EPA460/3-75-011
November 1975
FURTHER INVESTIGATION
INTO THE CAUSES
OF VARIABILITY IN AIRCRAFT
TURBINE ENGINE EMISSION
MEASUREMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 4810S
-------
Intranet Daemon To: Reprint LibraryRTP@EPA
Owner cc:
10/14/2003 05:33 PM
A:Name
John Kinsey
B:Mail_Drop
E 343-02
C: Telephone_Number
541-4121
D:Email
kinsey.j ohnOepa.gov
E:Status
EPA Employee
F:Office
NRMRL,
G:title_of_book
Further Investigation into the Cause of Variability in Aircraft Turbine
Emission Measurement, Report Number EPA-460/3-75-001, November 1975
H:author
A. F. Souza
I:year
1975
J: Publisher
NTIS ???
K:ISBN
O:Copyright
Agrees with copyright
Submit
Submit
tssms
rtirmd03
WARNING NOTICE
This electronic mail originated from a federal government
computer system of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Unauthorized access or use
of this EPA system may subject violators to criminal,
civil and/or administrative action. For official
purposes, law enforcement and other authorized personnel
may monitor, record, read, copy and disclose all
information which an EPA system processes. Any person's
access or use, authorized and unauthorized, of this EPA
system to send electronic mail constitutes consent to these
terms.
This information is for tracking purposes only.
Submitting script: /cgi-bin/form-mail.pi
Submitting host: 134.67.195.108 (134.67.195.108)
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
Referred: http://intranet.epa.gov/rtplibrary/bkdocfrm.html
-------
EPA460/3-75-011
FURTHER INVESTIGATION
INTO THE CAUSES
OF VARIABILITY IN AIRCRAFT
TURBINE ENGINE EMISSION
MEASUREMENT
by
Anthony F . Souza
Scott Environmental Technology, Inc.
Plumsteadville, Pennsylvania 18949
Contract No. 68-03-0410
EPA Project Officer: Gary F . Austin
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
November 1975
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee,
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Scott Environmental Technology, Inc., Plumsteadville, Pennsylvania 18949
in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-0410. The contents of this report
are reproduced herein as received from Scott Environmental Technology,
Inc. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of
the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-75-011
11
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
FORWARD
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 TEST ENGINE 1-1
2.0 AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN GAS TURBINE TEST CELLS 2-1
2.1 AMBIENT CARBON DIOXIDE VALUES 2-1
2.2 CARBON MONOXIDE 2-6
2.3 TOTAL HYDROCARBONS 2-6
2.4 NITROGEN OXIDES 2-6
2.5 EFFECT OF BACKGROUND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS ON
CALCULATED EMISSION RATES 2-7
3.0 MASS FLOW WEIGHTED TRAVERSE DATA 2-1
3.1 DETERMINATION OF MASS FLOW RATES FOR A TF-30 ENGINE 3-1
3.1.1 Mass Flow Measurements 3-1
3.1.2 Mass Flow Calculations 3-2
3.1.3 The Effect of Pressure and Temperature Measurement
Errors on Mass Flow Data 3-5
3.2 EXHAUST MASS FLOW PATTERNS 3-6
3.2.1 Temperature and Pressure Patterns 3-6
3.2.2 Density, Velocity and Mass Flow Profiles 3-11
3.2.3 Calculation of Total Exhaust Mass Flow 3-18
3.3 EXHAUST POLLUTANT EMISSION RATES 3-19
3.3.1 Pollutant Emission Concentration Maps 3-19
3.3.2 Area Weighted vs. Mass Weighted Emission Indices 3-19
3.3.3 Total Emission Rates Calculated by Different Methods 3-29
4.0 PROBE MANIPULATOR 4-1
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROBE MANIPULATOR 4-1
4.2 MANIPULATOR INSTALLATION IN NAFEC TEST CELL 4-3
4.3 OPERATIONAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE PROBE MANIPULATOR 4-3
4.4 DESCRIPTION OF TEST PROBES 4-4
4.5 DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS OF PROBE TESTS USING THE PROBE
MANIPULATOR 4-9
4.6 EVALUATION OF TEST PROBE DATA 4-14
i
r*1?**.. .
>j SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY. INC.
-------
-ii-
SET 1422 03 0275
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(contd)
Page
4.6.1 Run to Run Variations in Engine Conditions and
Emission Rates 4-17
4.6.2 Evaluation Criteria for Test Probes 4-19
4.6.3 Evaluation of Probes and Probe Positions 4-21
4.6.4 Discussion of Probe Performance Results 4-23
5.0 REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX I - TRAVERSE TEST DATA
APPENDIX II - PROBE DATA INVENTORY
APPENDIX III - ENGINE DATA DURING ALL TEST RUNS
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
ABSTRACT
Under Environmental Protection Agency Contract Number 68-03-0410,
Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. has furthered an investigation into
the causes of variability in turbine engine emission measurements. The
primary objective of the overall program was the development of reliable,
accurate test procedures for use in measuring emissions from aircraft
turbine engines. A comprehensive study of the variability due to the
instrument system sampling probe, ambient conditions and engine parameters
was performed under the original contract which pointed out the need for
more work in the area of exhaust sampling technique. Under this contract,
a technique for mass flow weighting of a detailed exhaust traverse data
was developed. Mass flow weighted emissions data of a modified TF-30
engine were calculated and compared to other techniques used for cal-
culating exhaust emission rates of gas turbine engines.
Ambient concentrations of exhaust related gases in and around
an engine test cell were monitored during gas turbine engine operation.
The effect of ambient concentrations on emission measurements is evaluated.
A probe manipulator capable of interchanging and rotating
three multiple hole exhaust gas sampling probes was designed, fabricated
and tested. Using this probe manipulator, test probe designs were evaluated
and compared during one continuous engine run eliminating engine operating
conditions as a test variable. The results of tests of three probe designs
are presented.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
FORWARD
This report was prepared by Scott Environmental Technology,
Inc. under Environmental Protection Agency contract number 68-03-0410.
The work reported herein was administered under the direction of the
Emission Control Technology Division, Office of Air and Water Pollution,
Environmental Protection Agency with Mr. Gary Austin serving as Project
Officer. This report covers work performed from January 1974 through
November 1974. The author of this report is Anthony F. Souza.
The program described in this report was performed with the
cooperation of the Federal Aviation Agency at the National Aviation
Facilities Experimental Center, Atlantic City, New Jersey, and the author
wishes to acknowledge the special efforts of Mr. Gerald Slusher and
Mr. Stephen Imbrogno of the FAA.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report describes the work performed by Scott Environmental
Technology, Inc. under Environmental Protection Agency contract number
68-03-0410. Variability in aircraft turbine engine emission measurements
was studied in a previous contract. In this contract, variability
arising from exhaust sampling techniques was further studied. The primary
objective of the overall program was the development of reliable, accurate
test procedures for use in measuring emissions from aircraft turbine engines.
A comprehensive study of the variability due to the instrument system
sampling probe, ambient conditions and engine parameters was performed
under the original contract which pointed out the need for more work in
the area of exhaust sampling technique.
Ambient concentrations of exhaust gases in and around the
engine test cell were measured during engine tests and their effect on
the measurement of exhaust emissions was evaluated.
Detailed exhaust traverse data from a modified P&W TF30 engine
were analyzed to determine the effect of mass flow weighting of the
measured emission concentrations on the calculation of emissions.
A probe manipulator capable of interchanging and rotating
three experimental multi-point probes was designed, fabricated and
tested. With this probe manipulator, test probes were evaluated during
continuous engine runs, eliminating the engine operating conditions
as an uncontrolled test variable.
1.1 THE TEST ENGINE
The gas turbine engine used for all the tests described in this
report was a Pratt and Whitney model TF30-P1 dual spool mixed flow
engine owned by the Federal Aviation Administration. The engine was
operated at the FAA's National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center
(NAFEC), Atlantic City, New Jersey.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
1-2
SET 1422 03 0275
The engine was modified by removing the afterburner assembly
including spray bars, fuel manifolds, and flame holder and installing
a fixed area exhaust nozzle in the fashion of commercial engines. The
modified TF30 engine produced 11,000 pounds thrust, had a compressor
pressure ratio of 17:1 and was equipped with eight can-annular combustion
chambers. The engine incorporates a front fan, airflow ratio approximately
1:1, which diverts air through an annular duct that forms the outer shell
of the engine. Similar to the JT8D, the bypass air duct terminates
downstream of the turbine and P7 station. Three struts (120 ) are
utilized in the core exhaust stream to support the turbine.
Engine total time at the time of the tests was approximately
300 hours and the time since overhaul was 100 hours.
The engine was operated in an open sea-level gas turbine
test stand with provision for the measurement of all engine operating
parameters including thrust. Four exhaust sampling probes were mounted
in the exhaust nozzle to provide a reference exhaust emission sample
independent of other exhaust emission probes and experiments. These
four probes were designed to sample primarily exhaust from the core
engine.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
Figure 2-1
Ambient Air Measurements April 25, 1974
.06
NOX(PPM)
.02
0
3-
I-
.08
.06
.04-
.02
OLE
i
90
I
1330
TEST POINT SYMBOL LOCATION
Q
Out&ide. tut aeJUL
Engine, ain. intet
Nea/i engine exhaust
Neon, engine, exhaa&t (opp #3)
W
o
APPR CRUISE MCP T/O MCP CRUISE APPR
91 92 93 94 95 96 97
I i l i ii 1,1 i i |
1400 1430 1500
IDLE
98 READ NO.
1530 EOT
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
2-1
SET 1422 03 0275
2.0 AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN GAS TURBINE TEST CELLS
Pollutant concentrations present in the ambient air in the test
cell can have an effect on the emission rates calculated from test on gas
turbine engines. This is more likely to be significant for tests on turbines
than other types of engines or stationary sources because of their very high
air/fuel ratio. For example, the average carbon dioxide concentration emitted
by a mixed flow turbine at idle is approximately 0.6%. The typical
background at the Atlantic City test site is 0.04% which is 7% of the
exhaust value.
In order to determine the magnitude of the effect of ambient
levels on emission rates calculated in this program, the ambient concentration
levels of the measured pollutants in and near the test cell were
monitored during four TF30 engine test periods. Carbon dioxide (C0_), carbon
monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC), nitric oxide (NO), and total oxides
of nitrogen (NO ) were measured at four test points. Test point 1 was
located outside the test cell air inlet baffle about six feet above ground
level. Test point 2 was located at the turbine engine air inlet screen
approximately one foot in from the bellmouth edge. Test points 3 and 4
were located at the turbine engine exhaust plane on the engine centerline
about three inches outside of the jet nozzle. Test point 3 was on the
right side (facing forward) located downstream of the engine oil sump
breather, and test point 4 was on the left side.
The ambient pollutant concentrations measured in the four tests
are plotted as a function of engine running time in Figures 2-1 through
2-4. The corresponding engine power settings and reference test run
reading numbers are also indicated on the plots.
2.1 AMBIENT CARBON DIOXIDE VALUES
Of the data taken at the four sampling points, the values at
Point 2 are of the greatest significance to emissions because they are
representative of the inlet air entering the turbine. The C0_ gas
analyzer used for background measurements was operated at 0-1.5% CO full
scale. Nearly all of the inlet C0_ readings were from 0.03 to 0.04%. This
indicates that the inlet air CO- was close to the normal atmospheric
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
2-3
SET 1422 03 0275
NOX $
PPM g
o-
o.
oo-
THC
PPM
CO
PPM
Figure 2-2
Ambient Air Measurements May 22, 1974
TEST POINT SVMBOL LOCATION
/ A Out&JLdt tut c.eU
2 Engine. aJUi LnteJt.
3 Neat engine exhaust
4 Q Nejin. engine, exhaust (opp "3)
a —
m
a
rt
a
-j
s
oo
0
•0
o;
o
es
o'
(2) r-i O
•r-ij-- rr: ;••.-! £,-.nj::r: T/Q
1 1 1
117 118 119 ' 121
__li 1 1 1 l_ 1 1 1
**-... y
BD
MCP
122 123
1 1_
y
— •
APPR
i
124
M
•
*
*
*
*
D
IDLE
125
READ
NO.
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600 EOT.
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
2-4
041
NOX °
PPM
02-
01-
0-
3-
THC
PPM 2-
I.
CO
PPM
XCO.
.08
.06
>
.04
.02
TEST POINT SVUBOL LOCATION
/ A Out&Ue, tut c-eJUL ba^te.
2 Engine. CUA. MxJL
3 NZO/L engine, exhau&t
4 Q Neon, engine, exhau&t (opp *3]
Figure 2-3
Ambient Air Measurements May 9, 1974
IDLE
APP | IDLE
106(1071108
" -H "
APP
109
D
1300
1330
CRUISE MCP T/O MCP CRU APP IDLE
113 U4 115 116 117 NQ
110
111 112
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
2-5
SET 1422 02 0275
Figure 2-4
Ambient Air Measurements May 24, 1974
TEST POINT SVMBOL LOCATION
J A Oots-tde tu t c.M
2 Engine OAJL (siieJL
3 Weo/t. engine ex/iooi-C
4 Q WeoA eng-cne exfoioi^ (opp "3)
.02-1
NOX
PPM .oi-
0-
THC
PPM
3-
2-
1-
CO
PPM
4
3-
2-
1-
.06
CO0 .04
.02
IDLE
READNO125
IDLE APR CRUISE
126 127 128
1300
EOT
1315
1330
1345
1400
MCP T/O MCP CPU APP IDLE
129 130 131 132 133 13,4
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
2-6
SET 1422 03 0275
background and it was not being contaminated by engine exhaust or other
pollutant sources. However, the carbon dioxide level near the exhaust plane
(Point 3) was higher than the background level and ranged up to 0.08%. A
visible plume from the oil breather passed in the vicinity of test point 4.
There evidently is an external influencing factor such as contamination from
the engine breather or exhaust recirculation. Point 4, which was also
located near the exhaust plane, but on the opposite side gave values of
carbon dioxide very close to the engine inlet and outside ambient levels
in all tests.
The high C02 values at Point 3 demonstrate that it is not
desirable to measure background levels in the vicinity of the nozzle
because the air may be contaminated and the readings will not necessarily
represent the true background levels at the engine inlet.
2.2 CARBON MONOXIDE
Carbon monoxide background concentrations ranged from 1 to 4 ppm
with most values between 2 and 3 ppm. Data at Point 3 were frequently 1
ppm higher than at the inlet. One point that must be considered in treating
background CO is that some of the CO will be burned to C0? as the air passes
through the engine combustion zones. The best location for the measurement
of background levels is at the air inlet to the engine.
2.3 TOTAL HYDROCARBONS
The total hydrocarbons at the inlet were ordinarily in the 1
to 2 ppm range typical of ambient air. The hydrocarbons measured at Point 3
tended to increase with time and approached 10 ppm. As with carbon monoxide,
some combustion of background hydrocarbons will occur as the air passes
through the engine.
2.4 NITROGEN OXIDES
The nitrogen oxides concentration at the engine inlet was usually
less than 0.1 ppm except in the tests of May 9, 1974, when it ranged up to
0.25 ppm. The levels at Point 3 ranged up to more than double the inlet
levels.
