LOW NOx
EMISSION COMBUSTOR
FOR AUTOMOBILE
GAS TURBINE ENGINES
FINAL REPORT
FEBRUARY 1973
United
aircraft
OF CANADA LIMITED
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
CONTRACT NO. 68-04-0015
-------
ER700
APTD - 1457
Low NOx Emission Combustor
for Automobile Gas Turbine Engines
Prepared By
H.C. Eatock Chief Aerodynamics Eng. U.A.C.L.
J.A. Saintsbury Project Director
Supervisor - Combustion U.A.C.L.
P. Sampath Senior Aerodynamicist Combustion U.A.C.L.
J.R. Keilbach Chief, Combustion Tech. U.A.R.L.
L.J. Spadac'cini Senior Research Engineer U.A.R.L.
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
Longueuil, Quebec Canada
CONTRACT NUMBER: 68-04-0015
EPA Project Officer
T.M. Sebestyen
Prepared For
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Mobile Source Pollution Control Program
Advanced Automotive Power Systems Development Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
February 1973
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of report is.issued
by the Office of Air and Water Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, to report technical data of interest to a limited number of
readers. Copies of APTD reports are available free of charge to
Federal employees, current contractors and grantees, and non-profit
organizations - as supplies permit - from the Air Pollution Technical
Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or may be obtained for a nominal
cost, from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
by United Aircraft of Canada Limited, Longueuil Quebec, Canada,
in fulfillment of Contract Number 68-01-0015. The contents of this
report are reproduced herein as received from United Aircraft of
Canada Limited. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed
are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Office of Air and Water Programs Publication Number APTD - 1457
-------
DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION.* - AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURERS
AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION:
Dr. Robert A. Peterson
Chief Engineer
Automotive Advanced Engineering
American Motors
14250 Plymouth Road
Detroit. Michigan 48227 •
CHRYSLER CORPORATION:
Or. George J. Huebner, Jr.
Chrysler Corporation
P.O. Box 1118
Detroit. Michigan 48231
FORD MOTOR COMPANY=
Mr. Jack Collins
Chief, Car Research Engineer
Science Research Staff
Ford Motor Company, Sox 2053
Dearborn, Michigan 48121
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION:
Mr. Ernest Starkman
Vice Pres., Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Technical Center
Warren, Michigan 48090
Dr. Paul Chenea
Vice President, Research Laboratories
General Motors Technical Center
Warren. Michigan 48090
Dr. Craig Marks
General Motors Technical Center
Advance Product Engineering
Warren, Michigan 48090
Mr. Hike Naylor
Passenger Car Turbine Development
Engineering Staff
G. M. Technical Center
Warren. Michigan 48090
Mr. L.O. Hcwko
General Motors New Departure Hyatt Dlv.
2509 Hayes Avenue
Sandusky. Ohio 44870
Mr. Worth Perclval
General Motors Corp.
Research Lab.
•Warren, Michigan 48090
MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION (JAPAN):
Mr. Vamaya
Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
c/o Mitsubishi International Suite 365
24300 Northwestern Highway
Southfield, Michigan 48075
NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY. LTD. (JAPAN):
Mr. Toriyuki Nakamura
Nissan Motor Company. Ltd.
560 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
TOYO KOGYO:
Mr. Norl Vamainoto
Toyo Kogyo Detroit Office
3341 Mystic Valley Drive
Bloomfield Hills. Michigan 48013
DISTRIBUTION C_- COUNCILS
Mr. Charles Zegers
Electric Vehicle Council
90 Park Avenue
New York. New York 19018
DISTRIBUTIONJ.- EDUCATIONA1
INSTITUTIONS
Or. S. William Gouse
Associate Dean
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15213
Mr. George C. Newton
Associate Director
Electric Systems Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Mass. 02139
DISTRIBUTION E
EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS (CON'T)
Dr. John H. Sununu
Associate Dean
College of Engineering
Tufts University
Nedford, Mass. 02155
Professor Robert F. Sawyer
Associate Professor
University of California
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
Berkeley, California 94720
Or. David V. Ragone
Dean of Engineering
255 West Engineering Bldg.
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
DISTRIBUTION^ - FOREION COUNTRIES
ENGLAND:
Dr. B. Burnslde
Mechanical Engineering Dept.
Herlot-Watt University
Chambers Street
Edinburgh 1, London, ENGLAND
Mr. Mark C. S. Barnard
Chief Engineer
Leyland Gas Turbines
Lode Lane
Solihull
Warwickshire. ENGLAND
Mr. Diarmuid Downs
Ricardo 1 CO. Engineers, Ltd.
Bridge Works
Shoreham-by-Sea
Sussex, ENGLAND
Mr. Cecil French
Ricardo S Co. Engineers, Ltd.
Bridge Works
Shoreham-by-Sea
Sussex, ENGLAND
Mr. A. L. Alexander
"Windy Ridge" Pewley Kill
Gulldford, Surrey. ENGLAND
FRANCE:
Herla
Institute de Recherche des Transports
I.R.T. 2
Avenue du General Malleret Jolnville
94 - Arcueil. FRANCE
GERMANY:
Herr Bonk
Federal Ministry of Transportation
100 Sternstrasse
Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Franz Pischinger
Lehrstuhl fur Angewandte Thcrmodynamik
Technische Hochschute Aachen
51 Aachen
Schlnkelstrabe 8, GERMANY
Dr. Ing. Wolf-Helnrich Hucho
volkswagenwerk Aktinegesellschaft
3180 Wolfsburg, GERMANY
Or. Jong Abthoff
I. Hs. Daimler-Benz Aktlengesellschaft
Motorenversuch-Abgasrelnigung
7 Stuttgart 60, GERMANY
Mr. Christopher R. Landmann
Dataler-Benx
Dept. E6ZG
Stuttgart-Untertuerkheim, GERMANY
ITALY:
Mr. Guldo Rossini
Italian State Industry
C.O. ENI
Piazza Enrico Mattel
00144 Roma, ITALY
Ing. Filippo Surace
Alfa Romeo
Via Giattamelato 45
Milano. ITALY
Dr. G. Savonuzzi
Fiat - Direzlone Ricerca
Strade del Drosso 145
101135 Torino, ITALY
DISTRIBUTION.! - FOREION COUNTRIES (CON'T)
SHEDEN:
Professor S. 0. Kronograd
Inst. of Turbomachlnery S Combustion Engines
Univ. of Lund
Lund 7. Sweden
Volvo - Flygmotor AB
Attention: S Orjan Cederstrand
Trollhattan, Sweden
NETHERLANDS
Dr. F.P.K. de Jong
N.V. Philips Company
Serlloweg 22
Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Dr. Maier
N. V. Philips Company
Serlloweg 22
Eindhoven, The Netherlands
JAPAN
Shlgeru Yanagihara
Head of Emission Section
Automobile Division
Mechanical Engineering Laboratory
4-12, Igusa, Suginamiku, TOKYO
Mr. Hajima Ariga
New Power Source Research Dept.
Central Engineering Laboratory
1. Natshushlma-Chuo
Yoksuka, JAPAN
Or. Takshi Kohayakawa
Research ( Development Dept.
Daihatsu Kogyo Co., Ltd.
1. Dalhatsu-Cho Ikeda City
Osaka, JAPAN
DISTRIBUTION O. - GOVERNMENT AGENCIES/
DEPARTMENTS/OFFICES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
Dr. Stanley Greenfield
Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall, Room 32020
4th and M Streets
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dr. Louis Schoen
Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
4th and M Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mr. Ralph Sthman
Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION:
Mr. Roy P. Jackson
Associate Administrator
Office of Advanced Research Technology
National Aeronautics S Space Administration (R)
Washington, D.C. 20546
Mr. Henry 0. Slone
Assistant Division Chief
Space Power Systems Division
NASA/Lewis Research Center
Mail Stop 500-201
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Mr. Lloyd Shure
Mgr., Automotive Powers Systems Office
NASA/Lewis Research Center
Mail Stop 500-201
Cleveland, Ohio 44135
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
Mr. Charles Daniels
Dept. of Transportation
400 7th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Or. Richard L. Strombotne
Office of The Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C. 20591
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
DISTRIBUTION (CON'T)
DISTRIBUTION G • GOVERNMENT AGENCIES/
DEPARTMENTS/OFFICES (CON'T)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE:
Mr. John O'Sulllvan SHEFB-EE-
Commanding Officer USA MEROC
Fort Belvore. Virginia 22050
Mr. 0. Wetdhuner. AHCRD-GP
HQ. Amur Material Coumand
Washington, D.C. 20315
Mr. Larry Bell
Eustls Directorate, USAAMROL
SAVDL-EU-PP
Fort Eustis, Virginia 23604
Dr. Ernest N. Petrick
Chief Scientist
U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command
Ha iron, Michigan 48090
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS:
Dr. James R. McNesby
National Bureau of Standards
Chief. Physical Chemistry Division
Washington, D.C. 20234
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION:
Mr. William B. Foote
Deputy Commissioner for Transportation
Transportation ( Comunication Section
General Services Administration
18th and F Streets, N.W.
Washington, O.C. 20405
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE:
Mr. Lewis Gerlach
Chief, of Transportation Research
U.S. Postal Service
12th and Penna.Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20260
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET:
Mr. Joel Rosenblatt
Office of Management i Budget
Budgot Examiner
Rm. 8214, New Executive Office Bldg.
Washington, O.C. 20503
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY:
Mr. Jack Hope
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science 8 Technology
New Executive Office Bldg.. Rm. 4230
Washington, D.C. 20506
Dr. Philip Schambra
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
DISTRIBUTION I - INDUSTRY
ENGINE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY:
Mr. Lament Eltinge
Cummins Engine Co., Inc.
1000 5th Avenue
Columbus, Indiana 47201
Mr. C. J. Dasbach
Senior Engineer
Cummins Engine Co., Inc.
Columubs, Indiana 47201
Mr. Lou Billman
Pratt 4 Uhittney Aircraft
Florida Research t Development Center
Box 2691
Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Mr. William Lear
Lear Motors Corporation
5980 Alpha Avenue
Reno, Nevada 89506
Mr. Tom Williams, Pres.
Williams Engine Company
60 Tomlinson Road
Huntington Valley, Pa. 19006
Mr. Sam Williams
Williams Research Corporation
Walled Lake, Michigan 48088
PETROLEUM INDUSTRY:
Dr. Duane G. LeVine
Director, Fuels Research Lab
Esso Research S Engineering Co.
P.O. Box 51
Linden, New Jersey 07036
Mr. Leo HcReynolds
Director, Fuels and Lubricants Research
Phillips Research Center
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004
Mr. R.W. Schimer
Philips Petroleum Company
Fuels 1 Lubricants Division
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004
Mr. Leo McReynolds
Philips Petroleum Company
Fuels ( Lubricants Division
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74004
AEROSPACE INDUSTRY:
Mr. Robert L. Saslow
TRM Equipment
23355 End id Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44117
DISTRIBUTION I - INDUSTRY (CON'T)
MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIES:
Mr. James L. Dooley
Vice President, Engineering
McCulloch Corporation
5401 Beethoven Street
Los Angeles. California 90066
Mr. Ron Rice
Owens-Illinois
1020 North Westwood Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43607
Dr. Beno Sternlicht
Technical Director
Mechanical Technology, Inc.
968 Albany-Shaker Road
Latham, New York 12110
Mr. Peter Cerf
Tectronics Research
9556 West Bloomington Freeway
Minneapolis, Minn. 55431
Federal Mogul Corp.
P.O. Box 1966
Detroit, Michigan 48235
Atnn: R. L. Probst
Dir.-Res. S Dev.
DISTRIBUTION R -RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS
FEDERAL CONTRACT RESEARCH CENTERS:
Dr. Toru lura
Associate Director
Pollution 8 Resources Programs
Aerospace Corporation
2350 E. El Segundo Blvd.
El Segundo, California 90245
GENERAL RESEARCH:
Dr. A. M. Bueche
Vice President
General Electric Research ( Development
Center
1 River Road
Schenectady. New York 12306
Dr. Daniel Berg
Director of Energy Systems Research
Westinghouse Research Laboratories
Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15235
GENERAL STUDY:
Dr. Herbert R. Hazard
Battelle-Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PARAGRAPH TITLE PAGE
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
NOMENCLATURE 1
FOREWORD 3
SUMMARY 5
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. SCOPE OF WORK 2-1
3. FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION 3-1
3.1 Atmospheric Test Facility - UACL 3-1
3.2 Water Model Facility 3-1
3.3 Emission Instrumentation - UACL 3-1
3.4 Pressure Test Facility - UARL 3-2
3.5 Emission Instrumentation - UARL 3-2
3.6 Analytical Model - UARL 3-3
4. DESCRIPTION OF WORK 4-1
4.1 Class UB Combustor for Single Cycle Gas 4-1
Turbine Engines
4.1.1 Combustor Volume 4-1
4.1.2 Water Model Studies - Class UB Combustor 4-2
4.1.3 Atmospheric Rig Development - Class UB 4-3
Combustor
4.1.4 Class UB Analytical Modeling 4-5
4.1.5 Class UB Pressure Development 4-6
4.1.6 Effect of Atmospheric Moisture on Exhaust 4-9
Emissions - Class UB Combustor
4.1.7 Class UB Combustor Final Evaluation 4-10
4.2 Class A/Mod Combustor for Regenerative Gas 4-12
Turbine Engines
4.2.1 Design Philosophy 4-12
4.2.2 Atmospheric Rig Development - Class A/Mod 4-14
Combustor
4-2-3 Class A/Mod Pressure Development 4-15
4.2.4 Effect of Atmospheric Moisture on Exhaust 4-16
Emissions - Class A/Mod Combustor
4.2.5 Effect of Regenerative Bypass 4-16
4.2.6 Class A/Mod Combustor Final Evaluation 4-17
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
PARAGRAPH
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CON'T)
TITLE
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Development Philosophy
Combustion Chemistry at Low Equivalence Ratios
Class UB Combustor Results
Influence of Injection Process
Intermediate Zone Temperature
Class A/Mod Combustor Results
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions - General
Conclusions - Developmental
Conclusions - Class UB Combustor for the
Simple-Cycle Engine
Conclusions - Class A/Mod Combustor for the
Regenerative Cycle Engine
Recommendations
LIST OF REFERENCES
/
Water Model Studies
Compilation of Combustor Configurations and
Test Results
PAGE
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-3
5-3
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-4
R-l
11
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
2.1 Layout of Pig For Atmospheric Tests 2-3
3.1 Cross Section of Class UB Combustor Assembly 3-7
3.2 Sampling Probes (Atmospheric Tests at UACL) 3-9
3.3 Schematic of the Water Tunnel Installation 3-11
3.4 Water Analogy Rig 3-13
3. 5 Gas Analysis Instrumentation (Atmospheric Tests at UACL) 3-15
3.6 Schematic of Combustor Assembly (Full Pressure
Tests at UARL) 3-17
3. 7 Multipoint Sampling Probe (Full Pressure Tests at UARL) 3-19
3. 8 Emission Sampling and Analysis System (Full Pressure
Tests at UARL) 3-21
3.9 Gas Turbine Combustor Flowfield Model 3-23
4.1 Class UB Water Analogy Model 4-51
4.2 Milestones in Class UB Combustor Development
(Atmospheric Tests at UACL) 4-53
4.3 Cross Sections of Fuel Nozzles 4-55
4.4 Fuel Atomizers used in Class UB Combustor Development 4-57
4. 5 Summary of Atmospheric Tests on Class UB Combustor 4-59
4.6 Atmospheric Tests on Class UB Combustor - Initial
Combustor 4-61
4.7 Atmospheric Tests on Class UB Combustor -
Early Quench Combustor 4-63
4.8 Atmospheric Tests on Class UB Combustor -
Early Quench and Lean Primary Zone Combustor 4-65
4. 9 Class UB Combustor After Development at Atmospheric
Pressure (At UACL) 4-67
4.10 Class UB Combustor Casing 4-69
4.11 Effect of Primary Zone Equivalence Ratio and Quenching
Rate on NOX Emissions from Class UB Combustor 4-71
4.12 Comparison of Measured and Predicted NOX Emissions
for Class UB Combustor at Atmospheric Pressure 4-73
4.13 Effect of Primary Zone Equivalence Ratio and Residence
Time on Nitric Oxide Emissions 4-75
4.14 Effect of Inlet Pressure on NOg Emissions from Class
UB Combustor 4-77
4.15 Effect of Humidity on NOX Emissions from Class UB
Combustor 4-79
4.16 Variation of Equilibrium Combustion Temperature with
Fuel-Air Ratio 4-81
4.17 Variation of Equilibrium CO Mole Fraction with
Fuel-Air Ratio 4-83
United Aircraft of Canada Limited iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CON'T)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
4.18 Summary of Emissions from UACL - Class UB Combustor
Over Simulated Federal Driving Cycle (Zero Humidity) 4-85
4.19 Summary of Class UB Emission Results - NOX Vs CO
Emission Indices - Air-Assist Nozzle 4-87
4.20 Summary of Class UB Emission Results - NOX Vs CO
Emission Indices - Air-Blast Nozzle 4-89
4.21 Class UB Combustor - Final Configuration 4-91
4.22 Cross Section of Class UB Combustor - Final Configuration 4-93
4.23 Schematic of Humidity Test Set-up 4-95
4.24 Effect of Humidity on NOX Emissions 4-97
4.25 Class UB Combustor Emissions Over Simulated Federal
Driving Cycle (Humidity Corrected) 4-99
4.26 Class UB Combustor Emissions in Steady Speed
Operation (Zero Humidity) 4-101
4.27 Class UB Combustor Emissions in Steady Speed
Operation (Humidity Corrected) 4-103
4.28 Class UB Combustor Emissions in Steady Speed
Operation - Effect of Fuel Flow Rate 4-105
4.29 Class UB Combustor Emissions in Steady Speed
Operation - Effect of SHP 4-107
4.30 Class UB Combustor Emissions in Range Mode
Operation - Pressure Effect (Zero Humidity) 4-109
4.31 Class UB Combustor Emissions in Range Mode Operation -
Temperature Effect (Zero Humidity) 4-111
4.32 Class UB Combustor Emissions in Range Mode Operation -
Low Base Line Condition (Humidity Corrected) 4-113
4.33 Class UB Combustor Emissions in Range Mode Operation -
Medium Base Line Condition. Pressure Effect
(Humidity Corrected) 4-115
4.34 Class UB Combustor Emissions in Range Mode Operation -
Medium Base Line Condition. Temperature Effect
(Humidity Corrected) 4-117
4.35 Combustor Assembly - A/Mod 4-119
4.36 Class A/Mod Combustor - Initial Design 4-121
4.37 Milestones in Class A/Mod Combustor Development
(Atmospheric Tests at UACL) 4-123
4.38 Summary of Class A/Mod Emission Results -
NOxVs CO Emission Indices - Air-Blast Nozzle 4-125
4.39 Class A/Mod Combustor During Development 4-127
4.40 Cross Section of Class A/Mod Combustor -
Final Configuration 4-129
4.41 Class A/Mod Combustor Emissions Over Simulated
Federal Driving Cycle (Humidity Corrected) 4-131
iv United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CON'T)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
4.42 Class A/Mod Combustor Emissions in Steady Speed
Operation - Effect of Vehicle Speed (Humidity Corrected) 4-133
4.43 Class A/Mod Combustor Emissions in Steady Speed
Operation - Effect of Vehicle Speed (Zero Humidity) 4-135
4.44 Class A/Mod Combustor Emissions in Steady Speed
Operation - Effect of Fuel Flow Rate (Humidity
Corrected) 4-137
4.45 Cross Section of Combustor Assembly for Regenerator
Bypass Evaluation 4-139
4.46 Effect of Regenerator Bypass on NOX and CO Emissions 4-141
4.47 Effect of Regenerator Bypass on NQx Emissions 4-143
5.1 Variation of Class UB Combustor Emissions with
Primary Zone Equivalence Ratio - Air-Blast
Atomizer (Humidity Corrected) 5-7
5.2 Variation of Class UB Combustor Emissions with
Primary Zone Equilibrium Temperature
(Humidity Corrected) 5-9
5.3 Flame Photographs from Class A/Mod Combustor 5-11
5.4 Comparison of Mass Emissions of Regenerative and
Simple Cycle Combustors (Humidity Corrected
Except G. M. Data) 5-13
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
1-1 1976 Emission Standards 1-3
3-1 Nitric Oxide Formation Kinetics 3-5
4-1 Summary of Design Data for EPA Class A/Mod and 4-19
UB Combustors
4-2 Federal Driving Cycle Simulated Conditions for 4-21
Class UB Combustor
4-3 Class UB Combustor Emissions over Simulated FDC 4-21
(Atmospheric Tests with Air-Assist Nozzle)
4-4 Class UB Combustor Geometry and Air Flow 4-23
Distribution
4-5 Operating Conditions Selected for Analytical Modeling 4-25
of Class UB Combustor
4-6 Approximate Equivalent Expressions for Water Vapor 4-27
4-7 Steady-Speed Mode Simulated Conditions for Class UB 4-29
Combustor
4-8 Evaluation of Final Class UB Combustor in Simulated 4-31
Steady-Speed Operation
4-9 Range Mode Conditions for Class UB Combustor Low 4-33
Base Line (50 mph)
4-10 Range Mode Conditions for Class UB Combustor 4-33
Medium Base Line (70 mph)
4-11 Class UB Combustor Configuration (Final) and Air 4-35
Flow Distribution
4-12 Class UB Combustor Emissions over Simulated FDC 4-37
(Full Pressure Tests with Air-Blast Nozzle)
4-13 Federal Driving Cycle Simulated Conditions for 4-39
Class A/Mod Combustor
4-14 Class A/Mod Combustor Configuration (Final) and Air 4-41
Flow Distribution
4-15 Class A/Mod Combustor Emissions over Simulated 4-43
FDC (Full Pressure Tests with Air-Blast Nozzle)
4-16 Steady-Speed Mode Simulated Conditions for Class 4-45
A/Mod Combustor
4-17 Evaluation of Final Class A/Mod Combustor in 4-47
Simulated Steady-Speed Operation
4-18 Effect of Regenerator Bypass on Emissions 4-49
5-1 Combustion Scheme for Hydrocarbons with Excess 5-5
Oxygen
United Aircraft of Canada Limited vii
-------
NOMENCLATURE
C Empirical Constant
D Diameter, Inches
El Emission Index, Ibs of pollutant/ 1000 Ibs fuel
ER Emission Ratio (Measured Emission Index) Dimensionless
Target Emission Index
far, f/a Fuel-air ratio, Wf/Wa
FDC Federal Driving Cycle
FN Flow Number, (ib-8. - )
hr V Ibs per in^
Kf Forward Reaction Constant, Cm3/mole-sec
L Length, inches
PPM Parts per Million
P Pressure, psia
SHP Shaft Horsepower
T Temperature, °F, °R
VE Vehicle Economy, Miles per Gallon
W Flow Rate, Ibs/sec
aP Pressure drop, psi
Equivalence Ratio, dimensionless
a Specific Humidity, Ib water/lb air
SUBSCRIPTS
a Air
f Fuel
in Combustor inlet
out Combustor outlet
PZ Primary Zone
IZ Intermediate Zone
DZ Dilution Zone
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
FOREWORD
This reportNo. APTD-1457 entitled "Low NOX Emission Combustor for Automo-
bile Gas Turbine Engines "is the finalreportunder E. P. A. Contractfco. 68-04-0015.
The period of performance was from 9 August 1971 to 31 January 1973
including this final report.
Several modifications to the Contract have been made during the term of the
Contract. These are as follows:
1. Redesignation of Class B Combustor (Simple Cycle) to Class UB
and Class A Combustor (Regenerative Cycle) to Class A/Mod.
2. Modifications to the final test procedure to accommodate the
changes in para. (1), Attachment A, October 15, 1971.
3. Re-scheduling of the program to suit changes in para. (1) and (2).
4. Modifications of test procedure to allow more development work,
November 6, 1972.
The technical contents of this report reflect the above changes agreed to
between U.A. C. and E.P.A.
United Pircraft of Canada Limited
-------
SUMMARY
Under contract with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a program
was carried out to evaluate the emission levels that could be reached by
development on two combustors representing a 12:1 pressure ratio simple
cycle gas turbine, and a 5:1 pressure ratio regenerative cycle gas turbine,
both for automotive application. Goals were to equal or better the EPA
1975-76 Federal Emission Standards for automobiles. These standards
specify the following maximum allowable levels of vehicle emissions:
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) - 0.4 gms/mile
Carbon Monoxide (CO) - 3.4 gms/mile
Hydrocarbons (UHC) - 0.41 gms/mile
United Aircraft of Canada Ltd. was the prime contractor and United Aircraft
Research Laboratories was sub-contracted. Initial design and atmospheric
rig development were conducted by UACL, and UARL provided theoretical
models of emission formation. Pressure testing was conducted by and at
UARL, under the direction of UACL.
Some 60 atmospheric rig tests were carried out on the simple-cycle combus-
tor (designated Class UB) whilst 39 atmospheric rig tests were carried out on
the regenerative cycle combustor (designatedClass A/Mod) at UACL. Some 430
pressure test points involving over 200 modifications to combustor geometry
were run at UARL.
Various fuel injection methods were employed, such as pressure atomizing,
air-assisted pressure atomizing and air-blast atomizing. For reasons of
reliability and primary zone leanness, the air-blast atomizer was the final
selection.
The concept of a lean head end was pursued throughout the program for both
combustors, but the best method of achieving this was not determined until
late in the program, and time and funding did not permit optimization of the
approach.
Essentially, the best results were obtained by the introduction of sufficient
air to provide a lean head end (in the form of 3 stages of swirl) while main-
taining fairly high temperatures in the intermediate zone, the remainder of
the air being introduced into the dilution zone.
The combustors were rig tested for emissions in the following modes as
specified by EPA.:
1) The simulated Federal Driving Cycle (FDC),
2) Steady Speed Mode, and
3) Range Mode (Class UB only).
United Aircraft of Canada Limited 5
-------
SUMMARY
Effects of outside parameters - viz. inlet humidity and regenerator bypass
(A/Mod) - on combustor emissions were also evaluated.
The best emission values achieved under this contract are summarized
below and are compared to Chrysler data published Dec. '72, which well
represents current state of the art.
Nitrogen Oxides*
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Federal Standards
1975-76
gms/mile
0.4
3.4
0.41
Assumed Vehicle Economy on Simulat
Federal Driving Cyc
* Corrected to Standard Humidity
Program Achievements
gms/mile
Class UB
0.52
3.64
0.49
ed
:le 8. 6
Class A/Mod
0.58
6.18
0.06
12.7
Chrysler
Data (13)
gms/mile
2.7
4.3
1.1
-
The emission values quoted above were achieved with simple and practical
hardware designs which appear to be adaptable to any can-type combustor.
Both combustors had excellent stability indicating that further development
could result in substantial further emission reduction. Final detailed devel-
opment to achieve full roadworthy combustors might lead to some increase
in emissions. Severe transients during operation of the regenerative com-
bustors will make it particularly difficult to duplicate rig results in actual
driving conditions.
The extent of improvements in emissions accomplished under the program
may be seen from the following table which refers to the development phase
under representative operating pressures.
EMISSION INDICES
NOX*
CO
UHC
Class UB, FDC #2f
Initial
0.76
12.67
1.15
Final
0.40
3.38
0.07
Class A/Mod, FDC #2*
Initial
0.67
8.30
0.16
Final
0.39
12.00
0.06
* Corrected to Standard Humidity
t Refer to Table 4-2
* Refer to Table 4-13
6
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
SUMMARY
The program has demonstrated that judicious alterations to head end aero-
dynamics combined with use of dependable fuel atomizing techniques (e. g.,
air-blast atomizers) can result in substantial reductions of emissions from
simple geometry combustors. It is felt that a continuation of developmental
effort on the UB combustor will result in emission levels which will meet
the 1976 Federal Standards on the test rig with some modest margin for
actual driving conditions. The A/Mod combustor can be further improved,
but to achieve Federal standards with adequate allowance for the severe
transients faced by regenerative/recuperative combustors is likely to require
variable combustor geometry and/or partial heat exchanger bypass to the
combustor primary zone.
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
INTRODUCTION
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
INTRODUCTION
The permissible levels of automobile exhaust emissions set by Congress and
EPA for 1976(1)* are widely recognized as extremely stringent and difficult
to meet. The generally favorable emission characteristics of continuous
combustion systems have prompted increased interest in the gas turbine as
a potential automobile engine.
Comprehensive design analysis of gas turbine engines for automotive propul-
sion and a manufacturing cost study for such engines were undertaken by
United Aircraft Corporation under separate contracts with EPA(2> 3,4)t Those
studies identified single-shaft, simple-cycle engines of 10 - 12:1 pressure
ratio as having excellent potential for low cost and for low emissions, parti-
cularly of NOX the most difficult pollutant. The engines (identified as SSS-10
and SSS-12 respectively) were based on advanced aerospace technology from
UACL(5). The claims for low-emission potential of this engine were care-
fully examined by General Motors (6) who concluded that the engine should
have attractive NOX emissions but cautioned that the CO emissions could be
many times the requirement.
A research program for development of two types of low NOX combustors
was sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency at United
Aircraft of Canada (UACL) with major support from United Aircraft Research
Laboratories (UARL). The aim of the program was to develop combustors
for (i) Class A/Mod, low pressure ratio (5:1) regenerator cycle gas turbine
engine and (ii) Class UB, high pressure ratio (12:1) simple cycle gas turbine
engine (UAC SSS-12).
The program started in August 1971 and concluded in December 1972. Work
was equally divided between UACL and UARL. UACL as prime contractor had
design and development responsibility and conducted atmospheric testing,
while UARL provided sophisticated emissions modeling and conducted the full
pressure testing and final evaluation. The larger portion of the effort was
placed on the Class UB simple cycle combustor, due in part to its superior
potential for low emissions and also, being first studied, techniques to reduce
emissions were developed on it. Class UB development resulted in integrated
emission levels over the simulated Federal Driving Cycle very close to tar-
gets. Major reductions were accomplished on the Class A/Mod regenerator
combustor due largely to the technology acquired from Class UB, but the
integrated emission levels were substantially above targets. It is believed,
however, that with a fairly minor extra effort, emission levels very close
to EPA target levels can be achieved. A fixed geometry combustor would
suffice for Class UB while Class A/Mod combustor may need variable geo-
metry of a simple practical form to achieve target emission levels.
