Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES NO. 942140

PW4084 ENGINE TESTING IN ALTITUDE &

SEA LEVEL TEST FACILITIES

JOHN H. ROBERTS, DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER, PRATT & WHITNEY

WILLIAM R. BEYERLY, DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER, PRATT & WHITNEY
MARC W. MASON, PERFORMANCE ENGINEER, PRATT & WHITNEY
JEFFREY R. GLAZIER, PERFORMANCE ENGINEER, PRATT & WHITNEY
RICHARD H. WILEY, INSTALLATION ENGINEER, PRATT & WHITNEY

The Engineen'ng Society AEROTECH '94

eA =For Advannng Mobility
LOS ANGELES, CA
and Sea and Space8
OCTOBER 3-6,1994
-- - -
- -

400 COMMONWEALTH DRIVE, WARRENDALE, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. TEL: (410) 776-4841 FAX: (412) 776-5760

COPYRIGHT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, 1994

Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

= primary nozzle entry

total pressure
= fan nozzle entry total
temperature
In-flight thrust determination for propulsion
= primary nozzle entry
systems is determined most accurately
total temperature
through full-scale engine testing using a
Vflight = flight velocity
combination of sea level and simulated
vo = average velocity at inlet
altitude tests. Modern high bypass
control volume plane
turbofan engines impose special demands
VJF = fan jet velocity
on achieving the accurate measurements
VJE = primary jet velocity
needed to determine the performance
Wpri = primary nozzle gas flow
characteristics of a high bypass engine in
WAF = bypass nozzle airflow
a simulated altitude test facility. This
WAT = total airflow
paper discusses the development and
6* = boundary layer
validation process followed by a Pratt &
displacement thickness
Whitney/USAF team to develop Arnold
Engineering Development Center's C2
test cell into an industry accepted, high Introduction
bypass engine, altitude simulating test In response to the demand for improved
facility. fuel economy, commercial aircraft of
today are powered by high bypass ratio
Nomenclature turbofan engines. From the earliest days
of the turbofan in the 1960's, bypass ratio
Ao = inlet control volume
levels have increased from between 1.0 to
frontal area
2.0 to the 5.0 to 8.0 range for engines
AF = fan nozzle exit area
entering commercial service today, and
CDF = fan nozzle flow
even higher levels in the 15 to 20 range
coefficient
may be expected in the future. This
CGF = fan nozzle gross thrust
imposes stringent demands on accurate
coefficient
test measurements including nozzle
CVF = fan nozzle specific
coefficients which are used as the means
thrust coefficient
for determining in-flight thrust. The
EPR = engine pressure ratio
higher the bypass ratio level, the more
FPR = fan pressure ratio
difficult it is to achieve satisfactory
FM = load cell measured
measurement accuracy( Ref. 1).
force
FGD = bypass duct gross thrust
Pratt & Whitney utilizes full-scale engine
FGpri = primary gross thrust
testing in both sea level outdoor and
FGT = total gross thrust
altitude test facilities as the principle
F~~ = total net thrust means for in-flight thrust determination.
PAMB = ambient static pressure
The procedures and methodology which
Pcell = test chamber ambient
serve as a basis are consistent with those
pressure
discussed in SAE AIR 1703, "In-Flight
PSF = static pressure at fan
Propulsion Measurement", AIR 1678,
nozzle exit
"Uncertainty of In-flight Propulsion
PSE = static pressure at
Measurement" and AIAA-85-1404 "Engine
primary nozzle exit
Thrust Measurement Uncertaintyn,( Ref. 3
Pplenum = inlet plenum total
, 4 & I ) , respectively) . Measurements of
pressure
nozzle entry pressure and temperature,
PSO = average static pressure
and the measured force and airflow taken
at inlet control volume
during full-scale testing of a particular
plane
engine model are used to compute nozzle
PTF = fan nozzle entry total
thrust and flow coefficients. These nozzle
pressure
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

