Q
`0”‘ A\"’4»,
`I
`-2“
`>’O4,/K_J\\Oz-
`
`~/mar
`
`U.S. Department
`of Transportation
`Federal Aviation
`
`Administration
`
`Evaluation of ARA
`Catalytic Hydrothermolysis
`(CH) Fuel
`
`Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions
`
`and Noise (CLEEN) Program
`
`Submitted by Pratt & Whitney
`
`DOT/ F
`
`UTC-2014.001
`
`GE v. UTC
`
`Trial IPR2016—00952
`
`

`

`CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION.
`
`The Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Program is
`a Federal Aviation Administration NextGen effort to accelerate
`development of environmentally promising aircraft technologies and
`sustainable alternative fuels. The CLEEN Program is managed by the
`FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy.
`
`The report presented herein is a report deliverable submitted by Pratt &
`Whitney for a project conducted under the CLEEN Program to evaluate
`the feasibility of selected alternative fuels as viable drop-in replacements
`to petroleum jet fuel. This project was conducted under FAA other
`transaction agreement (OTA) DTFAWA-10-C-00041. This is report
`number DOT/FAA/AEE/2014-08 by the FAA’s Office of Environment and
`Energy.
`
`CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION.
`
`UTC-2014.002
`
`

`

`Pratt & Whitney
`
`A United Technologies Company
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`400 Main Street
`East Hartford, CT 06108
`
`In reply please refer to:
`SSC:DTFAWA-10-C-00041/15
`
`30 April 2014
`
`
`
`FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
`Jared Tritle, Contracting Officer
`800 Independence Avenue, SW
`Room 402
`Washington, D.C. 20591
`
`Subject: FINAL REPORT, PUBLIC RELEASE VERSION, FR-27652-2a
`
`Reference: Contract No. DTFAWA-10-C-00041, Item No. 15
`
`In accordance with the applicable requirements under the referenced contract, Pratt & Whitney
`herewith submits one (1) copy of the Public Release version of the Final Report for the subject
`contract.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Sarah Christopher
`Program Data Manager
`
`
`
`With enclosure:
`FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
`Gonca Birkan, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative
`800 Independence Avenue, SW
`Room 900
`Washington, D.C. 20591
`
`Rhett Jeffries
`CLEEN Program Manager
`Federal Aviation Administration
`800 Independence Avenue, SW
`Washington, D.C. 20591
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UTC-2014.003
`
`

`

`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`22 April 2014
`
`CONTINUOUS LOWER ENERGY, EMISSIONS, AND NOISE
`(CLEEN) PROGRAM
`
`APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES (ARA)
`CATALYTIC HYDROTHERMOLYSIS (CH)
`
`Prepared for
`FAA Office of Environment and Energy
`
`Prepared under
`Contract No. DTFAWA-10-C-00041
`
`In Response to
`CDRL No. 15
`
`Prepared by
`Lucinda Lew and Tedd Biddle
`United Technologies Corporation
`Pratt & Whitney Military Engines
`400 Main Street
`East Hartford, CT 06118 USA
`
`EXPORT NOTICE
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`
`UTC-2014.004
`
`