* The numbers in parentheses indicate References listed on page R-l.
United Aircraft of Canada Limited l~l
-------
INTRODUCTION
TABLE 1-1 1976 EMISSION STANDARDS*
(a) Hydrocarbons
(b) Carbon Monoxide
(c) Oxides of Nitrogen
0.41 gram per Vehicle Mile
3.40 grams per Vehicle Mile
0.40 gram per Vehicle Mile
* Federal Register November 15, 1972
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
1-3
-------
2. SCOPE OF WORK
The investigations described in this report were conducted at United Aircraft
of Canada in Longueuil, Canada, and at United Aircraft Research Laborato-
ries in E. Hartford, Conn., under sponsorship of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Development was aimed toward reducing emissions from two
combustors for (1) gas turbine Class A/Mod, low pressure ratio (5:1), regen-
erated, and (2) gas turbine Class UB, high pressure ratio (12:1), non-
regenerated. The work was undertaken in four phases.
Phase 1: Basic Combustor Designs
The two combustors were designed making use of best conventional combustor
design philosophies. While the basic profile design made use of well-known
design practices, (?) the flow splits in the different regions of the combustors
were decided on estimates of primary and intermediate zone equivalence
ratios, which were thought to result in low overall emissions. For Class UB
combustor, the philosophy was to start with a primary zone equivalence ratio
rz = 0.95 which is good for low CO, and optimize for NOX by reduced
residence time and further leaning of primary zone as required. The inter-
mediate zone was to be maintained at a temperature high enough to consume
CO, UHC, but not for generation of NOx. The A/Mod Combustor was initially
designed for a leaner head end - *PZ = 0.85.
Water modelling was used extensively in determining flow ratios. Attempts
were also made to estimate residence times from the water model, but these
estimates are considered very approximate since actual flow conditions cannot
be simulated completely on a water model.
Some of the principal design criteria are discussed under Chapter 4 of this
report.
Phase 2: EPA Approval
EPA's approval of the basic designs was obtained from the project officer as
required contractually.
Phase 3: Fabrication and Set-up
The test facility at UACL was used for atmospheric development of the two
classes of combustors. A sketch of the installation is shown in Figure 2.1.
The atmospheric test facility provides up to 0.5 Ibs/sec of unvitiated air at
temperatures up to 1400°F. An electrical (resistance type) heater was used
to raise the air temperature to required levels. A new set of gas analysis
instrumentation was procured for execution of the program. Details of emis-
sion instrumentation used by UACL are described in Section 3.3 of this report.
United Aircraft of Canada Limited 2-1
-------
SCOPE OF WORK
The facility at UARL served for pressure testing and development on both
classes of combustors. Heating was accomplished by electrical heaters up
to 1200°F, and a combined oil-electrical heating scheme for temperatures
up to 1350°F. Details of the UARL facilities are described in Section 3.4.
In both the test facilities, burning zones were observed through inspection
windows. In the pressure facility at UARL ease of emission sampling was
sacrificed in favor of a sight glass allowing full on-axis viewing of the com-
bustor. This enabled an invaluable qualitative understanding of the flame
characteristics as related to combustor emissions. Temperature distribu-
tion on combustor walls were studied using temperature sensitive paint
(Thermindex OG-6). Exhaust temperature profiles were measured using
thermocouples.
Phase 4: Test and Evaluation
The cost effectiveness of atmospheric testing showed up quite well on both
the UB and A/Mod development programs. Substantial improvements in
emission levels were achieved atmospherically with turn-around rates of
4 to 5 modifications a day. However with the leaning of head end, stability
at atmospheric pressure was marginal and hence the full potential of lean
primary zone could not be explored. Intensive development under pressure
had to be resorted to instead of only the minimum development and final eva-
luation originally planned.
Full pressure tests showed that good stability could be maintained even at
low fuel-air ratios in the primary zone. More than 200 modifications were
evaluated at full pressure on Class UB combustor and about 25 on Class
A/Mod flame tube. Final evaluation was on a reduced test matrix, as agreed
by EPA. Analytical modelling was used extensively on Class UB combustor
program. This was found to be a useful tool in predicting effect of pressure
on emissions and also the effect of ambient humidity.
2-2 United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
c
D
3
I
O
o
0)
Q.
Q)
r
3
r*
0
Q
!
/
/
7
/
/ 5
.
JCC
s_
f
i
j-
f
-I1
1
I
/
"OW* T-7Mt-i y*
-t^ ^ .
to
I
CO
d
VIEW 'AA
30M.E '/•,'• \'Q'
[ EFD 363O7
tDwnw-Tsv_
ASSEHH.Y
COMBUSTION RIG-EJ*
EFD 36307
Q
§
W
CO
O
c!
O
*J
o
O
02
0
H
M
OT
H
CO
H
O
-------
FACILITIES
AND
INSTRUMENTATION
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
3. FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
A brief description of some of the facilities and emission measuring instru-
mentation is given in this Chapter.
3.1 Atmospheric Test Facility - UACL
This facility at UACL was set up by modifications to an already existing
burner test stand, Figure 2.1. An electrical resistance heater was installed
to provide for unvitiated air flows up to 0.5 Ibs/sec at inlet temperatures up
to 1400 °F. Air was supplied by a blower to static pressures up to 40" water
and air flow was metered by an orifice plate designed to B.S.F. practice.
The transition piece between the heater and the test section (Figure 2.1) was
provided with screens to reduce asymmetry and turbulence in the flow stream.
The air temperature (Tin) and static pressure (Pin) were recorded in the test
section upstream of the combustor (Figure 3.1). Downstream of the combus-
tor the total pressure (Pout) and temperature (Tout) were measured with
multi-point thermocouples. Emission sampling was done with two types of
sampling probes (i) single point United Sensor sampling probe and (ii) multi-
point uncooled sampling probe. General views of the two probe types are
shown in Figure 3.2.
Fuel parameters measured were (a) fuel pressure, (b) fuel temperature, and
(c) fuel flow rate.
3.2 Water Model Facility
A schematic of the water tunnel installation is shown in Figure 3.3, and a
photograph of the installation is seen in Figure 3.4. Plexiglass models of the
combustors and casing were suspended vertically in the water tunnel. The
tunnel (Figure 3.4) can accept two or three dimensional models of sizes up
to 26" x 18" x 18". Quartz strip lighting with a slit arrangement mounted on
a travelling frame, enables a light plane to be projected from any side for
required viewing. A photographic light source, with a duration of approxi-
mately 20 micro-seconds and synchronized with camera shutter, was used to
obtain still pictures. A Polaroid camera with type 3000 film was used for
photography.
The flow paths in the combustors were traced with polystyrene pellets,
aluminum, and colored dyes. The reference velocity in the annulus between
the combustor model and the casing was regulated with a flow control valve
downstream of the circulating water pump.
3.3 Emission Instrumentation — UACL
For the UB phase of atmospheric development, the following emission
measuring instrumentation was employed -
United Pircraft of Canada Limited 3-1
-------
FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
Carle 8000 Basic Chromatograph for CO2, CO and O2,
Carle 9000 Flame lonization Detector for UHC, and
Environmetrics Faristor Detector for NO and NO2-
For the A/Mod phase of atmospheric development the following instrumen-
tation was used (Figure 3.5) -
Beckman NDIR 315 BL analyzer for CO,
Beckman NDIR 315 B analyzer for CO2,
Scott Chemiluminescence analyzer with switchable converterforNOx,
Scott Paramagnetic Analyzer for O2, and
Carle 9000 Flame lonization Detector for UHC.
Electrically heated sampling lines providing for gas temperature of about
300 °F were used for sampling. Both single point and multi-point sampling
probes were used in the program (see Figure 3.2).
3.4 Pressure Test Facility - UARL
A pressure test facility was developed to provide for air flow rates in excess
of 2.25 Ibs/sec, pressures up to 250 psia and temperatures as high as 1350°F.
Other auxiliaries included a water cooled instrumentation section, multi-
point and single point sampling systems, and facility for humidity variation.
A schematic diagram of the combustor test assembly is shown in Figure 3.6.
Probes capable of radial, axial and circumferential traverses were located
in the instrumentation section to facilitate pitot pressure and species samp-
ling in the combustor exhaust.
In addition, provisions were made for axial probing of the combustor
primary and secondary zones, during selected tests. To take into account
possible stratification of pollutants, a multi-point gas sampling probe
capable of either collecting six individual radial samples, or a single
averaged sample was designed and fabricated. This probe shown schemati-
cally in Figure 3.7, was designed for equal area sampling and could be used
to obtain detailed radial and circumferential emission distribution.
3.5 Emission Instrumentation — UARL
The emission sampling and analysis system is shown schematically in
Figure 3.8. It is capable of continuously monitoring emissions of carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen.
The sample was transferred from the probe to the analytical instruments
through 1/4-in. ID stainless steel lines which were wrapped with electrical
heating tape and maintained at an average temperature of 400 °F. The sample
line length was approximately 50 ft., and the sample temperature was
monitored at several axial locations. The emissions analysis system con-
sisted of the following gas analyzers:
3-2 United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
1. A Beckman Model 315B long path (41 in. cell) nondispersive infrared
analyzer (NDIR) for measurements of Carbon Monoxide (CO) concen-
trations.
2. A Beckman Model 315B short path (13.5 in. cell) nondispersive
infrared analyzer (NDIR) for measurements of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
concentrations.
3. A Beckman Model 402 Total Hydrocarbon Analyzer which is equipped
with a heated Flame lonization Detector (FID) for measurements of
concentrations of Unburned Hydrocarbons (UHC).
4. A TECO Model 10A chemiluminescence detector for measurements of
concentrations of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). This unit is equipped with
a switchable converter so that total concentrations of NO plus NO2
may be measured.
Gas mixtures having compositions known to within one percent of specifi-
cations were used for calibration.
3.6 Analytical Model - UARL
A computerized analytical model for estimation of the rates of NOx formation
was optimized for use with Class UB and A/Mod type combustors. Results
from the model were intended to provide guidance and support in the low
emission development of the combustors.
The analytical model is based on a division of the combustor flow field into
two zones (Figure 3.9). The primary zone consists of a central recirculation
zone (Region I) and an outer stream tube (Region II), and occupies the com-
bustor volume upstream of the first dilution hole. The secondary zone
(Region III) comprises the remainder of the combustor. The computer pro-:
gram based upon this model incorporates (1) a fuel droplet vaporization
model which serves to determine the local fuel air ratio, (2) an empirical
correlation with which the size and shape of the recirculation zone can be
established, (3) an equilibrium hydrocarbon thermochemistry routine, and
(4) a six-reaction kinetic mechanism - Table 3.1, which represents the NOx
formation processes.
The calculation of internal flows between regions is an iterative procedure
which requires input quantities describing combustor geometry, inlet air
temperature, chamber pressure, and flow rates through air holes. It is
assumed that the unreacted air enters the recirculation zone (Region I) only
by entrainment from the combustion air jets at the downstream boundary of
the primary zone. The fraction of air that enters the recirculation zone is
determined from an empirical correlation given in Ref (8). The remainder
of the combustion air enters the secondary zone directly. An additional
quantity of air and combustion products enters Region I from Region II. It
United Aircraft of Canada Limited 3-3
-------
FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
is assumed that the quantity of air transferred from Region II to Region I is
equal in magnitude to the recirculation flow from the primary zone holes.
3-4 United Pircraft of Canada Limited
-------
FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
TABLE 3-1 NITRIC OXIDE FORMATION KINETICS
. O+N2 = NO+N
2. N + O2 = NO + O
3. N+OH = NO + H
4. N2O + H=N2+OH
5. N2O x O = NO + NO
6. N9O +O = N« +O9
kf = 1.4x!014 exp (-37900/T)
kf = 6.4 x 109T exp (-3140/T)
kf = 4.0xl013
kf = 3.0 x 1013 exp (-5420/T)
kf = 2. 5 x 1013 exp (-13540/T)
kf = 3.6 x 1013 exp (-13540/T)
Units: T = degrees Kelvin
k =
cm*
mole-sec
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
3-5
-------
c
D
5
3
I
o
^»
O
0)
Q)
a
Q)
J -AfflY AHTI&HJ.IM6 t&ItJT US Pfft CfW 27 <
00
I
W(/7*eS "1 ft£>
/t> GtO* rttS6
f*D J*^g>J
.f-^^fc?**-
o
cl
a
M
CO
n
a
o
CO
CO
en
M
O
H
V— I
O
2
O
*J
O
CG
Cl
W
0
i
Cd
cj
Cfl
H
O
a
>
03
O)
w
g
W
f
K!
s
-------
c
D
s
a
p
3
O
Q>
0)
a
Q)
CO
CO
8
a
w
CO
to
CO
r
i— i
^
o
^d
S3
§
M
O
CO
^3
ffi
W
a
i— i
n
H
M
CO
H
CO
O
r
-
H
X
I
-------
FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
FIGURE 3. 3 SCHEMATIC OF THE WATER TUNNEL INSTALLATION
MODEL
18"
N-3.5"~H
«• 11" H
.— MAKE-UP WATER
-WATER LEVEL
N-
18"
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
3-11
-------
FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
FIGURE 3.4 WATER ANALOGY RIG
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
3-13
-------
c
S'
0
Q.
I)
3
I
O
^»
O
Q)
0)
Q.
0)
CO
I
o
c
a
^ w
'[> CO
O Q
>
M
O W
§
O
1
~
—
•r
H
i
-------
c
D
s
a
D
3
I
o
^»
O
Q)
Q)
a
Q)
CD
a
BURST DISC
HEATER OUTLET
1800 R J. ^ '
AA A V ^
/V\A X •>.
— 1
PI
T
T
COMBUSTOR SECTION
WATER-COOLED
INSTRUMENTATION
SECTION
PROBE DRIVE H
TRANSITION
SECTION
FUEL
INLET
IGNITER
RADIAL PROBE
LOCATIONS
EXHAUST
u
WATER-COOLED
THROTTLING VALVE
o
M
CO
a-
a
w
an
w o
1-3 ^
W o
Ol
03
CO
I—'
-3
H
O
Z
-------
FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
FIGURE 3. 7 MULTIPOINT SAMPLING PROBE
(FULL PRESSURE TESTS AT UARL)
4.75
0.375 O
,<
VLr
0.080 I.D.
H N
COOLANT OUT
0.50 O.D.
^- COOLANT OUT
-COOLANT
IN
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
3-19
-------
FACILITIES AND INSTRUMENTATION
FIGURE 3. 8 EMISSION SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SYSTEM
(FULL PRESSURE TESTS AT UARL)
COMBUSTOR
EXHAUST
PURGE
PRESSURE T;
REGULATOR I
SAMPLING
PROBE
REMOTELY
ACTUATED
VALVE
VENT
PRESSURE
RELIEF VALVE
FLOWMETER
SAMPLE LINE HEATED TO 400 F
VENT
i
MANUAL
VALVE
ZERO
VENT
AIR OXYGEN
CONVERTERrnJJ ™EL AIR
CONDENSER ^
VENT
FLOWMETER
WITH NEEDLE
VALVE
CHEMILUMINESCENCE NOx
VENT
VENT
SPAN
United fiircraft of Canada Limited
3-21
-------
c
D
8'
a
5
3
O
Q)
Q)
a
Q)
a>
a
DILUTION
COMBUSTION COOLING AIR
REGION H
RECIRCULATION ENVELOPE
SWIRLER
BURNER LINER
FUEL NOZZLE
REGION I
PRIMARY ZONE -*-
SECONDARY ZONE
§
a
w
CO
•
CO
g
CO
cj
a
GO
n
o
CJ
CO
H
O
a
i
^
M
tr1
O
S
O
o
w
r
0
CO
I
to
CO
H
a
e
-i
5
X
-------
DESCRIPTION
OF
WORK
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
4. DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The development of the two combustors started from flame tube designs based
on best known aircraft combustor practices. A brief description of the design
considerations, followed by a discussion of the emissions development, is
given in the following Sections.
4.1 Class UB Combustor for Simple Cycle Gas Turbine Engines
The Class UB Combustor was designed to parameters representative of the
simple cycle (non-regenerated) single shaft, high-pressure ratio (12:1),
engine (UAC SSS-12). The combustor design conditions, as specified by EPA,
are -
Heating rate = 1. 5 x 106 BTU/hr
Inlet air temperature = 800°F = 1260°R
Inlet air pressure = 12. 0 atm = 176. 4 psia
Overall fuel-air ratio = 0.0195
Fuel flow (JP4) = 77 Ibs/hr
Air flow = 4000 Ibs/hr = 1.11 Ibs/sec.
Outlet temperature = 1900°F = 2360°R.
4.1.1 Combustor Volume
Since at the design point the pressure is above 4 atmospheres, Tipler's rela-
tionshipCO can be used -
= C ./' _ ; C
,»L J
pj)2 V £
PD2 V p pp2 V A p x T
As a design basis, values of C used in other engines with Can Combustors
were considered. A pressure loss AP = 2. 5% was used for design purposes.
P
A value of C = 0. 210 was considered reasonable. This leads to
77
C = 0.210 =
12xD2 V1260 \ 2.5
or D = 2. 4 inches.
The lengths were chosen on the basis of:
Primary Zone = D_ = 1.3 ins. (say), to provide for a double vortex recircu-
lation. 2
Intermediate Zone, based on an approximate empirical rule, _L_ = 5/8
D
Intermediate Zone Length = 1.6 ins.
United Aircraft of Canada Limited 4-1
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Dilution Zone length chosen to provide for good mixing length and even tem-
perature distribution. Dilution Zone Length = 2.5 inches.
Overall length of the combustor = 5.6 inches.
It was realized that the lengths of the three combustor zones would have to be
finally determined by analysis of air flow distributions and consideration of
residence times and emissions from the combustor. In fact, during develop-
ment of the combustor for low emissions, an increase in overall combustion
length to 7.0 inches was found to be beneficial.
A summary of design data for the Class UB Combustor is given in Table 4-1.
4.1.2 Water Model Studies - Class UB Combustor
The development of flow paths in the combustor was complemented by water
analogy studies, where aluminum dust and polystyrene tracers were used to
observe flow paths. Attempts were also made on the water analogy rig to
measure the speed of tracers and hence residence times. Some details of the
water analogy studies are given in the Appendix A. Figure 4.1 shows a cross
section of the Class UB water model. The water model was found to be a very
useful tool in establishing flow paths and flow splits. However, estimates of
residence times obtained from the water analogy studies are at best indicative
of trends and ranges.
NOX being the prime pollutant of concern, some control criteria were consi-
dered during the design of the combustors. Three factors are considered
important in the formation of NOX in gas turbine combustors: (a) temperature
(both of combustion reaction zone and intermediate zone), (b) residence time
of hot post-flame gas, and (c) excess oxygen. Reaction zone temperatures
are a maximum for an equivalence ratio of homogeneous reacting mixtures
about 0. 9-0.95. Combustion of very rich or very lean mixtures can result
in lower primary zone temperatures. It was felt that going to a lean primary
zone would be preferable since CO can be oxidized at temperatures at which
NOX formation rates are low. Although the primary zone was initially
designed for an average equivalence ratio of 0. 95 at design point mainly to
establish a baseline, development for low NOX would try reducing #PZ.
CO could be controlled by maintaining the intermediate zone between 2000
and 2500°F where the NOX formation rate is low.
To provide for good mixing in the primary zone and to improve the stability,
a swirler was incorporated. Plunged holes in the dilution zone were expected
to improve quenching, if required. The flow paths with the swirler in the
head end and plunged holes in both primary and dilution zones, were evaluated
on the water analogy rig.
4-2 United Pi re raft of Canada Limited
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
4.1.3 Atmospheric Rig Development - Class UB Combustor
Atmospheric development on the combustor was done on the test facility at
UACL. To start with, a pressure jet atomizer with a Flow Number (defined
as the ratio of fuel flow rate in Ibs per hour to the square root of the pres-
sure drop across the injector in Ibs/per square inch) of approximately 1. 0
was used. Emission measurements followed initial modifications to the com
bustor aimed toward maintaining a stable flame over the operating range on
the simulated Federal Driving Cycle (FDC) (Table 4-2). To simulate the
operating conditions on FDC atmospherically, the ratio Win VTin was
Pin~~
kept constant for each of the operating points. During development for
reducing emissions, only conditions corresponding to FDC #2 (Table 4-2)
were simulated since this represented 76% of the simulated Federal Driving
Cycle. At the same time the lean limit characteristic of the combustor was
monitored so that the combustor modifications to reduce emissions would
not conflict with the requirements of maintaining a stable flame over the
entire operating range of the engine.
Figure 4.2 summarizes the milestones in Class UB combustor development,
at atmosphere pressure. Shown herein are the Emissions Index for Oxides of
Nitrogen (expressed as E I NO2)> equivalence ratio in the primary zone (4> PZ )
computed on an average basis and combustor pressure drop (A^/Pin)- The
first version of the combustor had smaller holes than designed for, since it
was desired to increase hole areas gradually. Hence the high pressure drop
(7. 1%). The first step was to bring the pressure drop to more reasonable
levels, which was done by a proportional increase in hole areas in all regions
of the combustor. Reducing the can pressure drop from 7. 1% to 5. 15% raised
the NOX Emissions Index from 2. 1 to 2. 25 - reflecting the effect of reduced
penetration through mixing holes. Effect on CO and UHC emissions was
minimal. Next, increased quench while maintaining reasonably constant levels
of primary zone equivalence ratio and combustor pressure drop was tried.
This was done by shifting some of the dilution air into the intermediate zone.
The result was a substantial decrease in NOX levels to values below those
measured on the 7. 1% pressure loss combustor (Figure 4. 2). There was a
substantial increase in CO levels, which was thought to be due to the lower
temperatures in the intermediate zone. The increase in UHC emissions with
these modifications was quite minimal. Modifications aimed at leaning of the
primary zone were attempted by a combination of enlarging the hole areas in
the primary zone, and shifting the primary zone plane of holes upstream. The
result was a leaner primary zone, a lower combustor pressure loss (Figure
4. 2) and a slightly worse lean blow out limit. The NOX emission index reached
levels at the maximum weighted condition (FDC #2), close to targets for the
integrated Federal Driving Cycle. The pressure loss was close to the target
(2. 5%) and * pz was about 0. 53. The CO levels with these modifications were
well above target, but were expected to be substantially lowered under actual
pressure operating conditions. It was becoming obvious, however, that
further leaning of the primary zone would seriously affect the lean-end
United fiircraft of Canada Limited 4-3
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
performance - under atmospheric pressure conditions. No concrete infor-
mation was available on the effect of pressure on CO emissions, thus render-
ing difficult optimization of combustor for low NOX and CO emissions at the
same time. It was therefore decided to continue further development under
full pressure conditions.
Effect of air-assist and air-blast nozzles on NOx emissions was also evalua-
ted. The three types of atomizers are shown schematically in Figure 4. 3 and
a photograph is also included (Figure 4.4). All three were developed by
Delavan Manufacturing Company. Emissions of NOx were slightly higher
with the air-blast nozzle than with the air-assist nozzle, (Figure 4. 2). No
direct comparison with pressure atomizers was possible, since the head
end geometry and hole pattern had to be altered significantly to accomodate
it. UHC emission with the air-assist nozzle was significantly better and only
marginal differences in CO levels were measured. No modifications either to
the swirlers with air assist/air blast nozzles or to the head end swirler were
evaluated on the low pressure rig.
The variation of NOX emissions with overall fuel-air ratio at inlet tempera-
tures and air flow corresponding to the maximum weighted condition on the
simulated Federal Driving Cycle is shown in Figure 4.5. The three curves
correspond to: (1) One of the early versions of the combustor, with a com-
bustor pressure loss approximately 5%; (2) An early quench combustor; and
(3) A combustor incorporating both the early quench and lean primary zone
approaches. The reductions in NOX levels accomplished by these modifica-
tions is evident, Figure 4. 5.
The Combustor geometry and mixture conditions corresponding to the three
above situations are shown in Figures 4. 6, 4. 7 and 4.8. At the lowest point
on the Federal Driving Cycle (FDC #1), the equivalence ratio (based on cal-
culations) would be 0.14 (Figure 4. 8) and it was no surprise that a satisfac-
tory flame could not be maintained atmospherically at this condition.
The variation of NOX emissions with overall fuel-air ratio appears to be
significantly influenced by the primary zone mixture conditions. For example,
with a combustor having a lean primary zone with early quench, the NOx
emission indices (Figure 4. 8) decrease with increase in overall fuel-air
ratio whereas with conventional combustors ( *PZ ~ 0. 9 approx.), the trend
is reversed (Figure 4.6). These effects suggest the strong influence of
primary zone aerodynamics on emissions. Some of the conclusions from the
class UB atmospheric development are -
(1) Atmospheric development of the combustor showed that substantial
reductions in NOx emission levels could be accomplished rapidly.
(2) Interpretation of emission levels rely on good estimates of the effect
of full pressure on emissions. While some analytical estimates were
made for NOX using the Kinetic Model, the effect of pressure on CO,
4~4 United Pi re raft of Canada Limited
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
UHC and lean limit could only be guessed, as no models for these were
available. Thus, the emissions can only be interpreted on a qualitative
basis.
(3) The apparently strong influence of pressure in improving the lean blow-
out characteristics, limits the extent to which the head end of the com-
bustor can be leaned out at atmospheric pressure for purposes of reducing
NOX emissions.
4.1.4 Class UB Analytical Modeling
As reported previously, the analytical model for estimating the rates of NOx
formation in gas turbine combustors (8) was expanded to permit the use of the
recirculation zone geometry and air entrainment rates determined by water
flow visualization studies (Section 4.1. 2). A series of calculations was carried
out by UARL to check the revised combustor flow field model and to predict
the level of NOX emissions for the Class UB combustor. Combustor operating
conditions, geometry and airflow chosen for analysis are summarized in
Tables 4-4 and 4-5. The results shown in Figure 4.11 indicate that, for com-
bustor geometries which engendered a lean and uniformly mixed primary zone
and rapid quenching of the combustion products, the predicted level of NOx
emissions are encouragingly low. It should be noted, however, that the ana-
lytical predictions are based on the assumption of uniform mixing in each of
the three regions of the combustor (i. e. the central recirculation zone, the
contiguous stream tubes, and the secondary zone) and therefore indicate
trends and goals which may or may not be realized in actual combustor test-
ing. In this regard, a calibration of the analytical model was undertaken
using experimental data compiled during atmospheric testing of the combustor.
These data corresponded to an initial combustor configuration which utilized
a conventional pressure-atomizing fuel nozzle and was designed for primary
zone fuel-air ratios approaching stoichiometric. The model calibration was
accomplished by incorporating the results of water flow visualization studies
and by suitably modifying the primary zone fuel-air ratio to more accurately
represent the mixture non-uniformities which are characteristic of a pressure-
atomizing fuel nozzle. Figure 4.12 presents a comparison of the measured
NOX emissions versus the NOX emissions predicted by the calibrated water
model. The theoretical predictions shown are based on the assumption that
combustion in the primary zone occurs at a stoichiometric mixture ratio.
The results shown indicate good agreement between the experimental data
and the theoretical predictions.
Cross plots of NOX emissions with equivalence ratio and residence time were
made for a mixture inlet temperature of 425 °F corresponding to the maximum
weighted condition on the simulated Federal Driving Cycle (Figure 4.13).
Although uniform mixing was a pre-condition in these calculations, the curves
served as a useful guide in the UB development program.
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited 4-5
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The analytical model for estimation of the rates of NOx formation in gas
turbine combustors was also used to evaluate the effect of inlet air pressure
and humidity on the level of NOx emissions for the simple-cycle combustor.
The information was particularly useful since it provided a basis for compa-
rison of low pressure (atmospheric) emission data obtained at UACL with
the pressure data obtained at UARL. The analytical predictions were carried
out for a range of primary zone fuel-air ratios and at inlet conditions corres-
ponding to the maximum weighted point on the simulated Federal Driving
Cycle. The results presented in Figure 4.14 indicate that NOX emissions
increase by a factor of approximately 2. 5 as the combustor operating pres-
sure (Pin) is increased from 15. 26 to 61 psia.
The effects of inlet air humidity on combustion zone temperature and on NOx
emissions were investigated from the analytical model. The results shown
in Figure 4.15 indicate that NOx emissions are reduced as the moisture
content of the inlet air is increased. For example, in a combustor operating
with a primary zone fuel-air ratio near stoichiometric, combustion in air
with a humidity of 0. 010 Ibs H2O/lb air (50% relative humidity at 76°F) will
produce twenty-five percent lower NOx emissions than combustion in dry
air. For leaner primary zone fuel-air ratios, the reduction will be greater.
However, mixture non-uniformities may reduce this effect under actual com-
bustor operating conditions.
CO modelling has been based completely on equilibrium thermochemistry.
Figure 4.16 shows the variation of equilibrium combustion temperature with
fuel-air ratio, for inlet conditions corresponding to the maximum weighted
point on the simulated Federal Driving Cycle. Figure 4.17 shows variation
of CO mole fraction at equilibrium with overall fuel-air ratio for inlet condi-
tions corresponding to the two heavily weighted Federal Driving Cycle points
(FDC #2 and FDC #3). The actual CO concentrations would however depend on
the local temperatures, degree of homigeneity in the reaction zone, droplet-
size and local quenching effects.
4.1.5 Class UB Pressure Development
This phase of the program was undertaken at United Aircraft Research Labo-
ratories, under personal supervision by UACL staff. A brief description of
the UARL pressure facility was given in Chapter 3. All developmental testing
was done with dry, unvitiatedair at conditions corresponding to the simulated
Federal Driving Cycle. During investigations on humidity effects, the mois-
ture in the inlet air was carefully monitored and controlled.
