United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1
EPA-600/7-80-01 7d
January 1980
Advanced Combustion
Systems for Stationary
Gas Turbine Engines:
Volume IV. Combustor
Verification Testing
(Addendum)
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-80-017d
January 1980
Advanced Combustion Systems for
Stationary Gas Turbine Engines:
Volume IV. Combustor Verification Testing
(Addendum)
by
R.M. Pierce, C.E. Smith,
and B.S. Hinton
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Group
United Technologies Corporation
P.O. Box 2691
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Contract No. 68-02-2136
Program Element No. INE829
EPA Project Officer: W.S. Lanier
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
FOREWORD
This report was prepared by the Government Products Division of the Pratt & Whitney
Aircraft Group (P&WA) of United Technologies Corporation under EPA Contract No.
68-02-2136, "Advanced Combustion Systems for Stationary Gas Turbine Engines." It is
Volume IV of the final report which encompasses work associated with the accomplishment of
Phase VI of the subject contract from 1 July 1979 through 12 October 1979. The originator's
report number is FR-11405.
Contract 68-02-2136 was sponsored by the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
under the technical supervision of Mr. W. S. Lanier.
The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions made to this program by Mr.
W. S. Lanier, whose skillful management and insight have been a key factor in the success of
the Rich Burn/Quick Quench combustor design concept.
The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Program Manager is Mr. Robert M. Pierce; the Deputy
Program Manager is Mr. Clifford E. Smith. Mr. Stanley A. Mosier is Technology Manager for
Fuels and Emissions Programs at the Government Products Division of Pratt & Whitney
Aircraft Group. Mr. Bruce S. Hinton has been a principal contributor to the technical effort in
Phase VI.
Special recognition is due Mr. E. R. Robertson of the Component Design and Integration
Group, who was responsible for all drafting, hardware fabrication, and data processing
activities.
in/ iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 PHASE VI ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND HIGH TEMPERATURE
RISE OPERATION 2
2.1 Phase VI Combustor Designs 2
2.2 Experimental Rig Hardware and Test Stand Preparation 29
2.3 Alternative Fuels Testing 31
2.4 High Temperature Rise Operation 71
3 PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS 84
4 RECOMMENDATIONS 87
REFERENCES 88
LIST OF SYMBOLS 89
APPENDIX A 91
APPENDIX B
v
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 Comparison of FRT Combustors Used in Phase IV and Phase VI 3
2 Predicted Variation in Liner Heat Fluxes With Wall Temperature 6
3 Predicted Variation in Liner Heat Fluxes With Wall Temperature 7
4 Baseline Premix Tube 9
5 Inlet Swirler Premixing Tube 9
6 Nonpremixed Arrangement 9
7 Approximate Variation in Specific Gravity With Temperature for Test
Fuels 12
8 Approximate Viscosity-Temperature Relationship for Test Fuels 13
9 Surface-Tension-Temperature Relationship for Hydrocarbon Fuels of Vary-
ing Specific Gravities 14
10 Predicted Variation in SMD With Fuel Temperature for Shale Residual Oil 16
11 Predicted Variation in SMD With Fuel Temperature for Indo-
nesian/Malaysian Oil 17
12 Full-Scale Combustor Scheme FS-05A (Scheme FS-05B With Premix Tube
Variable Damper Removed) 20
13 Nonpremixed Configuration of the FRT/RBQQ Combustor (Scheme FS07A) 21
14 High Temperature Rise Configuration of the FRT/RBQQ Combustor
(Scheme FS-08A) 21
15 Burner Scheme Definition (Scheme FS-05B) 22
16 Burner Scheme Definition (Scheme FS-07A) 23
17 Burner Scheme Definition (Scheme FS-08A) 24
18 FRT Combustor (Scheme FS-05A) During Assembly 26
19 FRT Combustor (Scheme FS-05A) Fully Assembled 27
20 Premix Tube With Variable Damper Attached Prior to Final Assembly 28
21 MEL Data System and Emission Equipment 30
22 Schematic Diagram of Smoke Meter 32
VI
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Figure Page
23 Comparison of Variation in NO, Concentration With Overall Equivalence
Ratio for Schemes FS-05A, FS-05B and FS-03A 34
24 Comparison of Variation in CO Concentration With Overall Equivalence
Ratio for Schemes FS-05A, FS-05B, and FS-03A 36
25 Comparison of Variation in NO, Concentration With Overall Euivalence
Ratio for Schemes FS-05B, FS-03A, FS-04A, and FS-04B
26 Comparison of Variation in CO Concentration With Overall Equivalence
Ratio for Schemes FS-05B, FS-03A, and FS-04B 39
27 Variation in Emission Concentrations With Overall Equivalence Ratio for
Scheme FS-05B Using SRC II Middle Distilate Fuel 41
28 Condition of Premix Tube Swirler and Premixing Passage Following Tests
With SRC II Middle Distillate Fuel 42
29 Emission Signature of Scheme FS-05B Firing Shale Residual 43
30 Emission Signature of Scheme FS-05B Firing Indonesian/Malaysian Re-
sidual 44
31 Condition of Premix Tube Swirler and Premixing Passage Following Tests
With the Residual Fuels 46
32 Emission Signature of Scheme FS-07A Firing No. 2 Fuel 48
33 Effect of Boost Air Pressure Ratio (BAPR) on NO, and CO Emissions of
Scheme FS-07A 49
34 Emission Signature of Scheme FS-07A Firing Indonesian/Malaysian Re-
sidual 50
35 Emission Signature of Scheme FS-07A Firing SRC II Middle Distillate 51
36 Condition of Interior Surface of Primary Liner Following Tests Through
Scheme FS-07A 53
37 Condition of Nonpremixed Fuel Preparation Following Tests With Residual
and SRC II Fuels 54
38 Exit Temperature Profiles (Probe at Mid-Span) 56
39 Exit Temperature Profile (Probe at Mid-Span) 57
40 Exit Temperature Profiles (Probe at Mid-Span) 58
41 Exit Temperature Profiles (Probe at Mid-Span) 59
vii
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Figuri' Page
42 Exit Temperature Profiles (Probe at Mid-Span) 60
43 Kxit Temprature Profile of Scheme FS-05B Firing Shale Residual (Probe
Off Midspan) 61
44 Variation in Temperature Pattern Factor With Overall Equivalence Ratio
for Tests 'Conducted With Schemes FS-05A and FS-05B 62
45 Liner Temperature Rise Factor as a Function of Equivalence Ratio at 50
psia Firing No. 2 Fuel 65
46 Liner Temperature Rise Factor as a Function of Equivalence Ratio at 100
psia '. 66
47 Effect of Equivalence Ratio and Fuel Type on Secondary Zone Liner
Temperature Rise Factor for Scheme FS-05B 67
48 Effect of Equivalence Ratio and Fuel Type on Secondary Zone Liner
Temperature Rise Factor for Scheme FS-07A at 100 psia 67
49 Primary Liner Convective Heat Transfer Balance 69
50 Variation in Heat Removed from the Primary Zone Liner by the Convective
Cooling Airflow With Equivalence Ratio for Scheme FS-05B Firing
Various Test Fuels 70
51 Variation in Heat Removed from the Primary Zone Liner by the Convective
Cooling Airflow With Equivalence Ratio for Scheme FS-07A Firing
Various Test Fuels 71
52 Emission Signature for Scheme FS-08A Firing No. 2 Fuel 72
53 Emission Signature of Scheme FS-08A Firing No. 2 Fuel at High (Vitiated)
Inlet Conditions 74
54 Emissions from Scheme FS-08A Firing No. 2 Fuel at 50 psia and 800°F.... 76
55 Condition of the Interior Surface of the Primary Liner at the Conclusion of
the Test Program (Aft Looking Forward) 77
56 Condition of the Secondary Zone Liner Following Tests of Scheme FS-08A 78
57 Condition of the Nonpremixed Fuel Preparation Device After Operation of
Scheme FS-8A on No. 2 Distilate Fuel 79
58 Effects of Equivalence Ratio, Pressure, Temperature and Humidity on
Secondary Zone Liner Temperature Rise Factor Firing No. 2 Fuel
in Scheme FS-08A 81
vin
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Figure Page
59 Variation in Heat Removed from the Primary Zone Liner by the Convective
Cooling Airflow With Equivalence Rati for Scheme FS-08A Firing
No. 2 Fuel at Various Rig Inlet Conditions 81
60 Primary Zone Liner Postrun Thermal Paint Analysis 83
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I Characterization of Fuel Preparation Devices Used in SMD Determination 10
II Comparison of Fuel Properties for Phase VI Test Fuels 11
III Predicted Values of SMI) 15
IV Summary of Combustor Design Features 25
V Combustor Operating Conditions in a Typical 25 Megawatt Engine With
Free Turbine 33
Appendix A
I Combustor Operating Parameter Data 91
II Emission Concentration Data 93
III Gas Analysis Parameter Data 95
IV Combustor Liner Temperature Data 97
V Performance Parameter Data 101
VI Combustor Liner Heat Transfer Data 103
VII Combustor Exit Temperature Data 105
-------
SUMMARY
This report describes an exploratory development program to identify, evaluate, and
demonstrate dry techniques for significantly reducing production of NO, from thermal and
fuel-bound sources in burners of stationary gas turbine engines.
In the original program, the Rich Burn/Quick Quench combustor concept, which was
identified and evaluated in subscale hardware, was implemented into the design of a full-scale
(25 megawatt engine size) gas turbine combustor. Two configurations of the full-scale pro-
totype combustor were designed and constructed. The first provided a primary zone residence
time about half as great as that utilized in the bench-scale combustor, but greater than that
available in the representative 25 megawatt engine, which had on-board (in-line) burner cans.
The second configuration was shorter in length, meeting the basic envelope requirements of
the representative engine. Tests of the two configurations were conducted to verify proper
implementation of the design concept, and to demonstrate the exhaust emission characteristics
attainable in the full-scale design.
Results of this testing showed that the Rich Burn/Quick Quench concept substantially
reduced NO, exhaust emissions for both nitrogenous and non-nitrogenous petroleum distillate
fuels. All program exhaust emission goals were met. Having demonstrated effective control of
NO, formed due to fuel-bound nitrogen (which may be present in coal-derived and shale
derived feedstocks), it was reasoned that operation of the existing prototype combustor on
heavy fuels might also show substantial reductions.
This was the purpose of the additional program effort described herein. A modified
version of the longer residence time configuration was successfully tested while burning
synthetic liquid and residual fuel oils, demonstrating that the Rich Burn/Quick Quench
concept could substantially reduce NO, formation when these heavy fuels were fired. All
exhaust emissions goals of the program were met while burning three test fuels: a middle cut
distillate solvent refined coal; a residual shale oil; and an Indonesian/Malaysian residual oil. It
was also demonstrated that the exhaust emission goals were met when operating a Rich
Burn/Quick Quench combustor at a high turbine inlet temperature (2600° F design point)
firing No. 2 fuel oil.
For the sake of convenience, English units of measurements were used in this report. Conversions to SI units may be
found in Appendix B on page 101.
xi/xii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Gas turbine engines currently in use by the electric utilities and by industry account for a
relatively small portion of the total quantity of oxides of nitrogen (NO.) emitted from
stationary sources in this country. On a local scale, however, the gas turbine can be a
significant contributor to air quality degradation, especially in the vicinity of engine installa-
tions where the NO, background level is already objectionably high. The impact of stationary
gas turbines may become even more significant in the future. Along with the present modes of
utilization, combined cycle and industrial cogeneration applications are being projected. In
these applications the advanced engine technology needed to provide higher cycle efficiencies,
and to accommodate the anticipated firing of coal-derived, shale-derived, and petroleum
residual fuels, will make it more difficult to meet proposed emission regulations.
\
Until recently, gas turbine combustors have been designed without regard for exhaust
emissions. Initial attempts to control NO, by modifying existing designs were generally
unsuccessful. Although water injection was identified as a potential solution, this approach is
expensive and ineffective when nitrogen-laden fuels must be burned. In light of these findings,
it was clear that new design concepts specifically addressing exhaust emissions should be
considered.
Under EPA Contract 68-02-2136, an exploratory development program was undertaken
to identify, evaluate, and demonstrate alternative combustor design concepts for significantly
reducing the production of NO, in stationary gas turbine engines. The investigations were
directed toward dry combustion control techniques suitable for use in a 25 megawatt (nominal)
engine. Program goals were 50 ppmv NO, (at 15% 02) for non-nitrogenous fuels, and 100 ppmv
NO. (at 15% 02) for fuels containing 0.5% nitrogen by weight. The goal for CO was 100 ppmv
(at 15% 02).
The original program was accomplished in four phases. The first phase consisted of an
analytical investigation of combustion concepts considered to have potential for reducing the
production of NO,. In the second phase of work, a number of promising low NO, production
concepts were bench-tested to select the best candidate for implementation into the design of
a full-scale, 25-megawatt-size, utility gas turbine engine combustor. In Phase III, a full-scale
low NO. combustor was designed and fabricated. In the fourth phase of work the NO.reduction
capability of the prototype full-scale combustor was demonstrated experimentally at condi-
tions simulating the operating range of a representative 25 megawatt stationary engine.
Phase V of the original program covered the preparation of contract reports. In Phase VI,
which is an extension to the original program structure, the Rich Burn/Quick Quench
combustor concept was evaluated while burning synthetic and residual fuel oils, and per-
formance under high turbine inlet temperature conditions while burning No. 2 petroleum
distillate fuel was documented.
-------
SECTION 2
PHASE VI ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND HIGH TEMPERATURE RISE OPERATION
In Phase VI, the experimental evaluation of the full-scale Rich Burn/Quick Quench
combustor while burning synthetic liquid and residual fuel oils, and while operating in a high
temperature rise configuration was accomplished. The three alternative fuels tested were a
middle distillate cut solvent refined coal (SRC II), a residual shale oil, and an Indo-
nesian/Malaysian residual oil. This section describes the design modifications to the combustor
and fuel preparation devices, the experimental test program, and related results and analysis.
2.1 PHASE VI COMBUSTOR DESIGNS
The purpose of Phase VI testing was to evaluate the Rich Burn/Quick Quench combustor
while burning synthetic liquid and residual fuel oils, and to document performance under high
turbine inlet temperature conditions. Because two test objectives were being addressed, two
combustor airflow distribution schedules (hole-pattern configurations) were required to carry
out the evaluation. Also, because of the wide range of properties represented in the three
experimental fuels (in comparison to No. 2 distillate), two alternative methods of fuel-air
mixture preparation were selected for evaluation in the test program. Drawing upon the
experience gained in Phase IV, a revised scheme for the introduction of final dilution airflow
was adopted. There were also minor differences in the method of fabrication, consisting
primarily of the use of an uncooled cast liner in the aft dilution section of the combustor. A
discussion of each of these changes to the configuration of the basic FRT combustor as it had
been tested in Phase IV are presented in the following subsections.
2.1.1 Secondary Dilution Airflow and Liner Modifications
The full-scale combustor hardware was restored to the long-length, full-residence time
(FRT) configuration tested initially in Phase IV (at the conclusion of testing in Phase IV the
hardware had been in the short-length, ECV configuration). Drawing upon the experience
gained in Phase IV, an alternative placement of final dilution air holes (axially directed, in the
wall of the dump section, rather than radially directed in the wall of the final dilution liner)
was also adopted (see Figure 1). This placement, which had been utilized in the ECV
combustor in Phase IV, had produced an incremental reduction in thermal NO, of about 10
ppmv (at 15% 02). The reduction is illustrated in Figure 106 of Reference 1. In providing for
conversion of the hardware to the high temperature rise configuration, the axially directed
dilution air holes were covered by a removable metal band. This band also served to cover
access ports in the outer shroud leading to the quick quench section. The use of a removable
band was a simple modification that allowed a quick and easy change to the high temperature
rise configuration without removing the combustor from the test stand.
The aft dilution section, which had been constructed of sheet metal and had employed
conventional louver film cooling in scheme FS-03A (the FRT configuration evaluated in Phase
IV), was replaced by an uncooled cast liner piece (similar in construction to the primary zone
liner) for Phase VI testing. Elimination of the requirement for secondary cooling airflow in this
manner made it possible to maintain an identical front-section configuration (down to and
including the quick-quench section) in both the baseline and high temperature rise configura-
tions. By maintaining identical front-sections, the same primary zone residence time character-
istics could be maintained, allowing a more direct comparison of emission results between the
two configurations.
-------
Conventional Louvered Liner
Quick Quench Zone
Access Ports
Outer Shroud
Final Dilution Air
Holes (Radial)
Phase IV Configuration
-O
AFT Dilution Section
New Quick Quench Collar
Uncooled Cast
Liner Section
AFT Dilution Section
i
Final Dilution Air
Holes (Axial)
Phase VI Configuration
Figure 1. Comparison of FRT Combustors Used in Phase IV and Phase VI
-------
While the use of an uncooled liner in the aft section of the combustor in Phase VI testing
allowed identical operation of the front-section of the combustor, the absence of cooling air
caused initial concern regarding the integrity of this aft liner. The axially directed final
dilution air jets, which comprise roughly 37 % of the total combustor airflow, serve to cool the
aft section by forming a thick layer of cool air along the interior surface of the liner. In the
high temperature rise configuration (where these dilution holes are blocked), the aft section
liner was left uncooled except for radiation to the rig case and slight convection from
recirculating airflow. Preliminary calculations were performed to determine whether an un-
cooled liner could survive during the operation of the high temperature rise configuration of
the combustor at the 2600°F exit temperature maximum rig condition.
The analysis of the uncooled aft-section liner was conducted in the manner specified in
reference 2, utilizing the following equation, which treats convection and radiation on both the
inside and outside surfaces of the liner.
C, + R, = C2 + R2 (1)
where: ";
K
(
-=-
( «. «. )
~ " V t, + t, (1-t) dw /
dc
and the following terms are defined in consistent units:
a = Stefan-Boltzmann constant
a = absorptivity
t = emissivity
T = temperature
k = thermal conductivity
H = dynamic viscosity
m, = mass flowrate
A = cross-sectional area
dh = diameter
C = convective heat flux
R = radiative heat flux
subscripts:
a = air
c = rig case.
f = flame
w = combustor wall
1 = designates transfer from flame to liner
2 = designates transfer from liner to rig case
4 '
-------
Solution of equation 1 is effected by evaluating each of the four major net flux terms as a
function of the common independent variable, Tw, and by determining the value of Tw for
which the equality is valid. The case for operation of the high temperature rise configuration
at 2600°F in the test rig is illustrated in Figure 2. It may seem that the greater heat flux from
the flame to the combustor liner is by convection, while radiation accounts for nearly all the
heat flux from the liner to the rig case. The predicted wall temperature for this case is 1990°F.
In Figure 3, the results of a second heat transfer calculation are shown, in which
operation of the combustor in an engine environment was assumed. This case was included so
that the predicted effect of increased operating pressure (212 psia vs 100 psia) and a more
confined containment vessel surrounding the combustor (a 5-in. gap between the combustor
and case was assumed, compared to 10 in. in the plenum-type rig environment) could be
assessed. As shown in Figure 3, the radiative and convective heat fluxes to the combustor liner
were both increased, while only the convective heat flux increased from the liner to the
surrounding engine case. The predicted wall temperature was 2100°F.
A further reduction in the above predicted temperatures was assumed, on the basis of
extensive experience with flamespray coating. The application of magnesium zirconate coating
to a combustor liner produces a reduction in wall temperature of approximately 100°F under
circumstances of predominantly convective heat transfer (a 50°F reduction is ordinarily
achieved in the case of radiative heat flux). Because flamespray coating has been applied to
the aft section liner, a further reduction in wall temperatures was assumed. The final predicted
values are:
Twall = 1890°F (rig operation)
Twall = 2000°F (engine operation).
These values, although relatively high, approach the oxidation temperature (2000°F) of
the cast liner material, but are below the range of temperatures (up to 2100°F for brief periods
of time) in which other combustors employing the same construction have been operated.
Accordingly, it was decided that the uncooled aft section liner should be incorporated into the
design of the full-scale combustor for the rig tests to be conducted in Phase VI. It should be
noted that no plans now exist for operation of the hardware at 2600° F exit temperature in an
engine environment. Before such tests are undertaken, the aft section of the combustor should
be redesigned to provide forced convective cooling in the interest of attaining a lower metal
temperature.
-------
100
80
60
40
20
.c
*J
m
'
X
CO
0)
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
°.net
Solution
ion: T^oii = 1990°F I
Uncooled Secondary Liner
Rig Operating Conditions
173 = 800° F, Pj3 = 100 psia
Wasec = 21.6 pps, Tf|ame = 2600° F
TWal|-°R
R2
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
Figure 2. Predicted Variation in Liner Heat Fluxes With Wall Temperature
-------
100
Uncooled Secondary Liner
Engine Operating Conditions
Wasec = 21.6 pps, Tf|ame = 2600° F
Solution: Twa|| = 2100° F
-80
-100
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
Figure 3. Predicted Variation in Liner Heat Fluxes With Wall Temperature
-------
2.1.2 Fuel Preparation Devices
The fuels that were fired in Phase VI are: a middle distillate cut solvent refined coal
(SRC II); a residual shale oil and an Indonesian/Malaysian residual oil. In addition, hardware
shakedown tests were conducted initially using No. 2 distillate oil. The wide range of
properties represented in the three experimental fuels (in comparison to No. 2 distillate) make
it more difficult to achieve a high degree of fuel prevaporization and fuel-air premixing. In
particular, variations in viscosity, volatility, and surface tension all affect the atomization and
initial burning of fuel. It is possible that the impact of less-than-ideal initial burning
conditions on NO, formation may be eased considerably under the relatively well mixed
fuel-rich conditions that prevail in the aft section of the primary zone in the Rich Burn/Quick
Quench combustor. In spite of this potential benefit, however, it is desirable to achieve the
highest degree of fuel prevaporization and fuel-air premixing possible with available fuel
preparation devices. Several classes of fuel injectors, and several fuel-air delivery schemes
(including premix tubes, and nonpremixed dome designs) are available and were considered for
use in Phase VI testing.
An initial study was conducted to determine the best fuel-preparation device for each
experimental fuel. In addition to the premix tube used for distillate fuel in Phase IV, which
was eventually used with all three test fuels, consideration was given to air-boost nozzles, to an
alternative premix tube having inlet swirl vanes, and to a nonpremixed recessed swirler design.
Results of the study are presented in the following paragraphs.