`

`
`
`Section
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`1.0 Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................1
`
`2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................2
`
`3.0 Approach ................................................................................................................................................3
`3.1 Test Facility .....................................................................................................................................3
`3.2 Test Fuels .........................................................................................................................................4
`3.3 Engine Tests .....................................................................................................................................4
`3.4 Single Nozzle Can Combustor Rig Tests .........................................................................................6
`
`4.0 Results and Discussion ..........................................................................................................................7
`4.1 Fuel Properties .................................................................................................................................7
`4.2 Fuel System Components ................................................................................................................7
`4.3 Engine Operability ...........................................................................................................................8
`4.4 Engine Performance .......................................................................................................................10
`4.5 Smoke and Emissions ....................................................................................................................10
`4.6 Can Combustor Cold Start .............................................................................................................13
`4.7 Can Combustor Altitude Relights ..................................................................................................14
`
`5.0 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................................15
`
`6.0 References ............................................................................................................................................16
`
`Appendix A Fuel Properties Analysis........................................................................................................17
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`ii
`
`UTC-2014.005
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`LIST OF FIGURES
`
`Page
`Figure
`Figure 1. Emissions Sampling System .........................................................................................................3
`Figure 2. Fuel Supply System ......................................................................................................................3
`Figure 3. Forward Bodies Manoeuvre .........................................................................................................5
`Figure 4. Reverse Bodies Manoeuvre ..........................................................................................................5
`Figure 5. Flow Number for Each Fuel Nozzle Before and After the Engine Tests .....................................8
`Figure 6. Engine Emissions Comparison of Jet A-1 and ARA CH Biofuel Blends ..................................11
`Figure 7. Smoke Density Comparison Between Smoke Analyzer and LII Equipment .............................12
`Figure 8. ARA CH Cold Start at 0°F .........................................................................................................13
`Figure 9. ARA CH Cold Start at -40°F ......................................................................................................13
`Figure 10. ARA CH Altitude Relight at 15kft ...........................................................................................14
`Figure 11. ARA CH Altitude Relight at 30kft ...........................................................................................14
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`iii
`
`UTC-2014.006
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`LIST OF TABLES
`
`Page
`Table
`Table 1. Test Fuel Properties .......................................................................................................................7
`Table 2. Performance Test Main Parameters at Takeoff Thrust of 1,460lbf .............................................10
`Table 3. Summary of Mass Concentration and Particle Count Number by LII Equipment ......................12
`Table 4.Fuel Properties Analysis ...............................................................................................................17
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`iv
`
`UTC-2014.007
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`ACRONYMS
`A
`Air Force Research Laboratory
`Automatic Particle Analyzer
`Applied Research Associates
`ASTM International (Formally known as American Society for Testing
`and Materials)
`Acceptance Test Procedure
`
`C
`Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative
`Catalytic Hydrothermolysis
`Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise
`Carbon Monoxide
`Carbon Dioxide
`
`D
`Department of Defense
`Pressure Differential
`
`F
`Federal Aviation Administration
`Full Authority Digital Engine Control
`Fuel Metering Unit
`Flow Number
`
`AFRL
`APA
`ARA
`ASTM
`
`ATP
`
`CAAFI
`CH
`CLEEN
`CO
`CO2
`
`DoD
`dP
`
`FAA
`FADEC
`FMU
`FN
`
`GI
`
`Ground Idle
`
`G
`
`ICAO
`ITT
`
`LHV
`LII
`
`N1
`N2
`NRC
`NOx
`
`I
`International Civil Aviation Organization
`Inter-Turbine Temperature
`
`L
`Lower Heating Value
`Laser Induced Incandescence
