Tenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, pp.

1129-1137, The Combustion Institute, 1965

PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS IN GAS-TURBINE COMBUSTION

A. H. LEFEBVRE
Department of Aircraft Propulsion, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield, Bedford, England

In recent years the accumulation of reliable experimental data confirming the previously
derived relationships between combustion-chamber dimensions; specific pressure loss; and the
operating conditions of pressure, temperature, and velocity, has led to the formulation of
design rules and to a much clearer appreciation of the most promising lines of research.
At the present time, it is difficult to envisage areas in which fundamental research can
make an effective contribution to combustion=chamber development, at least in the foreseeable
future, but there is ample scope for applied research on ignition, fuel-injection methods,
fluid-dynamic and heat-transfer processes, and modeling technics. Although research on these
topics is unlikely to produce significant reductions in chamber size and pressure loss, it should
lead to worthwhile improvements in terms of reduced size and weight of ignition equipment,
elimination of exhaust smoke, longer flametube life, and to an outlet-temperature profile that
is less sensitive to variations in engine operating conditions.

Introduction at the same time, incurring penalties in others.

I t is now almost ten years since the problems of
turbojet combustion were reviewed by Lloyd. I
Since, then, an intense effort has been expended
in development and research on all aspects of
combustion performance. Most of this effort
has been concerned with overcoming develop-
ment and operational problems, and in applied
research aimed at improving the performance of
individual chamber components. In contrast the
time and energy devoted to fundamental re-
search on such basic processes as droplet evapo-
ration, jet entrainment, and mixing with simul-
taneous chemical reaction, has been compara-
tively small. I t is, of course, very tempting to
condemn this maldistribution of effort as repre-
hensible and short sighted, but before doing so
it is pertinent to ask the following question: If
we had a complete understanding of these proc-
esses, instead of knowing practically nothing as
at present, what order of improvement in com-
bustor design and performance would result?
The answer is that any such improvements would
only be very marginal. This view is based on the
knowledge that over the years so many methods
and combinations of methods of injecting fuel
and air into the combustion zone have been tried
that it is difficult to conceive the emergence of
some new configuration that is markedly su-
perior in performance to anything so far achieved.
Experience has shown that it is very rare for any
new design feature to show an unequivocal im-
provement in one facet of performance without,
1129
For example, it is now well known t h a t any im-
provement in primary zone mixing will increase
the rate of heat release, but at the expense of a
reduction in the range of fuel/air ratios over
which stable operation can be maintained.
Fortunately, in spite of the comparatively slow
progress in elucidating the fundamentals of the
processes involved, useful advances have been
made in our understanding of the "rates of ex-
change" between combustor dimensions, pres-
sure-loss factor, and the operating conditions of
temperature, pressure, and velocity. These im-
portant relationships have been incorporated
into design rules for both combustion and dilu-
tion zones which can be easily and confidently
applied. Such design rules do not normally find
their way into the open literature, but it would
be erroneous on t h a t account to conclude that
they did not exist.
The fact that current designs of chamber
closely resemble their predecessors in size, shape,
and general appearance, is sometimes interpreted
as evidence that little progress in combustor
design has been made. Such misunderstandings
of the true situation arise from the circumstance
that the basic geometry of a combustion chamber
is dictated largely by the need for its length and
frontal area to remain within the envelope set
by other engine components, by the necessity for
a diffuser to minimize pressure loss, and by the
requirement of a flametube to provide stable
operation over a wide range of fuel/air ratios.
What is really worthy of note is that, in spite of
1130 AERODYNAMICS IN COMBUSTION
the more arduous operating conditions of higher
throughput velocity and higher compressor outlet
velocity, present-day chambers continue to ex-
hibit 100% combustion efficiency over their
normal working range, with substantial increases
in relighting altitude, reductions in pressure
loss, and a flametube life which is significmltly
longer than tb at of many other engine components.
In spite of all these advances, the challenge
to ingemlity in design is greater than ever before.
The gradual accumulation of more basic data
will help t~ encourage tiffs, but much more could
be done by the intelligent deployment of knowl-
edge which already exists. Examples of processes
in which worthwhile gains should soon be forth-
coming are ignition and fuel injection. Studies
on the mechanism of spark ignition and its
special requircments in regard to fuel distribu-
tion should lead to a more efficient utilization of
the available electrical energy. New methods of
fuel injection must be devised which can facilitate
ignition and eliminate exhaust smoke without
impairing normal combustion. Ways must be
found of achieving the high-potential heat-release
rates of uniform mixtures while retaining the
wide stability limits associated with spray in-
jection. Another urgent need is for more efficient
methods of flametube cooling to cope with the
increasing heat-transfer rates arising from the
trend towards higher combustion pressures and
temperatures.