'•, '. SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC
-------
2-7
SET 1422 03 0275
2.5 EFFECT OF BACKGROUND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS ON CALCULATED EMISSION
RATES
Turbine emission rates are generally expressed as pounds per 1000
pounds of fuel calculated using a carbon balance technique. This calcu-
lation procedure is explained in detail in Reference 2. The simplified
equations for CO, THC and NO are as follows for W expressed in pounds per
X
1000 pounds of fuel. CO, THC, and NO are expressed in parts per million
(ppm) and C02 is expressed in percent (%).
W 0.20 (CO)
CO + C00 + THC
~~4 4
HT 10*
W = 0.10 (THC)
u CO + C02 + THC
io4 io4
W 0.329 (N0y)
x CO + C0_ + THC
io4 io4
The effect of typical ambient levels as found in this program on
calculated emission rates for a TF-30 engine is shown in Table 2-1. This
table compares the emission rates calculated after correcting exhaust pollutant
concentrations for inlet background concentrations to those calculated from
exhaust concentrations only. It is apparent that significant errors in
calculated emission rates, both positive and negative, are likely to occur
if inlet concentrations are neglected. The test cell is located in
a non-urban area, and it is also relatively remote from other test cells
and other sources of pollutants. The errors due to background would tend
to be even largar where test cells are located closer to pollutant sources.
Based on these findings, it is strongly recommended that pollutant
measurements be made at the engine inlet during each test run. Where high
concentrations of carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons are present at the inlet,
an estimate of the amounts of these constituents burned in the engine must
be made. A basis for the estimate could be obtained by introducing a
known amount of an individual low molecular weight hydrocarbon at the
inlet and measuring its concentration in the exhaust.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
2-8
SET 1422 03 0275
TABLE 2-1 THE EFFECT ON CALCULATED EMISSION RATES
OF CORRECTION FOR BACKGROUND POLLUTANT LEVELS
Typical Exhaust and Background Concentrations Found in
Tests of TF-30 Engine
Operating
Condition
Idle
Approach
Max.Cont.Power
Exhaus t Cone.
Background Cone, (at air inlet)
C02
%
0.58
0.85
1.35
CO
ppm
163
67
18
THC NOX
ppp-C ppm
71 3.4
13
11
13
45
C02
%
0.04
0.04
0.04
CO
ppm
3
3
3
THC
ppm— C
2
2
2
NOX
Ppm
0.1
0.1
0.1
Operating
Condition
Idle
Approach
Max.Cont.Power
Emission Rates (///1000 // Fuel)
as
read
CO
corr.!
* A,%
54 57 +6
15.6 15.6 0
2.7 2.3 -14
THC
as
read
11.7
1.5
0.8
corr.*
12.3
1.3
0.7
A,%
+5
-11
-16
as
read
corr.* A.
1.85 1.98 +4
5.0 5.2 +4
10.9 11.3 +4
*Corrected concentration = exhaust cone. - background cone.
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-1
SET 1422 03 0275
3.0 MASS FLOW WEIGHTED TRAVERSE DATA
In the previous investigation of variability in turbine engine
emission measurements (Contract No. 68-01-0443), a traversing probe was
used to obtain concentration readings at 177 points in the exhaust nozzle
plane of a 3T8D engine. The concentrations at each point were then
averaged to obtain a concentration representative of the total exhaust stream.
Later the data were compared to data obtained using various mixing probes.
It was suggested that part of the differences found between traverse and mixing
probe data was due to the fact that mass flow rates were not used in averaging
the traverse data. That is, when the data for each of the 177 points were
averaged, there was an inherent assumption that the mass flow at each point
was the same. No mass flow data were available for the JT8D, so the magnitude
of the error caused by the assumption could not be determined.
The method approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for measuring
mass emission rates from a source with non-uniform cross sectional concentrations
is to measure the concentration at a large number of points representing centers
of equal area and to simultaneously measure flow parameters. The mass emission
rate for each area is the product of this concentration and mass flow. The total
emission rate is the sum of the rates for each area.
3.1 DETERMINATION OF MASS FLOW RATES FOR A TF-30 ENGINE
The differences between emission rates calculated by arithmetic
averaging of traverse data points and those obtained from mass flow weighted
data were investigated for a TF-30 engine. The required data included total
pressure, static pressure and total temperature profiles for the exhaust
plane of the TF-30 as well as pollutant concentration measurements.
3.1.1 Mass Flow Measurements
The data required for mass flow determination were collected by
using the traversing probe build by Scott for the JT8D in the previous
EPA program. The traversing probe was modified to include a static
pressure probe and a total temperature thermocouple. This new probe
was mounted two inches above the emissions sampling probe. The
emissions sampling probe was alternately connected to either the emissions
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-2
SET 1422 03 0275
analyzer or to a manometer and thus served as both a total pressure probe
and emissions probe. Emissions and aerodynamic measurements were performed
on a two-inch square grid. While the gas emissions and total pressure were
being measured in one 2x2 area, the total temperature and static pressure
were being measured in the 2x2 area just above.
The "total" temperature indicator was an unshielded chromel-alumel
thermocouple attached to the shaft of the static pressure probe and held
away from the rounded nose of the static pressure probe approximately one
half inch by a spacer. A stream temperature probe is an impractical
instrument since it is impossible to measure the temperature exclusive
of aerodynamic heating effects.
The temperature of a high speed air stream is most conveniently
measured with a total temperature probe which measures the temperature
of the stream plus the temperature rise due to adiabatically decelerating
the air stream to essentially zero velocity. The stream temperature is
then obtained by deducting the aerodynamic heating effect which is a well
understood function of Mach number and the ratio of the specific heats.
Total pressure* stream (static) pressure and "total" temperature
readings were taken on the two-inch square grid on a plane two inches
behind the plane of the exhaust nozzle. The traverse grid is illustrated
in Figure 3-1.
3.1.2 Mass Flow Calculations
Mass flow rates were calculated from the pressure and temperature
data. The mass flow parameter (pV) at each grid point was calculated
from the static, barometric and total pressure and the total temperature.
The Mach number was first calculated using the formula:
M
° Y
1~1
J
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-3
SET 1422 03 0275
8 /ST XHo HI
b 107 103 XIO'I
FIGURE 3-1
TRAVERSE GRID
P&W TF 30 ENGINE
SCOTT RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.
-------
3-4
SET 1422 03 0275
where: M = Mach number
2
p = total pressure #/ft. (absolute)
° 2
p = stream pressure #/ft. (absolute)
s
Y = ratio of specific heat at constant pressure to the specific
heat at constant volume. The value of y for the exhaust was
assumed to be the same as for air (y = 1.38 for an absolute
temperature of 1000 R) , y varies with temperature and fuel-air
ratio of the fluid. The stream temperature in the TF30 exhaust varies
between 500° R at the nozzle wall at idle and 1300° R in
the center at maximum continuous power. Therefore, the
value of y varies from 1.401 to 1.362. The average is 1.38.
The error due to using the average value for the calculations
is .01% at idle and .12% at maximum continuous power.
The free stream temperature was calculated from the total temperature
(T ) using the relationship:
T
s
1 + M
The speed of sound (V ) in the exhaust gas is:
3.
2
where: g = the dimensional constant 32.17 ft./sec. and R for air is 53.3.
The exhaust velocity (V) at each point is:
V = M(Va)
The exhaust gas density at each point is:
D _ §_ (slugs)
8RTs ft.3
The mass flow per unit area (pV) at each point was obtained from
o
the product of p and V and is in the units slugs/ft. - sec.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-5
SET 1422 03 0275
3.1.3 The Effect of Pressure and Temperature Measurement Errors on
Mass Flow Data
The static pressure probe was made of one-half inch diameter
tubing bent in an inverted L shape with the small leg of the inverted L
projecting into the exhaust stream. Static pressure taps were located
one inch back from a rounded nose added to the tube. The position of the
static pressure tap on the body of the static pressure probe should be
located far enough aft of the nose of the probe to be free of the flow
disturbance produced by the nose and far enough forward of the stem so
that the presence of the stem which is propagated upstream is minimal.
In the probe used the static pressure port was located 2 probe diameters
downstream of the nose and sufficiently forward of the stem to minimize
flow disturbance. The stem error in the static pressure is minimal
because the sample port is located far upstream of the stem. The static
pressure error produced by the nose of the probe can be as high at 1.5%
of the stagnation pressure or about 1.6 inches of water at idle power.
Since the calculations for velocity and density require the static pressure
in absolute units this error is seen to be negligible.
The errors in the total temperature measurement are caused by
radiation and conduction losses from the thermocouple junction and
uncertainties in the actual degree of stagnation pressure recovery. The
ability of the total temperature probe to decelerate the fluid to zero
and convert the kinetic energy of the fluid to thermal energy is characterized
by its recovery factor. The recovery factor is 1.0 for a perfect probe.
For a bare bulb thermocouple, similar to that used in the tests, the
recovery factor can be no better than .65 when radiation and conduction
is minimized. The radiation is minimized when the probe temperature
is close to the wall temperature. For purposes of estimating the error
involved in using a bare thermocouple in a jet exhaust, let us assume that
the radiation and conduction error is either small or self-cancelling and
that the only error is due to deviation of the probe temperature from the
stream stagnation temperature. The ratio of the total temperature to
the stream temperature may be estimated from
Tt M2
T~ = -1 + ~5~
s
r jj ";
I '• SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC
-------
3-6
SET 1422 03 0275
3.2 EXHAUST MASS FLOW PATTERNS
3.2.1 Temperature and Pressure Patterns
Detailed patterns of exhaust gas temperature taken on the TF30
are presented in Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 for idle, approach and maximum con-
tinuous power. A map of total pressure for idle is shown in Figure 3-5.
The total pressure pattern becomes flatter with increasing power, being
essentially flat at maximum continuous power. Total temperature and
static pressure data at idle were missing at 16 of the outer grid points and
idle power total temperature data were missing at 7 additional grid points.
Using the grid pattern of Figure 3-1, the average value of temperature
for each ring of grid points was calculated and this value was used as an
estimate of the temperature at the missing points. Missing data at
approach power and maximum continuous power were treated similarly. The
temperature patterns are smooth and symmetrical. The overall exhaust gas
temperature level increased less than 10% with increasing power and the
temperature gradient decreased with increasing power.
A A j SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC
-------
3-7
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-2
EXHAUST GAS STATIC TEMPERATURE MAP (°R)
P&W TF 30 ENGINE IDLE POWER
LOOKING UPSTREAM
Note: Values shown
in parentheses are
assumed values based
on symmetry.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-8
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-3
EXHAUST GAS STATIC TEMPERATURE MAP (°R)
P&W TF 30 ENGINE APPROACH POWER
LOOKING UPSTREAM
s Note: Values shown in
parentheses are assumed
values based on symmetry.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-9
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-4
EXHAUST GAS STATIC TEMPERATURE MAP (°R)
P&W TF 30 ENGINE MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER
LOOKING UPSTREAM
Note: Values shown
in parenthesis are
assumed values
based on symmetry.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-10
SET 1422 03 0275
Note; Values shown in
parentheses are assumed
values based on symmetry.
FIGURE 3-5
TOTAL PRESSURE MAP (inches H20 gage)
P&W TF 30 ENGINE IDLE POWER
LOOKING UPSTREAM
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-11
SET 1422 03 0275
3.2.2 Density, Velocity and Mass Flow Profiles
Typical profiles of the density (p) and velocity (V) are shown
as Figures 3-6, 3-7 and 3-8 for idle, approach and maximum continuous power.
The profiles were obtained by plotting the calculated velocity and density
from the data points in the horizontal center line of the exhaust plane.
Exhaust gas velocity is seen to be highest near the center with a small
depression at the center and decreasing toward the edge of the nozzle at
all power settings. The central velocity is approximately 25% greater than
the velocity near the periphery. The density profile is fairly flat in the
center and increases in density toward the nozzle periphery at all power
settings. The density approximately doubles from the center to the edge.
The density and velocity at each grid point were combined into
a mass flow parameter PV. This parameter has the units mass per area per
unit time. The data are tabulated in Appendix I. Where data were missing,
estimated pV values were determined by averaging data for other points in
the same concentric ring. These estimated points are identified by
enclosing them in parentheses.
Figures 3-9, 3-10 and 3-11 illustrate the mass flow distribution
at the TF-30 exhaust nozzle at idle, approach and maximum continuous power.
2
At idle power, the mass flow varies smoothly from 0.5 slugs/ft, -sec.
2 2
(78.5 kg/m -sec.) in the center of the exhaust to 0.9 slugs/ft, -sec.
2
(141 kg/m -sec.) at the nozzle wall. At approach and maximum continuous
power, the mass flow distribution becomes a little flatter but is still
highest at the outer wall and lowest in the center.^ The approximate
ratios of wall to center mass flow rates are 1.67, 1.54 and 1.49 for idle,
approach and maximum continuous power. Based on these mass flow distribu-
tions, it would be^expected that the exhaust aerodynamic effects would be
similar on a multiple point sampling probe at all power settings.
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-12
SET 1422 03 0275
velocity: sec
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
sampling point number along engine horizontal centerline
j .. slugs/ _
density: e _ 3
.0030
.0020
,0010
.0000
TYPICAL VELOCITY AND DENSITY PROFILES
TF 30 ENGINE IDLE POWER
Rdg. No. 14
2 3 4 '5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
sampling point number along engine horizontal centerline
13
Figure 3-6
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-13
SET 1422 03 0275
velocity: sec
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
000
V
11
12
2345 678910
sampling point number along engine horizontal centerline
13
.density:
.0030 „
.0020
.0010
.0000
TYPICAL VELOCITY AND DENSITY PROFILES
TF 30 ENGINE MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER
Rdg. No. 17
J_
_U
2345 6789 10 11
sampling point number along engine horizontal centerline
12
13
Figure 3-7
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-14
SET 1422 03 0275
ft/
velocity:
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
V
12345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
sampling point number along engine horizontal centerline
density: slugS/ fj.3.
.0030
.0020
TYPICAL VELOCITY AND DENSITY PROFILES
. TF 30 ENGINE APPROACH POWER
Rdg. No. 15
.0010
.0000
2345 6789 10 11
sample point number along engine horizontal centerline
Figure 3-8
12
13
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-15
SET 1422 03 0275
— ^2V- J-
JA-
(Ai
pV
FIGURE 3-9
MASS FLOW DISTRIBUTION ( slugs )
ft2 sec
P&W TF 30 ENGINE IDLE POWER
LOOKING UPSTREAM
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-16
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-10
MASS FLOW DISTRIBUTION ( S?:U6S )
£tz sec
P&W TF 30 ENGINE APPROACH POWER
LOOKING UPSTREAM
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-17
SET 1422 03 0275
PV
FIGURE 3-11
MASS FLOW DISTRIBUTION ( S1USS )
ft'' sec
P&W TF 30 ENGINE MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER
LOOKING UPSTREAM
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-18
SET 1422 03 0275
NAFEC
Rdg.
No.
14
15
17
Bellmouth
Air Flow
///Sec.
76.2
141.0
218.3
Fuel
Flow
///Hr.
871
2230
5249
Exhaust
FlowU;
///Sec.
76.4
144.6
219.8
Exhaust
FlowU;
///Sec.
86.6
152.4
238. 0'
%
Diff.