`
`N
`
`Low Rotor Speed
`High Rotor Speed
`National Research Council
`Oxides of Nitrogen
`
`O
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`v
`
`UTC-2014.008
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`OEM
`
`Original Equipment Manufacturers
`
`P
`Combustor Inlet Pressure
`Particle Matter
`PicoSeimens per Meter
`Pratt & Whitney
`Pratt & Whitney Canada
`
`S
`Society of Automotive Engineers
`Specific Fuel Consumption
`SGS Canada Incorporated (Formally known as Société Général de
`Surveillance)
`
`T
`Combustor Inlet Air Temperatures
`Time To Idle
`Time To Light
`
`U
`Unburned Hydrocarbon
`
`P3
`PM
`pS/m
`P&W
`P&WC
`
`SAE
`SFC
`SGS
`
`T3
`TTI
`TTL
`
`UHC
`
`
`
`COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
`Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, USA
`ASTM International (Formally known as American Society for Testing and Materials), PA, USA
`Millipore®, also known as Merck Millipore, is a Registered Trademark of Merck KGaA of Darmstadt,
`Germany
`National Research Council (NRC)
`SGS Canada Incorporated (Formally known as Société Général de Surveillance) is part of SGS S.A.,
`headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland
`Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
`Woodward Governor Company, CO, USA
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`vi
`
`UTC-2014.009
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`1.0 Executive Summary
`This report documents the work performed by Pratt & Whitney (P&W) in evaluating synthetic paraffinic
`kerosene produced by the Applied Research Associates (ARA) Catalytic Hydrothermolysis (CH)
`Process. The work was performed under the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise (CLEEN)
`program, Contract DTFAWA-10-C-00041. P&WC performed a PW615F engine test on a baseline Jet
`A-1, a 50/50 percent fuel blend of ARA CH/Jet A-1, and 100 percent ARA CH fuel. The objective was
`to determine the impact of ARA CH on engine performance, operability, and emissions. The PW615F is
`a 1,460 pound thrust, two-spool turbo fan with a reverse-flow combustor and dual-channel full authority
`digital engine control (FADEC).
`Specific fuel consumption (SFC), gaseous emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbon
`(UHC), carbon dioxide (CO2), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), smoke number, and particulate matter
`(PM) by Laser Induced Incandescence (LII) were measured at six points in engine performance. These
`points were ground idle (GI), 30 percent power, 50 percent power, 85 percent power, 93 percent power,
`and 100 percent takeoff power (1,460lbf thrust).
`No difference was observed in engine operability for the ARA CH fuel blends compared to the baseline
`Jet A-1 fuel. No negative impact was observed on SFC, gaseous emissions, smoke number, or PM.
`Inspection of fuel system components showed no adverse effects from operation on the CH fuel blend.
`Metallic debris was found during preservation of the fuel metering unit (FMU), following the production
`Acceptance Test Procedure (ATP) performed at Woodward Governor Company. The source of debris
`has not been identified, but is not believed to be related to CH fuel.
`Under the direction of P&WC, Université Laval performed tests on a single nozzle can combustor test
`section. Ground starts at 50, 0, -20, -30, and -40 °F and altitude relights at 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 kft
`were performed. No starting differences or altitude relight lean boundary differences were observed. The
`rich limits were not achieved for the relights due to rig constraints.
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`1
`
`UTC-2014.010
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`2.0 Introduction
`The objective of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) option to Demonstrate Alternate Fuels is to
`demonstrate feasibility of selected alternative fuels as viable drop-in candidates to petroleum-derived
`fuels. Depending on the objective and scope of the specific task, alternative fuel feasibility,
`performance, and operability may be determined through engine, component, or laboratory testing. The
`alternative fuels being evaluated are selected based on fuel readiness level and FAA approval, with input
`from the engine and airplane original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), the U.S. Air Force, and the
`Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI).
`ASTM International (ASTM) and the Department of Defense (DoD) are currently evaluating a biofuel
`process known as ARA CH, according to ASTM D4054, Standard Practice for Qualification and
`Approval of New Aviation Turbine Fuels and Fuel Additives. Upon approval, it is expected that the CH
`process will be included as an annex in ASTM D7566, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel
`Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons. In August 2013, P&WC tested a PW615F engine at its
`Longueuil, Canada facility. The objective of this initiative was to determine the impact of CH on the
`performance properties, operability characteristics, and emissions of a gas turbine engine. In July 2013,
`Université Laval, under the direction of P&WC, tested a generic can combustor to determine the impact
`of CH on turbine engine combustor cold starting and altitude relight characteristics.
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`2
`
`UTC-2014.011
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`3.0 Approach
`3.1 Test Facility
`Engine testing was performed on a PW615F engine, Serial Number 6157 Build 12, at the P&WC engine
`test facility 1-18 in Longueuil, Canada. Engine installation is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
`
`Figure 1. Emissions Sampling System
`
`
`
`Figure 2. Fuel Supply System