Three specific fuel preparation devices were evaluated: (1) the baseline premix tube with
radial "spoke" fuel injectors (Figure 4); (2) the inlet-swirler premix tube in conjunction with
an air-boost nozzle (Sonicore Model 281T) shown in Figure 5; and the nonpremixed arrange-
ment shown in Figure 6, consisting of an air-boost nozzle in combination with a recessed
swirler.
Predictions of SMD were made using the relationship developed under this program in
Phase III and reported in reference 1 for air atomization of liquid fuels.
SMD = K(d,)°37vf)025 (<7r)°-376(pfrol25(p.ros(v.r10 (2)
where:
v, = dynamic viscosity of fuel
a, = surface tension of fuel
p, = density of fuel
p. = density of air
V, = velocity of air (relative to fuel)
df = characteristic initial dimension of fuel (diameter, thickness, etc.)
K = proportionality constant, dependent on Wa/Wf, the atomizer airflow
to fuel flow mass ratio.
Application of equation 2 to predict values of SMD requires that a characteristic initial
dimension dt, and a proportionality constant K be assigned for each fuel injection device, and
that the required fuel properties be specified. Data reported in reference 3 indicates that the
characteristics of plain-jet air atomizing devices are essentially independent of fuel jet
diameter. For large values of the atomizer air-fuel ratio Wa/Wf, reasonable agreement with the
experimental data in reference 3 can be obtained by combining the terms K and d, into a
single constant:
K (d,)°376 = 0.312 ft °376
-------
30 deg Inlet Swirler
Figure 4. Baseline Premix Tube
45 deg Inlet Swirler
Air Boost Nozzle
Converging
n Premixing Passage
Figure 5. Inlet Swirler Premixing Tube
Air Boost Nozzle
Swirl Cup
Figure 6. Nonpremixed Arrangement
-------
The component K of this combined-term constant does however vary with atomizer air-fuel
ratio in a manner approximated by the following additional term given in reference 3:
1 +
1.7
In Table I values of the above terms for the three candidate fuel preparation devices
(each of which is plain-jet design) are presented. The fuel properties required for use in
equation 2 are presented in Table II, along with other important fuel characteristics. Com-
parisons of the variation in viscosity, specific gravity, and surface tension with fuel tem-
perature for the test fuels are presented in Figures 7, 8, and 9. These curves are based on a
limited number of actual data points and were drawn with characteristic slopes for
hydrocarbon fuels obtained from reference 4.
TABLE I
CHARACTERIZATION OF FUEL PREPARATION
DEVICES USED IN SMD DETERMINATION
Device
Baseline Premix
Tube (Figure 8)
Inlet Swirler
Premix Tube
(Figure 9)
Nonpremixed
Arrangement
(Figure 10)
K(d,)0375 WalWf
0.312 ft.0375 11.3
0.312 ft.0376 0.9s
0.312 ft.0376 0.93
(K(df)° "^corrected
0.360 ft.°37S
1.111 ft.0375
1.111 ft.0376
NOTES:
Evaluated at maximum fuel setting
These two devices use the same air boost nozzle, Sonicore Model 281 T
Choked nozzle air orifice assumed
10
-------
TABLE II
COMPARISON OF FUEL PROPERTIES FOR PHASE VI TEST FUELS
Specific Gravity
Viscosity,
centistokes
Surface Tension
dynes/cm
No. 2
(Typical)
0.84
(60°F)
5.0
(60°F)
25.7
(60°F)
SRC II
Middle
Distillate
0.97
(60°F)
6.3
(60°F)
33.3
(60°F)
Indonesian/
Malaysian
Resid
0.87
(210°F)
11.6
(210°F)
22.6"
(210°F)
Shale
Resid
0.8l>
(210"F)
3.3
(210°F)
20.fi"
(2KI°F)
Heat of Combustion 18,700
(net) Btu/tt>m
17,235
17.980
18.190
Pour Point °F
Flash Point °F
Ultimate Analysis
Carbon '"r
Hydrogen rr
Nitrogen r'c
Sulfur r;
Ash 'r
Oxygen '"<
Conradson Carbon,
Residue ri
<5
>130
87.0
12.8
<0.02
0.04-0.48
<0.003
<0.09
<0.30
<-45
>160
85.77
9.20
0.95
0.19
0.001
3.89
0.03
61
210
86.53
11.93
0.24
0.22
0.036
3.98
90 (remains waxy)
235
86.71
12.76
0.46
0.03
0.009
0.03
0.19
End Point °F,
Atmos. Distillation
640
541
NA
700
NOTES:
'Fuel properties are given at stand delivery temperatures to be maintained in test program.
'Estimate on basis of fuel specific gravity.
11
-------
-SRC
Indo/Malaysian Resid
Shale Resid
No. 6 Fuel Oil (Representative)
No. 2 Fuel Oil (Representative)
120
160 200
Temperature, °F
240 280 320 360 400
Figure 7. Approximate Variation in Specific Gravity With Temperature for
Test Fuels
-------
20,000
1,000
100
10
0)
O
in
8
"
0)
1.5
1.0
0.7
0.5
No. 6 Fuel Oil (Representative)
No. 2 Fuel Oil (Representative)
O SRC II
Q] Indo/Malaysian Resid
Shale Resid
0.4
I I I I
I i i
-80 -40 0 40
80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 420
Temperature, °F
Figure 8. Approximate Viscosity-Temperature Relationship for Test Fuels
13
-------
SRC II Middle Distillate
0.88 (Approx Curve for Shale Resid)
I l
0.92 (Approx Curve for
Indo/Malaysian Resid)
Specific Gravity - 60°/60°F
100 200 300 400 500 600
Temperature - °F
700
800
900
Figure 9. Surface-Tension-Temperature Relationship for Hydrocarbon Fuels
of Varying Specific Gravities
14
-------
Atomization calculations were performed for the baseline premix tube and for the
air-boost nozzle (Sonicore Model 281T) used in both the inlet-swirler premix tube and the
nonpremixed arrangement, for the four test fuels. The results are presented in Table HI.
Values of SMD predicted for the baseline premix tube are comparable to those obtained for
the air-boost nozzle at maximum rig operating conditions. The predicted variation in SMD
with fuel type is also small if it is assumed that the two residual fuels are heated to 210°F.
Computations performed for rig idle operating conditions indicate a moderate increase in SMD
due to lower air density and, in the case of the baseline premix tube due to reduced air
velocity. This effect can be offset in the case of the air-boost nozzle by increasing boost air
pressure. A further illustration of the effect of fuel temperature on predicted values of SMD is
presented in Figures 10 and 11 for the two residual fuels. The deterioration in SMD at lower
fuel temperatures (which is modest) can be offset, if desired, by increasing boost-air pressure
in the case of the Sonicore nozzle. The computations indicate that ultrafine atomization (~10
n) may be possible at 4 to 1 boost air pressure ratio.
TABLE III
PREDICTED VALUES OF SMD
Rig Conditions p
Device Fuel
Baseline Premix No. 2
Tube (Figure 8)
SRC II
Indo/Malaysian
Resid.
Indo/Malavsian
Resid.
Shale Resid.
Shale Resid.
No. 2
SRC II
Indo/Malaysian
Resid.
Shale Resid.
Sonicore1 Model No. 2
281 T
SRC II
Indo/Malaysian
Resid.
Shale Resid.
No. 2
SRC II
Indo/Malavsian
Resid.
Shale Resid.
No. 2
SRC II
Indo/Malaysian
Resid.
Shale Resid.
'Common to Inlet Swirler Premix Tube
TV,
fiO°F
60° F
150°F
210°F
150°F
210°F
60°F
60°F
150°F
150°F
60°F
60°F
150°F
150°F
60°F
60°F
150°F
150°F
60°F
fiO°F
150°F
150°F
(Figure 9)
PT,
94 psia
94 psia
94 psia
94 psia
94 psia
94 psia
40 psia
40 psia
40 psia
40 psia
94 psia
94 psia
94 psia
94 psia
94 psia
94 psia
94 psia
94 psia
40 psia
40 psia
40 psia
TV,
800°F
800° F
800°F
800° F
800°F
800°F
285°F
285°F
285°F
285°F
800°F
800°F
800°F
ROO°F
800°F
800°F
800°F
800°F
28S"F
285°F
285°F
Wf Air
1050 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
258 pph
258 pph
258 pph
258 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
1050 pph
258 pph
258 pph
258 pph
Wmary
Setting
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Idle
Idle
Idle
Idle
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Max.
Mnx.
Mnx.
Max.
Idle
Idle
Idle
40 psia 285°F 258 pph Idle
and Non-Premix Arrangement (Figure 101.
Boost Air
Pressure
200 psia
200 psia
200 psia
200 psia
400 psia
400 psia
400 psia
400 psia
80 psia
80 psia
80 psia
80 psia
SMD
2fi.a
31.8
45.4
31.7
31.1
24.0
03.8
75.7
108.4
74.2
20.2
24.0
34.4
23.5
8.4
10.0
14.4
9.9
31.9
38.0
M.4
37.2
15
-------
160
140
120
U>
I
o
Q
CO
(1) Spoke Premix Tube/High Power
(2) Spoke Premix Tube/Idle
(3) Sonicore (2:1 Boost Press.)/High
(4) Sonicore (2:1 Boost Press.)/ldle
(5) Sonicore (4:1 Boost Press.)/High
(6) Sonicore (4:1 Boost Press.)/ldle
130
150
170 190
Fuel Temperature °F
210
230
250
Figure 10. Predicted Variation in SMD With Fuel Temperature for Shale
Residual Oil
16
-------
160
140
o
Q
CO
20
(1) Spoke Premix Tube/High Power
(2) Spoke Premix Tube/Idle
, (3) Sonicore (2:1 Boost Press.)/High,
(4) Sonicore (2:1 Boost Press.)/ldle
(5) Sonicore (4:1 Boost Press.)/High
(6) Sonicore (4:1 Boost Press.)/ldle
130
150
170 190
Fuel Temperature - °F
210
230
250
Figure 11. Predicted Variation in SMD With Fuel Temperature for
Indonesian/Malaysian Oil
17
-------
The results described indicate that all four test fuels can be successfully atomized using
the baseline premix tube, subject only to the qualification that the two residual fuels be heated
to a nominal temperature of 210°F. Atomization produced by the baseline premix tube is
almost as good as that achievable using the air-boost nozzle. The air-boost nozzle can provide a
means of offsetting the deterioration in SMD encountered at the idle operating point and at
reduced fuel temperatures in the case of the residual fuels. The calculations also indicate that
ultrafine atomization can be achieved at very high boost air pressure.
Not only the atomization of the fuel, but also the distribution (in an even pattern across
the passage into which it is injected) must be provided in an acceptable fuel preparation
device. Comparison of the distribution characteristics of the three candidate devices can be
made in a qualitative manner by drawing upon prior operating experience. The baseline
premix tube can be characterized as having excellent distribution characteristics on the basis
of observations made during the Phase IV test program. Atmospheric tests of the nonpremix-
ed, recessed swirler arrangement (Figure 6) conducted in a previous experimental program at
P&WA showed a generally good distribution. A uniform, "misty" flame was observed, without
streaks. However, a moderate ring of carbon was formed around the inside of the swirl cap,
apparently because of the centrifugal effect of swirler airflow on the low-momentum fuel mist
produced by the Sonicore nozzle. These results were indicative of moderate wall wetting;
however, on balance the distribution was considered good. No tests have been conducted of the
inlet swirler premix tube. This device can be expected to be similar to the recessed swirler with
regard to wall-wetting tendency, although the longer length of the passage wall may amplify
these effects. Aside from the likely wall-wetting tendency, distribution characteristics of this
device are unknown.
The tendency to form solid carbon deposits on internal surfaces and exposed parts in the
fuel-air passage is accentuated in the case of residual fuels. Even though these fuels may be
well atomized and evenly distributed in the primary air flowstream, heavier hydrocarbon
compounds are present that do not readily vaporize. These heavier liquids may accumulate on
surfaces contacted by the flowstream. In the presence of sufficient heat (due to flame radiation
or conduction through the metal surface) pyrolysis can occur before the liquid is vaporized or
removed from the surfaces aerodynamically. The tendency to form deposits will be greatest for
the two residual fuels. Experience with the baseline premix tube firing a shale DFM was
gained during the Phase IV test program. This distillate fuel had been contaminated with
heavy earth waxes that were acquired at the refinery when processed fuel was placed in tanks
originally used for the crude shale. When this fuel was fired, deposits were formed on the
swirler as shown in Figures 87 and 88 in Reference 1. Because the same heavy earth waxes are
present in great quantities in the shale resid fuel that was tested in Phase VI, it was expected
that heavier deposits might be formed on the baseline premix tube swirler. The same tendency
was expected in the case of the Indonesian/Malaysian resid because of the relatively high
carbon residue present in this fuel (3.98% Conradson, Table II). Experience gained in a
previous experimental program conducted at P&WA to evaluate combustors designed to fire a
high-carbon petroleum residual fuel (12% Ramsbottom carbon residue) showed that in general
an aerodynamically clean flowpath was required to avoid carbon buildup. In particular, it was
concluded that swirlers and other flameholding devices should be removed from the flowpath
downstream of the point of fuel injection. These results led to the design of inlet-swirler type
configurations such as those show,n in Figures 5 and 6.
Two of the three fuel preparation devices just described were used in Phase VI testing;
the baseline premix tube, and the nonpremixed, recessed swirler arrangement with the
Sonicore air-boost nozzle. Both of these fuel preparation devices produced excellent NO.
emission results and were found to operate in an acceptable manner on all the test fuels. A
further description of the emission results, operating characteristics, carbon forming tenden-
cies and conclusions drawn, may be found in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.
18
-------
2.1.3 Combustor Hardware
The full-scale Rich Burn/Quick Quench combustor was reconstructed to the FRT
configuration previously tested in Phase IV. The changes mentioned in the above subsections
were incorporated. The initial Phase VI combustor configuration, depicted in Figure 12, is
referred to as scheme FS-05A. This configuration employed the baseline premix tube with the
variable damper mechanism (described previously in Reference 1) attached for the purpose of
staging the quantity of airflow admitted into the primary combustion zone. During the initial
checkout tests, the variable damper mechanism became detached from the inlet of the premix
tube and it was not reattached. With this occurrence, the airflow distribution was altered
slightly and therefore the configuration, absent of the damper, was redefined as scheme
FS-05B.
The nonpremixed fuel preparation device (recessed swirler with boost-air nozzle) was also
tested in Phase VI. This configuration, shown in Figure 13, is referred to as scheme FS-07A.
With the addition of the modified quench zone access port collar, scheme FS-08A, the high
temperature rise (2600°F exit temperature design point) configuration was formed. This
configuration, which also used the nonpremixed fuel preparation device, can be seen in Figure
14. The modified collar effectively blocked the final dilution air holes which implied that in
order to maintain residence times comparable to the other schemes, a reduced airflow was
required. A scheme definition sheet for each of the three schemes are presented in Figures 15,
16, and 17. Flow distribution schedules and thermocouple locations are given in these figures.
19
-------
i Cast Liner Section
to
o
Axially Directed Final
Dilution Holes
Figure 12. Full-Scale Combustor Scheme FS-05A (Scheme FS-05B With Premix Tube Variable Damper Removed)
-------
Figure 13. Nonpremixed Configuration of the FRT/RBQQ Combustor
(Scheme FS-07A)
Figure 14. High Temperature Rise Configuration of the FRT/RBQQ Com-
bustor (Scheme FS-08A)
21
-------
H
LB
48.01
STATION
Al
A2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Headers
BSTD1
BSTD2
BSTD3
BSTD4
BST1
BST2
BST3
BST4
BST5
BST6
BST7
B5T8
BST9
BST10
BST11
BST12
B.ST13
BST14
BST15
BST16
BST17
BST18
BST19
BST20
AREF
88.20
L/D
4.53
AX
13.
4.
8.
75.
28.
28.
72.
75.
72.
39.
347
335
038
391
280
280
346
391
348
337
Axial
9.
9.
9.
9.
14.
14.
14.
14.
20.
20.
20.
20.
24.
24.
24.
24.
36.
36.
36.
36.
34.
34.
34.
34.
Loc.
0
0
0
0
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
9
4
4
4
4
ACD
0
0
5
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
.0
.0
.46
.0
.0
.953
.049
.472
.792
.0
Rad.
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
VOLREF
2590.0
WACUM
0
0
19
19
19
59
95
97
100
100
Loc.
.8
.8
.8
.8
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.716
.716
.716
.209
.443
.144
.000
.000
A
PHI
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Circum.
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
270
0
90
180
270
0
0
307
307
307
435
270
265
258
258
Loc
ACDSUM
27.73
Figure 15. Burner Scheme Definition (Scheme FS-05B)
22
-------
H
LB
43.19
AREF
88.20
L/D
4.07
VOLREF
2590.0
ACDSUM
27.27
STATION
Al
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Headers
BSTD1
BSTD2
BSTD3
BSTD4
BST1
BST2
BST3
BST4
BST5
BST6
BST7
BST8
BST9
BST10
BST11
BST12
B.ST13
BST14
BST15
BST16
BST17
BST18
BST19
BST20
AX
9.438
12.749
75.391
28.260
28.260
72.346
75.391
72.346
39.337
Axial Loc.
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
24.
24.
24.
24.
36.
36.
36.9
36.9
34.4
34.
34,
,5
.5
,5
,5
.9
.9
.4
.4
34.4
ACD
0.0
5.005
0.0
0.0
10.953
10.049
0.472
0.792
0.0
WACUM
0.0
18.353
18.353
18.353
58.516
95.365
97.096
100.000
100.000
Rad. Loc.
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
PHI
0.0
1.300
1.300
1.300
0.408
0.250
0.246
0.239
0.239
Circum. Loc
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
270
0
90
180
270
Figure 16. Burner Scheme Definition (Scheme FS-07A)
23
-------
A1 A B
LB
43.19
C D
STATION
Al
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Headers
BSTD1
BSTD2
BSTD3
BSTD4
BST1
BST2
BST3
BST4
BST5
BST6
BST7
BST8
BST9
BST10
BST11
BST12
B.ST13
BST14
BST15
BST16
BST17
BST18
BST19
BST20
AREF
88.20
AX
9.438
12.749
75.391
28.260
28.260
72.346
75.391
72.346
39.337
Axial Loc.
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
14.9
14.9
14.9
14.9
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
36.9
36.9
36.9
36.
34.
34.
34.4
34.4
.9
.4
.4
L/D
4.07
VOLREF
2590.0
H
ACDSUM
17.22
ACD
0
5
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
.0
.005
.0
.0
.953
.049
.472
.792
.0
Rad.
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
WACUM
0
18
18
18
58
95
97
100
100
.0
.353
.353
.353
.516
.365
.096
.000
.000
Loc.
.8
.8
.8
.8
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
PHI
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Circum.
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
252
0
90
180
270
0
90
180
270
0
300
300
300
408
250
246
239
239
Loc
Figure 17. Burner Scheme Definition (Scheme FS-08A)
24
-------
The design features of the three FRT combustor schemes tested in Phase VI are
summarized in Table IV. A photograph of the Phase VI FRT combustor during construction is
shown in Figure 18. The premix tube, primary liner shroud, and aft dilution section were not
attached in this figure. The fully assembled configuration with the premix tube is shown in
Figure 19. A photograph of the premix tube with variable damper attached is shown in Figure
20.
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF COMBUSTOR DESIGN FEATURES
Type Combnstor
Length (Primary)
Length (Dilution)
Length (Overall)
Outer Diameter
Inner Diameter
Combustor Reference
Premized Configuration
(Scheme FS-05A/B)
Combustor Can. Convective
Primary Zone Cooling. Finned
Secondary Zone
19.0 in.
8.0 in.
48.0 in. (including transition
section to turbine inlet)
11.25 in.
9.8 in.
75.4 in. sq
Nonpremixed Configuration
(Scheme FS-07A)
Comhiistor Can. (''invective
Primary Zone Cooling. Finned
Secondary Zone
19.0 in.
8.0 in.
43.2 in. (including transition
section to turbine inlet)
11.25 in.
9.8 in.
75.4 in. sq
High Temperature
Rise Configuration
(Scheme FS-08A)
Combustor Can. Cimvertiw
Primary Zone Cooling. Finned
Secondary Zone
19.0 in.
8.0 in.
43.2 in. (including transition
section to turbine inlet)
1 1 .25 in.
9.8 in.
75.4 in. sq
Area (Primary)
Type Nozzle (Initial
Configuration)
Swirler (Initial
Con figuration)
Combustor Material
Single-zone low-pressure Sonicore Model 28IT boost-
sprayhars (12 with a total of air nozzle, compressed ni-
36 holes at 0.031 dia) trogen boost supply
3.20 in. O.D.. 0.56 in. I.D.. 15 4.03 in. O.D.. 1.75 in. I.D.. 20
constant solidity vanes with vane recessed swirler (45 deg
vented, flat centerhody (26 swirl angle)
deg swirl angle)
Sonicore Model 281T boost-
air nozzle, compressed ni-
trogen boost supply
4.03 in. O.D.. 1.75 in. I.D.. 20
vane recessed swirler (45 deg
swirl angle)
Outer Liner
Inner Liner
Combustor Wall Thickness
Outer Liner
Inner Liner
Design Point Conditions
Fuel-Air Ratio
Volumetric Heat Release
Rate Based on:
Inlet Pressure
Combustor Airflow
Combustor Reference
Velocity (Primary)
Combustor Total
Pressure Loss
Type 347 SST
Stellite 31 (X40)
0.0625 in.
0.125 in. on diameter with
0.125 high fins
0.0189
2.05X10' Btu/(ft'-hr-Atm)
188 psia
31.5 tb/s
29.0 f/s
S.Srr
Type 347 SST
Stellite 31 (X40)
0.0625 in.
0.125 in. on diameter with
0.125 high fins
0.0189
2.05X10' Btu/ft»-hr-Atm)
188 psia
31 .5 hVs
29.0 f/s
5.5
-------
Figure 18. FRT Combustor (Scheme FS-05A) During Assembly
26
-------
Figure 19. FRT Combustor (Scheme FS-05A) Fully Assembled
27
-------
Figure 20. Premix Tube With Variable Damper Attached Prior to Final
Assembly
28
-------
2.2 EXPERIMENTAL RIG HARDWARE AND TEST STAND PREPARATION
The rig hardware and test stand instrumentation used in Phase VI testing were nearly
the same as that described for Phase IV testing in Section 2.10.1 (of Reference 1). Additional
instrumentation was added to the combustor to allow the measurement of the cooling airflow
(quick quench air) temperature rise. The liner was also coated with a temperature sensitive
paint to more fully document temperature patterns when examined at the end of the test
series.
