0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

Emission Reduction of Fuel-Staged Aircraft Engine Combustor Using an Additional Premixed Fuel Nozzle

[+] Author and Article Information
Takeshi Yamamoto

e-mail: yamamoto.takeshi@jaxa.jp

Yoji Kurosawa

Clean Engine Team,
Aviation Program Group,
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency,
7-44-1 Jindaiji-higashi-machi, Chofu,
Tokyo 182-8522, Japan

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power. Manuscript received July 24, 2012; final manuscript received October 10, 2012; published online February 21, 2013. Editor: Dilip R. Ballal.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 135(3), 031502 (Feb 21, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: GTP-12-1297; doi: 10.1115/1.4007868 History: Received July 24, 2012; Revised October 10, 2012

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is conducting research and development on aircraft engine technologies to reduce environmental impact for the Technology Development Project for Clean Engines (TechCLEAN). As a part of the project, combustion technologies have been developed with an aggressive target that is an 80% reduction over the NOx threshold of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)/4 standard. A staged fuel nozzle with a pilot mixer and a main mixer was developed and tested using a single-sector combustor under the target engine's landing and takeoff (LTO) cycle conditions with a rated output of 40 kN and an overall pressure ratio of 25.8. The test results showed a 77% reduction over the CAEP/4 NOx standard. However, the reduction in smoke at thrust conditions higher than the 30% MTO condition and of CO emission at thrust conditions lower than the 85% MTO condition are necessary. In the present study, an additional fuel burner was designed and tested with the staged fuel nozzle in a single-sector combustor to control emissions. The test results show that the combustor enables an 82% reduction in NOx emissions relative to the ICAO CAEP/4 standard and a drastic reduction in smoke and CO emissions.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Penner, J. E., Lister, D. H., Griggs, D. J., Dokken, D. J., and McFarland, M., eds., 1999, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
European Aviation Safety Agency, 2012, “ICAO Aircraft Engine Emissions Databank,” http://easa.europa.eu/environment/edb/aircraft-engine-emissions.php
NEDO, 2012, “Research and Development for an Environment-Friendly Small Aircraft Engine, Outline of NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization) 2008–2009,” http://www.nedo.go.jp/kankobutsu/pamphlets/kouhou/2008gaiyo_e/all.pdf, pp. 35–36.
Lazik, W., Doerr, Th., Bake, S., v. d. Bank, R., and Rackwiz, L., 2008, “Development of Lean-Burn Low-NOx Combustion Technology at Rolls-Royce Deutschland,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2008, Berlin, June 9–13, ASME Paper No. GT2008-51115. [CrossRef]
Heidmann, J., 2010, “NASA's Current Plans for ERA Propulsion Technology,” NASA, http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/asm_2010_heidmann%20v4x_508.pdf
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, 2012, “Environmentally Compatible Engine Technology Team,” JAXA, http://www.apg.jaxa.jp/eng/research/cet/cet-index.html
Yamamoto, T., Shimodaira, K., Kurosawa, Y., Matsuura, K., Iino, J., and Yoshida, S., 2009, “Research and Development of Staging Fuel Nozzle for Aeroengine,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2009, Orlando, FL, June 8–12, ASME Paper No. GT2009-59852. [CrossRef]
Yamamoto, T., Shimodaira, K., Kurosawa, Y., Yoshida, S., and Matsuura, K., 2010, “Investigations of a Staged Fuel Nozzle for Aeroengines by Multi-Sector Combustor Test,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2010, Glasgow, UK, June 14–18, ASME Paper No. GT2010-23206. [CrossRef]
Yamamoto, T., Shimodaira, K., Kurosawa, Y., and Yoshida, S., 2011, “Combustion Characteristics of Fuel Staged Combustor for Aeroengines at LTO Cycle Conditions,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2011, Vancouver, Canada, June 6–10, ASME Paper No. GT2011-46133. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

ICAO NOx standard and target of TechCLEAN

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Cross-section of LSF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Outlet side of LSF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Original single-sector combustor, C1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cross-section of ECF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Single-sector combustor with ECF, C2; (a) front view; (b) side view

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of EINOx and EIHC of C1 and C2 at pressure and air temperature of the 7% MTO condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of EICO of C1 and C2 at pressure and air temperature of the 7% MTO condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

EINOx, EIHC, EICO, and SN of C2 at pressure and air temperature of the 30% MTO condition when only pilot fuel is injected

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparisons of EINOx, EIHC, EICO, and SN of C1 and C2 at pressure and air temperature under the 30% MTO condition when only pilot fuel is injected

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Dependence of EINOx, EIHC, EICO, and SN at the 30% MTO condition on ECF fuel percentage when both fuel and ECF fuel are injected

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparisons of EINOx, EIHC, and EICO of C1 and C2 at pressure and air temperature under the 85% MTO condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparisons of EINOx, EIHC, and EICO of C1 and C2 at pressure and air temperature under the 100% MTO condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Dependence of EINOx, EIHC, and EICO on AFRb under the 100% MTO condition; E indicates ECF

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Dependence of EINOx, EIHC, EICO, and CE at 100% MTO condition on ECF fuel percentage

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparisons of NOx emissions of C1 and C2 with ECF fuel injection relative to the CAEP/4 standard at each LTO cycle condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparisons of HC emissions of C1 and C2 with ECF fuel injection relative to the CAEP standard at each LTO cycle condition

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparisons of CO emissions of C1 and C2 with ECF fuel injection relative to the CAEP standard at each LTO cycle condition

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In