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`3
`
`UTC-2014.012
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`3.2 Test Fuels
`Test fuels included the following:
`• Baseline Jet A-1
`• 100 percent ARA CH
`• Fuel blend of 50 volume percent ARA CH and 50 volume percent Jet A-1.
`The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) supplied all test fuels required for the engine and
`combustor tests. The same batch of Jet A-1 that was used in the baseline testing was also used to
`formulate the 50 percent ARA CH/50 percent Jet A-1 blend. Preparation of each fuel blend was
`conducted at the National Research Council (NRC).
`Each test fuel was analyzed to evaluate conformity against the ASTM D1655 “Standard Specification
`for Aviation Turbine Fuels.” The properties evaluation of each fuel sample was performed at SGS
`Canada Incorporated (SGS) laboratory in Montreal, Canada, which is a P&WC approved laboratory.
`Results are presented in Section 4.1 of this report.
`Test sequence was: baseline Jet A-1, 100 percent ARA CH, 50 percent ARA CH/50 percent Jet A-1,
`then repeated baseline Jet A-1. This provided the opportunity to document any deterioration in engine
`performance from the initial baseline. 268 gallons of each fuel blend were supplied for the engine tests.
`The engine fuel system and the facility fuel system were purged between each test to remove any
`residual fuel before testing the next fuel. The test sequence was completed in 12.2 hours of engine
`operation.
`3.3 Engine Tests
`P&WC performed PW615F engine tests on the baseline Jet A-1 fuel, 100 percent ARA CH fuel, and 50
`percent ARA CH/50 percent Jet A-1 fuel to determine the impact of CH fuel on engine performance,
`operability, and emissions. The PW615F is a 1,460lb thrust, two-spool turbo fan with a reverse-flow
`combustor and dual-channel FADEC. Prior to each engine test, a new engine fuel filter was installed and
`a fuel sample was taken. At the conclusion of each engine test, the fuel filters were inspected for
`indication of contamination and the fuel samples were analyzed to verify that the baseline fuel and the
`CH fuel blend conformed to ASTM D1655. SFC, gaseous CO, UHC, CO2, and NOx emissions, smoke
`number, and PM by LII were measured at six engine performance points:
`• GI
`• 30 percent power
`• 50 percent power
`• 85 percent power
`• 93 percent power
`• 100 percent takeoff power (1,460lbf thrust).
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`4
`
`UTC-2014.013
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`The basic criteria used to evaluate successful operation of the PW615F engine during smoke and
`emissions testing were as follows:
`• No visible smoke and no substantial changes in emissions
`• Verified repeatability of data measurements
`• No hardware deterioration or carbon buildup between the runs, as determined by borescope
`inspection.
`Engine operability for the CH fuel blends was compared to the baseline Jet A-1 fuel test results.
`Operability metrics included impact on engine start to GI, engine transient times from idle to takeoff
`power and from takeoff to idle power, flameout margin, and forward and reverse engine bodies between
`idle and takeoff power.
`
`Figure 3. Forward Bodies Manoeuvre
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4. Reverse Bodies Manoeuvre
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`5
`
`UTC-2014.014
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`After completion of the test program, before initiating the engine tests, a visual inspection of the
`combustor fuel nozzles was completed to determine if operation on CH adversely affected these
`components. The fuel manifold assembly was flow checked and the 14 individual fuel nozzles were
`tested for spray angle pattern and uniformity coverage at the P&WC Mississauga facility. The FMU was
`completely characterized using production ATP-178 at the supplier facility, Woodward Governor
`Company.
`3.4 Single Nozzle Can Combustor Rig Tests
`Under the direction of P&WC, Université Laval performed rig tests on a single fuel nozzle generic can
`combustor test section for each of the test fuels. The combustor operability tests included cold starts and
`altitude relights, as defined below.
`Cold Starts: Cold start mapping was performed at sea level with a constant combustor inlet pressure
`(P3) for each test fuel. Cold start mapping was performed with a pressure differential (dP) across the
`combustor, ranging from one to ten inches of water at five different combustor inlet air temperatures
`(T3) of 50, 0, -20, -30, and -40 °F. The objective was to determine the minimum fuel flow rate at which
`cold start is successful under each of these conditions. With igniter turned on, a successful light-up was
`defined as lighting within ten seconds of fuel on, followed by five seconds of sustained flame. Three
`successful lights were required at the same fuel flow rate to define the cold start boundary at each T3
`and dP condition.
`Altitude Relights: Altitude relight tests were performed on each test fuel to determine the maximum and
`minimum fuel-to-air ratio limits for which relight is successful. Mapping was initiated at 15,000ft, with
`a dP across the combustor ranging from one to three percent dP/P3. Relights were performed at 15, 20,
`25, 30, and 35 kft. At higher altitudes, the maximum combustor pressure drop achieved was lower. Rich
`limits were not determined, due to rig constraints. With the igniter turned on, a successful light-up was
`defined as lighting within ten seconds of “fuel on,” followed by five seconds of sustained flame. Three
`successful lights were required at the same fuel flow rate to define the altitude relight fuel flow rate at
`each T3 and dP condition.
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`6
`
`UTC-2014.015
`
`

