EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM WILLIAMS RESEARCH COR
PORATION GAS TURBINE ENGINES
Williams Research Corporation
Walled Lake, Michigan
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
INTERIM REPORT
EXHAUST EMISSIONS FROM
WILLIAMS RESEARCH CORPORATION
GAS TURBINE ENGINES
TO
NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
FROM
WILLIAMS RESEARCH CORPORATION
2280 West Maple Road
Walled Lake, Michigan 48088
CONTRACT NO. CPA 22-69-84
i
-------
Report No. WRrERS
INTERIM REPORT
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
FROM
WILLIAMS RESEARCH CORPORATION
GAS TURBINE ENGINES
CONTRACT NO. CPA 22-69-84
FROM: 18 June 1969
TO: 18 April 1970
H. B. Moore
PROJECT ENGINEER
CHIEF PROJECT ENGINEER
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM
THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING
AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CER-
TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE-
LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
FOREWORD
This report, No. WR-ER8, entitled "Exhaust Emissions
from Williams Research Corporation Gas Turbine Engines," is
submitted as an interim report under Contract No. CPA 22-69-84,
Gas Turbine Engine Emissions, and covers the work between
18 June 1969 and 18 April 1970. The work is continuing and
the results reported herein are tentative.
The work upon which this publication is based was
performed pursuant to Contract No. CPA 22-69-84 with the
National Air Pollution Control Administration, Environmental
Health Service, Public Health Service, Department of Health,
-------
Report NO. WR-ER8
ABSTRACT
The exhaust emissions of several different models of
gas turbine engines under development or in production at
Williams Research Corporation were measured under contract
with the National Air Pollution Control Administration.
The emissions measured were carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and the oxides of nitrogen.
The results are presented in a generalized form relating
emissions to fuel air ratio and erigine power or thrust. -
Techniques were developed to convey exhaust samples
from engines in test cells to analysis equipment located
elsewhere. Measurements were also made of the emissions from
a gas turbine engine installed in a vehicle. /' *
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
i
ii
iii
iv
INTRODUCTION 1
DESCRIPTION OF ENGINES 2
WR24-6 Turbojet 2
WR9-7 Auxiliary Power Unit 3
WR19 Turbofan 3
131L Industrial Engine 3
131Q vehicular Engine 4
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT 5
Sampling Line Development 5
Sampling Probes 6
RESULTS 8
CO2 Summary 8
Accuracy of Data 8
Steady State Results 11
a. Concentration vs. Equivalence Ratio 12
b. Emission Index vs. Specific Fuel Economy 13
c. Specific Emission vs. Engine Output 13
Vehicle Tests 14
Transient Measurements 18
CONCLUSIONS 19
RECOMMENDATIONS 20
REFERENCES 21
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
Steady State Data Reduction
Vehicle Test Data Reduction
List of Equipment
Statistical Analysis of C02 Error
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Description
1 WR24-6 Turbojet
2 WR9-7 Auxiliary Power Unit
3 WR19 Turbofan
4 131L Industrial Engine
5 Exhaust Sampling System Schematic
6 Sampling Probes
7 WR19 Sampling Probe System
8 131Q Sampling Probe Installations
9 WR2-6 Turbojet with Exhaust Sampling Probe
10 WR9-7 APU with Exhaust Sampling Probe
11 Heated Sampling Line with Oil System
Installed on WR9-7 APU
12 Gas Analysis Equipment
13 Emissions Measurement During Engine Operation
in Test Cell
14 CX>2 Summary
15 CO concentration vs. Equivalence Ratio,
131Q Engine
16 CO Concentration vs. Equivalence Ratio,
131L, WR24-6, WR2-6, WR9-7 Engines
17 CHX Concentration vs. Equivalence Ratio,
131Q Engine
18 CHX Concentration vs. Equivalence Ratio,
131L, WR24-6, WR2-6, WR9-7 Engines
19 NOX Concentration vs. Equivalence Ratio,
131Q, 131L, WR9-7, WR2-6 Engines
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
List of Illustrations
Figure
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Table
I
Description
CO Emission Index vs. Specific Fuel Economy
131Q Engine
CO Emission Index vs. Specific Fuel Economy
131L, WR9-7 Engines
CO Emission Index vs. Specific Fuel Economy
WR24-6, WR2-6 Engines
CHX Emission Index vs. Specific Fuel Economy
131Q Engine
CHX Emission Index vs. Specific Fuel Economy
131L, WR9-7 Engines
CHX Emission Index vs. Specific Fuel Economy
WR24-6, WR2-6 Engines
NOx Emission Index vs. Specific Fuel Economy
131L, WR9-7 Engines
NOX Emission Index vs. Specific Fuel Economy
WR2-6 Engine
CO Specific Emission vs. Power, All Shaft Engines
CHX Specific Emission vs. Power, All Shaft Engines
NOX Specific Emission vs. Power, 131L,
WR9-7 Engines
CO Specific Emission vs. Thrust, Jet Engines
CHX Specific Emission vs. Thrust, Jet Engines
NOX Specific Emission vs. Thrust, Jet Engines
Schematic Plan View of Vehicle Test
Emissions Transients During Shutdown,
WR2-6 Engine
Summary of Chassis Dynamometer Test Results
Page
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
List of Illustrations
Appendix A
Table A-l
Table A-2
Figure A-l
Appendix B
Table B-l
Table B-2
Table B-3
Figure B-l
Figure B-2
Figure B-3
Appendix D
Table D-l
Table D-2
Table D-3
Table D-4
Steady State Data Reduction
computer Program variables
Fuel Composition Summary
Sample Emission Data Reduction
Vehicle Test Data Reduction
Mass Emissions From Bag Analysis
Emission Concentrations, Continuous
Analysis, Cycle No. 3, Run No. 4
Mass Emissions From Continuous Analysis
Gas Generator and Power Turbine Speeds vs.
Time, Cycle No. 3, Run No. 4
CO2 and CO vs. Time - Cycle No. 3,
Run No. 4
CHX as
Run No. 4
vs. Time - Cycle No. 3,
Statistical Analysis of C02 Error
CO2 Concentrations
Statistical Summary of C(>2 Error
Histogram of CO2 Error
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
Williams Research Corporation over the past fifteen
years has developed a family of gas turbine engines ranging
from a 121 Ib thrust turbojet to a 440 hp industrial engine.
The exhaust emissions of all of'these' engines were measured
during the program using sampling equipment developed by
Williams Research and analysis equipment furnished by the
Division of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control of the National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Ypsilanti, Michigan.
Most of the measurements were made with the engines
running in test cells at Williams Research. The 131Q vehicular
engine was also measured for emissions while installed in a
vehicle. These tests were run on a chassis dynamometer at
Ypsilanti.
The exhaust gases were pumped through a specially
constructed line from a probe installed in the engine exhaust
system to a console containing the analysis equipment. Con-
stituents measured were carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
unburned hydrocarbons, and-oxides of nitrogen. An attempt
was made to measure particulates present in the exhaust but
concentrations were too low for the method used.
Infrared analyzers were used for the CO2 and CO analysis.
The hydrocarbons were detected with a flame ionization
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 2
measure the oxides of nitrogen. Particulates were collected
on a filter.
Continuous recordings were made of the CC>2» CO, and
hydrocarbons and some transient data was taken during engine
starting and.shutdown. The equipment and its operation are
shown in Figs. 12 and 13.
DESCRIPTION CF ENGINES
General characteristics of the Williams Research
Corporation engines tested in this program are given in this
section. The engines are shown in Figs. 1 through 4.
WR24-6 Turbojet
The WR24-6 is a small turbojet engine used in drone
aircraft applications. It has a single stage centrifugal
compressor driven by a single stage axial turbine and employs
an annular combustor.
Rated sea level static thrust is 121 Ibs at 60,000 rpm.
Airflow is 2.2 Ibm/sec and exhaust temperature is 760° C (1400°p)
The engine us«s MIL-J-5624 grade JP-4 or JP-5 fuel at a rated
specific fuel consumption of 1.2 Ibm/hr-lbf.
Over 700 units have been produced in the past two years.
Tho WR2-b turbojet is basically the same engine with a
different, exhaust nozzle and electric generator. It is also
-------
Report; No. WR-ER8
Page 3
WR9-7 Auxiliary Power Unit
The WR9-7 is an auxiliary power unit for turbine engine
aircraft providing a combination of pneumatic, hydraulic, and
electric power. The engine has a single shaft with a single
stage centrifugal compressor and two axial turbine stages
driving a gearbox. The annular combustor is similar to that
in the WR24-6.
The engine provides a rated .55 Ibm/sec of bleed air
from its compressor for pneumatic starting of the aircraft
main engines. Hydraulic power up to 7 1/2 hp, or electric
power up to 15 kw are also available.
At a maximum total load of 65 hp, the turbines pass
1.7 Ibm/sec of air. Exhaust gas temperature is 593° C
(1100° F). The engine normally runs on JP-4 fuel.
The WR9-7 is installed on the Buffalo DHC-5 turbo-
prop produced by DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada, Ltd.