The P&WA Mobile Emission Laboratory (MEL) was also used in place of the fixed
emission equipment used in Phase IV. The Mobile Emissions Laboratory (MEL), shown in
Figure 21, is a self-propelled, sound proofed laboratory with an on-board gas analysis and data
acquisition/processing system. The gas analysis system consists of individual analyzers for
concentration measurements of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02), oxygen (02),
oxides of nitrogen (NO and NO,), total unburned hydrocarbons (THC), and sulfur dioxide
(S02). It also includes a gas chromatograph for measurements o/' molecular hydrogen (H2) and
nitrogen (N2). The following analyzers have been incorporated into the gas analysis system:
Thermo Electron Corp. Model 10A NO/NOX Analyzer, Ranges: 2.5, 10, 25,
100, 250, 1000, 2500, and 10,000 ppm.
Beckman Model 865 nondispersive Infrared CO Analyzer, Ranges: 100, 500,
and 1000 ppm; 1, 5, and 10 r<..
Scott Model 250 Paramagnetic 02 Analyzer, Ranges: 1, 5, 10, and 25^-.
Beckman Model 402 Flame lonization Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer,
Ranges: 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, and 5000 ppm.
Thermo Electron Corp. Model 40, Pulsed Fluorescent S02 Analyzer,
Ranges: 50, 100, 500, 1000, and 5000 ppm.
Carle Model AGC 311 Gas Chromatograph equipped with both flame
ionization and thermal conductivity detectors.
The system is basically a more modern version of that shown schematically in Section
2.10.1 (of Reference 1). It conforms to ARP 1256 and the guidelines specified in the 17 July
1973, Federal Register, "Control of Air Pollution from Aircraft and Aircraft Engines,
Emissions Standards and Test Procedures for Aircraft."
A continuous gas sample was abstracted from the burner exhaust and transferred to the
MEL system through electrically heated teflon lines. The sample transfer time was less than
2 sec. The sample was cooled in the probe to approximately 300°F, thereby quenching
high-temperature oxidation reactions, but maintaining an amount of heat adequate to prevent
the loss of unburned hydrocarbons by condensation. The calibration gases that were used were
traceable to National Bureau of Standards reference materials. Check calibrations of the
testing standards against the primary standards were made periodically to ensure their
continued accuracy.
29
-------
Figure 21. MEL Data System and Emission Equipment
-------
Burner exhaust smoke measurements were obtained thiough use of a smoke measuring
system that conforms to specifications of the Society of Automotive Engineers Aerospace
Recommended Practice, ARP-1179. A fixed, single-port smokt- sampling probe was located on
centorline of the rig exhaust duct near the fixed emission sampling rake. The smoke measuring
system is shown in Figure 22. The filter holder, also shown in Figure 22 was constructed with a
one-in. dia spot size, a diffusion half-angle of 7.25 deg and a converging half-angle of 27.5 deg.
Sample temperature was maintained at 150°F throughout the system. At the required data
points, four filter samples were collected at a flowrate of 0.5 ftVrnin from which an average
smoke number was determined. A Photovolt Model 670 reflection meter with a type Y search
unit conforming to ASA Ph 2.17-1958 "Standard for Diffuser Reflection Density" was used to
determine the reflectance of the clean and stained filters. A set of Hunter Laboratory
reflectance plaques, traceable to the National Bureau of Standards, were used to calibrate the
reflection meter.
The MEL system was also used for data acquisition, recording and reduction of most rig
and combustor parameters. Some additional instrumentation was monitored in the control
room as were some of the more important parameters on redundant readouts.
2.3 ALTERNATIVE FUELS TESTING
Evaluation of the Rich Burn/Quick Quench combustor operating on synthetic liquid and
residual fuels was accomplished using two different fuel preparation devices. Testing was
initiated employing the baseline premix tube. The FRT combustor with the premix tube was
designated as scheme FS-05A initially. In subsequent testing the premix tube variable damper
was removed, and the scheme designation was changed from FS-05A to FS-05B. The non-
premixed fuel preparation device was also tested on the FRT combustor. This combustor
configuration was designated as scheme FS-07A.
The data obtained for both the premixed configuration and the nonpremixed configura-
tion of the combustor are presented in Tables I through VII of Appendix A. The tables contain
the major parameters necessary to specify combustor operating conditions and contain liner
temperature and exhaust emission data.
The following subsections describe the emissions and operating characteristics of both the
premixed and nonpremixed combustor configurations, as well as exit temperature profiles and
the effect that synthetic and residual fuels have on liner temperatures. For comparison
purposes, Table V shows the combustor operating conditions of a representative 25 megawatt
gas turbine engine. This table contains the inlet pressure and temperature, the operating
overall equivalence ratio, and the average combustor exit temperature over the entire range of
conditions from cold start to peak load.
31
-------
CO
to
Plane of
Filter
Material
"Bypass" /
J -1 ,
Filter
Holder
Bypass
"Sample"
Optional
Coarse
Filter
Valve C
Valve D
tXl 1
Discharge
D (Spot Diameter) - 0.50 to 1.50 in. (Required) ' Volume
9 - 5 to 7.5 deg (Recommended) Measurement
a - 20 to 30 deg (Recommended) Sampling System Schematic Diagram
Filter Holder Schematic Diagram
Figure 22. Schematic Diagram of Smoke Meter
-------
TABLE V
COMBUSTOU OPERATING CONDIT DNS IN A
TYPICAL 25 MEGAWATT ENGIM WITH
FREE TURBINE
Inlet Inlet Exit Exit
Total Pressure Total Temperature Et/uivalence Temperature
Operating Point (pain) (°F) Ratio (°F)
Peak Load
Baseload (100%)
70%
50%
Sync Idle
Cold Start
20H
18(1
150
120
50
1ft
750
700
600
500
300
70
0.31
0.28-1
0.24
0.20J
0.13
0.29
2100
1950
1650
1450
950
1450
2.3.1 Emission and Performance Rig Testing of Scheme FS-05A/B
Operation of the combustor on No. 2 fuel at 50 and 100 psia rig pressure (with nearly
constant airflow) was accomplished, and the basic emission signature was obtained (by varying
the fuel flowrate) and verified to be consistent with performance measured previously under
Phase IV. During the checkout tests, the premix tube variable damper, which had been
maintained in the full-open position during all tests up to that point, separated from the
premix tube and fell to the bottom of the rig test chamber. There was no damage to any part
of the combustor as a result of this occurrence. Examination of the hardware indicated that
several welds securing the damper mounting bracket to the premix tube had failed. The
variable damper mechanism was removed from the rig and all subsequent tests were conducted
without the air staging capability of this mechanism. Tests of the combustor were conducted at
100 psia rig pressure firing SRC II middle distillate fuel. A basic emission signature was
generated, and the data indicate that a substantial reduction in the NO, concentration level
was achieved, as described in Subsection 2.3.1.2. Operation of this combustor scheme was also
accomplished firing the two residual test fuels, a residual shale oil and an Indo-
nesian/Malaysian residual oil. Both of these test fuels were heated to about 180°F prior to
combustion. The No. 2 fuel and SRC II were delivered to the combustor at temperatures just
above ambient.
2.3.1.1 Verification of Baseline Exhaust Emission Characteristics
Initial experiments were performed using No. 2 fuel oil to check out the test rig and
instrumentation and to verify the baseline performance of the RBQQ combustor. Although the
configuration tested, scheme FS-05A, had not been evaluated previously, the arrangement of
the hardware was very similar to that of scheme FS-03A, which had been evaluated under
Phase IV. As previously described, the principal differences in these two schemes are the
alternative placement of final dilution holes in scheme FS-05A (axially directed, in the wall of
the dump section, rather than radially directed in the wall of the final dilution liner) and the
use of an uncooled secondary liner in scheme FS-05A. As a result of the substitution of
alternative final dilution holes, there is a slight shift in the design point airflow distribution in
scheme FS-05A, causing a reduction in quick quench airflow from 43.7% of total burner
airflow in scheme FS-03A to 40.2% in scheme FS-05A. The same shift in distribution had also
been present in scheme FS-04A, tested under Phase IV.
33
-------
In verifying the baseline performance of the RBQQ combustor, reference was made both
to scheme FS-03A, the previously tested full-residence-time (FRT) arrangement of the
combustor hardware which had similar primary zone and secondary zone residence times; and
to scheme FS-04A, which was shorter in length but had the same design point airflow
distribution. Figures depicting these schemes and the emission and performance characteristics
are documented in Reference 1.
The initial checkout tests were conducted at 50 psia rig pressure. In Figure 23 a
comparison of the NO. emission characteristics of the combustor to those obtained for the
previous FRT configuration (scheme FS-03A) is presented. The curve for schemes FS-05A and
FS-05B has the same general shape as the one generated previously for scheme FS-03A. There
was a slight decline in the minimum NO. concentration level achieved (20 ppmv for scheme
FS-05B at 15% O2 compared to 26 ppmv for scheme FS-03A). This result was not unexpected
because of the slightly lower inlet air temperature in the case of scheme FS-05B (430°F
compared to 450° F for scheme FS-03A), and because of the alternative placement of final
dilution holes in scheme FS-05B (axially directed, in the wall of the dump section, rather than
radially directed in the wall of the secondary liner this alternative placement was shown to
produce an incremental reduction in thermal NO. in tests conducted under Phase IV).
(Runs FS-05A-1 to 4
and FS-05B-1 to 9)
50 psia
430° F
No. 2 Fuel
0.1 0.2
Overall Equivalence Ratio
Figure 23. Comparison of Variation in NO* Concentration With Overall
Equivalence Ratio for Schemes FS-05A, FS-05B and FS-03A
34
-------
In addition, there was a significant shift in the location of the NO, curve peak in the data
for schemes FS-05A and FS-05B (the peak concentration of 123 ppmv for scheme FS-05A,
corrected to 15% 0,, occurs at 0.134 overall equivalence ratio, compared to a peak concentra-
tion of 178 ppmv for scheme FS-03A, which occurred at 0.160 overall equivalence ratio). This
shift was not unexpected because of the altered airflow distribution of scheme FS-05A/5B
compared to scheme FS-03A (only 60% of the total airflow is introduced upstream of the
secondary-zone dump plane in scheme FS-05B, compared to 65.6% in scheme FS-03A).
Although the front sections of both combustor configurations were identical, scheme FS-05B
had a greater total open hole area in the secondary zone. As a result, the primary zone
equivalence ratio corresponding to a given value of exit-plane equivalence ratio is slightly
higher in scheme FS-05B than in scheme FS-03A and the peak NO, concentration for scheme
FS-05A/5B occurs at a lower value of overall equivalence ratio. The lower peak concentration
of NO, measured for scheme FS-05A (123 ppmv compared to 178 ppmv for scheme FS-03A)
was an unexpected occurrence. Although no definitive explanation was found, a lower peak
concentration of NO, might be expected to occur due to a slight deterioration in the quality of
fuel preparation.
CO data obtained for schemes FS-05A and FS-05B at 50 psia rig pressure are presented
in Figure 24. Comparison of the results to those obtained previously for scheme FS-03A
indicate that somewhat lower concentrations were measured for scheme FS-05A/5B in the
range of overall equivalence ratios to the right of the CO curve peak. In addition, the peak
concentration measured was lower for scheme FS-05A/5B. This result is believed to reflect the
achievement of more comlete secondary zone oxidation of CO in scheme FS-05A/5B. The
improvement may be due to the use of axially-directed final dilution air jets for the first time
in this scheme of the FRT configuration of the RBQQ combustor.
Following the initial series of checkout tests at 50 psia rig pressure all subsequent testing
of alternative fuels was conducted at 100 psia rig pressure. NO, emission data obtained firing
No. 2 fuel at 100 psia are presented in Figure 25. Included for comparison are the NO,
emission curves obtained in Phase IV for schemes FS-03A, FS-04A, and FS-04B. There is close
agreement among the data for these four schemes in terms of the shapes of the curves and the
minimum concentration levels achieved. The positions of the curves on the abscissa relative to
each other also conform generally to expectations. Thus, the steep portion of the curve for
scheme FS-05B coincides closely with the same portion of the curve for scheme FS-04A, which
had the same front-end configuration and the same total combustor hole area. At the same
time, the curve for scheme FS-05B falls to the left of the curve for scheme FS-03A, which had
slightly higher front-end airflow as noted in the previous discussion of the 50 psia data. This
curve also lies to the right of the curve for scheme FS-04B which had a slightly lower front-end
airflow because of the presence of the premix tube damper.
35
-------
400
Scheme FS-05A
Runs FS-05A-1 to 4 and
FS-05B-1 to 9)
50 psia
430° F
No. 2 Fuel
300
CM
O
#
in
a
a.
c
200
o
o
O
c
g
'en
-------
500
400
CM
o
£
in
a
a.
o
I
o
O
o
8
E
HI
Q] NOX Scheme FS-05B
RunsFS-05B-10to15,
19 and 34 to 37
100 psia
615°F
No. 2 Fuel
Scheme FS-04A
100
Overall Equivalence Ratio
Figure 25. Comparison of Variation in N0t Concentration With Overall
Equivalence Ratio for Schemes FS-05B, FS-03A, FS-04A, and
FS-04B
37
-------
Prior to the resumption of testing of the RBQQ combustor under Phase VI, a projection
was made of the minimum NO, concentration level achievable using the planned configuration
(scheme FS-05A) of the burner firing No. 2 fuel. The projection was made with reference to
Figure 106, Section 3.2.6, Reference 1, which showed the dependence of minimum attainable
NO, concentration levels on primary zone residence time. Although the referenced curves had
been based on only two data points (corresponding to the two values of primary zone residence
time represented in the ECV and FRT versions of the RBQQ combustor), it was indicated that
the use of axially directed final dilution holes produced an incremental reduction in thermal
NO, of approximately 10 ppmv (corrected to 15% O2). This observed reduction was combined
with the NO, concentration level achieved in the previously tested FRT combustor which had
conventional dilution holes (scheme FS-03A) and a projected minimum NO, level of 35 ppmv
was arrived at for scheme FS-05A. The minimum concentration actually achieved (44 ppmv at
15% 02) was higher than the projected value. However, the increased level is believed to be
attributable to an increase in combustor inlet air temperature from 560°F in the tests of
scheme FS-03A to 610°F in the tests of scheme FS-05A/5B. Viewed in this context the results
obtained in Phase VI using No. 2 fuel are believed to be consistent with the referenced
residence time relationship.
CO emission data obtained firing No. 2 fuel at 100 psia rig pressure are presented in
Figure 26. The curve for scheme FS-05B is lower than the curves for schemes FS-03A and
FS-04B. This result is believed to reflect the achievement of more complete secondary zone
oxidation of CO, and is consistent with the results obtained at 50 psia rig pressure. The
following comparisons can be made among data obtained for the three schemes:
1. Two curves of different magnitude were obtained for scheme FS-03A in
the Phase IV experimental program. The curve having higher CO concen-
tration values (above 200 ppmv at 15 % 02) was accepted as definitive. The
second curve, which had a peak CO concentration only slightly higher than
100 ppmv, was generated during tests in which a metal blockage band on
the combustor liner became loosened, causing an alteration in the com-
bustor airflow distribution. Specifically, displacement of the band allowed
the direct entry of air from the rig plenum into the quick-quench zone of
the combustor. The proper routing of the quick-quench airflow is along a
flowpath through the primary liner cooling passage. It is believed that both
the quantity and direction of the jets entering the quick-quench section
were altered because of the displaced band, and that these alterations
caused a net reduction in CO concentration levels. The CO curve for
scheme FS-05B is similar to that obtained for scheme FS-03A in the case
of the loosened blockage band, indicating that an alteration in the method
of introduction of quick-quench airflow and/or final dilution airflow may
.have been responsible for the general reduction concentration levels.
38
-------
500
400
CM
O
^
in
T8
>
Q.
O.
C
O
'
0)
O
O
O
c
O
E
HI
300
200
100
Q CO, Scheme FS-05B
RunsFS-05B-10to15,
19 and 34 to 37
100 psia
615°F
No. 2 Fuel
Overall Equivalence Ratio
Figure 26. Comparison of Variation in CO Concentration With Overall
Equivalence Ratio for Schemes FS-05B, FS-03A, and FS-04B
39
-------
2. The two major changes incorporated into scheme FS-05B in comparison to
schemes FS-03A and FS-04B are the use of axially directed final dilution
' air jets and the restoration of the secondary zone to full-residence-time
length. Because axially directed dilution air jets were also used in scheme
FS-04B which produced relatively high CO concentration levels, it has
been concluded that the dilution jet feature alone was not responsible for
the net reduction in CO measured for scheme FS-05B. Similarly, the
extended length full-residence-time secondary zone could not have been
solely responsible for the reduction in CO because of its use in scheme
FS-03A. It has been tentatively concluded that the reduced CO concentra-
tion levels obtained for scheme FS-05B are the result of the combined
effect of axial dilution jets and the extended length secondary zone.
According to this viewpoint the reduction in CO was similar to that
encountered in the same combustor when the quick-quench blockage band
became displaced.
Smoke data was recorded at the 100 psia operating conditions for one point. An SAE
smoke number (ARP 1179) of 1.8 was obtained for a fuel-lean condition in the primary zone
(test No. FS-05B-36).
2.3.1.2 Exhaust Emission and Operating Characteristics With Alternative Fuels
Tests of the FRT combustor (scheme FS-05B) were conducted at 100 psia rig pressure
firing an SRC II middle distillate fuel. Exhaust emission data from these tests are presented in
Figure 27. As expected, the emission signature of the combustor was generally the same as that
documented under Phase IV for other nitrogen bearing fuels (a pyridine-spiked No. 2 fuel and
a shale-derived Diesel Fuel Marine). The NO, curve in Figure 27 has a strong central peak
corresponding approximately to the occurrence of stoichiometric operating conditions in the
primary zone, and a distinct minimum concentration point or "bucket." The highest NO,
concentration recorded (which may not have represented the peak) was 395 ppmv, corrected to
15 (.'
-------
500
I r
(Runs FS-05B-16 to 18 and FS-05B-20 to 24)
400
C\)
O
5)
« 300
a
a
c
o
c
CD
O
o
O
o
'55
-------
The three test conditions represented at these test points correspond to: (1) fuel-lean
operation of the primary zone (FS-05B-24); (2) the minimum NO, level condition (at the
bottom of the "bucket" in the NO, curve, FS-05B-22); and (3) overly fuel-rich operation of the
primary zone (FS-05B-23).
No significant change in combustor operating characteristics was noted during the tests
of scheme FS-05B conducted with SRC II middle distillate fuel. Inspection of the combustor
following the tests revealed that the inside surface of the primary liner was free of carbon
deposits. Although there was some deterioration of the flamespray coating within the primary
zone, no areas of distress were detected. Examination of the premix tube showed a minor
buildup of carbon on the inside surface of the premixing passage and on the premix tube swirl
vanes (see Figure 28). The accumulation was slightly greater than that encountered in tests of
scheme FS-03A conducted with shale DFM during Phase IV (see Figures 87 and 88 in
Subsection 3.2.3.6, Reference 1). The build-up in Figure 28 was present after approximately 1.5
hr of operation at 100 psia rig pressure and subsequent shutdown on SRC II middle distillate
fuel.
Figure 28. Condition of Premix Tube Swirler and Premixing Passage Following
Tests With SRC II Middle Distillate Fuel
42
-------
Tests of the FRT/RBQQ combustor with premixed fuel preparation device (Scheme
FS-05B) were also conducted at 100 psia and 600°F rig inlet conditions firing a shale residual
and an Indonesian/Malaysian residual. Exhaust emission data for the shale residual are
presented in Figure 29 and for the Indonesian/Malaysian residual in Figure 30. In both cases,
the basic emission signatures of the combustor were similar to the SRC II middle distillate fuel
and to other nitrogen bearing fuels.
300
a NO
O UHC
Test No. FS-05B-25 Thru 33
100psia,600°F
0.3 0.4
Equivalence Ratio
0.5
Figure 29. Emission Signature of Scheme FS-05B Firing Shale Residual
43
-------
CO
UHC
Test No. FS-05B-38 Thru 43
100psia,600°F
UJ
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Equivalence Ratio
Figure 30. Emission Signature of Scheme FS-05B Firing Indonesian/
Malaysian Residual
The NO, curve for both fuels again exhibits a strong central peak near the point of
stoichiometric combustion in the primary zone and a well defined minimum concentration
point or "bucket." The highest NO, recorded was about 250 ppmv (corrected to 15% O2) for
both the shale and Indo/Malaysian residuals. While these points may not actually be the peak
concentration of NO,, both were taken at nearly the same equivalence ratio as the point of
highest recorded NO, for SRC II. The highest NO, recorded for these two residual fuels was
less than the concentration recorded for SRC II due to the lower nitrogen content in each fuel
compared to the SRC II (Shale resid, 0.46% N; Indo/Malaysian resid, 0.24% N; and SRC II
0.95% N). The minimum concentration were 65 ppmv and 67 ppmv (corrected to 15% 02) for
the shale residual and the Indo/Malaysian residual oil, respectively. While both minimum
concentrations were lower than that of the SRC II (93 ppmv) as expected due to lower
nitrogen contents, both residual oils had nearly equivalent minimum values. This was some-
what unexpected since the Indo/Malaysian fuel has roughly half the fuel-bound nitrogen of the
shale residual. However, it has been shown by previous testing in Phase IV that the conversion
rate of fuel-bound nitrogen to NO, tends to decline with increasing nitrogen content (i.e.,
conversion rate for a shale DFM, 0.24% N, was about 337.; and for pyridine-spiked No. 2 fuel,
0.5% N, was about 21% for the ECV combustor). Calculating the approximate conversion
rates for the shale and Indo/Malaysian fuels (making the same assumptions as outlined for the
SRC II and noting that complete conversion of fuel nitrogen would correspond to an increment
in NO, of 185 ppmv for the shale resid and 102 ppmv for the Indo/Malaysian resid) yield about
44
-------
12% for the shale and 24% for the Indo/Malaysian, compared to 12% previously calculated for
the SRC II. Also of note, atomization differences between the Indo/Malaysian and the shale
residuals could partly account for the NO, concentration being nearly the same at the
minimum point and at the peak for the two residuals, since the Indo/Malaysian fuel is
predicted to give larger droplet diameters than the shale residual under the same conditions
(Table III). A final possible explanation for the higher than expected NO, concentration
exhibited by the petroleum residual lies in the nitrogen evolution characteristics of the test
fuels. Nitrogen is bound mainly in the lighter fractions for the SRC II and the shale residual as
evidenced by the fact that nearly all the bound nitrogen evolves by about 600° F. The
Indo/Malaysian residual exhibits a different trend in nitrogen evolution: nitrogen still persists
at temperatures above 1000°F. This implies that when burning the Indo/Malaysian residual, it
is possible that the nitrogen evolution from a fuel droplet persists farther into the flamefront
(particularly if vaporization is relatively slow and fuel droplets relatively large), meaning a
shorter residence time would be available (due to limited combustion volume) for NO,
reducing reactions to occur. Ultimately, this could potentially lead to higher NO, emissions.