The limitations of atmospheric testing,!, e., the poor stability with lean head
end configuration, forced a change of plans to allow more development testing
at full pressure. Plans to do detailed multi-point and axial sampling were
therefore scrapped and emissions were monitored through a five-point tra-
verse with a single-point air-cooled sampling probe. The multipoint probe
4_6 United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
was replaced with a sight glass allowing full on-axis viewing of the combus-
tor. This proved to be an important technique as the majority of unintended
combustion changes due to fuel or air inlet asymmetries could be spotted as
flame asymmetries, streaks or spottiness. Flame locations, colors, bright-
ness and stability also rendered a qualitative understanding of flame proper-
ties as they related to emissions. More than two hundred modifications were
evaluated and a number of these were re-tested due to visual evidence of rig,
combustor or fuel injection mechanical troubles. The facility to visually ob-
serve the flame enabled emission data to be more easily understood. A com-
pilation of combustor configurations and test results is given in Appendix B.
Combustor development in the pressure facility started by evaluation of
emissions on the final combustor configuration resulting from atmospheric
development program (Figure 4.9). This combustor was evaluated on the
simulated FDC with (1) pressure atomizer with Flow Number approximately
1.0, (2) air-assist atomizer Flow Number approximately 1.0, and (3) air-
blast atomizer with flow number approximately 3.5. Some specifications on
these fuel nozzles are given in Appendix B-5. The results, shown in Figure
4.18, indicate that air-assist and air-blast fuel nozzles contribute to less
NOX and CO emissions compared with the pressure atomizer. The air-blast
atomizer produced slightly more UHC emissions than the pressure atomizer
and significantly worse than the air-assist nozzle. This may be the effect of
poor performance of the air-blast at low fuel flows where the momentum of
the fuel is small. This aspect of air-blast atomization is discussed in Section
5.3.
Direct comparison of atmospheric and pressure test data showed that NOX
levels at full pressure increased by 160%, while CO and UHC emissions
decreased by 74% and 72% respectively, over the atmospheric emission
levels. However, correcting both sets of test data to standard humidity con-
ditions (55% relative humidity at 76°F) results in apparent increases in NOx
due to pressure alone of 125 to 150%. This compares favorably with the
150% increase expected from the analytical model.
It became clear, early in the full pressure development program, that the
problem area is the inverse (not always linear) relationship between the
NOx and CO emission indices. The UHC increase accompanying reduction
in NOx levels appeared in most cases to be a second order effect. It was
therefore decided to correlate the emission indices of NOx and CO for the
various combustor modifications attempted. The air-assist fuel nozzle was
the initial choice in view of its apparently better performance over the pres-
sure atomizer and lower UHC compared to the air-blast atomizer. Figure
4.19 shows EINO2 vs EICO relationships for an air-assist nozzle over a
variety of combustor configurations. The emission data, refer to FDC #2
and 3, which are the heavily weighted conditions on the simulated Federal
Driving Cycle (Table 4-2), the UHC levels were at or below target for all
but damaged hardware. For obvious reasons, the damaged hardware data
United fi ire raft of Canada Limited 4-7
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
could not be reproduced. The upper curve refers to all combustor modifica-
tions excepting the ones involving the head end swirler. Irrespective of the
approaches tried - rich/lean primary zone, low/high pressure drop, early/
delayed flame quench - the data conformed to the band represented by the top
curve. The bottom curve refers to air-assist nozzle data with an additional
swirler in the head end, in the same direction as can swirler. The data points
in this case fall on a curve which appeared to approach the target levels. This
breakthrough in the trends was considered a milestone in the Class UB com-
bustor development program.
The effect of the additional swirler in bettering emissions, was thought to be
due to improved mixing in the primary zone. Qualitatively, the high swirl flame
appeared more uniform and there was also an improvement in the lean blow-
out limit.
Some attempt was made to repeat the damaged hardware data shown in Figure
4.19, but the combustor had been through so many modifications - some of
them of a 'quick fix' nature - that a new flame tube was the only way to get
back to those conditions. Since there were other avenues planned for inves-
tigation, further attempts to get back to the data points close to the targets
were abandoned.
On-axis viewing of the flame showed that in the case of lean front end com-
bustor with an air-assist fuel nozzle, a rich core - typified by an orange
flame - existed in the primary zone at all conditions. Also, the low Flow
Number of the air-assist fuel nozzle used rendered it susceptible to conta-
mination , usually only evident by on-axis viewing of the flame, and requiring
frequent replacing of the fuel nozzle 'guts'. It was therefore decided to try the
air-blast nozzle which operated on a much lower fuel pressure drop and was
less likely to develop streaks in spray, because of the dominant effect of air
momentum.
Figure 4-20 shows variation of Emission Indices of Oxides of Nitrogen and
Carbon Monoxide for the case of air-blast atomizer used in conjunction with
a high primary swirl combustor. Also shown for comparison are the air-
assist data. While the slope of the EINO2 vs EICO curve is steepe'r, and very
sensitive to the combustor geometry, the emission data were extremely repe-
titive. The high swirl in the primary zone rendered the flame stable, symme-
trical and highly homogeneous. The rich core so apparent with pressure and
air-assist fuel nozzles was not present with this arrangement of air blast
nozzle. At the closest point, the NOX emissions integrated over 96% of the
simulated Federal Driving Cycle were about 29% over target and CO emis-
sions 19% below target. The establishment of this working line for air-blast
with the repeatability of data - so important in combustor development for
low emissions - was considered another milestone during the Class UB
development program.
4-8 United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
It became apparent that with an extension of the high swirl approach, in con-
junction with a suitable air-blast nozzle, a working line could be established
which at its closest point was well within the 1976 targets. However, such
an effort could not be undertaken due to lack of funds for this phase of the
program. Hence, the Class UB development was concluded by choosing a
combustor configuration which was close to target (Figure 4. 20) and under-
taking complete evaluation on the simulated Federal Driving Cycle, Steady
Speed and Range Mode operations. These data are presented in a following
Section.
4.1.6 Effect of Atmospheric Moisture on Exhaust Emissions - Class UB
Combustor
To establish the true levels of exhaust emissions, it is important to know
how ambient air conditions affect the emissions. This became clear during
the atmospheric phase of development on the Class UB Combustor, when no
humidity control was incorporated in the rig. During pressure development
at UARL the air from the compressor was dried and a careful check of the
moisture in the inlet air was maintained (Dew Point below -40 °F).
Water vapor has been established to have a significant effect on Nitric Oxide
emissions and therefore steam injection is often a considered possibility
toward reduction of Nitrogen Oxides from stationery power sources. (9> 10)
The weight fraction of water in dry air for varying conditions of dry bulb
temperature and relative humidity are readily found from psychometric
charts. On hot, humid days 2% and even 3% by weight of water vapor may be
present in the atmosphere.
Another way of expressing moisture content of ambient air is as "grains" of
moisture per pound of dry air. There are 7000 grains in a pound. Table (4-6)
relates the various terms for expressing moisture content.
Specification for ambient air moisture (specified in the Federal Register (1))
was with reference to piston engine exhaust emissions. These call for emis-
sions to be related to an absolute humidity of 75 grains of moisture per pound
of dry air which corresponds to 1. 07% of water vapor by weight or a relative
humidity of 55% at 76°F.
The importance of atmosphere moisture on Nitric Oxide formation lies in the
fact that it reduces the flame temperature, on which the NOX formation rate
is strongly dependent. John Moore (H) analytically determined that each one
percent of water vapor reduces the adiabatic flame temperature (of stoichio-
metric hydrogen-air and ethylene-air mixtures) by approximately 36°F. This
temperature reduction combined with the additional water in the flame also
reduces the oxygen atom concentration. Moore found a reduction in the rate
of nitric oxide production amounting to approximately 25% for each 1% of
water vapor.
United Pi re raft of Canada Limited 4-9
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The calibrated analytical model for Class UB combustor (Section 4.1.4) was
used to estimate the effect of inlet air moisture on NOX emissions. The
results, which were referred to earlier (Figure 4.15), show that the effect
is also a function of primary zone fuel-air ratio. For a stoichiometric,
uniformly mixed primary zone, combustion in air with a humidity of 1.07%
by weight of water (75 grains), the NOx emissions will be twenty-five percent
lower than combustion in dry air. For leaner primary zone fuel-air ratios
the effect can be even greater.
To verify the above analytical predictions, tests were done on the Class UB
combustor monitoring the exhaust emissions as the inlet moisture was varied.
Figure 4-23 shows a schematic of the test facility at UARL modified for humi-
dity evaluation. Water was introduced as a fine spray into the hot air stream
and sufficient length of ducting was provided for uniform mixture conditions
to be established, before the combustor test section. The humidity was moni-
tored with a Dew Point Meter and exhaust emissions were measured only after
stable moisture conditions in the inlet air were recorded.
The combustor configuration chosen for the study had a richer primary zone
than the final configuration. NOx reduction therefore could be expected to be
less, Figure 4.15 . Figure 4. 24 shows a summary of measured NOx reduc-
tions as a function of inlet air moisture. For Class UB conditions (96% of FDC)
the percentage NOX reductions at the standard humidity condition is in the
range of 23-24. 5%. No significant effects were observed on CO and UHC
emissions at this humidity condition.
The estimated fuel-air ratio in the primary zone at the maximum weighted
condition on the simulated Federal Driving Cycle was approximately 0. 039.
For this configuration the analytical model predicted an effect on NOx mass
fraction of about 40% reduction at the standard humidity condition compared
to dry air. The experimentally observed effect was 23. 5%; the difference
could be attributed to the prevalence of non-homogeneous (locally rich) burn-
ing conditions in the reaction zone. In the configuration used for final evalua-
tion, the primary zone was generally leaner due to (i) use of the air-blast
nozzle and (ii) high swirl improving reaction zone mixing. These modifica-
tions may therefore be expected to result in humidity having a greater effect
on NOX emissions, at standard conditions.
Also shown in Figure 4. 24 are the humidity effects on NOx emissions from
Class A/Mod Combustor. These results are discussed in detail in Section
4.2.4.
4.1.7 Class UB Combustor Final Evaluation
A combustor configuration, which demonstrated emissions close to targets
over 96% of the simulated Federal Driving Cycle (Fig. 4. 22), was chosen
for final evaluation. This represented Emission Indices 29% above target on
NOX, 18. 5% below target on CO and 85. 5% below target on UHC. It is believed
4-10 United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WODK
that these levels could be improved to below target levels for all species by
further pursuit of the approaches used - viz., high swirl, air-blast and'lean
head end.
The final evaluation comprised of measuring emissions and temperature
profiles across the combustor exit plane for operating conditions represent-
ing (a) simulated Federal Driving Cycle (Table 4-2), (b) Steady Speed Mode
(Table4-7), and (c) Range Mode (Tables 4-9and4-10). The simulated Federal
Driving Cycle data are presented as integrated emissions (Table 4-12 and
Figure 4. 25). The Emission Indices for Steady Speed and Range Mode opera-
tions are presented in the form of parametric curves (Figures 4. 26 to 4. 34.)
Typical profiles of exit temperature are shown in Appendix B.
Figure 4. 25 is a graphical representation of emission indices and emission
ratios integrated over 96% (FDC #2 plus FDC #3) and 100% of the simulated
Federal Driving Cycle. The 100% figures represent emission values 29%
above target on NOX, 20% above target on UHC and 7% above target on CO.
The high fuel-air ratio (0. 015) representing FDC #4 (Table 4-2) does not
appear to significantly influence the NOX emissions, while the low fuel-air
ratio (0. 0052) representing FDC #1 (Table 4-2) has a large effect on CO and
UHC emissions. The rather high levels of UHC on FDC #1 which only repre-
sents 3% of the simulated Federal Driving Cycle, is thought to be due to opera-
tion of the air-blast nozzle below its efficient minimum range. This air-blast
nozzle was used because it was available, but it is oversized for this applica-
tion. This aspect of the air-blast nozzle operation is further discussed in
the following Chapter.
The results of emissions evaluation tests conducted on the Class UB combus-
tor at conditions simulating constant vehicle speeds between thirty and ninety
miles per hour are summarized in Table 4-8, the data being obtained at
zero humidity. The variation of the emissions with vehicle speed, fuel flow
and engine SHP are shown in Figures 4. 26, 4. 27, 4. 28 and 4. 29. The
NOx emissions in these curves have been corrected to standard humidity by
applying the same correction factor previously determined for operation over
the simulated FDC. Also shown in Figure 4. 28 is the variation of overall
equivalence ratio ('«). The NOx and UHC emissions follow expected trends
based on increasing pressure, inlet temperature and fuel-air ratio, as the
vehicle speed (or power) increases. The CO emissions follow a wavy pattern,
which is considered to be the result of varying influences of primary and inter-
mediate zone reactions. The high CO at the 30 MPH (Figures 4. 26 and4. 27) condi-
tion could be an effect of the lean head end together with relatively low intermediate
zone temperatures. As the speed increases to 50 MPH the reduction in CO
emission is due to a hotter intermediate zone. The rest of the CO curve is
thought to be a reflection of primary zone kinetics (compare with Figure 4.17).
United Aircraft of Canada Limited 4-11
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WOliK
In order to evaluate the significance of changes in inlet air pressure and
temperature on the levels of pollutant emissions from the Class UB combus-
tor, a series of tests was conducted at two baseline conditions selected from
the combustor design range. The overall fuel-air ratio and the Mach number
of the inlet air were held constant while the inlet pressure and temperature
were systematically varied.
Figures 4. 30 through 4.34 show results of combustor operation on the Range
Mode(Tables4-9and4-10). The low base line represents a vehicle speed ol
50 MPH, while the medium base line corresponds to a vehicle speed of 70
MPH. Raising of pressure or temperature increases NOX while reducing CO
and UHC. This is primarily a result of the increase in combustion tempera-
ture, which rapidly increases the rates of NO formation and CO oxidation.
In addition, emissions levels at the high-power operating condition appear
to be more sensitive to changes in pressure and temperature than the cor-
responding levels at the low-power test condition. With a decrease in inlet
pressure or temperature the effect is reversed. The Range Mode data is
expected to provide background information on emissions for further optimi-
zation of engine operating cycles.
Finally, temperature profiles measured in a plane 3.5 in. downstream from
the combustor exit are plotted in Appendix B. These data correspond to opera-
tion at each of the four points on the simulated Federal Driving Cycle. Calcu-
lations based on exhaust gas concentration measurements indicate that the
combustor operated at high thermal efficiency throughout the specified cycle.
Thus, the Class UB combustor demonstrated acceptable performance in terms
of combustion efficiency, combustor pressure drop and exit temperature dis-
tribution.
4.2 Class A/Mod Combustor for Regenerative Gas Turbine Engines
Class A/Mod Combustor was designed to parameters representative of the
regenerated, low-pressure ratio engine. The combustor design conditions
were -
Inlet air temperature = 1100°F = 1560°R
Inlet air pressure = 5.0 atm = 73.4 psia
Overall fuel-air ratio = 0.0124
Fuel flow (JP4) = 67 Ibs/hr.
Air flow =1.5 Ibs/sec.
Outlet temperature = 1900°F = 2360°R
4.2.1 Design Philosophy
As a result of the design and water modelling experience on the Class UB
combustor and keeping the low NOX requirements in mind, the following
design approach was used for the Class A/Mod combustor:
4-12 United Rircraft of Canada Limited
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WOHK
A basic design deviating slightly from standard aircraft practice, the main
differences being:
(a) A primary zone with an equivalence ratio ( «Pz) of 0. 85 instead of 1. 0 -
this would be a better starting point for further leaning of the primary
zone.
(b) Intermediate zone holes much closer to primary zone to effect early
quench of primary zone effluents.
(c) A lower intermediate zone temperature - 2900°R instead of 3250°R - in
order to be below the NOx production temperature and remain high enough
to consume CO and hydrocarbons formed in the primary zone (dissocia-
tion) reactions. It is generally said that the intermediate zone is a buffer
zone which helps attain good efficiency at altitude and is somewhat super-
fluous for ground level operation. But here the intermediate zone can be
very useful as a dwell zone to consume CO and UHC, and if its tempera-
ture is low enough, it will not contribute to NOX formation.
(d) Good fuel atomization and homogeneity of reacting mixtures are essential
to ensure uniformly low primary zone temperatures. NOx production is
strongly dependent on temperature, and locally rich pockets would result
in higher local temperatures and hence higher NOX emissions. A swirler
in the head end was chosen to provide good mixing in the primary zone,
and strong recirculation for combustion stability.
The above guidelines provided a basic design for Class A/Mod combustor.
To achieve a Pz = 0. 85, the air split into the primary zone was set at 21. 6%.
To set up an intermediate zone temperature of 2900°R calls for a fuel-air
ratio (at design point) of 0. 0219. The required intermediate zone flow was
16. 5%. Assuming a 55% flow from primary zone holes into the intermediate
zone and 3% for cooling air, 3% of the total air flow was required through
holes in the intermediate zone, to maintain 2900°R intermediate zone tem-
perature. The remaining air (61. 9%) was introduced into the dilution zone.
Employing sizing techniques similar to those of Class UB combustor, a dia-
meter of 4. 0" as chosen for Class A/Mod combustor. The lengths of the
individual zones were -
Primary zone (Lpz) = D/2 = 2.0"
Intermediate zone (Liz) = 5/8D = 2. 5"
Dilution zone = l-3/8D = 5.5"
Total length = 10"
A casing with a diameter of 6" was chosen, providing for an annular velocity
of 105 feet/sec.
In the basic design about 6% of the flow was provided through the swirler in
the head end, the remaining primary zone air passing through the nozzle
United Aircraft of Canada Limited 4-13
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
sheath (1%), cooling slots (6%) and primary zone holes (8. 6%). In the inter-
mediate zone the split was 3% cooling air, 10. 5% from PZ holes and 3%
from intermediate zone holes. The design data are summarized in Table 4-1.
A schematic of A/Mod combustor assembly is seen in Figure 4. 35, and an
envelope of the basic can design is shown in Figure 4. 36.
4.2.2 Atmospheric Rig Development - Class A/Mod Combustor
The atmospheric development of the Class A/Mod combustor was performed
on the test facility at UACL. Early low pressure development was done using
a pressure jet atomizer of Flow Number close to 1.0 . This resulted in pro-
viding a stable flame over the operating range with reasonably good combus-
tion efficiency and lean limit blow out performance.
Emissions measurements were done at the two heavily weighted points on the
simulated Federal Driving Cycle (Table 4-13) accounting for 56% of the cycle.
To simulate the operating conditions on the simulated Federal Driving Cycle
at atmospheric pressure, the ratio Win VTin was kePt constant over each
Pin"
of the operating conditions.
Based partly on Class UB combustor experience a choice was made fairly
early in the development for an air-blast nozzle. This nozzle was identical
to the one used with the Class UB combustor (Figure 4. 3). As with UB, the
use of the air-blast nozzle (Flow Number =3.5) provided for more homo-
geneous mixing and leaner fuel-air mixture in the core of the primary zone.
Stability problems at low fuel flows, encountered when using the air-blast
nozzle, were overcome by incorporating a sleeve in the head end, which
surrounded the fuel nozzle and served as a flame holder.
The main development theme was to keep the hardware simple and practical.
The initial average fuel-air ratio in the primary zone corresponded to an
equivalence ratio of 0. 85. The methods attempted to reduce NOX emissions
were -
- Lean primary zone with rapid quench.
- Highly atomized, well mixed sprays with an air
blast nozzle.
- Strongly penetrating (plunged) jets in primary zone.
Figure 4. 37 shows the milestones in Class A/Mod combustor development
employing the above approaches. The data refer to the maximum weighted
condition on the simulated Federal Driving Cycle with an air inlet tempera-
ture of 980°F and far = 0.005. The Emission Index for this condition reduced
from a value of 7. 95 to 1. 88 . Further leaning of the primary zone introduced
stability problems during atmospheric test runs.
The air-blast nozzle provided a lean uniform flame, indicating good mixing.
4-14 United flircraft of Canada Limited
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Introduction of 'cool' regenerator bypass air into the primary zone was also
attempted with encouraging results. This aspect of the investigation is refer-
red to in detail in Section 4. 2. 5. Thirty-nine modifications in all were tested
at atmospheric pressure before shipping the combustor to UARL for develop-
ment under full pressure conditions.
4.2.3 Class A/Mod Pressure Development
During development, emissions were evaluated on an integrated basis over
three points (FDC #2,3 and 4) representing 78% of the simulated Federal
Driving Cycle. Final evaluation on a chosen configuration was done over the
entire cycle.
In all, twenty-six different configurations were evaluated for emissions
(Appendix B-3). To start with, the combustor which had undergone prelimi-
nary development at UACL was evaluated and modifications involving repro-
portioning the air were attempted. Essentially leaner head end and early
quench were attempted by moving the primary zone holes (A, Figure 4. 40)
and also increasing hole size (while maintaining pressure loss reasonably
constant). No alterations being made in the head end, the emission indices
for NOX and CO fall in a band as shown in Figure 4.38.
As the flame stability appeared to be adversely affected with admission of
more air through primary zone (A) holes, it was decided to increase swirl
flow into the head end. This was done by modifying the head end assembly so
as to introduce an additional swirler between the air-blast nozzle and the can
swirler (Figure 4. 40). This swirler provided for an area increase of about
30% for swirl-flow. The emissions for this system lie on the dotted line shown
in Figure 4. 38 (medium swirler), the two data points correspond to a propor-
tional variation in air flow into primary zone accomplished by combustor modi-
fication in the dilution zone. The increased swirl flow rendered the flame more
stable, enabling introduction of more air through the primary holes.
The medium swirler was replaced with a larger swirler so as to increase the
area for swirl flow by another 25% approximately. This resulted in a further
improvement in flame stability and the emission indices then fall on a curve
closer to the target (high swirler - Figure 4.38) as the air into the primary
zone was proportionally varied.
The UHC levels during all the development tests were well below target. It
was apparent from the trends of the curves (Figure 4.38) that staged swirl
in the primary zone and lean primary zone can yield good dividends in terms
of simultaneous reductions in NOX, as well as CO levels. However, the program
status required a cut-off in further development and a choice had to be made
on a configuration for final evaluation. Since the three other points on the
simulated Federal Driving Cycle were expected to yield higher integrated
levels of CO and lower integrated levels of NOx, a configuration producing
emissions shown by the shaded point was chosen for final evaluation.
United Rircraft of Canada Limited 4-!5
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
The configuration and hole pattern of the combustor are shown in Figure 4. 40
and flow splits in Table 4-14.
The results of final evaluation are discussed in a following section.
4.2.4 Effect of Atmospheric Moisture on Exhaust Emissions - Class A/Mod
Combustor
Similar to the tests on Class UB combustor, investigations regarding the
effect of inlet moisture on exhaust emissions of A/Mod combustor were under-
taken. The results are shown in Figure 4. 24 along with the observed effect
on Class UB combustor. A direct comparison between the effects on the two
combustors cannot be made due to the differing geometries and operating
conditions. At standard humidity conditions the percentage reductions in NOx
over dry air operating conditions are 9. 2% for FDC. #2 and 12% for FDC #3.
The reduced effect in the case of A/Mod is surprising but may be due to a
richer primary zone (the geometry being considerably different to that used
in final evaluation) or may be the effect of higher temperature of inlet air
compared to the reaction zone temperature. Further analytical and experi-
mental work would be required if any definite conclusions are to be drawn on
the meaning of this effect.
4.2.5 Effect of Regenerative Bypass
The concept of regenerator bypass where a small fraction of compressor air is
fed directly to the head end of the combuster was evaluated, at both atmosphe-
ric and full pressure conditions. During atmospheric development, cold by-
pass air was introduced through the swirler in the head end. The arrangement
for the regenerator bypass test is shown in Figure 4.45 and the results shown
in Figures 4. 46 and 4. 47. Figure 4. 46 shows the variation of CO and NOX
emissions indices as the percentage of bypass air is increased. Also shown
are the air temperatures as measured in the manifold. The data refer to
atmospheric simulation of FDC #6. It is seen that CO emissions held steady,
while NOx decreased with increases in bypass flow. Figure 4.47 refers to
data for FDC #2. Here the CO emissions increased with bypass air, while NOX
decreased. This may be the result of excessive quench in the core of the
primary zone at the low primary zone fuel-air ratio corresponding to FDC #2.
Regenerator bypass under representative operating pressure conditions was
evaluated briefly at the tail end of the development program at UARL. The
results shown in Table 4-18 are disappointing in that increase in CO is more
dominant than reduction in NOX levels, as bypass air into the head end is
increased. The combustor geometry corresponded to the configuration chosen
for final evaluation (Figure 4. 40). Bypass air was introduced into the head
end at two locations, in one case through the can swirler ( 0 ) and in the other
case through the air-blast nozzle. In both cases the bypass air appears to
result in over-quenching of reactions inside the flame holder. It is believed,
however, that this concept can be made to work if the combustor geometry
4_16 United Pircraft of Canada Limited
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
is properly designed and bypass air admission is done in the proper area of
the primary zone. For example, introducing the bypass air through the
intermediate swirler or outside of the flame holder may be considered. The
effect of bypass air on cycle efficiency and CO emission would determine the
extent to which this approach may be utilized in reducting NOX emissions.
4.2.6 Class A/Mod Combustor Final Evaluation
The combustor with the geometry shown in Figure 4. 40 was chosen for final
evaluation on the simulated Federal Driving Cycle (Table 4-13) and on the
Steady Speed Mode (Table 4-16). The simulated Federal Driving Cycle
data are presented as integrated emissions (Table 4-15 and Figure 4. 41).
The emission indices for Steady Speed Mode Operation are presented as
parametric curves (Figures 4.42, 4.43 and 4.44).
On the simulated Federal Driving Cycle, the integrated emissions are 86%
below target on UHC, 45% above target on NOx and 81% above target on CO
(Table 4-13). The maximum temperatures obtainable with the facility was
1340 °F, thus the operating conditions on FDC #1 and FDC #5 are off-
specification. These two conditions together represent only 21% of the FDC
and hence the cycle emission values are reasonably representative.
Finally, the emissions levels from the Class A/Mod combustor were evalua-
ted at the EPA specified test conditions listed in Table 4-16 which simulate
operation at constant vehicle speeds. The results of emissions evaluation
tests conducted at conditions corresponding to vehicle speeds between 50 and
108 miles per hour are summarized in Table 4-17. The variation of emis-
sion indices with vehicle speed is shown in Figure 4. 42 and with fuel flow in
Figures 4. 43 and 4. 44. The UHC emissions were very low over the entire operating
range. Operation at higher power levels generally resulted in increasing the
level of NOX emissions and decreasing the level of CO emissions. However,
since the transition from low-power to high-power is accomplished by simul-
taneously increasing the fuel-air ratio and decreasing the inlet temperature,
more than one mechanism is responsible for changes in pollutant emissions.
United Pircraft of Canada Limited 4-17
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF DESIGN DATA FOR
EPA CLASS A/MOD & UB COMBUSTORS
Parameters
Inlet pressure (atm)
Air flow rate (Ibs per sec)
Fuel flow rate (Ibs per hour)
Fuel air ratio (overall)
Inlet air temp. (°R)
Outlet temp. (°R)
Pressure drop (%)
Reference velocity annulus (ft/sec)
Reference velocity - flametube (ft/sec)
Number of fuel nozzles
Fuel
Liner diameter (in. )
Liner length (in. )
Liner length - P Z (in)
Liner length - I Z (in)
Liner length - D Z (in)
9
Liner cross sectional area (in )
0
Liner volume - total (ft )
Liner volume - P Z (ft3)
Heat release rate (MM BTU/hr.ft3 atm)
(based on total liner volume)
Heat release rate (MM BTU/HR.ft3 atm)
(based on P Z volume)
Casing Diameter (in.)
Class
A/Mod
5
1.50
67
0.0124
1560
2360
2.5
106.4
74.2
1
JP4
4
9.5
2.0
2.88
4
12.57
0.0691
0.01454
3.64
17.32
5.4
UB
12
1.1
77
0.0195
1260
2360
2.6
76.3
78.1
1
JP4
2.61
5.56
1.33
2.67
1.56
5.37
0.0173
0.00413
6.95
29.1
3.55
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-19
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4-2 FEDERAL DRIVING CYCLE SIMULATED
CONDITIONS FOR CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
FDC
Point
1
2
3
4
Pin
(psig)
53
46
53
46
T-
in
(°F)
460
425
460
425
Wair
(Ib/sec)
0.535
0.500
0.535
0.500
far
0.0052
0.0072
0.0104
0.0150
TIME
Percentage of
Total Cycle
3
76
20
1
TABLE 4-3 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS OVER SIMULATED FDC
(ATMOSPHERIC TESTS WITH AIR-ASSIST NOZZLE)
SPECIES
NOX(AS NO2)
UHC
CO
INTEGRATED EMISSION INDEX (El)
96% FDC
1.15
5.25
146.10
* TARGET
1.19
1.22
10.15
* Vehicle Economy = 8.6 MPG : Fuel = JP4
Zero Humidity
United Pi re raft of Canada Limited
4-21
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4-4 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR GEOMETRY
AND AIRFLOW DISTRIBUTION
0.438
1.25"
j
t A
, B
c
e
C
»
)
D
«
(
\^
<
E
>>
\
J
*
t
2C<
. D
1
Dia
Air Entry Designation
Axial Distance - Inches
Percentage Airflow
Axial Distance - Inches
Percentage Airflow
Axial Distance - Inches
Percentage Airflow
Axial Distance - Inches
Percentage Airflow
Axial Distance - Inches
Percentage Airflow
O
0.0
17.5
0.0
20.3
0.0
25.1
0.0
25.1
0.0
18.4
A
0.83
23.4
B
1.33
46.3
0.75
62.8
1.33
78.5
0.75
78.5
1.33
36.2
C
1.83
37.5
D
2.66
50.0
1.33
66.5
2.66
82.2
1.33
82.2
2.66
40.0
E
4.00
100.0
2.66
100.0
4.00
100.0
2.66
100.0
4.00
100.0
Comments
Base Design
Rapid Quench
Lean Primary
Lean Primary and
Rapid Quench
Atmospheric Pressure
Tests at UACL
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-5 OPERATING CONDITIONS SELECTED FOR
ANALYTICAL MODELING OF CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
Inlet Air
Pressure
(psia)
175
175
175
175
14.7
14.7
14.7
14.7
Inlet Air
Temp.