WR19 Turbofan
The WR19 is a twin spool turbofan with a bypass ratio
of 1.0 and a rated thrust of 430 Ibs. The total airflow is
11.1 Ibm/sec and the SPG is 0.7 Ibm/hr-lbf. Mixed exhaust
temperature is 304° C (580° P).
The engine was developed as the power plant for the
Bell Aerospace Flying Jet Belt.
131L Industrial Engine
The 131 L engine features a single stage centrifugal
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 4
an annular combustor. Power is produced by a single stage
axial turbine on a separate shaft which drives the load
through an integral gearbox.
With a rating of 440 hp and an airflow of 6.1 Ibm/sec,
the exhaust gas temperature is 593° C (1100° P) and the SFC is
0.86 Ibm/hr-hp. The engine will run on a wide range of fuels
including natural gas and diesel No. 2.
131Q Vehicular Engine
This engine is in development both on the test stand
and in a test bed vehicle. It has a regenerator which recovers
turbine exhaust heat to improve its fuel economy.
An experimental version of this engine without regenera-
tor, designated 131QNR in this report, is also being run at
Williams Research as a component development tool. Data were
also taken on this engine in an attempt to assess the effect
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 5
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Sampling Line Development
Tests on gas turbine engines at Williams Research are
generally conducted in test cells for safety and convenience
with the engine mounted on a test stand in the cell and the
ft**'
operator stationed at a control console outside. With the
exhaust analysis equipment also outside the test cell, it was
necessary to provide a suitable line from the exhaust system
of the engine to the analyzer, a distance of 15 to 25 feet.
To prevent condensation of the exhaust constituents in the line,
especially the unburned hydrocarbons of gas turbine engine fuels,
it was necessary to keep the line at a temperature between 150
and 200° C (302 to 392° P). The analyzer pumped gas from the
line at 3 to 4 liters/minute.
To maintain the line at temperature, an oil jacketed
construction was used. In the early part of the program, this
consisted of sections of 3/8 in. stainless tubing brazed inside
lengths of 1 in. cast iron pipe capped at each end. The sec-
tions were joined with short pieces of aircraft type teflon
hose. The cast iron pipe sections, covered with steam pipe
insulation, were connected in series with a heated oil supply.
This line worked satisfactorily but was cumbersome to set up.
A coaxial flexible line was built consisting of .313 in.
I.D. teflon hose (AMS 3380-6) inside a .875 in. I.D. hose
(AMS 3380-16Z) with flared swivel fittings on each end. The
inner fittings were inserted into drilled plugs installed in
-------
Report NO. WR-ER8
Page 6
hose became a sealed jacket over the inner hose. Oil con-
nections were made through tubes mounted radially in the
outer fittings. The outside was insulated with asbestos and
fiberglass tape. The line was 25 feet long and is shown
schematically in Figure 5.
A bypass pump was used to improve the response of
the system by increasing the sample gas velocity in the line
to 12 liters/minute. Thermocouples monitored the sample gas
temperature entering and leaving the line.
The oil system for heating the lines is shown
schematically in Figure 5 and depicted in Figure 11. It
consists of a pump, two 1500 watt electric heaters, a
reservoir, valves, and flexible connecting lines. For ease
of set up in the various engine test cells, the system was
built, on a dolly. Temperature of the oil at each end of the
sample line was monitored with thermocouples and was held
between 160 and 190° C (320 and 374° F) by thermostats ,in the
heating units. The system could be brought up to temperature
in two hours.
Sampling Probes
For each engine tested in the program, sampling probes
were fabricated to fit each exhaust system. These are all
shown schematically in Figures 6, 7, and 8. Refer also to
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 7
The general approach was to provide a total pressure
probe aimed directly into the exhaust stream in a region of
relatively smooth flow so that the possibility of recircula-
tion and dilution by outside air was minimized. This was no
problem with the jet engines where the gas velocity was high
but special care was necessary with the 131Q NR engine.
Different probe locations in the same exhaust plane
were investigated only with the 131Q NR engine* but need
further study, especially with the jet engines, where there
is known to be considerable non-uniformity in the exhaust
stream temperature at the sampling station. Any large
sampling error showed up in the reduced data as a large
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 8
RESULTS
CO2 Summafy
Throughout the program, a summary sheet was maintained
on which was plotted measured CO2 concentration in the exhaust
and a calculated CO2 concentration for each data point. These
values ranged from 0.7 to 4.2 per cent and are shown in
Figure 14.
The calculated value was based on complete combustion
of the fuel to water and CO2 using the measured engine fuel
flow, airflow, and a handbook value for hydrogen to carbon
ratio of the fuel. Since measured values for carbon con-
taining pollutants, namely CO and unburned hydrocarbons,
rarely exceeded 500 ppm, the error incurred in hot subtracting
the carbon present in these constituents from the calculated
CO2 value was small compared with the overall accuracy of the
measurements.
Accuracy of Data
The comparison of measured and calculated CO2 concen-
tration was taken as a measure of the validity of the data.
The difference between the two values, called CO2 error, could
be due to any combination of the following:
a. Non-representative sampling - probe and line
failing to pick up an average sample of the
exhaust gas.
b. Failure to detect large concentrations of other
-------
Report WR-ER8
Page 9
c. Excessive oil system leakage into the engine gas
stream.
d. Errors in CC>2 measurement.
1. Detector error
2. Calibration gas error
e. Errors in calculated CO2 value.
1. Engine airflow measurement
2. Engine fuel flow measurement
3. Assumed hydrogen to carbon ratio of fuel
The distribution of C©2 error taken over all engines
and operating conditions was examined for randomness. If it
could be shown that the combined influence of the presumed
sources of error listed above affected the data in a purely
random way, then predictions on the accuracy of all the data
could be made. Data known to be bad due to discovered line
leakage or sample pump failure was discounted. Some data,
notably the APU data of October 16, 1969 and the early 131Q
NR data, showed a systematic error of opposite polarity to that
of all of the rest of the data in that the measured values of
C02 concentration were considerably lower than the calculated
values. These points were also suspect. The data points under-
lined with a dashed line at the bottom of Figure 14 were shown
to be consistent with a normal population. This analysis is
shown in Appendix D. These points are the only ones used in
-------
Report WR-ER8
Page 10
The mean value of the CO2 error for the sample under-
lined in Figure 14, consisting of 83 points, is 0.14 per cent
CO2 and the standard deviation is 0.16 per cent. Since the
expected value of the mean of CO2 errors is zero, the 0.14
per cent represents some form of systematic error of unknown
origin. Arbitrarily adding to this quantity one standard
deviation of the normal distribution, the estimated magnitude
of error in the CO2 measurements becomes 0.30 per cent. As a
per cent of average CO2 reading, this works out to be 22 per
cent for the 131Q engine and 11 per cent for the other engines.
These figures are taken as a measure of the overall accuracy of
the CO2 determination.
The measurements of the concentration of other con-
stituents in the exhaust do not have a common basis for
comparison nor were a large enough number of samples taken
under the same engine operating conditions to perform a
statistical analysis on each point. The factors contributing
to errors in these measurements and the quantities derived from
them are the same as for the CO2 measurements except that the
detection equipment is different for each constituent. The
accuracy of the determinations of CO, unburned hydrocarbons,
and NO2 is assumed to be no better than the per cent accuracies
for each engine quoted above for ©2.
If these accuracy limits are applied to the assumed
curves of emission variables plotted in Figures 15 through 33,
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 11
It is expected that refinements in exhaust sampling
techniques and fuel and airflow measurement will reduce or
eliminate the apparent systematic error in CO2 determination
found in this data and reduce the standard deviation of the
distribution of C02 error.
Steady State Results
Emissions measurements results have been plotted in
Figures 15 through 33 in three formats. General parameters
were chosen for plotting so that data for different engines
and different fuels could easily be compared.
The first format is pollutant concentration in the
exhaust in parts per million vs. equivalence ratio, which is
fuel air ratio normalized to stoichiometric. These plots
show the range of pollutant concentrations for each engine
and its dependence on fuel air ratio.
The second format. Figures 20 through 27, shows
emission index, or mass of pollutant emitted per unit mass of
fuel burned, vs. specific fuel economy, or engine energy output
per unit mass of fuel burned. For the jet engines, thrust was
used in place of energy output. The abscissa variable is
reciprocally related to the specific fuel consumption which
is shown on a separate scale. Alternatively, these plots can
be considered as mass of pollutant vs. engine output.
Finally, Figures 28 through 33 give specific emission,
defined as mass of pollutant per unit of engine output, vs.
power or thrust. The semi-log plot allows large and small
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 12
The plots within each format are further divided
between the three pollutants measured in the program; carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen dioxide. Data on the
WR19 engine was taken too late to be incorporated in this
report.
a. Concentration vs. equivalence ratio. Figure 15
shows a steep dependency of CO emission on fuel air ratio for
the 131Q engine. The regenerative engine appears to have a
critical fuel air ratio of 0.09 of stoichiometric with diesel
No. 2 fuel, 0.07 with lighter fuels, for CO emission. The non-
regenerative engine, with twice the fuel consumption, appears
to have twice the CO emission and a critical fuel air ratio
of 0.19 stoichiometric. In Figure 17, a similar result is
obtained for the 131Q hydrocarbon emissions except that non-
regenerative concentrations are comparable to the regenerative.
