Supersonic Engine Technology and Work by the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)

Supersonic Engine Emissions CAEP Work

Past alleviation seems to be based on Concorde emissions performance
Little reason for alleviation today, but the smaller BPR of supersonics does not help within the CAEP LTO (Landing and Take-Off) emissions cycle. The supersonic LTO cycle times have small differences, and one question the group has struggled with is will supersonics operate similar to subsonics below 3,000 feet.
Figure 2. Comparison of HC Emissions Limits for Subsonic and Supersonic Aircraft
70

Figure 3. Comparison of CO Emissions Regulations for Subsonic and Supersonic Aircraft

450

400
60

350
50

CO Emissions Limit (Dp/Foo)

10 15 20 25 30 Pressure Ratio 35 40 45 50

Hydrocarbon Limit (Dp/Foo)

300

40

250

200

30

150

20

100
10

50

0 10 15 20 25 30 Pressure Ratio 35 40 45 50

Taken from industry paper presented to CAEP Working Group 3.

Supersonic Engine Emissions CAEP Work

Industry has produced papers comparing subsonic and supersonic emissions regulations in Annex 16 Landing and Take-Off (LTO) standards.
Rolls-Royce led this work as our believe is that the sooner that we get agreement that the subsonic airport emissions regulations should apply also to supersonics the better (similar to the likely noise approach). The existing supersonic regulations have significant alleviation. An agreement this CAEP would enable work on the bigger issue of how significant cruise NOx emissions are for a supersonic.
Figure 4. Comparison of NOx Emissions Regulations for Subsonic and Supersonic Aircraft
180 160

140
NOx Emissions Limit (Dp/Foo)

Supersonic Rule ICAO 86 CAEP 2

120

100 80

CAEP 4
60 40

CAEP 6

Taken from industry paper presented to CAEP Working Group 3.

50

20 0 10 15 20 25 30 Pressure Ratio 35 40 45

Review of LTO Standards for Supersonic Engines

CAEP Working Group 3 has reviewed the history of the supersonic LTO Standard Development dates back to the 1970ies Draft Standard was based on data from Concorde engine There was no commercial development of SST aircraft when the Standard was introduced No changes have been made since the first introduction The current supersonic standard seems to be outdated

First conclusions: Current supersonic standard should not be applied for new engine projects Any alleviation compared to the current subsonic Standard would require detailed technical investigation
Taken from chair of task groups paper presented to CAEP Working Group 3.

What about cruise NOx performance?

Effect of Forward Speed on Gas Turbine Inlet Temperature
450

400

350

300

Temperature (K)

250

200

150

100

50

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Mach Number 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Combustor Conditions for Subsonics and Supersonic Engines This chart illustrates that the combustion design is heavily dictated by cruise conditions. This also makes NOx at cruise more difficult and could drive combustion technology.
Comparison of Simple Subsonic and Supersonic Cycle Temperatures
Turbine Entry Temperature (TET) Reduces

(TET) Increases due to Ram Effect

Temperature

Combustor Inlet Temperature (T3) Reduces (T3) Increases due to Ram Effect TET T3

OPR is constrained due to increased temperatures at cruise

Take-Off 1

Climb 2

Cruise 3 Conditions

Take-Off 4

Climb 5

Cruise 6

Subsonic Engine

Supersonic Engine

Supersonic Engine Cruise Emissions

Combustor conditions make controlling cruise NOx difficult. When NASA were doing work on the HSST supersonic passenger carrying programme then the targeted 5EINOx. If combustion technology used is similar to the in-service technology then the ram effects means cruise NOx could be greater than 30EI
NASA target implies an enormous reduction

Lean combustion technologies will improve the cruise NOx as well as LTO NOx but even they will probably not achieve the 5EINOx target
The 5EINOx target was for a Lean Premixed Prevapourised type concept which none of the manufacturers are pursuing with any vigour due to autoignition and flashback concerns.

If cruise NOx is proven to be a major concern then potentially a more sensible target could be 15EINOx as todays subsonic aircraft.
This is still a big improvement in combustion technology from that available today.

Emissions Technologies Considered in IPCC Report

Quiet Supersonic Transport Propulsion Conflicting Requirements

High thermal efficiency at supersonic cruise requires high cycle temperatures High T30 and TET for the duration of cruise will produce low hot component life NOx generation is related directly to T30 (in particular) and will be high at cruise Low takeoff (jet) noise requires high engine airflow High airflow requires a large engine/nacelle/nozzle diameter, implying high weight and drag Supersonic aircraft are highly sensitive to both weight and drag at supersonic cruise

1. Variable Cycle Conventional Turbofan (VCT)

Variable exit nozzle used to help match airflows at take-off and supersonic cruise. Care needs to be taken on inlet geometry due to noise constraints and supersonic compatibility.