(CF)
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
Fuel-Air
Ratio
0.0193
0.0193
0.0193
0.0193
0.0209
0.0188
0.0167
0.0147
Fuel Flow
Rate
(lbm/hr)
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
7.32
6.58
5.83
5.15
Air Flow
Rate
(Ibm/sec)
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
0.0972
0.0972
0.0972
0.0972
Primary Zone
Equivalence
Ratio
0.95
0.80
0.70
0.70
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Comments
Base Design
Rapid Quench
Lean Primary
Lean Primary and
Rapid Quench
UACL Test Cond.
UACL Test Cond.
UACL Test Cond.
UACL Test Cond.
Q.
D
3
3
»
o
-*
o
Q)
a
Q)
-------
TABLE 4-6 APPROXIMATE EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS FOR WATER VAPOR
Barometric Pressure 29.92 in. Hg.
Grains H2O
per Ib. of
Dry Air
20
40
60
75
80
100
120
Lbs. H2O
per Ib. of
Dry Air
0.0028
0.0056
0.0085
0.0107
0.0112
0.0143
0.0171
Dew Point °F
26
42
53
58
61
67
72.2
Water Vapor
Press, in. Hg.
0.13
0.27
0.40
0.51
0.53
0.66
0.80
Rel. Humidity
%at76°F
15
30
45
55
59
74
89
Remarks
Standard
c
D
f
a
V
3
I
o
-h
O
Q)
0)
a
0)
a>
a
to
-i
6
z
o
•
-------
TABLE 4-7 STEADY-SPEED MODE SIMULATED CONDITIONS
FOR CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
VEHICLE SPEED
(mph)
30
50
60
70
80
90
Pin
(psig)
46
53
60
69
83
97
T.
in
(°F)
425
460
490
530
585
635
Wair
(Ib/sec)
0.50
0.535
0.575
0.64
0.71
0.82
far
0.0072
0.0104
0.0126
0.0139
0.0157
0.0166
HP
3
15
26
41
61
82
c
?
a
5
3
I
o
•*
O
fi)
Q)
a.
Q)
C
to
CO
g
s
a
•5
H
5
2
O
i
-------
TABLE 4- 8 EVALUATION OF FINAL CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
IN SIMULATED STEADY- SPEED OPERATION
(ZERO HUMIDITY)
C
D
5
3
I
O
Q)
Q)
a
0)
(D
a
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
30
50
60
70
80
90
Inlet
Air
Pressure
(psig)
46
53
60
69
83
97
Inlet
Air
Temp.
(F)
425
460
490
530
585
630
Combustor
Pressure Loss
P - P
^in ^out 1nn
p X1UU
in
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.2
2.9
3.0
Fuel-
Air
Ratio
.00725
.01036
.01255
.0139
.0157
.0169
Pollutant Emissions
N0x (N02)
El
1.57
3.86
7.10
9.96
15.8
19.9
g/mi*
0.527
1.29
2.38
3.33
5.30
6.67
CO
El
10.11
1.30
3.74
5.29
8.89
6.40
g/mi*
3.38
0.434
1.25
1.77
2.98
2.14
UHC(C6H14)
El
.210
.057
.105
.009
.010
g/mi*
.072
.019
.035
.003
.003
* Based upon assumed vehicle fuel economy of 8. 6 miles/gal
Fuel: JP4
-i
5
z
o
•n
CO
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4- 9 RANGE MODE CONDITIONS FOR CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
LOW BASE LINE (50 mph)
pin
(psig)
53
37
53
T-
xin
(°F)
460
460
590
Wa
(Ib/sec)
0.535
0.409
0.500
Wf
(Ib/hr)
20
15.3
18.7
far
0.0104
0.0104
0.0104
HP
15
15
15
TABLE 4-10 RANGE MODE CONDITIONS FOR CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
MEDIUM BASE LINE (70 mph)
Pin
(psig)
69
69
55
80
100
129
Tin
(°F)
530
420
530
530
530
530
Wa
(Ib/sec)
0.64
0.678
0.534
0.725
0.876
1.098
Wf
(Ib/hr)
32
33.8
26.7
36.2
43.7
55.0
far
0.0139
0.0139
0.0139
0.0139
0.0139
0.0139
HP
41
41
41
41
41
41
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-33
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4-11 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR CONFIGURATION (FINAL)
AND AIR FLOW DISTRIBUTION
HOLE
a"
B
A1
Ef
E
DIA.
(INCHES)
.040
.173
.089
.195
.265
NO. OFF
12
4
24
16
16
NOZZLE ORIFICE
NOZZLE SWIRLER
HIGH PRIMARY SWIRLER
AIR FLOW
0.84
5.23
7.96
25.78
49.10
2.71
3.07
5.29
MIXTURE CONDITIONS
FDC #
1
2
3
4
FAR
.0052
.0072
.0104
.0150
*PZ
.315
.439
.631
.911
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
4-35
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4-12 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
OVER SIMULATED FDC
(Full Pressure Tests with Air-Blast Nozzle)
(FINAL)
SPECIES
UHC
CO
NOX(ASNO2)*
INTEGRATED EMISSIONS INDEX (El)
96% FDC
0.177
8.275
1.541
100% FDC
1.464
10.87
1.538
* TARGET
1.220
10.15
1.19
* Vehicle economy 8.6 miles/gal. , Fuel: JP4
4 Humidity corrected
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-37
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4-13 FEDERAL DRIVING CYCLE SIMULATED
CONDITIONS FOR CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTOR
FDC
POINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pin
(psig)
18
13
13
13
18
13
Tin
(°F)
1380
980
1000
1100
1380
1000
Wa
(Ib/sec)
0.59
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.59
0.44
far
0.0028
0.0050
0.0063
0.0070
0.0057
0.0126
TIME
Percentage
of Total
Cycle
3
34
22
22
18
1
United aircraft of Canada Limited
4-39
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4-14 CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTOR CONFIGURATION (FINAL)
AND AIR FLOW DISTRIBUTION
HOLE
ft
V
a
A
Ef
E
DIA.
(INCHES)
0.166
0.125
0.120
0.113
0.226
0.348
NO. OFF
10
8
36
32
12
12
NOZZLE ORIFICE
NOZZLE SWIRLER
HIGH PRIMARY SWIRLER
AIR FLOW
%
7.50
-
14.11
11.16
16.66
39.52
1.68
1.91
7.48
MIXTURE CONDITIONS
FDC #
1
2
3
4
5
6
far
0.0028
0.0051
0.0063
0.0069
0. 0056
0.0126
0 PI
0.135
0.241
0.301
0.331
0.270
0.602
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-41
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4-15 CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS
OVER SIMULATED FDC
(Full Pressure Tests with Air-Blast Nozzle)
(FINAL)
SPECIES
UHC
CO
NOX (AS N02 )
(Humidity corrected)
INTEGRATED EMISSIONS
INDEX (El) 100% FDC
0.242
27.09
2.54
TARGET*
1.81
14.90
1.75
* Vehicle Economy 12. 7 miles/gal. Fuel = JP4
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
4-43
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4-16 STEADY-SPEED MODE SIMULATED CONDITIONS
FOR CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTOR
VEHICLE SPEED
(mph)
50
70
90
108
Pin
(psig)
18
25
40
59
T.
in
(F)
1380
1120
960
1100
W .
air
(Ib/sec)
0.59
0.74
1.06
1.50
far
0.0057
0.0075
0.0105
0.0124
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
4-45
-------
TABLE 4-17 EVALUATION OF FINAL CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTOR
IN SIMULATED STEADY-SPEED OPERATION
(ZERO HUMIDITY)
Vehicle
Speed
(mph)
50
70
90
108
Inlet
Air
Pressure
(psig)
18
25
40
59
Inlet
Air
Temp.
(°F)
1330
1120
960
1100
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin " Pout „ 100
pin
11.9
11.7
_____
Fuel-
Air
Ratio
0.0056
0.0075
0.0105
0.0124
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (N02)
El
4.62
4.67
5.55
9.17
g/mi*
1.05
1.06
1.26
2.08
CO
El
4.97
1.48
0.595
0.387
g/mi*
1.13
0.335
0.135
0.088
UHC (C6H14)
El
0'
0.02
0'
0'
g/mi*
0'
0.004
0'
Of
c
D
f
a
5
3
I
o
^»
O
Q)
I
CO
(D
a
* Based upon assumed vehicle fuel economy of 12. 7 miles/gal
t Less than 0.1 ppm C
Fuel: JP4
5
2
O
1]
I
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
TABLE 4-18 EFFECT OF REGENERATOR BYPASS ON EMISSIONS
Tin = 1000°F, far = 0.0063
% BYPASS AIR
(BY WEIGHT)
0
5
7. 5
10
12.5
15
2
2.75
3.25
5.0
TEMP. OF
BYPASS AIR
°F
—
553
403
315
248
210
450
341
295
230
CO
PPM
96
30
50
130
340
490
390
*500
>500
^00
UHC
PPMC
—
3.1
-
-
7.1
8.2
44.4
113.2
169.0
N0xt
PPM
9.9
11.24
11.08
10.30
8.56
5.58
2.26
1.3
0.9
REMARKS
NO BYPASS
-
-,
"^
CO
CO
rt
a
0)
• lH
u
CO
CO
rt
m
(H
_0
O
(U
»— I
*Dry air - not corrected for humidity
Fuel: JP4
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-49
-------
c
D
C?
a
D
3
O
0)
Q)
a
Q)
r
CD
a
6 HOLES .25" DIA.
•EQUI-SPACED ON
10" P.C. DIA.
\
.25" RADIUS
<
Q
.5"
18" (NOT TO SCALE)
3
w
e
OT
&
c
in
•
CO
.125'
.125"
I
.625" DIA
6.2" (NOT TO SCALE)
DETAIL 'A'
V
ALTERNATIVE HEAD
5.63" (NOT TO SCALE)
48° CUTOUT
DETAIL 'A'
MATERIAL THICKNESS:- .030"
.060" WALL-
6 SCREWS
.060" DIA. APPROX.
EQUI-SPACED ON
3175" P.C. DIA.
.125"
MATERIAL:- PLEXIGLASS
§
a
o
r
>
CO
CO
C
W
H
W
a
t-1
o
o
K!
o
O
W
t-1
5
z
Ol
I
-------
c
?
a
D
3
I
o
-*
O
Q>
Q)
a
0)
r
United
Pi re raft
MILESTONES IN UB COMBUSTOR
DEVELOPMENT
ATMOSPHERIC TESTS AT MAX. WEIGHTED CONDITION
ON FEDERAL DRIVING CYCLE (FDC No.2)
T|N = 425° F far = 0.0072
FUEL JP4
UB TARGET
*^ ^^
0pz
PRESSURED
LOSS I
TARGET PRESSURE LOSS H —
O
§
w
O M
^^
CQ
DO
O
W
f
O
M
2!
H
5
cn
03
-------
C
§'
Q.
D
O
^»
s?
Q.
0)
1
United
R ire raft
DESIGNED BY DELAVAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY
FUEL DISCHARGE
ORIFICE *
6 AIR ASSIST HOLES (TANGENTIAL)
FUEL
'FILTER
PRESSURE JET ATOMIZER
6 FUEL INLET HOLES =a
(TANGENTIAL) \
Xl/fl ASSIST ATOMIZER
6 AIR HOLES
(TANGENTIAL)
8 AIR SWIRL VANES
"AIR BLAST ATOMIZER
FUEL
FILTER
FUEL
INLET
§
05
n
a
o
CO
co
CO
W
O
CO
O
O
tsi
N
r
M
CO
~
-
I
o
01
Ul
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.4 FUEL ATOMIZERS USED IN CLASS UB
COMBUSTOR DEVELOPMENT
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-57
-------
c
•p
3
FUEL JP4
2
o
a
M
*^
•
en
CJl
CD
H
§
33
W
M
CO
H
CO
O
55
O
IT*
fe
CO
o
i
03
C
CQ
H
S
x
•5
-------
United
fiircraft
ATMOSPHERIC TESTS-
UB COMBUSTOR (PRESSURE JET ATOMIZER)
RUN NO. 1/5008 T|N=425°F PRESSURE DROP=5.1%
:
Inlet Air Flow and Temperature Correspond]
to the Maximum Weighted Condition on the
Simulated Federal Driving Cycle (FDC *2)
FUEL JP4
FDC
No.2
FDC
.004 .006 .008 .010 .012 .014 .016 .018 .020
far
I
05
i B C D E E
\\\\ \\
/O
•4.0"-
0.5
HOLE
g
a
B
C
D
E
E'
DIA
IN
0.153
0.082
0.201
0.062
0.089
0.266
0.266
NO. OFF
4
40
6
6
6
8
8
AIR FLOW
5.11
13.09
12.46
1.21
2.49
29.90
30.95
MDCTURE CONDITIONS
DESIGN
POINT
FDC •!
FDC *2
FDC -3
FDC -4
far = 0.0193
*pz = 1.07
far - 0.0052
• PZ = 0.29
far - 0.0072
• PZ - 0. 40
far -0.0104
*pz * 0.58
lur O.QlfiO
* PZ °- 84
o
n
CO
01
H
O
CQ
CO
-------
United
ftircraft
ATMOSPHERIC TESTS-
UB COMBUSTOR (PRESSURE JET ATOMIZER)
RUN No. 1/5020 T,N=425°F ^£=5.15%
I .
Inlet Air Flow and Temperature Correspond
to the Maximum Weighted Condition on the
Simulated Federal Driving Cycle (FDC #2)
.004 .006 .008 .010 .012 .014 .016 .018 .020
far
A B C D E E'
\\\\ \N
HOLE
a
A
B
C
D
E
E'
DIA
N
0.153
0.082
0.125
0.201
0.180
0.140
0.266
NO. OFF
4
40
6
6
12
12
8
%
AIH FLOW
i. 12
13.24
4.81
12. SO
20.53
12.85
*
30.95
MIXTURE CONDITIONS
DESIGN
POINT
FDC «1
FDC *2
FDC -3
FDC -4
far « 0.0193
«pz = 0.99
far - 0.0052
• PZ= °-27
far - 0. 0072
far * 0.0104
• pz - 0.54
far = 0.0150
o Q
o ^
& a
B«
§•
w o
CQ
88
w n
O
»
>
CQ
03
i
OJ
CO
-------
c
D
3
S
O
0)
Q)
a
Q)
o
H IT1
^ >
ffi CO
M
a
o
oi
td
a
a
w
O
a
H
M
a
n
r
w
f
o
M
s:
H
H
1
-------
c
D
s
Q.
D
3
O
Q)
0)
Q
Q)
(D
Q.
05
CO
*J
(—I
o
d
a
w
**
o
r
o
o
H
O
a
n
O
c
-
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.11.EFFECT OF PRIMARY ZONE EQUIVALENCE RATIO AND
QUENCHING RATE ON NOX EMISSIONS FROM CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
300
200
30
20
BASE DESIGN
*D-T 0.93
RAPID QUENCH
*= 0.8
1
LEAN PRIMARY
n.F 0.7
\
LEAN PRIMARY AND RAPID QUENCH
*pz=0.7
CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
P|N - 175 PSIA
TIH " 80°
'AIR
FUEL
1.11 lbm/i«c
» 77 Ibm/hr
_L
1.0
2.0 3.0
AXIAL DISTANCE - IN.
4.0
5.0
6.0
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
4-71
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.12 COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED NOX EMISSIONS
FOR CLASS UB COMBUSTOR AT ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
90
80 -
70
60
DC
U.
l/t
ox 50
= 425°F
THEORETICAL
PREDICTIONS
40
30
0.12
I
UACL DATA FOR
CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
I
0.14 0.16 0.18
FUEL - AIR RATIO
0.20
0.22
United Rircraft of Canada Limited
4-73
-------
I)
3
I
o
^»
s
D)
a
Q)
3
1
M
^
CO hrl
H- i PJ
8 *i
M Hj
2 W
o o
W H
HO
SN
no
M
CQ M
a
l
o
01
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 14 EFFECT OF INLET PRESSURE ON NOX EMISSIONS
FROM CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
T,NLET=425F
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.15 EFFECT OF HUMIDITY ON NOX EMISSIONS
FROM CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
INLET
10.0
2 1.0
•O
c
F
X
O
X
O
z
0.1
0.01
a = 0.000 Ibs H 0/lb AIR
a = 0.005 2
a= 0-010
a = 0.015
\n
O
U
<3J
x
O
Z
I.U
0.5
0
0
^--
^— "
^-
_ •
a = 0.005 Ibs H
a — 0*01
a = 0.015
0/lb AIR
03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0. 0<
FUEL-AIR RATIO IN PRIMARY ZONE
United Pi re raft of Canada Limited
4-79
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WOHK
FIGURE 4.16 VARIATION OF EQUILIBRIUM COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE
WITH FUEL-AIR RATIO
W
tf
K
W
w
tf
CQ
a
B
O"
w
MAXIMUM WEIGHTED CONDITION FOR CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
PIN=60.7PSIA TIN=425°F
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
JP4 - AIR
.00 .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12 .14 .16 .18 .20
FUEL - AIR RATIO IN PRIMARY ZONE
United Rircraft of Canada Limited
4-81
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.17 VARIATION OF EQUILIBRIUM CO MOLE FRACTION
WITH FUEL-AIR RATIO
106
FDC #2 - PIN = 60. 7 PSIA TIN = 425°F
FCD #3 - PIN = 67.7 PSIA TIN = 460°F
FUEL JP4
10'
PM
O
U
§
J3
t-H
g
a
W
1000
100
10
0.1
P =67.7 PSIA
PIN = 60.7 PSIA TIN
.05 .10 .150 .200
FUEL - AIR RATIO IN PRIMARY ZONE
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
4-83
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.18 SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM UACL - CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
OVER SIMULATED FEDERAL DRIVING CYCLE (ZERO HUMIDITY)
K
W
PRESSURE
ATOM
NO,
AIR
BLAST
AIR
ASSIST
1976 STD
0
H
PRESSURE
ATOM
AIR UHC
BLAST
AIR
ASSIST
1976 STD
0
K
W
CO
PRESSURE
ATOM
AIR
BLAST
AIR
ASSIST
1976 STD
FUEL JP4
VE * 8.6 mpg
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
United Pi re raft of Canada Limited
4-85
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.19 SUMMARY OF CLASS UB EMISSION RESULTS - NOX VS CO
EMISSION INDICES - AIR-ASSIST NOZZLE
60-
50-
40-
O
U
W 30-
20-
10-
0
FUEL = JP4
VE = 8.6 mpg
\
\
w'
O
TARGET—
EMISSI
NOxHl
DO
O
i°
\°
\
G\
\
^0
°\
V ^
o oxx"
\
o
X
A ^
^~
/ X
/ ^
+
ON INDICES
JMIDITY CC
0 EARU
+ HIGf
XHIGI
UHC
O
^°
%o
dt?3
Q^gM3O
~~^V±-
+
INTEGRAT
IRRECTED r
Y COMBUST
[ PRIMARY
: PRIMARY
AT OR BE I
"*!
ED OVER 9
FO - 1.08%
OR CONFIC
SWIRL CON
SWIRL - D/
H/
jOW TARGE
f
6% OF FDC
BYWT
rURATIONS
[BUSTOR
iMAGED
iRDWARE
T
El NOX AS NO2
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-87
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 20 SUMMARY OF CLASS UB EMISSION RESULTS - NOX VS CO
EMISSION INDICES - AIR-BLAST NOZZLE
60
O
U
»—i
W
50
40
30
20
10
I
FUEL: JP4
VE = 8.6 mpg
EARLY RESULTS WITH AIR
ASSIST NOZZLE
I 1 I
EMISSION INDICES INTEGRATED
OVER 96% OF F.D.C.
NOx HUMIDITY CORRECTED
TO - 1.08% BY WT
HIGH PRIMARY SWIRL COMBUSTOR-
UHC AT OR BELOW TARGET
TARGET
AIR BLAST RESULTS
HIGH PRIMARY SWIRL
COMBUSTOR WITH AIR
ASSIST NOZZLE
0
6
El NOX AS NO2
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-89
-------
c
Q)
i
CO
FLAME TUBE
HIGH PRIMARY
SWIRLER
SPACER RING
AIR BLAST NOZZLE
§
»
w
to
i—1
O
F
02
02
O
O
03
t-1
O
i
3
o
cj
a
O
a;
-------
o
c
1
^ NOZZLE
UKlrlCrj A1K '
3
r* r Uc*lj W r UrjJ_i~
0 T
/^ NOZZLE
i. PWTPT T?P
Q)
Q_ HIGH PRIMARY —
Q) SWIRLER
r
3
A ~A"W
\>
^V X X X X\X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX^
—/
\
I
\
.vvc
fc 1
i4
/
\
rtn
Br
X^
/
n
o< —
/3 —
/
/
'
V^^l,
^fl
^
\^
^^
—T^1
|^|=
*te(-
r-^f_f_f-^f
m
^.xxx
0
n
\ \\ JU
_ 0
O
©o C
•N
vJ V_y
O
- CD
XXXX| XXXXXXXXXXX
1^ — IGNITER L--^>.
^ O.oo **
— q rtrtK ^
d
m
to
to
-. o
j
1
ROSS SECTION OF CL/
FINAL CONFIGURA1
*
LSS UB COMBUSTOR
riON
I
to
CO
I
-------
c
S
a
5
3
I
o
•*
o
03
a
Q)
3
8
a
WATER
AIR HEATED
TO 300°F
BURST DISC
WATER-COOLED
INSTRUMENTATION
SECTION
PROBE DRIVE
ELECTRICAL HEATER
HUMIDITY INSTRUMENTATION
TRANSITION SECTION
HUMIDITY
INSTRUM ENT ATION
COMBUSTOR
SECTION
EXHAUST
IGNITER
RADIAL PROBE LOCATIONS
WATER-COOLED
THROTTLING VALVE
O
§
w
CO
CO
w
O
a
w
o
o
g
H
Ki
H
W
O3
H
i
(O
en
s
a
o
z
§
a
p:
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 24 EFFECT OF HUMIDITY ON NOX EMISSIONS
30
25
20
§
H-1
H
U
P
O
w
tf
15
10
0
.005
STANDARD HUMIDITY
CONDITION
A/MOD FDC#3
A/MOD FDC#2
.010
.015
.020
SPECIFIC HUMIDITY (LBS H2O/LBS DRY AIR)
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-97
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 25 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS OVER SIMULATED FEDERAL
DRIVING CYCLE (HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
3 -
tf
w
K
W
2 -
1
3 -
2 -
1 -
-
~~
-
-
c
96% C
96% O
/• / / /
)6% Ol
%
NOX
(HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
>F FDC 100%
1976 STD
UHC
1009
1 QTft QT'Tl
iy ID oi \j
F FDC
CO
7 Fnr 1976 STD 100<5
r JJU
>OF F
^NXN
^
o OF I
\\\
\\\
\\v
X X N
7oOF I
\\\
^
-
DC
-
T>C
-
-
-
^DC
i
3
2 S
1
4
3
2 3
1
30
20 w
10
n
1
FUEL: JP4
VE = 8.6 mpg
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-99
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 26 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN STEADY
SPEED OPERATION (ZERO HUMIDITY)
0)
bD
S
i
X
w
Q
§
a
CO
w
FUEL JP4
VE = 8.6 mpg
O NOX-ZERO HUMIDITY
0
40 60
VEHICLE SPEED (mph)
80
100
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-101
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 27 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN STEADY
SPEED OPERATION (HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
tf
w
NOX- HUMIDITY
50 60 70
VEHICLE SPEED (mph)
United Pircraft of Canada Limited
4-103
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.28 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN STEADY SPEED
OPERATION - EFFECT OF FUEL FLOW RATE
O NOx - HUMIDITY CORRECTED
D COX10
UHC'XIO
EQUIVALENCE RATIO (OVERALL)
PEJ
w
0
FUEL FLOW (pph)
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-105
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WOHK
FIGURE 4. 29 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN STEADY
SPEED OPERATION - EFFECT OF SHP
12
FUEL JP4
VE = 8.6 mpg
10
T
\
\
\
CO x 10
'
\
,
/
'
O NOV - HUMIDITY CORRECTED
x I
D CO x 10
i
& UHC x 10
UHC x 10
o
0
20
40
60
SHP
&-
80
100 120
United ftircraft of Canada Limited
4-107
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.30 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN RANGE MODE
OPERATION - PRESSURE EFFECT (ZERO HUMIDITY)
20
16
o>
5 12
bfl
i
CM
i
t— I
w
FUEL JP4
CD
bo
^
S
I
o
u
I— I
w
0
T = 530F
far = 0.014
MEDIUM BASE LINE.
.LOW BASE LINE
T = 460F
far = 0.0104
o
20
40 60 80 100 120
INLET AIR PRESSURE - psia
140
160
FUEL JP4
0
T = 530F
far = 0.0104
MEDIUM BASE LINE
O
T = 460F
far = 0.0104
LOW BASE LINE
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
INLET AIR PRESSURE - psia
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
140
160
4-109
-------
.DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.31 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN RANGE MODE
OPERATION - TEMPERATURE EFFECT (ZERO HUMIDITY)
CM
o
£
i—i
w
0
a
W)
O
o
>— i
w
20
16
12
0
FUEL JP4
MEDIUM
P=83.7 psia_
BASE LINE far = °-014
P = 67.7 psia
LOW BASE LINE
400 440 480 520 560 600
INLET AIR TEMPERATURE - °F
8
0
FUEL JF
— o— J
•4
MEDIUM :
"•"**—- ^
LOW BAS
— O
BASE LIN
—
ET T"NTP . ^
i_/llNlli •;
EP=83
i far - 0
•*o- — .
> =67.7p
ar = 0.01
,7 psia
.0104
•.^r
sia
4
400 440 480 520 560
INLET AIR TEMPERATURE - °F
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
600
4-111
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.32 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN RANGE MODE
OPERATION - LOW BASE LINE CONDITION (HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
CONDITION
pn
(PSIA)
TIN
OF
far
UHC
EMISSION
INDICES
CO
NOxUHC
EMISSION
RATIO
CO
CODE
NOx
LOW BASE LINE
(50 MPH)
67.7
460
0.0104
.057
1.302.91
.047
.127
2.466
PRESS. CHANGE
51.7
460
0.0104
.112
1.341.85
.092
.13131.568
TEMP. CHANGE
67.7
590
0.0104
.089
1.11
4.3
0.73
.10893.644
w
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTED
COX 10
FUEL JP4
VE = 8.6 mpg
UHC X 10
United Pi re raft of Canada Limited
4-113
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 33 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN RANGE MODE
OPERATION - MEDIUM BASE LINE CONDITION.
PRESSURE EFFECT (HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
12
10
8
o
60
80
O NOx
Q COx 10
HUMIDITY CORRECTED
100
00
A
COX 10
\
UHC X 100
I
0.2
0
0.1
100
120
140
160
180
INLET PRESSURE (PSIA)
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
4-115
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 34 CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN RANGE MODE
OPERATION - MEDIUM BASE LINE CONDITION.
TEMPERATURE EFFECT (HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
tf
w
NOX
HUMIDITY
CORRECTED
FUEL = JP4
VE = 8.6 mpg
PIN = 84 PSIA
= 0.208
UHC
MEDIUM BASE LINE - INLET TEMP. 530°F
INLET TEMP. 420°F
United Pi re raft of Canada Limited
4-117
-------
D
3
I
o
•*
o
0)
Q)
a
Q)
(D
a
o
M
CO
CJ1
O
O
CO
H
S
CO
CO
M
S
W
r
I
>
o
o
H
5
o
•n
I
7;
-------
a
I)
3
I
o
^i
O
03
Q)
a
Q)
(D
a
0.7O"
SWIRLER DETAIL
\
^ 6 HOLES 0.7" DIA
6 HOLES O. 75 ' DIA
40 HOLES 0.087'DIA
8 HOLES 0.2 "01A
8 HOLES O.S'DIA
40 HOLES 0.125 ' 01A
10 HOLES 0.23* DIA
• 8 HOLES 0.113* DIA
o
§
w
CO
Oi
o
f
>
CO
CO
O
0
O
8
CO
a
CO
H
s
o
6
x
O
1]
1
-------
United
fi ire raft
MILESTONES IN A/MOD
COMBUSTOR DEVELOPMENT
c
D
3
I
o
^1
o
0)
Q)
a
Q)
0
a
ATMOSPHERIC TESTS AT MAX. WEIGHTED CONDITION
ON FEDERAL DRIVING CYCLE (FDC No.2)
T|N = 980°F far = 0.005
UJ
N
"g
N
-5E
N
UJI
tr A/MOO c TARGET
IUJ
UJ"
Ul
A/MOD TARGET
1X3
GO
H
C
i
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 38 SUMMARY OF CLASS A/MOD EMISSION RESULTS -
NOX VS CO EMISSION INDICES - AIR-BLAST NOZZLE
60-
50-
40-
O
u
i—(
w
30-
20-
FUEL:JP4
VE= 12.7 mpg
UHC WELL BELOW TARGET
NOx AS NO2
HUMIDITY CORRECTED TO
1.08% BY WT
78% OF FEDERAL DRIVING
CYCLE SIMULATED
(FDC #2, 3 and 4)
EARLY COMBUSTOR
CONFIGURATIONS
HIGH PRIMARY SWIRLER
10-
MEDIUM PRIMARY SWIRLER
TARGET
0
El NOX AS NO2
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
4-125
-------
c
5
a
D
O
Q)
CD
Q
OVERAL VIEW
WITH AIR BLAST NOZZLE INSTALL! D
*l
I—I
o
w
4^
oo
CD
O
ai
01
O
O
O
i
w
c
01
H
S
§
M
i— i
tz;
O
O
M
tr1
O
M
CO
n
-
c
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.40 CROSS SECTION OF CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTOR
FINAL CONFIGURATION
United fiircraft of Canada Limited
4-129
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.41 CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS OVER SIMULATED
FEDERAL DRIVING CYCLE (HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
2--
tf
H 1
NO
x
HUMIDITY CORRECTED
100% OF FDC
fe of FDC
1976 STD
•4
-3
2i—i
w
0
w
1976 STD
78% OF FDC
F??3
10o% OF FDC
V/SS*
2H-1
w
•0
w
78% OF FDC
CO
100% OF FDC --30
1976 STD
40
--20
--10
•0
FUEL JP4
VE = 12.7 mpg
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
4-131
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 42 CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN STEADY SPEED
OPERATION - EFFECT OF VEHICLE SPEED (HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
tf
w
o
I
FUEL : JP4
VE = 12.7 mpg
0
COxlO
20
O \ s
\
\
\
\
UHC xlO
0.
