Report No. FAA-RD-72-3i

STUDY OF ALTITUDE AND MACH NUMBER EFFECTSON EXHAUST GAS EMISSIONS OF AN

AFTERBURNING TURBOFAN ENGINE

Aeronautical Turbine DepartmentNAVAL AIR PROPULSION TES[ CENTER

Trenton, N.J. 08628

transpoiU.S. Interrational Tronsportatlo. rxpoSitlon

Dulles In.erno tionol Aior,Wohington, D.C,

"t'l, u s 01 May 27-June 4, 1972

Repioduced kyNATIONAL TECHNICAL

INFORMATION SERVICESpi r, fidd Va 22151

DECEMBER 1911 IFINAL REPORT " -.

•. t , . . L +• t J

Availability is unlimited. Document may bereleased to the National Technical informationService, Springfield, Virginia 22151, for saleto the public.

Prepared for

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL AVIATION ADM!NISTR•TION

Systems Research & Developmewd Service )Washington, D.C. 2R591

The contents of this report reflect the views of the AeronauticalTurbine Department, U.S. Naval Air Propulsion Test Center, whichis responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presentedherein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official viewsor policy of the Department of Transportation. This report doesnot constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

Prepared by: Approved by:

4 T .fTRENCE PALCN G. R. SIMPSON

i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .............

.. . . . . . . .

By .... .......

ol i ,5 0 0 -ii. , U

91 JSTI. W -L tGt

---\------

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE1. Report No. 2. Government Accession Na. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

FAA-RD-72-314. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Study of Altitude and Mach Number Effects on Exhaust December 1971Gas Emissions of an Afterburning Turbofan Engine 6. P-rforming Organization Code

NAPTC-ATD7. Author, s) 8, Performing Organization Report No.

J. Lawrence Palcza NAPTC-ATD-212

9. Ptrfrmning Organi zation Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.

U. S. Naval Air Propulsion Test Center 201-721-097Aeronautical Turbine Department Ii. Contract or Grant No.

Trenton, New Jersey 08628 .. QT-FA71WAI-20713, Type of Report end Period Covered

12, Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Aviation Administration

Wash•ngton, D. C. 20591 14, Sponsoring Agency Cod*

15. Supplsmnntary Notes

Abstract

"•A TF30-P-412 augmented turbofan engine was tested at simulated altitudes andMach numbers to determine the effects of these parameters (altitude and Machnumber) on exhaust pollution emissions. Emission measurements were made over

There was no apparent effect on emission levels due to altitude or Mach number.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Pollution, Afterburning, Altitude, Availability is unlimited. DocumentEffect, Mach number effect, may be released to the ClearinghouseCorrelation. for Federal Scientific and Technical

Ir Information, S prin field, Virginia 22151for sale to the Miwlic,

19. Security ClaIO$61. (of tih s lopolt) 20. Security Clossif. (of this Pag o) 21. No. of Pages 1-CoUNCIAmW IFZ L cIss D 26 095

Form DOT F 1700.7 (6.69)

CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES iv

INTRODUCTION 1

BACKGROUND 1

SUpARY5-

METHOD OF TEST

ENGINE DEq,•RI F2ION 3

DISCUSSiqiN OF RESULTS 4

1. Unburned Hydroceaz'on Emissions 4

2. Nitric Oxide Eini. sions 43. Carbon Monoxide lnissions 54. Visible Emissiu;-s 55. Total Particult,,e Matter 56. Sample Validity 6

APPENDIX A--Emission cOwa Tabulation 7-10

APPENDIX B--List of Eiuations Used For Data Reduction 11

APPENDIX C--List of Syrfbols 12

FIGURES 1 through 8 13-20

CITED REFERENCES 21

UNCITED REFERENCES 22

jii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

PFhotograph of Sampling Probe 13

2 XTF30-P-412 Engine Exhaust Gas Emission Analysis Test 14Instrumentation and Installation Diagram

3 Unburned Hydrocarbon Emissions 15

4 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions 16

5 Carbon Monoxide Emissions 17

6 Typical Particulate Size of Jet Engine Exhaust 18

7 Sample Validity (Comparison of Measured and Actual 19Fuel/Air Ratios)

8 Estimated Jet Wake Diagram 20

iv

INTRODUCTION--

This report describes a program conducted by the Naval Air Propulsion Test Center

(NAPTC) for the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), Department of Transportation, author-ized by Inter-Agency Agreement No. DOT-.FA7IWAI-207 (reference 1). The purpose of theprogram was to analyze the possible effects of altitude and Mach number on exhaustemissions of an afterburning jet engine. To this end, engine exhaust data was sampledanc evaluated for various chemical emissions and particulate data between idle andma_-.mum afterburning power level positions and between sea level and 70,000 feetaltitude.