The CO data obtained firing the shale residual and the Indo/Malaysian residual are also
presented in Figures 29 and 30. Both CO curves are similar to that for the SRC II middle
distillate fuel except that the peak in the Indo/Malaysian residual curve is somewhat lower
than that of the shale and SRC II fuels. This lower peak could be due to a lesser degree of
premixing for the Indo/Malaysian residual due to a decrement in atomization just postulated.
All three fuels appear to produce a CO concentration level of around 75 ppmv (corrected to
15% 02) at the equivalence ratio corresponding to the minimum in the NO, curve.
Smoke data were also obtained while operating the combustor with the shale and
Indonesian/Malaysian residuals. Values of SAE smoke number recorded were as follows:
/
Equivalence Primary Zone SAE Smoke No.
Test No. Fuel Ratio Condition* (APR 1179)
FS-05B-32 Shale Resid 0.1818 1 14.0
FS-05B-33 Shale Resid 0.2490 2 42.6
FS-05B-42 I/M Resid 0.2370 2 51.2
FS-05B-43 I/M Resid 0.2047 1 46.3
*Primary zone conditions: 1 equivalence ratio near minimum of NO,
bucket (about 1.3)
2 equivalence ratio above 1.3 (an overly rich
condition)
The smoke number for the Indo/Malaysian residual near the NO, "bucket" is significantly
higher than that recorded for either the shale residual or the SRC II (see table on page 16)
which again could be due to atomization differences.
No significant change in the operating characteristics of Scheme FS-05B\,were noted
while firing the shale and Indonesian/Malaysian residual fuels, except for an increase in liner
temperature which is described in Subsection 2.3.4. Inspection of the combustor liner following
this series of tests revealed no build-up of carbon deposits or regions of distress; however, there
was further deterioration of the flamespray coating on the interior surface of the primary liner.
The premix tube exhibited light deposits of carbon and a varnish type material (see Figure 31)
after operating on the two residuals, but less than the build-up noted after operating on SRC
II middle distillate (see Figure 28). The deposits in Figure 31 were present after operating
about 4.1 hr on the shale residual and about 1.0 hr on the Indo/Malaysian residual separated
by a one hour run with No. 2 fuel all at 100 psia rig pressure.
45
-------
Figure 31. Condition of Premix Tube Swirler and Premixing Passage Following
Tests With the Residual Fuels
46
-------
2.3.2 Emission and Performance Rig Testing of Scheme FS-07A (Nonpremixed Fuel
Injection)
It was anticipated (and found to be the case) that operation of the premix tube on the
synthetic and residual test fuels could lead to the formation of deposits on the swirl vanes. It
was also a concern that by varying the airflow through the premix tube from maximum to
minimum (which is necessary for maintaining good emissions from high power to idle
conditions for these fuels), velocities within the premixing passage are decreased by a factor of
about two. This decrease in velocity would effect not only atomization of the fuel (see
Table III) but also the potential for flashback would be increased. In an effort to eliminate the
potentially serious swirl vane depositions and to provide a fuel preparation device in which
velocity changes would not impact atomization, degree of fuel preparation, or the potential for
flashback, a nonpremixed arrangement (shown in Figure 6) was designed. It was reasoned that
through the use of a boost air nozzle and from the results of a previous experimental program
at P&WA (described in Section 2.1.2), reasonably good fuel preparation could be expected
from this device.
A Sonicore model 281T boost-air nozzle fitted in a swirler, which was recessed about
three inches from the primary combustion volume, was mounted on the FRT combustor thus
comprising scheme FS-07A. In previous atmospheric combustion tests of this fuel preparation
device (conducted under a different program), it was observed that a small ring of flame was
stabilized within the recirculation zone in the swirl cup. This flame, while tending to increase
fuel droplet vaporization and perhaps improve emissions, could tend to produce additional
smoke from locally over rich combustion.
No. 2 fuel was first tested in scheme FS-07A. The Indonesian/Malaysian residual and the
SRC II were also fired. As with the testing of scheme FS-05B, the No. 2 fuel and the SRC II
were not heated, while the temperature of the Indo/Malaysian was elevated to about 180° F by
electrical heaters in the supply tank.
2.3.2.1 Emission and Operating Characteristics With No. 2 Fuel
Tests of the RBQQ combustor with a nonpremixed fuel preparation device (Scheme
FS-07A, shown in Figure 13) were conducted at 100 psia and 600°F rig inlet conditions firing
No. 2 fuel. Exhaust emission data are presented in Figure 32.
In comparing the results of FS-07A (Figure 32) with FS-05B (shown as a dashed line on
Figure 32) operating on No. 2 fuel, it can be seen that the minimum NO, recorded is nearly the
same in both cases (about 43 ppmv, corrected to 15% 02). The flat portion of the curve (which
begins at a primary zone equivalence ratio of about 1.3) appears at about the same equivalence
ratio which implies that the primary airflow, and likewise residence times are comparable for
the two schemes. The peak in the NO, concentration data is vastly different: about 120 ppmv
(corrected to 15% O2) for the nonpremixed configuration, Scheme FS-07A; and about 372
ppmv (corrected to 15%) 02) using the premix tube, Scheme FS-05B. Since atomization was
predicted to be about the same (see Subsection 2.1.2) the difference must be accounted for by
the degree of fuel preparation provided by each device. In Figure 33, data are shown in which
the supply pressure to the boost air nozzle was varied. It can be seen in this figure that as the
boost air pressure and subsequently the boost air pressure ratio (BAPR) is increased, the NO,
concentration declines while the CO increases. This has been shown to be indicative of the
degree of fuel preparation. Improved fuel preparation, in this case caused by increased BAPR,
results in lower NO, emissions.
47
-------
Emissions - ppmv (Corrected to 15% 02)
-L -L ro ro co
en O en o en O
D O O O O O O
CO From !
FS-05B
on No. 2
I
1
1
1 Te
i 1
v~
1
1
1
1
1
1
EX i
M
' it
scheme
Fuel
§NC
CC
UH
ist No. FS-07A
OOpsia,600°F
Mox From Set
on No. 2 Fue
^
^
'x
l
C
i-1 Thru11_
leme FS-05B
1
0.1 0.2 0.3
Equivalence Ratio
0.4
Figure 32. Emission Signature of Scheme FS-07A Firing No. 2 Fuel
CO concentration data for Scheme FS-07A is somewhat higher than for Scheme FS-05B.
This result is not fully understood since it was expected that the nonpremixed configuration
(FS-07A) would have lower CO than the premixed configuration. Most data points with
FS-07A were at an inlet temperature of nearly 620° F while the temperature for FS-05B was
about 610°F. This in conjunction with a minor change in airflow distribution (predicted in the
scheme definition sheets, Figures 15 and 16) could account for the 20 ppmv difference in CO
concentrations.
48
-------
150
Equivalenpe Ratio
Figure 33. Effect of Boost Air Pressure Ratio (BAPR) on NO* and CO
Emissions of Scheme FS-07A
2.3.2.2 Emission and Operating Characteristics With Alternative Fuels
A limited number of data points were taken with Scheme FS-07A firing the Indo-
nesian/Malaysian residual and SRC II middle distillate fuel to define the bottom of the NO,
"bucket" for each. Test conditions were again 100 psia and 600° F at the rig inlet. The exhaust
emission data for the Indo/Malaysian residual and the SRC II are presented in Figures 34 and
35, respectively.
CO data for the two alternative fuels are nearly identical and correspond quite closely to
that of No. 2 fuel. Again this data is higher than that obtained for the same fuels when fired in
Scheme FS-05B.
The minimum NO, concentration levels attained with this nonpremixed configuration of
the combustor when firing the Indo/Malaysian and SRC II fuels were lower than those
attained with the premixed configuration (Scheme FS-05B). Minimum NO, levels recorded
were 56 ppmv for the Indo/Malaysian residual and 80 ppmv for the SRC II middle distillate,
compared to 67 ppmv and 93 ppmv obtained with Scheme FS-05B for the same two fuels,
respectively (all values corrected to 15% 02).
49
-------
300
250
CM
O
*- 200
o .
*-
S
t3
£
I 15°
>
E
Q.
Q.
£ 100
E
LLJ
50
NOX
CO
UHC
Test No: FS-07A-12 Thru 14
100 psia, 600° F
0.1 0.2 0.3
Equivalence Ratio
0.4
Figure 34. Emission Signature of Scheme FS-07A Firing Indonesian/
Malaysian Residual
By making the same assumptions as previously stated, approximate conversion rates of
fuel-bound nitrogen to NO, were calculated. A summary of the conversion rates follows:
Fuel
SRC II
(0.95% N)
Shale Resid
(0.46% N)
Indo/Malay. Resid
(0.24% N)
Scheme
FS-05B
12%
12%
24%
Scheme Complete Conversion of
FS-07A Fuel N to M), (15% O2)
9%
Not Tested
15%
424 ppmv
185 ppmv
102 ppmv
50
-------
CM
o
300
250
CO
UHC
Test No. FS-07A-15 Thru 17
100 psia, 600°
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Equivalence Ratio
Figure 35. Emission Signature of Scheme FS-07A Firing SRC II Middle
Distillate
It was postulated that the reasons for the lower levels of NO, attained with the
nonpremixed configuration of the FRT combustor over those attained with the premixed
configuration were:
1. Improved atomization of the heavier fuels by the additional atomizing
energy supplied by the boost-air nozzle;
2. Improved atomization would result in more rapid vaporization of the fuel
droplets which would evolve the bound nitrogen earlier in the combustion
process. This in turn would allow more time for NO, reducing reactions to
occur.
51
-------
Smoke data were also taken for combustor scheme FS-07A. A summary of the SAE
smoke numbers obtained for this version of the FRT combustor as well as for scheme FS-05B
for reference is as follows:
Fuel
No. 2 Fuel
SRC II
Middle
Distillate
Shale Resid.
Indo/Malaysian
Resid.
Combustor
Configuration
Premixed
Nonpremixed
Premixed
Nonpremixed
Premixed
Nonpremixed
Premixed
Nonpremixed
Test No.
FS-05B-36
FS-07A-1
FS-07A-6
FS-07A-11
FS-05B-22
FS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
FS-07A-16
FS-05B-32
FS-05B-33
FS-05B-42
FS-05B-43
FS-07A-14
Equivalence
Ratio
0.1265
0.1354
0.2629
0.1988
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
0.2190
0.1818
0.2490
0.2370
0.2047
0.1949
Approximate
Primary Zone
Condition*
3
2
1
1
2
3
SAE
Smoke No.
(ARP 1179)
1.8
0.7
43.5
13.9
9.9
44.9
1.6
31.0
14.0
42.6
Not tested
51.2
46.3
23.2
* 1 primary equivalence ratio near the bottom of the NO, bucket
2 primary equivalence ratio overly fuel rich
3 lean primary equivalence ratio
In reviewing the smoke data obtained, there was some indication that more smoke was
formed by the nonpremixed configuration compared to the premixed configuration as
evidenced by the SRC II data (9.9 for the premixed case versus 31.0 for the nonpremixed).
There also appears to be some indication that the premixed configuration formed more smoke
when operated on fuels which were insufficiently atomized by the premix tube as seen in the
Indo/Malaysian smoke data (23.2 for the nonpremixed configuration versus 46.3 for the
premixed configuration). However, the smoke data are inconclusive, except for the expected
observation that the smoke formed was generally well below the acceptable level (a smoke
number of about 20 is usually considered the visible threshold) until the primary zone
equivalence ratio exceeded the design point optimum (about 1.3) by a wide margin, and
became overly fuel rich.
The operating characteristics of scheme FS-07A remained nearly the same as scheme
FS-05B. A slight change in the flow distribution was noted for this scheme due to minor
differences in the flow characteristics of the nonpremixed fuel preparation device compared to
the premix tube. Inspection of the combustor primary zone liner again revealed further
degeneration of the flamespray coating on the interior surface; however, there were no regions
of distress or areas of carbon deposits evident (see Figure 36).
52
-------
Figure 36. Condition of Interior Surface of Primary Liner Following Tests
Through Scheme FS-07A
53
-------
As seen in Figure 37, the fuel preparation device exhibited minor deposits of carbon on
the swirl vanes, on the nozzle shroud, and on the wall of the swirl cup. It was discovered at the
conclusion of testing this configuration that a very small fuel leak existed in the fuel manifold
which would account for the deposits on the swirl vanes (both upstream and downstream
sides). The deposits shown in Figure 37 were present after an operating period of about 1.8 hr
on No. 2 distillate, about 0.4 hr on Indonesian/Malaysian residual oil, and about 0.4 hr on SRC
II middle distillate fuel at 100 psia with a subsequent shutdown on the SRC II.
Figure 37. Condition of Nonpremixed Fuel Preparation Following Tests With
Residual and SRC II Fuels
54
-------
2.3.3 Exit Temperature Profiles
Combustor exit gas stream temperatures were measured using the rig traverse probe.
Thermocouples are provided at nine locations, equally spaced over the circumference of the
annular exit transition piece. In the tests conducted, readings were taken at a fixed radial
position near mid-span. The radial traverse capability of the probe was not used in order to
maximize the run time available for generating basic emission signatures of the combustor
while firing the test fuels.
Exit thermocouple data obtained during operation of the combustor on No. 2 fuel are
presented in Table VII of Appendix A, and in Figures 38 through 41. A strong central peak is
evident in the circumferential profile of the combustor at all operating conditions, with
peak-to-minimum differentials approaching 1600°F at some test points. These results are
generally comparable to those obtained in Phase IV testing for scheme FS-03A at 50 psia rig
pressure, although the gradients obtained for scheme FS-05B appear slightly more severe in
some cases (this difference may result from the use of axially directed final dilution jets in
scheme FS-05B, as opposed to conventional radially directed jets in scheme FS-03A).
Exit temperature data obtained during operation of the combustor on SRC II middle
distillate fuel are presented in Table VII of Appendix A and Figure 42. The circumferential
profiles shown are less well defined than those obtained for No. 2 fuel because of the loss of
several thermocouples on the traverse probe. Based on available data however, the measured
temperature levels and profile gradients appear to be the same for the two fuels.
With continued testing, there was progressive deterioration of the thermocouples on the
exit traverse probe. Readings recorded were often erratic and were considered unreliable.
Examination of the hardware indicated that the straps securing the thermocouples to the body
of the probe had failed, and that most of the thermocouples were lost due to aerodynamic
buffeting.
The thermocouples were refurbished, only to again fail by the same method when testing
was resumed. Two test points were obtained with the shale residual fired in scheme FS-05B.
These data are shown in Figure 43; however, since the probe was not located at the radial
mid-span point, no comparisons could be made.
For the test points where sufficient exit temperature data were available, values of
temperature pattern factor (peak-to-average temperature differentials normalized to overall
temperature rise) were calculated and presented in Table V of Appendix A and Figure 44. The
range of values obtained (0.3 to 0.6), while substantially higher than the generally accepted
target range of 0.2 to 0.3 is slightly lower than the range of values obtained for scheme FS-03A
in Phase IV. As noted in Figure 44, many of the values of TPF reported were computed from
partial temperature data because of the progressive loss of thermocouples on the exit traverse
probe. It should also be noted that the high values of TPF obtained for schemes FS-05A/5B
are consistent with those obtained previously for scheme FS-03A. These high values appear to
be the result of ineffective mixing in the aft dilution section of the combustor. Because of
high-velocity flow in the center of the passage, it is not unexpected that penetration and
mixing in this section may be ineffective. Alternative designs for the aft dilution section,
employing perhaps mainstream swirl, or a second quick-quench style mixing section, may
ultimately be required if a substantial reduction in pattern factor is sought for industrial gas
turbines requiring a retrofittable in-line combustor design.
55
-------
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200
800
400
Temperatures for Runs
FS-05A-1 to 4
(Ascending Temp Levels)
4 6
Circumferential Position
Figure 38. Exit Temperature Profiles (Probe at Mid-Span)
56
-------
2800
Temperatures for Runs
FS-05B-1 to 4
(Ascending Temp Levels)
400
4 6
Circumferential Position
Figure 39. Exit Temperature Profiles (Probe at Mid-Span)
57
-------
2800
0 Temperatures for Runs
FS-05B-5 to 9
(Ascending Temp Levels)
2400
2000
1600
1200
800
400
4 6
Circumferential Position
10
Figure 40. Exit Temperature Profiles (Probe at Mid-Span)
58
-------
2800
O Temperatures for Runs
FS-05B-10to15
(Ascending Temp Levels)
2400
2000
1600
1200
800
400
EQR
0.2858
0.2724
0.2359
0.2116
0.2021
4 6
Circumferential Position
Figure 41. Exit Temperature Profiles (Probe at Mid-Span)
59
-------
2800
2400
2000
LL
o
1600
1200
800
400
O Temperatures for Runs
FS-05B-16to18
(Ascending Temp Levels)
100psia
SRC II Middle Distillate
4 6
Circumferential Position
Figure 42. Exit Temperature Profiles (Probe at Mid-Span)
60
-------
2800
2400
I I
Test No. FS-05B-32 and 33
2000
1600
1200
800
0.1818
400
[} 2 4 6 8
Circumferential Position
Figure 43. Exit Temperature Profile of Scheme FS-05B Firing Shale Residual
(Probe Off Midspan)
10
61
-------
0.8
l_
o
o
CO
£ 0.6
X.
.2
(X
2?
Temperatl
0
*w
0.2
n
(Runs
M
FS-04A-1 to <
and FS-05B-
50 psia
430° F
No. 2F
A,
^\D
^j3
\ i
MA
\ ^V-^
^-
Flagc
uel
\&\
1 to 9)
"**^^ \ Scheme
\ FS-05B
//
^
Scheme FS-OJ
enotes reduc
IA
ed
complement of exit T/C's
1
i_
o
o
CO
LL
C
"55
Q.
CD
Temperatl
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.2
0
(R
O No. 2
£ SRC
uns FS-05B-1
Scheme
100 psia
610°F
&
-+-
Fuel
II Middle Dist
Flagc
com
0 to FS-05B-1
FS-05B
&
4
illate
enotes reduc
olement of exi
9)
&
3d
t T/C'S
0.3 0.4 0
Overall Equivalence Ratio
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Figure 44. Variation in Temperature Pattern Factor With Overall Equivalence Ratio for Tests Conducted With
Schemes FS-05A and FS-05B
-------
2.3.4 Liner Heat Transfer Characteristics
The increased radiation associated with burning synthetic and residual fuels (due to
higher carbon content in relation to hydrogen content) can be expected to cause an increase in
the heat transmitted to the combustor liner. The carbon content, hydrogen content, and the
carbon to hydrogen mass ratio (which is an indication of the molecular make-up of the fuel) of
the four test fuels are:
Fuel
No. 2 Fuel
Shale Resid
Indo/Malaysian Resid
SRC II Middle Distillate
Carbon
Content
(% wt)
86.763
86.710
86.530
85.770
Hydrogen
Content
(% wt)
13.272
12.760
11.930
9.200
Carbon/
Hydrogen
Ratio
(by wt)
6.537
6.795
7.253
9.323
Hydrogen/Carbon
Molar Ratio
1.823
1.754
1.643
1.278
The fuels are listed in order of increasing carbon/hydrogen ratio which is the order of expected
increasing combustion radiation if the conditions of combustion are equal. To establish
baseline values of the liner heat load, and to determine the variation in heat load with fuel
type, extensive instrumentation was added to the combustor to measure the primary zone
convective cooling airflow, and to document combustor liner metal temperatures in all sections
of the combustor.
Data obtained showing the primary liner convective cooling air temperature rise along
with calculated rates of heat removal are presented in Table VI of Appendix A. Also included
are normalized liner temperature rise data based on measured combustor liner metal tem-
peratures of the primary and secondary zones. Liner temperature readings are given in Table
IV of Appendix A. Combustor liner temperatures were used to compute values of the liner
temperature rise factor (LTRF). This parameter provides a basis of comparison for different
fuels, or for different methods of fuel preparation in terms of average liner temperature rise
(normalized to burner ideal temperature rise). Although values of LTRF can be expected to
vary in magnitude with the number and placement of thermocouples, with the movement of
the flamefront within the combustor, and perhaps with other factors, it remains a useful
indicator of the relative change in liner temperatures when identical tests (same combustor
and same operating conditions) are conducted using different fuels or varying degrees of fuel
preparation. Liner temperature rise factor is defined by equation 3.
LTRF =-
(TL
TTIN)
AT,,
(3)
where:
1 LAVG
T
1TIN
A I IDEAL
= average liner temperature from thermocouples °F
= combustor inlet temperature °F
= combustor ideal temperature rise °F
63
-------
LTRF was first calculated using the average of all thermocouples affixed to both the
primary and secondary liner outer surfaces, for the first several sets of test numbers which had
a sufficient number of thermocouples remaining on the primary liner so as not to artificially
weight the average temperature toward the secondary liner temperature. When plotted against
equivalence ratio (the lower curves in Figures 45 and 46) these data exhibit an apparent peak
in LTRF at about 0.15 overall equivalence ratio. Although calculations of LTRF were
performed for the purpose of determining the influence of fuel type on liner temperature, no
significant differences were noted. At 100 psia rig inlet pressure (Figure 46) there was some
apparent scatter in the data for SRC II, however, no clear increase in liner temperature can be
claimed when compared to No. 2 fuel data. While half of the SRC II data points lie above the
curve, the other half are reasonably close to the line. The highest value of LTRF computed
(for SRC II at an overall equivalence ratio of about 0.137) is believed to be in error. This point
(which was recorded at a relatively low overall equivalence ratio setting) was taken immediate-
ly following a high equivalence ratio point. It apears that insufficient time was allowed for
complete liner thermal response and stabilization to occur.
In an attempt to isolate the influence of fuel type on primary liner temperature, LTRF
was recalculated using only the primary liner thermocouples for determining the average liner
temperature (again for only those test numbers where a sufficient number of thermocouples
remained on the primary liner). The results of these calculations appear as the upper curves in
Figures 45 and 46. The characteristics exhibited are similar to those obtained for the overall
LTRF except that the levels are generally higher. Upon further examination of the data, it
appears that the final points taken on SRC II show an increase in LTRF over the trends of the
earlier points. This result may indicate a change in the heat transfer characteristics of the
combustor liner. It has been postulated that the flamespray coating on the interior liner
surface may have deteriorated and caused an increase in the surface emissivity along with a
corresponding increase in liner temperature.