2. Mixed Nozzle Ejector (MNE)

BPR ratio varied by mixed nozzle ejector to increase air-flow at take-off and reduce jet noise. Useful concept for high Mach speed engines due to sizing of inlet and exit engine proportions.

3. Mid-Tandem Fan (MTF)

Added complexity with an attempt to help the engine inlet sizing for supersonic cruise by moving the fan to a more mid engine position. Variable exit nozzle matching still required.

HSCT Propulsion: Performance Comparison, M2.4 & M2.0 VCT vs MTF vs MNE
Mach 2.0
1
1 0.96 0.95

Mach 2.4
1

Relative Range

Relative Range

0.9 0.865

0.5

0.5

CTF VCT

MTF

MNE

VCT CTF

MTF

MNE

Relative range of optimised aircraft designed at fixed MTOW

Variable Cycle Turbofan Concept Design Philosophy, Characteristics

Core can be based on existing technology (eg ANTLE) Core size and OPR defined to achieve required cruise thrust within T30 & TET limits consistent with life and emissions targets Fan sized to achieve required takeoff thrust with a jet velocity consistent with the noise target Intent is to meet current subsonic noise regulations with some margin Airflow schedule can be controlled to optimise overall propulsion system characteristics
Match preferred intake characteristics (fixed vs variable geometry, 2D vs Axi etc) Match fan aerodynamic characteristics Minimise intake and nozzle size and weight Optimise overall nacelle shape for low drag and low sonic boom

Research focal point for supersonic boom requested in the CAEP process.

Supersonic Cruise Industry Alliance Proposed Program Schedule

CY 2005 FY 2005 CY 2006 FY 2006 CY 2007 FY 2007 CY 2008 FY 2008 CY 2009 FY 2009 CY 2010 FY 2010

Low Boom Proposed Demonstrator Technology Development Development Project

Contract Award

RFP
IDR

Proposals Due

Concept Comp. Studies Phase

Small Low Boom Demonstrator Phase

1 2

Milestones: Milestones:
Initial Boom Acceptability Criteria First Flight Validate Low Boom Design Deliver Public Acceptance Data Validate Acceptability Criteria Regulatory Acceptance

SRR

PDR

CDR

FFRR

3 4

Produce Design Conceptual Design + Cost/Sched Estimates

Design
Tooling/ Procurement

Fabrication 2 Flight Test

Public Acceptance Testing

5 6

Flight Test Planning

Env. Expan. Range Data Collection

Additional Testing (as reqd)

Design Ongoing NASA Activities 1Tool Development and Validation Testing Ongoing NASA Activities Design 1 Tool Development and Validation Testing Multiple Industry Initiatives NASA / FAA / Partner COE Boom Acceptability Studies
DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA

5
DATA DATA

Regulatory Change Process

ICAO CAEP 7

Recommended Data Review Period * ICAO CAEP 8

CAEP Working Group Meetings

ROM Funding Estimates ($M)

16 20 20 20 22 15 10 10

* * Data Data Review Review Period Period Supports Supports Four Four CAEP CAEP Working Working Group Group Meetings Meetings Prior Prior to to ICAO ICAO CAEP CAEP 8 8 Meeting Meeting

Summary and Food for Thought in Discussion

It is likely that a supersonic will have to meet the subsonic emissions and noise airport standards and no alleviation will be allowed.
Noise level v cruise performance give conflicts in design of engine BPR, and could involve some variable geometry.

During the U.S. HSST programme it was believed that an EINOx of 5g/Kg were required for a passenger carrying supersonic
Understanding at that time was that at higher altitudes NOx depletes ozone 5EINOx would be an extremely hard target for a supersonic jet.

Typical subsonic emissions are 15EINOx at cruise

This may be a sensible target for a supersonic business jet if there is a serious concern for NOx emissions? although even this is a stepped improvement in combustion technology Atmospheric science studies need to consider the range of 5-35EINOx

We are encouraging work in CAEP to understand the issue of supersonic cruise emissions especially NOx Water vapour is important to global warming along with CO2. This may be more of an important issue than NOx and ozone? Acceptance of some level of sonic boom overland will be the main trigger to new supersonic technology development.
Airframe manufacturers believe it may be possible to shape sonic boom.

Thank You