In this review, no attempt has been made to
encompass all the problems of turbojet combus-
tion, but rather to focus attention on a few topics
of current interest. Even with this restriction it
has proved quite impossible to do justice to
more than a very small fraction of the total
volume of published work. In discussing various
problems, and the progress made towards their
solution, the author has not unnaturally tendcd
to draw from his own experience which has been
gained almost entirely within the U.K. In-
evitably this has meant that work carried out
in other countries, notably the U.S.A., has not
received its due share of attention. However, it
is hoped that since combustion chamber de-
velopment in Britain and the U.S.A. has to a
large extent proceeded in parallel, this account
will be of general rather than parochial interest.
Heat Release
Combustion in the gas turbine is a complex
operation involving fuel atomization and evapo-
ration, and subsequent mixing with air and com-
bustion products, all occurring simultaneously
with chemical reaction and heat transfer. Progress
in isolating and evaluating the component proc-
esses under representative environmental con-
ditions is of necessity very slow and, until a
more detailed understanding is available, a
numerical description of combustion performance
in terms of combustor dimensions and operating
conditions can only be achieved by the use of
simplified models to represent the combustion
zone.
One such model, proposed by Greenhough and
Lefebvre, 2 envisages the combustion zone as
being similar in structure to the flame brush
produced on a Bunsen burner under turbulent
flow conditions. Combustion performance is then
described as a function of the ratio of turbulent
burning velocity to the velocity of the fresh gas
entering the combustion zone.
We have
~c --- f ( S T / V ) = fE(SL'Re~')/V], (1)
where SL = laminar flame speed, ft/scc; ST =
turbulent flame speed, ft/scc; V = gas velocity,
ft/sec; Re = Reynolds number based on flow
through air injection holes. For a second-order
reaction, tile above expression leads to 3
~c = { E A P ( P D ) ~ ( A P / q ) '~l' cxp (T/b)-]/Q},
(2)
where P = air inlet static pressure, psia; T = air
inlet temperature, ~ Q -- air mass flow, lb/sec;
A = cross sectional flow area, ft"; D = diameter
or width of combustion chamber, ft; A p / q =
flametube pressure loss factor; b = constant;
m = constant = a/(1 -- a). Originally a value
of 0.75 was attributed to m. This resulted in a
pressure exponent of 1.75 in Eq. (2), which then
gave a very satisfactory correlation of all the
available experimental data. 2 If, however, m is
given the value of 0.8, the pressure exponent in
Eq. (3) then becomes 1.8. For all practical pur-
poses, this is equivalent to the previously de-
rived value of 1.75, and has the added advantage
of consistency with the value of 1.8 observed by
Longwell and Weiss3
Equation (2) now becomes,
7o = f{[P1"SAl~'s(AP/q)~ exp ( T/b ) ~/Q}.
(a)
Due to the relatively small variation in inlet
temperature experienced by most practical bom-
bustion systems, Eq. (3) is not very sensitive to
the value attributed to "b". Suggested "ideal"
values are 300 and 150 for over-all air/fuel
ratios of 60 and 100, respectively.
For many practical purposes, it is convenient
and satisfactory to assume that m is constant,
but there is evidence to suggest that it actually
varies with pressure. It is believed that at high
 PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS IN GAS-TURBINE COMBUSTION
pressures m tends towards zero, so that neglect-
ing temperature terms, Eq. (2) then becomes
,c = f ( P A / Q ) = I ( P D 2 / Q ) = f(V-1). (4)
At low pressures the significance of Reynolds
number increases, m tends towards unity and,
neglecting temperature terms, Eq. (2) becomes
~c = f ( P 2 A D / Q ) (AP/q) ~
= f(P2D3/Q)(AP/q) ~ (5)
On the basis of Eqs. (4) and (5), the per-
formance of two different designs of chamber
cannot be compared if the relevant experimental
d a t a were obtained at low pressures in one case
and at high pressures in the other. Strictly, the
heat-release rates of various combustors should
be compared on the basis of Chu/hr/ft2/atm at
high pressures, and C h u / h r / f t 3 a t m 2 / ( A P / q ) ~
at low pressures. Fortunately, however, most
practical combustor systems do not operate at
very low pressures, while at high pressures meas-
ured values of combustion efficiency are so close
to 100% as to make correlation of data impos-
sible. Thus, over the range of pressures of prac-
tical interest the value of m may be assumed con-
stant at 0.8 and Eq. (3) may be used with con-
fidence for the correlation of experimental data
on combustion efficiency and in performance com-
parisons of various designs of chamber.