-HUMIDITY -
CORRECTED
-.20
0
.10
0
40 60 80
VEHICLE SPEED (mph)
100
120
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-133
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 43 CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN STEADY SPEED
OPERATION - EFFECT OF VEHICLE SPEED (ZERO HUMIDITY)
10
OJ
bD
bfl
S
i
X
w
Q
§
63
CO
8
0
FUEL JP4
VE=12.7 mpg
60 80 100
VEHICLE SPEED (mph)
120
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-135
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4.44 CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS IN STEADY SPEED
OPERATION - EFFECT OF FUEL FLOW RATE (HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
tf
w
FUEL:JP4
i
VE = 12.7 mpg
(HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
0
0
30 40 50
FUEL FLOW(lbs/hr.)
70
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
4-137
-------
c
5
a
D
3
I
o
-*
O
0)
2
a
0)
XX \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ N\
N\
NOZZLE ORIFICE AIR
FUEL
r±-l
NOZZLE SWIRLER
<*• /
\ I/
/••H h
\N
IGNITER
-9.0"-
yj
A
4.0"
o
d
M
*.
w
O
W CQ
W C/D
> W
H n
O H
*0
03 ^
w n
c«0
wg
< 03
> d
fOQ
a H
>O
H»
0>
*%
W
s
CO
CO
I
O
•»!
1
7:
-------
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
FIGURE 4. 46 EFFECT OF REGENERATOR BYPASS ON NOX AND CO EMISSIONS
w
o
O NOx
A COxlO
D BYPASS AIR TEMP (°F)
» IOOO°F
far « 0.0126
NOx
\r
\
\
) FDC #6
(RUN#3107)
\
• BYPASS AIR TEMP
W
tf
-300
-200
w
Pn
W
H
tf
t-H
<
PH
^
CQ
•100
10
15
20
25
% BYPASS AIR (BY WEIGHT)
United Pi re raft of Canada Limited
4-141
-------
United
Pi re raft
EFFECT OF A/MOD REGENERATOR
BYPASS AIR ON NOx EMISSIONS
c
s
a
I)
3
I
o
^i
O
0)
I
0)
ATMOSPHERIC TESTS AT MAX. WEIGHTED CONDITION
ON FEDERAL DRIVING CYCLE (FDC No.2)
T|N=980°F far = 0.005
BYPASS AIR TEMR
NOx AS N02
FDC*2
135-280 T
EARLY COMBUSTOR CONFIGURATION
LATER CONFIGURATIONS
i 20 30
BYPASS AIR (BY WEIGHT)
i
h-'
*.
CO
o
a
M
*.
n
H
O
*J
a
w
a
o
a
cc
O
2
g
X
M
C/3
5
S!
CO
H
5
Z
O
-------
DISCUSSION
OF
RESULTS
United fi ire raft of Canada Limited
-------
5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The development programs on the two combustors bring into focus several
factors concerning approaches to be taken for emission controls. Some of the
more important factors are discussed in this section.
5.1 Development Philosophy
Conceptually two approaches may be considered for developing a low emis -
sions combustor:- (i). A system with a rich primary zone (<*>PZ>1) to reduce
reaction zone temperatures and consequently NOx formation, and an inter-
mediate zone lean enough to keep NOX formation rates low. The temperatures
in the intermediate zone would be high enough to burn CO and hydrocarbons
produced in the primary zone. This system would require a transition zone
where mixing is rapid and dwell time at or near stoichiometry is minimal. An
advantage is the good lean blow off limit which results from a rich primary
zone, (ii) A system with a lean primary zone (Pl < <1), with reaction zone
temperatures low enough to reduce NOx formation rates, and an intermediate
zone with temperatures high enough to burn up the CO and hydrocarbons, but
low enough to prevent NOX formation.
The limitation on leaning the primary zone is its possible detrimental effect
on the lean blow out limit. In both cases, rapid mixing and good homogeneity
in the reaction zone are essential if low emissions are to be achieved. In the
present program, the second approach has been used with varying results on
the two classes of combustors. On Class A/Mod Combustor this approach has
produced significant reductions, but best emission results are still well above
targets. Further reductions can be achieved by extension of this approach, but
meeting the EPA targets may be difficult.
5.2 Combustion Chemistry at Low Equivalence Ratios
A summary of important combustion reactions involving hydrocarbon fuel and
oxidant in a lean reaction zone is shown in Table 5-1. The first three reactions
involving chain branching of fuel and oxygen occur in the primary zone resul-
ting in formation of CO. The conversion of CO occurs in the post primary zones
(Reaction #4) along with recombination reactions (#5). The NOX formations will
mainly be in the primary zone if temperatures in the intermediate zone are
maintained low enough. Class UB combustor studies have shown that a good
upper limit temperature for the intermediate zone is 2750°R.
5.3 Class UB Combustor Results
5.3.1 Influence of FueMnjection Process
An important portion of Class UB development involved investigations of a
Simplex pressure atomizer, an air-assist atomizer, and an air-blast
atomizer (Figure 4. 3). The Simplex atomizer employs fuel pressure across
United Aircraft of Canada Limited 5-1
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
a fine orifice to atomize the fuel. The fuel spray characteristics, viz. drop-
let size and spray angle are influenced by combustor operating pressure.
The penetration of the spray and the cone angle are reduced at higher com-
bustor pressures. These can create fuel rich regions in the core of the spray.
Some improvement results from increasing air flow into the primary zone of
the combustor.
The air-assist atomizer was constructed by admitting a small fraction of
Combustor (AP) air in the (modified) secondary passage of a Duplex fuel
nozzle. The Flow Number of the nozzle is approximately 1.0. A marked
improvement in CO and NOx emissions are observed (Figure 4.18) which is
due to better atomization and leaning of the core of the jet. However, the
increased spray angle has possibly resulted in greater wall quenching and
hence the increased emission of UHC.
The basic problem with both the pressure and air-assist nozzle is their
susceptibility to malfunction. It was observed that even a small streak in
the fuel spray can result in relatively large changes in emission levels.
The air-blast atomizer employs the energy of high velocity air to provide
the atomizing action. A venturi driven by the pressure loss across the com-
bustor can provide the required velocities. Tests have shown that a 3% com-
bustor pressure drop providing injection velocities between 240-370 feet/sec,
can produce fuel drops of comparable size to those obtained by pressure
atomizers (12). The fuel distribution is dictated mainly by the air flow pat-
tern, and the atomization process ensures good mixing of fuel and air prior
to combustion. The main drawback is the narrow stability limits. On the
Class UB combustor program, the stability was improved by incorporating
additional swirlers in the head end.
However, it is important to use an air-blast nozzle designed to cover the
entire range of combustor fuel flows. The air-blast nozzle used in the UB
program, being an off-the-shelf item, had a range of 10-50 Ibs/hr. At fuel
flows below 10 Ibs/hr, the film formed by the fuel jets at the throat of the
venturi may become non-continuous, resulting in poor atomization of the
fuel and improper distribution. This shows up as a streaky, spiral tongue
of orange flame at the core of the fuel nozzle. At operating conditions repre-
sented by FDC #1 (Wf = 8 Ibs/hr), such a flame was observed and hence the
high hydrocarbon and CO emissions. Although this point represents only 3%
on the simulated Federal Driving Cycle, the disproportionately large values
of UHC and CO result in integrated levels, significantly higher than the inte-
grated levels over 96% of simulated Federal Driving Cycle (FDC #2, and
FDC #3). In the case of the UHC emission the result is an EI(CH2)n about
20% above target over the cycle, while over 96% of F. D. C. it is 85. 5% below
target. It is believed that an air-blast nozzle operating in the range of 5 to
70 Ibs/hr would result in better overall emissions. Good light up performance
might be ensured by incorporating a pilot nozzle in the core of the air-blast
nozzle. At low-fuel flows (e.g., below 7 Ibs/hr), all the fuel would be supplied
5-2 United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
from the pilot nozzle, and a well atomized spray thus obtained can give
efficient combustion at start up. By incorporating a piloted air-blast nozzle,
the performance requirements and good atomization over a wide burning
range, may well be realized.
5.3.2 Intermediate Zone Temperature
The air-blast nozzle data (Figure 4. 20) may be re-plotted for the two indivi-
dual conditions (FDC #2 and FDC #3) of the simulated Federal Driving Cycle.
Figure 5.1 shows a curve, plotted against the computed primary zone equi-
valence ratio. On FDC #2, which is the maximum weighted condition (76%),
PZ varies from 0.438 to 0.463 and on FDC #3, which represents 20% of
Federal Driving Cycle, <£PZ varies from 0.631 to 0. 671. The wide dispa-
rity in these ranges reflects the variation and magnitude of individual emis-
sions. The high CO and UHC emissions correspond to the low end of FDC #2
range while the high NOX corresponds to the high end of FDC #3 range". The
slopes of the individual curves generally reflect the effect of reaction zone
temperatures. Higher temperatures resulting from higher primary zone equi-
valence ratios increase NOX and reduce CO and UHC emissions. The CO and
UHC with increasing n observed on the FDC #3 range of equivalence ratios
may be attributed to the presence of lean pockets in the mixtures at the high
end. Figure 5. 2 shows variations of CO and NOX emissions with computed
primary zone equilibrium temperature for FDC #2. Also shown are the tar-
gets (on FDC) emissions. In the vicinity of target, the CO emissions appear
highly dependent on the temperature. The primary zone equilibrium tempera-
ture may be considered as intermediate zone temperature since no additional
air is admitted in this zone. The required temperature for target, or better,
CO emissions must be above 2740°R, and for target, or better, NOX emis-
sions the temperature must be below 2762 °R. An average temperature (as
calculated here) of 2750°R should better targets for both the species.
5.4 Class A/Mod Combustor Results
The development of Class A/Mod combustor followed a pattern similar to
that of the simple cycle combustor; however, the high inlet temperatures
characteristic of this cycle, made it more difficult to achieve large reduc-
tions in NOX levels while maintaining CO emissions at or below specific
levels.
The incorporation of staged swirl in the head end allowed flame stability
to be maintained even as the equivalence ratio in the primary zone was being
reduced progressively. In the final configuration of the combustor (Figure
4. 40), approximately 44% of the total air flow is introduced through the head
end and single row of primary zone holes. Thus, the Class A/Mod combus-
tor was designed to have a short lean primary zone to minimize NOX forma-
tion, and a relatively long intermediate zone to permit CO and UHC oxidation.
Visual observations and photographs of the combustion process indicated
that the combustor operated with a stable flame having a uniform appearance
(Figure 5.3).
United Aircraft of Canada Limited 5-J
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The photograph of the flame at the maximum weighted condition on the
simulated Federal Driving Cycle (Tin = 980°F, far = 0.0050), shows a bluish
flame outside of the flame holder and an almost colorless flame inside. The
indication is over-lean conditions exist inside of the flame holder, rendering
a pre-quench of part of the reacting mixture. It is believed that a better dis-
tribution of air flows in the head end may result in lower CO emissions while
maintaining the NOx emissions at the levels shown, Table 4-15.
The air blast nozzle used with the Class A/Mod Combustor had an operating
range of 10-40 Ibs/hr. This was identical to the nozzle used with the Class
UB Combustor. On the simulated Federal Driving Cycle (Table 4-13), three
points (FDC #'s 1, 2 and 3) represent fuel flow rates at or below the lower
limit of operating range. These together represent 59% of the time on the
simulated Federal Driving Cycle. At fuel flows below the lower limit of the
operating range, the film formed by the fuel jets at the throat of the venturi
could become non-continuous, resulting in poor atomization of the fuel and
improper distribution. Also the pressure loss on FDC #2, which represents
34% of FDC, is 0. 988 psi compared with 1. 8 psi on the maximum weighted
condition for Class UB. The lower energy of atomizing air with Class A/Mod
may be responsible for the relatively higher CO emissions. Hence an opti-
mized air-blast nozzle should result in better atomization and emissions at
the lower fuel flow points on the simulated Federal Driving Cycle.
A comparison of mass emissions of fixed geometry combustors for regene-
rative and simple cycle engines is shown in Figure 5.4. The integrated cycle
emissions shown are from (1) Chrysler regenerative combustor (13), (2)
simulated GM regenerative combustor (14), (3) United Aircraft Class A/Mod
regenerative combustor, and (4) United Aircraft Class UB simple-cycle
combustor. While the Chrysler emissions appear to be based on a simulated
cycle similar to that of the Class A/Mod combustor, the GM emissions are
based on a HEW cycle not specified (in Reference 14). From this comparison
the significantly better emissions achieved under the present program is
apparent. It should be noted that Chrysler's data was from full engine opera-
tion with simulation of the severe transients during actual driving which are
characteristic of regenerative gas turbine engines due to their load shedding
proplems. Chrysler has indicated that steady state engine and rig measured
NOx emissions may be less than over the road emissions by about 50%.
5-4 United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
TABLE 5.1 COMBUSTION SCHEME FOR HYDROCARBONS
WITH EXCESS OXYGEN
1 Chain Branching and Attack on O2
H + O2 -
Attack on Fuel
CnH2n+2 + OH - -CnH2n+1 + H20
Cn-lH2n-2 +
CO OCH2 + OH
3 Other Chain Branching Reactions
OH + H2 —+• OH + H
OH + H2 —- H2O + H
OCH2 + O—^HCO + OH
O + H2O —>. OH + OH
4 Conversion of CO: CO + OH ^CO2 + H
5 Recombination: O + O + M +• O2 + M
H + OH + M—^H2O + M
H + H + M ^Ho + M
United Aircraft of Canada Limited 5-5
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
FIGURE 5.1 VARIATION OF CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS WITH
PRIMARY ZONE EQUIVALENCE RATIO - AIR-BLAST ATOMIZER
(HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
FUEL JP4
NO
HUMIDITY CORRECTED
FDC #3
CM
o
55
i—i
H
FDC #2
0.4
0.5
0.6
UHC
0.7
CJ
"-1 1-
w
FDC ^2
0-
40-
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
30-
CO
20-
FDC # 2
w
10-
FDC
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
PRIMARY ZONE EQUIVALENCE RATIO
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
5-7
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
FIGURE 5. 2 VARIATION OF CLASS UB COMBUSTOR EMISSIONS WITH
PRIMARY ZONE EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE (HUMIDITY CORRECTED)
O
u
I—I
w
FUEL : JP4
VE = 8.6 mpg
FDC #2
AIR-BLAST NOZZLE
0
2600
2700 2800
P Z EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE °R
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
2900
5-9
-------
C
§'
a
5
B
O
fl)
Q)
a
03
§
a
w
Ul
CO
"J
F
W
V
as
o
H
O
§
n
r
O
O
o
o
2
tn
c!
GO
H
O
B
o
Printed in U.S.A.
-------
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
FIGURE 5. 4 COMPARISON OF MASS EMISSIONS OF REGENERATIVE AND
SIMPLE CYCLE COMBUSTORS (HUMIDITY CORRECTED EXCEPT G.M. DATA)
w
o
I
0
CHRYSLER
K
W
U
O
w
o
"Q"
H
NO AS NO
G.M. GT309
(SIMULATED 150 HP)
-U.A.C.
A/MOD
U.A.C.
UB
1976 STANDARD
W
CO
o
1.2
£ .8
.4 =—
CHRYSLER
G.M. U.A.C.
A/MOD
UHC AS (CHs)
n
U.A.C.
SB... 1976 STANDARD
W
CO
6
u
U.A.C.
UB ~ 1976 STANDARD
1
4
1.
2.
3.
4.
CHRYSLER - ENGINE TEST RESULTS WITH FULL TRANSIENT
SIMULATIONU3)
G.M. - GT 309 RIG RESULTS SCALED TO 150 HP(14)
U.A.C. - RIG RESULTS - SIMULATED FDC, 12.7 mpg FOR
CLASS A/MOD AND8. 6 mpg FOR CLASS UB
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
5-13
-------
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The investigations described in the report have significantly covered both
the analytical and developmental aspects of gas turbine combustor emissions.
It is believed this work has resulted in a better understanding of some of the
underlying factors contributing to emissions from continuous combustion
systems.
The program has shown that careful modifications to the head end aerodyna-
mics, combined with use of dependable fuel atomizers, can result in overall
reduction of all three principal pollutants. Substantial reductions in emission
levels have been accomplished by employing conventional simple geometry
can combustors for both the simple cycle and regenerative cycle applications.
It is seen that low NOx levels can be achieved in both cases, and that CO
levels can be kept to a minimum by ensuring good mixing in the reaction zone,
and maintaining sufficiently high intermediate zone temperatures. The
unburned hydrocarbon (UHC) emissions can be controlled by reducing the
quenching effects of film cooling air, and by the use of a suitable fuel atomi-
zer.
The research program has utilized most of the tools available to a combus-
tion engineer - i.e., analytical models, water model studies, atmospheric
and full pressure rig studies. From the viewpoint of exhaust emissions some
of these tools have limitations which are not seen in normal combustion work.
In spite of these limitations, it is believed that all these techniques, and others
more refined, can be put to good use in any low emission work.
6.1 Conclusions - General
a) Conventional can type combustors operating with lean and well mixed
primary zones and carefully controlled quenching rates can achieve low
overall levels of pollutant formation.
b) The combustor hardware can be kept simple and practical. Initial designs
of the flame tubes can conform to standard practice but for a few differ-
ences - principally reaction zone equivalence ratio, controlled interme-
diate zone and wall temperatures, and mixing techniques in the reaction
zone.
c) In general, emissions of CO and UHC are caused by low reaction tempera-
tures, poor atomization and quenching effects of wall cooling air.
Increasing the primary zone temperature to reduce CO and UHC in exhaust
emissions tends to cause large increases in NOx production, which is
principally dependent on temperature. It is believed that a lean and cool
head-end combustor can yield low NOx emissions while CO and UHC
emissions can be controlled by maintaining the intermediate zone tempera-
ture high enough to burn CO (>2750°R) but low enough not to produce signi-
ficant NOx (<2900°R).
United Aircraft of Canada Limited 6-1
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
d) Good fuel atomization and homogeneity of reacting mixtures are essential
to reduce rich pockets which would promote NOx formation. Staged swirl
is an effective means of promoting homogeneity and stability in a lean
primary zone.
e) Good flame stability and wide turndown ratio can be maintained in spite
of a very lean primary zone due to detailed geometry and piloting effects.
The re-circulatory gas flow paths, established by staged swirl in the
head end, improve significantly the lean blow-out performance of the
combustors.
f) The air-assist and air-blast atomizers have significant advantages over
pressure atomizing nozzles in terms of reducing emissions of CO, UHC
and to a lesser extent NOX- The air-blast atomizer appears to have much
greater potential for reliability as well as lower system cost. A piloted
air-blast would be a good approach to obtain a wider operating range for
the fuel nozzle.
g) The intermediate zone if maintained at sufficiently high temperatures can
be used to consume CO and UHC. The investigations on Class UB combus-
tor have shown that an optimum temperature for CO and UHC consumption
in the intermediate zone is 2750°R. Increasing the residence time in the
intermediate zone can also result in more oxidation of CO and UHC.
h) The variation of NOx emissions with overall fuel-air ratio appears to be
significantly influenced by the primary zone mixing conditions. For exam-
ple, with a combustor having a lean primary zone with early quench, the
NOx emission indices have been observed to decrease with increase in
overall fuel-air ratio whereas with conventional combustors (4>pz - 0. 9)
the trend is reversed. These effects suggest the strong influence of pri-
mary zone aerodynamics on emissions.
i) The humidity of the inlet air is of importance in the evaluation of NOx
emission levels from gas turbine combustors. The magnitude of the effect
also appears to depend on the leanness of the primary zone and loading of
the combustor. The effect has varied from 10% to 25% for a standard hu-
midity of 1. 07% by weight depending on the combustor design and the
operating conditions.
6.2 Conclusions - Developmental
a) Water modeling is a useful technique in establishing flow paths and distri-
butions. Measurements of residence time from water model studies are
only indications of trends.
6-2 United fiircraft of Canada Limited
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
b) Analytical modeling can be a useful tool for predicting NOX production
rates from candidate combustor design configurations and subsequent
modifications. It is also useful for predictions of effects of inlet moisture,
temperature and pressure on NOx emissions.
c) Initial development of the combustor can be quickly accomplished with
low pressure (atmospheric) testing, and substantial reductions in NOx
levels can be achieved. This has proven to be a cost-effective tool.
However, the apparently strong detrimental effect of low pressures on
lean blow-out, limits the extent to which the head end of the combustor
can be developed for low NOX emissions.
d) Interpretation of emission data from atmospheric tests rely on good
estimates of effect of full pressure on emissions. While kinetic model
predictions were made for NOX, the effect of pressure on CO and UHC
could only be guessed in the absence of a suitable model. From this view-
point, the emission levels from atmospheric tests could only be inter-
preted on a qualitative basis.
e) Increasing the combustor inlet pressure results in increased NOX emis-
sions and reduced CO, UHC emissions. Pressure also affects the fuel
spray characteristics - spray angle and droplet size - and lean limit.
Major development for reducing emissions must therefore be done at
representative conditions.
f) Full axis viewing of the flame, through an observation window, provides
invaluable qualitative understanding of flame characteristics as related
to combustor emissions. Also, a majority of unintended combustion
changes due to fuel or air inlet asymmetries can be spotted as flame
asymmetries, streaks or spottiness. Flame locations, color, brightness
and stability render a qualitative understanding of flame properties as they
relate to emissions.
6.3 Conclusions - Class UB Combustor for the Simple-Cycle Engine
Development has produced:
Simple small combustor
Good turndown ratio
Low pressure drop
Excellent temperature distribution
Excellent stability
Low emissions - NOX 29% above target, CO 7% above target, UHC 20%
above target
Indications are that there is no need for variable geometry and that this com-
bustor can be further developed quite easily to meet and probably better stan-
dards over a simulated Federal Driving Cycle.
United fiircraft of Canada Limited 6-3
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.4 Conclusions - Class A/Mod Com bust or for the Regenerative Cycle Engine
Employment of Class UB techniques has resulted in:
• Simple small combustor
• Excellent stability
• Good turndown ratio
• Excellent temperature distribution
• Substantially reduced emission values - NOx to 46% above target,
CO to 80% above target,
and UHC negligible
The emission levels achieved over a simulated Federal Driving Cycle are
significantly better than the best reported data for fixed geometry combustors
(Figure 5.4). It is believed that, with further development along the same
lines, emission levels much closer to targets can be achieved. In this case,
a simple form of variable geometry controlling air flow into the head end may
also be considered to achieve target emissions. The combustor has also
shown good symmetry, Figure 5.3.
6.5 Recommendations
It is recommended that the work undertaken in this program be continued on
both classes of combustors. The belief is that for a fraction of the present
effort, either or both combustors can be developed to meet or better the
Federal emission standards. On Class UB, this would result in a small fixed
geometry combustor, while on Class A/Mod, any variable geometry incor-
porated would be of a simple form involving control of air flow into the head
end swirlers. In both cases, fuel injection would be through a single air-blast
nozzle with no variability involved.
Several other aspects examined under the present program merit further
investigation. These are (i) Effect of ambient humidity on primary zone
kinetics, (ii) Development of a reliable CO model and refinement of NOx
models to account for local mixture conditions, and (iii) Investigation of
fuel injection systems oriented towards low emissions. Piloted air-blast
nozzles might warrant particular attention.
6-4 United R ire raft of Canada Limited
-------
LIST
OF
REFERENCES
United fiircraft of Canada Limited
-------
REFERENCES
1. Environmental Protection Agency: "New Motor Vehicles and New Motor
Vehicle Emissions - Control of Air Pollution"; Federal Register,
Wednesday, November 15,1972, Vol.37, No. 221, Part II, pp 24250-
24320.
2. Wright, E. S., Greenwald, L. E., and Titus, R. R., "Automotive Gas
Turbine Optimum Configuration Study", Final Report to U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs under Contract
68-04-0013, May 1972.
3. Wright, E. S., Greenwald, L. E., and Davison W. R., "Manufacturing
Cost Study of Selected Gas Turbine Automobile Engine Concepts" Final
Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Pro-
grams under Contract EHS 70-115, Aug 1971.
4. Wright, E.S., Davison, W.R., and Greenwald, L.D., "A Feasibility
Analysis of a Simple Cycle Gas Turbine Engine for Automobiles", SAE
Automotive Engineering Congress, #720238, Detroit, Mich. , Jan 10-14,
1972.
5. Eatock, H. C., and Stoten, M. D., "Design Study of Advanced Concept
Simple Gas Turbine for possible use in Low Emission Automobiles" ,
72-GT-101, Gas Turbine and Fluids Engineering Conference & Products
Show. (ASME), San Francisco, Calif., March 26-30, 1972.
6. Amman, C. A., Wade W.R., and Yu, M. K., "Some Factors Affecting
Gas Turbine Passenger Car Emissions", SAE Automotive Engineering
Congress, #720237, Detroit, Mich. , Jan 10-14, 1972.
7. The Design and Performance Analysis of Gas Turbine Combustion
Chambers Vols. I & II. Northern Research and Engineering Corpora-
tion, 1964.
8. Roberts, R., et al: "An Analytical Model for Nitric Oxide Formation
in a Gas Turbine Combustion Chamber", AIAA Paper No. 71-715, 1971.
9. Dibeliers, N. R. , Hilt, M. B., and Johnson, R. H., "Reduction of
Nitrogen Oxides from Gas Turbines by Steam Injection", ASME Gas
Turbine Conference, Houston, Texas, 1971.
10. Lipfert, F.W., Correlation of Gas Turbine Emissions Data, ASME
Paper 72-GT-60.
11. Moore, J., "The effects of Atmospheric Moisture on Nitric Oxide
Production", Combustion & Flame, 17, pp 265-267, 1971.
United Rircraft of Canada Limited R-l
-------
REFERENCES
12. Lefebvre, A.H., and Miller, D., "The Development of an Air-blast
Atomizer for Gas Turbine Application", College of Aeronautics Report,
Aero No. 193, June 1966.
13. "Baseline Gas Turbine Engine Program", EPA Contract 68-01-0459,
Environmental Protection Agency, Advanced Automotive Power Sys-
tems Development Division, Gas Turbine Contractors' Coordination
Meeting, Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec. 12, 1972.
14. Cornelius, W., and Wade, W.R., "The Formation and Control of
Nitric Oxide in a Regenerative Gas Turbine Burner", SAE Trans.,
Vol.79, Sec. 4, Paper No. 700708, pp 2176-2202, 1970.
R-2 United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
APPENDIX A
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
APPENDIX A
WATER MODEL TESTING
OP SIMPLE CYCLE FLAMETUBE
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
A.1.0
A.2.0
A.3.0
A.4.0
A.5.0
A.6.0
INTRODUCTION
Results of Plow Path Development
Results of Plow Split Assessment
Results of Recirculation Rate Assessment
Results of Particles Speed Assessment
Prediction of Plow Speeds & Residence Times
Figure A.I Distribution of Recirculation in Primary Zone
Figure A.2 Distribution of Recirculation in Dilution Zone
Figure A.3 Distribution of Plow Speeds in Water Model Class 'UB'
Final Configuration
Figure A.4 Distribution of Flow Speeds in Water Model Class 'UB1
Final Configuration
Table A.I Speed Measurement Zones
Table A.2 Trace Lengths
Table A.3 Combustor Geometry
Table A.4 Flow Splits
Table A.5 Residence Times
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
App A-i
-------
A.1.0 INTRODUCTION
A.1.1 The Class UB water model with alternative head to Figure 4.1
was set up in a vertical position in the water analogy rig,
Figure 3.3.
A.1.2 A light source was arranged on each side of the working section,
consisting of photographic lamps of 1000 watt and 650 watt power
beamed through a series of simple slots to give a plane of light
.060" to .130" deep.
A.1.3 Photography was performed with a Graflex camera using polaroid
film (3000 ASA).
A.1.4 Flow pattern tracers consisted of aluminum dust for general
flow path recording, and polystyrene balls for more detailed
work.
A.1.5 Flow splits and recirculation were established by using a very
few polystyrene tracers and observing the path of individual
balls (i.e. noting whether the ball was recirculated or passed
directly downstream, and counting the number of rotations in
the recirculation zones).
A.1.6 An attempt was made to measure the speed of tracers by photo-
graphing at various shutter speeds, using a large number of
tracers.
A.1.7 All tests were run at AP of approximately 4" H20 except when
tracing the path of a single tracer when the AP was reduced.
Higher AP's were unattainable due to rig limitations.
A.1.8 10 configurations were tested as detailed in the following
section.
A.2.0 RESULTS OF FLOW PATH DEVELOPMENT
See diagrams.
United Aircraft of Canada Limited App A-l
-------
A.2.0 RESULTS OP PLOW PATH DEVELOPMENT
CONFIGURATION
COMMENTS
A.2.1
QJ
•*•*'
»
of-
Strong penetration from
6 holes .188" dia.
Strong recirculation.
HOLES
A.2.2
c?f _
*J*+»
20 HOLES
•03O"D/A-
-£ HOLES
As above.
Plow from 20 holes
dia. weak.
.030"
A.2.3
6 HOLES. .
l_ m. ~
6
^20 HOLES WHOLES
•0*5 DM-
Penetration of 6 holes .188"
dia. still strong.