While LTRF may be computed based on the reading of only one or two thermocouples, a
parameter based on only a few readings would not represent the thermal condition of the
entire liner, and would tend to exhibit excessive data scatter. Since nearly all the
thermocouples on the primary zone liner were lost only part way through the test program, the
LTRF calculated for the primary liner and also for the entire liner were considered unreliable
for comparison purposes after Test No. FS-05B-22. For this reason, LTRF based on the
average of the secondary zone liner thermocouples (LTRFS) was used in comparing all the
data obtained in Phase VI testing.
LTRFS was plotted against equivalence ratio for scheme FS-05B, the premixed con-
figuration of the RBQQ combustor, and is shown for the various test fuels in Figure 47.
LTRFS data for scheme FS-07A, the nonpremixed configuration, is presented in Figure 48
with a dashed line representing No. 2 fuel data of scheme FS-05A shown as a reference. It is
interesting to note the shape of all the curves in these two figures. LTRF of the secondary liner
remains about constant until an equivalence ratio of about 0.2 was reached. At this point
LTRFS began to rise quite rapidly followed by a leveling off. This effect can be interpreted as
the growth of the flamefront into the secondary, or the point at which the stoichiometry within
the secondary zone allows stabilization of flame. When this occurs, radiation from the flame
established in the secondary zone begins to have a significant contribution to the heat load on
the secondary liner. This is also consistent with the CO emission signature, since CO
consumption (decline in the curve) begins at about 0.17 equivalence ratio (EQR) and is well
established by 0.2 EQR.
64
-------
O -Primary
- Overall
Open = FS-05B
Crossed = FS-05A
0.08
0.12
0.16 0.20. 0.24
Overall Equivalence Ratio
0.28
0.32
Figure 45. Liner Temperature Rise Factor as a Function of Equivalence Ratio
at 50 psia Firing No. 2 Fuel
65
-------
Q - Primary
- Overall
Open = No. 2 Fuel
Shaded = SRC II Mid. Dist
0.08
0.12
0.16 0.20 0.24
Overall Equivalence Ratio
0.28
0.32
Figure 46. Liner Temperature Rise Factor as a Function of Equivalence Ratio
at 100 psia
66
-------
CO
LL
cc
03
VJ.O
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
O No. 2 Fuel
<3> Indo/Malaysian Residual
% SRC II Middle Distillate
AA
/J5^
.** **""""
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.
0.5
0.4
0.3
CO
u.
oc
0.2
0.1
No. 2 Fuel
Shale Residual
Indo/Malaysian Residual
SRC 11 Middle Distillate
0.1
Equivalence Ratio
0.2 0.3
Equivalence Ratio
0.4
0.5
Figure 47. Effect of Equivalence Ratio and Fuel Type on
Secondary Zone Liner Temperature Rise Factor
for Scheme FS-05B
Figure 48. Effect of Equiualence Ratio and Fuel Type on
Secondary Zone Liner Temperature Rise Factor
for Scheme FS-07A at 100 psia
-------
In examining the data for the nonpremixed combustor (scheme FS-07A), shown in
Figure 48, it was evident that the secondary liner experienced a higher temperature rise when
the Indo/Malaysian residual or the SRC II was fired than when operating on No. 2 fuel (once
flame was established in the secondary zone). There also appears to be consistency between
the carbon/hydrogen ratio of the fuel used and the corresponding liner temperature rise. The
level of the No. 2 fuel LTRFS for scheme FS-07A is somewhat higher than that generated by
scheme FS-05B. The difference is attributed to the degree of fuel preparation. From LTRFS
alone it was concluded that the premix tube functioned better than the nonpremixed fuel
preparation device on No. 2 fuel.
In examining Figure 47, it can be seen that all the synthetic and residual fuels tested
caused an increased LTRFS over that of No. 2 fuel (once flame was established in the
secondary zone), although the levels are less distinct than those in Figure 48. This lack of
distinction may be attributable to the differences in fuel preparation provided by the premix
tube. The degree of fuel preparation of the nonpremixed configuration was more nearly
constant for the various fuels (see Table III). Knowledge of this fact implies that the degree of
fuel preparation provided by the premix tube may be nearly the same as that provided by the
nonpremixed configuration (by looking only at the effect on LTRFS) for SRC II and the
Indo/Malaysian residual, since the levels of LTRFS are nearly the same. Another item of
interest in Figure 47 is that curves for the two residual fuels exhibit a rapid increase in LTRFS
at a lower equivalence ratio. This effect may be due to the higher viscosities of the residual
fuels, which cause larger fuel droplets, resulting in an extension of the flamefront into the
secondary zone.
For the test numbers where a sufficient number of thermocouples on the primary zone
liner were present to allow calculation of an average temperature representative of the actual
liner temperature, a convective heat transfer balance for the primary liner was performed
using the average primary liner temperatures and the measured quick quench air (primary
liner cooling air) temperature rise. The heat removed from the primary liner by convection was
calculated using equation 4 and the heat added to the quick quench air was calculated with
equation 5.
QuN ~ nc A (1 LIN.PRIMARY A COOL) (4)
QQA = WASEC * Cp * (Tw - TIN) (5)
where:
QLIN = heat removed from primary liner Btu/hr
QQA = heat added to quench air Btu/hr
TLIN.PR,MARY = measured average primary liner temperature °F
TQQ = quick quench air temperature °F
TIN = combustor inlet temperature °F
TCOOL = average liner cooling gas temperature = (TQQ + TIN)/2 °F
Cp = specific heat of air at TCOOL Btu/lb °F
WASEC = measured liner cooling flowrate Ib/hr
A = approximate primary liner surface area = 4.694 ft2
hc = convective heat transfer coefficient = Btu/hr-ft2 °F
From modeling results obtained previously in Phase III, the heat transfer coefficient
hc was estimated to be 225.7 Btu/hr-ft2-°F for 100 psia operation, and 143.3 Btu/hr-ft2-°F for
50 psia operation. Ideally, the heat removed from the primary liner should be equal to the heat
added to the quench air, neglecting losses and assuming that the heat transfered from the
primary liner to the shroud by radiation will be added back to the quench air by convection.
Figure 49 shows the data in relation to the ideal heat balance line.
68
-------
1400
1200
1000
1 800
o
o>
0
"S 600
0)
I
400
200
O 100 psia
050 psia
Open - No. 2 Fuel
Shaded - SRC II Mid Dist
O
0
200 400 600 800
Heat Removed from Primary Liner -
1000
103 Btu
hr
1200
1400
Figure 49. Primary Liner Convectiue Heat Transfer Balance
69
-------
The heat removed from the primary zone liner and added to the quick quench air
(defined by equation 5) was based on the temperature rise of the quench air. This parameter,
called HREMV in Appendix A is plotted against equivalence ratio for schemes FS-05B, and
FS-07A and shown in Figures 50 and 51, respectively. In examining these figures, it can be
seen that the same trends of the effects of fuel type and degree of preparation on liner
temperature (seen here by the resulting heat added to the primary zone convective cooling
airflow) are evident as were previously described for the LTRFS curves. This result em-
phasizes the point that the carbon/hydrogen ratio of the fuel, and the degree of fuel
preparation can have an important effect on the temperature of the combustor liner at any
given operating condition. It can be noted that the peak and decline in each of the curves
shown in Figures 50 and 51 probably coincide with the growth of the flamefront as it begins to
extend from the primary into the secondary zone.
400
CM
CD
LLI
CC
300
200
100
O No. 2 Fuel
O Shale Residual
0 Indo/Malaysian Residual
|| SRC 11 Middle Distillate
100 psia, 600° F Test Conditions
0.1 0.2
Equivalence Ratio
0.3
Figure 50. Variation in Heat Removed from the Primary Zone Liner by the
Convective Cooling Airflow With Equivalence Ratio for Scheme
FS-05B Firing Various Test Fuels
70
-------
400
CM
fc
tL
^»
£
1
cc
1
300
200
100
O No. 2 Fuel
0 Indo/Malaysian Residual
A SRC II Middle Distillate
100 psia, 600° F Test Conditions
\
Scheme FS-05B, No. 2 Fuel
Scheme FS-05B, SRC II
Scheme FS-05B, Indo/Malaysian
I I
0.1 0.2
Equivalence Ratio
0.3
Figure 51. Variation in Heat Removed from the Primary Zone Liner by the
Conuectiue Cooling Airflow With Equivalence Ratio for Scheme
FS-07A Firing Various Test Fuels
2.4 HIGH TEMPERATURE RISE OPERATION
The FRT combustor was converted to the high temperature rise version, scheme FS-08A,
by the addition of the modified quench zone collar which blocked the axial dilution air holes in
the secondary zone. This configuration of the combustor was operated at a reduced airflow rate
because of the elimination of the final dilution air holes. Primary and quick quench airflow
rates were designed to remain the same as the other combustor schemes. The target exit
temperature was 2600°F.
Tests of scheme FS-08A were conducted firing No. 2 distillate fuel under various rig inlet
conditions. The following subsections describe the emission and performance characteristics of
this version of the RBQQ combustor.
71
-------
2.4.1 Emission and Operating Characteristics of Scheme FS-08A
Tests of the FRT combustor modified to a high temperature rise configuration were
conducted firing No. 2 distillate under various rig inlet conditions. At 100 psia and 575°F inlet
conditions, a basic emission signature was generated. The exhaust emission data are presented in
Figure 52. From this figure, a peak NO, concentration level of 134 ppmv (corrected to 15'"r 02) was
recorded at an overall equivalence ratio of 0.2145. This level was comparable to that recorded
with scheme FS-07A which used the same nonpremixed fuel preparation device. It can also be
observed that a NOX concentration value of 45 ppmv (corrected to 15^ O2) was attained at the
bottom of the "bucket" which was comparable to the NOX achieved with all other configurations
firing No. 2 distillate at the same rig inlet conditions.
300
CM
O
T3
0)
"o
CD
o
a
a.
a.
i
CO
O
'55
co
1
ill
250
o 200
150
Test No. FS-08A-1 Thru 15
100 psia, 575° F
100
Figure 52. Emission Signature for Scheme FS-08A Firing No. 2 Fuel
It was initially thought that the NOX level attained hy this scheme may he higher without
the NOX reducing effect of the axially directed final dilution air jets, since these air jets were
blocked. However, as just mentioned, the NOX levels observed were nearly the same. It was
postulated that while the placement of the final dilution air holes has an effect, on the thermal
NO, formation in the secondary zone, the removal of the final dilution airflow entirely could
result in the elimination of the NO, forming potential of diffusion burning between the products
from the quench zone and the final dilution jets. Also of note, in examining the flow distribution
72
-------
data (Table V, Appendix A), it was observed that the comhinaiion of the approximate primary
zone airflow and the measured cooling passage (quick quench) airflow only comprised ahout 80'V
of the total measured airflow. Ideally, the sum of these two airflows should come within about
90
-------
This relationship has been shown to be accurate for correcting NO, over relatively small
changes in operating conditions under lean diffusion burning with minor differences in fuel
droplet size. Droplet size of the preheater fuel was expected to be nearly the same at the 100 psia
conditions as at the 50 psia conditions because the preheater fuel flow and pressure drop were
about the same under both conditions. While the temperature and pressure differences are
significant, the correction to NO, is believed to be appropriate in light of the extremely fuel lean
operating conditions of the preheater. By applying the relationship, a value of preheater NO, of
22.4 ppmv was computed, and this estimated value was used in the correction of the 100 psia
data.
The emission data for the 100 psia and 800°F (vitiated) rig inlet conditions are shown in
Figure 53. A minimum NO, concentration of 38 ppmv1 (corrected to 15^r 02) was recorded. The
slight reduction in NO, (38 ppmv versus 45 ppmv) with increased inlet temperature was
unexpected. Normally an increase in NO, is observed as inlet temperature rises.
OUU
250
'cvi
O
IS 200
*->
O
CD
£
0 150
1
a
a.
S 100
CO
CO
E
OJ
50
0
C
1
^c
est No. FS-0(
O
3A-16Thru20
1 00 psia, 800° F (Vitiated)
[D
"
H_
) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.
Equivalence Ratio
Figure 53. Emission Signature of Scheme FS-08A Firing No. 2 Fuel at High
(Vitiated) Inlet Conditions
1 For vitiated rig conditions, NO, produced by the preheater was first subtracted from the total measured NO. and then
the 15% 02 correction was applied through the use of the combustor equivalence ratio.
74
-------
Several factors are thought to have contributed to the observed reduction of NO, with the
increased inlet temperature.
1. Higher inlet humidity from combustion in the preheater could reduce NO,
by influencing temperature rise. This effect is explained further later in this
section.
2. It was postulated that with the absence of secondary dilution airflow in this
configuration, the thermal NO, formed by the diffusion interaction of quench
zone discharge products and final dilution air may have been eliminated.
This would result in a reduction in NO, production sensitivity to inlet
temperature by reducing the number of regions where thermal NO, could be
formed.
3. It was also postulated that increased turbulence in the primary zone and a
more effective quenching process may have been a factor. This configuration
was inadvertently operated at a higher pressure loss (8 to 9'';) than desired (5
to 6rr) because of the loss of a readout in the control room.
All CO concentration data measured at the 100 psia and 800°F rig inlet conditions of the
order of 10 ppmv2 (corrected to 15r; 02) and lower. This result was expected because oxidation
reaction rates are increased by the presence of 800°F inlet temperature and high operating
equivalence ratios in the secondary zone.
The rig inlet pressure was subsequently decreased to 50 psia while maintaining the inlet
temperature at 800°F by the preheater. Three data points were taken to define the NO, "bucket."
The emission data are presented in Figure 54. A minimum NOX concentration of HI ppmv
(corrected to 15fV 02) was achieved. In Phase II bench scale testing NO, production for rich
burning had been shown to be independent of pressure. However, -since the nonpremixed fuel
preparation device allows some burning to take place in the recirculation /one of the swirl cup
before being discharged into the primary /.one. it is expected that some of the NOX generated by
the diffusion burning process taking place in this region will he affected by pressure (generally
accepted to be proportional to the square root of the ratio of pressures). In examining the data in
Table I of Appendix A, it is observed that the boost air pressure ratio (BAPRl was somewhat
higher for the 50 psia points than for the 100 psia points (2.4 versus 2.1. for the same inlet
pressures, respectively). This means that the noz/.le boost nitrogen flow rate would comprise a
higher percentage of the primary airflow at 50 psia than at 100 psia. This slight additional
percentage of nitrogen would serve to dilute the species within the primary combustion volume
and would affect kinetic reaction rates and. possibly, the production of NO,. It is perhaps the
combination of these factors (and possibly others) that explain the observed reduction in NO, at
the lower inlet pressure.
CO concentrations measured were very low. reaching a minimum of about 7 ppmv
(corrected to 15 02). Again, high inlet temperature and high secondary equivalence ratios
account for the low CO concentration levels.
'This data includes the CO produced by the preheater which is also oxidized in the RBQQ combustnr.
75
-------
Inlet humidity was artifically elevated by injecting water through a hank of atomizing
nozzles just downstream of the preheater for the last two data points of this test series. The rig
inlet pressure and temperature were maintained at 50 psia and 800°F, respectively. The emission
data are presented in Figure 54 which also shows the data from the previous 50 psia, 800°F
conditions. Note that the specific humidity was increased from about 2A°'r (including vitiation)
to about 4.5% by the water injection. It can be seen that the increased humidity had no effect on
the CO emissions, while NOX was reduced about 4 ppmv (corrected to 15^ O2). The effect is
believed to reflect the increased heat capacity of the air (due to the addition of water) which
lowers combustion temperatures, particularly in the second zone where thermal NO, formation
mav occur.
300
250
'cvi
O
&>
*- 200
o
4-1
CD
r
o 15°
1
Q.
Q.
i
c 100
o
-------
Figure 55. Condition of the Interior Surface of the Primary Liner at the
Conclusion of the Test Program (Aft Looking Forward)
77
-------
Figure 56. Condition of the Secondary Zone Liner Following Tests of Scheme
FS-08A
78
-------
Figure 57. Condition of the Nonpremixed Fuel Preparation Device After
Operation of Scheme FS-8A on No. 2 Distillate Fuel
79
-------
2.4.2 Exit Temperature Profiles
Insufficient exit temperature data were recorded to compute pattern factor data for the
high temperature rise configuration of combustor. The thermocouples damaged on the exit
traverse probe in previous testing were not replaced in time for the test series.
It was expected that the exit temperature pattern of the high temperature rise configuration
would have been greatly improved over that of schemes FS-05A/B and FS-07A, because of the
absence of the final dilution air which was ineffectively mixed at the combustor exit of the other
configurations. Because the quick quench zone is considered an effective mixer, the temperature
pattern in the gas stream discharged from the quench zone is thought to be nearly uniform.
However, the high velocity jet exiting the quench zone most likely would not spread entirely to
produce a uniform velocity gradient by the combustor exit plane. This would mean that even
though the temperature of the quench zone jet was nearly uniform, there could exist a large
enthalpy gradient across the combustor exit plane due to nonuniform mass flow. It should be
emphasized that because of the high-velocity flow in the renter of passage, alternative designs for
the secondary zone need to be considered, perhaps employing mainstream swirl or a rectangular
or semi-annular quench zone and secondary liner extending to the turbine inlet, if improved
turbine inlet profiles are sought.
2.4.3 Liner Heat Transfer Characteristics
The liner temperature rise factor for the secondary zone liner, LTRFS, was computed for
the data of scheme FS-08A. In Figure 58 the LTRFS data are plotted against corresponding
equivalence ratios. As expected with the high temperature rise configuration (which has no
dilution flow injected along the walls of the secondary liner), the level of LTRFS was much
higher than with schemes FS-05A/B and FS-07A. The general result, however, was much the
same in that the LTRFS plot exhibits the same general trends as that of the other two
schemes. The 800°F inlet temperature resulted in a lowering of LTRFS compared to the 575°F
inlet temperature, probably due to the increased heat capacity of the air caused by the higher
humidity from vitiation. The data obtained at 50 psia rig inlet pressure are generally at a lower
level of LTRFS as expected; however, there was increased scatter and the effect of water
injection (which was expected to lower LTRFS) was not well defined.
The heat removed from the primary zone liner and added to the quick quench air (HREMV)
was plotted against overall equivalence ratio for scheme FS-08A, and these data are presented in
Figure 59. The same comments just mentioned for LTRFS apply here, noting that increased
HREMV can be due to either higher liner temperatures or increased heat capacity of the air (due
to increased humidity from vitiation of the airflow or water injection).
With reference to Subsection 2.1.1, the secondary zone liner temperature was predicted to
reach 1890°F during 100 psia rig operation. In reviewing the liner temperature data in Table
IV of Appendix A, the maximum temperatures recorded were about 1450°F. It can be noted
that the predicted wall temperature was determined assuming fully developed turbulent flow
along the interior surface of the aft liner. This assumption was probably not realistic because
of the gas stream leaves the quick quench zone as a high velocity jet, which would not reattach
itself to the liner wall for quite some distance downstream. It can also be noted that the model
assumed a 2600°F exit temperature while the combustor was run to only about 2300°F due to
rig limitations.
80
-------
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
QO
0.1
O 100 psia, 575° F
A 100 psia, 800° F (Vitiated)
D 50 psia, 800° F (Vitiated) -
Q 50 psia, 800° F (Vitiated)
With Elevated Humidity
500
400
300
CO
CO
o
LU
OC
I
200
100
OlOOpsia,595°F
A100 psia, 800° F (Vitiated)
Q 50 psia, 800° F (Vitiated)
Q 50 psia, 800° F (Vitiated)
elevated humidity
I
0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4
Equivalence Ratio
0.5
0.2 0.3
Equivalence Ratio
0.4
0.5
Figure 58. Effects of Equivalence Ratio, Pressure, Tem-
perature and Humidity on Secondary Zone Liner
Temperature Rise Factor Firing No. 2 Fuel in
Scheme FS-08A
Figure 59. Variation in Heat Removed from the Primary
Zone Liner by the Convective Cooling Airflow
With Equivalence Ratio for Scheme FS-08A Firing
No. 2 Fuel at Various Rig Inlet Conditions
-------
At the conclusion of the test program, the primary liner shroud was removed in order to
examine the thermal paint. Figure 60 is a photograph of the primary zone liner showing the
pattern of colors in the thermal paint. It may be noted that the combustor liner temperature was
relatively uniform with the upstream one-quarter of the finned surface being the coolest.
Temperatures of 2000°F and above were seen by the downstream three-quarters of the primary
liner at one time or another during the course of the test program.
82
-------
Figure 60. Primary Zone Liner Postrun Thermal Paint Analysis
83
-------
SECTION 3
PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS
Many potential NO, emission reduction concepts were evaluated in this program through
subscale experimental screening; two concepts were identified as particularly successful. First,
a premixed, fuel-lean combustion concept was shown to meet the program goals for
non-nitrogenous fuels; however, this concept produced unacceptable NO, emmisions when
operated on bound nitrogen fuels. The second concept which emerged from the screening
experimentation as one which would meet the emission goals was a rich burning combustion
concept. This concept, identified as Rich Burn/Quick Quench, was found to be extremely
successful while burning either non-nitrogenous fuels or fuels containing substantial quantities
of chemically bound nitrogen. Because of the ability of this concept to handle bound nitrogen
fuels without compromising operation on clean fuels, it was chosen as the single concept to be
committed to hardware sized to a representative 25 megawatt gas turbine engine.
While fuel-rich combustion concepts are not new, fully successful implementation of the
basic Rich Burn/Quick Quench approach had not been demonstrated prior to this program.
Methods of executing the principal design requirments were the key to the success of this
concept. The critical features of the Rich Burn/Quick Quench concept were identified as the
following:
1. Good fuel preparation The need for fuel to be finely atomized and
reasonably well distributed throught the inlet airstream to the primary
combustion volume.
2. Elimination of nonpremixed airflow All the airflow entering the primary
combustion volume must be premixed with fuel. This implies that no liner
cooling airflow may be discharged into the primary zone, which means
conventional louvered liners may not be used for the primary zone.
3. Rich combustion The equivalence ratio within the primary combustion
volume must be maintained at fuel-rich conditions. The optimum value of
primary zone equivalence ratio was demonstrated to be near 1.3.
4. Sufficient residence time A trade-off was shown to exist between
primary zone residence time and attainable NO, emission concentrations.