The application of simple reaction-rate theory
to practical combustion systems has been pro-
posed by Avery and Hart, 5 Bragg, 6 and Childs
and Graves. 7 This consideration leads naturally
to the concept of a combustion zone into which
fuel and air are fed at a constant rate and are
instantaneously mixed with all the other ma-
terial within the zone. Burned material leaves
the zone at a constant rate with a temperature
and composition identical to that within the
zone. Under these conditions, second-order re-
action-rate theory gives the result that, for con-
stant inlet temperature and fuel/air ratio, com-
bustion performance can be expressed in terms
of a parameter of the form p2D3/Q. This is iden-
tical to the burning-velocity parameter of Eq. (5)
without the pressure-loss term.
Experimental data on the influence of flame-
tube pressure-loss factor on combustion perform-
ance clearly could be of considerable importance
in assessing the relative merits of burning velocity
and "stirred reactor" concepts. Unfortunately,
what few data exist are conflicting. Thus, whereas
Lefebvre and Murray s were able to correlate com-
bustion-efficiency data obtained on an aircraft
combustion chamber against ( A p / q ) ~ Lucas
work on a Longwell-type spherical reactor has re-
vealed little or no effect of pressure drop on per-
1131
formance2 The situation is further complicated b y
the knowledge that flametube pressure-loss factor
not only influences the turbulence level of the
injected-air jets and their rate of mixing with
burned products, but also controls the actual
quantity of burned products entrained in the
primary zone. Thus although experimental d a t a
on the effect of pressure-loss factor on perform-
ance are of considerable importance to the design
of practical combustors, they have only limited
value when applied to more fundamental analyses
of combustion mechanism and flame structure.
Ignition
A conceptual understanding of the basic ig-
nition process has been provided in the simplified
theories of Lewis and yon Elbe I~ and Spalding, ll
while the problems of ignition in practical com-
bustion systems have been reviewed in detail
by Wigg. 12 Most of the experimental data on
ignition in combustion chambers can be explained
qualitatively on a heat-balance basis. Thus,
general experience confirms that ignition per-
formance is improved by increases in pressure,
temperature, and spark energy, and ~s impaired
by an increase in velocity. Ignition performance
is also markedly affected by fuel characteristics
through the way in which they influence the
fuel/air ratio in the immediate vicinity of the
igniter plug. These influences arise mainly
through the effect of volatility on evaporation
rates, but also through the effect of viscosity on
droplet size.13 The amount of energy required
for ignition is necessarily very much greater than
the values normally associated with gaseous
fuels at stoichiometric fuel/air ratio. Much of
this extra energy is absorbed in the evaporation
of fuel droplets, the actual amount depending
on the distribution of fuel throughout the primary
zone.
It now seems fairly clear that the ignition
process in a gas-turbine combustion chamber
occurs in three distinct phases. 14 Phase 1 is the
formation of a kernel of flame of sufficient size
and temperature to be capable of propagation.
The success or failure of this phase is governed
largely by the energy and duration of the spark,
and by the turbulence level and effective fuel/air
ratio of the mixture adjacent to the plug. Phase
2 is the subsequent propagation of flame from
this kernel to all parts of the primary zone. The
success of this phase is determined mainly by
air velocity and fuel distribution, but the loca-
tion of the spark plug can also be important.
Phase 3, which applies only to tubular and can-
nular designs of chamber, consists of the propaga-
tion of flame from a lighted flametube to ad-
jacent unlighted flametubes, a process normally
 1132 AERODYNAMICS IN COMBUSTION
referred to as "interconnection" or "light round".
This process is aided by the use of interconnectors
in which the flow area is made large in order to
facilitate the passage of flame, and whose length
is kept short in order to minimize heat losses.
Failure of any single phase is, of course, tanta-
mount to failure to ignite. It is quite possible for
the ignition performance of a chamber to be
limited by one phase at certain operating condi-
tions and by another phase at different condi-
tions. Recognition of the three-phase nature of
the ignition process helps to shed light on various
anomMies in ignition behavior and can usefully
assist combustion-chamber development. It also
helps in delineating separate areas for research.
Some reference to igniter-plug life should be
made in view of the more arduous and environ-
mental conditions which are likely to be en-
countered as a result of the continuing trend
toward engines of higher compression ratio.
Igniters with recessed gaps usually exhibit a
longer life than those with flush faces. Presumably
this is due partly to the fact that a recessed plug
has a lower spark energy than a flush plug
of the same external diameter and gap width
when subjected to the same energy input, 15
and hence suffers less erosion, and also be-
cause the volume of central electrode material
available for erosion is much larger. It is, of
course, quite practicable to ease the erosion
problem simply by increasing the plug diameter,
but unfortunately this also increases the aero-
dynamic disturbance to the annulus air flow.
In spite of our improved understanding of the
ignition process, the needs and incentives for
continued research still remain. More informa-
tion is required on the influence of turbulence
and fuel distribution, while a detailed and system-
atic study of the distribution of the total spark
energy might well prove rewarding. More data
are also needed on the factors affecting plug
oxidation and erosion.
