GE Aviation Low Emissions Combustion Technology Evolution

GE Aviation Low Emissions CombustionTechnology Evolution Hukam C. Mongia, Manager Adv. Comb. Eng., GE Aviation, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A. Aviation .Presentation Outline Introduction Optimized Rich-Quench Lean (ORQL) Technology Dual-Annular (Rich or Lean Dome) Combustors (DAC) Combustion System Tradeoffs Twin Annular Premixing Swirler (TAPS) Long-term Goal (for TAPS2 and TAPS3) Summary Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 2/ GE . With our innovative singleannular TAPS combustor.. "because it's not going Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 3/ GE . and Mongia Google search for “low gaseous emissions propulsion engine (1977) technology” on November 24. lean operation File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat TAPS combustor extends the life of the.Aviation: GEnx GEnx TAPS Combustor--The Most Advanced Combustor in the Industry. GEnx combustion liner and the turbine. In addition.. the GEnx is designed to be the Aviation Maintenance Magazine :: GE's Simpler. Wilking said.Extensive Low-Emissions Tech Development Activities for 30 years Bahr and Gleason (1975). components downstream.. Efficient GEnx GE's Simpler. 2007 at 7:11 AM gave a total of 3820 entries: GEnx TAPS combustor Google search gave 762 entries including: Cool Burnings Allen Paxson. GEnx product line and Airbus programs manager. R. PDF] The GEnx promises clean. the lower temperatures reduce liner GE . Davis. The TAPS combustor runs cooler. "The TAPS combustor has changed the game in terms of NOx . More Efficient Genx The GE90 turbofan has spawned a number of .Aviation ... Bruce. says that on the GEnx powerplant. et al (1976). too. Kuhn. D. Peduzzi. Roberts. and Vitti (1975). Anderson. Aviation .Optimized to meet ALL Design Requirements: NOx. CO & HC Rich Quench Lean Combustors Combustion Eff Idle Combustion Eff Cruise Pressure Drop Altitude Restart Descent Weak Extinction Transient Operation Hail/Water Ingestion Peak Pattern Factor Peak Profile Factor Root and Tip Temperatures Combustor Durability Low-Emissions Fuel Injector Coking Comb. Combustion System Weight Total Cost of Ownership Must Meet All Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 Reqmnts 4/ GE . Smoke. 04+2 EPR (2008) LTO NOx. g/kN 70 RQL 20% 60 50 iz m i t Op 40 10% QL R ed >30% CAEP6-30% <30% margin from CAEP6 30 20 20 25 30 35 40 45 Engine Pressure Ratio Target >30% NOx Reduction from ORQL Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 5/ GE .Aviation .Rich-Quench-Lean Technology Potential 80 CAEP6: -1. Annular CombustorFleet experience (2/06):NOx.3M Cycles Comparable with SAC: In-flight shutdown Aborted takeoffs Delays & Cancellations Optimized RQL will catch up with DAC If no new inventions ~30% NOx Reduction Staged Combustion in DAC Combustor Low Power (20/0) Intermediate Power (20/25) High Power (20/20) Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 Off-design Turbine Efficiency (2) Altitude Restart Descent Weak Extinction Transient Operation Hail/Water Ingestion Peak Pattern Factor Peak Profile Factor (1) Fuel Injector Coking Liner Durability Fix in-place Combustion System Weight Total Cost of Ownership Future Invention to address Red &Orange Issues 6/ GE . CO & HC ~375 Engines DAC ~5M Flight Hrs. ~3.Aviation .DAC Optimized to meet ALL but 2 Design Requirements Dual. Smoke. g/kN LTO NOx. g/kN 100 LTO CO. g/kN LTO NOx. g/kN Goal: Reduce NOx. g/kN NOx versus CO and HC Tradeoffs Same SAC & Fuel CFM56-5A 65 SAC vs DAC Nozzle CFM56-5B 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 CFM56-5B/P CFM56-7B CFM56-5B/PDAC CFM56-7BDAC ? 20 20 40 60 80 40 60 80 100 120 LTO CO.Aviation .65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 CFM56-5A CFM56-5B CFM56-5B/P CFM56-7B LTO NOx. g/kN Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 7/ GE . CO and HC Is it fundamentally possible? ? 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 HC ? 0 CFM56-5A CFM56-5B CFM56-5B/P CFM56-7B CFM56-5B/PDAC CFM56-7BDAC ? 