thrust and flow coefficients , appropriately The process for achieving acceptable
adjusted for free stream flow effects, can accuracy in terms of both precision and
be used with in-flight pressure and bias limits starts with careful calibrations
temperature measurements to determine of the instruments and measurement
on-the-wing thrust. system transducers, which can be traced
back to National Institute of Standards &
Full scale calibrations of engines from two Technology (NIST) references. The test
types of test environments, sea level and environment is designed so that individual
altitude, serve as the basis for pressure and temperature measurements
determining nozzle coefficients that cover are made at interface planes
the range from the low nozzle pressure demonstrating aerodynamically uniform
ratios experienced at static Mach number environments. This ensures that the
conditions to nozzle pressure ratios well effects of sampling errors are small. To
beyond the choking value as experienced ensure that these steps are properly
in altitude cruise operation. Figure 1 executed and that no large unknown bias
shows typical pressure ratio variations for errors are imbedded in the process, cross
high bypass ratio engines from altitude to correlation testing with a common engine
static Mach number conditions. exhaust system in sea level test stand is
done. Validation of test cell
measurements is also accomplished by
comparison of full scale engine and sub
scale model nozzle coefficients.

1
L *

8.
1
GMn Cruise Mn With the development of the PW4084
engine, Pratt & Whitney has exceeded the
capacity to test engines at simulated
altitude conditions in its own facility.
TAKEOFF CRLSE Alternate test facilities at the USAF Arnold
I I
' PTF / PAM3
1
Engineering Development Center (AEDC)
were selected for use in this development
program. Though the facility was
designed with airflow capabilities and test
cell size adequate for the PW4084,
considerable test cell modifications were
necessary to satisfy the test requirements
CRillSE
1 I I for the PW4084 engine development
PTF / PAM5
program. An aggressive program was
undertaken with Pratt & Whitney and the
USAF partnering to configure the AEDC
test cell to an industry accepted high
bypass ratio engine development facility.
FIGURE 1
FAN NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIO Based on the experiences gained through
AND COEFFICIENT the development of stands at the Willgoos
Test Facility, evaluation test and
ALTITUDE AND SEA LEVEL development plans were established.
These included flow and flow field
evaluation using sub-scale, CFD, and full
Simulated altitude test facilities such as
Pratt & Whitney's Willgoos Laboratory scale testing; instrumentation and data
have been developed to ensure that the measurement system development and
full scale engine verification testing.
test environment accurately represents
Evaluation, analysis and modifications
the true pressures and temperatures
encountered at altitude cruise conditions. were completed within a 16 month period
supporting the first PW4084 engine test
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018
on schedule with all requirements for high
bypass altitude simulation testing being
met. Details of the test cell development
program to the time of the first PW4084
engine test were reported in Ref. 4. Much
of the development and certification
program for the PW4084 was successfully
completed in the C-2 altitude facility in
-
1993 1994. This paper discusses the
continued development of confidence in
the C-2 altitude facility including closure
of nozzle coefficients to sub-scale model
testing and to Pratt & Whitney's test
facilities in West Palm Beach, Florida
based of the PW4084's development and
certification testing. Some background
material from Reference 4 is included and
amplified in this paper for completeness.
FACILITIES
General Description
Sea level outdoor testing at Pratt &
Whitney takes place at our test complex
in West Palm Beach, Florida. Three large
modern test stands for commercial
engines designated C-17, C-12 & C-14
were constructed there in 1981 - 1983.
The Florida stands were designed to
accommodate high bypass turbofans for
commercial application from the outset.
They have been upgraded to test engines
up to 100,000 Ib. class. Primarily, this
involved features which facilitate the
installation of larger engines with complex
instrumentation hookups and which
provide automatic processing of data
measured during testing. Figure 2 shows
a photograph of a PW4084 engine
installed in a Florida sea level stand.
Details of accreditation of these test
facilities are provided in Reference 1.
FIGURE 2
PW4084 INSTALLED IN SEA
LEVEL TEST STAND IN W.P.B.,
FLORIDA
Simulated altitude testing at Pratt &
Whitney has been done at the Andrew
Willgoos test complex in East Hartford,
Conn. This complex is the largest
privately owned turbine engine laboratory
in the world. The largest engine capable
of being tested in the Willgoos Facility is
the PW4168, a 68,000 Ib. thrust engine
which powers the Airbus A330 airplane.
The higher airflow level required by the
PW4084 engine, an 84,000 Ib. thrust
engine which powers the Boeing 777
aircraft, requires larger test facilities with
greater airflow capacity.
The Aeropropulsion System Test Facility
(ASTF) at AEDC was designed and
constructed in the 1970's and 1980's with
capability to test very large turbine
engines at simulated altitude conditions.
Because of reduced military programs and
resulting increased availability of ASTF
test time, the USAF was able to
accommodate Pratt & Whitney's need for
a facility to test large civil engines. The
design capabilities of the ASTF system
were reviewed by the Pratt &
WhitneyIAEDC Team and found to be
suitable for testing the PW4084 turbofan
engine. An agreement (between P&W
and the USAF) to proceed with the
PW4084 test program at AEDC was
signed in 1991. The largest test stand at
ASTF (C-2) was chosen and modification1
development of the stand to achieve
accurate thrustlperformance measure-
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