`

`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`4.0 Results and Discussion
`
`4.1 Fuel Properties
`
`A filel sample was taken prior to each engine test. Each of the fuel samples was analyzed according to
`ASTM D1655 requirements. Hydrogen content, the ratio of hydrogen to carbon, and the lower heating
`value (LHV) are presented in Table 1. Results from the fuel sample analyses are shown in 6. 0Appendix
`A.
`
`The freezing point for 100 percent ARA CH, shown in Appendix A, is -44°C. The 100 percent ARA
`CH was intentionally cut to meet the ASTM D1655 Jet A -40°C maximum requirement, as opposed to
`that of Jet A-1 maximum requirement of -47°C. Conductivity is shown as 4 picoSeimens per meter
`(pS/M), which was expected, since the 100 percent ARA CH is highly hydrotreated and did not contain
`Static Dissipator Additive.
`
`Table 1. Test Fuel Properties
`
`Fuel Praeg
`Hydrogen (% weight)
`Hydrogen/Carbon
`LHV §TU/lb!
`
`Baseline Jet A-1
`13.80
`1.850
`18,594
`
`Fuel Blend 1
`
`(50percent ARA CH
`100 Percent ARA CH and 50 percent Jet A-1)
`13.80
`13.80
`1.850
`1.850
`18,52 1
`18,555
`
`4.2 Fuel System Components
`
`A new engine fuel filter was installed prior to conducting each engine test. The fuel filters were
`inspected at the conclusion of each engine test for indication of contamination. Each fuel filter patch was
`rinsed with isopropanol and the residue collected on a 1.2 pm Millipore®l filter patch. The residue was
`evaluated by automatic particle analyzer (APA), followed by a visual examination of each patch. The
`evaluation did not reveal any indication of adverse effects from operation with the CH filel blends.
`
`After completion of the test program, before initiating the engine tests, a visual inspection of the
`combustor and fuel nozzles was completed. No adverse effects fiom operation with the CH fuel blends
`were discovered.
`
`Also afler completion of the test program, before initiating the engine tests, the fuel manifold assembly
`was flow checked and the 14 individual fuel nozzles were tested for spray angle pattern and uniformity
`coverage. The spray test results did not indicate any significant difference in fuel nozzle flow number
`(FN), spray angle pattern, or unifonnity coverage. The FN of each fuel nozzle trended lower than the
`pre-test FNs after testing with the CH fuel blends, as shown in Figure 5. The FN was above the upper
`limit by 1.8 percent for Nozzle Position 1 for the pre-test flow check. The FN was under the lower limit
`by 1.75 percent for Nozzle Position 2 for the post-test flow check. These deviations could be due to
`measurement variation.
`
`1 EMD Millipore is a Registered Trademark of Merck KGaA of Darmstafi. Germany.
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`
`7
`
`UTC-2014.016
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`
`
`Figure 5. Flow Number for Each Fuel Nozzle Before and After the Engine Tests
`
`The FMU was completely characterized using production ATP-178 at the supplier facility, Woodward
`Governor Company. The FMU S/N 18128932 was tested before and after the PW615F engine testing
`and found to meet all ATP-178 requirements. Following the ATP, during preservation of the unit,
`metallic debris was found in the preservation fluid. However, the debris is not determined to be fuel-
`related.
`
`4.3 Engine Operability
`Engine operability was evaluated during a series of maneuvers performed while the test engine was
`operating on the baseline Jet A-1 fuel. The maneuvers were then repeated for the 100 percent ARA CH
`fuel and for the 50 percent ARA CH/50 percent Jet A-1 fuel. The engine operability demonstrated while
`the engine was powered by the two biofuel blends was compared to the operability demonstrated with
`the baseline Jet A-1, to determine if any differences could be observed. No significant differences in
`engine operability were observed that could be attributed to the change in fuel.
`The parameters time to light (TTL) and time to idle (TTI), as well as the peak inter-turbine temperature
`(ITT) can be used to evaluate the quality of the engine start with both the baseline Jet A-1 and ARA CH
`fuel blends. While differences within the measured values can be observed, no discernable trend
`between fuels can be seen. These differences are within the observed and expected scatter for these
`types of measurements. This data was demonstrates that all three fuels demonstrated equivalent engine
`start characteristics.
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`8
`
`UTC-2014.017
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`Slam accelerations and decelerations between GI and takeoff power were performed with all three fuels.
`As defined by P&WC test procedures and control system requirements, representative acceleration and
`deceleration times were used in this comparison. The differences observed were not considered large
`enough to have a significant impact on the operability of the engine. The acceleration and deceleration
`capability demonstrated during the slam maneuvers were considered equivalent.
`Negative fuel spiking tests were conducted with all three fuels to assess the flameout margin that exists
`within the test engine. For all fuels, a series of negative fuel spikes were repeated at least once until a
`flameout was observed; the spike prior to flameout was identified as the limiting spike. These spikes
`were evaluated by comparing the ratio unit measured during the limiting spike. The ratio unit is defined
`as the measured fuel flow normalized by the compressor exit pressure. The biofuels flamed out with a
`fuel spike different than the baseline fuel. Differences observed within the ratio units of the limiting
`spike were typically within the scatter observed for these maneuvers, and therefore determined to be
`negligible. It is concluded that there are no significant differences in the operability of the engine while
`operating on these three fuels, because the only differences observed were small enough to fall within
`the natural variations of the test.
`Engine operability is further quantified between fuels when observing forward and reverse body
`performances for any differences. Despite maneuvers representing the most aggressive operability
`testing, none of the fuels produced an engine surge or flameout. Similar trends with the ITT and the ratio
`unit were observed. These results were taken to further indicate that the operability of the engine was
`maintained, despite the change in fuel.
`
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`9
`
`UTC-2014.018
`
`