BACKGROUND

World operation of a large fleet of Supersonic Transport (SST) aircraft has poseda potential problem on overall climatology effects. Numerous reports have appearedcalling attention to the possible threat to the ue ceorological environment. Emissiondata from aircraft powerplants operating in stratospheric regi.ons is unknown. Con-sequently, the FAA has awarded NAPTC at Trenton, New Jersey this project for determin-.ing powerplant exhaust gas emission of an afterburning engine at various altitudesand flight speeds. Scott Research Laboratories, Inc. of Plumsteadville, Pennsylvaniaassisted NAPTC in measuring the exhaust gas emission, The following types of emissionwere measured: carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, watervapor, and solid particulates. Measurements were made over a range of altitude fromsea level to 70,000 feet and a Mach number range of 0 to 1.8.

SUMMARY

A TF30-P-412 augmented turbofan engine was tested at NAPTC to determine possibleeffects of altitude and Mach number on exhaust emissions. Emission measurements weremade between idle and maximum afterburning, sea level and 70,000 feet, and over aMach range from 0 to 1.8. Test results indicated that, "thin areas of efficientengine component operation, altitude and Mach number effects on emission levels werenegligible.

Particulate samples collected revealed close agreement of particle size to dpta

collected during previous ground tests.

METHOD OF TEST

Emission measurements were made while the engine was operated at various simulatedaltitudes, Mach wnmbers and power settings. The pollutants sampled were carbon mon-oxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02 ), nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), unburnedhydrocarbons (HC), and water vapor (H20). In addition, information was gathered onthe size, distribution and amount of particulate matter emitted,.

The analytical instrument system was located on the engine deck of the test cell.Two NAPTC-designed and fabricated water-cooled sampling probes were utilized. Figure 1presents a photograph of the probe as installed downstream of the test cell ejector.One probe was installed three inches aft of the engine exhaust nozzle, while the otheiwas installed approximately 27 feet downstream of the engine exhaust nozzle. The datapresented and evaluated in this report are all samples from the dowmstream probe dueto operational difficulties with the other.

Approximately 30 feet of one-half inch diameter stainless steel tubing carriedthe sample from the probe to the gas sampling instrumentation. In order to preventcondensation of the exhaust gases, the line was heated by four 400-watt strip heaters,and insulated with asbestos tape. A selector valve, located outside the test chamber,allowed the instrument systems operator to sample from either the nozzle probe or the

1

downstream probe. After the selector valve, the sample line divided into three

streams: one to the particulate sampler, another to the water vapor meter, andanother to the gas sampling system. Sample flow through each stream was drivenby two Thomas Model 726CA39 Teflon diaphragm pumps operating in series.

Particulate samples were collected on membrane filters housed in a stainlesssteel filter holder located upstream of the pumps. The flow through the filter wasmeasured by a wet test meter on the pump exhaust, while sample gas was continuouslyflowing in a by-pass line parallel to the filter, to ensure a representative sample.When sampling, valves were operated to switch the filter into the line in place ofthe by-pa-,s.

Water vapor was measured by a dew-point hygrometer, and a pressure gauge was usedto measure the total pressure. The hygrometer measured the temperature of dew forma-tion on a thermoelectrically cooled or heated mirror. A 7-cm glass filter was usedto remove the particulates at the inlet to the sub-system, and the pumps were locateddoumstream of IVhe meter.

The stream, to be analyzed for the other gaseous components, was passed througha set of pumps and. then through various instruments.

In addition to the analytical instrument systems measureia-ints, flask samples forNO and NO 2 were analyzed in the Scott Laboratory using the Saltzman procedures.

Nitrogen filled flasks were used to collect samples of ten cubic centimeters.The nitrogen served to stop the conversion of NO to NO allowing a true assessmentof their relative concentrations.