Recirculation zone weaker.
Better penetration from 20 holes
.045" dia.
Plow from 6 holes .060" dia.
weak.
App A-2
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
-------
A.2.0 RESULTS OF FLOW PATH DEVELOPMENT (continued)
CONFIGURATION
COMMENTS
A.2.4
2o HOLES
HOLES -I25"DIPI-
Penetration 6 holes .188" still
strong.
6 holes .125" dia. very strong.
Recirculation reversed.
Small secondary recirculation
upstream of primary jets.
A.2.5
l— DHOLES
-2o HOLES
• 6 HOLES 126 ".
6 holes .250" dia. flow
strengthened.
Double vortex.
A.2.6
«-WHOLES
Double vortex persists.
6 holes .030" dia. weak,
little penetration.
United ft ire raft of Canada Limited
App A-3
-------
A.2.0 RESULTS OF FLOW PATH DEVELOPMENT (continued)
CONFIGURATION
A.2.7
HOLES •Ot,O"Difl.
HOLES
HOL£S 060"DM-
-l25"D/fi OKJ-5" P-C-D/ft
COMMENTS
Single vortex recirculation
restored.
6 holes .060" dia. adequate
penetration.
A.2.8
& HOLES -OW'D/fl- gg HOLES • IBS'DlQ •
o^
I—WHOLES -2So"Dm-
4O HOLES -Of>O'Dlfi
& HOLES -i2S"D/A-
As above.
Good penetration from dilution
holes (8 holes .188" dia.).
Note vortex upstream of
dilution holes.
A•2•
As above.
076'DiQ-
A.2.10
As above, but swirler holes
.109" dia.
No apparent change.
App A-4
United fiircraft of Canada Limited
-------
A.3.0 RESULTS OF FLOW SPLIT ASSESSMENT (Final Configuration only)
A.3.1 Primary Zone
The paths of 51 balls were observed entering the primary zone
holes (6 holes .250" dia.).
21 were entrained in the recirculation zone, 30 passed downstream.
Hence, 41.2% of primary jet air is recirculated.
Of the balls passing through the dome holes (40 holes .060" dia.)
and swirler, none appeared to escape the recirculation zone,
though some difficulty was experienced with tracing these flows.
Hence, 100% of dome and swirler air may be considered to recirculate.
A.3.2 Dilution Zone
Of 19 balls observed passing into the first row of dilution holes
(Q holes .188" dia.), 9 were recirculated in the vortex just
upstream of the holes, 10 passed downstream.
Hence, 47.3% of 1st row dilution hole air is recirculated.
All of the 2nd row dilution hole air appeared to pass downstream.
A.4.0 RESULTS OF KECIRCULATION RATE ASSESSMENT
A.4.1 Primary Zone Vortex
52 balls were observed.
The arithmetic mean number of rotations was 2.7 times. Max.
rotations, min. = 1 rotation. The distribution is shown in
Figure A.1.
30
= 7
20
15
3
u.
Sw
14
MEAN
NO- OF B/ US
012345
NO- OF ROTATIONS IN PZ
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
App A-5
-------
01234567
Figure A.2 - Distribution of Recirculation
in Dilution Zone
App A-6
United ftircraft of Canada Limited
-------
A.4.2 Dilution Zone Vortex
68 balls were observed.
The arithmetic mean number of rotations was 1.58 times. Max. 4
rotations min. = 1 rotation.
The distribution is shown in Figure A. 2.
A.5.0 RESULTS OF PARTICLE SPEED ASSESSMENT
The flow inside the model flametube is multi-directional with components
in the axial plane and two transverse planes. Also, the direction of any
particle of fluid changes with time. Hence, speed should be assessed
over the shortest possible interval of time.
This philosophy was adopted in the speed measurements and the photographs
chosen for this exercise were those having the shortest exposure at which
the trace lengths could be measured.
Due to the fact that some of the particles will have a considerable
transverse component to the plane of photography, it is to be expected
that the mean measured velocity will be lower than the true mean (this
will not apply to Zone A, where the flow is generally axial except for
relatively fine-scale turbulence).
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
App A-7
-------
A.5.0 RESULTS OF PARTICLE SPEED ASSESSMENT (continued)
Table A.1 - Speed Measurement Zones
Photograph
No.
o^
xf
8
Shutter
Speed
1/25 sec
1/25 sec
1/2 sec
TRACE LENGTH
A
.19 .13
.15 .17
.20 .11
.13 .15
.16 .10
.5 .5 .5
B
.40 .10
.25 .11
.15 .50
.32 .11
.11 .75
.45
C
.20 .28
.02 .03
.03
.10
.13
.13
.10
.09
.02
D
.17
.20 .10
.21
.25
.10
.10 .15
.20 .10
.15 .20
.15 .12
.25
E
.25 .10
.25
.40
.35
.10
Traces too long to measure
Table A.2 - Trace Lengths
Photograph
No.
measure
.5 .15
.5 .35
.2 .11
.10 .40
.224
E
.2
.3
.25
.10
.23
Hence, relative values for mean particle speeds in the water model are:
Zone A - 3.1 in/sec.
Zone B - 6.05 in/sec.
Zone C - 2.94 in/sec.
Zone D - 5.6 in/sec.
Zone E - 5.75 in/sec.
A.6.0 PREDICTION OF FLOW SPEEDS & RESIDENCE TIMES
Using the flow splits and recirculation rates from sections 3 and 4 and
predicted airflow distribution from computer model of Class B flametube,
the following information was obtained.
App A-8
United R ire raft of Canada Limited
-------
A.6.1 Approximate Distribution in Final Model
Table A. 3 - Combustor Geometry
Flame tube
Component
Swirler
Dome holes
Primary ports
IZ ports
DZ ports
Design Area
of Port
.0456 in2
.1247 in2
.2945 in2
.0373 in2
.0496
Water Model
Area
.0703 in2
.1247 in2
.2945 in2
.0373 in2
.0506 in2
Design
Plow
.0246 Ib/sec
.0910 Ib/sec
.2123 Ib/sec
.0272 Ib/sec
.362 Ib/sec
Model Plow
(Predicted)
.0379 Ib/sec
.0910 Ib/sec
.2123 Ib/sec
.0272 Ib/sec
.3690 Ib/sec
£ = .7374
12.34$
28.83$
3.70$
50.(
Hence, $ flows are:
Swirler
Dome holes
Prim ports
IZ ports
DZ ports
Total design flow = 1.11 Ibs/sec
.'. Plows under rig conditions of airflow, pressure and temperature,
without fuel or heat release, would be as follows:
Swirler .057 Ibs/sec
Dome holes .137 Ibs/sec
Primary ports .320 Ibs/sec
DZ ports
DZ ports
.041 Ibs/sec
.555 Ibs/sec
A.6.2 Plows in Plametube Zones
Plow in Zone A (approach) = 1.11 Ibs/sec.
Plow in Zone B (P. recirculation) = Swirler + Dome + 41.2$
prijnary jet air = .057 + .137 + .132 = .326 Ibs/sec.
Plow in Zone C (Post P. ) = Zone B flow +58.8$ primary jet
air = .326 + .188 = .514 Ibs/sec.
Plow in Zone D (intermediate Zone) = Zone C flow +1.2 ports
flow + 47.3$ 1st row dilution air = .514 + .041 +
x 47.3~j = .671 Ibs/sec.
100 -1
.f.555 (.1882 )
L (.1882 + .212)
Plow in Zone E = Total flow = 1.11 Ibs/sec.
United Pi re raft of Canada Limited
App A-9
-------
A.6.3 Flow Speeds
Table A.4 - Flow Splits
Zone
A
B
C
D
E
Vinean Axial
= W/PA
ft/sec
27.02
15.6
24.6
32.6
53.2
Mean ELowpalh
length from
photos - ins.
-
2.75
1.25
1.88
1.5
MeanHLowpath
Axial
length =R
1
2.22
1
1.25
1
# of times
over flow-
path (N)
1
2.7
1
1.58
1
Mean Speed
= Vmean Axial
xFxR ft/sec
27.02
93.5
24.6
64.5
53.2
Speed T
Speed fir
Zone A
1
3.46
.910
2.38
1.96
Comparative values of speed/speed (Zone A) from photographic traces are:
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
= 3.1
3.1
= 6.05 =
= 2.94 =
3.1
= 5.6
3.1
= 5.75 =
3.1
1.0
1.95
.95
1.81
1.85
The estimated flow speeds for zones involving recirculation are con-
siderably higher than those from the photographic traces. The initial
statement in SectionA.5accounts for some of this difference but, never
theless, it is felt that the photographic trace readings will be
nearest the true value.
Hence, until better readings are obtained, the following values of
speed/speed A will be quoted:
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.8
1.9
A.6.4 Residence Times
Estimated residence times are as follows:
Table A.5 - Residence Times
Zone
A
B
C
D
E
Vaxial
ft/sec
27.02
15.6
24.6
32.6
53.2
Zone
length ins.
-
1.25
1.25
1-5
1.5
Residence Time
sec x 103
-
6.68
4.23
3.84
2.35
These values are for design conditions of air, with no heat release.
App A-10 United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
o
o
O
^_L-y__j_A —
14
16
/
r
\
Speed ins/sec
Max. I
ZONE C fan ,
Max.-B
Mear
V
1 1 Vi^ 1 1 1 1
6 8 10
Speed ins/sec
12
14
16
16.25 in/sec
6.05 in/sec
1.685
7 in/sec
2.94 in/sec
1.383
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
App A-11
-------
Figure A.4 - DISTRIBUTION OP FLOW
SPEEDS IN WATER MODEL
CLASSWE FINAL CONFIGURATION
50
40
ZONE D
Max. Recorded
Mean
Max.-Mean
Mean
12.5 in/sec
5.6 in/sec
1.23
20
10
4 6 8 10
Speed ins/sec
12
14
16
50
40
20
10
ZONE E
6 8 10 12
Speed ins/sec
Max. Recorded
Mean
Max.-Mean
Mean
10 in/sec
5.75 in/sec
.738
14
App A-12
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
-------
APPENDIX B
United Pi re raft of Canada Limited
-------
M911268-15
APPENDIX B
COMPILATION OF COMBUSTOR CONFIGURATIONS AND TEST RESULTS
Tables B-l through B-** contain tabulations of the combustor configurations,
test conditions, and emissions data obtained during the development and evaluation
of the simple-cycle and regenerative-cycle combustors. The data compiled herein
are organized according to combustor type and chronologically according to test
number and combustor modification number. The data listed for each test consists
of combustor geometry, fuel nozzle type, inlet air pressure, inlet air temperature,
overall fuel-air ratio, combustor pressure loss, and emissions levels of NOX, CO,
and UHC. The codes describing the fuel nozzle type and air swirler geometry are
explained in Tables B-5 andB-6.
Figure B-1 - Fuel flow vs fuel pressure drop for air blast
atomizer.
Figure B-2 - Exit temperature distributions from final Class UB
combustor configuration for Federal Driving Cycle
Test Points.
United Aircraft of Canada Limited APP B- l
-------
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF SIMPLE-CYCLE (CLASS UB) COMBUSTOR CONFIGURATIONS
ro
V/l
\v\\
I
o
0)
I
0)
r
1
MOD
0
1
2
3
U
5
A
t'ia.
.23>4
.231.
.231"
.23"»
.
.231"
No
11
11
11
11
—
6
*A
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
B
Dia.
.228
.288
.288
.288
.288
.228
Plun(
Ho
12
12
12
12
12
6
ed 3,
^B
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
16
.->
T.'ia •
.S13
.213
.213
.213
.213
.213
Mo
12
12
12
12
12
12
Xr
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
n
bla-
.lliO
.lUO
.1UO
.11*0
.IbO
.1140
No
12
12
12
12
12
12
*P
2.66
2.66
2.66
2.66
2.66
2.66
E
Die-
.266
.266
.266
.188
.266
.188
No
8
8
8
8
8
8
*z
li.O
li.O
It.O
t.o
t.o
U.88
a
tiia-
.082
.082
.082
.082
Mo
Uo
140
liO
UO
"a
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0
f'a-
.153
.153
.153
.153
.153
"•
14
14
14
14
h
Re
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
AIR
SWIRLER
I
ro
-------
TABLE B-l (cont.)
i
MOD
6
7
8
9
10
11
59
60
6l
62
63
61*
A
Die-
.23**
.23lt
.231*
.231*
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
No
6
11
6
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
*A
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
B
Dia-
.228
.228
.228
No
12
12
6
Plunged 3
|
.228 | 12
Plunj
.228
$ed 3
6
Plunged 3
.228 | 6
Plunj
.228
Plunf
.228
Plunj
.228
Plun<
.228
Plun,
.161
;ed 3
6
ed 3/
6
ed 3/
11
ed 3
11
*B
1.33
1.33
1.33
/16
1.33
/16
1.33
/16
1.33
fl6
1.33
'16
1.33
'16
1.33
'1.6
1.33
;ed 3/16
11
1.33
Plunged 3/16
.161
11
1.33
Plunged 3/16
c
Dia.
.213
.213
.213
.213
No
12
12
12
12
Plunged 3/
.213
Plunf
.151
12
;ed 3/
12
Plunged 3/
.213
Plun£
.213
Plunj
.213
Flung
12
Xc
1.83
1.83
1.83
1.83
16
1.83
'16-
1.83
16
1.83
;ed 3/16
12
1.83
;ed 3/16
6
;ed 3/
1.83
16
D
Dia-
.lltO
.11*0
.209
.209
.209
.209
No
12
12
8
8
8
8
XD
2.66
2.66
U.ltO
U.ltO
U.ltO
1*.1*0
E
Dia-
.188
.188
.266
.188
.266
.266
.185
.266
.185
.266
.185
.266
.185
.266
.185
.272
.272
No
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
16
L6
XE
1*.88
1*.88
1*.88
1*.88
1*.88
1*.88
1*.88
It. 88
1*.88
1*.88
lt.88
U.88
1*.88
1*.88
1*.88
1*.88
lt.88
or
Dia-
: .082
.082
.092
.082
.082
.092
.082
.082
.093
.093
.093
.093
.093
.093
No
ItO
1*0
12
1*0
1*0
12
1*0
1*0
tO
tO
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
Ha
1.25
1.25
.80
1.25
1.25
.80
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Dia •
.153
.153
No
1*
1*
HB
.65
.65
AIR
SWIRLER
_
direction reversed
.153
.153
It
1*
.65
.65
direction reversed
.153
.153
.153
.153
.153
.153
.153
.153
1*
1*
1.
1*
I*
1*
1*
1*
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
i)
3
I
o
^»
O
Q)
Q)
a
Q)
(D
a
-------
TABLE B-l (cont.)
MOD
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
71*
75
76
A
Dia-
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.177
.185
.185
.177
No
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
*A
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
B
Dia.
.161
Plun
.172
Plun
.165
Plun
.165
Plur
.165
Plui
.165
Plun
.165
Plur
No
12
gea ;
12
ged I
12
ged I
12
ged
12
iged
12
ged :
12
ged
XB
1.33
i/16
1.33
i/16
1.33
Y16
1.33
3/16
1.33
3/16
1.33
3/16
1.33
3/16
C
Dia-
No
XC
D
Dia.
.209
.209
.209
.209
.209
.209
.209
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
a99
No
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
XD
it.ito
It.ltO
It.ltO
It.ltO
k.ho
l*.l»0
It.ltO
It.ltO
It.ltO
k.hO
h.hO
It.itO
li.Uo
It.ltO
It.ltO
5.60
5.60
E
Dia.
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
XE
14.88
It. 88
It. 88
Itl88
It. 88
It. 88
It. 88
1*.88
It. 88
14.88
14.88
5.90
a
Dia.
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
Mo
ItO
»40
ItO
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Ka
1-25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
Dia-
.153
.153
.153
.153
.200
.200
.153
.153
.153
.153
.153
.153
(
Mo
It
It
14
It
It
14
14
U
It
U
U
It
K(5
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
AIR
SWIRLER
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Cfl
-------
TABLE 6-1 (cont.)
I
MOD
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
81*
85
86
87
88
89
A
Dia-
.177
.187
.187
.187
.187
.187
.187
.187
.187
.132
.132
.132
.132
No
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
21*
21*
21*
21*
*A
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
B
Dia.
.062
.128
No
12
12
XB
1.33
1.33
-
Dia-
No
Xc
D
Dia-
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
.199
.209
.199
.11*1*
•'"
No
8
8
8
8
8
a
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
16
16
XD
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
E
Die-
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
XE
5.90
5.90
5-90
5>90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5-90
5.90
5.90
5.90
a
Die-
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.082
.058
No
1.0
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
20
20
20
20
20
1*0
Ro
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.10
Dia-
.153
.153
.153
.153
.153
.161
.171
.171
.171
.171
.171
.171
.171
No
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
u
U
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
RP
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
AJR
SWIRLER
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
en
-------
TABLE B-l (cont.)
i
00
I
MOD
90
91
92
93
9U
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
101*
A
Dia-
.132
.132
.132
No
21.
2k
21*
—
*A
.83
.60
.60
B
Dia.
.091
.091
.091
.091
.091
.062
.091
.062
.062
.062
.062
.062
No
12
12
12
21*
21*
22
21*
22
22
22
22
22
XB
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
C .
Dia -
No
xc
D
Dia-
.11*1*
.11*1.
.201*
.201*
.201*
.201*
.201*
.201*
.201*
.201*
.188
.188
.188
.188
.188
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
XD
5.6o
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
E
Dia -
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
XE
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
or
Dia.
.062
.062
.062
.062
.062
.062
.062
.062
.082
.062
.062
.062
.062
.062
.062
nli n
.062
.01*0
No
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
10
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
1*0
uo
1 9
1*0
20
RO
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.25
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
OS
1.10
.95
Dia.
.171
.171
.171
.171
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.205
.205
.205
No
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
RP
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
AIR
SWIRLER
2
2
2
2
2
2
U
1*
1*
1»
1*
1*
1*
U
1*
DO
Oi
-------
TABLE &.-1 (cont.)
•o
MOD
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
111*
115
116
t)ia.
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
.025
A
No
—
1*8
U8
1*8
72
120
96
*A
—
.1*0-
.60
.60-
.80
.60-
.80
.20-
.60
.20-
1.0
.20-
.80
Dia.
.062
.062
.062
.062
B
No
22
22
22
22
—
—
XB
1.33
1.33
1.33
1.33
Dia.
.01*0
.Ol»0
.01*0
.01*0
.01*0
.01*0
.01*0
.01*0
.01*0
.oUo
.01*0
c .
No
l!*l»
21*
1*8
72
21*
21*
21*
21*
21*
21*
21*
Xc
1.5-
2.25
1.5
1.65-
1.80
1.95-
2.25
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Dia.
.11*1*
.11*1*
.177
.177
.177
.177
.177
.177
.177
.177
.177
.177
D
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
XD
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
I
Dia •
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
•>
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
XE
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.00
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
a
Dia.
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
.062
.01*0
No
1*0
12
1*0
20
1*0
20
1*0
20
1*0
20
1*0
12
1*0
12
1*0
12
1*0
12
1*0
12
1*0
12
1*0
12
R*
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
1.10
.95
Dia-
.205
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
No
1*
1*
1*
1*
1.
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
He
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
AIR
SWIFT.KR
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
2
2
2
2
-------
TABLE B-l (cont.)
MOD
132
133
13U
135
136
137
138
139
ll*0
lUl
11*2
11*3
ll»l*
11*5
11*6
1U7
11*8
Dia.
.091
.091
.091
.091
.091
.091
.091
.091
.091
.091
.089
.089
.089
.089
.089
.089
.089
A
No
2l»
2U
2l»
2U
21*
2U
21*
2l»
21*
21*
2U
2U
2l»
21*
?1*
21*
21*
*A
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
Dia.
B
No
—
—
—
—
*B
—
—
—
—
Dia-
.oUo
c
No
—
22
—
—
*C
2.25
Dia.
.11*1*
.11*1*
.176
.20U
.201*
.201*
.201*
.201*
.201*
.201*
.20U
.191*
.191*
.191*
.181
.1815
.182
D
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
*D
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
5.60
I
Dia-
.192
.192
.192
.192
.192
.236
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.272
.261
.266
.266
.266
.266
••
No
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
XE
5-90
5.90
5-90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
5.90
a
Die-
.062
.01*0
.01*0
.oUo
.01*0
.01*0
.01*0
.01*0
.01*0
.oi»o
1
No
140
—
12
20
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Ra
1.10
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
Dia-
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.201
.173
.173
.173
.173
.173
.173
.173
No
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
U
1*
1*
1*
Re
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
.65
ATR
SWIRLER
2
2
2
2
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
k
1*
U
1*
1*
1*
1*
1*
ft)
00
-------
SUMMARY OF TEST
TABLE B-2
DATA FROM SIMPLE-CYCLE (CLASS UB) COMBUSTOR
(ZERO HUMIDITY)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
7/AB/O
8/AB/O
9/AA/O
10/AA/O
11/AA/O
12/AA/O
13/PA1/0
ll»/PAl/0
15/AA/l
17/AA/l
18/AA/l
19/AA/2
20/AA/2
21/AB/3
22/AB/3
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*7.0
1*6.0
53.0
1.6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
1*6.0
53.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*65.0
1*25.0
1*55.0
1*25.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*20.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
^^^_
^^^_
,
_
..^ ^^
?uel-
Air
h at i -i
o.oioU
0.0071
o.oioi*
0.0081
0.0083
0.0118
0.0062
0.0098
0.0069
0.0096
0.0068
0.0068
0.0091
0.0087
0.0065
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
21.7
13.6
20.2
15.5
16.6
23.2
16.5
26.0
16.0
22.3
17.0
16.00
22.25
22.00
15.75
El
3.36
3.06
3.115
3.075
3.19
3.16
1*.268
U.280
3.71
3.76
1*.05
3.795
3.9>»0
1*.05
3.88
g/mi»
1.125
1.026
1.01*3
1.029
1.068
1.059
1.1*29
1.1*33
1.2l*
1.260
1.350
1.27
1.32
1.356
1.298
CO
ppm
362.0
276.0
1*60.0
31*9.0
393.0
1*88.0
350.0
382.0
322.0
368.0
283.0
1*56.0
1*19.0
51*0.0
592.0
El
31*. lU
37.86
>*3.19
1*2.16
1*6.02
1*0.50
55-20
38.31
1*6.91*
37.71*
1*1.03
65.86
1*5.22
60.56
88.77
g/mi*
11.1*3
12.67
11*. 1*6
lU.ll
15.1*1
13.56
18.1*8
12.83
15.72
12.63
13.73
22.05
15. ll*
20.27
29.72
UHC (CgH^)
ppm C
59.0
1*9.0
1*9.0
26.0
26.0
56.0
38.0
18.0
55.0
1*6.0
38.0
115.0
25.0
155.0
1*1*5.0
El
2.85
3.1*5
2.36
1.6l
1.56
2.38
3.069
0.925
3.985
2.1*2
2.82
8.510
1.382
8.91
3!».20
g/mi»
0.955
1.151*
0.790
0.539
0.522
0.798
1.027
0.310
1.33
0.81
0.95
2.850
O.U63
2.98
11.1*5
Cd
CD
Vehicle Fuel Economy =8.6 miles/gal
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont.)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
23/PA1/3
2U/PA1/3
30/AB/O
31/AB/O
32/AA/O
33/AA/O
3l*/AA/3
35/AA/3
38/AA/2
39/AA/2
l*0/AA/l»
1»1/AA/1*
1»2/AA/1*
1*3/AA/1»
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*7.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*25.0
1*25.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
_BW—
^^^^^
_., ^
_ —
^__
—
•^•0—
_ —
_
-
—
Fuel-
Air
l:. at i T
0.0091*
0.006U
0.0069
0.0099
0.0073
0.0106
0.0073
0.0106
0.0073
0.0103
0.0073
0.0102
0.0072
0.0103
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (H02)
ppm
22.5
15.5
12.75
21*. 5
13.75
23.50
lU.O
21.0
5.50
9.00
7.25
1*.50
6.75
5.50
El
3.875
3.882
2.977
3.995
3.010
3.578
3.065
3.197
1.212
1.1*08
1.598
0.713
1.500
0.857
g/mi*
1.297
1.300
0.997
1.337
1.008
1.198
1.026
1.070
0.1*06
0.1*72
0.535
0.239
0.502
0.287
CO
ppm
51*0.0
5**3.0
395.1
299.7
358.3
393.0
1*93.9
1*1*1.5
325.7
363.0
3U0.3
1*90.1*
330.6
1*75.7
El
56.58
82.80
56.16
29.76
1*7.75
36.1.3
65.83
1*0.93
1*3.70
31*. 58
U5.67
1*7.32
1*1*. 73
1*5.16
g/mi»
18.9U
27.72
18.80
9-962
15.99
12.19
22.01*
13.70
11*. 63
11.58
15-29
15.81*
ll*.98
15.12
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
235.0
265.0
260.0
1*1.0
1*0.0
25.0
300.0
21*. 0
130.0
87.0
66.00
130.0
36.00
El
12.63
20.72
18.95
2.087
2.731*
1.188
20.50
l.ll»l
8.9U6
1*.25
l».5l*2
6.1*32
2.1*98
g/mi«
U.229
6.937
6.31*1*
0.699
0.915
0.398
6.86U
0.382
2.991*
1.1*23
1.520
2.153
0.836
C
Q
D
fl)
r
1
03
i-*
o
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont.)
•o
oo
Test Ho./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combustor Mod
UU/AA/3
U5/AA/3
U6/AA/5
l*7/AA/5
U8/AA/6
U9/AA/6
50/PA2/6
51/PA2/6
52/AA/7
53/AA/7
5U/AA/8
55/AA/8
56/AA/9
57/AA/9
58/AA/10
59/AA/10
60/AA/ll
61/AA/ll
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*27.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
U5T.O
1*25.0
U60.0
1*25.0
1*50.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*57.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
^_^»
Fuel-
Air
h at i ->
0.0062
0.0102
0.0072
0.0103
0.0073
0.0103
0.0072
0.008U
0.0073
0.0101*
0.0072
o.oioi*
0.0072
0.0099
0.0073
0.0102
0.0073
0.0102
Pollutant Emissions
HOX (H02)
ppm
3.50
7.25
U.50
9.50
1.80
lp.0
2.50
3.50
5.00
13.00
5.00
11.50
2.50
7.00
3.50
5.25
i*.oo
12.00
El
0.909
1.11*1
0.999
1.1*82
0.397
1.572
0.559
0.669
1.10U
2.015
1.119
1.789
0.555
1.136
0.776
0.830
0.879
1.889
g/mi»
0.30U
0.382
0.331*
0.1*96
0.133
0.526
0.187
0.221*
0.370
0.675
0.375
0.599
0.186
0.380
0.260
0.278
0.291*
0.632
CO
ppm
391*. 7
1*31.2
369.9
279.3
1*93.1*
36U. 0
1*25.1
360.1*
1*39.3
1*90.1*
3U6.3
325.0
1*5U. 9
1*91.9
311.7
313.5
291.9
236.1
El
62.1*2
1*1.32
1*9.98
26.51*
66.21
31*. 85
57.85
1*1.92
59.01*
1*6.29
1*7.18
30.79
61.1*7
1*8.60
1*2.06
30.16
39.06
22.62
g/mi«
20.90
13.83
16.73
8.88U
22.17
11.67
19.36
lU.03
19.77
15.50
15.80
10.31
20.58
16.27
ll».08
10.10
13.08
7.571*
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
82.0
1*0.0
165.0
170.0
El
57.28
19.1*3
11.1*3
8.612
g/mi»
19.18
0.65
3.827
2.883
-------
TABLE 8-2 (cont.)
i
Ul
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
186/DAA/59
187/DAA/59
188/DAA/60
189/DAA/60
190/DAA/61
191/DAA/61
192/DAA/62
193/DAA/62
19U /DM/6 3
195/DAA/63
196/DAA/6U
197/DAA/6U
198/DAA/65
199/DAA/65
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
U6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
U6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
U57.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*65.0
1*27.0
1*60.0
1*30.0
U60.0
1*25.0
U60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin Xl°°
2.5
2.6
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.1*
2.7
2.8
2.2
2.3
2.U
2.5
Fuel-
Air
P.atiT
0.0102
0.0073
o.oioi*
0.0071*
0.0101*
0.0071*
0.010U
0.007!*
0.0105
0.0073
0.010U
0.0071*
0.0101*
0.0073
Pollutant Emissions
KOX (N02)
ppm
8.25
3.50
ll*.25
8.75
12.75
5.90
13.5
5.5
13.75
3.20
13.75
5.30
15.75
7.50
El
1.300
0.771*
2.217
1.898
1.980
1.290
2.091
1.188
2.109
0.708
2.127
1.157
2.1*50
1.653
g/mi*
0.»»35
0.259
0.71*2
0.635
0.663
0.1*32
0.699
0.398
0.706
0.237
0.712
0.387
0.820
0.553
CO
ppm
277.0
32U. 1
236.8
256.1
268.8
31*7.5
21*7.0
31*8.2
205.0
31*5.7
153.2
230.1
127.7
186.7
El
26.57
1*3.61
22. U3
33.82
25.1*2
1*6.26
23.29
1*5.79
19.11*
1*6.59
11*. 1*3
30.59
12.09
25.06
g/mi*
8.891*
ii».6o
7.508
11.32
8.508
15.1*9
7-796
15.33
6.1*08
15.60
1*.830
10.21*
l*.0l»9
8.388
UHC (C6H1)4)
ppm C
110.0
110.0
2l».0
27.0
1*7.0
72.0
21.0
37.0
25.0
73.0
23.0
31*. o
15.0
29.0
El
5.1*10
7.590
1.166
1.828
2.279
U.915
1.015
2.1*95
1.197
5.0UU
1.111
2.318
0.728
1.995
g/mi*
1.811
2.5>»1
0.390
0.612
0.763
1.61*5
0.31*0
0.835
0.1*01
1.689
0.372
0.776
0.2l»U
0.668
C
3
5
3
I
o
-h
O
fi)
I
Q)
C
•o
(S3
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont.)
i
in
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
200/DAA/66
201/DAA/66
202/DAA/66
203/DAA/66
20U/DAA/66
205/DAA/66
206/DAA/67
207/DAA/6?