Figures 16 and 18 show a less critical dependency of
emission concentration on fuel air ratio for the WR9-7 APU
and 131L industrial engine. The APU data shows a tendency
to go through a minimum in Figure 16, but further measurements
are needed to verify this. There is considerable scatter in
the APU hydrocarbon) data in Figure 18, but the 131L data1 shows
some tendency toward lower concentrations at higher equivalence
rntioa. With the limited data available. Figure 19 shows the
opposite tendency for nitrogen dioxide vs. equivalence ratio,
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 13
These results are in general agreement with those of
(1)
Sawyer and Starkman on several gas turbine engines and
point up the difficulty of the nitrogen oxide problem.
b. Emission index vs. specific fuel economy. These
plots clearly show that the more efficiently the engine is
operated, the lower the emissions of CO and hydrocarbons as
a per cent of fuel burned. All the shaft engines appear to
approach the same minimum of 5 mg/g of CO and 0.3 mg/g of
hydrocarbons. The exception is the 131Q NR which does not
go below 10 mg/g of CO at its lowest SFC.
The range of emission index for CO in Figures 20
through 22 is from 5 to 110 mg/g and the range for hydro-
carbons in Figures 23 through 25 is 0.3 to 4 mg/g. These
reflect the variation in combustion or burner efficiency.
It should be noted that these variations can account for only
about 4 per cent of the variation in SFC, the rest arising
from efficiency variations in other engine components.
Figure 26 shows a moderate rising trend of NO2
emission index with specific fuel economy.
c. Specific emission vs. engine output. Figure 28
shows the CO emission per unit of output for all the shaft
engines tested. The 131Q and 131L engines both reach down
to 2 q/hphr of CO at their highest power output. The 131Q
NR shows significantly higher specific emission of CO than
the regenerative engine.
The APU reaches only 5 g/hphr at its heavy load
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 14
points on the APU curve reflect low loading on the engine
rather than high emissions. The shapo of the curve between
low and high loading is unknown.
The hydrocarbon results in Figure 29 indicate that
all the shaft engines reach approximately 0.2 g/hphr at high
loading. Note that the 131Q NR results on this plot are
indistinguishable from those of the regenerative engine.
Limited data was available on the specific emission
of NO2. There is an indication, however, in Figure 30, that
NO2 per unit of engine output continues to diminish slightly
up to the maximum power output, although the quantity of N©2
emitted markedly increases.
Vehicle Tests
Although considerable data was taken on the 1310 engine
in test cell running, the emission performance of the engine
in a vehicle was considered important for comparison with
other vehicle power plants. In particular, the measurement
of performance over the standard California driving cycle was
a major objective of the program.
The 131Q engine burner was developed to run on com-
mercial diesel No. 2 fuel. It operates well with JP-4 jet
fuel but some instability was experienced attempting to run
with commercial white gasoline. Stable operation was obtained
with a 50-50 mixture of white gasoline and JP-4. It was
decided to conduct the vehicle tests with the normally used
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 15
using unheated lines, might fail to pick up the heavy hydro-
carbons in the exhaust.
Engine serial no. 5 was first run on the test stand
at Williams to establish baseline performance. It was then
installed in the test vehicle and the vehicle was driven to
NAPCA, Ypsilanti, a distance of 25 miles, where it was in-
stalled on a chassis dynamometer in Building 2042. The heated
sample line and analysis cart used in the Williams tests were
also used as shown in Figure 34.
A portable instrument console was placed near the
vehicle to monitor shaft speeds, temperatures, and pressures
in the engine. First and second stage shaft speeds were also
continuously recorded on a strip chart.
The NAPCA bag sampler equipment was connected into
the sample line at the analysis cart. This permitted simul-
taneous bag and continuous sampling. All samples were analyzed
on the same equipment, continuous samples during the test,
bag samples after the test. Fuel in all vehicle tests was
diesel No. 2.
Table I is a summary of the chassis dynamometer test
results. Details of the calculations are given in Appendix B.
The steady state data, engine data points 58 and 63-66, were
also put through the 131Q data reduction program and appear
favorably on the CO2 error summary. Figure 14, thus validating
the sampling arrangement. Also, continuous and bag readings
on CO2 for the same run, where presented in Table I, compare
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 16
Continuous and bag results on 00 for the steady state
points are also consistent. The unburned hydrocarbons, how-
ever, are lower by a factor of at least 2 for the bag samples.
This is believed to be due to the failure to maintain the
sample gas above 150° C (302° F) during the bag sampling
procedure.
Due to the weighting procedure (Appendix B) used in
preparing the continuous sample results for runs 3 and 4,
the pollutant concentrations and grams per mile figures
for bag and continuous samples cannot be expected to agree.
The continuous sample figures in grams per mile, however, are
consistent with current federal procedure for measuring
-------
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF CHASSIS DYNAMOMETER TEST RESULTS
Report NO. WR-£Fs
Page 17
Run
1
2
Eng.
Data;
ft. |
58
3
4
5
6
7
8
63
64
65
66
Type of Fan
9 cycles
hot start
steady
state, NI =
45 krpm
9 cycles
cold start
9 cycles
hot start
steady
state, NI =
40 krpm
steady
state, NI =
45 krpm
steady
state, NI =
50 krpm
steady
state, NI =
55 krpm
Sample
Line*
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
Sample
bag
contin-
uous
bag
bag
contin-
uous**
bag
contin-
uous**
contin-
uous
bag
contin-
uous
bag
contin-
uous
bag
contin-
uous
bag
C02
pet
1.37
L45
1.45
1.53
L48
--
1.37
1.32
1.48
1.42
1.58
1.56
1.78
1.76
CO
ppm
90
70
70
160
86
125
118
75
80
60
60
52
55
45
50
CO
g/mi.
8.0
4.3
6.2
5.9
r-
CHX
as
C3H8
ppm
1.8
1.6
0.2
11.5
11.5
2.2
3.9
1.4
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
CHX
as
CHl.85
g/mile
NOX
as
NO 2
ppm
i
0.85
0.86
0.16
0.29
41
56
40
42
69
73
NOX
as
NO 2
g/mile
3.4
4.5
*A 25 foot heated line to analyzer - 15 foot unheated line to bag
sampler
B 6 foot heated line to analyzer - 15 foot unheated line to bag
sampler
** All figures calculated on basis of standard weighting applied to pro-
files of 6 out of 9 cycles; see Appendix B .
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 18
Transient Measurements
With continuous recording equipment available for
CX>2/ CO, and hydrocarbons, some transient data was taken on
these constituents. On a cold engine start, it was necessary
to reduce the sensitivity of the hydrocarbon detector to a
nominal 2000 ppm full scale to remain on the chart whereas
during steady state running a 20 ppm scale was employed.
Cold start measurements were generally avoided because the
line and detector became so loaded that subsequent measure-
ments were impossible until the system had been thoroughly
purged. Hot engine starts presented the same problem to a
leaser degree.
Engine accelerations caused little disturbance in
the emissions traces beyond that of adjustment to the new
operating level. Decelerations and shutdowns caused large
temporary increases in CO and hydrocarbons.
A typical recording of emissions transients is pre-
sented in Figure 35. Chassis dynamometer results during the
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 19
CONCLUSIONS
l.^Gas turbine engines are inherently low polluters
in carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons
compared to other types of engines of the same
power output.
2. Transient engine operation produces many times
the CO and hydrocarbon emission that steady state
operation produces.
3. Part load engine operation produces more CO and
hydrocarbon emission than full load. The
opposite is true of the oxides of nitrogen.
4. The oxides of nitrogen are the most serious
emission problem of gas turbine engines with
respect to proposed emission controls.
5. Satisfactory methods hava been developed in this
program for sampling exhaust pollutants from a
variety of gas turbine engines.
6. A heated sampling system is necessary to prevent
deterioration of the unburned hydrocarbon sample
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 20
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Refine sampling techniques with heated probes
and faster sample handling.
2. Develop techniques for better measurement of
emissions during engine transients and study the
effect of engine hardware changes on transient
emissions.
3. Employ continuous detector for more complete data
on oxides of nitrogen.
4. Continue emissions measurements on all WRC gas
turbine engines to provide solid basis for com-
parison with other power plants and for evaluating
developmental changes in the engines with regards
to emissions.
5. Continue measurement on the 131Q vehicle both on
the chassis dynamometer and on the road.
6. Conduct gas turbine engine burner and regenerator
development programs using both rigs and engines
to reduce pollutant emissions without substantially
reducing component performance.
Most of the recommendations resulting from the work
on this program are discussed in Williams Research Corporation
Proposal No. 729, Gas Turbine Engine Exhaust Emission Analysis,
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 21
REFERENCES
Sawyer, R- F. and Starkman, E. S.
Gas Turbine Exhaust Emissions
SAE Paper 680462, May 1968
2 Haupt, C. G.
Exhaust Emission by a Small Gas Turbine
SAE Paper 680463, May 1968
Korth, M." W. and Rose, A. H. Jr.