5 10 15 20 LTO HC. Pilot and Main (Twin) Flames Main flame is an Annular flameDegree of Premixing optimized For TAPS1 Swirler-stabilized flames Cyclone … Mixing Air … Fuel Injection Pilot TAPS Fuel Nozzle & Swirler Arrangement 8 Years and ~$60 MM to reach TRL6 Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 8/ GE .Aviation . Aviation .No Engine Testing TAPS Cruise NOx Reduction SL Engine OP-Line TAPS_Typ2 TAPS_Typ1 EINOx/P3^.5 Optimized RQL High EPR TAPS (Typ) DAC TAPS combustor and fuel nozzle tested in a full-scale full-annular test rig Low EPR TAPS (Typ) Typ2 Cruise NOx Reduction Potential Typ1 cruise range T3 (F) Cruise NOx Reduction Potential ≥ LTO NOx Reduction Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 9/ GE . Aviation . g/kN 65 55 45 24% 39% 31% 46% 35 27% 49% 25 15 20 25 30 Engine Pressure Ratio 35 39-49% LTO NOx Reduction from RQL Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 10 / GE .TAPS NOx compared w/ RQL and Lean DAC CFM56-5B/P CFM56-7B CFM56-5B/PDAC CFM56-7BDAC CFM TAPS GE/NASA E^3 75 LTO NOx. g/kN 65 18 LTO HC. g/kN LTO NOx. g/kN CFM56-5B/P CFM56-7B CFM56-5B/PDAC CFM56-7BDAC CFM TAPS GE/NASA E^3 75 100 80 35 CFM56-5B/P CFM56-7B CFM56-5B/PDAC CFM56-7BDAC CFM TAPS 60 40 20 0 20 25 30 35 Engine Pressure Ratio Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 20 25 30 35 Engine Pressure Ratio 11 / GE .Lowest PF and reduced Twall levels and gradients – Improved life 55 HC as good as SAC 16 14 45 35 12 CFM56-5B/P CFM56-7B CFM56-5B/PDAC CFM56-7BDAC CFM TAPS 10 8 6 4 25 2 15 0 20 Max Smoke No. ~45% NOx reduction 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 25 30 Engine Pressure Ratio Smoke # CFM56-5B/P CFM56-7B CFM56-5B/PDAC CFM56-7BDAC CFM TAPS 1/10th 20 35 140 25 30 Engine Pressure Ratio CO midway 120 LTO CO.Aviation . g/kN GE90DACI GE90DACII GE90-115B GE90TAPS FAR 6 50 0 10 37 39 41 43 41 43 Engine Pressure Ratio Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 CO comparable 30 20 35 39 40 2 33 37 70 10 8 35 Engine Pressure Ratio Particulate mass ~1/4th 12 Max Smoke No. g/kN LTO NOx.Aviation .80 6 70 5 LTO HC. HC ~1 30 35 40 45 Engine Pressure Ratio 12 / GE . g/kN Lowest PF and reduced Twall levels and gradients – Improved life 60 50 44-58% Reduction GE90DACI GE90DACII GE90-115B GE90TAPS FAR 40 30 4 GE90DACI GE90DACII GE90-115B GE90TAPS FAR 3 2 1 20 0 33 35 37 39 41 43 33 Engine Pressure Ratio GE90DACI GE90DACII GE90-115B GE90TAPS FAR 60 4 LTO CO. g/kN 13 / GE .Aviation . g/kN 55 45 35 25 80 50 60 4 5 6 GE90DACII GE90-115B GE90TAPS 70 LTO NOx. g/kN 65 30 60 50 40 30 20 15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 LTO HC. g/kN Summary of Emissions Technology Trend line 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GE90DACII GE90-115B GE90TAPS 0 20 40 60 80 10 20 100 LTO NOx. g/kN LTO NOx.65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 CFM56-5B/P CFM56-7B CFMTAPS LTO NOx. g/kN Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 0 1 2 3 LTO HC. g/kN CFM56-5B/P CFM56-7B CFMTAPS 40 LTO CO. g/kN LTO CO. 80 PM_Phi=0.65 PM_Phi=0.Aviation .70 PM_fi=0.60 PM_Phi=0.75 PM_Phi=0.85 Comb 1 Comb 2 Comb 3 Comb 4 Comb 5 Comb 6 0 Comb Inlet Temperature Reducing from 50 Take-off EINOx to 5 EI w/ TAPSX? What is Customers’ Expectation? Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 14 / GE .Long-Term Vision: How much low NOx w/ 0.6 φ? 80 EINOx 60 40 20 Diffusion Flame PPM_chi=3 PPM_chi=4 PPM_chi=5 PPM_ chi=6 PM_Phi=0. ≈15-20 years Government Funded Effort Required to get to TRL6 Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 15 / GE .Aviation .NASA’s UEET and Propulsion 21 Programs Goals: 30% CAEP2 at EPR>50 (TAPS2 Tech!)⇒ ≈50% CAEP6 Level of Effort: ≈ 2xTAPS1 Technology $. ≈10 years 15% CAEP2 at EPR>50 (TAPS3 Tech!)⇒ ≈25% CAEP6 Level of Effort: ≈ 2xTAPS2 Technology $. Aviation . 10% 40 UEET 5-cup B3 .UEET demonstrated limitation of TAPS1 Technology 45 (high power pilot fuel split listed in legend) UEET FAR 6% UEET 5-cup B2. 6% 35 30 %ICAO 17% Reduction from FAR 25 20 15 10 5 0 NOx CO HC More work needed for conducting combustion system tradeoffs and TAPS2 mixer development UEET Program Terminated Prematurely Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 16 / GE . Aviation .Preliminary Mixer Development Effort for Cruise EINOx EINOx Typical Cruise Conditions ec T S1 P TA h og l o n y ~70% Reduction TAPS 2 and 3 Fuel/Air Ratio Propulsion 21 Program Terminated Prematurely Mongia_AIAA_IITK_2008 17 / GE .