`

`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`4.4 Engine Performance
`
`Engine performance was evaluated by taking steady state measurements at six representative power
`settings: GI, 30 percent, 50 percent, 85 percent, 93 percent and 100 percent of rated takeofl' thrust. A
`five minute stabilization time was used prior to taking any performance measurements. The results show
`that the biofuel blends had no significant impact on SFC, low rotor speed (N 1) or high rotor speed (N2).
`
`The pre to post-test comparison with the Jet A-1 baseline fuel revealed a small decrease in fuel
`consumption, but it was determined to be a result of a small error on fuel flow measurement. The biofuel
`results are compared with the repeat Jet A-1 fuel and presented in Table 2.
`
`Table 2. Performance Test Main Parameters at Takeofl I71rust of 1,460Ibf
`
`Engine/Build
`
`vescnmn
`
`TestDate
`Parameters
`Units
`
`
`
`6l57Bl2
`
`6l57Bl2
`
`6l57Bl2
`
`6l57Bl2
`
`‘3Zf:“.‘i°
`
`5/‘§1§«’A.A}Z:°‘A°.i‘
`
`100%-ARACH
`
`;‘Z’;“:f‘I
`
`8 May 2013
`
`8 May 2013
`
`8 June 2013
`
`8 June 2013
`
`SFC
`
`WF
`
`N1
`
`N2
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`1,000
`
`1,000
`
`1,000
`
`1.000
`
`0,994
`
`0.995
`
`0,999
`
`1.000
`
`0,992
`
`0,992
`
`1,000
`
`1.000
`
`0,994
`
`0,996
`
`1,000
`
`1,000
`
`Measured SFC for the biofuel blends is 0.1 to 0.8 percent lower than the baseline Jet A-1. These
`variations are attributed to a fluctuation in fuel flow measurements. A review of the data indicates the
`
`fuel flow variations are consistent with observed combustion efficiency fluctuations. Adjusting the data
`for constant combustion efficiency, the SFC of the two biofuel blends is within 0.2 percent of the Jet A-
`1 baseline, which is within the accuracy of the measurement.
`
`In addition, the remaining performance parameters, N1 and N2, also show negligible deltas with regards
`to the baseline fuel at constant thrust.
`
`4.5 Smoke and Emissions
`
`Engine exhaust emissions were measured and processed in accordance with International Civil Aviation
`Organization (ICAO) regulations [1]. The smoke analyzer and reflectometer were used together to
`calculate the smoke number at each condition point. An LII system was used to measure the PM mass
`and number count.
`
`As expected, smoke number did not significantly change between the various fuels, due to the similar
`aromatic content. All other engine emissions for the baseline Jet A-1, the 100 percent ARA CH and the
`50 percent ARA CI-I/50 percent Jet A-1 blends were within experimental scatter of those obtained with
`Jet A-1. Engine emission measurements for each fuel type are summarized in Figure 6. Emissions meter
`readings for each pollutant are plotted against thrust. All shown results have been normalized.
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`
`1°
`
`UTC-2014.019
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`
`
`Figure 6. Engine Emissions Comparison of Jet A-1 and ARA CH Biofuel Blends
`
`As is evident in the plots, the ARA CH blends had no impact on UHC, CO, or NOx emissions. Any
`variation shown is within expected test scatter. Jet A-1 and ARA CH have similar aromatic content, so it
`is understandable that Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) smoke numbers are similar.
`A LII 200 system was used as part of the test setup and measurement was taken at each of the power
`settings. The purpose of the LII 200 measurements was to identify the soot mass concentration and
`validate the correlation with smoke number.
`The soot average mass concentrations and particle count number for ARA CH fuel blends and baseline
`Jet A-1 are presented in Table 3. Smoke densities were calculated based on the smoke number collected
`from the smoke analyzer and reflectometer, then measured as PM concentrations by the LII machine, as
`shown in Figure 7. Smoke density measured by the LII under-predicts the SAE smoke number at high
`power conditions, as calculated by the smoke analyzer and reflectometer, by up to 41 percent. This
`amount of deviation is expected, due to the use of very distinct sampling methods and analysis tools.
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`11
`
`UTC-2014.020
`
`