ments were begun. Figure 3 shows a ACCOMMODATION OF THE ALTITUDE

comparison of flight condition simulation TEST STAND TO HIGH BYPASS RATIO
capability for large high bypass engines at To achieve accurate thrust measurements
Willgoos and AEDC. Figure 4 shows a it was necessary to design and develop
photograph of the PW4084 engine the facility to provide very accurate
installed in AEDC C-2 stand. measurement of inlet and test cell
pressures and temperatures as well as the
force and airflow. The inlet momentum
and pressure buoyancy terms in the thrust
ALTlTUDE FEET (Thousands) equation are large for a high bypass
1 engine operating at cruise conditions;
each term represents approximately 30%
of the gross thrust. In order to ensure that
the thrust measurement would not be
influenced by the facility itself (bias), the
inlet section and test chamber were
designed and/or modified to exhibit the
following aerodynamic characteristics:

Inlet Section
0
SW 1OdW
I
I
1500 2000
1 2500 MW) Low turbulence
AIRFLOW (BPS)
Low pressure distortion
- - WBbL16008 -AEDC Minimal axial and radial pressure
gradients at control volume interface
FIGURE 3
PRESSURE ALTITUDE TEST Test Chamber
CAPABILITY WILLGOOS & - Small axial and radial pressure
gradients
AEDC Low chamber airflow recirculation
characteristics

Details of the development process are

reported in Ref. 4.

Benign aerodynamic characteristics in the

inlet section were ensured by means of:
(1) a punched plate/honeycomb screen
between the upstream flow measuring
venturis and the inlet portion downstream;
and (2) a fairing similar to the one in
Willgoos which smoothly channels airflow
into the engine inlet, schematically shown
in Figure 5. A bellmouth with cylindrical
inlet spool pieces similar to those in the
Willgoos Laboratory were designed to
minimize radial and axial pressure
gradients at the forward control volume
surface to provide pressure
measurements for determination of
FIGURE 4 accurate thrust corrections and an
integrated airflow benchmark. A
PHOTO OF 4084 IN AEDC C-2 photograph of the engine inlet is shown as
CELL Figure 6.

4
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

-- I
DUCT
I DUCT ' DUCT

FIGURE 7
INLET INSTRUMENTATION
SCHEMATIC

Pressure measurements in the inlet

confirmed low axial and radial pressure
grauents and low circumferential
distortion. Figure 8 shows very good
agreement between design intent
calculated axial pressure gradients and
measured pressure gradients along the
wall. Calculated centerline pressure
aradients are shown for reference.
u

FIGURE 5 Excellent agreement between calculated

and measured boundary layer thickness is
shown in Figure 9. Typical low
circumferential distortion is shown by
boundary and probe measurements in
Figure 10. The quality and consistency of
the inlet flow field combined with the high
accuracy pressure measurements enabled
accurate determination of inlet airflow and
calibration of the standard choked venturi
airflow measuring system.