208/DAA/68
209/DAA/68
210/DAA/69
211/DAA/69
212/DAA/70
213/DAA/70
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
U6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*60.0
.1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*63.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
U60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
2.1.
2.1*
2.3
2.1*
2.3
2.1*
2.3
2.1*
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.1.
2.6
ruel-
Air
h at i ">
O.OIOU
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.0073
0.0101*
0.0071*
0.0103
0.0073
0.0103
0.0073
0.0101*
0.0073
0.0101*
0.0071*
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
17.5
7-5
10.25
3.80
10.0
2.8
15.0
1*.6
12.65
i*.oo
11.98
3.12
11.6
1.98
El
2.707
1.631
1.590
0.832
1.551
0.609
2.31*5
1.010
1.971*
0.881
1.86U
0.685
1.798
0.1*28
g/mi*
0.906
0.5>*6
0.532
0.279
0.519
0.20U
0.785
0.338
0.661
0.295
0.621*
0.229
0.602
0.11*3
CO
ppm
112.9
163.0
1,71.9
278.6
162.1
290.6
ll*9.2
290.3
106.9
236.9
111.9
265.6
105.5
302.1
El
10.63
21.58
16.23
37.11*
15.31
38.1*7
lU.20
.38.80
10.16
31.75
10.59
35.1*9
9.951
39.78
g/mi»
3.559
7.221*
5.1*35
12.1*3
5.127
12.88
1..751*
12.99
3.1*00
10.63
3.5>*7
11.88
3.331
13.32
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
is.o
27.0
110.0
130.0
lUO.O
200.0
23.0
58.0
16.2
89.6
72.2
92.8
95.8
88.8
El
0.869
1.833
5.327
8.885
6.780
13.58
1.122
3.975
0.789
6.157
3.507
6.360
1*.635
5.996
g/mi»
0.291
0.61U
1.783
2.971*
2.270
1*.5»*5
0.376
1.331
0.26U
2.061
1.171*
2.129
1.552
2.007
C
ff
Q.
D
3
i
a
o
Q)
Q.
fi)
CD
a
t
w
CO
-------
TABLE 8-2 (cont.)
00
I
Test No. /
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
21U/DAA/71
215/DAA/71
216/DAA/71
217/DAA/71
218/DAA/71
219/DAA/72
220/DAA/72
221/DAA/73
222/DAA/73
223/DAA/7U
22l»/DAA/7l*
225/DAA/75
226/DAA/75
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
U6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
l»6o.O
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*55.0
U25.0
1*55.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.831*
Fuel-
Air
l:. at i ->
0.0105
0.0075
0.01032
0.0073
o.oioi*
0.0073
0.0101*
0.0073
o.oioi*
0.0073
0.0103
0.0073
Pollutant Bnissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
11.50
2.1*1*
11.28
3.88
22.70
11.65
19.65
10.20
21*. 05
10.15
22.60
8.60
El
1.772
0.521*
1.762
0.858
3.528
2.551*
3.051*
2.251*
3.7!»2
2.228
3.533
1.885
g/mi*
0.593
0.176
0.590
0.287
1.181
0.855
1.022
0.755
1.253
0.71*6
1.183
0.631
CO
ppm
109.1*
300.2
139.1*
262.7
22.07
72.53
22.57
88.80
22.07
108.5
26.97
123.1*
El
10.27
39.27
13.26
35.31*
2.089
9.680
2.135
11.95
2.091
1U.51
2.567
16.1*7
g/mi»
3.1*37
13.15
U.l*37
11.83
0.699
3.21*1
0.715
i».ooo
0.700
1».856
0.859
5.513
UHC (C6Hllt)
ppm C
93.0
100.2
75.2
99.2
25.8
20.2
1*0.1*
26.0
20.8
16.8
39.2
28.8
El
1».1*7U
6.721
3.666
6.81*5
1.252
1.382
1.960
1.791*
1.010
1.151
1.913
1.971
g/mi»
1.1*98
2.250
1.227
2.291
0.1*19
0.1*63
0.656
0.601
0.338
0.385
0.61*0
0.660
C
§'
Q.
5
3
I
o
-t»
o
03
r
1
I
(0
I
-------
TABLE 6-2 (cont.)
i
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Comtmstor Mod
227/DAA/76
228/DAA/76
229/DAA/76
230/DAA/77
231/DAA/77
232/DAA/78
233/DAA/78
23U/DAA/79
235/DAA/79
236/DAA/80
237/DAA/80
238/DAA/81
239/DAA/81
2UO/DAA/82
2U1/DAA/82
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
U55.0
1*25.0
1*55.0
1*55.0
1*25.0
1*55.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25-0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*59.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
3.01*3
3.3
3.2
2.9
3.1
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.8
ruel-
Air
h at i ->
o.oioi*
0.0071*
0.0101*
0.0103
0.0073
0.0103
0.0073
0.0101*
0.0071*
O.OIOU
0.0073
0.0101*
0.0071*
0.0101*
0.007!*
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
32.75
15.7
32.1
25.85
ll*.l*0
•
25.75
12.20
21*. 75
ll*.l*0
23.10
13.05
23.8
11.7
23.35
11.90
El
5.066
3.1*11.
1*.981*
U.033
3.183
1».029
2.682
3.850
3.136
3.580
2.872
3.706
2.531*
3.605
2.588
g/mi«
1.696
l.ll*3
1.669
1.350
1.065
1.31*9
0.898
1.289
1.050
1.198
0.962
1.2l»l
0.81*8
1.207
0.866
CO
ppm
8.82
12.73
8.83
6.86
80.1*2
9.81
132.3
6.86
iolt.6
9.8l
129.3
9.32
156.1*
10.79
129.3
El
0.831
1.685
0.835
0.652
10.82
0.931*
17.70
0.650
13.86
0.926
17.32
0.883
20.62
1.015
17.12
g/mi»
0.278
0.561*
0.279
0.218
3.622
0.313
5.926
0.218
l».6»tl
0.310
5.799
0.296
6.903
0.31*0
5.730
UHC (C6Hll4)
ppm C
2.2
2.1*
1.52
1.6
2.3
2.0
3.7
2.15
3.22
3.80
U.55
1.55
5.25
2.56
l*.66
El
0.106
0.163
0.071*
0.078
0.159
0.098
0.251*
O.lOl*
0.219
0.181*
0.313
0.075
0.355
0.123
0.316
g/mi"
0.036
0.055
0.025
0.026
0.053
0.033
0.085
0.035
0.073
0.062
0.105
0.025
0.119
0.01*1
0.106
w
I
fjl
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont.)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
2U2/DAA/83
2U3/DAA/83
2l»l»/DAA/81*
2l»5/DAA/81*
2U6/DAA/85
2U7/DAA/85
2U8/DAA/86
2l*9/DAA/86
250/DAA/87
251/DAA/87
252/DAA/88
253/DAA/88
25VDAA/89
255/DAA/89
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
U6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
U6.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*58.0
U25.0
1*56.0
1»2>*.0
1*56.0
1*25.0
1*55.0
U25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*58.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
2.6
2.7
3.0
3.1
2.6
2.8
2.9
3.0
It. 8
>».9
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.6
?uel-
Air
hatii
0.010U
0.0071*
0.010U
0.007U
o.oioi*
0.0073
0.0103
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.0073
0.0105
0.007U
0.0101*
0.0073
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
21*. 1*5
10.75
28.90
13.55
27.25
•
12.25
23. 1*
15.6
21.35
2.21*
25.00
10.50
20.85
7.15
El
3.800
2.350
U.l*88
2.962
1*.239
2.689
3.668
3. ^10
3.315
0.1*95
3.8U9
2.277
3.228
1.567
g/mi*
1.272
0.787
1.502
0.992
1.1*19
0.900
1.228
l.ll»2
1.110
0.166
1.288
0.762
1.081
0.525
CO
ppm
11.28
11*9.0
8.82
66.11
18.61*
98.69
6.38
75.99
82.38
32.70
21.57
191. !»
20. 59
209.2
El
1.068
19.8U
0.831*
8.799
1.765
13.19
0.609
10.11
7.788
52.58
2.022
25.28
1.9M
27.92
g/mi»
0.358
6.61*1
0.279
2.9U6
0.591
1*.1*15
0.201*
3.386
2.607
17.60
0.677
8.1*62
0.650
9.31*8
UHC (CgHlU)
ppm C
1.75
6.10
1.6
3.U
1.7
5.0
1.3
2.3
1.3
390.7
2.200
3.900
0.86
7.15
El
0.085
0.1*16
0.078
0.232
0.083
0.3l»3
0.06U
0.157
0.063
2.257
0.106
0.26U
0.01*2
0.1*89
g/mi«
0.028
0.139
0.026
0.078
0.028
0.115
0.021
0.053
0.021
0.755
0.035
0.088
O.Oll*
0.16U
C
5
3
i
o
Q)
C
I
-------
TABLE 6-2 (cont.)
Test Ho./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
256/DAA/90
257/DAA/90
258/DAA/90
259/DAA/90
260/DAA/91
261/DAA/91
262/DAA/91
263/DAA/91
26U/DAA/92
265/DAA/92
266/DAA/93
267/DAA/93
268/DAA/91*
269/DAA/91*
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
U6.0
53.0
53.0
1*6.0
1*6.0
53.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*60.0
1*25.0
U57.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
l*2l*.0
1*23.0
1*60.0
1*60.0
1*21*. 0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*56.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin Xl°°
3.1*
3.5
3.1*
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.7
3.9
3.752
3.6
3.9
Fuel-
Air
hatiT
0.0103
0.007U
O.OIOU
0.007U
O.OIOU
0.0071*
0.0073
0.0103
0.0105
0.0071*
0.007U
O.OlOlt
0.0101*
0.0075
Pollutant Emissions
HOX (N02)
ppm
21.05
8.90
22.05
7.35
21.75
1».680
U.OUO
20.90
1*0.28
6.110
21.85
1*9.90
51.00
20.55
El
3.291*
1.9l»6
3.1*30
1.598
3.361.
1.015
0.891
3.261
6.202
1.325
1..719
7.712
7.927
U.U33
g/mi«
1.103
0.651
1.11*8
0.535
1.126
0.31*0
0.298
1.092
2.076
0.1*1*1*
1.580
2.582
2.651*
1.1*81.
CO
ppm
27. U6
230.9
23,53
21*0.7
9.313
329.1.
351*.!
10.79
lU.ll
351*. o
1*.929
32.82
2U.OO
10.35
El
2.616
30.71*
2.229
31.87
0.877
1*3.50
1*7.53
1.025
1.322
1.6.75
0.61*8
3.088
2.271
1.360
g/mi»
0.876
10.29
0.7l»6
10.67
0.291*
11*. 56
15.91
0.3U3
0.1*1*3
15.65
0.2170
1.031*
0.760
0.1*55
UHC (C6HlU)
ppm C
0.82
5.20
2.200
9.1*00
0.900
11.30
li:70
0.700
3.1*00
25.50
2.200
1.200
1.150
1.1*00
El
0.01*0
0.355
0.107
0.638
0.0l»3
0.765
0.805
0.031*
0.163
1.727
O.ll»8
0.058
0.056
0.09U
g/mi"
0.013
0.119
0.036
0.21U
0.015
0.256
0.270
0.011
0.055
0.578
0.050
0.019
0.019
0.032
i
a
B
3
I
a
o
§
Q)
a
Q>
C
i
i
(X)
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont.)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
270/DAA/95
271/DAA/95
272/DAA/96
273/DAA/96
27U/DAA/97
275/DAA/97
276/DAA/98
277/DAA/98
278/DAA/99
279/DAA/99
280/DAA/100
281/DAA/100
282/DAA/101
283/DAA/101
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1.6.0
53.0
1.6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1.6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*58.0
1.25.0
1*56.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*63.0
1.28.0
1.60.0
1*25.0
1*63.0
1*23.0
1*62.0
1*22.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
— ~ — — ™~— X1UU
Pin
3.3
3.U
3.2
3.3
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.2
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.5
3.6
Fuel-
Air
1-atiT
o.oioi*
0.0073
0.010U
0.0075
0.010U
0.0071.
0.0105
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.0071.
0.010U
0.0075
0.010U
0.0071*
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (JJ02)
ppm
32.20
15.1*0
29.15
13.90
28.27
•
13.20
25.70
12.88
23.06
13.2U
22.50
10.65
27.10
12.95
El
5.005
3.371
U.501
2.991*
l*.38l
2.871.
3.960
2.808
3.571.
2.879
3.1*90
2.297
1..216
2.820
g/mi*
1.675
1.129
1.507
1.002
1.1*67
0.962
1.326
0.91*0
1.196
0.961.
1.168
0.769
1.1*11
0.9l»l»
CO
ppm
11.76
12.33
8:333
30.58
5.392
68.06
1*.1*12
59.20
3.922
86.33
3.922
128.3
6.866
28.61
El
1.113
1.6U3
0.783
1..010
0.509
9.022
O.Ull*
7.858
0.370
11.1*3
0.370
16.85
0.650
3.793
g/mi»
0.373
0.550
0.262
1.31*3
0.170
3.020
0.139
2.631
0.12U-
3.826
0.121*
5.639
0.218
1.270
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
0.800
1.500
1.300
1.300
1.800
lt.000
1.600
2.100
1.1*00
2.800
0.900
U.900
2.100
2.500
El
0.039
0.103
0.063
0.087
0.087
0.272
0.077
O.ll»3
0.068
0.190
0.0l»l*
0.330
0.102
0.170
g/mi»
0.013
0.031*
0.021
0.029
0.029
0.091
0.026
O.OU8
0.023
0.061*
0.015
0.111
0.031*
0.057
C
a
0)
C
•o
tJJ
00
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont.)
G
Test Ho./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
28U/DAA/102
285/DAA/102
286/DAA/103
287/DAA/103
288/DAA/lOl*
289/DAA/10U
290/DAA/105
291/DAA/105
292/DAA/106
293/DAA/106
29l»/DAA/107
295/DAA/107
296/DAA/108
297/DAA/108
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1»6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1»6.0
53.0
U6.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*60.0
1*25.0
1(60.0
1*25.0
U60.0
1*22.0
1*60.0
1*29.0
1*53.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
3.5
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.U
3.5
U.I
U.I.
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.1*
3.2
3.1.
Fuel-
Air
hatiT
0.010U
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.0073
O.OlOl*
0.0073
0.0106
0.007U
0.010U
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.0071*
Pollutant Emissions
HOX (N02)
ppm
27.35
13.35
26.76
11.07
28.1*5
10.36
23. U8
7.09
23.60
2.220
2U. 00
8.51*0
3l». 05
10.33
El
1*.255
2.903
1*.159
2.1*30
U.U13
2.271*
3.558
1.5UO
3.672
0.1*85
3.730
1.857
5.297
2.2U6
g/mi*
1.1*21*
0.972
1.392
O.SlU
1.1*77
0.761
1.191
0.516
1.229
0.162
1.21*9
0.622
1.773
0.752
CO
ppm
10.80
28.13
7,. 363
63.21
6.37
115.9
5.873
182.1*
23.53
1*68.7
15.69
179.5
8.820
199.5
El
1.023
3.721*
0.697
8.1*1*7
0.695
15.1*9
0.5U2
.21*. 11
2.229
62.31
1.1*81*
23.77
0.835
26.1*1
g/mi*
0.3U2
1.21*7
0.233
2.828
0.233
5.186
0.181
8.073
0.71*6
20.86
0.1*97
7.956
0.280
8.81*1
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
7.00
2.100
1.300
3.500
1.300
8.1*00
1.500
8.900
1.900
65.30
10.20
22.60
2.150
16.10
El
0.3UO
O.ll»3
0.063
0.21*0
0.01*9
0.576
0.071
0.603
0.092
1*.1»52
0.1*95
1.531*
o.ioi*
1.093
g/mi»
O.llU
0.01*8
0.021
0.080
0.016
0.193
0.02U
0.202
0.031
1.1*90
0.166
0.51U
0.035
0.366
C
I
Q.
D
O
S
0)
r
1
•o
(X)
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont.)
i
JS
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
298/DAA/108
299/DAA/108
300/DAA/109
301/DAA/109
302/DAA/110
303/DAA/110
30l»/DAA/lll
305/DAA/lll
306/DAA/112
307/DAA/112
308/DAA/113
309/DAA/113
310/DAA/lll
311/DAA/lll
312/DAA/lll
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
53.0
1.6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*57.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1»55.0
1*23.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.1*
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.7
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.6
Fuel-
Air
l-.atiT
o.oioi*
0.007U
0.0103
0.0075
0.0101*
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.010U
0.0075
Pollutant Emissions
Kq, (N02)
ppm
33.95
11.93
35.91*
10.82
29.66
•
12.61*
20.02
1».780
29.56
6.960
27.61*
7.1*20
37.20
36.51*
11.22
El
5.272
2.59>*
5.607
2.331*
l*.6ll*
2.763
3.109
1.01*1*
U.586
1.511
U.280
1.616
5.760
5.685
2.1*20
g/mi"
1.765
0.869
1.877
0.781
1.5»t5
0.925
1.01*1
0.31*9
1.535
0.506
1.1*33
0.5M
1.928
1.903
0.810
CO
ppm
6.870
153.0
7.353
160.8
7.31*1
87-68
58.83
105.6
1*9.92
89.75
1*6. 5li
61.18
9.801*
9.803
67.07.
El
0.650
20.25
0.699
21.12
0.695
11.67
5.562
1U.03
U.715
11.87
1*.387
8.110
0.92U
0.929
8.809
g/mi*
0.217
6.781
0.231*
7.071
0.233
3.907
1.862
U.698
1.579
3.972
1.1.69
2.715
0.309
0.311
2.91*9
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
0.700
9.200
0.600
9.300
1.000
3.U60
101.0
99.20
51*. 1*0
58.90
67.20
73.20
1.200
1.000
8.250
El
0.031*
0.625
0.029
0.626
0.01*9
0.236
1*.896
6.761
2.635
3.993
3.21*8
1*.976
0.058
0.01*9
0.556
g/mi»
0.011
0.209
0.010
0.210
0.016
0.079
1.639
2.263
0.882
1.337
1.087
1.666
0.019
0.016
0.186
-------
TABLE 8-2 (cont.)
i
in
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
313/DAA/113
31U/DAA/113
315/DAA/lll
316/DAA/lll
317/DAA/lll
318/DAA/lll
319/DAA/lll*
320/DAA/llU
321/DAA/lll*
322/DAA/lll*
323/DAA/lll
32l»/DAA/lll
325/DAA/115
326/DAA/115
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1»6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
U6.0
k6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1.6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*63.0
1*25.0
1*55.0
1*29.0
1*56.0
1*23.0
1*58.0
1*29.0
1*25.0
1*22.0
1*58.0
1*21*. 0
1*57.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin Xl°°
3.6
3.8
3.3
3.U
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.7
1..1*
fc.8
3.5
3.7
3.U
3.6
Fuel-
Air
1-atiT
o.oioi*
0.0071*
0.0101*
0.0071*
0.0101*
0.007k
o.oioi*
0.0075
0.0067
0.0061*
0.0101*
0.0071*
o.oioi*
0.0071*
Pollutant Emissions
KOX (N02)
ppm
38.1*0
16.88
36.50
9.86
37.. 76
13.02
37.80
12.38
5.80
i».oo
35.36
13.36
33.06
12. 51*
El
5.951
3.675
5.678
2.11*1*
5.81*7
2.831
5.858
2.667
1.382
0.999
5.VT5
2.893
5.11*8
2.730
g/mi«
1.992
1.230
1.901
0.718
1.957
0.9li8
1.961
0.893
0.1*63
0.331*
1.833
0.969
1.723
0.911*
CO
ppm
13.23
35.02
ll*.'70
181.0
9.801
31.56
9.802
55.73
IOU.0
175.9
10.79
18.75
7.81*
68.06
El
1.21*9
U.6l»3
1.393
23.96
0.921*
1*.178
0.925
7.309
15.08
26.71*
1.018
2.1*72
0.7»*3
9.022
g/mi*
0.1.18
1.551*
0.1.66
8.021
0.309
1.399
0.310
2.1*1.7
5-01.9
8.950
0.31*1
0.828
0.21.9
3.020
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
0.600
1.700
0.700
29.30
0.900
1.700
1.100
2.100
6.00
11.50
1.200
1.200
1.50
2.70
El
0.029
0.116
0.031*
1.989
O.OU1*
0.115
0.053
0.11.1
0.1*1*6
0.896
0.058
0.081
0.073
0.181*
g/mi»
0.010
0.039
0.011
0.666
0.015
0.039
0.018
0.01*7
0.11*9
0.300
0.019
0.027
0.021*
0.061
C
D
3
i
o
Q)
C
I
to
-------
TABLE 6-2 (cont.)
OD
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
327/DAA/116
328/DAA/116
329/DAA/117
330/DAA/117
331/DAA/11T
332/DAA/118
333/DAA/118
33U/DAA/118
335/DAA/119
336/DAA/119
337/DAA/120
338/DAA/12Q
339/DAA/121
3l»0/DAA/121
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
1*6.0
53.0
1»6.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*60.0
1*30.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
U25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*57-0
1*25.0
1*55.0
1*26.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
3.5
3.6
3.3
3.5
1».2
I*. 8
1*.9
U.5
U.6
1..7
It. 9
5.1
1*.9
5.1
Fuel—
Air
hati-i
0.0103
0.0075
o.oioi*
0.0071*
0.0067
0.0103
0.0071*
0.0078
0.0101*
0.007k
0.0103
0.0071*
O.OIOU
0.007!*
Pollutant Emissions
KOX (N02)
ppm
31*. 30
13.12
35.0U
11*. 3U
7%.8o
27.50
3.1*8
6.70
28.36
2.67
25.86
l*.3l*0
25.16
I».l6
El
5.362
2.826
5.1*36
3.110
1.878
1».299
0.761
1.390
1*.1*08
0.581
U.035
0.9l»l*
3.911
0.908
g/mi«
1.795
0.91*6
1.820
1.01*1
0.629
1.1*39
0.255
0.1*65
1.1*76
0.191*
1.351
0.3160
1.309
0.301*
CO
ppm
8.82
1*5.86
5:8t
1*8.31
170.1*
7.83
1*92.8
31*1.5
11.75
1*92.8
7.337
1*21.3
9.30
1*1*5.6
El
0.839
6. OlU
0.556
6.379
21*. 98
0.71*5
65.60
1*3.11*
1.112
65.25
0.697
55.79
0.880
59.21*
g/mi»
0.281
2.013
0.186
2.135
8.363
0.250
21.96
ll».l»l*
0.372
21.8U
0.233
18.68
0.295
19.83
UHC (CgHlU)
ppm C
1.10
1.80
0.70
1.1*0
6.00
1.00
30.10
10.17
2.00
1*8.00
1.600
18.30
1.20
22.30
El
0.051*
0.121
0.031*
0.095
0.1*51
0.01*9
2.055
0.659
0.097
3.259
0.078
1.21*3
0.058
1.520
g/mi«
0.018
o.oUi-
0.011
0.032
0.151
0.016
0.688
0.221
0.032
1.091
0.026
O.Ul6
0.019
0.509
C
S
a
5
3
i
a
o
0)
r
i
Q
I
i
IS3
CO
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont.)
I
tn
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
3l»l/DAA/122
3l*2/DAA/122
3l*9/DAA/122
350/DAA/122
351/DAA/120
352/DAA/120
353/DAA/123
35>»/DAA/123
355/DAA/121.
356/DAA/121*
357/DAA/125
358/DAA/125
359/DAA/126
360/DAA/126
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*58.0
1*21.0
1*59.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*20.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*63.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
1*.8
5.0
•..9
5.0
U.9
5.1
•..3
U.U
It. 3
li.l*
1..2
1..3
3.6
3.7
Fuel-
Air
0.0105
0.0073
0.0101.
0.0071*
o.oioU
0.0073
0.0103
0.0071*
O.OIOU
0.0071*
0.0101*
0.0071*
0.0101*
0.0073
Pollutant Emissions
KOX (N02)
ppm
26.60
6.32
28.26
5.22
26.00
U.9U
23.90
10.32
23.72
10.02
25.16
11.00
25.62
6.680
El
U.088
1.386
J..388
1.137
U.033
1.086
3.733
2.256
3.683
2.173
3.911*
2.1*05
3.982
1.1.65
g/mi*
1.368
0.1.61*
1.1*69
0.381
1.350
0.361*
1.250
0.755
1.233
0.727
1.310
0.805
1.333
0.1*90
CO
ppm
9.298
1*65.9
9:363
1*93.6
8.33
U70.5
2.1*50
32.06
2.1*50
1*7.37
3.920
86.31*
6.370
361.5
El
0.870
62.19
0.885
65.1*5
0.787
62.98
0.233
U.268
0.232
6.251*
0.371
11.1*9
0.603
1*8.26
g/ml«
0.291
20.82
0.296
21.91
0.263
21.08
0.078
1.1*29
0.078
2.09!*
0.121*
3.81.7
0.202
16.16
UHC (CgH
ppm C
1*.1*00
1.6.90
0.900
1.9.10
1.1*0
30.90
1*.300
2.00
2.800
1.200
1.500
1.700
2.300
11.20
El
0.211
3.210
O.OUl*
3.338
0.068
2.121
0.210
0.137
0.136
0.081
0.073
0.116
0.112
0.767
u
g/mi»
0.071
1.075
0.015
1.118
0.023
0.710
0.070
O.OU6
0.01*5
0.027
0.021*
0.039
0.037
0.257
C
ft
GL
D
3
i
o
o
0)
C
1
•a
ro
to
CO
-------
TABLE 6-2 (cont.)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
l»ll»/AB/123
U15/AB/123
U16/AB/123
U17/AB/123
M8/AB/123
U19/AB/126
U20/AB/126
I*21/AB/126
I*22/AB/126
U23/DAA/127
l*2l*/DAA/127
U25/DAA/128
I*26/DAA/128
U27/DAA/129
U28/DAA/129
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
1*6.0
1»6.0
1*6.0
53.0
53.0
1*6.0
1*6.0
53.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1»6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*25.0
U25.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*50.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
U60.0
Combustor
Pressure Ixsss
Pin - Pout
Pin Xl°°
U.3
1*.3
1*.3
1».2
U.3
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.U
3.9
3.9
Fuel-
Air
hat in
0.0067
0.0067
0.0071
0.0092
0.0103
0.0067
0.0072
0.0092
0.0103
0.0071
0.0103
0.0072
0.0103
0.0072
0.0103
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
15.00
13.90
15.38
2U. U6
29.61*
7.70
12.16
25.!*2
28.08
9.18
27.31*
5.30
2U.90
7.92
23.31*
El
3.606
3.351
3.1*65
U.271
U.61.7
1.8U9
2.732
1*.1»29
4.390
2.066
U.282
1.189
3.889
1.780
3.61*5
g/mi»
1.207
1.122
1.160
1.1*30
1.556
0.619
0.915
1.1*83
1.1*70
0.692
1.1*31*
0.398
1.302
0.596
1.220
CO
ppm
10.85
15.79
7.89
3.93
7.83
338.3
175.9
1*.1*1
2.93
307.1*
9.77
1*92.8
5,38
192.0
1*.89
El
1.588
2.318
1.082
0.1*17
0.71*8
1*9.1*5
2U.06
0.1*68
0.279
1*2.11
0.932
67.33
0.511
26.27
0.1*65
g/mi"
0.532
0.776
0.362
O.lUO
0.250
16.55
•8.055
0.157
0.093
1U.10
0.312
22.51*
0.171
8.796
0.156
UHC (eg Hii,)
ppm C
3.H*
U.26
5.11*
1*.1»2
1».6U
ll*.0l*
3.8U
2.60
2.1*1*
6.96
8.90
26.70
1.68
5.01*
1.56
El
0.236
0.321
0.362
0.21*1
0.227
1.052
0.269
O.lUl
0.119
O.U89
0.1*35
1.871
0.082
0.351*
0.076
g/mi»
0.079
0.107
0.121
0.081
0.076
0.352
0.090
0.01*7
O.OUO
0.161*
0.1U6
0.626
0.027
0.118
0.025
Cd
i
to
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont.)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combustor Mod
U29/DAA/130
U30/DAA/130
1.32/AB/132
1.33/AB/132
l*3l»/AB/133
1.35/AB/133
l*36/AB/13l*
l*37/AB/13l»
I*38/AB/135
U39/AB/135
l.l.O/AB/136
UUl/AB/136
1»1*2/AB/137
I*1»3/AB/137
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
U6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1.6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1.25.0
1*60.0
1*23.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
U60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin ^
3.8
3.8
6.1
6.5
7.8
8.1
6.1*
7.1
5.2
5.3
I*. 9
>*.9
3.7
3.8
Fuel-
Air
KatiT
0.0072
0.0103
0.0072
0.0103
0.0072
0.0103
0.0072
0.0103
0.0071
0.0103
0.0072
0.0103
0.0071
0.0103
Pollutant Emissions
HOX (N02)
ppm
7.20
2U.3U
3.16
6.30
2.9l*
6.72
3.60
10.50
3.96
15.76
3.72
12.1*8
3.80
20.0
El
1.618
3.809
0.709
0.983
0.658
1.056
0.808
1.61*0
0.891
2.1.61*
0.833
1.951
0.855
3-13
g/mi*
0.51*2
1.275
0.237
0.329
0.220
0.353
0.270
0.5U9
0.298
0.825
0.279
0.653
0.286
1.0l*8
CO
ppm
287.1
it. 88
>*9,5.3
1*90.5
1*95.1*
1*89.1*
1*91*. 6
23.95
1*93.7
7.82
1*9>*. 7
1*3.05
1*93.6
5.87
El
39.29
0.1*65
67.62
1*6.60
67-53
1*6.82
67.55
2.278
67.63
0.71*5
67.1*7
U.097
67.63
0.559
g/mi*
13.15
0.156
22.61*
15.60
22.61
15.67
22.61
0.762
22.6.1*
0.2l»9
22.59
1.372
22.61*
0.187
UHC (C6Hih)
ppm C
11.02
1.32
1905.0
1*60.0
2170.0
90.1.0
1020.0
1U.60
352.0
3.50
870.0
U.20
203.0
2.30
El
0.773
0.061*
133.1*
22.1*1
151.7
l*.l*3l*
71.1*3
0.712
21*. 73
0.171
60.85
0.205
1U.26
0.112
g/mi«
0.259
0.022
1*1*. 65
7.501
50.78
1.U81*
23.91
0.238
8.278
0.057
20.37
0.069
1..771*
0.038
C
s
a
x>
i
o
0)
C
1
01
-------
TABLE 6-2 (cont.)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combustor Mod
1»1»1»/AB/138
1*1»5/AB/138
UU6/AB/139
1»1*7/AB/139
l*l*8/AB/ll*0
l»l»9/AB/ll»0
l»50/AB/lUl
l»51/AB/lUl
l*52/AB/ll*0
l*53/AB/ll*0
l*5WAB/ll*0
l*55/AB/ll*0
l»56/AB/lUl
l»57/AB/ll»l
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
1*6.0
53.0
U6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
U6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*58.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin Xl°°
2.9
2.9
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
ruel-
Air
Kati-i
0.0072
0.0103
0.0072
0.0103
0.0071
0.0103
0.0070
0.0101
0.0070
0.0101
0.0071
o.oioi*
0.0071
0.0105
Pollutant Emissions
N0x (N02)
ppm
7.82
21*. 36
7.96
21*. 6U
6.71*
22.10
6.08
23.86
6.U6
21.1*0
6.80
2U.50
5.02
22.12
El
1.757
3.815
1.78U
3.859
1.517
3.1*58
1.1*01
3.796
1.1*89
3.1»OU
1.537
3.783
1.131
3.1*12
g/mi*
0.588
1.277
0.597
1.292
0.508
1.158
0.1*69
1.271
0.1*98
1.11*0
0.51U
1.266
0.379
1.11*2
CO
ppm
11*0.0
13.22
135.1
10.76
193.7
11.71*
288.5
10.28
253.1*
9-32
173.5
11*. 66
321.1*
13.70
El
19.16
1.260
18.1*3
1.026
26.5»*
1.118
1*0.1*8
0.995
35.56
0.902
23.87
1.379
1*1*. 10
1.286
g/mi"
6.1*lU
0.1*22
6.169
0.31*1*
8.885
0.37»»
13.55
0.333
11.9.0
0.302
7.991
0.1*62
11*. 76
0.1*31
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
11.20
2.20
8.70
1.90
15.80
0.5
1*2.90
1.68
Ul.36
0.55
18.30'
3.1*0
61*. 80
1.16
El
0.786
0.108
0.609
0.093
1.110
0.021*
3.087
0.083
2.976
0.027
1.291
0.16U
1*.559
0.056
g/mi»
0.263
0.036
0.20U
0.031
0.372
0.008
1.033
0.028
0.996
0.009
0.1*32
0.055
1.526
0.019
C
f
a
D
3
i
o
o
§
s
Q)
r
I
to
O)
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont.)