Hydrocarbons were measured utilizing a flame ionization dettactor and an electro-meter in conjunction with a thermally-controlled sample train to permit accuratemeasurement of low levels of the relati,'ely high molecular weight hydrocarbons foundin JP-5 fuel.

Due to the low levels of carbon monoxide emitted at some engine operating condi-tions, special gas samples were collected for laboratory analysis. Five-liter Tedlarbags were filled with gas samples and these were analyzed for CO and C02 by gaschromatography. The Cu2 analysis was used as a test for the integrity of the sampleby comparing the chromatographic analyses of the bag sample in the laboratory and thecontinuous infrared analyses in the field.

The bag samples, flask samples and particulate samples taken in the field wereanalyzed at the Scott Laboratory. The bag samples were analyzed for carbon monoxideand carbon dioxide by gas chromatography. The flask samples were analyzed for nitricoxide and nitrogen dioxide by the modified Saltzman method. The particulate sampleswere sent to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to have scanningelectron micrographs taken of them. These micrographs were then analyzed by Scottto determine particle size distribution and particle count.

Figure 2 presents an instrumentation and instal..ation diagram of the XTF30-P-412engine, as utilized during this test program. The instrumentation shown was usedprimarily for a previous engine performance evaluation.

The types of instrumentation utilized for the exhaust gas emission analysis isas follows:

2

~i

Instrument Particle Measured

Gelman GA-8 Membrane Filters Particulate sample measurement

Gelman Model 2220 Filter Holder Particulate sample measurement

Beckman NDIR Monitor carbon monoxide andcarbon dioxide

MSA Model 300 Monitor carbon monoxide andcarbon dioxide

Beckman WDIR Nitric oxide measurement

Beckman Ultraviolet Unit Nitrogen dioxide

Whittaker Electrochemical NOx Unit Nitric Oxides

c2ott Mouiel 115 Heated Total Hydrocarbon Measures C2 through 218Analyser Hydrocarbons

ENGINE DESCRIPION

The TF30-P-412 turbofan engine is a twin-spool, continuoud axial-flow, gas turbineengine with a common-flow afterburner. The major components include a sixteen-stagesplit compressor; a can-annular type conibusti-n chamber; a four-stage, split, reactionturbine; an accessory gearbox oil tank assembl; driven by the high pressure rotor; a

It4 common flow afterburning thrust augmentation system; and a variable-area iris conver-gent-divergent primary nozzle.

The combustion section consists of an annular diffuser and eight removable com-bustion liners evenly spaced in an annular chamber. Fuel is supplied to each linerby four, dual-orifice fuel nozzles through a multi-segment fuel manifold external tothe combustion section. An engine-driven fuel pump delivers the fuel to a hydro-mechanical fuel control which schedules the fuel f anaUnction of the hIh - 1- .... rspeed, low compressor inlet temperature and pressure, main burner pressure, Machnumber and power lever angle.

The five-zone, variable-augmentation afterburner consists of an afterburnerdiffuser assembly, afterburner combustion chamber and a variable-area iris convergent-divergent nozzle. The afterburner diffuser contains a vee-gutter flameholder, multi-segment spray rings, and a splitter duct. The afterburner diffuser accepts both cold,fan-exhaust air and hot, engine-exhaust air. These exhausts are aegregated by asplitter for a short-length prior to discharge of the hot and cold streams into acommon afterburner combustion chamber. The afterburner combustion chamber consistsof an outer duct and a concentric inner liner. The duct assembly receives the totalco:..mon exhaust of the engine (fan stream and engine stream) which then passes throughthe variable-area nozzle. The outer duct is mounted in tandem behind "he afterburnerdiffuser. The liner provides a conduit for fan air for cooling the outer duct andliner and provides acoustic damping. The variable-area nozzle consists of eighteenconvergent-divergent panels. The panels are hinged at the front to a un'•son ring.The unison ring is moved axially by four hydraulic fuel pressure actuators.

Afterburning operation can be modulated through the five zones. Zones I and IVburning takes place in the engine airstream, and Zones II, III and V burning in thefan stream. The zones light in numerical sequence. Afterburner ignition is of thehot-streak type. Afterburner augmentation is regulated by injecting varying amountsof fuel through spray rings into both tha turbine and fan discharge air. Combustionis stabilized by means of a multi-ring, vee-gutter flameholder.