PRESSURE MEASUREMEWZONE

FIGURE 6 INLET PHOTOGRAPH

*
g
0.6

05 CWrPlUME
-i -
The flow and velocity fields in the inlet
were determined with a circumferentia!
and axial array of pitotistatic pressure
probes, boundary layer rakes, and wall -50 -46 -42 -38 -34 -30 -26 -22
statics, schematically shown in Figure 7. A ENGINE STATION.INCHES
zero leakage teflon seal developed by
AEDC was used to eliminate flow leakage
between the engine inlet and the test cell FIGURE 8
exhaust plenum.
INLET AXIAL PRESSURE
-

GRADIENT
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

Ih'IET BOUNDARY LAYER lHICKNlX3

CALCULATED(DESIGN lNTENT)AND MEASURED

required for thrust determination (see

control volume analysis below) was also
integrated from the inlet pressure
measurements.

EQ. (1)

AXlAL DISTANCE where K accounts for humidity, thermal

effects, etc.
FIGURE 9
INLET BOUNDARY LAYER
THICKNESS

1.l

BOUNDARY LAYER PROBES

la---- A E D C V C N T Y R I CO
CALCULATtD FROM

prrm TOTALS VENTURI

FLOW
'
COEFF.

a -
t os
CD

SIMILAR SHAPE MEASURED I

AT AEDC AS F O U N D
I N WILLGOOS LAB
-
---- --__i -%

FIGURE I 1
FIGURE 10 CALIBRATED VENTURI FLOW
INLET BOUNDARY LAYER COEFFICIENT
MEASUREMENTS
AIRFLOW DETERMINATION TEST CELL AUGMENTOR DESIGN TO
The standard method to determine airflow MINIMIZE EFFECTS OF
in both AEDC and the Willgoos Laboratory RECIRCULATION
is by choked venturis, Eq 1. Pressure
measurements in the inlet described Design modifications were made to the
above were use to integrate the airflow test cell ejector tube based on experience
and thereby calibrate the venturi system in the Willgoos Lab and special P&W
flow coefficient. The venturi flow scale model testing of the ASTF C-2 test
measuring systems at the Willgoos Lab cell configuration, (Ref. 5 ) . A schematic
were calibrated in a similar manner. The of the model rig is shown in Figure 12 (a).
calibrated venturi flow coefficient for C-2 An augmentor configuration was chosen
is similar in level and variation with which minimized the effects of test cell
venturi throat Reynolds number as the recirculation and produced negligible cell
Willgoos system , Figure 11. pressure gradients, Figure 12 (b). The
The inlet momentum correction (Wa*V) P&W recommended configuration
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

changes were supported by CFD

calculations made by AEDC, Reference 6.
Also shown in Figure 12 (b) are model test
data and calculation results for the
'Lobsbw Trap' Scale Model
Willgoos laboratory operating with a om 1 - -
Test Data PW2037 Willqoos X218
PW2037 engine which were used to I
construct an augmentor system which
produced negligible static pressure
gradient at Willgoos, Reference 1. The
pressure gradient for no augmentor
treatment is also shown in the figure for
reference. Water injection in the
augmentor tube was utilized to cool the
hot exhaust gas and minimize heating of
the cell . Full scale testing confirmed the 0 Test Data - PW4088 - AEDC C2
effectiveness of the system. PW2037 Scale Model Data

Measurements were made on the thrust

mount hardware, test cell walls and on
"piccolo tubes" located between the walls
AXIAL DISTANCE, FT
and the engine. Measured cell axial
pressure gradients are shown in Figure
13. Pressure measurements on the front Scale Model Test Results & CFD
and rear of the thrust bed andlor the wall Calculations
agree within 0.15%. (B)