13.2
5.4
8.0
3.2.3 Calculation of Total Exhaust Mass Flow
The average mass flow, (pV), at each power setting was calculated
and multiplied by the nozzle cross sectional area to yield the exhaust flow
rate in pounds per second. These values were compared to the exhaust flow
rate obtained from the bellmouth air flow and fuel flow measurements made
during the same traverse runs. These data are shown in Table 3-1.
TABLE 3-1 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED TOTAL EXHAUST FLOW
Power
Setting
Idle
Approach
Max.Cont.Power
(1) Based on air plus fuel flows.
(2) Calculated from pV.
The flow rates calculated from the mass flow measurements are
from 5 to 13% higher than the sum of the measured air and fuel flow rates.
The error in total temperature measurement during traverse will cause the
calculated pV values to be in error by a factor inversely proportional to
the square root of the error. Since the total temperature could have been
too low by 2 to 16%, the pV flow calculation could be from 1% high at idle
to 4% high at maximum continuous power. The differences in the flow rates
determined by the two methods are considerably greater, especially at idle.
The possible instrumental error sources are the bellmouth flow orifice
calibration and unknown systematic errors in the temperature and pressure
measurements. The primary source of error cannot be determined from available
data.
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-19
SET 1422 03 0275
3.3 EXHAUST POLLUTANT EMISSION RATES
3.3.1 Pollutant Emission Concentration Maps
Detailed exhaust gas concentration measurements were made
concurrent with the mass flow traverse measurements at the TF30 exhaust
plane. The exhaust emission measurements were made with a new analysis
system built to conform with the EPA Aircraft Test Procedures CFR 40
of Part 87 July, 1973. The point by point data are presented in Appendix I.
Exhaust concentration maps for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide
and total hydrocarbons at idle power setting are presented in Figures 3-12
through 3-14. Similar maps at approach power are shown in Figures 3-15
through 3-17. Maps for carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides at maximum
continuous power are given in Figures 3-18 and 3-19. The maps for nitrogen
oxides at idle and approach and those for carbon monoxide and total hydro-
carbons at maximum continuous power were not drawn because there were too
many missing data points.
The maps exhibit smooth, symmetrical pollutant concentration
patterns with nearly circular concentric concentration isopleths. The
patterns shown in these maps are in sharp contrast with those obtained
for the JT8D engine in Scott's previous work for EPA ^ . The JT8D
engine exhibited a four-lobed pattern for all exhaust constituents.
3.3.2 Area Weighted vs. Mass Weighted Emission Indices
Area weighted and mass weighted averages of the pollutants at
each grid point were calculated from the TF30 engine data given
in Appendix I. The reading numbers are 14, 15, 16 and 17. The
area weighted averages were calculated by assigning one unit area
to each grid point except for the grid points at the outer periphery.
Grid points located in the areas labeled A, B, C and D of Figure 3-1 were
weighted by areas of .74, 1.18, 1.18 and .98, respectively. Symmetrically
located areas on the periphery were weighted with the appropriate factor.
The difference between the area weighted average and the numerical average
of the data points is less than 1%. This shows that when calculating area
weighted average concentrations, where the number of data points is 100 or
more, the numerical average of the points is equivalent to the area weighted
average. The resulting area weighted averages are given in Table 3-2.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-20
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-12
C02 (%)
EXHAUST CONCENTRATION MAP
TF 30 ENGINE IDLE POWER
source: NAFEC
Rdg. No, 14
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-21
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-13
CO (ppm)
EXHAUST CONCENTRATION MAP
TF 30 ENGINE IDLE POWER
source: NAFEC
Rdg. No. 14
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-22
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-14
THC (ppmC)
EXHAUST CONCENTRATION MAP
TF 30 ENGINE IDLE POWER
source: NAFEC
Rdg. No. 14
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-23
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-15
co2 %
EXHAUST CONCENTRATION MAP
TF 30 ENGINE APPROACH POWER
source: NAFEC
Rdg. No. 15
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-24
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-16
CO (ppm)
EXHAUST CONCENTRATION MAP
TF 30 ENGINE APPROACH POWER
source: NAFEC
Rdg. No. 15
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-25
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-17
THC (ppmC)
EXHAUST CONCENTRATION MAP
TF 30 ENGINE APPROACH POWER
source: NAFEC
Rdg. No. 15
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-26
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-18
co2 %
EXHAUST CONCENTRATION MAP
TF 30 ENGINE MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER
source: NAFEC
Rdg. No. 17
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-27
SET 1422 03 0275
FIGURE 3-19
NO (ppm)
X
EXHAUST CONCENTRATION MAP
TF 30 ENGINE MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER
source: NAFEC
Rdg. No. 17
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-28
SET 1422 03 0275
The measured concentration at each point was then weighted by
the mass flow at each point and the average mass weighted concentration
for each measured exhaust gas constituent was determined using the
relationship: n
C p V
n n n
Mass weighted average concentration
n
P V
n n
where C is the concentration of the pollutant specie at each point, and
n
p V is the mass flow at each point.
n n
The mass weighted average concentrations are presented in Table
3-3 along with the area weighted concentrations. The oxides of nitrogen
averages at idle power are based on 92 data points; the other gas concen-
trations are based on all 121 data points. The mass flow weighted average
concentrations are less than the area average weighted concentrations.
This occurs because the mass flow is greater in the outer parts of the plume
where the pollutant concentrations are lower.
A more realistic comparison of area weighted and mass flow
weighted data can be made by calculating emission indices using the carbon
balance technique described in Section 2.5. The emission indices determined
by the two methods agree very well except for the hydrocarbon indices at
approach and maximum continuous power. These differences of up to 10% were
the result of unusually high hydrocarbon readings in the periphery areas
apparently caused by hangup in the sampling probe. However, the emission
indices for hydrocarbons at these two conditions were so low as to make
the differences of little importance.
The above problem is evident from an examination of the consistent
level of hydrocarbons measured in the traverses for approach and maximum
continuous power. These data are listed in Appendix II. It is apparent
that hydrocarbon hangup in the sampling system caused a near constant
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-29
SET 1422 03 0275
background level to be recorded over the exhaust cross section. Measurement
of hydrocarbons at low levels requires constant checks of sample line
cleanliness so that no bias is put on the data. The check may be made by
passing zero hydrocarbon calibration gas through the entire system and com-
paring the reading thus obtained with the zero setting obtained by injecting
the zero gas directly into the hydrocarbon analyzer.
3.3.3 Total Emission Rates Calculated by Different Methods
The total emission rates of each pollutant in pounds per hour can
be calculated from the mass weighted average concentrations shown in Table
3-2 in several ways. First, the rates can be calculated from the emission
indices in Table 3-3 and the measured fuel flow rates shown in Table 3-1.
Emission rate (#/Hr.) = Emission Index (#/K// fuel) x F
1000
where: W = measured fuel flow rate (///Hour)
The emission rate can also be calculated from the mass weighted average
concentration (Table 3-2) and the exhaust flow rates (Table 3-1).
Emission rate (#/Hour) = ppm MW r^finrn
1Q6 X 29 E
where: W = Exhaust gas flow rate (#/sec.)
MW = Molecular weight of exhaust constituent (16 for THC,
28 for CO and 46 for NO )
x
ppm = Concentration of exhaust constituent in parts per million
W can be based on either measured bellmouth air flow and fuel flow or pV data.
Table 3-4 compares the emission rates as calculated by the
different methods. The emission rates calculated from the emission indices and
fuel flow rates are from 10 to 20% higher than those calculated from the mass
flow weighted average concentrations and exhaust volumes calculated from pV
at the nozzle plane. Substituting the exhaust volume based on bellmouth
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-30
SET 1422 03 0275
TABLE 3-2 POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN TF-30 EXHAUST
DETERMINED BY TRAVERSE TESTS
Power THC CO C02 NOX
Setting ppm-C ppm % ppm
Area Weighted Average Concentration
Idle 71.0 163.0 0.58 (3.4)*
Approach 13.2 66.8 0.85 12.9
Max. Cont. Power 10.5 18.1 1.35 45.3
Mass Flow Weighted Average Concentration
Idle 60.0 132.0 0.49 (2.9)*
Approach 12.2 57.5 0.73 11.2
Max.Cont.Power 10.4 15.9 1.18 39.1
TABLE 3-3 POLLUTANT EMISSION INDICES AS CALCULATED BY
CARBON BALANCE
g/Ktf Fuel
Power . NO
Setting THC CO x
Area Weighted
Idle " 13.5 54.3 1.86*
Approach 1.77 15.6 4.96
Max.Cont.Power 0.89 2.69 11.0
Mass Flow Weighted
Idle 13.55 52.1 1.88*
Approach 1.90 15.7 5.01
Max.Cont.Power 1.01 2.70 10.9
*Estimated
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
3-31
SET 1422 03 0275
air flow and fuel flow results in even lower emission rates. The differences
between rates calculated by the different techniques are greater than desirable.
The differences can result from errors in fuel flow data, air flow data
and traverse pressure and temperature data. There is insufficient information
available to estimate the magnitude of these errors at the time the traverse
runs were made. Since the emission indices agree well with those found in
subsequent tests using other probes and analytical instrumentation, it is
unlikely that errors in pollutant concentration data contribute significantly
to the differences found.
TABLE 3-4 TF-30 EMISSION RATES CALCULATED BY'DIFFERENT METHODS
NAFEC Fuel
Powrr Rdg. Flow
Sett
ing
No.
0/Hr. THC CO
Calculated From Emission Indict-s
Idle
& Fuel Flow
14 871 U.8 47.3
Approach
Max.
Cont . Power
Mass
Flow
15
17
Weighted
2230
5249
Avg.
& Exhaust
3.95 34.8
4.67 ' 14.1
Volume (pV A)
N0x
I.fi4
11. I
57.7
Idle 14 10.3 39.7 l.i
Approach 15 3.7 30.5 9.7
Max.Cont.Power 17 4.9 13.1 53.1
Mass Flow Weighted Avg. & Exhaust Volume (Bellmouth Air & Fuel Flow)
Idle 14 9.10 35.1 1.23
Approach 15 3.51 28.9 9.18
Max.Cont.Power 17 4.53 12.0 48.9
.
I SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC
-------
4-1
SET 1422 03 0275
4.0 PROBE MANIPULATOR
Comparative evaluations of multiple-point probes for gas turbine
emissions measurement on actual gas turbines have been hampered by the
run-to-run variation and the ambient temperature and humidity effects
on the actual exhaust emissions. In order to overcome this difficulty,
a special probe manipulator was designed, built and tested as part of this
program. The probe manipulator was capable of exchanging and rotating
three test probes in the TF-30 exhaust plane.
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROBE MANIPULATOR
The probe manipulator is depicted schematically in Figure 4-1. Three
test probes were built into three 30-inch diameter rotatable steel pipe
sections mounted on a welded framework which rode on flanged wheels. The
entire probe holder assembly was mounted on trolley wheels, similar to
the ones used in small overhead cranes, which rode on two I-beams
supported a few inches above the test cell floor. The operation of the
probe manipulator was remotely controlled from a console in the test cell
control room during tests with the TF-30 engine at NAFEC.
Probe rotation was accomplished initially with a friction drive
system. A gear head motor drove the lower sets of flanged wheels which
supported each probe hoop through a chain and sprocket system. Angular
position of the probes was monitored electrically by means of a 0-200 mv
digital voltmeter which indicated the position of a 10-turn potentiometer
driven by the gear motor actuator. The electrical signal was adjusted to
give one millivolt change for a change of one degree in probe rotation.
The probe manipulator carriage was moved by a trolley drive
motor which drove one set of the trolley wheels which rode on the I-beam.
Micro-switches positioned along the forward I-beam rail were actuated by
a cam mounted on the movable portion of the manipulator. Each micro-
switch was connected to an indicator light on the manipulator control
console. In operation, the probe manipulator carriage was positioned
correctly when the appropriate indicator light was lit.
j - ,^ .
:f\ ): • SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC
-------
(SI
n
O
o
m
>
m
r»
O
O
o
en
w
H
N)
N?
O
O
,10.
•vj
FIGURE 4-1 PROBE MANIPULATOR
-------
4-3
SF.T 1422 03 0275
4.2 MANIPULATOR INSTALLATION IN NAFEC TEST CELL
The probe manipulator was installed in the test cell 10
inches behind the engine exhaust nozzle. The TF-30 engine was mounted
at a slight nose-up attitude on the test stand and the exit plane
of the test nozzle attached to the TF-30 was raked back at a small angle
from a perpendicular line to the engine thrust line. In order to match
the probe manipulator attitude to the engine nozzle exit plane, the
rearward rail of the probe manipulator was lowered and the forward rail
was shimmed up so that the probes on the manipulator were parallel to
tl-K' nozzle plane and centered on the nozzle diameter.
Heated, insulated sample lines were connected from each of
the test probes to a manifold of heated solenoid valves. Remote selection
of a test probe v/as made by switching on the appropriate solenoid which
connected the probe to the sample line leading to the analysis instrumentation.
The heated sample lines connecting each probe to the solenoid
manifold were dressed along the outside diameter of each probe hoop. In
the "zero degree" position, only approximately 6 inches of sample line
were exposed to the exhaust when changing probes. When the probes were
rotated 90°, the sample lines lay exposed along a quarter-circle arc.
4.3 OPERATIONAL DIFFICULTIES WITH THE PROBE MANIPULATOR
In initial tests of the probe manipulator on gas turbine exhaust,
the probe rotation functioned smoothly, but small irregularities in indi-
vidual hoop shapes caused differential motion in the three hoops resulting
in eventual misalignment. Since only the rotational attitude of the drive
mechanism was measured as an angle position indication, misalignment was
intolerable. The probe rotation mechanism was changed to a direct drive
system using two loops of wire rope. The gear head motor now drove a
capstan wrapped with several turns of wire rope which was then passed
around the two adjacent hoops with a cable clamp bolted through each hoop.
The third hoop was driven by a second loop of wire rope which passed over
the second and third probe hoops. This modification completely eliminated
the test probe misalignment problem.
) SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY. INC
-------
4-4
SET 1422 03 0275
The probe carriage drive which positions the three probes
behind the engine functioned adequately at idle power, but not at approach
power (40%). The drag force on the support structure between each probe
ring unweighted the trolley drive mounted on the front rail so that the
drive wheels slipped on the rail. The trolley drive was moved to the
rear rail where the friction force on the drive wheel now increased with
increasing drag load on the manipulator structure. The alignment of all
the trolley wheels was adjusted so that the trolley drive was weighted
sufficiently to allow probe manipulator operation when the engine was
not running. With this modification, the carriage drive was operable up
through cruise power. Further testing and development of the probe
manipulator was not possible because the test cell was scheduled for
other test programs. The drag force on the structure when the probe
manipulator is between probes is very large due to exposing the flat plate
area of the flanged wheels and their brackets to the engine exhaust. The
addition of aerodynamic fairings and afterbodies would reduce this drag
considerably. An actuator system using wire rope similar to that used
for probe rotation would improve the carriage movement and give smooth,
positive positioning of the probe carriage.