3

The afterburner fuel is delivered to thc combined afterburner f'uel and exhaustnozzle control by engine driven fuel pumps. The control portion, which is hydro-mechanical, schedules the fuel as a function of the main burner pressure, power leverangle and compressor inlet temperature. The afterburner nozzle area is programmed bythe exhaust nozzle control section of the afterburner fuel control. The nozzle isscheduled in such a manner that the proper engine match is maintained during allregimes of afterb'urning. Nozzle area varies from a fully-closed area of 3.53 squarefeet to a fully-opened area of 7.50 square feet.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Appendix A presents the emission data sampled during the test program. The emis-sion levels of CO, HC and NOx were converted to a standard emission index (EI) param-eter. This is required since the overabundance of air in a gas turbine's exhaust cangive a misleading low pollutant level compared to other heat. engines if only a volu-metric unit is used. The El is essentially a 1ieasure of the pounds of pollutantsemitted per pound of fuel burned. It is calculated by using the concentration ofpollutant and the fuel-air ratio of the engine. The equations used for the conver-sions are included in Appendix B. A list of symbols is included as Appendix C.

1. Unburned Hydrocarbon Emissions

Unburned hydrocarbons represent unburned and wasted fuel. Under the actionof sunlight, and in conjunction with other air pollutants, the unburned hydrocarbonsreact to form compounds which are considered to be a major contributor to smog.

For this test program, the unburned hydrocarbons were measured as parts permillion carbon (ppmC'). Consequently, the form of the unburned hydrocarbons wasassumed to be CH2 . This assumption was necessary to convert ppiC to the EI (gHC/KgFuel).

Figure 3 presents the values of the unburned hydrocarbons. The shape of thecurve is substantiated by engine performance data when acknowledging the differentlevels of engine operation. Idle power and low levels of afterburning (Zones 1-3)result in comparatively low levels of combustion efficiency; whereas, intermediateand high levels of afterburner operation (Zones 4-5) indicate excellent combustionefficiency. It is interesting to note that approximately 10 grams of unburned hydro-carbon per kilogram of fuel burned would result in a combustion inefficiency of l%(reference 2).

Analysis of the data indicates that the levels of unburned hydrocarbon emis-

sions are not affected by either altitude and/or Mach number.

2. Nitric Oxide Emissions

These compounds are formed by the combination of nitrogen and oxygen in thecombustion air reacting at combustion temperatures. The available nitrogen from thecombustion air begins disassociation at approximately 3000°F. With the addition ofsunlight, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons react to form photochemical oxidants.These oxidants, along with liquid and solid particles in the air, make up what iscommonly known as smog.

The measured values of nitrogen oxides (Nox) emission concentrations are pre-sented in Figure 4.' Analysis of the data indicates that the engine gas generatordetermines the overall NOx level. This is in agreement with data collected by theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) during a TF3O-P.-3 gaseousemission investigation (reference 2).

Review of the data indicates that the level of nitrogen emissions are notaffected by either altitude or Mach number.

Theoretical studies show that of all the exhaaust pollutants, oxides ofnitrogen (NOx) present the most formidable problem. Some research has been accom-plished to understand the phenomena of formation of this exhaust emission. However,a firm technology for its -reduction in actual engine combustion systems does notexist as yet.

3. Carbon Monoxide Emissions

This compound is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas that is produced bythe incomplete combustion of carbon in the fuel. Combustion is completed whencarbon monoxide burns to form carbon dioxide.

The carbon monoxid& measured during this test program are presented inFigure 5. Review of the curve indicates that the levels of CO emission are notaffected by either altitude and/or Mach nmmber.

4. Visible Emissions

For the past five years, the aircraft engine industry has enacted a majoreffort towards the elimination of visible emissions. Analysis of the visible smokehas revealed that it consists primari.y of dry, solid, sub-micron particles of sootycarbon.

The visibility of the plume is directly related to the very small size ofthe smoke particles, thus, resulting in a maximum amount of light scattering. Con-iequently, small quantities of aircraft gas turbine smoke are dark and hignly visible,whereas, other sources such as the automotive internal combustion engine which emitmuch greater quantities of larger- size smoke particles have effectively invisibleplumes.