C-2 "Possum Trap" Schematic As Built

(C)
j.*& !
I Fisure 12
II
0 ,; I) Test Cell Ausmentor Confisure
t o Achieve Neqligible Test Cell
Scale Model Schematic Pressure Gradients
(A)
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

Testing with an inlet turbulence control

structure (TCS) greatly improves data
drrurs~~
4
-.t----\
PRESSURES
*-t I
m U S T BED (m)
I
1
quality and accuracy for sea level outdoor
testing, (Ref. 1). The TCS is a
-9
<, 1.m

0J5% THRUSTBED (FORE) 1

honeycomb structure positioned between
punched plates which is placed around the
I
p9!x -4
i--
I
inlet but has its own ground support. A
photograph of the PW4084 with the
&
turbulence control structure installed is
shown in Figure 14.
-1W 0 1W 200 300 400 500

'A' Am AXIAL. DISTANCEFROM 'A' FLSWGE

FIGURE 13
TEST AXIAL PRESSURE
GRADIENT MEASUREMENTS

In summary, the basic test stand design

and the following considerations were
addressed:

lnlet wall surface static pressure

survey
lnlet total and static pressure survey
including boundary layer
Spool piece seal gap static pressure
FIGURE 14
measurements PW4084 WITH TURBULENCE
Calibration of inlet zero-leakage seal CONTROLSTRUCTURE
system
Chamberlthrust mount static pressure
survey Since the TCS is attached to the ground
Scale model evaluation of chamber and forces on it are not measured by the
effects force meter, a correction to the measured
Test chamber secondary cooling flow thrust due to the pressure drop through
evaluation the structure needs to be applied. This
Centerline thrust calibration correction was determined by a simplified
control volume analysis considering the
SEA LEVEL TESTING measured pressure drop through the TCS,
Validation testing of the P&W outdoor test and its effect on stream thrust entering the
stands in I983 demonstrated their ability engine (Athroat * AP); Figure 15 (a). The
to measure thrust and nozzle coefficients corresponding thrust correction is shown
within of 0.5%, Ref.1. This level of in Figure 15 (b). This TCS correction was
uncertainty is for the case when bellmouth confirmed by similar calculations and TCS
losses are negligible. Non-ideal forces onloff back-to-back testing for the JT9D
generated by viscous effects near the engine, Reference 1, also shown in Figure
bellmouth lip or by strong vortices are 15 (b). The TCS correction is
difficult to account for and will cause approximately 0.5% thrust at the PW4084
unacceptable large bias errors in takeoff power level. Valid thrust
measured thrust coefficients. An example measurements with an open bellmouth
of this for wind correction is documented (no TCS) requires facility and bellmouth
in Reference 1. design to assure that the engine is
sufficiently high off the ground plane so
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

adverse effects of vortex ingestion are which are used to determine thrust in the
negligible. The design should also ensure altitude facility:
that only negligible viscous losses occur
on the bellmouth. The inlet and test stand MEASUREMENT
PLANE .
design precluded direct determination of
the TCS correction by TCS onloff testing
with the PW4084 engine.

TCS PRESSURE DROP (%) SPOOL P ( ( C C ~ 'NACELLE

- - -
FGT= FM + AO(PSO- Pcell) + WATV,

Eq. (2a & 2b)

FIGURE 16
CONTROL VOLUME AND
INLET AIRFLOW WAT EQUATIONS USED TO
DETERMINE THRUST AT
ALTITUDE
TCS THRUST CORRECTION

Nozzle coefficients for flow and thrust are

determined using definitions of Equation
3.
These coefficients, with appropriate free
stream adjustments, will be used to
calculate thrust in-flight:

j ' \ 1i
iooo

INLET AIRFLOW WAT

2000 J O ~ O
c - (VAT - KH )$Z (3a)
DF - AFPTF/ [ ~ fAiP /]IDEAL

FIGURE 15
TCS PRESSURE DROP (a) AND FGT- FGpn
RESULTING THRUST = [FI W J T ] w,, &- (3b)
CORRECTION (b) IDEAL

CONTROL VOLUME FOR THRUST

DETERMINATION

The control volume, Fig. 16),

force/momentum analysis results in the
following simplified equations (2a & 2b)
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