Emissions from a Gas Turbine Automobile
SAE Paper 680402, May 1968
4 Smith, D. S., Sawyer, R. F., and Starkman, E. S.
Oxides of Nitrogen from Gas Turbines
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
January 1968, 18, No. 1, p. 30
5 Sawyer, R. F. , Teixeira, D. P., and Starkman, E. S.
Air Pollution Characteristics of Gas Turbine Engines
ASME Transactions, Journal of Engineering for Power,
October 1969, p. 290
6 Federal Register, Vol. 33, No. 108, Tuesday, June 4,
1968, p. 8310
Williams Research Corporation Proposal No. 664
Gas Turbine Engine Exhaust Emission Analysis
March 1969
8 Monthly Progress Reports 1 through 9
Gas Turbine Engine Exhaust Emission Analysis
-------
o
n
rt-
I
M
»
oo
-------
w
»
00
-------
8?
8
s:
»
I
K
50
CD
-------
"8
M
rt
I
W
»
oo
-------
SAMPLE PROBE
BYPASS PUMP
INSULATED
FLEXIBLE COAXIAL UNE
OIL RETURN
OIL SYSTEM
30
»
8
S
w
»
00
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
^ i/4" STAINLESS
STEEL TUBING
WR 24-6 AND WR 2-6 TURBOJETS
WR 9-7 AUXILIARY POWER UNIT
" STAINLESS
STEEL TUBING
j/«" STAINLESS
STEEL
\
t
t
I3IL INDUSTRIAL ENGINE
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
MIXED EXHAUST SAMPLE
0.050" |.D.
STAINLESS
STEEL TUBING
TURBINE
FAN
«0.050 I.D. STAINLESS
STEEL TUBING
TURBINE EXHAUST
SAMPLE
FAN EXHAUST
SAMPLE
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
REGENERATOR EXHAUST
I
BIFURCATED ENGINE EXHAUST DUCT
I3IQ TEST STAND INSTALLATION
REGENERATOR EXHAUST
STAINLESS
STEEL
TUBING
«/e" STAINLESS
STEEL TUBING
«HEXHAUST SYSTEM
EXTENSION
I3IQ VEHICLE INSTALLATION
Q_
TURBINE EXHAUST
I3IQ MOMREGENERATIVE INSTALLATION
-------
g
*
ft
§
f
-------
s
1
ft
R
»
oo
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Fig. 11 Heated Sampling Line with
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Fig. 12 Gas Analysis Equipment
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Fig. 13 Emissions Measurement During
-------
Date 1C/7/O ll/I'./O
Fjel J?-5 ^let*l *
Data ?t. i ii.
Data Code ' 2
1310 WRS-7
1C/10/69 10/16/69
JP-4 JP-4
1- ~ U L. I * i > «
1310 ni<_
12/3-12/10/69 1/5/70
Diesel »2 Diesel «2
<1 > » ' t« 10 li XI j u i: IT M j* *« *t
o
o
to
CO
c
131C 131Q 1310
1/13/70 1/30/70 2/3/70
Diesel «2 Diesel 1/2 JP-4 1/2 w. G.
s* u M *3 * -i -I la z- U u K * IT i* n
5 6 '
Vehicle
. r - .
. L... .-t- -
; . i I
-------
O I-
O *»
H O
3 to
C
fl> CO
a c
i.5
; ' Suspected recirculation of air into probe I
I. 5
0.5
O
O
-------
600
500
400
I
300
200
100
I-1 T ' - ' i
I ; i. ! I. i.J -; -i
~r 131Q Reg. Diesel
D 131Q Non-Reg. Diesel
X 131Q Reg. JP-4 - WG
A 131Q Reg. JP-4
i i i*H i ! I I i J u | j :.| i l i ; i i-j [_; i i l ; . .
i;!ilii -I- !i lii l Hdi- ! H '
Fig.
Equivalence Ratio ©
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
500
I
(X
o
o
131L Diesel
WR9-7 JP-4
WR24-6 JP-5
WR2-6 JP-4
) -j. ; * - . t-j
;-*-t-H--fr
rLH.mr
1.4...4-4-H-T-
I- ? -t1"
.1 j..!..}__4_; .L4.
-.11 l...i-4-.L.].4.
0. 1
Equivalence Ratio
0.3
Fig. 16 CO Concentration vs. Equivalence Ratio 131L,
-------
40
30
H-i l-j ,' i--
.; , .; -| ..-H .,
...;-. -I
I- -T"
m
I.!.).
ti
.t
20
- -
; !" ' I ; l-j -t
. j . ) r-l U 4.
I I
l-L-
;
lit;
tt
i i ; + 131Q Reg. Diesel
!:i A 131Q Reg. JP-4
j j-i X 131Q Reg., JP-4 - WG
~f ' D 131Q Non-Reg. Diesel
10
4tf
' t
-! 4-1
Jl^
|UiM:
tji; i:p
l -H f- *-
^FIM
1 !
1 0.2
Equivalence Ratio
0.3
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
30
00
X
en
C 20
O
M
0)
(0
X
ac
o
10
i!
1-1.
\..\.
r r
| i- :
I I
|U.
! L.
. |..i..i4 t- -,
. .:. J.-L.t. I _,-;....
, .1 j .1 i- i.
L I J .1 Li
,|-U..H..(
I I
Mill.'
! i-M-l ! ! !
j i. i..i ].l , .
! -M i I i -i
t
! ! i-
h'-
;i i
I i !
i , i-.
O 131L Diesel
O WR9-7 JP-4
^ WR24-6 JP-5
WR2-6 JP-4
..,._(.. r_. r_^_
-h-i-r-! rhr
it
h
H
t-i- -u-
;-i..;
-U!
.
-+
;:!-rf:
r
:::;;: ^
: : , ! . ...,4-a
i
....,, -'--p-r
!:.::. i-_L.i.
: . ;..-: 1.1+..!
-t-l
:±r£
0.1 0.2
Equivalence Ratio
Fig. 18 CHX Concentration vs. Equivalence Ratio
131L, WR24-6, WR2-6, WR9-7 Engines
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
eo
a
x
i
4- -I I- 4- .-.f-t--
it i.ft ti
II.
4_4~; -i * -J_j
131Q Reg. Diesel
131L Diesel
WR9-7 JP-4
WR2-6 JP-4
0.3
Equivalence Ratio
Fig,. 19 NOX Concentration vs. Equivalence Ratio
-------
0
C
O
H
m
n
I
2 3 4 5 6 7
Specific Fuel Economy kilo joules/gram (kj/g)
1
10.0
1)11
5.0 4.0 3.0 Z.5
1
I.o
1 I
i
1
I
1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0
i
.9
I
.8
i
.7
Specific Fuel Consumption Ibm/hrhp
50
n>
o
n-
g
f
w
00
-------
O
u
X
0
H
O
r4
n
to
60
20
O WR9-7 JP-4
O 131L Diesel
-U-
..--4.,
234567
Specific Fuel Economy kilojoules/gram (kj/g)
8
u
O
H
ft
z
O
w
50
00
I
10.0
I I
S.O 4.0
I
2.5
I
2.0
I
1.5
1.4 !.»
I
1.1
I
1.0
I
.9
Specific Fuel Consumption Ibm/hrhp
.8
.7
-------
&> 40
\
g
X
0)
o
H 20
c
o
-ft
0)
0)
-r4
2
i
i
(
!
;
: , j : ; .
*»_ i i ' ' '
^""VY^' '
1 ' '%Lr***»^ i
*f$e:»
*
j - '
; -
' >
; ' '
. j ^ .
' i ' \ '
5 3
'
j r i ' -
I - - : .
1 ,
: I
- \ .
1 . ; ' i i '
1 : . i i
: : !
'- \ ' i '
' ' ' !
'
'
^^^JA
1 9t^ '
f 1
: ,
' jlj
!
0 3
i
i
i i ' : - ' !
... ; i i j
1 ' : ! '
: 1 ! i
, ' ' !
1 1 1 ! ; . , .
: ; j i ,
3£ WR94-A
A.WR2-6 i
.
. i . . i
i i 1
1
l :
i
! :
!
T ' i '
5 4
1
.
i -
* ' i *
. *
- i
TP 5
jp-4
i ' , '
1 : - ' '
1 '' 1 ' '
! ; i I : ,
t
i ' i
! : ; "
. i .
J_L ' ' ' '
. 1 : | :
0 4
j
, '
. i
1 .
i '
1 : i i .
i ' '
'
'
. :
i 1 : :
> j j , ! 1 :
1 ;!;;.
i . , 1 : .
. i
! ; .
1 '
i i
i
T - . ,
5 5
;
'
. i
' . . i
' ' -i
*
'
' ' - ' ! '
i ; * ' . '
: ' . '
i
< < ! :
: . . 1 . ; ;
. - \ . i '
; . r (
' i ' ! '
' J ' ' '
: , * I'll
0 5
. .
: . . : ' : : '
t . :
-
i '
*
1 i ! .
'
1 : i '
1 ! . '
1
; i j i
! r
!
5 6
. .
; ;. "
*
0 6
|
1 ' i '
| t i -
L ' 1
i i i *
'."'."': i ;T
' ' ' i
......... ......
. . .j 4-4 .
r
' ' L '
''.'<
i i i
: i ' ' j i
i '' ! : i ! !
; ] . : ! i
- ! i j 1 : : .!
. ' . '. : i_|._LL
. t
]
; I
. .
!