4.4 DESCRIPTION OF TEST PROBES
Four probes were fabricated for test with the probe manipu-
lator. Design sketches for the test probes are shown as Figures 4-2, 4-3,
4-4 and 4-5. The probe illustrated in Figure 4-2 has twelve sample points
on orthogonal arms and is designated as the twelve point cruciform in the
following discussions. The sample points are located at centers of equal
areas based on the 25-inch TF-30 nozzle diameter. An additional pluggable
hole is located at the center of the probe. Figure 4-3 illustrates a probe
built to FAA specifications. It has twelve sample points located on four
sides of a square rotated 45° (diamond). The average sample point distance
from the engine nozzle center corresponds to 63% of the nozzle radius and
is referred to as the diamond probe. This probe was developed
by locating the three holes in each leg at an average tailpipe radius that
would produce the average exhaust concentrations as determined from the detailed
traverse tests. Figure 4-4 shows a cruciform probe with a spiral hole pattern.
The holes are at centers of equal area.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
4-5
SET 1422 03 0275
— /"OD
.2SO W/)Ll
Figure .4-2
EPA
-------
4-6
SET 1422 03 0275
Figure 4-3
PO/MT
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
P&OBE
-------
4-8
SET 1422 03 0275
. Figure 4-5
24 POfMT
PGOBE
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
At 0 this arm
was on top. At
90° this arm was left
horizontal looking from
rear of engine.
PLUG /A/
Figure 4-4
-------
4-9
SET 1422 03 0275
This pattern was developed by Pratt and Whitney Aircraft and is
referred to as the twelve point spiral probe. A fourth test probe (not tested) is
shown in Figure 4-5. It has twenty-four sampling holes at centers of equal
area based on the 25-inch TF-30 nozzle diameter and a pluggable center hole.
The probes are made of heavy wall stainless steel tubing welded
together. The three cruciform probes have the connection to the sample
line at the center of the probe where the four arms are manifolded to-
gether. The sample line is connected to the diamond probe at one
of the corners.
4.5 DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS OF PROBE TESTS USING THE PROBE MANIPULATOR
Three of the multiple point sampling probes were tested using the
probe manipulator. The three probes were arranged on the manipulator as
shown in Figure 4-6. Probe 1 was the twelve point cruciform; Probe 2 was
the diamond; and, Probe 3 was the twelve point spiral. The probes
are shown in the 0° position. In this position, the outermost hole of the
spiral pattern probe was on the upper vertical arm (Probe 3).
Readings of emissions were taken at 15° increments from 0° to
90°. Most of the data were taken at idle power, but data were also taken
at approach and cruise power. During one continuous run at idle power,
samples were collected using the cruciform and spiral probes with and without
the center hole. Data were collected at 30° rotation intervals.
The data taken with the multiple point probes on 30 September and
3 October are listed in the Probe Data Inventory (Appendix II). Engine
Performance Data for these tests and all reported tests are included as
Appendix III. Data taken on 12 September were not augmented with engine
data and so were omitted from this report.
The concentration measurements at various angular positions for
the three test probes are plotted in Figure 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9. These
three figures represent three sets of tests on three separate days. The
measured concentrations vary somewhat due to temperature, humidity, and
small changes in engine power setting. However, the pattern of measured
concentrations at the various angles is constant throughout for each probe.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
r»
3
o
z
m
1
O
5
o
rotation
ction
/'45° rotation angle
probe 1
prob
probe 3
g
N)
N5
O
w
O
M
^J
Ul
Probe 1. 12 pt. «.
cruciform »L
Probe 2. NAFEC °
diamond
Probe 3. 12 pt. P&W
spiral
(outermost hole on top
at 0°)
All probes shown at 0°
PROBE MUIIPULATOR
Lo6Ring Aft
Figure 4-6
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
60
55
u
k 50
ex
§•«
40
TF 30 ENGINE " IDLE POWER
O
12 Sept. 74
• 12 pt. CRUCIFORM
O 12 pt. KAFEC DIAMOND
Z± 12 pt. P&W SPIRAL
a
&.
CNI
O
u
350
300
250
200
150
.80
.70
.60
.50
I
ex
4.5 F
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
CO DATA INVALID
5° 30°
30^
45l
)° 75°
60L
30L
60L
Figure 4-7
Measured Concentrations With Three Probes At Various Angles
-------
4-12
o
o
o
z
X
o
2
O
O
u
SET 1422 03 0275
60
55
50
45
40
240r
220
&
o.
200-
180
B-S
O
O
160
0.9
0.8
i
0.7
0.6
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
IF 30 ENGINE
IDLE POWER
30° 45°
30 Sept. 74
12 pt. CRUCIFORM
NAFEC DIAMOND
12 pt. P&W SPIRAL
75l
60° 75° 90°
60° 75°
90s
90^
Figure 4-8
Measured Concentrations With Three Probes At Various Angles
-------
SF.T 1422 03 0275
70
o
. 60
o.
50
40
240
220
200.
O
0 180
0.8 -
0.7 -
CN
O
e
ex
a.
i
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
O
TF 30 ENGINE
IDLE POWER
30° 45°
60^
301"
45l
3 Oct. 74
• 12 pt. CRUCIFORM
O NAFEC DIA110ND
Z± 12 pt. P&W SPIRAL
75"
Figure 4-9
Measured Concentrations With Three Probes At Various Angles
-------
4-14
SET 1422 03 0275
The twelve point cruciform and the twelve point spiral probes gave
similar results with the measured concentrations of CO, C0» and NO being
£• X
highest at 0° and 90° and concentrations passing through a minimum from
30° to 45°. Maximum changes were approximately 10% over the range of
angles for these two probes. The diamond probe received maximum
CO, C02 and NO concentrations at a rotation angle of 45°, and progressively
less concentrations in either direction away from 45°. Up to 16% variation
in concentrations were observed with this probe. The hydrocarbon
data followed an irregular pattern with probe rotation. However, the patterns
were reproducible from day to day.
The effect on concentrations of exhaust components of adding the
center hole is illustrated in Figures 4-10 and 4-11. The measured concen-
trations of CO, C0« and NO increased for both the cruciform and spiral probes
with the addition of the center hole. This held true over the range of probe
orientation from 0° to 90°. The hydrocarbons for the spiral probe also in-
creased at all angles measured, but the hydrocarbon concentrations measured
with the center holed twelve point cruciform increased at 0° but decreased
at 30° and 60°.
4.6 EVALUATION OF TEST PROBE DATA
The purpose of the probe tests just described was to evaluate
how well each probe and probe angle provided a representative sample of
engine exhaust at the test condition. Based on this evaluation, probe
type and position could be recommended for performing standard or reference
emissions tests on a TF-30 engine.
The traverse tests described in Section 3.0 were performed in
order to provide true emission concentrations and rates for use as targets
to be achieved with the mixing probes. Unfortunately, there appear to be
significant differences in emission rates between the runs during which
the traverses were made and those in which the mixing probe tests were
conducted. In addition, there appear to be day to day and within run
variations in emission rates during the mixing probe tests. These variations
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
EFR-CT OF ChSIEH HOI..;; 0-i
EMISSIONS CONCENTRATIONS
60
u
k 55
o.
ex
50
45
ex
o
u
220
200
180
(N
O
O
0.8
0.7
0.6
7.0
I
S ' 6.0
5.0
4.0
12 POINT CRUCIFORM PROBE
• without center hole
O with center hole
"IS1"
60^
U 45" 60l
Figure 4-10
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
30 Sept. 74
90L
15° 30° 45° 60° 75° 90°
15° 30° 45° 60° 75° 90°
90'
-------
4-16
SET 1422 03 0275
EFFECT OF CENTER HOLE ON
12 POINT SPIRAL PROBE
without center hole
65
60
0
o.|
gso
45
240
220
1 200
o
°180
160
0.9
0.8-
o*Q.7
o
0.6
a7'0
ex
^6.0
§
5.0
|\1 SCOTT ENVIR
EMISS WNS . CONCENTRATIONS
III
0° 15° 30°
A' ^^*^
f 1 1
0° 15° 30°
^\ ^^""\^
^yy
» i i
0° 15° 30°
^^^•^1
0° 15° 30°
Figure
3NMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
X with center hole
30 Sept. 74
\^\X — — — — *
45° 60° 75° 90°
_— -— — ^X
S\ ,. . _ Xs
£±. ^^
t 1 1 I
45° 60° 75° , 90°
45° 60° 75° 90°
X
^ — ^ ^
f * f *
45° 60° 75° 90°
4-11
-------
4-17
SET 1422 03 0275
were of the same order of magnitude as the differences found from probe to
probe and from one position angle to another. This makes it difficult to
draw conclusions regarding probe design or probe position angle.
4.6.1 Run to Run Variations in Engine Conditions and Emissions Rates
Two sets of data are routinely collected which can be used as a
measure of run-to-run variation. These are: (1) operating parameters of
inlet air and fuel flows and, (2) emission concentrations measured with
core probes. The core probes are located in the engine exhaust nozzle just
aft of the turbine and measure the emissions from the primary gas stream only.
Twelve sample holes (three on each of four chordwise stainless steel probes)
are located in the core exhaust area. The four probes are manifolded
together by a hoop of stainless steel tubing located outside the nozzle.
Figure 4-13 depicts the core probe as installed in the TF-30 engine.
Because of its location in the core engine flow, the core
probes register emission concentrations corresponding to lower air-fuel
ratios than the actual overall engine air-fuel ratio. The core probes
indicate a 2.5 times richer F/A ratio than the overall engine F/A. The
actual engine operating point with respect to emissions during traverse
tests and the later probe tests can be compared by referring to the core
probe data obtained during these two sets of tests. The traverse tests
were made on cold, dry January days while the probe tests were made on
warmer days in September and October. The emissions indices can change
significantly due to temperature and humidity effects. The temperature
and humidity effects are being determined for this TF-30 engine by NAFEC
in a separate program, however, the results are not available at this
writing. In lieu of the correction factors for temperature and humidity
for this engine, the core probe data obtained during both traverse tests
and multiple point probe tests can be used to normalize the emissions
rates in order to allow comparison of the emission indices obtained with
the multiple point probes to the 'true' emission indices obtained from the
traverse tests.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
4-18
SET 1422 03 0275
/£>
Figure 4-13
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
4-19
SET 1422 03 0275
The engine operating parameters of inlet air and fuel flow and
the core probe emission data for the various test runs are compared in
Table 4-1. Runs 14 to 17 were the traverse runs and Runs 272 to 280 were
the probe test runs. The air-fuel ratios based on measured air and fuel
flows are also included. The data in Table 4-1 clearly show the significant
run- to- run and within run differences that occurred in exhaust composition.
These differences are not readily explainable by differences in air or
fuel flows.
The probe test data in Appendix II generally reflect the run-to-
run differences in core exhaust concentrations. For example, the emission
indices for CO and THC are much higher for all three probes in Run 275 than
in Runs 272-4. The core exhaust data likewise show similar increases in
CO and THC between these runs.
4.6.2 Evaluation Criteria for Test Probes
The air/fuel ratio calculated from the measured concentrations
(4)
of combustion products has been suggested as a measure of probe performance
Air/fuel ratios are calculated from exhaust composition (wet basis) by the
(4)
following equation :
ro
207 - 2 ^ - C02
C0_ THC
4 + LU2 4
10 10*
The A/F ratio is seen to be highly dependent on the CO,, concentration. For
the TF-30 engine the A/F ratio at idle is approximately 200/C02 and at
approach and maximum continuous power it is approximately 205/CO-. The
simplified expressions yield values within +1% of the values from the above
equation.
In order for a probe to meet the A/F ratio criterion it must
provide a sample with a C0_ concentration representative of the overall
exhaust average. Of greater importance, it must also provide a sample
with representative concentrations of CO, THC and NO . This criterion can
be evaluated by comparing the emission index for each pollutant to the true
value. In this case the true value is assumed to be that derived from the
traverse data described in Section 3.0.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
TABLE 4-1 NAFEC CORE PROBE DATA
0
<«
n
0
m
Z
30
O
z
ni
Z
-t
m
n
z
o
o
o
z
n
Date
24 Jan.
24 Jan.
25 Jan.
25 Jan.
25 Jan.
25 Jan.
28 Jan.
28 Jan.
28 Jan.
31 Jan.
31 Jan.
31 Jan.
30 Sep.
30 Sep.
30 Sep.
3 Oct.
3 Oct.
3 Oct.
3 Oct.
3 Oct.
3 Oct.
Run
No.
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
Power
Setting
Idle
Idle
Approach
Approach
Approach
Approach
Cruise
Cruise
Cruise
Max . Cont . Power
Max. Cont. Power
Max. Cont. Power
Idle
Idle
Idle
Idle
High Idle
Higher Idle
Approach
Cruise
Max. Cont. Power
Inlet
Air
#/Sec.
76
76
141
141
141
141
204
204
204
218
218
218
80
80
79
77
88
97
-
204
219
Fuel
Flow
870
870
2242
2242
2242
2242
4786
4786
4786
5356
5356
5356
918
918
891
874
1013
1150
2257
4760
5814
C02
1.74
1.76
2.10
2.14
2.08
2.26
2.86
2.98
2.89
3.54
3.12
3.32
2.13
1.94
1.85
1.86
1.95
1.95
2.24
3.00
3.18
THC
ppm-C
234
234
35
30
24
24
2
2
14
11
12
15
161
161
153
228
186
140
27
6
3
CO
505
505
182
166
163
158
48
50
44
38
41
40
534
527
520
582
508
424
168
53
40
NOX
£p_m
14
14
32
33
35
35
82
84
86
110
110
110
20
25
17
38
41
48
65
127
171
Meas.
A/F
314
314
226
226
226
226
153
153
153
147
147
147
314
314
319
317
313
304
-
154
136
Meas.
F/A
.00317
.00317
.00439
.00439
.00439
.00439
.00645
.00645
.00645
.00666
.00666
.00666
.00317
.00317
.00313
.00316
.00321
.00330
.00649
EPR £
H
1.0793 H-
•C*
1.0793 K
o
1.311 w
0
1.311 13
Ul
1.311
1.311
1.738
1.738
1.738
1.9058 *,
i
1.9058 g
1.9058
1.084
1.081
1.082
1.081
1.098
1.099
1.681
1.853
-------
4-21
SET 1422 03 0275
4.6.3 Evaluation of Probes and Probe Positions
A comparison of emission indices for the three probes and the
several probe positions to the indices derived from traverse data requires
application of the normalization procedure referred to in Section 4.6.1.
If this is not done, the run-to-run variations, which are greater than
probe-to-probe variations, will completely mask any differences due to
probes or probe positions.
The probe test data were normalized by applying a correction
factor equal to the ratio of the core emission index during the corresponding
traverse run to the core emission index during the probe test run. In
normalizing the probe test data, it was assumed that the core emissions
were constant during each test run. A more accurate normalization would
require core data for each probe test point, but this was not available.
The normalization and subsequent comparison was limited to CO and THC because
of missing NO data points in the traverse runs and probable erroneous NO
x x
data for some core runs.
The normalized THC and CO emission indices in tests at idle power
setting conducted on 30 September and 3 October are presented in Table 4-2.
It is quite apparent that the normalization substantially reduced the run-to-
run differences shown in Appendix II. Each of the three test probes yielded
indices which were reasonably close to the indices calculated from traverse
data for both THC and CO at most probe angles. In fact, most probe indices
differ from the traverse indices by less than 10%. When the cruciform and
spiral probes were positioned between 15° and 45°, the indices ranged up to
nearly 20% higher than the traverse indices. This can be explained by the
non-symmetry of the pollutant isopleths as illustrated in Figures 3-12 to 3-14.