Aerodynamics
Achieving a uniform and stable temperature
distribution at the chamber outlet is undoubtedly
the most important aspect of aerodynamic per-
formance. In the past, experience has played a
major role in the determination of dilution-zone
geometry, and trial and error methods have of
necessity been employed in developing the tem-
perature-traverse quality of individual combustor
designs to a satisfactory standard. Experimental
investigations into dilution-zone performance
carried out on actual chambers have led to useful
empirical-design data, but very often it has
proved difficult or impossible to distinguish the
separate influences of all the variables involved.
Thus although it is now generally accepted that
a satisfactory temperature profile is dependent
upon adequate penetration of the dilution jets,
coupled with the correct number of jets to form
sufficient localized mixing regions, the manner
in which the total dilution-hole area is utilized
in terms of number and size of holes is still largely
a matter of experience. Unfortunately, more
basic studies of jet mixing do not usually yield
results that can readily be expressed in param-
eters which are most familiar to those concerned
with combustion-chamber design. However, some
of these investigations can provide a useful guide
to the relationships involved.
One such investigation 16 resulted in the ac-
cumulation of a large amount of data on the
mixing of cold lets when injected into hot streams
under conditions where the temperature and
velocity of the hot and cold streams, the injection-
hole diameter, the angle of injection, and the
mixing length could be accurately controlled and
varied over a wide range. These data have been
analyzed by Lefebvre and Norster 17 and have
yielded quantitative information of the "rate
of exchange" between temperature-traverse qual-
ity and the relevant design parameters such as
dilution-zone length, dilution-hole diameter, and
flametube pressure-loss factor. The effects of
chamber inlet velocity and inlet-velocity profile
were also examined. Typically, it was found that,
for a reference velocity of 80 ft/sec, an increase
in chamber inlet velocity from 400 to 500 ft/sec
would produce no deterioration in traverse
quality provided that (a) the over-all pressure
loss was increased by 3 factors, or (b) the dilu-
tion zone was lengthened by 0.5 to 2.0 dilution-
hole diameters, depending on the initial pressure
loss factor. Similar data were also obtained to
show the amounts by which the pressure-loss fac-
tor or dilution-zone length must be increased to
compensate for a peakier inlet-velocity profile.
This analysis also provided further confirma-
tion of the effectiveness of a parameter/3 which,
for any given chamber, may be defined as the
ratio of flametube pressure-loss to over-all pres-
sure loss, as a yardstick for aerodynamic per-
formance. It is believed that /3 values are of
real significance when comparing the aero-
dynamic merits of different designs of chamber,
or any given design of chamber subjected to
variations in inlet velocity or inlet-velocity pro-
file. In this context it is interesting to note that
no matter how the over-all pressure loss of a
chamber is reduced, whether it be done crudely
by making the chamber fatter or, more scientifi-
cally, by carefully designing a low pressure-loss
flametube of adequate combustion performance,
the net result is always to reduce the value of/3.
Thus, the trend toward low-loss combustion
 PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS IN GAS-TUI~BINE COMBUSTION
chambers, which for many years has been a pri-
mary research objective, must inevitably result
in chambers whose dilution-zone performance
and general aerodynamic stability are more
sensitive to increases in inlet velocity and changes
in velocity profile.
Heat Transfer
The amount of available literature on the
heat-transfer process in aircraft combustion
chambers is relatively small. Much of this is
devoted to one heat-transfer component only--
namely, flame radiation--and often more con-
sideration is given to the various technics
employed in measuring radiation than to the
actual results obtained.
The number of positive conclusions that can be
drawn is relatively few, largely because much of
the experimental evidence is confusing and some-
times contradictory. Most of the apparent anom-
aries, however, cannot be attributed to experi-
mental errors but are due almost entirely to the
circumstance that flame radiation is dependent
on a large number of variables, whose individual
effects cannot be isolated. These include the
size and geometry of the combustion system,
its operating conditions of pressure, tempera-
ture, velocity, and fuel/air ratio, and also
various fuel factors such as chemical com-
position, droplet size, and distribution. Never-
theless, some facts have emerged which may be
summarized as follows. Flame radiation forms a
significant proportion of the total heat trans-
ferred to the flametube wall. It is comprised of
nonluminons radiation, mainly from carbon
dioxide and water vapor, plus a luminous com-
ponent which is dependent on the fuel employed
and the degree to which it is atomized. Flame
radiation increases with pressure.