Fortunately, the mechanics of producing visible emissions in gas turbineengines wt's determined to be the result of locally fuel-rich regions in the primaryburning zone. Consequently, visible smoKe emissions of present gas turbine enginescan be virtually eliminated by either:

a. Increasing primary airflow.

b. Increasing primary mixing rates.

c. Improving fuel nozzle atomization.

d. Lowering the fuel's aromatic content.

5. Total Particulate Matter

Particulate matter is defined as any material except uncombined water thatexists in a finely dvided form as a liquid or solid at standard atmospheric condi-u•lons.

By weight, more than 50% of the total particulate matter emitted from gasturbine engines is due to unburned and partially oxidized fuel. Approximately 901oof the non-hydrocarbon material present is elemental carbon while the remainder ismaterial eroded from the engine, fuoel coiitaminants and dust ingested by the engine.

i5

During the test program, particulate samples were taken of the exhaust streamand analyzed for particle size through a Scanning Electron Microscope.

Analysis of the reduced data indicated little difference between particulatesamples taken at different altitudes or Mach number. However, the least particulateitaatter was observed during maximum afterburner (Zone 5) operation. This observationagrees favorably with the very low hydrocarbon emissions previously noted duringZone 5 operation (Figure 3).

IA typical particulate size and distribution curve is presented in Figure 6.* The "band" plotted reveals the variation in particle size obtained at some of the

other conditions tested. Investigation of these other conditions indicate that thevariation in particle size can be attriiuted to data scatter rather than change intest conditions. The complete particulate data acquired during the test program canbe found in reference 3, volume II.

6. Sample Validity

The measured values of CO and C02 were used to check the sample validity bycomputing an emission-.based fuel-toototal-air ratio (F/A) and comparing it with theknown F/A ratio. The rationale of calculating an emission-based F/A is that if thequantity of solid carbon particles is assumed to be negligible then closure is ,obtained on the carbon atom system through the measured quantities of CO, C02 andunburned hydrocarbons. The results of these computations are shown on Figure 7. Ofthe 84 samples taken throughout the test program, 14 were considered invalid due topoor F/A comparisons; however, the remaining 70 samples agreed within + 6%.

These results indicate that the downstream probe location utilized was asideal a iocation as one could expect in a test cell. Location of the sampler probecloser to the engine exhaust nozzle would require a probe in the .fan and gas generatorstreams for integration of the results. This would undoubt,.dly increase both complex-

ity and error.

Figure 8 presents estimated wake diagrams of the flow through the test cellejector at SLS conditions for idle, intermediate and maximum engine power settings.The profiles were obtained from Pratt and Whitney Aircraft estimates (reference 4)and theoretically modified for test cell ejector effects.

Ane.lysis of the diagram reveals that the sampler probe was located in a highlymixed, subsonic flow region. Dwell-time of the mixture ranged between approximately0.02 and 0.2 seconds.

1G

APPENDIX A

Nx C\j C\J cu 00 1- _:t co O -t- 0\ co mN cu C tJ - try ý

o o i C- H 0 ~C-- H. C4 L-: (l; t-: w~ tOC- 0 t- -

Ne' N u C CJ H H- CQJ Ck H

m- ON k ON Ln H1 mN c 0 nI \O0 -7 CMj (YbD c-1 \. r6 cý 5; C ý c ; r ý

0c (Y) n LC\ copr. L(N ON\ H1 H- ON H C0 CUj 0 LCN\ 00 C o H L-- \10 ".

Ur \ Ta \O) -f \1

cad CO C mi H 00 co CO t-- M r H L- If'\rnCG - C 0 ci 0 0 CUH0 I O O ) 0 \0 H C

P4 oq P 0 0 0 0 0 0) C) Ci 0 OM N Oj!-0 00 H 0x

rigg o o C o a ) 00C) 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 8 080 0 o8 o 300