The addition of the center hole to the twelve-point curciform and
spiral probes had little effect on the emission indices. The hydrocarbon
indices were up to 5% lower with the center hole open, but changes in the
carbon monoxide indices were within experimental error.
Most of the A/F ratios calculated from test probe data at idle
power setting were within 10% of the values calculated from measured air and
fuel flows (see Appendix II). This applies to all three test probes. The
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
4-22
TABLE 4-2
Probe
12 pt.Cruciform
NAFEC Diamond
P&W Spiral
EMISSION INDICES NORMALIZED WITH CORE PROBE DATA
IDLE POWER
Emission Index (#/1000# Fuel)
Traverse Average *
Without Center
THC
Angle
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
Average *
9/30
13.5
15.3
18.2
15.9
14.9
14.0
14.6
15.1
12.4
11.5
12.4
14.7
14.2
14.0
12.4
13.5
14.5
14.5
12.4
12.6
12.6
13.
13.
10/3
12.8
13.7
14.2
13.2
-
12.1
13.0
13.8
12.5
11.9
12.2
13.6
14.3
13.3
14.2
15.6
16.0
15.1
13.3
13.7
14.2
5
6
Hole
CO
9/30
59.3
63.1
66.2
59.5
59.1
59.0
60.0
56.7
55.3
55.4
58.6
60.1
57.5
58.9
56.1
57.5
57.8
57.8
55.6
55.6
56.1
54
52
10/3
54.9
56.6
56.8
55.0
-
52.9
54.9
55.8
53.1
53.1
55.5
56.0
57.7
56.0
54.6
56.4
57.5
56.3
53.4
54.6
55.9
.3
.1
With
THC
9/30
12.6
-
14.2
-
12.6
-
13.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.5
-
14.0
-
12.6
-
12.2
Ctr Hole
CO
9/30
53.7
-
56.4
-
54.2
-
55.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
55.6
-
56.5
-
54.3
-
54.5
* From Table 3-3
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOIOGY, INC.
-------
4-23
SET 1422 03 0275
run-to-run and within run variations discussed previously produce an uncertainty
in true A/F ratios at the time specific probe data points were sampled. The
addition of the center hole to the cruciform and spiral probes resulted in
calculated A/F ratios definitely lower than the true values. This means
that the central core area of the plume was being sampled in greater volume.
The samples would not necessarily be representative of the total exhaust.
Insufficient data are available to draw conclusions on the performance
of the test probes at power settings other than idle. There is evidence
that as the load increased the difference between measured and calculated A/F
ratios also increased. If this is real, it would imply that the sampling
holes are too close to the center of the nozzle plane, and the outer portions
of the plume are being sampled in too small a proportion.
4.6.4 Discussion of Probe Performance Results
The probe tests showed relatively small differences among emissions
indices and A/F ratios calculated from data obtained for different probes and
probe angles. This implies that probe position and configuration are not
especially important in determining engine emission rates. This may well be
true for the TF-30 engine because of its symmetrical emission concentration
pattern. Another important factor is the ratio betweeen concentrations of
pollutants (THC, CO and NO ) and C0_. This ratio remained relatively con-
X £.
stant except for the very outer regions of the plume. Therefore, the emission
indices change little from point-to-point in the major part of the plume,
and the location of the sampling points are not critical for the TF-30.
On the other hand, previous data collected for the JT-8D engine
showed substantial changes in ratios and emissions indices from point to point
in the plume. This makes probe configuration and position of much greater
importance for the JT-8D than the TF-30. Thus, the fact that a specific
probe design gave acceptable results when sampling exhaust from a TF-30, in
no way assures satisfactory performance when used in tests on other engine
types.
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY. INC.
-------
5-1
SET 1422 03 0275
5.0 REFERENCES
1. Souza, A.F. and Reckner, L.R.,
"Variability in Aircraft Turbine Engine Emissions Measurements,"
Environmental Protection Agency Report; EPA-460/3-74-006, January, 1974.
2. "Procedure for the Continuous Sampling and Measurement of Gaseous
Emissions from Aircraft Turbine Engines,"
ARP 1256, Society of Automotive Engineers, January 10, 1971.
3. "Aerodynamic Measurements"
Gas Turbine Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
1959.
4. Dieck, R.H.,
"Gas Turbine Emission Measurment Uncertainty,"
ISA Conference, October, 1974.
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
APPENDIX I
TRAVERSE TEST DATA
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
NOMENCLATURE USED IN APPENDIX I
P - Total pressure 2 inches behind exhaust nozzle exit plane in inches
8 of water or mercury as appropriate relative to barometric pressure
P_ - Static pressure 2 inches behind exhaust nozzle exit plane in inches
8 of water relative to barometric pressure
T - Total temperature of exhaust gas at a point 2 inches behind exhaust
8 nozzle exit plane (°F)
'7-55- - Total pressure at station 8 in absolute units (Ibs/ft )
•ADO
Static pressure at station 8 in absolute units (Ibs/ft )
ABS
T
T
-r-r^- - Total temperature at station 8 in absolute units (°R)
ADO
M - Mach number
T - Stream temperature - temperature of the gas stream at each point
S in absolute units (°R)
Va - Speed of sound (ft/sec)
V - Velocity of gas stream at each point (ft/sec)
3
p - Gas density at each point (slugs/ft )
pV - Product of density and velocity or essentially the mass flow
(slugs/ft^-sec)
THC - The measured concentration of total hydrocarbons in parts per
million as methane
CO - The measured concentration of carbon monoxide in parts per
million
C0_ - Measured concentration of carbon dioxide in per cent
NO - Measured concentration of total oxides of nitrogen in parts per
million
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
©
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNC
APPENDIX I
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 14 24 January
IDLE POWER
r*
2 Average Engine Parameters during Reading No.
o
Z* Air Inlet Dry Bulb Temperature - 43.9 F
— Air Inlet Wet Bulb Temperature - 37.8°F
P
^ T7 - 2.40 in. Hg.
PT
4 - 50.6 in. Hg.
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PT
T8
(in.H20)
40.2
38.0
36.2
35.5
34.3
32.8
32.9
33.8
35.2
35.4
36.1
37.7
34.5
38.7
38.2
P,,
S8
(ln.H20)
.9
3.2
4.5
5.1
5.8
6:2
6.3
6.1
5.6
5.0
4.1
2.5
.5
1.0
3.1
A
55
150
390
600
610
610
600
605
580
370
180
100
60
60
165
Po
lb./ft.2)
2351.8
2340.3
2330.9
2327.3
2321.0
2313.2
2313.7
2318.4
2325.7
2326.8
2330.4
2338.8
2322.1
2344.0
2341.4
14 Idle Power
CIP total - 3°'2A in- HgA
CIPstatic - 53'9 in' V
Barometric Pressure - 30.
p
(lb./ft.2)
2146.6
2158.6
2165.4
2168.6
2172.2
2174.3
2174.8
2173.8
2171.2
2168.0
2163.3
2155.0 .
2144.5
2147.2
2158.1
T_
. T8
(Abs.)
515
610
850
1060
1070
1070
1060
1065
1040
830
640
560
520
520
625
74
27 In. Hg.
u
B
t-
£
r*
N
C
NOTE: Some data are missing. *
Numbers In parentheses have >•
been estimated based on nozzle
symmetry.
Stream Speed of
Mach No.
0.36
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.34
0.34
0.36
0.34
Temp.
502
596
832
1039
1050
1051
1041
1046
1020
813
626
547
508
507
611
Sound
V
a
(ft. /sec.)
1098
1196
1413
1579
1588
1589
1581
1584
1565
1397
1226
1146
1105
1103
1211
Velocity
V
(ft. /sec.)
399
409
461
504
491
475
473
483
493
447
402
394
375
393
416
Density
P 3
(Slugs/ft. )
.00250
.00211
.00152
.00122
.00121
.00121
.00122
.00121
.00124
.00155
.00201
.00230
.00246
.00247
.00206
pV
/ Slugs \
'(ft.2 sec.),
v '
.996
.864
.700
.614
.593
.573
.576
.586
.612
.694
.810
.906
.924
.971
.857
THC
PPMC
Wet
9
16.5
60
126
147
147
156
177
156
102
54
24
15
15
15
CO
PPM
Wet
2.5
24
130
288
355
361
368
380
368
227
97
38
6
2
25
co2
Wet
0.06
0.04
0.50
1.04
1.34
1.28
1.17
1.09
1.13
0.76
0.38
0.17
0.43
0.06
0.04
PPM
Wet
0.0
0.0
4.0
5.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
6.5
3.5
1.5
0.5
0.0
-------
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 14 24 January 74
IDLE POWER
Position
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
31x
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
\
(in.H20)
36.5
36.6
35.4
34.0
33.8
34.8
35.2
35.3
36.0
38.4
37.6
36.3
36.2
35.3
34.5
35.1
35.1
36.4
36.2
36.4
39.4
37.4
36.4
35.6
35.1
%
(in.H20
4.4
5.1
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.1
5.6
5.0
4.1
2.4
2.3
3.9
4.7
5.4
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.2
4.6
3.5
1.1
1.2
3.1
4.2
4.9
.TTg
) (^F)
165
595
630
630
610
610
560
370
210
210
120
120
500
540
545
140
275
315
PO
.(Abs.)
(lb./ft.2)
2332.5
2333.0
2326.8
2319.5
2318.4
2323.6
2325.7
2326.2
2329.9
2342.4
2338.3
2331.5
2330.9
2326.2
2322.1
2325.2
2325.2
2332.0
2330.9
2332.0
2347.7
2337.2
2332.0
2327.8
2325.2
PS
(Abs.)
(lb./ft.2)
2164.9
2168.6
2172.2
2173.3
2174.3
2173.8
2171.2
2168.0
2163.3
2154.5
2153.9
2162.3
2166.5
2170.1
2172.2
2172.2
2171.2
2169.1
2166.0
2160.2 •
2147.7 .
2148.2
2158.1
2163.9
2167.5
(Aba.)
(°R)
625
1055
1090
1090
1070
1070
1020
830
670
670
e 1 n
JlU
580
580
960
1000
1005
1070
1070
1070
1070
1070
1070
1070
600
735
775
Mach No.
(M)
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.30
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.32
0.32
Stream
Temp.
(°R)
612
1033
1069
1070
1051
1050
1000
813
656
654
566
568
940
980
986
1049
1049
1048
1048
1047
1043
1044
587
720
760
Speed of
Sound
V
a,
(ft. /sec.)
1212
1575
1601
1603
1588
1587
1549
1397
1255
1253
1166
1167
1502
1534
1538
1587
1587
1586
1586
1585
1582
1583
1187
1314
1350
Velocity
tr
(ft. /sec.)
398
512
505
491
483
492
488
446
437
436
402
385
488
486
478
498
499
. 513
516
527
568
553
397
427
430
Density
(Slugs/ft.3)
.00206
.00122
.00119
.00118
.00121
.00121
.00127
.00155 .
.00192
.00192
.00222
.00222
.00134
.00129
.00128
.00121
.00121
.00121
.00121
.00120
.00120
.00120
.00214
.00175
.00166
pV
/ Slugs
((ft.2 sec.!
.821
.627
.598
.582
.583
.595
.618
.693
.840
.837
.892
.856
.656
.627
.614
(.608)
(.608)
(.608)
(.650)
(.790)
(.900)
(.970)
.850
.749
.716
x THC
\ PPM
I reel
>/ WetC
51
120
159
189
189
192
192
126
72
39
it i
loo
18
39
91.5
144
180
195
186
186
114
48
24
12
18
39
82.5
CO
PPM
Wet
130
204
410
436
429
455
468
299
149
68
i n
±u
26
97
246
356
367
429
448
436
247
79
32
7
33
94
167
co2
Wet
0.52
0.78
1.54
1.37
1.42
1.42
1.50
0.99
0.4
0.2
01
. .L
0.1
0.4
0.99
1.37
1.37
1.47
1.57
1.47
0.79
0.3
0.2
0.04
0.1
0.4
0.59
N0x
PPM
Wet
—
—
—
—
(3)
(7.2)
(6.5)
(2.5)
—
—
—
(5)
(7)
-------
©
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TE
n
X
O
r-
o
O Position
Z 41
n 42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 14 24 January 74
IDLE POWER
?„
T8
(in.H20)
35.8
35.5
36.4
36.5
37.2
39.0
36.9
36.4
36.1
35.8
36.1
36.5
38.0
38.0
36.9
38.1
37.3
37.3
37.9
39.2
39.5
38.8
•30 1
JO . J-
37.7
P.,
S8
(in.H20)
5.2
5.2
5.0
4.5
3.8
2.5
.3
1.4
2.9
3.8
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.5
2.3
.8
1.0
1.6
2.3
2.2
1.9
1.1
.3
\
(*')
380
550
450
300
130
60
60
60
110
130
210
330
210
100
60
55
40
70
120
115
80
55
50
cc
j J
45
Po
(Abs.)
(Ib./ft. )
2324.2
2328.9
2327.3
2332.0
2332.5
2336.2
2345.6
2334.6
2332.0
2330.4
2328.9
2330.4
2332.5
2340.3
2340.3
2334.6
2340.9
2336.7
2336.7
2339.8
2346.6
2348.2
2344.5
OOAn Q
t. Jiu • y
2338.8
(Abs.)
(Ib./ft/)
2169.1
2169.1
2168.0
2165.4
2161.8
2155.0
2143.5
2149.2
2157.1
2161.8
2163.9
2163.3
2162.8
2160.2
2153.9
2146.1
2147.2
2150.3
2153.9
2153.4
2151.9-
2147.7 .
2143.5
T
T8
(Abs.)
840
1010
910
760
590
520
520
520
570
590
670
790
670
560
520
515
500
530
580
575
540
515
510
Cl C
-> J. J
505
Mach No.
(M)
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.34
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.36
0.36
Stream
Temp.
824
990
892
744
577
508
507
508
557
577
656
773
656
547
508
503
488
518
567
561
527
502
497
Speed of
Sound
V
(ft. /sec.)
1406
1541
1463
1336
1177
1104
1103
1104
1157
1177
1255
1363
1255
1146
1104
1099
1082
1115
1166
1161
1125
1096
.092
Velocity
V
(ft. /sec.)
444
494
468
437
390
377
398
382
388
388
409
447
415
390
383
384
383
387
400
402
398
395
394
Density
P 3
(Slugs/ ft.)