Lefebvre and Herbert have is analyzed all the
relevant heat-transfer processes in some detail
and have attempted to formulate an equation
for predicting mean values of wall temperature
in various regions of the flametube. They have
also applied this equation to demonstrate quan-
titatively the separate effects on flametube tem-
perature of changes in the inlet variables of pres-
sure, temperature, and air velocity. The follow-
ing conclusions were drawn:
Flametube temperatures increase with
(a) increase in pressure;
(b) increase in inlet temperature;
(c) decrease in air velocity; and
(d) increase in flametube size
It is apparent, therefore, that any trend toward
higher pressures and inlet temperatures, regard-
less of whether such increases derive from higher
1133
compression ratios or higher flight speeds, will
tend to increase flametube temperatures and
thereby aggravate the problem of wall cooling.
Under these conditions, where metal temper-
atures are high, the life of the flametube may be-
come very sensitive to the type of fuel employed.
This problem, which is particularly important on
many United States designs, has been discussed
by Droegemueller and Nelson, 19 Randall and
Ritcheske, 2~ and Schirmer, McReynolds, and
Daley.21
In spite of the considerable amount of work
that has been done, the fact remains that the sum
total of knowledge on heat-transfer processes
in combustion chambers is lamentably slight,
and is quite inadequate to enable the designer to
deal effectively with the types of problem that
seem likely to arise in the fairly near future.
Analysis is difficult because it involves gases
which are at high temperature and undergoing
rapid physical and chemical change. Further
difficulty is introduced by the existence of very
marked radial temperature and velocity gradi-
ents within conventional spray-injection primary
zones. The formulation of a suitable research
program is not easy, but it should certainly
embrace in its early stages a detailed investiga-
tion of the structure of the combustion zone, and
should also include a systematic study of the
effects on flame radiation of fuel-spray charac-
teristics and flow turbulence. Progress in some
areas of research is limited by the need for im-
proved experimental technics. Most of the
methods currently employed in determining
heat fluxes and flametube-wall temperatures are
described in a recent review by Reeves. ~2
~uel Injection
The development of the so-called "Duple"
atomizer which, for the first time, gave good
atomization over a wide range of fuel flows, along
with parallel advances in the performance of
vaporizing systems, has provided a period of
many years in which the fuel-injection process
has been one of the most satisfactory and
trouble-free aspects of combustion chamber
operation. If, however, the problem of fuel in-
jection is examined in relation to the next gen-
eration of engines, it soon becomes apparent
that both of these two established methods are
likely to pose formidable problems.
With spray atomizers, the distribution of the
fuel throughout the combustion zone varies with
the amount of fuel supplied. Thus, the pattern
of burning changes with variations in fuel flow,
and this may be reflected as variations in the
temperature traverse at the combustion-chamber
outlet. Another disadvantage of the spray system
1134 AERODYNAMICS
is that when the gas pressure is high, the injected
fuel can only penetrate a short distance from
the atomizer, and this gives rise to a fuel-rich
region in the center of the flametube adjacent to
the atomizer. Combustion of this over-rich mix-
ture produces smoke and a luminous flame that
radiates considerable heat to the flametube walls.
Vaporizing systems have the following ad-
vantages over spray atomizers:
1. Because the vaporizing tubes contain both
fuel and air, very rich mixtures are avoided from
the outset. Hence, a bluer flame is produced, and
the problems of excessive smoke and flame
radiation are diminished.
2. The dispersal of fuel throughout the com-
bustion zone is dictated largely by the air-flow
pattern. This pattern remains sensibly constant
and independent of fuel flow, and hence the out-
let-temperature traverse is less sensitive to
change in fuel flow.
However, there are certain disadvantages to
the use of vaporizing systems. One is that the
critical design parameters are not yet fully es-
tablished. This is particularly unfortunate since
vaporizer tubes are difficult to modify in the
course of chamber development. Another dis-
advantage is their inability to operate at such
weak mixture strengths as spray systems.
An interesting method of fuel injection which
has been given serious consideration is "air-blast"
atomization. This is a very simple system in
which the fuel is atomized by high-velocity air,
which then enters the combustion zone carrying
the atomized fuel along with it. This method of
fuel injection shares many advantages with the
vaporizing system. For example, the fuel dis-
tribution is dictated mainly by the airflow pat-
tern, and the ensuing combustion is characterized
by a blue flame of low luminosity, resulting in
relatively cool flametube walls and a minimum
of exhaust smoke. However, whereas vaporizing
tubes are immersed in flame and are, therefore,
very susceptible to overheating, the air-blast
atomizer is continuously cooled by the high-
velocity air flowing over it which is at the com-
pressor-outlet temperature.
In view of the important potential advantages
of the air-blast atomizer over both spray and
vaporizing systems, it is perhaps surprising that
it has not found more widespread application.