This trade-off, however, appears to be asymptotic with increasing resi-
dence time. It is thought that the level of the asymptote (NO,) is a
function of the degree to which each of the critical features of the concept
were executed.
5. Rapid and effective dilution Composition and mixture temperature
must approximate a step change in the transition from fuel-rich conditions
in the primary zone to fuel-lean conditions in the secondary zone. As this
transition is allowed to deviate from a near step, residence time at or near
stoichiometric combustion begins to create much larger quantities of
thermal NO,. It was found that the most effective means of accomplishing
the rapid dilution (quick quench) was by introducing the dilution air into a
high velocity stream of the rich products. This method was found to be
most effective when the mainstream velocity was great enough to incur a
substantial momentum pressure loss due to mass addition. Because other
methods not having this pressure loss were tried with lesser degrees of
84
-------
success, it is hypothesized that this additional pressure loss is transferred '
into more rapid mixing. The means employed in this program to achieve i
the high velocity mainstream flow was to form a constriction in the burner
cross sectional area into which the dilution flow was injected. The reduced
cross section also acts as a region of separation between the zones of rich
and lean combustion. It is also thought that since the reduced area causes
the mainstream flow of rich products to accelerate to high velocity, the
possibility of dilution flow recirculating upstream, forming pockets of
stoichiometric combustion (resulting in high NO, production), is lessened.
6. CO consumption Because large quantities of carbon monoxide are
present in the effluent gases of the primary and quench zones, residence
time and sufficient temperature are necessary in the secondary (lean) zone.
Temperatures in the range of 2100°F to 2800°F are generally considered
adequate for CO oxidation in the residence times typically found in gas
turbine combustors. Outside this range on the low side leaves the potential
for higher CO, while on the high side, the production of thermal
NO, becomes significant. It should be noted that as combustion pressure is
increased, CO concentrations decline. Implicit in the secondary zone tem-
perature requirement is the need to inject final dilution air later in the
secondary zone to lower the temperature of the gases to that required for
admission to the turbine.
The requirement of maintaining a primary zone equivalence ratio near 1.3 implies that a
means of varying the airflow admitted into the rich region must be provided to stage the
primary zone airflow in proportion to the fuel flow. It is possible to operate the combustor on
non-nitrogenous fuels over a limited range of conditions without varying the primary airflow
since the characteristic NO, curve for these fuels remains essentially constant beyond a
primary zone equivalence ratio of 1.3. This non-nitrogenous fuel operating range without
variable geometry is bounded by the smoke formation threshold. Variable geometry is required
for proper operation with nitrogen bearing fuels.
The Rich Burn/Quick Quench combustor concept was successfully transferred from
subscale to a size representative of a typical 25 megawatt gas turbine combustor. Success was
evidenced by the emission trends and levels achieved. While scaling criteria dictate that there
can be no exact and complete correspondence between a prototype combustor and its subscale
model (with regard to physical dimensions, operating conditions, and combustion per-
formance), computer modeling and subscale parametric data were successfully used to execute
the separate full-scale design.
NO, emission levels obtained with the Rich Burn/Quick Quench concept were demon-
strated to be extremely low, and were better than the emission goals specified for the program
by a wide margin. While No. 2 distillate fuel oil (unadulterated and with 0.5% nitrogen) and a
shale derived diesel fuel marine were the principal test fuels used during the Phase II
bench-scale screening experiments, these as well as a middle distillate solvent refined coal,
SRC II (0.95% N); a residual shale oil (0.46% N); and an Indonesian/Malaysian petroleum
residual (0.24% N) were tested during Phases IV and VI in the full-scale conbustors. A low
Btu gas was also tested during the bench-scale program, again with excellent results. A wide
range of operating conditions was spanned during the test program, and variable geometry was
successfully employed to provide low emissions at all operating points. It was also shown in
this program that the Rich Burn/Quick Quench concept essentially eliminates the adverse
effect that increased pressure can have on NO, formation (this effect is very evident in lean
combustion and is ordinarily found to be proportional to the square root of the pressure ratio).
85
-------
A high exit temperature (1600°F design point) version of the full-scale Rich Burn/Quick
Quench combustor was also successfully tested on No. 2 distillate fuel oil. NO, emission results
were found to be essentially identical to the results of the normal temperature rise version.
This result implies that the concept is directly applicable to advanced technology turbine
engines having a high turbine inlet temperature requirement.
In summary, the Rich Burn/Quick Quench combustor concept was demonstrated to yield
excellent emission results on all fuels tested, nitrogen laiden as well as non-nitrogenous. This
concept is the only technique known at this time, wet (addition of water or steam to the
combustion process) or dry (no water), which has demonstrated the ability to burn nitrogenous
fuels containing up to 1 % N while maintaining low NO, emission levels (less than 100 ppmv at
15 <:,: O2).
86
-------
SECTION 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
Several areas remain where further study and testing may be conducted to improve and
refine the Rich Burn/Quick Quench combustion concept and adapt it for application in specific
industrial gas turbine engines.
1. Testing of the prototype combustor should be conducted at full pressure,
full temperature conditions representative of an industrial gas turbine
engine.
2. Further primary zone liner thermo/mechanical analysis should be under-
taken. Studies of candidate liner materials (including nonmetallic alter-
natives) and coatings should be made. Heat transfer analyses of cooling
schemes and cyclic testing at full-pressure full-temperature operating
conditions are also indicated.
3. Improvements in temperature pattern factor should be undertaken for
in-line combustor applications. Alternate methods of the final dilution air
injection, perhaps including a mainstream swirl technique or a second
quick quench zone, should be considered. It is also possible that the quick
quench zone shape can be optimized (possibly rectangular or semi-annular)
to facilitate easier pattern factor tailoring.
4. Methods of optimizing fuel preparation techniques and devices should be
addressed. Fuel atomization and mixing techniques may properly be tailor-
ed for the specific fuels burned.
5. Variable geometry techniques for scheduling the airflow admitted into the
various combustion zones should be proposed and evaluated. Improve-
ments in the methods of staging and control are needed.
6. Studies of the basic processes of the Rich Burn/Quick Quench concept in
areas such as the kinetic processes of rich combustion and the optimization
of quenching effectiveness should be undertaken.
87
-------
REFERENCES
1. Pierce, R. M., Smith, C. E., and Hinton, B. S., "Advanced Combustion Systems for
Stationary Gas Turbine Engines: Volume III. Combustor Verification Testing,"
EPA-600/7-80-017c.
2. "Design and Performance Analysis of Gas Turbine Combustion Chamber Vol. I Theory
and Practice of Design," Northern Research and Engineering Corp., 1964, NREC 1082-1.
3. Pierce, R. M., Smith, C. E., and Hinton, B. S., "Low NO. Combustor Development for
Stationary Gas Turbine Engines," EPA-600/7-79/050C.
4. Lorenzetto, G. E., and Lefebrve, A. H., "Measurements of Drop Size on a Plain-Jet
Airblast Atomizer," AIAA 1976.
5. Barnett, M. C. and Hibbard, R. R., "Properties of Aircraft Fuels," NACA TN 3276, August
1956.
88
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS
The following symbols are used in the test data summaries contained in Table I through
Table VII of Appendix A.
Symbol Definition Units
EQR Combustor overall fuel-air equivalence ratio
determined from metered fuel and air flowrates
(dry)
PTIN Combustor inlet total pressure psia
TTIN Combustor inlet total temperature °F
WA Total combustor airflow rate (wet) pps
LPL Combustor total pressure loss ri>
HUM Inlet air specific humidity Ib H20/lb air
FUEL Fuel type '2' designates No. 2 fuel oil.
'SRC IF designates middle distillate solvent
refined coal
PHIP Primary zone equivalence ratio (dry)
NOX15 NO. concentration corrected to 15% 02 (dry) ppmv
N015 NO concentration corrected to 15% 02 (dry) ppmv
CO15 CO concentration corrected to 15% 02 (dry) ppmv
UHC15 Unburned hydrocarbon concentration corrected ppmv
to 15% 02 (dry)
C02 C02 concentration, uncorrected, as measure (dry) pctv
02 02 concentration, uncorrected, as measured (dry) pctv
CFRAC Carbon balance parameter; total carbon out
divided by total carbon in
EFFGA Combustion efficiency from gas analysis %
measurements
EQRSAM Combustor overall fuel-air equivalence ratio
determined by gas analysis measurements
BST1
through
BST20
Combustor liner temperatures, measured at
locations defined in Figure 3
89
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS (Continued)
Symbol
BSTD1
through
BSTD4
WAPRI
WASEC
TPF
VREF
EFFMB
T
1M1
through
T
iT48
HRRV
HREMV
TTQQ
LTRFP
LTRFS
LTRFavg
LB
AREF
L/D
VOLREF
ACDSUM
AX
ACD
WACUM
PHI
Units
Combustor liner dome temperatures, measured at °F
locations defined in Figure 3
Primary zone airflow rate (wet) pps
Secondary zone (quick-quench) airflow rate (wet) pps
Temperature pattern factor
Primary zone reference velocity (cold) ft/sec
Combustion efficiency from average of exit %
thermocouple data
Combustor exit total temperatures, measured at °F
8 locations on the exit plane traverse probe
Combustor volumetric heat release rate
106 Btu/
hr-ft3-atm
Heat transferred from primary liner to quench air, 103 Btu/
determined from quench air temperature rise hr-ft2
Quick quench air total temperature, measured as °F
quench air enters dilution ports (after liner cooling)
Liner temperature rise factor of primary liner
Liner temperature rise factor of secondary liner
Liner temperature rise factor of combined primary
and secondary liners
Burner length
Reference area
Length to diameter ratio
Reference volume
Total effective flow area
Axial location
Effective flow area
Cumulative airflow
Local equivalence ratio
in.
sq. in.
in
inches
90
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE I. COMBUSTOR OPERATING PARAME-
TER DATA
Test No.
FS-05A-1
FS-05A-2
FS-05A-3
FS-05A-4
FS-05B-1
FS-05B-2
FS-05B-3
FS-05B-4
FS-05B-5
FS-05B-6
FS-05B-7
FS-05B-8
FS-05B-9
FS-05B-10
FS-05B-11
FS-05B-12
FS-05B-13
FS-05B-14
FS-Of.B-15
FS-05B-16
FS-nr,B-17
FS-05B-18
FS-05B-I9
FS-05B-20
FS-05B-21
FS-05B-22
FS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
EQR
(dry)
0.0916
0.1337
0.14:19
0.1788
0.1604
0.1911
0.2377
0.2676
0.2143
0.2405
0.2641
0.1912
0.1564
0.1659
0.2021
0.2116
0.2359
0.2724
0.2858
0.1368
0.1816
0.2157
0.2389
0.1620
0.1954
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
*TI N
50.4
52.2
50.0
51.0
50.1
50.3
50.1
50.6
50.4
50.5
50.3
50.3
50.2
101.0
99.8
99.6
99.8
101.3
99.0
99.8
101.3
100.1
101.8
100.2
101,5
101.3
100.2
101.1
'TIN
436
442
449
453
410
428
427
430
433
433
435
432
431
610
604
608
613
614
616
616
617
620
607
606
615
614
598
606
Wa
(wet)
9.313
9.150
10.067
9.829
9.912
10.011
9.839
9.856
9.834
9.723
9.915
9.936
10.048
17.070
16.388
17.827
17.699
17.397
17.961
16.784
-17.848
17.269
17.695
17.428
17.342
16.975
17.507
17,559
LPV
4.29
4.33
5.40
5.30
6.01
6.14
5.91
5.63
5.87
5.43
5.68
5.84
5.76
4.31
3.79
5.35
5.01
4.62
5.15
4.37
5.09
4.84
4.88
4.82
4.89
4.71
4.62
4.59
Fuel
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
2
2
2
2
2
9
2
2
2
2
2
SRC II
SRC II
SRC II
2
SRC II
SRC II
SRC II
SRC II
SRC II
Hum
0.0180
0.0183
0.0182
0.0183
0.0155
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0164
0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0159
0.0179
0.0179
0.0179
0.0179
0.0179
0.0179
91
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE I. COMBUSTOR OPERATING PARAMETER DATA (Continued)
Test No.
FS-05B-25
FS-05B-26
FS-05B-27
FS-05B-28
FS-05B-29
FS-05B-30
FS-05B-31
FS-05B-32
FS-05B-33
FS-05B-34
FS-05B-35
FS-05B-36
FS-05B-37
FS-05B-38
FS-05B-39
FS-05B-40
FS-05B-41
FS-05B-42
FS-05B-43
FS-07A-1
FS-07A-2
FS-07A-3
FS-07A-4
FS-07A-5
FS-07A-6
FS-07A-7
FS-07A-8
FS-07A-9
FS-07A-10
FS-07A-11
FS-07A-12
FS-07A-13
FS-07A-14
FS-07A-15
FS-07A-16
FS-07A-17
FS-08A-1
FS-08A-2
FS-08A-3
FS-08A-4
FS-08A-5
FS-08A-6
FS-08A-7
FS-08A-8
FS-08A-9
FS-08A-10
FS-08A-11
FS-08A-12
FS-08A-13
FS-08A-14
FS-08A-15
FS-08A-16
FS-08A-17
FS-08A-18
FS-08A-19
FS-08A-20
FS-08A-21
FS-08A-22
FS-08A-23
FS-08A-24
FS-08A-25
EQR
0.1421
0.1616
0.1839
0.2067
0.2366
0.2195
0.2104
0.1818
0.2490
0.2397
0.2230
0.1265
0.1357
0.1343
0.1670
0.2127
0.2495
0.2370
0.2047
0.1354
0.1639
0.1883
0.2073
0.2368
0.2629
0.1977
0.1985
0.1973
0.2007
0.1988
0.2192
0.2457
0.1949
0.1926
0.2190
0.2421
0.1218
0.1440
0.1665
0.1887
0.1914
0.2145
0.2354
0.2612
0.2613
0.2875
0.3150
0.3100
0.3263
0.3532
0.3837
0.2792
0.3198
0.3399
0.3573
0.3802
0.2764
0.3525
0.3914
0.4022
0.3579
* TIN
99.66
100.29
100.51
99.86
99.66
100.03
100.80
99.74
101.12
99.40
100.28
100.58
101.12
100.47
100.86
100.37
100.47
99.13
100.44
99.36
100.50
99.92
99.67
100.31
98.82
99.63
99.93
99.99
99.84
100.14
99.38
99.80
99.72
99.24
100.22
99.55
99.81
100.45
101.14
100.73
99.74
100.33
100.61
100.74
100.55
101.51
101.46
101.02
102.51
101.32
101.68
98.19
99.01
99.41
100.32
100.85
49.42
49.94
50.03
50.38
50.02
TTIH
574
607
612
614
616
617
584
593
615
585
607
610
610
608
612
608
612
612
614
565
609
612
616
618
618
619
619
619
619
620
618
621
620
619
620
621
540
554
558
558
562
564
566
567
571
572
574
572
576
574
576
814
806
808
806
806
799
808
800
795
800
Wa
(wet)
16.952
17.513
17.586
17.799
17.447
17.701
17.721
17.995
17.152
17.489
17.748
17.331
17.361
17.170
17.763
17.322
17.396
17.305
17.201
17.816
17.393
17.466
17.725
17.534
17.619
17.740
17.662
17.774
17.468
17.642
17.670
17.655
17.623
17.706
17.426
17.615
12.519
12.231
12.028
11.669
12.579
12.324
12.195
11.872
12.387
12.280
11.808
12.708
12.744
12.389
12.022
12.530
12.335
12.198
12.235
12.078
6.488
6.231
6.128
6.170
6.261
LPL
4.60
4.86
5.16
5.38
5.26
5.27
4.32
5.18
4.53
4.84
4.40
4.29
4.31
4.83
4.61
4.67
4.94
4.53
5.09
5.17
5.23
5.99
5.43
5.36
5.41
5.49
5.32
5.59
5.48
5.55
5.46
5.51
5.45
5.53
5.87
5.38
5.34
5.49
5.56
6.53
6.52
6.31
6.55
7.08
6.74
6.63
7.63
7.63
7.17
7.09
9.18
8.56
8.35
8.23
7.86
9.57
9.00
8.63
8.48
8.91
Fuel
SRES
SRES
SRES
SRES
SRES
SRES
SRES
SRES
SRES
2
2
2
2
RESD
RESD
RESD
RESD
RESD
RESD
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
RESD
RESD
RESD
SRC II
SRC n
SRC n
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Hum
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0200
0.0189
0.0189
0.0186
0.0186
0.0186
0.0186
0.0186
0.0186
0.0186
0.0186
0.0186
0.0186
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
O.C188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0188
0.0149
0.0149
0.0149
0.0149
0.0149
0.0149
0.0149
0.0149
0.0149
0.0149
0.0149
0.0166
0.0166
0.0166
0.0166
0.0217
0.0212
0.0209
0.0208
0.0209
0.0239
0.0245
0.0246
0.0454
0.0455
BAPR
2.211
2.216
2.199
2.204
2.240
2.274
2.255
1.648
1.397
4.154
2.194
2.211
2.201
2.203
2.214
2.192
2.207
2.081
2.068
2.054
2.032
2.052
2.040
2.034
2.032
2.036
2.016
2.037
1.957
2.075
2.119
2.112
2.156
2.108
2.120
2.100
2.089
2.483
2.397
2.452
2.376
2.393
92
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE II. EMISSION CONCENTRATION
DATA
Test No.
FS-05A-1
FS-05A-2
FS-05A-3
FS-05A-4
FS-05B-1
FS-05B-2
FS-05B-3
FS-05B-4
FS-05B-5
FS-05B-6
KS-05B-7
FS-05B-8
KS-05B-9
FS-05B-10
FS-05B-11
FS-UiB-lL'
FS-05B-13
FS-05B-14
FS-05B-15
FS-05B-16
FS-OftB-17
FS-05B-18
FS-05R-19
FS-05B-20
FS-05B-2I
FS-05B-22
FS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
E(JR
0.0916
0.1337
0.1439
0.1788
0.1604
0.1911
0.2377
0.2676
0.2143
0.2405
0.2641
0.1912
0.1564
0.1659
0.2021
0.2116
0.2359
0.2724
0.2858
0.1368
0.1816
0.2157
0.2389
0.1620
0.1954
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
PHIP
0.8589
1.0229
1.2861
1.4443
1.1477
1.2981
1.4418
1 .0368
0.8554
0.9061
1.1139
1.1404
1.2863
1.4307
1 .5356
0.8553
1.1305
1.3190
1 .3454
1.9520
1.1510
1.2791
1.5208
0.8384
*Snmple lines saturated with
N0,15
27.3
123.3
103.5
31.7
53.9
37.3
27.3
20.6
20.3
19.6
19.6
41.7
82.1
155.2
65.0
53.0
43.7
48.5
48.0
394.9
105.1
100.9
43.7
223.8
97.8
93.3
143.8
361 .4
fuel
C015
14.4
76.8
144.6
243.9
269.3
242.7
169.2
115.0
155.6
112.2
86.1
240.6
203.4
78.9
64.8
68.0
46.5
23.6
19.0
103.4
101.9
66.2
50.7
116.0
91.2
75.9
52.7
129.1
UHC15
'
24.2*
18.3*
15.7*
6.8
5.5
16.6*
10.6*
7.3
_
15.6*
93
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE II. EMISSION CONCENTRATION DATA
(Continued)
Test No.
FS-05B-25
FS-05B-26
FS-05B-27
FS-05B-28
FS-05B-29
FS-05B-30
FS-05B-31
FS-05B-32
FS-05B-33
FS-05B-34
FS-05B-35
FS-05B-36
FS-05B-37
FS-05B-38
FS-05B-39
FS-05B-40
FS-05B-41
FS-05B-42
FS-05B-43
FS-07A-1
FS-07A-2
FS-07A-3
FS-07A-4
FS-07A-5
FS-07A-6
FS-07A-7
FS-07A-8
FS-07A-9
FS-07A-10
FS-07A-11
FS-07A-12
FS-07A-13
FS-07A-14
FS-07A-15
FS-07A-16
FS-07A-17
FS-08A-1
FS-08A-2
FS-08A-3
FS-08A-4
FS-08A-5
FS-08A-6
FS-08A-7
FS-08A-8
FS-08A-9
FS-08A-10
FS-08A-11
FS-08A-12
FS-08A-13
FS-08A-14
FS-08A-15
FS-08A-16
FS-08A-17
FS-08A-18
FS-08A-19
FS-08A-20
FS-08A-21
FS-08A-22
FS-08A-23
FS-08A-24
FS-08A-25
*Approximate
EQR
0.1421
0.1616
0.1839
0.2067
0.2366
0.2196
0.2104
0.1818
0.2490
0.2397
0.2230
0.1266
0.1357
0.1343
0.1670
0.2127
0.2495
0.2370
0.2047
0.1354
0.1639
0.1883
0.2073
0.2368
0.2629
0.1977
0.1985
0.1973
0.2007
0.1988
0.2192
0.2457
0.1949
0.1926
0.2190
0.2421
0.1218
0.1440
0.1665
0.1887
0.1914
0.2145
0.2354
0.2612
0.2613
0.2875
0.3150
0.3100
0.3263
0.3532
0.3837
0.2792
0.3198
0.3399
0.3573
0.3802
0.2764
0.3525
0.3914
0.4022
0.3579
value, based
PHIP NOX15
0.8011 245.7
0.9236 136.3
1.0627 81.3
1.1877 66.1
1.3608 94.5
1.2805 75.8
1.1808 73.5
1.0448 99.2
1.4035 121.2
46.2
1.2093 47.5
0.6967 372.2
0.7509 365.3
0.7310 263.6
0.9052 122.4
1.1495 67.3
1.3475 87.5
1.3190 75.6
1.0980 71.2
0.7375* 120.0
0.8928* 108.0
1.0258* 65.4
1.1297* 48.7
1.2903* 42.9
1.4322* 43.8
1.0770* 54.2
1.0816* 62.8
1.0750* 73.6
1.0934* 43.6
1.0804* 54.2
1.1943* 57.7
1.3389* 65.5
1.0618* 82.4
1.0492* 134.4
1.1932* 80.3
1.3193* 91.7
0.4192* 24.7
0.4956* 55.4
0.5728* 72.9
0.6494* 113.0
0.6587* 123.7
0.7381* 134.0
0.8098* 115.4
0.8987* 82.2
0.8989* 85.8
0.9893* 59.4
1.0838* 45.7
1.0668* 50.2
1.1229* 45.2
1.2154* 45.0
1.3202* 47.1
0.9617* 88.5
1.1013* 53.2
1.1704* 43.1
1.2306* 39.4
1.3093* 38.4
0.9524* 50.4
1.2148* 31.2
1.3487* 30.9
1.3865* 26.9
1.2335* 26.5
on primary airflow
C015
88.1
110.5
94.2
80.8
63.2
76.1
97.4
49.2
60.8
63.3
67.1
71.5
80.2
91.6
74.4
59.7
64.3
94.1
68.6
94.7
100.8
96.2
67.8
54.2
93.3
83.7
78.9
111.3
91.1
92.6
77.7
102.5
106.8
92.7
76.8
29.1
25.7
25.6
31.6
32.8
40.7
43.1
35.7
36.8
22.2
12.6
13.9
10.3
8.1
7.6
10.6
7.9
7.4
7.1
7.1
20.0
8.0
7.3
7.4
8.3
est.imnto
UHC15
11.7
5.0
0.2
0.0
8.0
5.4
4.7
4.0
0.5
0.0
2.9
1.8
2.4
1.2
1.5
12.6
6.6
4.8
3.4
1.8
1.4
' 2.2
2.5
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.1
1.6
2.2
2.9
1.8
1.7
13.4
9.9
7.8
7.4
6.6
7.0
5.1
4.6
6.0
6.7
94
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE III. GAS ANALYSIS PARAMETER DATA
Test No.