.00154
.00128
.00142
.00170
.00218
.00247
.00247
.00247
.00226
.00218
.00192
.00163
.00192
.00230
.00247
.00249
.00257
.00242
.00222
.00224
.00238
.00250
.00251
pV
/ Sluss \
\(ft.-sec.)/
.682
.631
.664
.742
.852
.934
.983
.943
.877
.847
.787
.729
.797
.898
.947
.955
.982
.937
.888
.900
.949
.985
.990
(O7fl\
.S/U)
(.970)
THC
PPM
Wet
96
144
144
90
45
15
10.5
9
7.5
24
36
72
60
24
12
6
9
9
15
24
21
12
9
9
CO
PPM
Wet
175
310
310
196
82
11
6
3
5
49
70
144
130
50
13
2
9
13
30
48
33
10
3
5
7
co2
Wet
0.69
1.08
1.18
0.69
0.3
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.59
0.3
0.59
0.59
0.2
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.04
On*)
• UZ
0.02
NO
X
PPM
Wet
8.0
8.0
5.0
2.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.5
4.0
3.5
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 14 24 January 74
IDLE POWER
Position
f\f\
oo
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
PT
8
(in.H20)
40.9
38.3
36.0
34.4
34.6
34.1
33.3
33.6
35.1
35.6
37.1
38.0
30. 8
38.2
36.3
35.5
35.5
35.1
34.4
34.7
35.6
35.9
37.2
39.2
Pg
8
(in.H20)
•
—
3.0
4.5
5.2
5.7
5.8
6.1
6.0
5.5
4.8
3.4
1.7
2.3
4.0
4.8
5.3'
5.5
5.7
5.5
5.1
4.6
3.1
.8
TTg
(°F)
on
J\J
140
360
540
610
610
600
610
560
290
110
65
90
240
390
550
610
610
610
610
400
160
60
n
Po
(Abs.)
(lb./ft.2)
991 n Q
f,t,i.\J * 7
2355.5
2341.9
2329.9
2321.5
2322.6
2320.0
2315.8
2317.4
2325.2
2327.8
2335.6
2340.3
2302. 8
2341.4
2331.5
2327.3
2327.3
2325.2
2321.5
2323.1
2327.8
2329.4
2336.2
2346.6
D
Ps
(Abs.) (
(lb./ft.2)
2157.6
2165.4
2169.1
2171.7
2172.2
2173.8
2173.3
2170.7
2167.0
2159.7
2150.8
2153.9
2162.8
2167.0
2169.6
2170.7
2171.7
2170.7
2168.6
2166.0'
2158.1
2146.1
T
T
ft
:Abs,)
(°R)
ion
HI7U
600
820
1000
1070
1070
1060
1070
1020
750
570
525
580
700
850
1010
1070
1070
1070
1070
860
620
520
Mach No.
00
""~ ~~
0.34
0.33
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.32
0.34
0.36
Stream
Temp.
(°R)
_~_
—
586
803
981
1050
1050
1041
1050
1000
735
557
512
537
685
833
990
1049
1050
1049
1049
842
606
507
Speed of
Sound
V
a
(ft. /sec.)
1186
1388
1534
1587
1588
1580
1588
1549
1328
1157
1109
1135
1282
1414
1542
1587
1587
1587
1586
1422
1206
1103
Velocity
(fc./sec.)
—
408
452
480
494
489
478
483
488
427
389
383
395
423
454
491
500
493
497
507
461
409
397
Density /
(Slugs/ ft.3) \
.00215
.00157
.00129
.00121
.00121
.00122
.00121
.00127
.00172
.00226
.00245
.00234
.00184
.00152
.00128
.00121
.00121
.00121
.00121
.00150
.00208
.00247
PV
Slugs \
2 I
(ft. sec.)/
(QTn ^
. 9/U )
(.970)
.877
.710
.620
.596
.591
.582
.583
.618
.735
.880
.949
( Q7I"O
V • y l\j /
.923
.778
.689
.627
.603
.594
.599
.612
.691
.848
.980
THC
DDM
PrM
c
Wet
9
6
12
45
108
162
165
168
180
168
90
31.5
16.5
1 9
L£.
18
34.5
69
123
150
174
195
183
123
54
21
CO
PPM
Wet
0
20
117
287
404
428
428
455
455
218
53
16
15
67
159
293
404
435
467
454
298
113
28
CO,
Wet
0.02
0.02 -
0.08
0.71
1.12
.1.50
1.45
1.54
1.41
1.45
0.80
0.17
0.08
0.02.
0.13
0.25
0.67
1.17
1.54
1.50
1.61
1.61
1.00
0.4?
0.13
N0x
PPM
Wet
0.0
0.0
0.3
2.5
6.5
9.5
10.5 .
10.5
10.5
10.0
5.0
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.75
4.0
8.0
11.0
11.5
'li.5
11.2
7.2
3.0
0.8
-------
©
c
o
•r*
4J
•H
-------
APPENDIX I
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 15 25 January 74
APPROACH POWER
Average Engine Parameters during Reading No. 15
Air Inlet Dry Bulb Temperature -
Air Inlet Wet Bulb Temperature -
PT
17 - 9.40 in. Hg.
43.6UF
CIP
total
static
Barometric Pressure - 30.362 in. Hg.
Astatic" 53'88 ln- H2°
NOTE; Some data are missing.
Numbers in parentheses have
been estimated based on nozzle
symmetry.
PT
4 - 159 in. Hg.
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PT
18
(in. Hg)
9.6
9.5
9.2
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.2
9.1
9.4
4.8
9.8
9.6
P
8
(in.H20)
4.6
. 12.8
18.8
23.1
25.8
2 6. '9
27.0
26.1
24.0
20.6
16.2
10.7
1.4
4.1
11.2
\
CL
85
220
520
700
670
660
660
660
660
440
230
140
60
90
230
. V
(Abs.)
. \ / ?
) (lb./ft. )
2819.8
2812.8
2791.6
2798.6
2784.5
2770.3
2763.3
2777.4
2791.6
2791.6
2784.5
2805.7
2480.4
. 2834.0
2819.8
s
(lb./ft.2)
2164.9
2207.7
2239.0
2261.5
2275.6
2281.3
2281.8
2277.1
2266.2
2248.4
2225.5
2196.7
2148.2
2162.3
2199.4
TT
(Abs.1)
K]
545
680
980
1160
1130
1120
1120
1120
1120
900
690
600
520
550
690
Stream Speed of
Mach No.
f M)
0.63
0.60
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.53
0.53
0.54 ..
0.55
0.57
0.58
0.60
0.46
0.63
0.61
Temp.
T
-------
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 15 25 January 74
APPROACH POWER
z
o
o
z
p
Position
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
31x
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
p
T3
(in. Hg)
9.5
9.6
9.4
9.1
9.3
9.4
9.4
9.2
9.3
9.7
A Q
*+ • O
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.2
9.1
9.4
9.3
9.5
9.5
9.4
9.9
9.3
9.3
9.2
9.0
p
S3
(lTi.K20)
. 17.3
21.8
24.7
26.0
26.0
25.0
22.9
20.5
16.6
9.2
10.2
16.2
20.9
23.7
25.1
25.2
24.4
22.6
20.2
15.2
7.0
5.9
12.9
17.6
20.6
\
( °F)
J . '
510
690
685
660
660
675
660
490
280
135
•>C
J J
180
430
630
620
640
685
730
680
470
210
110
105
235
380
380
f/'.bs .'>
( ,.-.= ..
'2.
2812.8
2819.8
2805.7
2784.5
2798.6
2805.7
2805.7
2791.6
2798.6
2826.9
2805.7
2812.8
2819.8
2791.6
2784.5
2805.7
2798.6
2812.8
2812.8
2805.7
2841.1
2798.6
2798.6
2791.6
2777. 4
Ps
\ 1
(lb./ft.2)
2231.2
2254.7
2269.8
2276.6
2276.6
2271.4
2260.4
2247.9
2227.5
2188.9
2194.1
2225.5
2250.0
2264.6
2271.9
2272.5
2268.3
2258.9
2246.3
2220.2-
2177.4
2171.7
2208.2
2232.8
2248.4
T
V
(Abs.
\ v
-------
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engtne
NAFEC ReadinR No. 15 25 January 74
APPROACH POWER
Position
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
fiS
D J
66
fi7
p
T8
(In. Hg)
9.0
9.3
9.2
9.4
9.3
9.4
10.1
9.4
9.2
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.2
9.4
9.4
9.3
9.4
9.3
9.4
9.4
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.2
9ft
. D
5n
. \J
fl.fi
P_
S8
(in.H20)
22.0
22.6
21.6
19.5
16.5
10.9
3.2
6.8
12.3
16.0
17.8
17.7
17.2
15.0
10.8
5.2
4.4
8.5
10.5
10.5
9.6
7.1
3.3
1.4
TT
ro
500
670
550
390
250
110
90
130
200
200
210
210
300
135
110
100
110
130
200
210
140
100
80
90
?n
SO
v
.(Abs.'j
(lb./ft/)
2777.4
2798.6
2791.6
2805.7
2798.6
2805.7
2855.2
2805.7
2791.6
2784.5
2791.6
2798.6
2791.6
2805.7
2805.7
2798.6
2805.7
2798.6
2805.7
2805.7
2812.8
2805.7
2798.6
2791.6
9A1 Q R
9AQ4 S
9R1Q ft
Ps
I SV 2
(lb./ft/)
2255.7
2258.9
2253.7
2242.7
2227.0
2197.8
2157.6
2176.4
2205.1
2224.4
2233.8
2233.3
2230.7
2219.2
2197.3
2168.0
2163.8
2185.3
2195.7
2195.7
2191.0-
2177.9
2158.1
2148.2
T
TS>
ft
960
1130
1010
850
710
570
550
590
600
660
670
670.
760
595
570
560
570
590
600
670
600
560
540
550
e-an
J JU
Mach No.
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.57
0.58
0.60
0.65
0.61
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.59
0.60
0.61
0.62
0.60
0.60
0.60.
0.61
0.61
0.62
0.62
Stream
Temp .
/0SN
904
1063
950
797
665
532
508
549
617
619
629
628
713
556
632
521
529
550
559
625
559
521
501
510
Speed of
Sound
V,
(ft. /sec.)
1474
1597
1510
1383
1264-
1130
1104
1148
1217
1219
1228
1228
1308
1156
1231
1118
1127
1149
1159
1224
1158
1118
1097
1107
Velocity
V
(ft. /sec.)
816
898
848
796
734
679
713
704
719
702
705
709
753
681
741
688
700
695
698
738
705
685
681
690
, Density
(Slugs/ft.3) 1
.0015
.0012
.0014
.0016
.0020
.0024
.0025
.0023
.0021
.0021
.0021
.0021
.0018
.0023
.0020
.0024
.0024
.0023
.0023
.0021
.0023
.0024
.0025
.0025
pV
/ Slugs \
[(ft.2 sec.)j
1.22
1.08
1.19
1.27
1.47
1.63
1.78
1.62
1.51
1.47
1.48
1.49
1.36
1.57
1.48
1.65
1.68
1.60
1.61
1.55
1.62
1.64
1.70
1.73
aftQ\
.0:*;
afi
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
APPENDIX II
PROBE DATA INVENTORY
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
APPENDIX II
PROBE DATA INVENTORY
Probe
No.
O
o
5
2
o
Type
12 Pt. Cruciform
NAFEC Diamond
30
MAFFP
Rdg. THC
September
1974
Concentrations
Angle Mode No. EPR ppm-C
0° Idle 272 1.084 49.
15
30
45
60
75
90
0 Idle
15
30
45
60
75
90
0
+ 2.5
+ 5
0
- 2.5
- 4.0
0
50.
55.
53.
51.
51.
55.
54.
43.
45.
53.
56.
273 1.081 57.
55.
53.
55.
50.
53.
54.
57.
I- 51.
8
7
8
7
6
9
2
9
5
6
1
7
3
2
7
2
4
7
3
3
9
CO
ppm
194
185
180
178
181
194
201
191
180
203
233
215
204
204
194
194
185
193
198
200
193
CO
2
%
0.726
0.649
0.601
0.664
0.680
0.730
0.745
0.715
0.692
0.780
0.845
0.758
0.730
0.712
0.695
0.691
0.691
0.690
0.693
0.695
0.680
NO
X
ppm
5.6
5.1
4.8
5.0
5.4
5.7
5.7
5.3
5.3
6.0
6.5
5.9
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.4
Lb./K Lb. Fuel
THC
7.63
8.67
10.3
8.99
8.44
7.91
8.24
8.54
7. no
6.52
6.99
8.31
8.72
8.60
8.58
8.87
8.11
8.64
8.69
9.14
8.47
CO
51.9
55.2
57.9
52.0
51.7
51.6
52.4
51.9
50.6
50.7
53.6
55.0
54.
55.
54.
54.
52.0
54.2
55.4
55.7
NO.
2
2
2
2
2
2
X
46
50
54
40
53
49
2.44
36
45
46
45
48
36
41
43
44
45
45
48
47
55.0 2.53
A/F
Calc.
277
309
333
302
295
275
269
281
291
258
237
264
275
281
288
290
291
290
289
288
295
A/F
Meas.
315
C/3
PI
H
1-0
NJ
O
S3
-------
APPENDIX II
PROBE DATA INVENTORY
Probe
No.
Type
P&W Spiral
With Center Hole
12 pt. Cruciform
With Center Hole
P&W Spiral
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
0
0
30
60
90
0
0
30
60
90
0
Mode
Idle
Idle
Idle
NAF
30
September 1974
Concentrations
rn NO
Rdg. THC
No. EPR ppm-C
273 1.08152.
52.
53.
53.
45.
49.
49.
52.
274 1.082 53.
52.
50.
55.
53.
54.
58.
52.
52.
57.
8
5
1
1
6
5
5
8
4
8
7
2
7
0
2
5
8
6
CO
ppm
211
197
187
187
180
193
194
208
208
191
199
216
210
238
215
206
215
238
^ A.
% ppm
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
775
705
665
665
668
715
711
751
771
672
730
773
761
851
755
755
785
852
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
6
5
6
5
5
6
6
._
.7
.3
.3
.4
.7
.6
.0
.9
.2
.7
.0
.9
.5
.8
.8
.0
.5
Lb./K Lb. Fuel
THC
7.58
8.27
8.86
8.86
59
70
74
7.81
CO
52.9
54.2
54.5
54.5
52.4
52.4
52.9
53.8
7.70 52.4
8.72 55.1
7.72 52.9
7.93 54.2
7.84 53.6
NO,.
58
53
2.53
58
54
51
2.55
2.44
2.46
2.49
2.47
2.47
7.05 54.3 2.44
8.56 55.2 2.45
7.73 53.0 2.45
7.48 53.2 2.44
7.51 54.2 2.43
A/F
Calc.
259
284
301
301
301
281
282
267
260
298
275
259
264
236
265
266
256
235
315
en
w
H
O
to
319
I
ro
-------
APPENDIX II
PROBE DATA INVENTORY
m
r>
X
o
^
O
O
z
o
Probe
No.
Type
P&W Spiral
NAFEC Diamond
12 Ft. Cruciform
12 Ft. Cruciform
imr c.\j
Rdg. THC
Angle Mode No. EPR ppm-C
0 Idle 2751.081 72.
15
30
45
60
75
90
90 Idle
75
60
45
30
15
0
0 Idle
15
30
45
75
90
71.
69.
66.
60.
64.
66.
65.
71.
72.
69.
63.
59.
67.
66.
63.
65.
64.
63.
* 69.
90 High 2761.098 51.
75 Idle
60
30
15
0
49.
47.
48.
46.
46.