' , |
' ' I -I"
' T :
i i
5 7
/o
(D
o
O
H
ft
0 §
Specific Fuel Economy newton-seconds/gram (ns/g)
t i i
1.4 1.3 t.t
1.0
1
.»
1
.7
»
.6
'.
*
Specific Fuel Consumption Ibra/hr Ibf
Fig. 22 CO Emission Index VB Specific Fuel Economy WR24-6, WR2-6 Engines
w
en
-------
00
8
(0
1C
CJ
-o
c
o
-H
m
to
H
-j- 131Q Reg. Diesel
A 131Q Reg. JP-4
X 13lp Reg. JP-4 - WG
D 131Q Non-Reg. Diesel
34567
Specific Fuel Economy Jcilojoules/gram (kj/g)
i
10.0
II I I
9.0 4.0 t.O 2.9
2.0
til I
1.9 1.4 1.1 1.2
I
I.I
I
1.0
I
.9
Specific Fuel Consumption Ibm/hrhp
.7
S
o
o
h
n
2
O
*
ft
o
-------
4T :
00
t
H
u
0)
(0
Xo _
1 <
09
.s <
» 0
.
- - -
. . .
. ...
> Q .. .
pET^- m
1
i
10.0
- . . .- .
. . . _
:.. :
- - -
. L-
_ ___
V
...
...
__
- -
_ _;_
:
, .
^--^-.-^
!
1
; j T
;
-^-^ff-^>. 0 ,Q
_ - . ,
...
-- - - -
*. -p-t -
'.
i
; ! 1 ' '
1 ' ' i
' ,
i
-j-^ jy /^~
. .
.
1
- - »
_
...
._ . . ... .
-r O WR9-7 JP-4
- O 13 1L Diesel
._;
i
-
w«~^
i A i/H*1 -A, -
'
Ll..'r.":;
-
. . -. . . :
.. . . j _ . .... . ^ _
.. _
i
r
, i
'
: | .. .
.. .
>_
( '
* <
;
i
. ;
2 34 5 67 8
Specific Fuel Economy kilojoules/gram (kj/g)
i i i i i i i t i i * i
5.0 4.0 S.O 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.4 l.» 1.2 1.1 1.0 .9 .8 .7
50
(D
O
n
rt
2
O
f
K
Specific Fuel Consumption Ibm/hr hp
00
-------
9
85
X
u
03
18
X
OS
O
X
0>
o
c
H
c
o
H
n
03
-H
-6 JP-5
AWR2-6 JP-4
±L
z.:" i^-
/ v
25 30 35 40 45 50
Specific Fuel Economy newton-seconds/gram (ns/g)
55
60
65
i I
1.4 1.3
I
1.2
I
I. l
I
1.0
I
.*
I
.8
I
.7
.6
Specific Fuel Consumption Ibm/hr.lbf
Fig. 25 CHX Emission Index vs. Specific Fuel Economy WR24-6, WR2-6 Engines
I
-------
TM
O
S3
m
10
X
O
S5
3 4
H
O
a
m t
H 2
O
O
1-23.456
Specific Fuel Economy kilojoules/gram (kj/g)
i
10.0
i i i i
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.5
i
2.0
i » i i »
1.5 1.4 '.3 1.2 ''
1.0
.9
Specific Fuel Consumption Ibm/hrhp
50
00
-------
Sf
55
CO
10
ox
55
X
0)
a
c
H
C
o
H
(0
CO
H
20 25 30 35 40 45
Specific Fuel Economy newton-seconds/gram (ns/g)
i i i i i
1.5 1.4 1.» 1.2 l.t
I
1.0
I
.9
I
.8
Specific Fuel Consumption Ibm/hr Ibf
-------
40 -
30 -
20
§
« 'o
a
o
r!
-rl
O
0>
CO 0
-H 13 1Q Reg. Diesel
A 13 1Q Reg. JP-4
D 131Q Non-Reg
*
W
»
oo
-------
4 -:
131Q Reg. Diesel
A 131Q Reg. JP-4
X 131Q Reg. JP-4 - WG
D 131Q Non-Reg. Diesel
WR9-7 JP-4
O 131L Diesel
Power hp
o
o
z
o
I
w
»
oo
0 ~
Power
-------
20-
15-
10-
CM
i
§
H
n
« 5-
H
u
0)
(A
0-
50
O WR9-7 JP-4
O 131L Diesel
i
2
20 50
Power hp
I l
10 20
Power lew
200
50
100
500
200
500
g
H
ft
n
»
00
-------
i-
1.Z"
..o-
.
0. o "1
If
8 °-6 -
c
* 0.4 ^
m
H -i
1
O 0. 2
<4-l
H
0) 0. 0
co
20
15
.f... .
S 10
1 <
5
0
f - * -
.' [ '.'.
\
;
.. .
--- -
'TTT
i
I
r :
>
100
# WI
A vn
. . ! . . .
." Z"4_l~
-\
i A
_
-
-
I
V
-
^i
^6
jp
f*
124-6 JP-5
^2-6 JP-4
-i_
.::: so
150
--
..,.
t
....
...
_. I...
....
___ .
*Wj
^*~\
....
-
-
) -
--
200
j
--
t
i
...
:
-
^
--
-
3
<
-
T
00
1
i"
:. ..
-
-
-
S,
h3
-
««
f
I
-
-
ru
. j
t -
h
-
4
-
ts
-
>-
/
-
-
t
f
-i
-
M
|
-
i»
-
10
F
i
-- -
i :
-
1
,^
' 7j
T '
\
4\ ' : ! '
j :
_. . . . ...
0 ~v.;: .:
x>unds
-----
.
1
i
.;:.
!
.... |
. i
. . .
.: 200 ^
500 700
1000
._ .
!
. . - 1 .
'
.._J-U
300
J:
^ ' |
c
-
-4(
1500
i
i
J- -
._..
-
-
10
--
-
i
2000
<
i
._.
._.
-
--
-
--
...
-
-
-
-
-
._.
--
--
...
-
-
--
-
--
i-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
L.
-
-
-
~
-
,,.
I
i_
-
-
-
...
f.
-
-
-
-
-
o
o
M
ft
z
o
M
»
oo
Thrust newtons
-------
in
oo
H
K
O
£
o
§
U
-H
-------
0.3-
4
S1
55
CO
10
X 0.2-
i 3
J | |
> S
§ 2
u
£ 0.1-
H
U
I
w 1
0.0- 0
...
--
.
-
.
. ....
.._
:
-'' 1 \ '
' i ;
, ' '
'
. ' i
: . .
-. Uf
i
/>
! ! '
- --
j
--
I
WR2-6
i . ,
!
i '
' 'i
!
~ i 1^
, . ' .
i T .
' J
/
r
1 j ;
!
~-~
__..
-
-
-
--
JP-4
-a_
' I
~+r
-
. ...
. ,
4-
....
.._
1
i^--
._:
-
....
t
- ;
T-r-
^~
. 1 ,'
30 50
r i i
100 150 200
...
.-.
^
/
! |
,
-
i
,
-
::
-
-
^
**~~
<
-4*
-^.
-
/
i
...
...
n
--
,|H..
,-
'
i
in
(/
-
...
-
--
7
i1-
--
.
f
*
i
1 1 i
i
. . ..
i '
. .
--
- --
i
. . _
.
i .
... 4
.
.. .
.....
_,
, :
! .'
TT
i
, 1
T
.-'-'
- -
-L.-4
. ._ .
-;
--'
riff
Tr
4--il
. !
L-:
--
....
__L.
-
"i ~'
.
IM
-----
--
"
--
....
..:.
,
T
_:-.
1
~r
^
i
-if;
- :
JO
(D
*O
O
H
ft
s
s
5d
W
»
00
...
-
-r
U-
' r
U-
5
77
*T
:'
100 200 300
Thrust pounds
300 500 700 1000 1500 2000
Thrust newtons
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
CYCLE
PROGRAM
RECORDER-*
DYNAMOMETER I
I I
i i
u
OPERATOR
EXHAUST SYSTEM EXTENSION
ANALYSIS CART
SAMPLE BAG
ROLLS
HEATED
SAMPLE
LINE
I
SHAFT SPEED
RECORDER
CD
INSTRUMENT
CONSOLE
«- DISCHARGE DUCT
EXHAUST DISCHARGE
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Fig. 35 Snissions Transients During
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 1
APPENDIX A
STEADY STATE DATA REDUCTION
Data Reduction
The large volume of data taken during the program
demanded orderly processing. Two general classes of data
were manually recorded for each steady state running con-
dition, engine operational data, and emissions data.
All engine developmental and production programs at
Williams Research routinely employ data reduction programs
to calculate and print out engine operating parameters such as
speeds, temperatures, pressures, and fuel consumption nor-
malized or "corrected" to standard ambient conditions. These
programs are written in Fortran and are run on the G.E. 405
System at Williams. The raw data is manually recorded.
In the early part of this program, the emissions data
was reduced on a Wang desk calculator with a tape programmer
using the results of the engine reduced data printout from
the 405. This method was useful in developing proper emission
parameters to relate to engine performance but was unsatis-
factory for the large volume of data developed.