`

`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`Table 3. Summary ofMass Concentration and Particle Count Number
`
`LII Equipment
`
`100% JET-A
`
`50% ARA CH
`/50% JET-A
`
`100% ARA CH
`
`100% JET-A
`re at
`
`Condition
`
`mass_con
`m m3
`
`Count
`Number
`
`mass_con
`m /m3
`
`Count
`Number
`
`mass_¢'on
`m /m3
`
`Count mass_con
`Number
`m m3
`
`Count
`Number
`
`GI
`43811)
`7301b
`1,24llb
`l,358lb
`l,460lb
`l,500lb
`GI
`
`0,117
`0,147
`0,287
`0,752
`0,820
`0,915
`0,980
`
`Avg=
`Stdev=
`
`0,892
`0,982
`0,986
`0,983
`0,983
`0,979
`0,982
`
`0,970
`0,034
`
`0,097
`0,113
`0,238
`0,782
`0,794
`0,853
`0,927
`0,109
`Avg=
`Stdev=
`
`0,974
`0,983
`0,982
`0,978
`0,982
`0,983
`0,986
`0,982
`0,981
`0,004
`
`0,123
`0,131
`0,295
`0,758
`0,832
`0,937
`0,970
`0,129
`Avg=
`Stdev=
`
`0,900
`0,978
`0,983
`0,996
`0,975
`0,983
`0,975
`0,983
`0,972
`0,032
`
`0,129
`0,139
`0,301
`0,802
`0,842
`0,921
`1,000
`0,125
`Avg=
`Stdev=
`
`0,883
`0,984
`0,990
`1,000
`0,984
`0,981
`0,986
`0,987
`0,974
`0,040
`
`Z hjjjjjjjj I I
`: LNNNNNNTT ’
`=
`4'
`
`-:1 NZZZZZT/_
`
`I
`
`I
`
`g
`'3U
`*1-1H
`3 P__._:__’
`-8
`;
`I z
`4;
`”'—¥j—,,“"’Zj'
`m
`yf
`, I
`1 g
`
`,_
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`2 ’
`
`:_::j
`
`
`
`100% JETA
`1001:. ARACH
`A
`50ARACH- soJETA
`o
`100%JETA (repeat)
`x
`_ - - -Fyiequdityl
`
`Smoke density measured with LII
`
`Figure 7. Smoke Density Comparison Between Smoke Analyzer and LII Equipment
`
`THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA SUBJECT TO THE EAR OR ITAR
`
`12
`
`UTC—2014.021
`
`

`

`
`
`Pratt & Whitney
`
`FR-27652-2 Rev 1
`
`4.6 Can Combustor Cold Start
`Figure 8 and Figure 9 display the lean ignition boundary at 0°F and -40°F for a combustor pressure
`differential ranging from one to ten inches H2O. Cold start mapping was performed at combustor inlet
`temperatures of 50, -20, and -30 °F. The results of these tests showed a similar response. The start
`characteristics at the two temperatures for 100 percent ARA CH and 50 percent ARA CH/50 percent Jet
`A-1 behave similarly to the baseline Jet A-1 fuel.
`
`Figure 8. ARA CH Cold Sta