flow rate occurs in HPT inlet as a value of 289.8 GJ/h. The exergy and unit exergy cost values of high bypass engine

5
O. Turan Energy 259 (2022) 124936

locations for process improvement by providing information, it also

provides supplementary contribution in addition to exergy analysis
output. The concluding remarks from this may be summarized as follow,

i. High bypass turbofan engine and main engine components tem­

perature and pressure values are presented in Figs. 2 and 3.
Maximum pressure is obtained at HPC outlet as 3338 kPa value
and the temperature reach over 1600 K in combustor.
ii. Energy and exergy flows of main components are outlined in
Figs. 3 and 4. The highest exergy flow is noted at HPT inlet with
289.8 GJ/h value.
iii. Turbofan engine and main components equipment, capital in­
Fig. 6. Exergy cost (US$/h) for the turbofan components.
vestment and operating and maintenance costs are listed in
Table 2. It’s found that CFM56-7B engine total cost is 394 US$/h.
iv. High bypass turbofan engine and main engine components
exergoeconomic features have been studied
v. Exergy cost and unite exergy cost rates of engine and its main
component are listed in Figs. 6 and 7.
• High bypass turbofan engine has 5365.65 US$/h of exergetic
cost which is calculated at HPT inlet.
• Maximum unit exergy cost rate is calculated to be 25.07 US
$/GJ at the HPC outlet.
• The unit exergy cost rates for compressor (LPC and HPC) is
around 24.5 US$/GJ, for turbine (HPT and LPT), it is relatively
lower rates as about 18.5 US$/GJ.

This study is assumed to be useful to identify the potential for en­

ergetic and economic improvements for the turbofan engine. It’s also
expected that exergoeconomic analysis output will be beneficial for both
airline operators and engine designer to find the cost evaluation of en­
gine and the engine modules as well as potential areas for improvement.
Fig. 7. Unit exergy cost (US$/GJ) for the turbofan components. In addition to that, this methodology may be applicable for the ones who
work on analysis, improvement, and development of similar systems.
components are shown in Table 3. Those costs have been calculated For future work, advance exergoeconomic analysis can be done.
from cost balance equations generated for each engine component. For
the exact calculation of the unit exergy costs, it should be noted that all Credit author statement
parameters including economic and operating and maintenance should
be assigned as delicately as possible. According to analysis result, HPT Onder Turan: Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing- Reviewing
inlet has highest exergy cost. For CFM56-7B turbofan engine, exergy cost and Editing, Validation.
rate is computed as 5365.65 US$/h. Meanwhile, maximum unit exergy
cost is found out as 25.07 US$/GJ at the HPC outlet (Fig. 7). It’s noted Declaration of competing interest
that unique exergy cost rates of compressor (LPC and HPC) relatively
higher than the ones of hot section components (HPT and LPT). The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
6. Conclusion remarks the work reported in this paper.

In this work exergy and exergoeconomic cost analysis of a high Data availability
bypass turbofan engine and main components is reviewed. Benefits
gathered from exergoeconomic analysis is to help identify the potential The authors do not have permission to share data.

Nomenclature

ACIC Annual Capital Cost Flow (US$ yr− 1)

CC Combustion chamber
c Unit exergy cost (US$ GJ− 1)
cp Specific heat (kJ kg− 1 K− 1)
Ċ Exergy cost (US$ h− 1)
CIC Capital Cost (US$)
CRF Capital Recovery Factor
ex Specific exergy rate (kJ kg− 1)
E Energy rate (MW)
Ex Exergy rate (MW)
ER Exchange rate (TL US$− 1)
FĊ Annual fuel cost flow (US$ yr− 1)

6
O. Turan Energy 259 (2022) 124936

h Specific enthalpy (kJ kg− 1)

HPC High Pressure Compressor
HPT High Pressure Turbine
hPR Fuel heating value (kJ kg− 1)
IṖ Exergetic improvement potential rate (MW)
i Interest rate (%)
j Salvage rate (%)
KE Kinetic energy (kJ)
LPC Low Pressure Compressor
LPT Low Pressure Turbine
ṁ Mass flow rate (kg sn− 1)
N,n Engine life time (year)
P Pressure (kPa)
PE Potential energy (kJ)
PEC Component cost (US$)
Pr Fuel sell price (TL kg− 1)
PW Present worth (US$)
PWF Present worth factor
Q Heat (kJ)
R Specific gas constant (kJ (kgK) − 1
S Entropy (J/K)
S Salvage value (US$)
T Temperature (◦ C or K)
V Velocity (m sn− 1)
W Work (kJ)
Ẇ Power (MW)
Ż Capital cost flow (US$ h− 1)

Greek Letters
ψ Specific exergy (kJ kg− 1)
γ Specific heat ratio
ρ Density (kg m− 3)
η Efficiency
φ Operating and maintenance factor
τ The total annual number hours of system (h)

Subscripts and superscripts

a Air
ch Chemical
comb Combustor
dest Destruction
f Fuel
gen Generated
in Inlet
k kth component
kn Kinetic
out Outlet
OM Operating and maintenance
ph Physical
pt Potential
T,Tot Total
z Height (m)
0,1, 2. station numbering of the engine component