i
H-'
Ul
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combustor Mod
l*58/AB/ll*2
l»59/AB/ll*2
l*60/AB/ll*3
l*6l/AB/ll»3
l*62/AB/lI*l*
l*63/AB/ll*l*
l*61*/AB/ll*5
l*65/AB/ll»5
l*66/AB/ll»6
l»67/AB/ll*6
l*68/AB/ll*5
l*69/AB/ll*5
l»70/AB/ll*7
l»71/AB/ll»7
l*72/AB/ll*7
I*7l*/AB/ll*7
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
146.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
1*6.0
53.0
53.0
1*6.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*25-0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
Combustor
Pressure I,oss
Pin - Pout
Pin
2.9
2.9
3.1
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.1*
3.2
3.U
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.1*
3.1
3.5
Fuel-
Aii-
h at i i
0.0071*
0.0107
0.0073
O.OIOU
0.0071*
0.0101*
0.0071*
0.0101*
0.00735
0.0101*0
0.00733
0.01036
0.00735
0.01038
0.00519
0.01502
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
8.28
27.2
6.70
30.50
l*.3l*
19.61*
6.22
25.60
6.80
25.18
5-72
22.86
6.12
23.02
2.1.6
66.20
El
1.793
I*.ii8
1.1*75
l*.7l*l
0.91*9
3.050
1.351*
3.971
1.1*87
3.899
1.251*
3.557
1.338
3.575
0.760
7.138
g/mi*
0.600
1.379
0.1*91*
1.587
0.318
1.021
0.1*53
1.330
0.1*98
1.305
0.1*20
1.191
0.1*1*8
1.197
0.25lt
2.390
CO
ppm
18.72
31.27
1*,0.1*2
25.1*6
283.9
9-30
75.90
17.13
60.12
18.61
136.5
12.21*
108.1*
13.21
800"
I85.lt
El
2.1*69
2.882
5.1*17
2.1*09
37.80
0.879
10.06
1.618
8.003
1.75U
18.22
1.159
11*. 1*3
1.21*9
151*
12.17
g/mi*
0.826
0.965
1.813
0.807
12.65
0.29!*
3.368
0.51*2
2.67.9
0.587
6.10
0.388
1*.832
0.1*18
50.5*
l».07l*
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
2.21*
2.11*
2.1»1*
3.66
28.50
1.2l*
1*.50
1.86
3.U6
2.88
8.32
2.10
5.52
1.88
571*. 1*
l.ll*
El
0.151
0.101
0.168
0.178
1.91*5
0.060
0.306
0.090
0.236
0.139
0.569
0.102
0.377
0.091
55.39
0.038
g/mi*
0.051
0.031*
0.056
0.059
0.651
0.020
0.102
0.030
0.079
0.0l»7
0.191
0.031*
0.126
0.031
18.51*
0.013
w
CO
-3
-------
TABLE 8-2 (cont.)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
l*75/AB/ll*8
U76/AB/1U8
U77/AB/1U8
U78/AB/1U8
l*79/AB/ll*8
l*80/AB/ll*8
U81/AB/1U8
l*83/AB/ll*8
U8U/AB/1U8
l*85/AB/ll*8
l*86/AB/ll*8
U87/AB/1U8
l»88/AB/ll*8
l*89/AB/ll»8
l+90/AB/ll*8
1*91/AB/1U8
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
1»6.0
53.0
53.0
1*6.0
37.0
53.0
69.0
60.0
53.0
69.0
55.0
80.0
83.0
100.0
97.0
129.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1*25.0
1*60.0
1*60.0
1*25.0
1*60.0
590.0
530.0
1*90.0
590.0
1*20.0
530.0
530.0
585-0
530.0
630.0
530.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
3.3
3.U
3.1
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.0
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.1*
ruel-
Air
K at i •>
.00725
.01036
.00518
.01506
.0101*
.0081*8
.0139
.01255
.01038
.011*2
.OlUO
.0139
.0157
.011*0
.0169
.0152
Pollutant Qnissions
N0x (N02)
ppm
7.1
21*. 8
2.81*
68.1*
15.9
11*. 7
85.6
55.2
36.7
57.2
81.6
91.3
153.6
109.0
207.5
155.0
El
1.57
3.86
.879
7.36
2.1*6
2.79
9.96
7.10
5.70
6.53
9-39
10.62
15.82
12.52
19.91
16.55
g/mi*
.527
1.29
.291*
2.1*6
.825
.935
3.33
2.38
1.91
2.18
3.11*
3.55
5.30
I*. 19
6.67
5.51*
CO
ppm
7U. 9
13.7
1*96
189
lU.2
3.1*1*
71*. 7
1*7.7
11.8
88.7
89.3
71.9
11*1.7
50.1*1*
109.5
37.96
El
10.11
1.30
93.5
12.1*
1.31*
.397
5.29
3.7U
1.11
6.16
6.25
5.09
8.89
3.53
6.1*0
2.1*7
g/mi*
3.38
0.1*31*
31.3
U.15
.1*1*7
.133
1.77
1.25
.372
2.06
2.09
1.71
2.98
1.18
2.1U
0.83
UHC (CgHllt)
ppm C
3.1
1.18
1*1*6
1.16
2.3
2.3
0.2U
2.60
1.81*
0.88
0.51*
0.1*3
0.30
0.50
00
1*.25
El
0.21
0.057
1*3.1
.0389
.112
.136
.009
.105
.089
.031
.019
0.016
.010
0.018
00
0.11*2
g/mi*
.072
.019
lit. 1*3
.013
.0375
.01*56
.003
.035
.0299
.010
.006
.005
.003
.006
00
.01*7
to
oo
-------
c
D
I
a
I
o
-*
o
Q)
I
Q)
TABLE 6-3
SUMMARY OF REGENERATIVE-CYCLE (CLASS A/MOD) COMBUSTOR CONFIGURATIONS
I ! I
T o o i
\
o
ro
Cf\
CO
a
MOD
1
2
3
U
5
A
6ia.
.062
.125
.166
.166
.166
No
16
16
16
16
16
*A
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
B
Dia.
.300
.300
.300
.300
.300
ND
8
8
8
8
8
^B
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
-
^irs.
.150
.213
.213
.213
.213
No
16
16
16
16
16
*c
1.87
l.SY
1.87
1.87
1.87
a
f>ia-
.200
.200
.200
.250
.250
Mr
16
16
16
16
16
*n
.219
.219
.219
.219
.219
E
lifa-
.UUl
.1)11
.11)1
.312
No
6
6
6
6
—
*E
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
—
a
Dia.
.120
.120
.120
1.20
.120
ff!T
1(0
1(0
1(0
1(0
1(0
Ra
b.O
1(.0
1(.0
1(.0
U.O
B
Ma-
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
I.'O n
10
10
10
10
10
«B
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
^
Dia .
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
Ho
8
8
8
8
8
S
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
AIR
SWIRLER
I
to
to
-------
TABLE B-3 (cont.)
ft?
00
I
A
Dia.
.166
.166
.166
.170
.170
.170
.160
.160
.160
.160
.160
.160
.160
.160
.160
No
16
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
*A
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
B
Dia.
.300
.300
.300
.300
.300
.300
.209
.300
.300
.209
.300
.300
Plunge
.300
Plunge
.260
.260
.150
No
8
8
8
8
8
8
16
8
8
16
15
8
d 3/:
8
id 3/
3
3
3
XB
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1-5
6
1.5
L6
1.5
1.5
1.5
C
Dia.
.151
.151
.151
.151
.151
.151
.151
.151
.151
.151
_^^_
^^^_
No
16
16
—
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
—
__-
__t
—
*c
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
.^»
_^^_
D
Dia.
___
_
_
_
.^^^
_^_
No
_
—
L_
^_
_
.^__
—
*D
—
__
_
—
—
—
_
—
E
Dia •
.UUl
.1*1*1
. 1*1*1
.228
.1*1*1
.1*1*1
.1*18
.1*18
.1*18
.21*2
.2^2
.1*18
.1*18
.1*18
.1*18
.1*1*1
.218
No
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
*E
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2 •
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
or
Dia •
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
No
1*0
1*0
1»0
1*0
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
Ro
<*.0
i*.o
!*.0
i*.o
i*.o
i*.o
1*.0
lf.0
lt.0
i*.o
i*.o
i*.o
i*.o
i».o
1*.0
Dia •
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
.166
ric
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
RB
.95
.95
.95
• 95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
• 95
^
DLa -
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
.125
No
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
RV
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
.88
AIR
SWIRLER
1*
1*
-------
I
TABLE 6-3 (cont.)
i
•—'
VJl
MOD
21
22
23
2U
25
26
A
Dia-
.160
.160
.113
.138
.127
.113
No
31
31
31
31
31
31
XA
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
B
Dia.
No
XB
C
Dia.
No
Xc
D
bia-
.172
.172
.172
.262
.172
.272
.172
.272
.172
.272
.080
No
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
%
7.7
7.7
7.V
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
E
Dia.
.Itl4l
.218
.UUl
.218
.1*141
.218
.1)1*1
.218
.14141
.218
.l4l»l
.218
No
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
XE'
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.2
a
Dia.
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
.120
No
36
36
36
36
36
36
R
-------
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
TABLE B-4
FROM REGENERATIVE-CYCLE (CLASS
(ZERO HUMIDITY)
A/MOD) COMBUSTOR
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combustor Mod
361/AB/O
362/AB/O
363/AB/O
36U/AB/1
365/AB/2
366/AB/2
367/AB/2
368/AB/3
369/AB/3
370/AB/3
371/AB/l*
372/AB/l*
373/AB/U
37WAB/5
375/AB/5
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
995.0
1000.0
1000.0
1000.0
1000.0
977.0
1075.0
1000.0
995.0
977.0
1000.0
980.0
996.0
980.0
1000.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
T.»»
7.5
7.1*
8.7
6.1
6.0
6.1
5-5
5.6
5.5
6.1
6.0
6.0
7.8
7.9
Fuel-
Air
hati-i
0.0115
0.0115
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0051
0.0070
0.0063
0.0063
0.0051
0.0062
0.0051
0.0062
0.0051
0.0062
Pollutant Emissions
HOX (N02)
ppm
18.50
31.1*0
12.50
15.21*
lit. 18
10.26
20.96
15.10
114.36
10. 71*
lU.05
10.18
lit. 06
10,50
llt.O't
El
2.598
1*.1*10
3.221
3.926
3.665
3.2l*lt
It. 821*
3.872
3.676
3.363
3.626
3.232
3.61tO
3.320
3.623
g/mi*
0.589
1.000
0.730
0.890
0.831
0.736
1.093
0.878
0.833
0.762
0.822
0.733
0.825
0.753
0.821
CO
ppm
65.12
62.53
259.7
86.1*7
163.1
190.2
98.65
165.5
170.0
189.2
201*. 6
210.0
201*. 5
252.5
21*9.0
El
5.568
5.3U7
1*0. 71*
13.56
25.66
36.62
13.82
25.81.
26.1*5
36.07
32. lU
1*0.58
32.23
1*8.62
39.11
g/mi*
1.262
1.212
9.235
3.075
5.818
8.301
3.133
5.858
5.997
8.177
7.286
9.200
7.306
11.02
8.867
UHC (C6Hll4)
ppm C
3.50
1.00
50.00
0.80
8.10
7.30
It. 60
2.1*0
9.1*0
5.10
13.20
12.50
9.90
18.1*0
12.50
El
0.153
0.0l*lt
It. 022
0.061*
0.651*
0.721
0.331
0.192
0.750
O.lt99
1.063
1.239
0.800
1.816
1.007
g/mi«
0.035
0.010
0.912
0.015
0.1U8
0.163
0.075
0.01*1*
0.170
0.113
0.21*1
0.281
0.181
0.1*12
0.228
* Vehicle Fuel Economy = 12.7 miles/gal
CO
CO
-------
TABLE B-4 (cont.)
vO
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
376/AB/6
377/AB/6
378/AB/7
379/AB/7
380/AB/7
381 /AB/ 8
382 /AB/ 8
383/AB/9
38U/AB/10
385/AB/10
386/AB/10
387/AB/10
389/AB/ll
390/AB/ll
391/AB/ll
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
f
983.0
1000.0
980.0
1000.0
1073.0
985.0
1000.0
1000.0
980.0
980.0
1000.0
1083.0
980.0
1000.0
1072.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
8.5
8.8
6.7
6.9
7.2
6.7
6.8
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.7
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.1*
ruel-
Air
hati-i
0.0051
0.0062
0.0050
0.0062
0.0070
0.0051
0.0062
0.0062
0.0052
0.0050
0.0062
0.0070
0.0050
0.0062
0.0069
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (NOs)
ppm
9.08
12.70
6.880
10. 5>*
15.>*2
10.82
1U.90
12.58
3.1.6
7.18
11.30
16.50
7.0U
10.82
15.11*
El
2.883
3.288
2.189
2.733
3.551*
3.1*22
3.833
3.21*1
2. oil*
2.289
2.935
3.811*
2.253
2.792
3.50U
g/mi*
0.651*
0.71*5
0.1*96
0.620
0.806
0.776
0.869
0.735
0.593
0.519
0.665
0.865
0.511
0.633
0.791*
CO
ppm
221*. 3
170.0
331*. 8
283.1
162.3
191*. 1
155.1
266.7
329.5
337.7
280.5
156.7
361*. 5
297.8
177.1*
El
U3.36
26.79
61*. 8U
1*U. 69
22.77
37.37
2l*.28
1.1.8U
61.99
65.5U
1*1*. 36
22.06
71.01
1*6.79
25.01
g/mi«
9.829
6.073
ll*.70
10.13
5.l6l
8.1*71
5.505
9.1*81*
1U.05
11*. 86
10.06
5.00
16.10
10.61
5.669
UHC (C6Hll()
ppm C
5-85
It. 00
1*.90
2.50
2.12
3.08
2.30
5.91*
1*.80
U.l*8
1.38
0.58
1*.98
1.1*0
0.70
El
0.580
0.323
0.1*87
0.202
0.153
0.30U
0.185
0.1*78
O.U63
0.1*1*6
0.112
0.01*2
0.1*98
0.113
0.051
g/mi»
0.131
0.073
0.110
O.OU6
0.035
0.069
0.0l»2
0.108
0.105
0.101
0.025
0.009
0.113
0.026
0.011
CO
CO
-------
TABLE B-4 (cone.)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
1*05/AB/12
U06/AB/12
l*07/AB/13
1*08/AB/13
U09/AB/13
UlO/AB/lU
1*11/AB/H*
1»12/AB/15
U13/AB/15
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
980.0
1000.0
977-0
1000.0
1090.0
980.0
1000.0
980.0
1000.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
7-2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.8
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.6
Fuel-
Aic
l-.atii
0.0051
0.0063
0.001*9
0.0062
0.0070
0.0051
0.0062
0.0051
0.0062
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
8.92
13.10
7.18
10.1*2
15.01*
8.12
11.06
8.01*
11.26
El
2.810
3.31*9
2.339
2.689
3.1*76
2.563
2.81*5
2.553
2.906
g/mi*
0.637
0.759
0.530
0.610
0.788
0.581
0.6U5
0.579
0.659
CO
ppm
277.1*
269.8
310.1
290.6
168.7
31*0.7
386.U
336.7
352.7
El
53.19
"»1.99
61.52
"•5.65
23.7>*
65.1*8
60.52
65.09
55.!«2
g/mi*
12.06
9.518
13.95
10.35
5.38
1U.81*
13.72
11*. 75
12.56
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
2.06
1.18
3.22
1.1*2
0.70
3.70
2.31*
2.1*8
1.36
El
0.203
0.09U
0.328
O.lll*
0.051
0.365
0.188
0.21*6
0.110
g/mi«
O.OU6
0.021
0.07U
0.026
0.011
0.083
0.01*3
0.056
0.025
C
$
a
p
3
i
o
o>
0)
a
Q)
Cd
i
CO
-------
TABLE B-A (cone.)
I
JS
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
U05/AB/12
1*06/AB/12
U07/AB/13
U08/AB/13
U09/AB/13
UlO/AB/lU
Ull/AB/lU
U12/AB/15
U13/AB/15
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
980.0
1000.0
977.0
1000.0
1090.0
980.0
1000.0
980.0
1000.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.8
7-1
7.2
7.5
7.6
ruel-
Aii-
I-.atii
0.0051
0.0063
O.OOU9
0.0062
0.0070
0.0051
0.0062
0.0051
0.0062
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
8.92
13.10
7.18
10.1*2
15.01*
8.12
11.06
8.014
11.26
El
2.810
3.31*9
2.339
2.689
3.1*76
2.563
2.81*5
2.553
2.906
g/mi*
0.637
0.759
0.530
0.610
0.788
0.581
0.61*5
0.579
0.659
CO
ppm
277.U
269.8
310. 1
290.6
168.7
31*0.7
386.1*
336.7
352.7
El
53.19
Ul.99
61.52
1*5.65
23.71*
65.1*8
60.52
65.09
55.1*2
g/mi»
12.06
9.518
13.95
10.35
5.38
1U.8J*
13.72
ll*.75
12.56
UHC (CgHlU)
ppm C
2.06
1.18
3.22
1.1*2
0.70
3.70
2.31*
2.U8
1.36
El
0.203
0.091*
0.328
O.llU
0.051
0.365
0.188
0.2U6
0.110
g/mi*
O.OU6
0.021
0.071*
0.026
0.011
0.083
0.01*3
0.056
0.025
(D
a
i
o
^»
o
§
i
Q)
(D
a
I
ttl
I
CO
-------
TABLE B-4 (cont.)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
U92/AB/16
U93/AB/16
1»9>»/AB/16
U95/AB/16
U96/AB/17
1*97/AB/18
1»98/AB/18
1*99/AB/18
500/AB/19
501/AB/19
502/AB/20
503/AB/20
50U/AB/20
505/AB/21
506/AB/21
507/AB/21
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.6
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
980.0
1000.0
980.0
1000.0
1000.0
980.0
1000.0
1100.0
1000.0
1100.0
1000.0
980.0
1100.0
980.0
1000.0
1100.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
6.1
6.1
6.3
6.1»
7.9
9.7
9.9
11.1
9.U
10.0
8.8
8.8
9.1*
8.7
8.7
9.5
Fuel-
Aii-
hatiT
0.00502
0.00633
0.00502
0.00621
0.00617
0.00507
0.00627
0.00691
0.00626
0.00691
0.00627
0.00508
0.00696
0.00503
0.00626
0.00690
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (H02)
ppm
8.60
13.06
9.10
12.78
13.10
8.3U
11.68
ll*. 76
9.1*1*
13.82
10.70
5.U2
1U.52
6.62
11. 31*
16.16
El
2.71*7
3-312
2.906
3.303
3.1*08
2.637
2.990
3.1*31
2.1*21
3.212
2.739
1.711
3.351
2.110
2.908
3.762
g/mi«
0.623
0.751
0.659
0.7U9
0.773
0.598
0.678
0.778
0.51*9
0.728
0.621
0.388
0.760
0.1*78
0.659
0.853
CO
ppm
263.6
258.U
265.0
268.8
2M.5
279.5
261.9
195.8
295.6
157.9
181.2
378.3
86.79
301.0
127. !»
61.65
El
51.25
39.89
51.53
1»2.30
38.73
53.81
1*0.82
27.72
1*6.15
22.35
28.25
72.70
12.20
58.1*1
19.89
8.737
g/mi*
11.62
9.0l»3
11.68
9.589
8.780
12.20
9.253
6.283
10.U6
5.067
6.1*OU
16. U8
2.765
13.2U
U.509
1.981
UHC (C6H1U)
ppm C
8.20
U.60
6.00
3.70
2.10
2.10
1.1*0
2.90
22.20
15.70
3.80
5.30
3.10
2.90
1.60
1.90
El
0.818
0.36U
0.598
0.299
0.171
0.207
0.112
0.211
1.777
1.139
0.30U
0.522
0.223
0.289
0.128
0.138
g/mi"
0.185
0.083
0.136
0.068
0.039
0.01*7
0.025
O.OU8
O.U03
0.258
0.069
0.118
0.056
0.065
0.029
0.031
D
3
i
o
0)
a
Q)
C
ff
a
CO
en
-------
TABLE B-4 (cont.)
NO
I
•—I
(Jt
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
508/AB/22
509/AB/22
510/AB/22
511/AB/23
512/AB/23
513/AB/2U
5ll»/AB/2l*
515/AB/?!*
516/AB/25
517/AB/25
518/AB/25
519/AB/26
520/AB/26
521/AB/26
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
980.0
1000.0
I'lOO.O
1000.0
1100.0
980.0
1000.0
1100.0
980.0
1000.0
1100.0
1000.0
1100.0
980.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin Xl°°
7.1*
7.9
8.U
8.1
8.6
6.7
6.9
7.5
6.9
7.0
7.1.
6.9
7.5
6.7
Fuel-
Air
hatii
0.00505
0.00623
0.00685
0.00627
0.00692
0.00508
0.00629
0.00692
0.00509
0.00628
0.00691
0.00627
0.00687
0.00526
Pollutant Qnissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
2.1*00
8.3l»
1U.36
8.58
13.78
It. 26
9.96
1U.92
4.2C
10.56
16.06
11.08
18.88
6.18
El
0.762
2.ll»9
3.367
2.196
3.198
1.31*5
2.5!»2
3.U63
1.323
2.699
3.733
2.836
U.UlU
1.881*
g/mi*
0.173
0.1*87
0.763
0.1*98
0.725
0.305
0.576
0.785
0.300
0.612
0.8!*6
0.61*3
1.001
0.1*27
CO
ppm
1*95.5
375.3
98.63
81.01
21.21
1*57.5
92.81*
26.62
1*1*1.8
106.2
31.08
61*. 23
15.78
286.1
El
95.78
58.88
1U.08
12.63
2.997
87.92
ll*.l*2
3.762
81*. 71*
16.53
1*.398
10.01
2.21*7
53.11
g/mi*
21.71
13.35
3.192
2.862
0.679
19.93
3.27
0.853
19.21
3.71*7
0.997
2.269
0.509
12.01*
UHC (C6Hll4)
ppm C
88.20
2.10
0.70
1*.1*0
2.70
15.30
1.20
1.80
29.30
2.30
1.90
0.30
0.20
2.60
El
8.71*2
0.169
0.051
0.352
0.196
1.508
0.096
0.130
2.882
0.181*
0.138
0.021*
0.015
0.2l*8
g/mi*
1.982
0.038
0.012
0.080
o.oi»U
0.31*2
0.022
0.030
0.653
O.OU2
0.031
0.005
0.003
0.056
C
i
Q.
5
3
I
o
-*
o
Q)
I
Q>
r
I
I
CO
o>
-------
TABLE B-4 (cont.)
Test No./
Fuel Nozzle/
Combust or Mod
522/AB/23
523/AB/23
52U/AB/23
526/AB/23
527/AB/23
528/AB/23
529/AB/23
530/AB/23
531/AB/23
532/AB/23
533/AB/23
Inlet
Air
Pressure
psig
13.0
13.0
13.0
25.0
1*0.0
59.0
59.0
13.0
13.0
18.0
18.0
Inlet
Air
Temp.
F
1000.0
1100.0
980.0
1120.0
960.0
1100.0
1100.0
1000.0
980.0
1330.0
1325.0
Combustor
Pressure Loss
Pin - Pout
Pin
7.7
8.3
7.6
11.7
8.2
7.9
11.9
12.7
Fuel-
Air
1\ at i ->
0.00627
0.00691
0.005U5
0.0075
0.0105
0.0109
0.012U
0.0126
0.0052
0.0056
0.0039
Pollutant Emissions
NOX (N02)
ppm
9.88
15.50
5.60
21.8
36.1
1*9.2
70.5
1*5.1*
3.98
16.26
5.79
El
2.529
3.603
1.61.8
1*.671
5.553
7.312
9.168
5.816
1.227
l».62l»
2.383
g/mi»
0.573
0.817
0.371*
1.059
1.259
1.658
2.078
1.319
0.278
1.01*8
0.5UO
CO
ppm
96.31
22.69
35f».8
11.32
6.36
l*.89l»
1».89
12.11*
1*95.2
28.68
171.7
El
15.01
3.211
63.57
I.VTT
0.595
0.1*1*3
0.387
0.91*7
92.98
1».966
1*3.03
g/mi»
3.1*03
0.728
11*. 1*1
0.335
0.135
0.100
0.088
0.215
21.08
1.126
9.755
UHC (C6Hll4)
ppm C
0.10
7.70
0.30
0.10
21*. 8
^^__
El
0.007
0.708
0.020
O.OOU
2.388
g/mi«
0.002
0.160
O.OOU5
0.001
0.51*1
_^^___
C
D
3
Q
Q>
C
I
I
w
i
oa
-------
TABLE B-5
SUMMARY OF FUEL NOZZLES USED ON
CLASS UB AND CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTORS
ro
o-\
P
C
i
a
B
a
I
a
o
§
&
0)
Code No.
AB
AA
PA1
PA2
PA3
DAA
Type
Air-Blast Atomizer
UACL Air-Assist Atomizer
Pressure-Atomizer
Pressure-Atomizer
Pressure-Atomizer
Delavan Air-Assist Atomizer with
Integral Air Swirler
Flow No.
3.5
1.0
2.0
0.7
1.9
1.0
Spray Angle
85 - 90°
90 - 95°
80 - 90°
80 - 90°
80 - 90°
90 - 95°
I
W
i
CO
00
Flow No. =
fuel
(Ib/in2)
-------
TABLE 6-6
SUMMARY OF AIR-SWIRLER GEOMETRIES USED ON
CLASS UB AND CLASS A/MOD COMBUSTORS
to
c
D
ff
a
5
3
I
o
^»
O
03
Q)
a
Q)
9
a
N SLOTS
EQUALLY SPACED
Code No.
1
2
3
It
5
Number of Slots
N
8
8
8
16
16
Height
H (in.)
.080
.080
.080
.080
.080
Width
W (in. )
.080
.112
.080
.080
.175
Angle
8 (deg)
+30
+30
-30
+30
+30
I
CO
CO
-------
Figure B.1
DELAVAN AIR BLAST ATOMIZER
6 FUEL INLET HOLES ^ 6 AIR HOLES
(TANGENTIAL) A \(TANGENT1AL)
8 AIR SWIRL VANES
30 r-
o:
I
s
I
20-
LU
2
10
1
) 20
1
40
1
60
1
80
J
100
FUEL PRESSURE DROP(APf)PSI
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
App B-40
-------
M911268-15
FIGURE B-2
EXIT TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM FINAL CLASS UB COMBUSTOR
CONFIGURATION FOR FEDERAL DRIVING CYCLE TEST POINTS
1400
1300
1200
LLi
O.
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
•O-
•cr
.0.
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5
0.5
RADIUS- IN.
FDC-4
FDC-3
FDC-2
FDC-1
1.0 1.5
United Aircraft of Canada Limited
App B-41
------- |