9
4
6
6
6
5
0
7
4
0
6
0
1
2
6
6
1
2
6
0
9
5
1
9
8
8
CO
ppm
190
174
170
168
164
174
176
.187
194
201
213
190
171
184
193
178
176
181
187
197
179
173
161
157
156
164
co2
%
0.620
0.548
0.525
0.531
0.548
0.568
0.561
0.596
0.598
0.640
0.685
0.640
0.575
0.588
0.627
0.560
0.552
0.586
0.632
0.640
0.697
0.695
0.655
0.597
0.625
0.686
NOX
ppm
4.5
4.0
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.3
4.7
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.5
4.1
3.9
4.2
4.6
4. 7
5.5
5.5
5.2
4.7
4.9
5.7
Lb.
THC
13.0
14.3
14.6
13.8
12.2
12.5
13.0
12.2
13.1
12.4
11.2
10.9
11.4
12.6
11.7
12.5
13.0
12.1
11.1
11.9
8.29
7.94
8.02
9.10
8.34
7.61
/K Lb.
CO
59.0
61.0
62.2
60.9
57.7
59.0
60.4
60.5
62.4
60.5
60.0
57.4
57.4
60.3
59.4
61.2
61.4
59.5
57.2
59.4
49.9
48.4
47.8
51.1
48.6
46.6
Fuel
NO
NOX
2.30
2.30
2.28
2.32
2.31
2.34
2.31
2.18
2.11
2.13
2.17
2.23
2.26
2.21
2.27
2.32
2.23
2.27
2.31
2.33
2,52
2.53
2.54
2.51
2.50
2.66
A/F A/F
Calc . Meas .
321 316
363
378
375
364
351
355
334
333
311
291
312
347
339
318
356
361
340
316
312
288 312
289
307
336
322
294
-------
APPENDIX II
PROBE DATA INVENTORY
3 October 1974
Probe
No.
Type
1 12 Pt. Cruciform
z
o
5
8
n
1 12 Pt. Cruciform
2 NAFEC Diamond
3 12 Pt. P&W Spiral
3 12 Pt. P&W Spiral
HATEiVj
Rdg. THC
CO
co2
NOX
Angle Mode No. EPR ppm-C ppm % ppm
0 Higher 277 1.09939.
15 Idle
30
45
60
75
90
90 App .
60
30
0 \
37.
38.
39.
38.
41.
41.
• 14.
12.
278 11.
0 Ap
30
60
90
P-
90 App .
60 1
30
0
15
10.
8.
10.
12.
11.
12.
12.
12.
!• 13.
0 Cruise 279
30
60
90
1 2"
1
6
8
1
9
4
1
7
1
7
7
0
2
5
1
4
1
6
3
2
_
0
-
-
155
145
164
145
148
157
156
92
87
79
90
90
91
97
88
85
79
81
90
85
38
34
36
36
0.703
0.802
0.627
0.663
0.693
0.730
0.715
0.985
0.950
0.830
0.957
0.990
1.04
1.06
0.988
0.835
0.844
0.810
0.912
0.860
1.72
1.57
1.65
1.67
6.2
5.7
5.5
6.0
6.3
6.6
6.5
16.2
15.6
13.8
16.5
16.6
17.7
18.0
16.8 .
13.5
14.0
13.5
15.0
14.3
52.2
46.7
49.5
49.9
Lb.
THC
6.30
5.30
6.77
6.73
6.21
6.43
6.53
1.63
1.52
1.60
1.19
0.943
1.15
1.30
1.31
__ —
1.63
1.77
1.53
1.74
— — — _
0.15
/K Lb. Fuel
CO
43.1
35.5
50.9
42.7
41.8
42.6
42.6
18.6
18.2
18.9
18.7
18.1
17.4
18.2
17.7
20.2
18.6
19.8
19.6
19.6
4.43
4.34
4.37
4.32
NO
*°X
2.83
2.29
2.80
2.90
2.92
2.92
2.92
5.37
5.36
5.43
5.63
5.48
5.56
5.54
5.55
5.28
5.41
5.44
5.36
5.42
9.99
9.79
9.87
9.84
A/F A/F
Calc. Meas.
287 303
253
321
305
292
277
283
208 N
216 0
247
214 D
A
207 T
197 A
194
208
246
243
253
225
241
120 154
131 |
125
123 1
NJ
N)
O
to
O
N)
-si
Ln
3 12 Pt. P&W Spiral
90
MCP 280
20 2.00 70.5
2.00 11.6
103
136
*A/F of run #15
-------
SET 1422 03 0275
APPENDIX III
ENGINE DATA DURING ALL TEST RUNS
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.
-------
APPENDIX III
ENGINE DATA DURING TEST RUNS
0
o
m
Z
3D
O
Z
Z
r™
m
n
Z
Z
o
o
0
-**
Z
o
NAFEC
Rdg.
No.
14
15
16
17
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
B.P. =
Humidity w
B.P. gr/lb CIT A
in Hp Dry Air °F EPR Ib/sec
30.27 24.0 41 1.079 76.2
30.26 30 40 1.312 141
29.93 47 51 1.738 204.0
29.80 49 47 1.906 218.3
29.80 44.11 62.50 1.084 80
29.79 45.86 62.00 1.081 80
29.79 47.66 62.00 1.082 79
30.23 23.57 48.00 1.081 76.82
30.23 23.57 47.00 1.098 87.72
30.23 23.57 48.00 1.099 96.66
30.24 22.54 48.00 --
30.24 22.54 46.50 1.681 203.5
30.24 22.54 45.00 1.853 218.6
WF
Corr
Ib/hr
870
2242
4786
5356
918
918
896
874
1013
1150
2257
4760
5814
WF
Obs
Ib/hr
871
2230
4723
5249
913
914
891
874
1013
1150
2257
4759
5805
F
GCorr
Ib.
878
3811
8263
9898
1068
1068
1069
1053
1294
1555
3836
8230
9906
Barometric Pressure inches of mercury
Humidity = Grains per pound of dry air
CIT =
EPR =
n
Compressor inlet total temperature ("F)
Engine pressure ratio
F
G0bs
Ib.
1075.5
3841.5
8201
9780
1062
1062
1062
1062
1304
1567
3862
8270
9928
F,,
G
Nl
l
N
1
3572
6186
8127
8662
3612
3630
3589
3559
3904
4245
6177
8107
8676
nu«
UDS
N
8572
11075
12475
12863
8611
8580
8531
8484
8962
9378
11014
12461
12861
Actual
= Low speed
N0 = High speed
C.D.T.
°R
707
908
1097
1157
695.0
695.7
690.7
689.3
711.1
735.3
893.6
1076
1140
TDT
°R
1357
1646
2042
2175
1380
1382
1382
1369
1397
1430
1655
2059
2199
thrust during the
rotor RPM
rotor RPM
£.
CDT = Compressor discharge
W. = Air flow in pounds oer second
A
\
Corr
F0bs
total
A/F
M
315
228
155
150
315
315
319
316
312
303
—
154
136
test
temperature
A
TDT = Turbine discharge temperature R
= Fuel flow corrected to standard day
conditions
= Actual fuel flow during the test pounds per
hour
A/F = Air fuel
ratio = W.
A
W
Fr
(3600)
ttve
t-o
NJ
O
NJ
p
GCorr = Thrust corrected to standard day conditions (pounds)
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 460/3-75-011
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Further Investigation Into Variability in
Aircraft Turbine Engine Emission
Measurements
5. REPORT DATE
November 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR
-------
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 15 25 January 74
APPROACH POWER
X
z
o
o
o
z
p
Position
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
7Q
17
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
T8
(in. Hg)
9.6
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.0
8.8
9.0
9.2
9.2
9.0
9.3
1C
. J
9.5
9.2
9.1
9.3
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.4
9.4
9.3
9.5
9.5
9.3
P
SS
(in.U,0)
12.1
18.6
22.6
25.5
26.6
26.7
25.7
24.0
20.1
14.6
7.7
9.7
16.7
20.6
23.7
25.5
25.5
24.4
22.0
19.8
14.5
5.5
13.4
13.4
V
190
460
650
685
660
660
660
650
420
180
110
130
280
470
660
680
680
660
685
585
280
110
170
170
V
( Abs.l
i *-jij • j
2819.8
2791.6
2791.6
2791.6
2777.4
2763.3
2777.4
2791.6
2791.6
2777. 4
2798.6
79/7 A
ZZ4 / • U
2812.8
2791.6
2784.5
2798.6
2798.6
2791.6
2784.5
2805.7
2805.7
2798.6
2812.8
2812.8
2798.6
(' AbsA
I /,
-------
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 15 25 January 74
APPROACH POWER
Position
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
1 f!9
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
111
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
190
p
T8
(in. Hg)
9.1
9.3
9.4
9.6
9.3
9.1
9.4
9.8
9.6
90
9.2
9.3
9.3
9.4
9.2
9.1
9.7
9.4
9 A
9.2
9.1
9.0
9.2
9.4
5.5
6.7
1.9
P
S8
(in.H20)
17.2
20.4
22.5
23.4
22.3
19.9
16.7
10.5
12.5
15.7
17.9
18.4
17.5
15.1
11.5
10.3
10.9
10.0
\
(V)
310
530
670
710
630
500
340
140
210
390
510
570
430
270
150
_ — -.
250
300
210
po
dbTft!2)
2784.5
2798.6
2805.7
2819.8
2798.6
2784.5
2805.7
2834.0
2819.8
2791.6
2798.6
2798.6
2805.7
2791.6
2784.5
2826.9
2805.7
7 fins 7
2791.6
2784.5
2777.4
2791.6
2805.7
2529.9
2614.7
91K7.9
1 Abs ^
2230.7
2247.4
2258.4
2263.1
2257.3
2244.8
2228.1
2195.7
2206.1
2222.8
2234.3
2236.9
2232.2
2219.7
2200.9
2194.7
2197.8
2193.1
T
/Abs '
M
770
990
1130
1170
1090
960
800
600
670
850
970
1030
890
730
610
710
760
670
Mach No
/ \
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.56
0.58
0.62
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.58
0.61
0.60
0.59
0.59
Stream
Ten-.?.
' T
•o\
723
930
1062
1099
1025
903
749
558
522
626
796
909
965
835
684
568
663
710
626
588
522
522
522
599
Speed of
Sound
(ft. /sec.)
1317
1494
1597
1624
1569
1472
1341
1157
1226
1382
1478
1522
1415
1281
1168
1261
1306
1226
Velocity
V
(ft. /sec.)
754
850
903
925
883
830
783
712
724
807
852
881
813
742
711
753
773
725
Density /
P 3 [
(Slugs/ft. ) \
.0018
.0014
.0012
.0012
.0013
.0015
.0017
.0023
.0021
.0016
.0014
.0014
.0016
.0019
.0023
.0019
.0018
.0020
pV
S1URS \
(ft." sec.))
/
1.36
1.19
1.08
1.11
1.15
1.24
1.33
1.64
(1.69)
aCQ\
1.52
1.29
1.19
1.23
1.30
1.41
1.64
(1.69)
1.43
1.39
1.45
(1.56)
(1.69)
(1.69)
(1.69)
n fioi
THC
PPM
c
Wet
9
13.5
18
21
21
18
15
9
9
7 c
7.5
12
12
15
13.5
10.5
9
7.5
7 5
9
9
9
9
9
7.5
9
7.R
CO
PPM
Wet
29
79
137
159
152
104
69
20
5
e
14
45
82
101
79
39
19
5
6
9
21
35
29
12
6
5
5
7
co2
Wet
.25
.92
1.86
2.06
2.10
1.57
.88
.25
.04
nA
.04
.38
1.04
1.28
1.12
.46
.30
no
.04
HA
.17
.38
.40
.11
.08
.03
.02
09 ;
to
NO "
x o
PPM ^
Wet
5.3
14
26
32
30.5
22
13.4
4.2
1.6
1 0
2.2
7.5
15.6
20.5
17.5
8.5
3.9
1.3
1.1
1.8
3.8
6.8
6
2.5
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.9
-------
APPENDIX I
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Etigine
NAFEC Reading No, 17 31 January 74
MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER
Average Engine Parameters during Reading No. 17 Maximum Continuous Power
Air Inlet Dry Bulb Temperature -
Air Inlet Wet Bulb Temperature -
PT
7 - 26.75 ir.. Hg.
50.5°F
CIPtotal - 29' 53 in- HgA
Astatic' 35'9 ln'H2°
Barometric Pressure - 29.78 in. Hg.
NOTE: Some data are missing.
Numbers in parentheses have
been estimated based on nozzle
symmetry.
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 1
LJ
14
15
355 in. Hg
P.,
18
(in. Hg)
26.6
26.6
27.0
27.3
27.1
26.6
26.0
26.5
27.2
26.2
25.6
26.1
25.4
26.1
\
(in.i.,0)
2.25
2.50
3.75
4.50
5.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.25
4.25
3.25
2.75
1.50
2.40
\
/
200
(475)
820
1000
970
950
940
950
960
680
380
240
en
JU
190-
440
Po
Ub./it.2)
3989.7
3989.7
4018.0
4039.2
4025.1
3989.7
3947.3
3982.7
4032.2
3961.4
3919.0
3954.4
3904.9
3954.4
. Ps^
( S'/ 2
(Ib./ft/)
2267.5
2285.2
2373.6
2426.7
2462.0
2497.4
2497.4
2497.4
2479.7
2409.0
2338.3
2302.9
2214.5
2278.2
X
/Abs.' 1
M
660
(935)
1280
1460
1430
1410
1400
1410
1420
1140
840
700
r 1 ft
J±\J
650
900
Ksca No.
(»)
0.94
0.93
0.90
0.89
0.87
0.85
0.84
0.85 .
0.86
0.87
0.89
0.91
0.94
0.92
Stream
Temp .
562
797
1101
1262
1242
1233
1228
1234
1236
989
725
600
553
769
Speed of,
Sound
(ft. /sec.)
1161
1383
1626
1741
1727
1721
1717
1721
1722
1541
1319
1200
1152
1358
Velocity
(ft. /sec.)
1087
1286
1465
1541
1500
1457
1436
1454
1487
1347
1177
1097
1081
1255
Density
p "i
(SluSs/ft.J:
.0024
.0017
.0013
.0011
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0014
.0019
.0022
.0023
.0017
pV
/ SlllRS
• i^ft.2 s«.)
2.61
2.19
1.90
1.70
1.80
1.75
1.72
1.75
1.78
1.89
2.24
2.41
O C£\
\£. JOJ
2.49
2.13
\ THC
\ PPM
i c
/ Wet
16.5
12.0
12.0
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
12.0
12.0
i o n
li.O
12.0
12.0
CO
PPM
Wet
2
4
20
40
42
41
42
45
46
30
13
5
0
t.