FS-05A-1
FS-05A-2
FS-05A-3
FS-05A-4
FS-05B-1
FS-05B-2
FS-05B-3
FS-OSB-4
FS-05B-5
FS-05B-6
FS-05B-7
FS-05B-8
FS-05B-9
FS-nSB-10
FS-05B- 1 1
FS-05B-12
FS-05B-I3
FS-05B-14
FS-05B-15
FS-05B-16
FS-05B-17
FS-05B-18
FS-05B-19
FS-05B-20
FS-05B-21
FS-nr,B-22
FS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
EQK
0.0916
0.1337
0.1439
0.1788
0.1604
0.1911
0.2377
0.2676
0.2143
0.2405
0.2641
0.1912
0.1564
0.1659
0.2021
0.2116
0.2359
0.2724
0.2858
0.1368
0.1816
0.2157
0.2389
0.1620
0.1954
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
C02
1.31
1.89
2.06
2.56
2.19
2.76
3.41
3.81
2.98
3.37
3.70
2.72
2.29
2.49
2.94
3.09
3.49
4.05
4.25
2.40
3.07
3.62
3.49
2.72
3.21
3.48
4.24
2.11
O2
19.32
18.43
18.05
17.46
17.41
16.58
15.79
15.33
17.75
17.15
16.65
17.37
18.05
18.08
17.51
17.45
16.95
15.82
15.52
18.30
17.51
16.87
16.62
18.00
17.44
17.23
15.99
17.86
CFRAC
0.9706
1.0275
1.0202
1.0145
0.9846
0.9946
0.9947
1.0093
1.0321
1.0581
1 .0278
1.0314
1.0448
1.0526
1 .0542
1.1055
1 .0689
1.0628
1.0323
1 .0599
1.0391
1 .0333
1.0416
1 .0469
EFFdA
99.98
99.91
99.82
99.70
99.68
99.71
99.80
99.86
99.82
99.87
99.90
99.72
99.76
99.91
99.92
99.92
99.94
99.97
99.98
99.88
99.89
99.93
99.94
99.87
99.90
99.92
99.94
99.86
EQRSAM
0.0916
0.1337
0.1439
0.1788
0.1526
0.1919
0.2355
0.2616
0.2049
0.2311 '
0.2544
0.1875
0.1584
0.1715
0.2020
0.2122
0.2384
0.2762
0.2907
0.1416
0.1802
0.2123
0.2413
0.1596
0.1879
0.2033
0.2471
0.1235
95
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE III.
Teat No.
FS-05B-25
FS-05B-26
FS-05B-27
FS-05B-28
FS-05B-29
FS-05B-30
FS-05B-31
FS-05B-32
FS-05B-33
FS-05B-34
FS-05B-35
FS-05B-36
FS-05B-37
FS-05B-38
FS-05B-39
FS-05B-40
FS-05B-41
FS-05B-42
FS-05B-43
FS-07A-1
FS-07A-2
FS-07A-3
FS-07A-4
FS-07A-5
FS-07A-6
FS-07A-7
FS-07A-8
FS-07A-9
FS-07A-10
FS-07A-11
FS-07A-12
FS-07A-13
FS-07A-14
FS-07A-15
FS-07A-16
FS-07A-17
FS-08A-1
FS-08A-2
FS-08A-3
FS-08A-4
FS-08A-5
FS-08A-6
FS-08A-7
FS-08A-8
FS-08A-9
FS-08A-10
FS-08A-11
FS-08A-12
FS-08A-13
FS-08A-14
FS-08A-15
FS-08A-16
FS-08A-17
FS-08A-18
FS-08A-19
FS-08A-20
FS-08A-21
FS-08A-22
FS-08A-23
FS-08A-24
FS-08A-25
'Includes effect
GAS ANALYSIS PARAMETER DATA (Continued)
EQR
0.1421
0.1616
0.1839
0.2067
0.2366
0.2195
0.2104
0.1818
0.2490
0.2397
0.2230
0.1265
0.1357
0.1343
0.1670
0.2127
0.2495
0.2370
0.2047
0.1354
0.1639
0.1883
0.2073
0.2368
0.2629
0.1977
0.1985
0.1973
0.2007
0.1988
0.2192
0.2457
0.1949
0.1926
0.2190
0.2421
0.1218
0.1440
0.1665
0.1887
0.1914
0.2145
0.2354
0.2612
0.2613
0.2875
0.3150
0.3100
0.3263
0.3532
0.3837
0.2792
0.3198
0.3399
0.3573
0.3802
0.2764
0.3525
0.3914
0.4022
0.3579
of vitiation
CO,
2.14
2.36
2.65
2.94
3.34
3.08
3.02
2.74
3.56
3.46
3.18
1.86
2.04
2.16
2.64
3.31
3.87
3.68
3.17
1.98
2.28
2.58
2.84
3.21
3.88
2.81
2.85
2.88
2.91
2.85
3.37
3.69
2.88
2.93
3.39
3.80
1.85
2.15
2.37
2.72
2.73
3.04
3.35
3.78
3.80
4.21
4.56
4.55
4.86
5.25
5.76
5.20*
5.65*
6.01*
6.21*
6.60*
5.52*
6.82*
7.50*
7.86*
7.22*
of airflow
0,
17.79
17.43
16.98
16.53
15.94
16.17
16.24
16.82
15.66
15.92
16.34
18.25
18.08
17.94
17.51
16.55
15.75
15.95
16.69
18.21
17.70
17.34
17.06
16.98
15.98
16.82
17.30
17.09
17.32
16.66
16.72
17.92
18.42
18.02
16.82
18.10
17.67
17.45
17.06
16.84
16.49
16.03
15.67
15.47
14.86
14.30
14.33
14.03
13.42
12.95
13.70*
13.08*
12.76*
12.34*
11.92*
13.59*
12.20*
11.26*
11.39*
12.78*
CFRAC
1.0369
1.0191
1.0034
0.9934
0.9857
0.9793
1.0033
1.0228
1.0011
1.0016
0.9976
1.0203
1.0436
1.0835
1.0628
1.0482
1.0446
1.0438
1.0422
1.0168
0.9806
0.9658
0.9689
0.9598
1.0471
1.0018
1.0117
1.0291
1.0230
1.0132
1.0341
1.0110
0.9946
0.9525
0.9808
0.9978
1.0536
1.0342
0.9894
0.9988
0.9880
0.9828
0.9885
1.0044
1.0101
1.0145
1.0046
1.0177
1.0331
1.0302
1.0394
1.0388
1.0316
1.0446
1.0367
1.0423
1.0092
1.0209
1.0399
1.0312
1.0407
EFFGA
99.679
99.745
99.851
99.865
99.920
99.993
99.911
99.830
99.915
99.923
99.910
99.908
99.915
99.908
99.885
99.908
99.923
99.922
99.887
99.876
99.866
99.864
99.874
99.913
99.930
99.882
99.892
99.8969
99.859
99.882
99.886
99.905
99.875
99.873
99.890
99.908
99.966
99.970
99.970
99.963
99.962
99.952
99.950
99.958
99.957
99.974
99.985
99.984
99.988
99.990
99.991
99.990
99.992
99.970
99.972
99.974
99.966
99.980
99.981
99.978
99.976
EQRSAM
0.1450
0.1608
0.1795
0.1982
0.2254
0.2082
0.2039
0.1824
0.2398
0.2369
0.2195
0.1279
0.1410
0.1416
0.1725
0.2173
0.2524
0.2398
0.2075
0.1352
0.1570
0.1773
0.1962
0.2209
0.2660
0.1933
0.1962
0.1977
0.2006
0.1962
0.2201
0.2412
0.1886
0.1724
0.1982
0.2226
0.1279
0.1482
0.1628
0.1860
0.1875
0.2078
0.2296
0.2587
0.2601
0.2863
0.3103
0.3096
0.3314
0.3561
0.3895
0.2706
0.3032
0.3261
0.3392
0.3634
0.2639
0.3410
0.3853
0.3900
0.3514
by preheater.
96
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE IV. COMBUSTOR LINER TEMPERATURE DATA
Test No.
FS-05A-1
FS-05A-2
FS-05A-3
FS-05A-4
FS-05B-1
FS-OSB-2
FS-05B-3
FS-OSB-4
FS-05B-5
FS-05B-6
FS-05B-7
FS-05B-S
FS-05B-9
FS-05B-10
FS-05B-11
FS-05B-12
FS-or>B-i3
FS-05B-14
FS-05B-15
FS-OSB-16
FS-or>B-17
FS-05B-18
FS-05B-19
FS-05B-20
FS-05B-21
FS-05B-22
FS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
EQR
0.0916
0.1337
0.1439
0.1788
0.1604
0.1911
0.2377
0.2676
0.2143
0.2405
0.2641
0.1912
0.1564
0.1659
0.202!
0.2116
0.2359
0.2724
0.2858
0.1368
0.1816
0.2157
0.2389
0.1620
0.1954
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
BSTDl BSTD2
954
1089
1117
- 1170
1133
1209
1203
1164
1106
1184
1116
1268
1167
- 1317
1392
1373
1440
1480
1491
1360
1470
1558
1461
1405
- 1528
- 1580
1595
1340
BSTD3
941
1140
1163
1217
1157
1240
1198
1155
1164
1173
1163
1330
1226
1359
1420
1419
1467
1428
1446
1450
1550
1600
1479
1411
1512
1574
1575
1420
BS7W
992
1150
1196
1260
1179
1289
1240
1227
1199
1218
1177
1218
1161
1478
1543
1542
1555
1470
1450
1598
1576
1701
1605
1590
1687
1744
1670
1594
B6T7
1092
1315
1329
1442
1386
1460
1475
1214
1507
1458
1173
1450
1367
1572
1640
1630
1658
1614
1570
1620
1731
1760
1839
1730
1894
1960
._
BST2
1076
1303
1339
1455
1380
1457
1437
1490
1483
1405
1431
1433
1350
1718
1802
1777
1830
1814
1833
1790
1950
1890
TABLE IV. COMBUSTOR LINER TEM
PERATURE DATA (Continued)
Test No.
FS-05A-1
FS-05A-2
FS-05A-3
FS-05A-4
FS-05B-1
FS-05R-2
FS-05B-3
FS-05B-4
FS-05B-5
FS-05B-6
FS-05B-7
FS-05B-8
FS-05B-9
FS-05B-10
FS-05B-11
FS-05B-12
FS-05B-13
FS-05B-14
FS-05B-15
FS-05B-16
FS-05B-17
FS-05B-18
FS-05B-19
FS-05B-20
FS-05B-21
FS-05B-22
FS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
EQR BST3
0.0916
0.1337
0.1439
0.1788
0.1604
0.1911
0.2377
0.2676
0.2143
0.2405
0.2641
0.1912
0.1564
0.1659
0.2021
0.2116
0.2359
0.2724
0.2858
0.1368
0.1816
0.2157
0.2389
0.1620
0.1954
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
BST4
1048
1258
1287
1355
1289
1381
1338
1049
1190
1252
1124
1319
1382
1534
1548
1499
1504
1514
1513
1572
1574
1392
1478
1793
1882
1693
Bi'7'5 BST6
983 1005
1550 1272
1265
1345
1302
1331
1361
1213
1339
1448
1255
1351
1267
1635
1686
1659
1708
1788
1656
1660
1814
1895
_
Bar?
939
1310
1328
1387
1343
1467
1160
894
931
995
835
1011
1503
1711
1702
1635
1594
1598
1191
1719
1741
1660
1535
1700
1793
1790
BST8
1017
1295
1333
1380
1419
1478
1210
768
803
989
887
981
1504
1735
1708
1651
1602
1504
1118
1754
1744
1694
97
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE IV. COMBUSTOR LINER TEMPERATURE
DATA (Continued)
Text No.
FS-05A-1
FS-05A-2
FS-05A-3
FS-05A-4
FS-05B-1
FS-05B-2
FS-05B-3
FS-05B-4
FS-05B-5
FS-05B-6
FS-05B-7
F.S-05B-S
FS-05B-9
FS-05B-10
FS-05B-11
FS-05B-12
FS-05B-13
FS-05B-14
FS-05B-15
FS-()5B-lfi
FS-05B-17
FS-05B-18
FS-05B-19
FS-05B-20
FS-OSR-21
FS-05B-22
FS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
EQR
0.0916
0.1.137
0.1439
0.1788
0.1604
0.1911
0.2377
0.2676
0.2143
0.2405
0.2641
0.1912
0.1564
0.1659
0.2021
0.2116
0.2359
0.2724
0.2858
0.1368
0.1816
0.2157
0.2389
0.1620
0.1954
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
BST9 BSTW
998
1260
- 1249
1322
1296
1298
1298
972
1190
1327
1024
1292
1293
1474
1505
1471
1503
1570
1140
1427
1,503
1622
1730
1573
1764
1868
1773
1482
BSTll
986
1267
1284
1358
1321
1447
1259
928
988
1161
922
1053
1357
1652
1638
1558
1564
1595
1133
1653
1690
1701
1546
1650
1771
1798
BST12
1004
1299
1333
1384
1332
1442
1137
752
921
1034
791
1086
1424
1591
1600
1535
1531
1510
1185
1546
1580
1629
1469
1618
1752
1750
BST13
512
555
560
590
551
574
623
690
600
638
682
578
553
751
772
775
808
860
877
737
785
847
826
743
803
851
930
722
BST14
468
530
537
561
543
565
602
660
594
625
652
569
548
731
751
756
784
822
834
708
743
787
780
728
772
810
884
707
TABLE IV. COMBUSTOR LINER
DATA (Continued)
TEMPERATURE
Tent No.
FS-05A-1
FS-05A-2
FS-05A-3
FS-05A-4
FS-05B-1
FS-05B-2
FS-05B-3
FS-05B-4
FS-05B-5
FS-05B-6
FS-05B-7
FS-05B-8
FS-05B-9
FS-05B-10
FS-05B-11
FS-05B-12
FS-05B-13
FS-05B-14
FS-05B-15
FS-05B-16
FS-05B-17
FS-05B-18
FS-05B-19
FS-05B-20
FS-05B-21
FS-05B-22
FS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
EQR
0.0916
0.1337
0.1439
0.1788
0.1604
0.1911
0.2377
0.2676
0.2143
0.2405
0.2641
0.1912
0.1564
0.1659
0.2021
0.2116
0.2359
0.2724
0.2858
0.1368
0.1816
0.2157
0.2389
0.1620
0.1954
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
BST15
456
504
507
524
486
516
537
sas
532
556
575
526
511
684
695
696
716
753
769
677
701
738
730
684
724
761
807
674
BST16
477
526
527
546
517
549
578
634
569
601
629
557
538
714
724
725
747
784
791
706
737
779
770
715
764
807
896
728
BST17
499 '
537
548
573
537
557
604
676
584
622
665
561
539
733
749
755
784
826
837
723
765
814
812
726
785
830
890
709
B6T7S
467
529
538
560
555
577
615
684
608
640
674
582
560
752
776
779
807
843
846
730
761
800
803
741
787
823
922
722
BSTW
452
494
500
514
480
505
526
569
522
545
562
517
504
680
686
686
705
741
756
672
694
729
715
677
717
755
784
671
BST20
469
514
520
538
509
536
567
619
556
589
613
543
526
705
712
712
732
769
772
698
724
757
754
707
757
798
869
724
98
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE IV. COMBUSTOR LINER TEMPERATURE DATA (Continued)
Test No.
FS-05B-25
FS-05B-26
FS-05B-27
FS-05B-28
FS-05B-29
FS-05B-30
FS-05B-31
FS-05B-32
FS-05B-33
FS-05B-34
FS-05B-35
FS-05B-36
FS-05B-37
FS-05B-38
FS-05B-39
FS-05B-40
FS-05B-41
FS-05B-42
FS-05B-43
FS-07A-1
FS-07A-2
FS-07A-3
FS-07A-4
FS-07A-5
FS-07A-6
FS-07A-7
FS-07A-8
FS-07A-9
FS-07A-10
FS-07A-11
FS-07A-12
FS-07A-13
FS-07A-14
FS-07A-15
FS-07A-16
FS-07A-17
FS-08A-1
FS-08A-2
FS-08A-3
FS-08A-4
FS-08A-5
FS-08A-6
FS-08A-7
FS-08A-8
FS-08A-9
FS-08A-10
FS-08A-11
FS-08A-12
FS-08A-13
FS-08A-14
FS-08A-15
FS-08A-16
FS-08A-17
FS-08A-18
FS-08A-19
FS-08A-20
FS-08A-21
FS-08A-22
FS-08A-23
FS-08A-24
FS-08A-25
EQR
0.1421
0.1616
0.1839
0.2067
0.2366
0.2195
0.2104
0.1818
0.2490
0.2397
0.2230
0.1265
0.1357
0.1343
0.1670
0.2127
0.2495
0.2370
0.2047
0.1354
0.1639
0.1883
0.2073
0.2368
0.2629
0.1977
0.1985
0.1973
0.2007
0.1988
0.2192
0.2457
0.1949
0.1926
0.2190
0.2421
0.1218
0.1440
0.1665
0.1887
0.1914
0.2145
0.2354
0.2612
0.2613
0.2875
0.3150
0.3100
0.3263
0.3532
0.3837
0.2792
0.3198
0.3399
0.3573
0.3802
0.2764
0.3525
0.3914
0.4022
0.3579
BSTD2
1323
1410
1470
1447
1627
1582
1483
1436
1570
_
BSTD3
1374
1442
1473
1521
1402
1453
1566
1525
1604
1530
1519
1385
1408
1403
1462
1556
1480
1451
1606
1369
1325
1634
1694
1682
1320
1660
1682
1760
1737
1790
1681
1947
1761
_
BSTD4
1501
1567
1645
1702
1478
1647
1699
.
'
_
BST13
708
749
783
829
880
851
815
762
891
828
800
718
726
730
767
860
927
904
859
696
755
797
833
870
896
819
804
783
803
825
877
916
828
822
900
927
733
781
844
911
896
950
1010
1080
1065
1150
1263
1148
1203
1235
1312
1215
1253
1298
1327
1364
1181
1252
1310
1318
1267
BST14
696
738
773
809
860
831
777
746
862
779
760
697
701
705
745
823
885
864
817
675
727
755
780
815
841
771
770
820
852
782
783
849
870
690
726
783
852
824
879
948
1020
996
1084
1191
1101
1169
1216
1292
1242
1300
1368
1406
1442
1195
1288
1364
1460
1426
BST15
656
695
718
743
775
759
737
693
800
732
717
669
673
672
704
765
818
801
769
653
704
731
756
784
808
743
745
786
815
750
748
803
835
657
689
751
807
785
832
884
936
924
991
1057
1003
1042
1078
1145
1198
1244
1295
1322
1350
1197
1258
1315
1365
1320
99
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE IV. COMBUSTOR LINER TEMPERATURE DATA (Continued)
Test No.
FS-05B-25
FS-05B-26
FS-05B-27
FS-05B-28
FS-05B-29
FS-05B-30
FS-05B-31
FS-05B-32
FS-05B-33
FS-05B-34
FS-05B-35
FS-05B-36
FS-05B-37
FS-05B-38
FS-05B-39
FS-05B-40
FS-05B-41
FS-0.r-B-42
FS-05B-43
FS-07A-1
FS-07A-2
FS-07A-3
FS-07A-4
FS-07A-5
FS-07A-6
FS-07A-7
FS-07A-8
FS-07A-9
FS-07A-10
FS-07A-11
FS-07A-12
FS-07A-13
FS-07A-14
FS-07A-15
FS-07A-16
FS-07A-17
FS-08A-1
FS-08A-2
FS-08A-3
FS-08A-4
FS-08A-5
FS-08A-6
FS-08A-7
FS-08A-8
FS-08A-9
FS-08A-10
FS-08A-11
FS-08A-12
FS-08A-13
FS-08A-14
FS-08A-15
FS-08A-16
FS-08A-17
FS-08A-18
FS-08A-19
FS-08A-20
FS-08A-21
FS-08A-22
FS-08A-23
FS-08A-24
FS-08A-25
EQR
0.1421
0.1616
0.1839
0.2067
0.2366
0.2195
0.2104
0.1818
0.2490
0.2397
0.2230
0.1265
0.1357
0.1343
0.1670
0.2127
0.2495
0.2370
0.2047
0.1354
0.1639
0.1883
0.2073
0.2368
0.2629
0.1977
0.1985
0.1973
0.2007
0.1988
0.2192
0.2457
0.1949
0.1926
0.2190
0.2421
0.1218
0.1440
0.1665
0.1887
0.1914
0.2145
0.2354
0.2612
0.2613
0.2875
0.3150
0.3100
0.3263
0.3532
0.3837
0.2792
0.3198
0.3399
0.3573
0.3802
0.2764
0.3525
0.3914
0.4022
0.3579
BST16
714
754
778
812
848
834
796
739
855
770
755
698
704
701
751
825
880
867
831
708
759
785
815
849
872
818
812
852
888
813
806
874
901
748
799
869
951
929
986
1056
1138
1115
1206
1289
1223
1260
1287
1368
1357
1311
1443
1455
1449
1176
1397
1464
1381
1321
BST17
690
728
758
793
842
819
781
736
847
793
771
703
708
713
742
822
876
863
822
667
711
739
768
798
819
760
758
748
757
768
814
846
782
771
836
855
709
757
815
874
859
912
967
1032
1020
1100
1181
1094
1141
1170
1237
1169
1199
1243
1270
1305
1291
1191
1246
1257
1212
BST18
707
750
792
830
881
853
791
752
879
785
768
701
706
707
745
824
887
867
816
669
717
742
767
802
821
756
757
806
837
776
771
832
853
633
659
718
782
745
792
845
904
872
950
1034
961
1018
1077
1158
1155
1205
1269
1296
1323
1127
1166
1239
1380
1344
BST19
650
688
710
739
765
749
724
684
781
720
707
664
668
669
699
762
804
792
766
642
687
709
734
756
772
725
728
764
789
737
732
787
806
648
680
737
790
769
811
857
915
894
966
1045
980
1026
1066
1154
1242
1291
1347
1377
1403
1099
1260
1318
1381
1335
BST20
705
745
767
797
827
816
784
735
841
764
747
696
701
708
744
813
854
844
820
688
734
756
783
810
830
784
779
814
844
783
773
834
852
666
705
765
829
815
860
911
972
955
1020
1104
1056
1074
1093
1160
1264
1300
1317
1320
1312
1185
1270
1329
1114
1092
100
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE V. PERFORMANCE PARAMETER
DATA
VVst No.