C- - - ON O - O i O I

H

a) 0Q*d'*-I( H H U CU CU 0i 0.A ON ON C) 0 0 0 ..Z (I

4O-) -,- ONO\,D. i- . i c . :- c - c - - -

0) 0 C4

*d) ~ ~ iZ ~ ~ -i~ ~i 0 0 0 0 0

.,10 (0 A0 (0 (0 (0 .-1 (0 (0 (0 ( (0 00 00 C U C U C

4- 4- 4- 41ri- 'H*I ,] -q4 0 0) 0 0 0 0) T *l 0 I Q 0

043H HH H H H z HH

7r

C) tt ' (Y) 0 ON -LýC _:f - -f UN t-I (A CO LC6 '

H

U U 0 _:I _: N \D m. LO - G\ 0? 0N C t- OIN 0N '\

L4\ \'-0 N C\J' (Y) _:N N --I. \D H) C 0 C O N U ~~

oJ (Y0 '.0 \,o \', o -:I C'j - .

rx4 r4ol H CM\ (M H Y C ) CO H- HY '. .0 .'\MCO H

t0 H H

HM O n. H wNK CO mO mO H MO H- UN% t- ON\ON OU 0O C) t . . O O N0 UN CO O ~ '0 t

I~z0 riP Y)) H M 0 C) H H C C

q) R) .0 (\j C \ C\ OD C)I C\ C)t Cm -t C )

ON C) CM 0 ON On OIN C8 u. U \ ON ý:R) 4- M OC~) BH 0HMC H

H- rZ40 0- 8 0 0.0

;.4 H'-' HO H CH H Hi H H H H H H H- H H- H H H

0

H H-

C/) 0)00jw~/ t) - (M CO c co C OCO LI- ) CM CO C) co L- C) CM

r-44, H t r- H t ~ -t H- -: zr .-t H UN UN H4 C) - H " UN

E -i $ 4 -i r Ir I m -J l - 9 m mm -

0)0

r_, 0)

QrC-C) UNi 4 .0 CO 0. 4- O1CO O ) C O ON C . C

4-)4

0) -S0 0 0 0.) -

4.0) 0 0

H I I

oX .. r\ cvi o 0 aD o - ..r -o'\ 4 r \'D 0 Y3 cOON C

c ; 4 CM ' 0 CM q C; C C; t.

0)

wMC H H- ocPQx ON' \,O \8 0 HD CtN O 0 r>- O 0 4 1' -q-

C) * * * * *. . . . . . . . . . . .