2
5
CO,
Wet
0.00
.21
1.61
3.07
2.95
3.01
2.97
2.81
2.90
2.30
.95
.38
.08
.41
NO
X
PPM
Wet
. 0.0
3.3
50.0
95.0
107.5
100.0
97.5
95.0
95.0
72.5
28.0
9.3
1.2
13.5
-------
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 17 31 January 74
MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER
Position ,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
31x
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
p
T8
(In. Hg)
26.7
27.6
27.7
26.6
26.3
27.0
26.7
26.8
26.0
26.5
25.6
26.7
26.4
26.8
26.9
27.0
27.1
27.3
26.2
26.1
27.3
25.3
25.6
25.9
25.8
26.1
Pc
S8
(in.H20)
3.25
4.25
5.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
4.00
3.25
2.50
2.50
2.75
3.75
4.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.50
3.75
3.00
1.75
2.00
2.60
3.00
3.75
4.25
V
770
960
960
920
920
940
940
700
445
250
40
300
550
825
915
935
950
965
910
600
290
130
220
420
610
685
860
, V
f Abs . \
V /
(ib./ft. >
3996.8
4060.5
4067.5
3989.7
3968.5
4018.0
3996.8
4003.9
3947.3
3982.7
3919.0
3996.8
3975.6
4003.9
4010.9
4018.0
4025.1
4039.2
3961.4
3954.4
4039.2
3897.8
3982.7
3940.2
3933.1
3954.4
ps
(Ib./ft.2)
2338.3
2409.0
2462.0
2497.4
2497.4
2497.4
2462.0
2391.3
2338.3
2285.2
2285.2
2302.9
2373.6
2426.7
2462.0
2462.0
2462.0
2426.7
2373.6
2320.6
2232.2
2249.9
2292.3
2320.6
2373.6
2409.0
TT
(fCas^; Macli No.
Kj
1230
1420
1420
1380
1380
1400
1400
1160
905
710
500
700
1010
1285
1375
1395
1410
1425
1370
1060
750
590
680
880
1070
1145
1520
(")
0.91
0.90
0.88
0.85
0.84
0.85
0.86
0.89
0.90
0.93
0.91
0.92
0.89
0.88
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.89
0.89
0.91
0.96
0.92
0.93
0.90
0.88
0.87
Stream
Taap.
&
\ '
1055
1223
1230
1207
1209
1222
1219
1001
779
606
651
863
1109
1191
1213
1226
1238
1184
916
644
498
581
751
920
991
1319
Speed of
Sound
(ft. /sec.)
1591
1713
1718
1702
1703
1713
1710
1550
1368
1206
1250
1439
1631
1691
1707
1715
1724
1686
1482
1243
1093
1181
1343
1486
1542
1780
Velocity
V
(ft. /sec.)
1449
1538
1510
1441
1433
1462
1475
1381
1229
1119
1142
1330
1454
1484
1477
1487
1498
1493
1316
1128
1051
1090
1242
1343
1360
1553
Density /
(Slugs/ft.3) ^
.0013
.0011
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0014 .
.0018
.0022
.0020
.0016
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0015
.0021
.0026
.0023
.0018
.0015
.0014
.0011
pV
Slugs '
>
1.88
1.69
1.81
1.73
1.72
1.75
1.77
1.93
2.21
2.46
(2.56)
2.28
2.13
1.75
1.78
1.77
1.78
1.80
1.79
1.97
2.37
2.73
2.51
2.24
2.01
1.90
1.71
THC
\ ' PPM
/ .Wet
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
6.0
10.5
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
CO
PPM
Wet
18
36
39
41
42
51
50
35
18
6
4
5
13
24
35
39
42
44
49
29
12
4
2
7
15
19
29
co2
Wet
1.61
2.97
3.13
3.06
2.86
2.93
3.01
2.49
1.24
.34
.08
.25
1.08
2.13
2.74
2.93
3.01
3.05
3.01
1.89
.83
.21
.13
.50
1.24
1.53
2.29
NO
X
PPM
Wet
50.0
94.0
107.5
100.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
79.0
. 38.0
11.3
1.5
9.0
35.0
68.0
96.0
99.0
103.0
108.0
103.0
64.0
24.0
6.0
4.0
17.0
41.0
54.0
73.0
-------
©
SCOn ENVIRONMENTAL TEC
z
o
o
O Position
-f
Z «
o 43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 17 31 January 74
MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER
PT
18
(in. Hg)
26.9
26.7
27.1
26.3
26.2
2.6
25.6
25.6
25.4
26.2
26.2
26.1
25.6
25.5
25.9
25.8
25.3
25.8
25.9
25.7
25.3
24.4
19.4
18.5
.8
26.3
PC
8
(in.H,0)
4.50
4.50
4.00
3.25
2.25
2.75
2.75
3.00
3.25
3,50
3.25
3.00
2.75
.75
.75
2.75
2.50.
2.75
2.75
2.50
-
TT
•8
O
970
940
750
450
210
50
250
350
420
680
750
540
340
215
90
200
270
415
360
230
170
60
90
70
40
~ —
Po
('Abs.;
* / «
(lb./ft. )
4010.9
3996.8
4025.1
3968.5
3961.4
2292. 3
3919.0
3919.0
3904.9
3961.4
3961.4
3954.4
3919.0
3911.9
3940.2
3933.1
3897.8
3933.1
3940.2
3926.1
3897.8
3834.1
3480.5
3416.8
2165.0
3968.5
(Abs.>
\ / 0
(lb./ft. )
2426.7
2426.7
2391.3
2338.3
2267.5
2302.9
2302.9
2320.6
2338.3
2356.0
2338.3
2320.6
2302.9
2161.5
2161.5
2302.9
2285.2
2302.9
2302.9
2285.2
TT
. V
(Abs.'
'°R \
' R )
1430
1400
1210
910
670
ci n
J J.U
710
810
880
1140
1210
1000
800
675
550
660
730
875
820
690
630
con
JZU
ccn
jj\J
530
500
Stream Speed of
Mac!. No.
_^!l_
0.88
0.88
0.90
0.90
0.93
0.91
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.97
0.97
0.90
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.91
Temp.
\
i°0
1239
1214
1043
782
571
610
696
758
980
1043
860
689
580
463
556
628
749
703
592
541
Sound
V_
(ft. /sec.)
1724
1707
1582
1370
1171
1210
1292
1349
1534
1582
1437
1286
1180
1054
1155
1228
1341
1299
1193
1139
Velocity
V
(ft. /sec.)
1516
1499
1418
1238
1089
1096
1271
1209
1384
1416
1294
1156
1067
1021
1117
1106
1229
1184
1083
1035
Density
p , /-
(Slugs/ft. ) ^
.0011
.0012
.0013
.0017
.0023
.0022
.0019
.0018
.0014
.0013
.0016
.0020
.0023
.0027
.0023
.0021
.0018
.0019
.0023
.0025
pV
Slues \
^ !
(ft." sec.)/
1.67
1.80
1.84
2.11
2.50
(2.56)
2.41
2.42
2.18
1.94
1.84
2.07
2.31
2.45
2.76
2.57
2.32
2.21
2.25
2.49
2.59
(2.56)
(2.56)
(2.56)
(2.56)
(2.56)
THC
PPM
Wet
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
CO
PPM
Wet
40
41
32
19
6
2
3
7
9
18
26
18
10
7
4
3
5
10
10
6
3
2
3
3
3
2
CO,
z
Wet
2.97
2.77
2.18
1.20
.30
.04
.13
.50
.58
1.40
1.97
1.24
.58
.25
.04
.08
.17
.67
.71
.33
.13
.04
.13
.13
.04
.04
NO
X
PPM
Wet
98.0 :
93.0
68.0
38.0
10.0
2.0
17.0
22.0
47.0
65.0
48.0
24.0
12.0
5.0
7.0
9.0
22.0
24.0
14.0
4.0
2.0
5 rt
.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
-------
Position
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 17 31 January 74
MAXINUM CONTINUOUS POWER
P,,
T8
(in. Hg)
26.2
26.1
26.4
26.7
26.6
26.3
26.3
27.0
26.1
25.5
25.8
26.3
25.7
25.7
26.3
27.2
27.3
26.6
26.7
26.1
26.0
26.0
25.4
ps
b8
(in.H20)
2.50
3.50
4.25
5.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
4.25
3.00
2.50
2.50
3.00
4.00
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.00
4.75
3.75
3.00
2.50
2.75
\
(°F)
390
690
930
980
960
955
960
990
700
300
200
(250)
500
720
940
970
980
1000
975
670
300
140
325
(Abs.)
2
3961.4
3954.4
3975.6
3996.8
3989.7
3968.5
3968.5
4018.0
3954.4
3911.9
3933.1
3968.5
3926.1
3926.1
3968.5
4032.2
4039.2
3989.7
3996.8
3954.4
3989.7
3947.3
3904.9
(Abs."\
(Ib./ft.2;
2285.2
2356.0
2409.0
2462.0
2497.4
2497.4
2497.4
2462.0
2409.0
2320.6
2285.2
2285.2
2320.6
2391.3
2444.4
2462.0
2479.7
2462.0
2444.4
2373.6
2320.6
2285.2
2302.9
TT
V
(Abs.)
>M
850
1150
1390
1440
1420
1415
1420
1450
1160
760
660
710
960
1180
1400
1430
1440
1460
1435
1130
760
600
785
Stream Speed of.
Mac! i No.
(»)
0.92
0.89
0.88
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.84
0.87
0.87
0.90
0.92
0.92
0.90
0.87
0.86
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.87
0.89
0.92
0.92
0.90
Temp.
Ts
(°R)
726
992
1204
1254
1242
1239
1244
1260
1007
655
565
606
826
1024
1219
1242
1252
1272
1247
977
651
513
675
Sound
(ft. /sec.)
1320
1543
1700
1735
1727
1725
1728
1740
1555
1254
1165
1206
1408
1568
1711
1727
1734
1747
1730
1531
1250
1110
1273
Velocity
TT
(ft. /sec.)
1219
1378
1492
1496
1462
1452
1454
1508
1357
1125
1067
1115
1268
1368
1475
1503
1500
1503
1503
1357
1144
1021
1149
Density
P 0 |
(Slugs/ ft. ) 1
.0018
.0014
.0012
.0011
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0011
.0014
.0021
.0024
.0022
.0016
.0014
.0012
.0012
.0012
.0011
.0011
.0014
.0021
.0026
.0020
PV
/ Slugs \
[(ft.2 sec.jj
2.19
1.93
1.79
1.65
1.75
1.74
1.74
1.66
1.90
2.36
2.56
(2.56)
2.45
2.03
1.92
1.77
1.80
1.80
1.65
1.65
1.90
2.40
2.65
(2.56)
2.30
THC
PPM
c
Wet
9.0
9.0
9.0
12.0
19 fl
12.0
UA
. U
19 A
12. 0
19 n
12. U
12.0
10 n
12. 0
12.0
12.0
i 9 n
J.Z. U
19 ft
Lit \J
i 9 ft
Hi u
1 9 ft
i.£* U
1 9 ft
X£ . U
19 n
if. * U
19 ft
I/. U
1 9 ft
Lf. * U
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
CO
PPM
Wet
.17
13
27
39
38
37
41
42
28
9
3
3
1 A
14
/
10
39
if\
4U
40
10
3
2
2
co2
Wet
1.0
1.16
2.57
3.16
3.12
3.00
3.05
3.32
2A1
. 4J.
.83
.13
.00
.13
.46
1.33
2.65
3.21
3.28
3.24
3.28
2.45
0-7
. o/
.13
.08
.13
NO
X
PPM
Wet
2.19
34.0
75.0
97.0
108.0
105.0
103.0
105.0
78.0
27.0
7.0
2..0
4.0
2.03
44.0
83.0
105.0
105.0
105.0
110.0
110.0
n/\
.0
7.0
3.0
7.0
en
3
-------
©
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECH
Z
O
0
o
^< Position
Z
n 93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
1 09
J.UZ
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
1 1 n
JLJ.U
113
114
115
1 1 A
J. J.O
110
110
119
I9n
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
EXHAUST TRAVERSE DATA
TF-30-P1 Engine
NAFEC Reading No. 17 31 January 74
MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS POWER
P
18
(in. Hg)
25.5
26.1
26.8
27.0
26.9
25.8
26.0
26.5
oe e
Lj . J
25.4
25.8
26.1
26.2
26.0
25.4
26.1
1 H 1
-Lo. 1
15 e £
Zj. D
r\ e Q
Zj • :»
25.8
25.5
25.2
oc •)
£3 . J
7 7
/ . /
.7
(in.H20)
3.25
4.00
4.50
4.75
4.50
4.00
3.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
T po
T8 I'AOS.J
( °F) (lb./ft.2)
550
810
950
990
890
680
420
200
200
200
710
770
630
380
220
220
220
220
3911.9
3954.4
4003.9
4018.0
4010.9 '
3933.1
3947.3
3982.7
OQ1 -1 Q
j?ij. • y
3904.9
3933.1
3954.4
3961.4
3947.3
3904.9
3954.4
0-1 00 £
-j-joo • O
*5Ql Q ft
JJLJ .U
IQ A n ">
jy H\) . (.
3933.1
3911.9
3890.7
-1OQ7 Q
joy / . o
O£C -5 0
iD J J . \J
9 1 A 1 ft
£J.4J. o
2157.9
/ Abs3
2338.3
2391.3
2426.7
2444.4
2426.7
2391.3
2338.3
2285.2
2302.9
2320.6
2356.0
2356.0
2356.0
2320.6
2320.6
2320.6
2320.6
2320.6
'Abs.: Kacii No.
K) (••')
1010
1270
1410
1450
1350
1140
880
660
660
660
1170
1230
1090
840
680
680
680
680
0.89
0.88
0.88
0.87
0.88
0.87
0.90
0.93
0.90
0.90
0.89
0.90
0.89
0.90
0.91
0.90
0.90
0.89
Strega
T;-p.
T
872
1100
1222
1258
1169
989
758
563
567
568
1009
1060
940
724
584
585
586
587
Spead of
Sour.d
(ft. /soc.)
1447
1625
1713
1738
1675
1541
1349
1163
1167
1167
1556
1595
1503
1318
1184
1185
1186
1187
Velocity
V
(ft. /sec.)
1288
1429
1503
1519
1473
1347
1212
1079
1054
1053
1390
1428
1340
1181
1074
1069
1064
1059
Density , ?'•„ , THC CQ O>2 N0jc
P 3 /—^~ PPMc PPM % PPM
(Slugs/ft. ) \(ft." si;.); wet Wet Wet Wet
.0016 2.06 12.0 9 -71 25.0
.0013 1.86 12.0 17 1-77 59.0
.0012 1.80 9.0 30 2.89 98.0
.0011 1.67 9.0 37 3.12 113.0
.0012 1.77 9.0 36 3.24 110.0
.0014 1.89 15.0 23 1-97 68.0
.0018 2.18 6.0 13 1-04 35.0
.0024 2.59 6.0 4 -30 8.0
(2.56) 3.0 2 -21 2.0
(2.56) 3.0 3 -13 4.0
.0024 2.53 6.0 5 -37 13.0
.0024 2.53 6.0 12 1-09 34.0
.0014 1.95 6.0 19 1-73 57.0
.0013 1.86 6.0 21 1-97 63.0
.0015 2.01 6.0 21 2.09 63.0
.0019 2.24 6.0 11 -87 31.0
.0023 2.47 6.0 5 -30 8.0
(2.56) 6.0 2 -13 2.0
(2.56) 3.0 4 -13 6.0
(2.42) 6.0 5 -33 11.0
.0023 2.46 6.0 7 -50 17.0
.0023 2.45 3.0 10 -53 21.0
.0023 2.44 3.0 9 -74 22.0
(2.42) 3.0 3 •?! 7.0
(2.56) 6.0 3 -04 2.0
(2.56) 3.0 3 -08 2.0
(2.56) 3.0 3 -04 3.0
(2.56) 6.0 2 -08 2.0
------- |