32 research outputs found

    Alternate-Fueled Combustor-Sector Performance

    Get PDF
    Alternate aviation fuels for military or commercial use are required to satisfy MIL-DTL-83133F(2008) or ASTM D 7566 (2010) standards, respectively, and are classified as "drop-in" fuel replacements. To satisfy legacy issues, blends to 50% alternate fuel with petroleum fuels are certified individually on the basis of processing and assumed to be feedstock agnostic. Adherence to alternate fuels and fuel blends requires "smart fueling systems" or advanced fuel-flexible systems, including combustors and engines, without significant sacrifice in performance or emissions requirements. This paper provides preliminary performance (Part A) and emissions and particulates (Part B) combustor sector data. The data are for nominal inlet conditions at 225 psia and 800 F (1.551 MPa and 700 K), for synthetic-paraffinic-kerosene- (SPK-) type (Fisher-Tropsch (FT)) fuel and blends with JP-8+100 relative to JP-8+100 as baseline fueling. Assessments are made of the change in combustor efficiency, wall temperatures, emissions, and luminosity with SPK of 0%, 50%, and 100% fueling composition at 3% combustor pressure drop. The performance results (Part A) indicate no quantifiable differences in combustor efficiency, a general trend to lower liner and higher core flow temperatures with increased FT fuel blends. In general, emissions data (Part B) show little differences, but with percent increase in FT-SPK-type fueling, particulate emissions and wall temperatures are less than with baseline JP-8. High-speed photography illustrates both luminosity and combustor dynamic flame characteristics

    Reductions in aircraft particulate emissions due to the use of Fischer–Tropsch fuels

    Get PDF
    The use of alternative fuels for aviation is likely to increase due to concerns over fuel security, price stability, and the sustainability of fuel sources. Concurrent reductions in particulate emissions from these alternative fuels are expected because of changes in fuel composition including reduced sulfur and aromatic content. The NASA Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment (AAFEX) was conducted in January–February 2009 to investigate the effects of synthetic fuels on gas-phase and particulate emissions. Standard petroleum JP-8 fuel, pure synthetic fuels produced from natural gas and coal feedstocks using the Fischer–Tropsch (FT) process, and 50% blends of both fuels were tested in the CFM-56 engines on a DC-8 aircraft. To examine plume chemistry and particle evolution with time, samples were drawn from inlet probes positioned 1, 30, and 145 m downstream of the aircraft engines. No significant alteration to engine performance was measured when burning the alternative fuels. However, leaks in the aircraft fuel system were detected when operated with the pure FT fuels as a result of the absence of aromatic compounds in the fuel. <br><br> Dramatic reductions in soot emissions were measured for both the pure FT fuels (reductions in mass of 86% averaged over all powers) and blended fuels (66%) relative to the JP-8 baseline with the largest reductions at idle conditions. At 7% power, this corresponds to a reduction from 7.6 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> for JP-8 to 1.2 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> for the natural gas FT fuel. At full power, soot emissions were reduced from 103 to 24 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> (JP-8 and natural gas FT, respectively). The alternative fuels also produced smaller soot (e.g., at 85% power, volume mean diameters were reduced from 78 nm for JP-8 to 51 nm for the natural gas FT fuel), which may reduce their ability to act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). The reductions in particulate emissions are expected for all alternative fuels with similar reductions in fuel sulfur and aromatic content regardless of the feedstock. <br><br> As the plume cools downwind of the engine, nucleation-mode aerosols form. For the pure FT fuels, reductions (94% averaged over all powers) in downwind particle number emissions were similar to those measured at the exhaust plane (84%). However, the blended fuels had less of a reduction (reductions of 30–44%) than initially measured (64%). The likely explanation is that the reduced soot emissions in the blended fuel exhaust plume results in promotion of new particle formation microphysics, rather than coating on pre-existing soot particles, which is dominant in the JP-8 exhaust plume. Downwind particle volume emissions were reduced for both the pure (79 and 86% reductions) and blended FT fuels (36 and 46%) due to the large reductions in soot emissions. In addition, the alternative fuels had reduced particulate sulfate production (near zero for FT fuels) due to decreased fuel sulfur content. <br><br> To study the formation of volatile aerosols (defined as any aerosol formed as the plume ages) in more detail, tests were performed at varying ambient temperatures (−4 to 20 °C). At idle, particle number and volume emissions were reduced linearly with increasing ambient temperature, with best fit slopes corresponding to −8 × 10<sup>14</sup> particles (kg fuel)<sup>−1</sup> °C<sup>−1</sup> for particle number emissions and −10 mm<sup>3</sup> (kg fuel)<sup>−1</sup> °C<sup>−1</sup> for particle volume emissions. The temperature dependency of aerosol formation can have large effects on local air quality surrounding airports in cold regions. Aircraft-produced aerosols in these regions will be much larger than levels expected based solely on measurements made directly at the engine exit plane. The majority (90% at idle) of the volatile aerosol mass formed as nucleation-mode aerosols, with a smaller fraction as a soot coating. Conversion efficiencies of up to 2.8% were measured for the partitioning of gas-phase precursors (unburned hydrocarbons and SO<sub>2</sub>) to form volatile aerosols. Highest conversion efficiencies were measured at 45% power