Consequently, four duplicate Fortran programs were
prepared for engine data reduction to which were added the
emissions data calculations. The format of the printout was
merely to add an extra page of emission results to the engine
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix A
Page 2
without emissions data could be used almost interchangeably,
depending on whether or not emissions data was taken.
The following variables and parameters were developed
for reduction of the emissions data and some of these appear
as graphs in the results section of the report.
TABLE A-l
COMPUTER PROGRAM VARIABLES
Variable
Name
Explanation
dry bulb temp.
wet bulb temp.
hydrogen to carbon
ratio of fuel
Input Constants
TDBZ
TWBZ
HCRZ
stoichiometric fuel
air ratio
FARSZ
Input Data
measured CO2 percent CO2RZ
measured CO ppm
measured unburned
hydrocarbons
measured oxides
of nitrogen
CORZ
UHRZ
ONRZ
ambient
ambient
handbook or measured
value for fuel used
calculated for fuel
used
measured volume per-
cent CO2 in exhaust
measured volume per-
cent CO in exhaust
measured volume ppm
hydrocarbons as
propane (C3Hg)
measured volume ppm
oxides of nitrogen
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix A
Page 3
Variable
Name
Explanation
shaft speed
fuel flow
Output Data
RPMZ
WFZ
air flow
W1Z
fuel/air ratio
equivalence ratio
exhaust flow
FARZ
BQRZ
WEZ
VEMZ
power
thrust
specific fuel
consumption
VEFZ
HPZ
FZ
SFCZ
one or more engine
shaft speeds (actual)
in rpm
engine fuel con-
sumption in grams/sec.
Main program has cor-
rected fuel flow in
Ibs/hr.
engine air flow in
kilograms/second.
Main program has cor-
rected air flow in
Ibs/second.
actual fuel air ratio
fuel air ratio divided
by stoichiometric fuel
air ratio
sum of air and fuel
flow in kg/s
exhaust flow in
standard cubic meters
per second treating
all exhaust as air
at 15«C (59°F)
same as above in
standard cu. ft. per min,
total horsepower output
(shaft engines)
thrust in pounds
(jet engines)
fuel consumption divided
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix A
Pag.e 4
Variable
Name
Explanation
calculated CO2
percent
raaaa flow (all
emissions)
emission index
(all pollutants)
specific emission
CO2CZ
WCO2Z
WCOZ
WHCZ
WONZ
EICO
EIHC
EION
SEICO
SEIHC
SEINO
calculated CO2 con-
centration in exhaust
CO2 in grams/second,
all others in mg/s,
computed from measured
concentration and
exhaust flow
pollutant emission per
unit weight of fuel
consumed, mg/g
pollutant emission per
unit of engine output,
grains per horsepower
or grams per pound of
thrust
The equations used for calculating the above output!
quantities are given as follows:
Actual fuel air ratio = mass flow of fuel in g/s
mass flow of air in kg/s x 1000!
FARZ - WFZ/(W1Z * 1000)
Eouiva 1 ence ra»
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix A
Page 5
Exhaust volume flow (standard cubic meters per second)
(at 59°F) = Exhaust mass flow (kg/s)/standard density
(kg/n»3)
density = MP = (28.98)(1.01325 x 10s) kg n (kg mole) °K
RT (8315)(288.16) (kg mole) m* j «K
VEMZ = WEZ * .81598
Exhaust volume flow (standard cubic feet per minute) =
exhaust volume flow (SCMS) x 60/(.3048)3
VEFZ « VEMZ * 2118.6
Calculated CO? concentration (volume percent)
hydrogen/carbon weight ratio of fuel * HCR
wp = wc + WH = wc + WH w w (1 + HCR)
1 + HCR
C02* = V^; _ MA (100)
(HCR+1) j WE (1000)
C02% = Wjp _ (28.98) (100)
(HCR+1) (12.01) WEZ (1000)
C02CZ = (WFZ * .2413)/([HCRZ+1J*WEZ)
Measured mass flow CO? (g/s) m (measured volume percent) x
MC02 x WE x 1000 - 96 x WE x 44. 01 x 10
100 28.98
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix A
Page 6
mass flow CO (roa/») = (measured volume -parts per
million) x Mgo * *E 106 * ppm x WE x 28.01
106~ 28.98
WCOZ = CORP * WEZ * .96*53
Measured mass flow hydrocarbons as CHi.aq in mg/s measured as
ppm propane (C-^HQ) = (measured volume ppm propane) x
x WE x
MA 106
3112.01 + 1.85(1.008)1 v M
(28.98) X WE
WHC1Z - UHRl * WEZ * 1.4363
flow nitrogen oxides as NO? in mg/s when
volume ppm NO? = (measured volume ppm NO2) x
x WE x 10° - ppln x 46.QQ7 v W-,
MA 106 28.98 E
WOHlZ = ONR1 * WEZ * 1.5875
Envia^on index (raq/g) = (mg/s of pollutant)/(g/s of fuel)
EJCO - WCOZ/WFZ
Speojifie emission index (q/hphr or g/lbhr) « (mg/s of
pollutant) x ^/(ho^ipo^ or Ibs thrust)
SBIHO1 - WON1Z * 3.6/HPZ
Hydrogen to carbon ratios of the fuels used in the calculations
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix A
Page 7
TABLE A-2
FUEL COMPOSITION SUMMARY
Fuel
JP-4
JP-5
Hydrogen to carbon Stroichiometric Reference
Weight Ratio Fuel Air Ratio
0.168
0.158
0.067626
0.0687
NACA
RME55627a
(p. 1) 1965
NACA
TN3276
(p. 70) 1956
Diesel
No. 2
White
Gasoline
0.142
0.176
0.0699
0.0671
Kent Handbook
(p. 2-49)
Kent Handbook
(p. 2-58)
-------
H.E.W. TEST 03/31/70
'DBZ-DRY PULB TEMP 39.500
HfRZ- M/C RATIO 0.16800000
.Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix A
WILLIAMS- RiSCARCM CORPORATION
PRODUCTION JET DATA REDUCTION PROGRAM w,E.
» EMISSION INPUT CONSTANTS
TWBZ-MET BULB TfeMP 32.500
FARSZ-STOIC F/A RA o,o67626oo
DATA POINT NUMBFR
C:02*Z-*FAS C02 PCT
CORZ-MpAS CO PPM
HHRIZ-MF CMX PPM i
UHR7Z-Mf CMX PPM 2
ONR1I-ME NOX PPM 1
ONR77'-Mf NOX PPM 2
HPK1Z - RPM1
wFZ-FuEL PLO G/S
NiZ-AIR Fl.O KG/S
FA'HZ-FUF L/AIR RATIO
EOR-z-fcou i VALENCE R
WEZ-EXK FLO KG/S
veM7-Exn FLO SCM-S
VF.FZ-EXW FLO SCFH
FZ - THRUST LBF
C02C2-CA1C C02 PCT
SFCZ--SKC I&MVMR LBF
WC02Z-* FLO C02 G/S
WCO*- M- FLO CO MG/S
WMtlZ-M* F C*X 1 MG/S
WWC2Z-M F CMX 2 MG/S
wONfZ-H F NOX 1 M-G/S
WON?*-* F NOX 2 MG/S
(- 1 CO-EM ND CO *G/G
FIMCi-E CM) 1 MG/G
6IMC2-E CHX 2 HG/G
f- 10*1-6 NO-X 1 MQ/G
EION2-E NOX 2 MG/G
SFICO-SPfM CO G/L8MR
SEIHC1- CMX 1 G/LBHR
SEIHC2- CHX 2 G/LBNR
SE1N01- NftX 1 G/L8H*
SF1N02- WK 2 G/LBNR
70
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
45010.00
7.15428
0.65410
0.010938
0.161737
0.66125
0.53957
1143.130
40.000
2.2J518
1.41950
0.00000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OOOOO
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
71
2.19000
320.00000
0.00000
3.10000
o.ooooo
16.70000
45030.00
7.08066
0. 64543
0.010971
0.162223
0.65251
0.53243
1128.011
39.200
2.24183
1.43356
21.70064
201.814
0.000
2.905
0.000
17.299
?8. 5Q208
0.00000
0.41032
0.00000
2.44310
18.53390
0.00000
0.26A81
0.00000
1.58866
72
2,19000
?60, 00000
0.00000
2,30000
0.00000
0.00000
48010.00
7.837Q8
0.71584
0.010948
0.161891
0,72368
0,59051
1251.054
48.700
2.23729
1.27719
24,06772
181.860
0.000
2.391
0.000
0.000
23.20501
0.00000
0,30505
0,00000
0.00000
13.44342
0.00000
0.17672
0,00000
0,00000
INPUT
73
2.23000
230.00000 1
0.00000
2.3QOOO
o.ooooo
23.00000
OUTPUT
50080.00
8.4Q383
0.77185
0.010888
0.161002
0.78025
0.63667
1348,853
56,500
2.22513
1.18048
26.42313
173.452
0,000
2,578
0.000
28.489
20.63963
0.00000
0.30671
0,00000
3.39000
11.05181
0.00000
0.16423
0.00000
1.81523
74
2.42000
80.00000
0.00000
4.80000
0.00000
23.00000
DATA <
5509Q.OO
10.78835
0.89980
0,011990
0.177294
0.91059
0.74302
1574.168
79.000
2.447*4
1.08382
33.46427
158.420
0.000
6.278
0.000
33.248
14.68437
0.00000
0.58191
0.00000
3.08183
7.21915
0.00000
0.28608
0.00000
1.51509
75
2.58000
180.00000
O.OOOOO
6.000QO
O.OOOOO
58.80000
i*
57060.00
12.42618
0.95052
0.013073
0.1933i4
0.96295
0.78574
1664.677
90.300
2.66594
1.09214
37.72807
167.529
0,000
8 . 298
o.OoO
89.886
13.48192
0.00000
0.66782
0.00000
7.23361
6.67889
0.00000
0.33084
0.00000
3.58)50
76
2.80000
210.00000
0.00000
4.50000
0.00000
77.80000
59700.00
14.68A35
1.01717
0.014438
0.213504
1.03186
0.84198
1783.809
107.000
2,94041
1.08933
43.87541
209.437
0.000
6.669
o.ooo
127.442
14.26069
0.00000
0.45411
o.oonoo
8.67759
7.04650
0.00000
0.22439
0.00000
4.28777
TtS! NO, i>64- 1- 01 701 76
US' OATt 3-30-1970
TEST CfcLL NO 3
FNG SN« 264 iLD« 1
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 1
APPENDIX B
VEHICLE TEST DATA REDUCTION
Air Flow Calculations
Since no engine airflow measurements were made with the
engine installed in the vehicle, it was necessary to calculate
airflow from gas generator speed.