0 mD H0 U'\ 0 C C C 0 H

A M 0 0 ON 0M 0M C0 0 0M CD CM

0'ij

'r i 0U)U d)\ ON C >0D C DC > N

aN (Y") \.O -pC mD %,o C> H C-0 \ 0 Cj 0O rb t 0X C\ 0 0. G\ 0\

. .r r4 *t 0ý r* LA * 0 *

"E-4

0 1o r 0/ co- ON CD- L, - o o o 0\O t'mm \0

p' i <40

.p-' C% CD H! 0! C1 CD: CD CD- CJ CDo CDD C Ho c cc

0 0

lp 0 ) 00 rCM 0 H. r.- 9O 0 ON ON ON CM \ H

4. ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C, 01 1 i 0 0

to~-C m ON I>- C>- 0 C>- ON 1 N 0 ~ ON ON ON ND CD ON

P:4 L - fLA Lr 0 W\ nA _j ON\ H L- 0

W G\ ON H 0 ON 0ý CC) \D --t \,D Lr\ U*N

~~~ H0 HH

0 ..- C C CO \,~ O \,o H 0 CN 0 01

U M LA:rCj Ll- 00_:

01M O \f r- "0J w\ 0 L- \ON 0\ ON \,w Hd O\ G\ 0 CO AHLKONt-A

~uC4 p M ON ON N 0 . co 0O O H lo 00 cm

0 0C) 0 0 0 00 00

CO CO C

0 0

SCA r-I HHi H - H Hi Hi H

qq to~& CO H 00 oM O'N CMj mO :O - ~ t _:t

Eri

*-~~4-~~C'tf mA LN C> A C O O-- C.r n CMj NA Cj NM CM

* C) CO CO CO CO 0 ' C 0 ' K O RC

r- A r- H -H A H H H- H H- Hi H-

*riC UN U-\ n L\ W\ nA Ul\ Ul LA\ LAý t 04-O C) (' c) (Y'1m Cl) LrN I\ UN LA\ yIN LŽ-

ý'4~ (Q ~or CC) Ul LA\ 0 H CU m' 0~0)pI 4-1

0) vi) Q) ) a) 0) e) *.-J a) ai) 0) a) 0)

Q) 0 ) 0 0 0 *~4~ 0 0 01' NNNNN N t$ N N N R NI

APPENDIX B

EQUATIONS USED FOR DATA REDUCTION

CO

1. W (LB/HR) = 210 F

CO 0C2 + C

NO

100

C2. WH (LB/HR) =104 F ____

CO CO + CS72 +410 10

NO

3. WF e (LB/u) =3.29 104 F

CO CO CO

C07+ - 2 + -10 107

CO 4 + CO2 C

k F/AMesrd -10 1027-2CO CO2

10

5. F/A Actual = Fuel FlowEngine Air Flow + Bg Flow

-gRig

6. % Dilution = __ngine + MB

AE-ngine

r 1

APPENDIX C

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Simbol Definition Unit

B Test Cell Cooling Air LB/SECRig

C Concentration of Hydrocarbon (HC) in Exhaust ppm

CO Concentration of CO (Carbon Monoxide) ppm

002 Concentration of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)

Ei Emission Index g(X)/Kg Fuel

F Mass Rate of. Fuel Usage LB/HR

F/A Fuel to Total Air Ratio

HC Concentration of Unburned Hydrocarbons ppm

H20 Water Vapor %

MMass Rate of Airflcv LB/SEC

kotal Engine Airflow Plus Test Cell Cooling Air LB/SEC

NO Concentration of Nitric Oxide ppm

NO2 Concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide ppm

NO2 Concentration of Nitrogen Oxide ppm

SIS Sea Level Static

WX Mass Emission Rate of Component X LB/HR

fplfflý- 0-10

10 A

c o <- % 7 ~

0-It.04

ktry

S; 4 I&

F71

.10

* 0

0Iw j.4

2 L

100

-J Q

Lii Sz

< g'ii. a

ww R.40

AI

FIGURE 3: UNBURNED HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS

1000 14 J 71 _7r -1i- -1ii- 7-T~ 1-r~r

Idlet A/D JA/B A/B- A t-AREA OF OPRAIO A/3 A/BJ

Military~~ ~~ Zoe1ZnT oe , Zn i Zn

4 -E 77rý TTF7J1HT :,-I fV1 rf-*

T TFTITA F FIA AjjqaF

Miitr Zon 4 Zoe

14 Af ___ _

--A JI4 T i~ L4 77 T SLtý, M =10 If- -A- 77 774~ ~ r~~~ 0 2,0 t .

_ 1.6 171 -1.8

U-- -4--4~-- 17 T-- ~ - _______

- - -1 11- j

Vi - - S14OL7ZL.~$ Z~

1-~ SL MV7 0r T7Ii4 Ai-1:-13- 1 7 -1 II-I 11 - 1 2 ,0 0 5 Ft6

4-j .- -- 'TOTAL, FUL/I RAT IO

-3- V _Tý 15

FIGURE h4: NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS

J-_. I-4s -- -r_ ~ 4 f-- f r 4 - - -4 i 4 vi I 1-4 ;A _T T 1J _ J A -r; f4'41fý - 7-77 'l f 7 7 _'-:i

f- ~ i PI-~z .- = 1.Z 7 L~

SIdle to IA/B A/B A/B A/B A/B -12-1.

Mi lit ary Zone 2. Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone It Zone 5

100 V fT1-7f -'I i �-1 41 14 F 1 ft ThII__IIJ_1_4_J__4_J:_ _____ _ V T 77 i -it i