    Alternate-Fueled Combustion-Sector Emissions

    Get PDF
    In order to meet rapidly growing demand for fuel, as well as address environmental concerns, the aviation industry has been testing alternate fuels for performance and technical usability in commercial and military aircraft. Currently, alternate aviation fuels must satisfy MIL-DTL- 83133F(2008) (military) or ASTM D 7566- Annex(2011) (commercial) standards and are termed drop-in fuel replacements. Fuel blends of up to 50% alternative fuel blended with petroleum (JP-8), which have become a practical alternative, are individually certified on the market. In order to make alternate fuels (and blends) a viable option for aviation, the fuel must be able to perform at a similar or higher level than traditional petroleum fuel. They also attempt to curb harmful emissions, and therefore a truly effective alternate fuel would emit at or under the level of currently used fuel. This paper analyzes data from gaseous and particulate emissions of an aircraft combustor sector. The data were evaluated at various inlet conditions, including variation in pressure and temperature, fuel-to-air ratios, and percent composition of alternate fuel. Traditional JP-8+100 data were taken as a baseline, and blends of JP- 8+100 with synthetic-paraffinic-kerosene (SPK) fuel (Fischer-Tropsch (FT)) were used for comparison. Gaseous and particulate emissions, as well as flame luminosity, were assessed for differences between FT composition of 0%, 50%, and 100%. The data showed that SPK fuel (a FT-derived fuel) had slightly lower harmful gaseous emissions, and smoke number information corroborated the hypothesis that SPK-FT fuels are cleaner burning fuels

    Alternate-Fueled Combustor-Sector Emissions

    Get PDF
    In order to meet rapidly growing demand for fuel, as well as address environmental concerns, the aviation industry has been testing alternate fuels for performance and technical usability in commercial and military aircraft. In order to make alternate fuels (and blends) a viable option for aviation, the fuel must be able to perform at a similar or higher level than traditional petroleum fuel. They also attempt to curb harmful emissions, and therefore a truly effective alternate fuel would emit at or under the level of currently used fuel. This report analyzes data from gaseous and particulate emissions of an aircraft combustor sector. The data were evaluated at various inlet conditions, including variation in pressure and temperature, fuel-to-air ratios, and percent composition of alternate fuel. Traditional JP-8+100 data were taken as a baseline, and blends of JP-8+100 with synthetic-paraffinic-kerosene (SPK) fuel (Fischer-Tropsch (FT)) were used for comparison. Gaseous and particulate emissions, as well as flame luminosity, were assessed for differences between FT composition of 0, 50, and 100 percent. The data show that SPK fuel (an FT-derived fuel) had slightly lower harmful gaseous emissions, and smoke number information corroborated the hypothesis that SPK-FT fuels are cleaner burning fuels

    Alternate-Fueled Combustor-Sector Performance

    Get PDF
    In order to realize alternative fueling for military and commercial use, the industry has set forth guidelines that must be met by each fuel. These aviation fueling requirements are outlined in MILDTL- 83133F(2008) or ASTM D 7566 Annex (2011) standards, and are classified as drop-in fuel replacements. This paper provides combustor performance data for synthetic-paraffinic-kerosene- (SPK-) type (Fisher-Tropsch (FT)) fuel and blends with JP-8+100, relative to JP-8+100 as baseline fueling. Data were taken at various nominal inlet conditions: 75 psia (0.52 MPa) at 500 F (533 K), 125 psia (0.86 MPa) at 625 F (603 K), 175 psia (1.21 MPa) at 725 F (658 K), and 225 psia (1.55 MPa) at 790 F (694 K). Combustor performance analysis assessments were made for the change in flame temperatures, combustor efficiency, wall temperatures, and exhaust plane temperatures at 3%, 4%, and 5% combustor pressure drop (% delta P) for fuel: air ratios (F/A) ranging from 0.010 to 0.025. Significant general trends show lower liner temperatures and higher flame and combustor outlet temperatures with increases in FT fueling relative to JP-8+100 fueling. The latter affects both turbine efficiency and blade/vane life

    Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment (AAFEX)

    Get PDF
    The rising cost of oil coupled with the need to reduce pollution and dependence on foreign suppliers has spurred great interest and activity in developing alternative aviation fuels. Although a variety of fuels have been produced that have similar properties to standard Jet A, detailed studies are required to ascertain the exact impacts of the fuels on engine operation and exhaust composition. In response to this need, NASA acquired and burned a variety of alternative aviation fuel mixtures in the Dryden Flight Research Center DC-8 to assess changes in the aircraft s CFM-56 engine performance and emission parameters relative to operation with standard JP-8. This Alternative Aviation Fuel Experiment, or AAFEX, was conducted at NASA Dryden s Aircraft Operations Facility (DAOF) in Palmdale, California, from January 19 to February 3, 2009 and specifically sought to establish fuel matrix effects on: 1) engine and exhaust gas temperatures and compressor speeds; 2) engine and auxiliary power unit (APU) gas phase and particle emissions and characteristics; and 3) volatile aerosol formation in aging exhaust plume

    Effect of cruise altitude and alternative aviation fuels on radiative forcing

    No full text
    The radiative forcing caused by the emissions of jet aircraft is calculated using data from an aircraft performance model. Data from the performance model is needed to calculate the emissions of the aircraft. The sensitivity function and lifetime of the emitted gasses and particles are used to calculate the integrated radiative forcing of the flight of an aircraft. Analysis of a single flight using different fuels and with different cruising altitudes revealed that contrails and aviation induced cirrus cause the largest integrated radiative forcing. This leads to lowest integrated radiative forcing for a cruise altitude of 6 km for both Jet A-1 and Hydrotreated Renewable Jet fuel (HRJ). If contrails and cirrus are omitted the best cruise altitude from the calculated set for Jet A-1 is 11 km while for HRJ 6 km still leads to the lowest integrated radiative forcing.Aerodynamics, Wind Energy & PropulsionAerospace Engineerin
    corecore