Previous measurements taken on this engine in the test
cell indicated that corrected airflow is relatively inde-
pendent of power turbine speed and is reasonably linear with
corrected gas generator speed in the range of idle to maximum
speed.
An empirical equation for the graph of corrected
airflow vs. corrected speed is:
+ 2.64 x ID'5 f
idle
Wa , - v ~ , + 2>64 x
idle
~ (Ni-Nidie)
Wa in Ibm/s
N in rpm
inlet temperature in °R
519
barometer in "Hq
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix B
page 2
Steady state airflows were computed from values of
Wa \/&" \ read directly from the graph of equation (1).
Cumulative airflows for each cycle of the nine cycle
t«ats were determined from the area under the recording of
vs. time. A sample of shaft speed recording is shown in
V. S'
min.
9iff. B-l. Each square inch represents 5 x 10 rev, sec.
Gumilatflve airflow is:
Wadt
1 cycle
J
. . tcycle + 2.64 x 10"5
N 6 s
idle
x z
cycle
dt = 5 x 104 x (area over idle speed)1
cyclfe
^ & fw= \./f^- \
(2)
idle
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix B
Page 3
A sample calculation of cumulative airflow for cycle
no. 3, run no. 4 is given below:
Barometer "Hg 29.58
6 .9886
Inlet temperature °F 72
1.0250
1.0124
36.7
36.3
.567 from graph of
equation (1)
137
NX actual (krpm)
NX corrected (krpm)
Wa idle corrected (Ibm/s)
tcycie (seconds)
idle
Area over idle (in2)
1.320 £_ x area (Ibm)
Ma (equation 2)
13.87
17.66
93.56 Ibm = 42.44 kg
The results of the graphic solution of equation (2)
over all graphs for runs 3 and 4 of Table I, page 17, are
given in Table 8-1.
Fuel flow was not recorded during the nine cycle tests.
An average fuel air ratio of 0.006 was assumed to determine
exhaust flow from airflow:
WEZ = 1.006 W1Z
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix B
Page 4
Bag Sample Calculations
Table B-l gives the results of bag sample measurements
using the equations of Appendix A. Total vehicle distance
over nine cycles is 7.575 miles.
Continuous Sample Calculations
Tables B-2 and B-3 are samples of continuously
recorded emissions of CO, CO2» and CHx during one cycle
of a nine cycle run. Concentrations were read at seven
established points in six of the nine cycles according to
standard procedure(fi). These values were multiplied by
weighting factors and summed for each cycle. A sample of
this calculation is shown in Table B-2.
The resulting ppm for each constituent, cycle, and run
are shown in Table B-3. Using the equations of Appendix A,
the mass contribution of each cycle is computed and these
are added for each run. The vehicle distance for six out of
nine cycles is 5.050 miles and this figure is used to determine
-------
TABLE B-l
MASS EMISSIONS FROM BAG ANALYSIS
Run
No.
3
4
Type
of
Run
9
cycles
cold
start
9
cycles
hot
start
Ma
kg
389
386
Me
kg
392
389
CO
ppm
160
125
CHX
as
C3H8
ppm
11.5
2.2
NOX
as
NO2
ppm
41
56
CO
g
60.6
47.0
CHX
as
CHi.85
a
6.5
1.2
NOx
as
N02
a
25.5
34.6
CO
g/
mile
8.0
6.2
CHX
g/
mile
0.85
0.16
NOX
g/
mile
3.4
4.5
n
ft
K- I
xs
-------
TABLE B-2
EMISSION CONCENTRATIONS, CONTINUOUS ANALYSIS, CYCLE NO. 3, RUN NO. 4
Reference
Mode
Idle
O-25 mph
30 mph
30-15 raph
,- 15 mph
15-30 raph
50-20 mph
Total
6
Weighting
Factor
.042
.244
.118
.062
.050
.455
.029
1.000
Recorded
CO2
pet
1.33
1.57
1.45
1.32
1.35
1.71
1.39
CO
ppm
110
100
70
110
100
90
120
CHX
ppm
3.6
3.1
3.2
5.9
3.1
3.0
10.5
Weighted
CO
ppm
4.6
24.4
8.2
6.8
5.0
41.0
3.5
93.5
CHX
ppm
.151
.756
.378
.366
.155
1.365
.305
3.476
3
p. rt
h1-
X 5S
O
CD
f
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix B
TABLE B-3
MASS EMISSIONS FROM CONTINUOUS ANALYSIS
Run
cle
1
2
3
4
6
7
Ma
(fed)
48.04
42.54
42.37
42.43
42.99
42.16
CO
ppm
132.10
80.02
73.03
70.32
75.37
79.82
CHX
ppm
23.85
12.005
9.751
8.639
6.853
6.348
q
6.170
3.310
3.008
2.901
3.151
3.272
Q
1.655
.738
.597
.530
.426
.387
Total 21.812 4.333
1
2
3
4
6
7
47.69
43.68
42.44
42.53
42.24
41.30
234.2
124.3
93.5
85.3
71.6
86.3
4.756
4.050
3.476
3.772
2.990
4.129
10.860
5.279
3.858
3.527
2.941
3.466
.328
.256
.213
.232
.183
.246
-------
J. i-::..r- ..
I ^v«»»w ^f
poJjrtM^"^"^
_ ..,-;_... V
Turbine 9p*«di v*. Tia*
«o. 4
0
O*
-------
_l :-!_.. .1 .
137 130 020
,,^:
I. _
110
O
»-<
rt
>&:
S?
CD
3 s;
a 50
H I
X M
»
-------
(0
1
ft
>2
5?
m
M «1
Q> $0
P- I
Xg
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Page 1
APPENDIX C
LIST OF EQUIPMENT
Analysis Equipment Cart
Beckman Infrared Analyzer Model 1R315
Beckman Hydrocarbon Analyzer Model 108A
Honeywell Electron!* 194 Recorder
Brooks E/C Flowmeter 500 cc/min
Neptune Dyna-Pump Model 4K
Oil Heating System
Chromalox NWHO-215 Heaters
Procon Pump
portable Engine Console
Hewlett Packard Frequency Meter Model 500B
Honeywell Electronik 194 Recorder
Anadex Counter-Timer Model CF-203R
Leeds and Northrup Speedomax H Thermocouple Indicator
-------
Report NO. WR-ER8
Page 1
APPENDIX D
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CO2 ERROR
The statistical analysis of CO2 error was performed
using the Cypherstat computer program of the Cyphernetics
Corporation, Ann Arbor, Michigan on a time sharing computer
terminal at Williams Research Corporation.
The measured and calculated CO2 concentrations and
the difference, CO2 error, are listed in Table D-l for the
data points underlined in Fig. 14 (refer to Accuracy of
Data, page 8).
A summary of the statistical properties of CO2 error
is given in Table D-2 and a histogram in Table D-3. The
chi square test for goodness of fit to a normal distribution
is summarized in Table D-4. The Yates corrected chi square
value of 5.105 implies that this data represents a sample of
a normal population which does not deviate more (have a
larger chi square value) than 82 percent of all samples from
-------
Report NO. WR-ER8
Appendix D
TABLE D-l
CO2 CONCENTRATIONS
00100
00101
00102
00200
00201
00203
00204
00205
00206
00207
00208
00209
00210
0021 1
00301
00302
00303
00304
00401
00402
00403
00404
00405
00406
00407
00501
00502
00503
00504
00505
00601
00602
00603
00604
00605
00701
00702
00703
00704
00705
00706
Data
Code
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Data Meas .