J1L1 iI - .1 7. F - F 71TI f I

TFFE~ r~ 4 P1 J -

ti-I AI-. iiý. -~ . SYMBOLS

.. 2i XSL, M 01_4__ -4-

0 20,000 Ft, M =o.8

-_- 13~ 35,00 Fto 1. 0, 1..2, 1.k

4,1 xI. j 2..6 and 1.8

~i~¾--t ~.Th '~ C>55,000 Ft,M 1.

10T7-- N;j71 7 + 70,000 Ft, M 1.8

4- j

- 4- -. ------

.01 .0p .03 .04 .05 .c6

T ý-f-A1A FUElj/AIR RATIO

FIGUREi 5: CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS -- T 7

31000- ir r- r AFT1 I- Lrr J- rnrt- __4 -J E -H FrTH A r i-m~-

~~ - ~ ~ _ __ -t7 777 ý ;PzZ~~si

_ Tf fTFFi=Tý 7-ýL4'--j

ARA OF _ 01RAIO 1- W

-TIIN 4 -r-4 ::- 1. n .

T-17

___________ _vow__

17

:

iiAI IL

Iq A_ I

Ht. 4 1 141

VA

I: ,

E- I I4.)'

0 0

0) CD

FIGURE 7: SAMPLE VALIDITY (COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND ACTUALFUEL/AIR RATIOS)

I,_t r! It:: j_

,f Ii I- 'ý 1,;1" tl',

-t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 4 f 4;~p i:p

4.I1ji~ ' . lt~ 1. - I 1''.ý 'I .. 14 1f 41 4.t II

71~ ¶ 14 , t:! l44:4

ITT~," 444I +1-' T '

~121 F ~4 i Hi ý; IT I'l

__ I 07{. 1

0I .0lft 1 .034 0* .05t . ;6 .7*111 illit AC4 T UA jjjj,-L4"j FUET/1I11 ,ATIO

if W19

____ LPi14

41PI Ith

fi jtf tti lj'iýpp

~t- Hi ;a p h HI

It if 1. t ~

it1f1 11 t :t4 i I PP ?*fl 1d 4-fi T7i ..li VF 1,, 1P 1. rt, !1n

IL0

I 0 IT "fifl1If lit .I o.ffT 1, 0l fl hlIi

ITli it~- if imi *f" t~F17'A ~j 4 ~t~ ~-L>i

10, 7CA -H IM HP'. i 2 7FF

CITED REFERENCES

1. Authorization - Inter-Agency Agreement No. DOT-FA71WAI-208, Department ofTransportation (Federal Aviation Agency.) to the Naval Air Propulsion TestCenter, dated 14 December 1970

2. Memorandum - Larryj A. Diehl, Preliminiary Investigation of Gaseous EmissiohsFrom Jet Engine Afterburners, NASA TM X-2323; July 1971

3. Report - "SST Powerplwat Exhaust Emission Characteriziation," Scott ResearchLaboratories, Inc., SRL-.220 OJ- 03,.-, Volume 1, 11

4. Specification - Pratt and I.I'tney Aircraft TF30-P..412 Specification No. N-6130,Curve No. T-1770, Sheets 2C4-.r26; 30 May 1970

21

1. Report - Sub-Council Report, "Exhaust Emissions from Gas Turbine AircraftP •Engines," (National Industrial Pollution Control Council); February 1971

22. Memorandum - General Electric Aircraft Engihe Group of 27 April 1971

3. Report - Stockham, John and Betz, Howard, "Study of Visible Exhaust Smokefrom Aircraft Jet Engines," (IIT Research Institute): Report No. FAA-RD-71-22of June 1971

4. Article - Sawyer, R. F., Teixiera, D. P. and Starkman, E. S., "Air PollutionCharacteristics of'Gas Turbine Engines," Journal of Engineering for Power,Transactions of the ASME, Volume 91; October 1969

5. -Paper- Bastress, E. K. and Fletcher, R. S., "Aircraft Engine Exhaust Emissions,"I ASME Paper No. 69-WA/APC-4

6. Article - Sawyer, R. F.,"Reducing Jet Pollution Before It Becomes Serious,"Astronautics ahd Aeronautics; April 1970

7. Paper - Soo, S. L., "Diffusion and Fallout of Particulates Emitte. by AircraftEngines," ASME Paper No. 71-WA/AV-2

8. Paper - Klapatch, R. D. and Kobush, T. R., "Nitrogen Oxide Control With WaterInjection in Gas Turbinec," ASMý Paper No. 71..WA/GT-9

9. Paper - Kress, R. and Lovejoy, S. W., "Proapcted Gas Turbine Procurement Standard:Environmental Considerations, "ASME Paper No. 71-WA/PTC-3

10. Article - Heywood, J. B., Fay, J. A. and Linden, L. H., "Jet Aircraft AirPollutant Production and Dispersion," AIAA Journal, Volume 9, Number 5;

May 1971

22