FS-05A-1
FS-05A-2
FS-05A-3
FS-05A-4
FS-05B-1
FS-05B-2
FS-05B-3
FS-05B-4
FS-05B-5
FS-05B-6
FS-05B-7
FS-05B-8
FS-05B-9
FS-05B-10
FS-05B-11
FS-05B-12
FS-05B-13
FS-05B-14
FS-05B-15
FS-05B-16
FS-05B-17
FS-Or,B-18
PS -05 B- 19
FS-05B-20
FS-nr.B-21
FS-OftB-22
FS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
EfJK
0.0916
0.1337
0.1439
0.1788
0.1604
0.1911
0.2377
0.2(576
0.2143
0.2405
0.2641
0.1912
0.15(54
(Ufi59
0.2021
0.2116
0.2359
0.2724
0.2858
0.1368
0.1816
0.2157
0.2389
0.1620
0.1954
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
WAPRI
1.851
1.871
1.818
1.826
1.836
1.801
1.816
1 .832
1 .838
3.125
2.973
3.307
3.247
3.312
3.343
2.642
2.823
2.825
3.144
2.966
2.944
2.832
2.981
2.659
WAS EC
3.472
3.506
3.812
3.680
3.590
3.485
3.405
3.522
3.492
3.399
3.532
3.496
3.498
5.789
5.484
6.226
6.155
5.958
6.200
5.879
6.415
6.215
6.076
5.864
5.802
5.960
6.128
6.037
VREF EWMH
137.3
121.9
126.8
129,3
134.3
131.4
134.8
124.3
112.2
120.2
1 18.5
108.5
1 1 1 .3
105.6
106.7
105.2
106.6
104.2
105.9
111.0
106.5
112.8
rn-
0.502
0.371
0.437
0.471
0.370
0.298
0.416
0.491
0.381
0.589
0.619
0.551
0.572
0.481
0.477
0.457
0.464
(1.323
0.289
0.387
0,167
0.396
_
.
101
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE V. PERFORMANCE PARAMETER DATA (Continued)
Test No.
FS-05B-25
FS-05B-26
FS-05B-27
FS-05B-28
FS-05B-29
FS-05B-30
FS-05B-31
FS-05B-32
FS-05B-33
FS-05B-34
FS-05B-35
FS-05B-36
FS-05B-37
FS-05B-38
FS-05B-39
FS-05B-40
FS-05B-41
FS-05B-42
FS-05B-43
FS-07A-1
FS-07A-2
FS-07A-3
FS-07A-4
FS-07A-5
FS-07A-6
FS-07A-7
FS-07A-8
FS-07A-9
FS-07A-10
FS-07A-11
FS-07A-12
FS-07A-13
FS-07A-14
FS-07A-15
FS-07A-16
FS-07A-17
FS-08A-1
FS-08A-2
FS-08A-3
FS-08A-4
FS-08A-5
FS-08A-6
FS-08A-7
FS-08A-8
FS-08A-9
FS-08A-10
FS-08A-11
FS-08A-12
FS-08A-13
FS-08A-14
FS-08A-15
FS-08A-16
FS-08A-17
FS-08A-18
FS-08A-19
FS-08A-20
FS-08A-21
FS-08A-22
FS-08A-23
FS-08A-24
FS-08A-25
'Estimate, value
EQR
0.1421
0.1616
0.1839
0.2067
0.2366
0.2195
0.2104
0.1818
0.2490
0.2397
0.2230
0.1265
0.1357
0.1343
0.1670
0.2127
0.2495
0.2370
0.2047
0.1354
0.1639
0.1883
0.2073
0.2368
0.2629
0.1977
0.1985
0.1973
0.2007
0.1988
0.2192
0.2457
0.1949
0.1926
0.2190
0.2421
0.1218
0.1440
0.1665
0.1887
0.1914
0.2145
0.2354
0.2612
0.2613
0.2875
0.3150
0.3100
0.3263
0.3532
0.3837
0.2792
0.3198
0.3399
0.3573
0.3802
0.2764
0.3525
0.3914
0.4022
0.3579
based on
WAPRI
3.007
3.065
3.072
3.097
3.055
3.034
3.158
3.131
3.043
3.273
3.148
3.137
3.154
3.276
3.205 /
3.220
3.109
3.206
3.270*
3.192'
3.206*
3.253*
3.218*
3.234*
3.256*
3.242*
3.262*
3.206*
3.245*
3.243*
3.240*
3.234*
3.250*
3.198*
3.233*
3.638*
3.555*
3.496*
3.391*
3.656*
3.582*
3.544*
3.450*
3.600*
3.569*
3.432*
3.693*
3.704*
3.600*
3.494*
3.641*
3.585*
3.545*
3.556*
3.510*
1.886*
1.811*
1.781*
1.793*
1.820*
WASEC
5.964
5.996
6.034
5.983
6.005
6.198
6.004
6.160
5.943
5.891
5.936
5.965
5.740
5.565
5.773
5.657
5.746
5.538
5.495
6.034
5.892
5.979
6.082
6.098
6.139
6.048
6.035
5.893
5.843
6.063
6.090
6.151
5.947
6.055
6.064
6.204
6.013
5.942
6.077
6.044
6.346
6.328
6.322
6.188
6.381
6.332
6.159
6.828
6.862
6.498
6.238
6.923
6.734
6.768
6.593
6.477
3.457
3.367
3.297
3.225
3.270
constant fraction of total
VREF
22.1
23.1
23.2
23.6
23.3
23.1
23.1
23.4
22.9
24.6
23.7
23.5
23.7
24.6
24.1
24.3
23.8
24.2
23.9
24.0
24.3
24.8
24.5
25.0
24.9
24.8
24.9
24.5
24.8
24.9
24.8
24.8
25.0
24.4
24.8
25.8
25.4
24.9
24.2
26.5
25.9
25.6
24.9
26.1
25.7
24.7
26.7
26.5
26.0
25.2
33.4
32.4
32.0
31.7
31.2
34.0
32.5
31.7
31.6
32.4
airflow.
EFFMB
73.4
_
.
TPF
0.389
_
_
102
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE VI. COMBUSTOR LINER HEAT TRANSFER DATA
7V.s/ No.
FS-05A-1
FS-05A-2
FS-05A-3
FS-05A-4
FS-05B-1
FS-05B-2
FS-05B-3
FS-05B-4
KS-05B-5
FS-05B-6
FS-05B-7
FS-05B-S
FS-05B-9
FS-05B-10
FS-05B-11
FS-05B-12
FS-05B-13
FS.05B-14
FS-05B-15
FS-05B-16
FS-05B-17
FS-05B-18
FS-05B-19
FS-05B-20
FS-05B-21
FS-05B-22
KS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
Number (it
EW
0.0916
0.1337
0.1439
0.1788
0.1604
0.1911
0.2377
0.2676
0.2143
0.2405
0.2641
0.1912
0.1564
0.165!)
0.2021
0.2116
0.2359
0.2724
0.2858
0.1368
0.1816
0.2157
0.2389
0.1620
0.1954
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
T/C's us
HRRV
1 .0884
1.1397
1 .2672
1.3351
1.3921
1 .6672
2.0454
2.2847
1 .8327
2.0289
2.2812
1.6547
1 .3725
1.2294
1 .4548
1 .6603
1.8347
2.0509
2.2737
1 .0702
1 .4890
1.7145
1.8186
1.3085
1 .5501
1 .6604
2.1011
1.0238
HREMV
*io3
54.7
92.6
100.0
108.5
117.6
125.0
91.8
64.6
89.3
83.5
57.7
102.8
119.8
194.2
194.0
203.6
136.8
185.2
144.2
194.9
239.2
234.4
196.2
222.0
256.1
269.2
156.1
219.9
ed in I,TRF calculat
Nuti' I'rimarv ijemndarv
1
2
3
12
9
4
8
8
8
Total
20
17
12
JTQQ
515
574
580
600
574
607
562
522
561
556
517
579
602
774
ill
768
722
766
730
778
799
804
765
791
830
834
723
784
ions
LTRF)>
0.9342
.2045
.2670
.2521
.2157
.1090
0.8117
0.5478
0.75(56
0.7450
0.5557
0.9380
1.2771
1.2500
1 .0760
0.9890
0.9092
0.7917
0.6037
.4667
.1759
.0251
0.9386
.3256
.2518
.1733
0.9111
1.4231
LTKFS
0.0641
0. 222
0. 246
0. 381
0. 542
0. 398
0. 477
0. 796
0. 448
0. 599
0.1707
0.1430
0.1470
0.1493
0.1462
0.1386
0.1453
0.1604
0.1605
0.1420
0.1454
0.1647
0.1624
0.1444
0.1(566
0.19(55
0.2373
0.1687
LTRF
ni'# Note
0.5862 1
0.7717 1
0.8100 1
0.8064 1
0.7912 1
0.7214 1
0.5461 1
0.41X11 1
0.5119 1
0.5110 !
0.4017 1
0.6200 1
0.8251 1
0.7320 2
0.6384 2
0.5888 2
0.5497 2
0.4946 2
0.3951 2
0.843:! 2
0.6909 2
0.6202 2
0.5733 2
0.7697 2
0.7412 2
0.7136 2
0.4619 3
0.5869 3
103
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE VI. COMBUSTOR LINER HEAT TRANSFER DATA (Continued)
Test No.
FS-05B-25
FS-05B-26
FS-05B-27
FS-05B-28
FS-05B-29
FS-05B-30
FS-05B-31
FS-05B-32
FS-05B-33
FS-05B-34
FS-05B-35
FS-05B-36
FS-05B-37
FS-05B-38
FS-05B-39
FS-05B-40
FS-05B-41
FS-05B-42
FS-05B-43
FS-07A-1
FS-07A-2
FS-07A-3
FS-07A-4
FS-07A-5
FS-07A-6
FS-07A-7
FS-07A-8
FS-07A-9
FS-07A-10
FS-07A-11
FS-07A-12
FS-07A-13
FS-07A-14
FS-07A-15
FS-07A-16
FS-07A-17
FS-08A-1
FS-08A-2
FS-08A-3
FS-08A-4
FS-08A-5
FS-08A-6
FS-08A-7
FS-08A-8
FS-08A-9
FS-08A-10
FS-08A-11
FS-08A-12
FS-08A-13
FS-08A-14
FS-08A-15
FS-08A-16
FS-08A-17
FS-08A-18
FS-08A-19
FS-08A-20
FS-08A-21
FS-08A-22
FS-08A-23
FS-08A-24
FS-08A-25
EQR
0.1421
0.1616
0.1839
0.2067
0.2366
0.2195
0.2104
0.1818
0.2490
0.2397
0.2230
0.1265
0.1357
0.1343
0.1670
0.2127
0.2495
0.2370
0.2047
0.1354
0.1639
0.1883
0.2073
0.2368
0.2629
0.1977
0.1985
0.1973
0.2007
0.1988
0.2192
0.2457
0.1949
0.1926
0.2190
0.2421
0.1218
0.1440
0.1665
0.1887
0.1914
0.2145
0.2354
0.2612
0.2613
0.2875
0.3150
0.3100
0.3263
0.3532
0.3837
0.2792
0.3198
0.3399
0.3573
0.3802
0.2764
0.3525
0.3914
0.4022
0.3579
HRRV
*10"
1.0594
1.2371
1.4104
1.6147
1.8152
1.7026
1.6213
1.4392
1.8533
1.8441
1.7261
0.9535
1.0188
1.0197
1.3064
1.6311
1.9190
1.8380
1.5572
1.0612
1.2398
1.4389
1.6121
1.8099
2.0491
1.5388
1.5341
1.5334
1.5350
1.5310
1.7313
1.9311
1.5298
1.5939
1.7666
1.9879
0.6707
0.7696
0.8688
0.9596
1.0596
1.1564
1.2520
1.3508
1.4126
1.5266
1.6088
1.7089
1.7776
1.8925
1.9877
1.5613
1.7457
1.8272
1.9096
1.9950
1.5898
1.9273
2.1006
2.1169
1.9252
HREMV
10"
222
242
263
263
222
248
289
275
236
220
210
192
193
212
263
286
226
242
284
211
223
253
264
240
167
257
265
257
233
264
296
231
296
307
317
281
98
115
148
182
179
205
225
236
231
245
203
242
226
193
147
279
254
260
243
234
138
134
118
116
113
TTQQ
757
804
824
828
796
812
819
811
809
768
780
767
774
794
834
854
804
825
865
737
794
818
827
810
751
826
833
831
813
832
854
804
862
865
874
841
621
650
678
706
701
723
741
754
749
762
736
746
738
720
692
1006
986
991
982
978
990
998
971
967
965
Note:
1 LTRFS based on estimate of average liner temperature
- HREMV based
on estimate
LTRFP
1.2195
1.1728
1.0709
1.0134
0.7759
0.8828
1.0536
1.1578
0.9304
0.9060
0.9510
1.3864
1.3344
1.3228
1.1502
1.0216
0.8082
0.8177
1.1084
1.2622
0.9986
1.2524
1.2072
1.0524
0.6307
1.2190
1.2392
1.1971
1.0538
1.3716
1.2109
1.3445
1.0526
_
LTRFS
0.1784
0.1742
0.1841
0.2011
0.2162
0.2080
0.2060
0.1714
0.2154
0.1783
0.1522
0.1485
0.1472
0.1564
0.1691
0.2198
0.2365
0.2320
0.2212
0.1727
0.1604
0.1716
0.1836
0.1899
0.1923
0.1792
0.1727
0.1596
0.1699
0.1785
0.2086
0.2143
0.1887
0.1790
0.2219
0.2225
0.2616
0.2632
0.3068
0.3505
0.3155
0.3344
0.3607
0.3849
0.3629
0.3951
0.4294
0.3806
0.3949
0.3933
0.4114
0.3614
0.3540
0.3763
0.3794
0.3727
0.3405
0.3233
0.3403
0.3575
0.3635
LTRF
_
-
Note
1
1
1
projected from 2 thermocouples
of average TTQQ projected from 1
thermocouple
104
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE VII. COMBUSTOR EXIT TEMPERATURE DATA
Test No.
FS-05A-1
FS-05A-2
FS-05A-3
FS-05A-4
FS-05B-1
FS-05B-2
FS-05B-3
FS-05B-4
FS-05B-5
FS-OSB-6
FS-05B-7
FS-05B-8
FS-05B-9
FS-05B-10
FS-05B-11
FS-05B-12
FS-05B-13
FS-05B-14
FS-05B-15
FS-05B-16
FS-05B-17
FS-05B-18
FS-05B-19
FS-05B-20
FS-05B-21
FS-05B-22
FS-05B-23
FS-05B-24
EQR
0.0916
0.1337
0.1439
0.1788
0.1604
0.1911
0.2377
0.2676
0.2143
0.2405
0.2641
0.1912
0.1564
0.1659
0.2021
0.2116
0.2359
0.2724
0.2858
0.1368
0.1816
0.2157
0.2389
0.1620
0.1954
0.2134
0.2590
0.1269
TV,,
574
741
720
804
845
846
745
696
862
939
945
1009
1134
1147
822
916
971
_
TV,,
705
932
948
1082
993
1141
1277
1342
1171
1275
1262
1068
970
1142
1263
1278
1381
1586
1797
1186
TTa
828
1120
1194
1382
1248
1480
1664
1758
1547
1693
1672
1395
1239
1378
1555
1582
1725
1934
2022
1257
1496
1676
TV*
955
1258
1379
1631
1475
1709
1963
2047
1905
2064
2050
1655
1460
1570
1775
1807
1955
2057
2164
1432
1720
1944
1992
7V«
1083
1379
1541
1872
1689
1830
2223
2591
2451
2643
1870
1668
1750
1995
2018
2196
2211
2267
1595
1924
2163
2359
1885
TV,.
1160
1443
1619
1952
1750
1884
2424
'
1638
2029
2345
TTt,
1118
1385
1515
1764
1490
1621
1981
2107
1932
2127
1599
1416
1647
1856
1930
2038
2200
2217
1555
1853
2035
2161
2011
TV,,
918
1116
1184
1292
1073
1184
1327
1429
1233
1336
1445
1183
1076
1309
1442
1473
1557
1623
1667
1271
1462
1561
1696
1581
105
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
TABLE VII. COMBUSTOR EXIT TEMPERATURE DATA (Continued)
Test No.
FS-05B-25
FS-05B-26
FS-05B-27
FS-05B-28
FS-05B-29
FS-05B-30
FS-05B-31
FS-05B-32
FS-05B-33
FS-05B-34
FS-05B-35
FS-05B-36
FS-05B-37
FS-05B-38
FS-05B-39
FS-05B-40
FS-05B-41
FS-05B-42
FS-05B-43
FS-07A-1
FS-07A-2
FS-07A-3
FS-07A-4
FS-07A-5
FS-07A-6
FS-07A-7
FS-07A-8
FS-07A-9
FS-07A-10
FS-07A-11
FS-07A-12
FS-07A-13
FS-07A-14
FS-07A-15
FS-07A-16
FS-07A-17
FS-08A-1
FS-08A-2
FS-08A-3
FS-08A-4
FS-08A-5
FS-08A-6
FS-08A-7
FS-08A-8
FS-08A-9
FS-08A-10
FS-08A-11
FS-08A-12
FS-08A-13
FS-08A-14
FS-08A-15
FS-08A-16
FS-08A-17
FS-08A-18
FS-08A-19
FS-08A-20
FS-08A-21
FS-08A-22
FS-08A-23
FS-08A-24
FS-08A-25
EQR TTI, TT«
0.1421
0.1616
0.1839
0.2067
0.2366
0.2195
0.2104
0.1818 818 939
0.2490 937
0.2397
0.2230
0.1265
0.1357
0.1345
0.1670
0.2127
0.2495
0.2370
0.2047
0.1354
0.1639
0.1883
0.2073
0.2368
0.2629
0.1977
0.1985
0.1973
0.2007
0.1988
0.2192
0.2457
0.1949
0.1926
0.2190
0.2421
0.1218
0.1440
0.1665
0.1887
0.1914
0.2145
0.2354
0.2612
0.2613
0.2875
0.3150
0.3100
0.3263
0.3532
0.3837
0.2792
0.3198
0.3399
0.3573
0.3802
0.2764
0.3525
0.3914
0.4022
0.3579
TT« TT«
1129 1299
1352 1586
1799 2231
2089
1430
1494
1530
1714
2230
1789 1938
1407
1519
1767
1823
1971
_
__
__
7V« 7Y« TT<7
1378 1413 1357
1689 1582
2314
2222
2002 1572
2143 1638
2365 1664
2798 1862
2134
2420
2382
2437 2098
1434
1610
1748
1837
2067
1809
1861
1860
1830
1831
1872
2144
1803
1753
1952
2107
1290
1455
1502
1606
1663
1750
_
_
_
_ _
_
T
_
1135
1331
1835
1748
1333
1371
1377
1508
1716
1845
1824
1634
1273
1434
1542
1659
1860
1688
1621
1592
1595
1648
1752
1915
1611
1530
1733
1860
1218
1363
1435
1536
1578
1660
'
106
-------
APPENDIX B
SI UNIT CONVERSION TABLE
S7 Multiply by
°C °C = (5/9)(°F-32)
cm 2.54
cm2 0.1550
liters 0.0164
m 0.3048
m2 0.0929
m3 0.0283
m/sec 0.3048
N/m2 3.3863
kg/sec 0.4535
kg/hr 0.4535
m3 0.003785
w/m2 315.24808
N/m2 6894.7572
107
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-80-017d
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Combustion Systems for
Stationary Gas Turbine Engines: Volume 4.
Combustor Verification Testing (Addendum)
5. REPORT DATE
January 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
R.M. Pierce,'C.E. Smith, andB.S. Hinton
FR-11405
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Group
United Technologies Corporation
P.O. Box 2691
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
INE829
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02 -2136
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 7/79 - 10/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES JERL-RTP project officer is W.S.
2432.
Lanier, Mail Drop 65, 919/541-
16 ABSTRACTThe reports describe an exploratory development program to identify, eval-
uate, and demonstrate dry techniques for significantly reducing NOx from stationary
gas turbine engines. (Volume 1 describes Phase I research activities to compile a
series of combustor design concepts which could potentially meet the program's low
emission goals. Volume 2 covers the Phase II bench-scale testing program which
experimentally singled out the rich-burn/quick-quench (RB/QQ) combustor concept
as being capable of low NOx and CO operation on both clean fuels and fuels containing
significant amounts of bound nitrogen. Volume 3 covers the Phase in and IV scaleup
and full-scale testing of the RB/QQ concept, documenting the fact that all emission
goals could be met with the RB/QQ combustor.) Volume 4 describes an additional
series of tests to evaluate the performance of the combustor on heavy fuels such as
petroleum or shale residual oil and solvent refined coal (SRC). Results from the
tests show that all exhaust emission goals were met while burning three test fuels:
a middle-cut distillate SRC, a residual shale oil, and an Indonesian/Malaysian
residual oil. It was also demonstrated that the exhaust emission goals were met
when operating a RB/QQ combustor at a high turbine inlet temperature (1426 C
design) firing No. 2 fuel oil.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Gas Turbine Engines
Stationary Engines
Nitrogen Oxides
Combustion
Combustion Chambers
Residual Oils
Shale Oil
Coal
Liquefaction
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Combustor Design
Staged Combustion
Dry Controls
Fuel-bound Nitrogen
13B
2 IE
21K
07B
21B
2 ID
07D
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
116
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
108
------- |