Pt. CO2
4 2
28 2
29 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
21
22
23
24
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
58
63
64
65
66
15
18
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
.650
.720
.920
200
250
250
070
030
.140
.290
.200
.430
.480
.460
.370
.210
.640
.980
.070
.220
.270
.420
.650
020
. 1 90
.450
.370
.480
.580
.780
.230
.280
.170
.250
.450
.310
.430
.160
.020
28 0*980
29 1 .250
CalC.
C02
2.550
2.680
2.890
1 .100
1 .140
1 .140
0.990
0.900
1 .130
1 .130
.140
.220
220
.160
.380
.090
.690
.710
0.950
1 .120
.160
.250
.400
.680
.170
.340
.370
.350
.430
.480
.170
.190
.250
.290
.360
0.880
1 .020
0*940
0*760
0*800
1.100
C02
Error
0.100
0*040
0*030
o.ioo
0.110
0*110
0.080
0.130
0.010
0*160
0*060
0*210
0*260
0.300
0.010
0*120
0.050
0.270
0*120
0*100
0*110
0*170
0*250
0*340
0*020
0*110
0*0
0 1 30
0*150
0*300
0*060
0*090
0*080
-0*040
0*090
0*430
0*410
0*220
0.260
0*180
0*150
12.000
10-800
1 0 600
12*000
12*200
12*200
1 1 * 600
1 2 * 600
10.200
13.200
11 .200
14.200
15.200
16.000
9.800
12*400
9.000
15*400
12.400
12.000
12.200
1 3 . 400
15*000
16*800
10*400
12.200
10*000
1 2 600
13.000
16*000
11.200
11 .800
8*400
9*200
1 1 .800
18*600
18.200
14*400
15*200
1 3 * 600
-------
TABLE D-l
Report NO, WR-ER8
Appendix D
00800
00801
00802
00803
00804
00805
00806
00807
00808
00809
00810
0081 1
00812
00813
00814
00815
008 1 6
00817
00818
00819
00820
00821
00901
00902
00903
00904
00905
00906
01001
01002
01003
01004
01005
01006
01101
01 102
01 103
01 104
01105
01106
01201
01202
Data
Code
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
to
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
Data
Pt.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
23
24
25
26
27
. 28
3
14
15
16
17
18
71
72
73
74
75
76
10
1 1
Meas.
C(>2
2.330
2.270
2.580
2.540
2.580
2.800
2.270
2.740
3.070
2.570
3.070
3.230
3.600
2.470
2.750
3.000
3.290
3.670
3.830
3.570
3.370
2.950
2.380
2.550
2.780
3.150
2.280
2.400
2.480
2.680
3.700
3.630
2.930
4.200
2.190
2.190
2.230
2.420
2.580
2.800
0.016
0.025
Calc.
C02
2.430
2.270
2.320
2.310
2.360
2.450
2.040
2.720
2.760
2.470
2*980
3.160
3.240
2.350
2.530
2.770
3.1 10
3.280
3.440
3.360
3*050
2.720
2.510
2.650
2.810
3.130
2.480
2.520
2.480
2.440
3.230
3.050
2.700
3*610
2.240
2.240
2 .230
2.450
2.670
2.9,40
0.0
0*0
C02
Error
-0 . 1 00
0.0
0.260
0.230
0.220
0.350
0.230
0.020
0.310
0*100
0.090
0.070
0.360
0*120
0.220
0.230
0.180
0.390
0*390
0.210
0.320
0.230
-0.130
0.100
-0.030
0.020
-0.200
-0 . 1 20
0.0
0.240
0.470
0.580
0.230
0.590
-0.050
-0.050
o.o
-0.030
-0.090
-0 . 1 40
0.016
0.025
8.000
10.000
15.200
14.600
14.400
17.000
1 4 . 600
1 0 400
16*200
12.000
1 1 .800
11 .400
17.200
12.400
14*400
14.600
13.600
17.800
17.800
14.200
16*400
14*600
7.400
8*000
9.400
10.400
6.000
7.600
10*000
14.800
19.400
21 .600
14.600
21.800
9.000
9.000
10.000
9.400
8.200
7.200
10.320
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix D
TABLE D-2
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF CO2 ERROR
TALLY 0Fl C02ERR
ADJ N=
MEAN «
SUM »
SUMSQa
MIN «
MAX "
83
0.13567
11 .26100
0.371610+01
0.20000
0.59000
USING (ADJ N)
VAR = 0.26364E-01
SDEV" 0.16237E+00
USING (ADJ N)-l
0.26686E-01
0.16336E+00
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix D
TABLE D-4
CHI SQUARE TEST OF CO2 ERROR
CHIFIT OF:
AGAINST A
VAR *
N =
CHISO=
CHISQs
OF =
C02ERR
N0RMAL CURVE
0.1357
0.0267
83.0000
WITH
7.2206
5.1052
9
(UNC0RRECTED)
(WITH YATES CORRECTI0N)
CRITICAL CHISQ VALUES AT«
95* CONFIDENCE a 3.3251
90* CONFIDENCE * 4.1682
N0
INTERVAL
LOW
ENDP0INTS
HIGH
ACTUAL
C0UNT
EXPECTED
COUNT
CONTRIBUTION
USING YATES
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 -»2QOOE+36
2 -.19IOE*00
-.I094E+00
O.S400E-01
0.13&7E+00
0.2990E*00
0.3807E*00
-1910E+00 1.0 1.8841
-.1094E*00 3.0 3.6603
-.2768E-01 10.0 7.6277
0.5400E-01 13.0 12*4334
0.1357E+00 20.0 15.8945
0.2174E+00 8.0 15.8945
0.2990E+00 14.0 12.4334
0.3807E+00 7.0 7.6277
0.4684E+00 4.0 3.6603
Q«2QOOE+36 3.0 1.8841
0*0783
0.0070
0.4596
0*0004
0.8179
3.4401
0.0915
0.0021
0.0070
0.2013
-------
Report No. WR-ER8
Appendix D
TABLE D-3
HISTOGRAM OF CO2 ERROR
TAB I 0FI C02ERG
N(IN HISTOGRAM)
NKSlISSING DATA)
N(0UTS1DE (0-99>)
N T0TAL
83
0
0
83
MEANs
M0DE=
12*3735
12
SDEV* 3.1995
0NE * -
0*50 0BSERVAT10NS
N
1
3
4
7
12
7
13
6
11
5
5
4
2
1
0
2
PCT VAL
1 .20
3.61
4.82
8.43
14.46
8*43
15*66
7.23
13.25
.6.02
6.02
4.82
2.41
1 .20
0.0
2.41
6)
7)
8)
9)
0
-**
5*00
10*00
15.00
20
00
.4.
-********
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(IS)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20) -
(21) -****
.********4i*
.*4i********
.********
-****
-**
-------
STANDARD TITLE PAGE l- R0port Mo-
ftm TECHNICAL REPORTS APTD-0577
"*rTtt»<* and SuMrtle
,£xhaust Emissions from "Will tarns (Research Con
Gas Turbine Engines
y.StyAyfytyfygyfat/ 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
5. Report Date
t\t\ J «. i vn p Performing Organization Code
/. Alfreds) ^ 8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
WR-ER8
Williams Research Corporation
g?00 West Maple Road
Walled Lake, Michigan 48088
«p0^Mt^n0 Agency IWNM wo AOOCVM
National A1r Pollution Control Administration Te<
411 .West Chapel H111 Street
Durham, North Carolina 27701
Ifc Proiect/Tatk/Work Unit No.
KI. Contract/Grant No.
CPA 22-69-84
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
:hn1cal Center
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
ICMttMts xhe exhaust emissions of several different models of gas turbine
development or in production were measured, ». The emissions measured were c
carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and the oxides of nitrogen. The r
Aea.ted in a generalized form relating emissions to fuel air ratio and engii
thrust. Techniques were developed to convey exhaust samples from engines ii
analysis equipment located elsewhere. Measurements were also made of the em
are inherently low polluters in carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons
other types of engines of the same power output. Transient engine operatic
many times the CO and hydrocarbon emission that steady state operation pro*
load, engine operation produces more CO and hydrocarbon emission than full
opposite is true of the oxides of nitrogen. The oxides of nitrogen are the
emission problem of gas turbine engines with respect to proposed emission
IITilnii IM«JaiMl n - -t AMfciali (( t^*rrli*i*im i *. c
system is nece
Air pollution unburned hydro
engines under
arbon dioxide,
esults are pre
ne power or
ti test cells to
Lsslons from a
rbine engines
compared to
HI produces
iuces . Part
Load . The
most serious
:ontrols. Satis
sllutants from
as turbine engines. A heated sampling
ssary to prevent deterioration of the
carbon sample between engine and analyse
Gas turbine engines
Exhaust emissions Thrust Auxiliary power plants
Carbon dioxide Gas sampling ,,
Carbon monoxide Metier vehicle engines
Hydrocarbons Surges
Nitrogen oxides Loads (forces)
Fuel consumption Heat. transfer
Air flow Turbojet engines
Power^ Turbo fan engines
WR 24-6 Turbojet engines
WR 9-7 Auxiliary Poster. Uttit
WR 19 Turho£*n engines ;
131L Industrial engines
131Q Motor vehicle engines
Ifc. OOUTI new/Ore** 13/02,' 21/05
19. Security Class(Thls Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
^.Security Class. (This Page)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
95
22. Price
------- |