Unfortunately, however, it suffers from a very
poor "weak extinction", even worse than that of
the vaporizing system. Moreover, at conditions
where the chamber velocity is low, such as at
start-up for example, the atomization quality is
poor and, in consequence, combustion perform-
ante is unsatisfactory.
The fuel-injection process has been discussed
IN COMBUSTION
at some length because of its controlling influence
on many aspects of combustion performance. In
this context, it must be stated that none of the
conventional methods of fuel injection inspire
complete confidence when viewed in the light of
probable future requirements. Here is a fruitful
field for ingenuity and research.
Carbon Formation and S m o k e
Smoke is formed only in fuel-rich regions of the
combustion zone. It follows, therefore, that one
of the primary objects of combustor design is to
ensure that the fuel is sufficiently well distributed
throughout the primary zone to prevent the
existence of local pockets of fuel-rich mixture.
Recognition of the primary cause of carbon
formation, combined with a more widespread use
of airflow visualization technics, gradually led to
the virtual elimination of this problem, at least
as far as combustion chambers featuring stoichi-
ometric primary zones were concerned. This was
the situation some years ago, but now the prob-
lem of smoke is again becoming important, partly
because of increases in engine size and thrust,
but mainly as a result of the trend towards higher
compression ratios. Its nuisance value, which
has increased with the growth of commercial jet
operations, is most apparent when water is in-
jected into engines as a means of augmenting
thrust at take off.
Although there is very little evidence in the
literature on the relationship between combustion
pressure and smoke, the following factors appear
to be significant. Any increase in gas pressure re-
sults in an increased resistance to the movement
of individual fuel droplets and, at the same time,
to a reduction in mean droplet diameter. These
two effects are cumulative in reducing the pene-
tration of the spray. Thus, instead of the fuel
distributing itself evenly across the primary zone,
at high pressures it tends to concentrate at the
center of the flametube in the vicinity of the
spray nozzle. This local fuel-rich zone surrounded
by flame, constitutes ideal conditions for the
production of smoke. This situation does not
arise, of course, with the vaporizer system in
which the distribution of fuel does not depend on
its kinetic energy, but is governed instead by the
airflow pattern.
The influence of fuel type on smoke formation
has been extensively studied. The results ob-
tained from numerous investigations are largely
dependent on the particular apparatus employed.
Neverbheless, for the pure hydrocarbon com-
pounds the results are consistent in showing that
aromatics are the worst offenders, reported vari-
ations in smoking tendency between aromatics
and paraffins being as large as 30 to 1.23-25 As
 PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS IN GAS-TURBINE COMBUSTIOI~
far as turbojet fuels are concerned, this means
that minimum smoke is produced by the lighter
and more volatile kerosines of low carbon/hydro-
gen ratio and low density. Such fuels are usually
characterized by high Smoke Points and high
Luminometer Numbers, 19 and minimum values
for one or both of these properties are now quoted
in all fuel specifications dealing with kerosine-
type jet fuels.
Other workers 26 have asserted that although
excessive smoke may be alleviated by the use of
lighter kerosines, it is basically a problem of
combustion-chamber design. In support of this
view, data have been presented to show that when
fuel and air are uniformly distributed throughout
the combustion zone in stoichiometric propor-
tions, the level of smoke is so small that the in-
fluence of fuel type is no longer significant. As
regards "wet" smoke, it has been demonstrated
that this can be drastically reduced, and for all
practical purposes eliminated, by the use of a suit-
able design of water-injection system.
The present position, therefore, is that the
problem of exhaust smoke is being kept in check
by attention to combustor design and by re-
strictions imposed in turbojet-fuel specifications.
Its importance in the future will depend on
whether or not the present trend towards engines
of higher pressure is continued, and also upon
whether, through economic or other circum-
stances, jet engines will be called upon to make
use of heavier fuels.
Conclusions
The large variety of engines now being pro-
duced imposes widely varying requirements on
the combustion system. In lift engines the main
emphasis is on size and weight. In large engines
for long-range aircraft, fuel consumption and
specific pressure loss are at a premium. For each
type of engine the combustion chamber has to be
'%ailor-made" to meet the stipulated require-
ments. Fortunately, as a result of the advances
made in our knowledge of the quantitative re-
lationship between combustor dimensions, pres-
sure-loss factor, and the operating conditions of
temperature, pressure, and velocity, this is now
practicable. In fact, in recent years the design
of conventional combustion chambers has become
almost a routine procedure. However, it should
not be assumed that little more remains to be
done. On the contrary, with the amount of knowl-
edge and experience now accumulated, the op-
portunities for greater ingenuity in design are
more challenging than ever before. Moreover,
since most of the apparent anomalies in combus-
tion behavior have now been disposed of, worth-
1135
while areas for research can be more readily
identified.
At the present time the most fruitful fields
for research appear to be the following:
(a) Fuel Injection. New methods are needed to
facilitate ignition and reduce exhaust smoke.