References [6] Enviro. http://www.enviro.aero/Content/Upload/File/Beginners Guide_Bio

fuels_Web; 2011.
[7] Peeters PM, Middel J, Hoolhorst A. Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: an
[1] Rosen MA. Allocating carbon dioxide emissions from cogeneration systems:
overview of historical and future trends. 2005. NLR-CR-2005-669.
descriptions of selected output-based methods. J Clean Prod 2006;16(2):171–7.
[8] MIT. accessed on February 2016), http://web.mit.
[2] Balli O, Aras H, Hepbasli A. Exergetic and exergoeconomic analysis of an aircraft
edu/airlines/analysis/analysis_airline_industry. html; 2011.
Jet Engine (AJE). Int J Exergy 2008;5(5/6):567–81.
[9] Aydin H, Turan O, Midilli A, Karakoc TH. Component-based exergetic measures of
[3] Ryerson MS, Hansen M. Fuel consumption and operational performance, vol. 15.
an experimental turboprop/turboshaft engine for propeller aircrafts and
Transportation Research Part D; 2010. p. 305–14.
helicopters. Int J Exergy 2012;11:322–48.
[4] Turgut ET, Karakoc TH, Hepbasli A. Exergoeconomic analysis of an aircraft
[10] Aydin H, Turan O, Midilli A, Karakoc TH. Energetic and exergetic performance
turbofan engine. Int J Exergy 2009;6(3):277–94.
assessment of a turboprop engine at various loads. Int J Exergy 2013;13(4):543–64.
[5] Turgut ET, Karakoc TH, Hepbasli A, Rosen MA. Exergy analysis of a turbofan
[11] Balli O, Hepbasli A. Energetic and exergetic analyses of T56 turboprop engine.
aircraft engine. Int J Exergy 2009;6(2):181–99.
Energy Convers Manag 2013;73:106–20.

7
O. Turan Energy 259 (2022) 124936

[12] Balli O, Hepbasli A. Exergoeconomic, sustainability and environmental damage [23] Colpan CO, Yesin T. Energetic, exergetic and thermoeconomic analysis of Bilkent
cost analyses of T56 turboprop engine. Energy 2014;64:582–600. combined cycle cogeneration plant. Int J Energy Res 2006;30(11):875–94.
[13] Atilgan R, Turan O, Altuntas O, Aydin H, Synylo K. Environmental impact [24] Aydin H, Turan O, Midilli A, Karakoc TH. Exergetic and exergo-economic analysis
assessment of a turboprop engine with the aid of exergy. Energy 2013;58:664–71. of a turboprop engine: a case study for CT7-9C. Int J Exergy 2012;11(1):69–88.
[14] Baklacioglu T, Turan O, Aydin H. Dynamic modelling of exergy efficiency of [25] Aydin H, Turan O, Karakoc TH, Midilli A. Exergetic sustainability indicators as a
turboprop engine components using hybrid genetic algorithm-artificial neural tool in commercial aircraft: a case study for a turbofan engine. Int J Green Energy
networks. Energy 2015;86:709–21. 2014;12(1):28–40.
[15] Turan O. Effect of reference altitudes for a turbofan engine with the aid of specific- [26] Yucer CT, Hepbasli A. Exergoeconomic analysis of a central heating system from
exergy based method. Int J Exergy 2012;11:252–70. the generation stage to the building envelope. Energy Build 2012;47:592–9.
[16] Turan O. An exergy way to quantify sustainability metrics for a high bypass [27] Dincer I, Naterer GF. Assessment of exergy efficiency and sustainability index of an
turbofan engine. Energy 2015;86:722–36. air water heat pump. Int J Exergy 2010;7(1):37–50.
[17] Turan O, Aydin H. Exergetic and exergo-economic analyses of an aero-derivative [28] Sohret Y, Dinc A, Karakoc TH. Exergy analysis of a turbofan engine for an
gas turbine engine. Energy 2014;74. 638-560. unmanned aerial vehicle during a surveillance mission. Energy 2015;93(1):
[18] Etele J, Rosen MA. Sensitivity of exergy efficiencies of aerospace engines to 716–29.
reference environment selection. Exergy An Int J 2001;1(2):91–9. [29] Dinc A, Sohret Y, Ekici S. Exergy analysis of a three-spool turboprop engine during
[19] Chang H. Exergy analysis and exergoeconomic analysis of an ethylene process. the flight of a cargo aircraft. Aircraft Eng Aero Technol 2020;92(10):1495–503.
J Sci Eng 2001;4(2):94–104. [30] Dinc A, Gharbia Y. Exergy analysis of a turboprop engine at different flight altitude
[20] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. John Wiley and speeds using novel consideration. Int J Turbo Jet Engines 2020. https://doi.
and Sons Inc.; 1996. 1996. org/10.1515/tjeng-2020-0017.
[21] Van Gool W. Energy policy fairy tales and factuality, Innovation and Technology- [31] Sohret Y, Dinc A. Exergy mapping of a UAV through a reconnaissance flight
Strategies and Policies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer; 1997. p. 93–105. envelope. J Aeronaut Space Technol 2022;15(1):35–45.
[22] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. On calculation of efficiencies and costs in thermal
systems. In: Proceedings of the ASME advanced energy systems division, Nashville,
Tennessee. vol. 39. USA: AES; 1999.