More progress must be made toward achieving
the high release rates obtainable with uniform
mixtures while retaining the wide burning range
associated with spray injection.
(b) Heat Transfer. More data are needed on the
influence of fuel-spray characteristics and flow
turbulence on the rate of heat transfer from the
flame. Another urgent requirement is for more
efficient methods of flametube cooling.
(c) Ignition. The effect of fuel distribution on
ignition performance warrants detailed investi-
gation. More data are also needed on the factors
governing plug oxidation and erosion.
Applied research on the above lines is not likely
to significantly affect chamber size and pressure
loss. However, it could lead to reductions in
size and weight of high-energy ignition equip-
ment, longer flametube life, elimination of ex-
haust smoke, and an outlet-temperature traverse
that is less sensitive to variations in engine
operating conditions.
REFERENCES
1. LLOYD,P.: Fifth Symposium (International) on
Combustion, p. 40, Reinhold, 1955.
2. GREENHOUGH, V. W. AND LEFEBVRE, A. H.:
Sixth Symposium (International) on Combustion,
p. 858, Reinhold, 1957.
3. LEFEBVRE, A. H. : College of Aeronautics Note
No. 163, 1964.
4. LONGWELL, J. P. AND WEISS, M. A.: Ind. Eng.
Chem. 4i7, 1634 (1955).
5. AVERY, W. H. AND HART, R. W.: Ind. Eng.
Chem. 45, 1634 (1953).
6. BRAGG, S. L.: Rolls Royce Internal Report,
July 1953.
7. CHILDS, J. H. ANn GRAVES, C. G.: Sixth Sym-
posium (International) on Combustion, p. 869,
Reinhold, 1957.
8. LEFEBVRE, A. H. AND MURRAY, F. R.: Rolls
Royce Internal Report, May 1957.
9. CLARKE,A. E. : Private communication (Joseph
Lucas Ltd., Burnley), April 1964.
10. LEWIS, B. AND VON ELBE, G.: Combustion,
Flames and Explosions of Gases, 2nd Ed.,
Academic Press, 1961.
11. SPALDING, D. B.: Some Fundamentals of
Combustion, Vol. 2, Gas Turbine Series, Butter-
worths, 1955.
1136 AERODYNAMICS IN COMBUSTION
12. Wine, L. D.: Selected Combustion Problems. II.
(M. W. TI=IRING,J. DUCARME,J. F ~ I , P. H.,
P~ICE, Eds.), Butterworth, 1956.
13. SHARP, J. G.: Aircraft Engr. 23, (1951).
14. LEFEBVRE, A. H. ANn HALLS, G. A.: Unpub-
lished Rolls Royce Report, 1958.
15. WATSON, E. A.: Unpublished work at Joseph
Lucas Ltd., 1952.
16. NORSTER,E. R.: College of Aeronautics Report.
To be published.
17. LEFEBVRE, A. H. AND NORSTER, E. a . : Un-
published work at College of Aeronautics,
Cranfield, 1964.
18. LEFEBVRE, A. H. AND t:[EI~BERT, M. V.: Proc.
Inst. Mech. Engrs. (London) 174, (1960).
19. DROEGMUELLER, ~]. A. AN]) NELSON, R. K.i
Relation of Fuels to Aircraft Turbine Engines.
Paper presented at the SAE National Aero-
nautical Meeting, New York, April 1958.
20. RANDALL, N. P. AND RITCHESKE, W. F.: The
Influence of Fuel Variables on Radiation from
COMMENTS
Miss E. J. Macnair (Ministry of Defence): I
should like to comment on Lefebvre's statement
that the luminous component of flame radiation
"is dependent on the fuel employed and the degree
to which it is atomized." I think Be~r and the
IJmuiden team would agree that fuel-air mixing
is the most important factor governing luminous
flame emissivity. Lefebvre says that "where a
residual o i l . . , is concerned.., the over-all emissiv-
ity approaches unity"; I would refer him to Broeze's
comment where he pointed out that, with well-
mixed, stoichiometric combustion of heavy oil, the
flame can be blue and essentially nonluminous.
Prof. A. H. Lefebvre: I suspect that the experi-
ments, referred to by Miss Macnair, were carried
out at atmospheric pressure and are, therefore,
irrelevant to the problem of flame radiation in gas
turbines. Flame radiation in aircraft combustion
chambers is important only at high pressures, and
there is now ample evidence to confirm that, under
these conditions, it is very dependent on the car-
bon/hydrogen ratio of the fuel employed.
Dr. J. L. Livesey (Manchester University): The
author's aerodynamic analysis and introduction of
a ~ factor, which is made to appear all important,
is a tempting oversimplification.
Surely, the view taken, that the flow paths con-
tributing to the over-all pressure loss are in series,
Flames in a Turbojet Combustor. Paper presented
at the SAE Annual Meeting, Detroit, January
1959.
21. SCamPER, R. M., McREYNOLDS, L. A., AND
DALSr, J. A. : Radiation from Flames in Gas
Turbine Combustors. Paper presented at SAE
Annual Meeting, Detroit, January 1960.
22. REEVES, D.: Experimental Methods in Com-
bustion Research, Sec. 3.2, p. 5, Pergamon,
1964.
23. SCHALLA, R. L. AND McDoNALD, G. E.: Ind.
Eng. Chem. 45, 1953.
24. SCH~.LI~, R. L. ANn HIBB.~D, R. R.: Basic
Considerations in the Combustion of Hydrocarbon
Fuels with Air, Chapter IX, Report 1300.
Forty-Third Annual Report of NACA, 1957.
25. RAGOZIN, N. A.: Jet Propulsion Fuels, Perga-
mon, 1961.
26. LEFEBVRE,A. H. AND DURRANT, T.: Design
Characteristics Affecting Gas Turbine Per-
formance. Paper presented at the SAE National
Aeronautic Meeting, Los Angeles, October 1960.
is too simple. For a compact chamber, a more
proper representation is a series-parallel arrange-
ment of the flow paths and, here, one can write
AP (over-all)
AP(diffuser) ~- AP(dilution) = aP(primary);
AP(primary) is, in the limit, the pressure loss which
is adequate to ensure stable primary-zone processes
at the required heat release. I suggest that the true
lower limit of AP(primary) is not yet approached,
and that, here, aerodynamics has much to contribute.
Whether AP(dilution) or AP(primary) will be the
ultimate controlling loss cannot be stated, but I
would hazard a guess, in agreement with Lefebvre,
that AP(dilution), with its important effect on the
outlet-temperature distribution, will be the limiting
loss.
Lefebvre states that the combustion-chamber
designer can do more than apply the accepted rules
of diffuser design. I submit that, in this context,
there are no accepted rules of diffuser design. The
special considerations of entry-velocity profile, and
turbulence structure and their interaction, are only
just becoming appreciated, and these effects modify
considerably the classical description of diffuser
flows.
Aerodynamic investigation of all the sources of
pressure loss is ~ustified, and should find a prominent
place in any list of fruitful research areas.
Prof. A. H. Lefebvre: The most important factor
currently limiting the development of combustion
 PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS IN GAS-TURBINE COMBUSTION
chamber aerodynamics is the total absence of any
form of quantitative description for aerodynamic
performance. I agree with Livesey that the proposed
f~ factor represents a considerable oversimplification.
However, until a more comprehensive solution is
obtained, the f~ factor will be found useful in pro-
viding a yardstick for assessing the aerodynamic
capabilities of a combustion chamber.
Mr. P. E. Hubble (Bristol Siddeley Engines, Ltd.) :
I do not agree with the author, that a program of
fundamental research is unnecessary. It is because
we have failed to give enough attention to compo-
nent processes that progress has been so slow.
The aerodynamic processes in a combustion sys-
tem are of particular importance, and it must be
possible to analyze these in some detail, if we are
to make satisfactory predictions of flame-tube tem-
peratures, outlet temperatures, distribution, com-
bustion efficiency, or pressure loss. The requirements,
regarding these quantities, vary so vastly from one
engine project to another that in reliance on global
empirical quantities (such as "combustion intensity"
in any form) must be a poor substitute for a proper
analysis of the problem.
An instance where calculation seems possible is
in the deflection of an air jet in a cross-flow. By an
1137
extension to the method of Chang ['CHANG,H. C.:
Aufrollung eines Zylindrischen Strahles durch
Querwind, Dissertation, University of GSttingen,
1942], the distortion of a nonmixing jet can be
described in terms of vorticity placed in the jet
surface. If it proves possible to estimate the mean
diffusion of this vorticity from the surface, due to
the turbulent shear, it would be possible to compute
the mean velocity profiles in the jet. The Cranfield
data (Ref. 27 of the paper) on the jet centerline
trajectory will provide a check on such calculations.
One must expect, however, to need more detailed
measurements of the sort of turbulent mixing process
to be found around the jet periphery. One investiga-
tion to this end is being done by the National
Physical Laboratory.
An advantage of the vortex d~cription of the
jet is that, in principle, it is possible to calculate
the interaction between the jets. In this way, a
comprehensive calculation of the flow inside the
combustion chamber should be possible
Prof. A. H. Lefebvre: I respect these views on the
importance of fundamental research; in fact, I
share them. Nevertheless, I feel they are far too
idealistic in estimating the role of fundamental
research to the development of practical combus-
tion systems.