working standard used to calibrate the test

To apply the above equations it is stand instrumentation and the hierarchy of
necessary to provide multiple calibration instruments that relate back to
measurements of the parameters the NIST. Engine station profiles and
including traverses in some instances to facility profiles are also subject to both
ensure a proper average is available for random and fixed errors because of
the one-dimensional equations. sensor location. These are called
sampling errors and are made small by
UNCERTAINW ANALYSIS careful design of the instrumentationldata
The use of uncertainty as a statistical system/facility configuration. Empirical
estimate of error requires segregation and curves and constants used to calculate
estimation of the effects of (1) random performance are also subject to fixed bias
and (2) systematic errors for all the errors.
measured values, REF. 7&8. Random Figure 17 provides a tabulation of
errors occur between repeated instrument bias and precision
measurements of a parameter and are measurement error limits.
called instrumentation precision error. Methodology for achieving these high
Systematic errors in instrumentation measurement accuracy levels is
measurements are constant and are discussed in Ref. 9.
called instrumentation bias. The bias
originates from differences between the

Parameter Sensor Readings Precision (2s) Bias

Fm Meterforce
I
Load Cell
I
2 Bridges
I
i 2 0 Lbs.
I
i 2 5 Lbs.
I
TT2 Inlet Total Temp. TIC 48 i..40°F i.3S°F
I I I I
TT2 Venturi Temp. TIC 71 r.lO°F r.16OF
I
Ph7-Pbar-DifferentialPressure 15 psi Xducer 14 / *.044%fs i.052% fs
Between Venturi Total and Barometer
Pplenum-Plenum Static Pressure Ruska 4 i.008% pt i.04% fs
I I I I

Pbar=Barometer Static Pressure / Ruska (AEDC) I 1 i.008% pt 1.04%

Pchamber-PPL=DifferentialPressure 5 psi Xducer 10 % 1.044% fs i.052% fs

BemfeenChamber Static and Plenum
h2-PPl=DBerential Pressure Behveen 5 psi Xducers 8 1.044% fs i.052Ws
Inlet Total and Plenum
Wf-Fue Flow Cox Meter 2 i.24%fs i.20%pt
I I
I
I I

Wan-Pba~DifferentialPressure / 15 psi Xducers 1 80 sensors i.044% fs i.052% fs

Between Fan Total and Barometer I
Pt4.9-Pba~DBerentialPressure I 15 psi Xducers / 48 sensors i.043% fs i.052% fs
Betiveen Turbine Exit Total & Barometer
Tt4.9=Turbine Exit Total Temperature TIC'S I 36 sensors i1.7'F i2.2'F

FIGURE 17
INSTRUMENTATION PRECISION
AND BIAS ERROR LIMITS AT
AEDC
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

Propagating the measurement errors to Force measurement uncertainty has been

net thrust and to nozzle flow and thrust
coefficients at 35000 ft. Mn 0.8 bucket
cruise power and at 15000 ft Mn 0.2
takeoff power, results in the uncertainty
estimates as shown in Figure 18.
improved relative to that cited in Ref. 4 for
the initial stand development. This is due
to a more precise determination of thrust
corrections for cell pressure and
temperature variations.

U95IU99 VALUES FOR AEDC C-2 STAND TESTING PW4084-

35000 FT / 0.8Mn
CRUISE BUCKET

PRECISION
Fnt (@ EPR = K) -+.48% -+.24%
Fgt (@ EPR = K) -+.27% -+.11%
TSFC (@ Fn = K) -+.44% -+.34%
CDF (@ p ~ ~ / P a m = K)
b -
+.56% -+.23%
= bK)
CVF ( @ p ~ ~ / P a m -+.32% -+.Is%
CGF ( @ P T F / P = ~ K)
~~ -+.33% -+.17%

15000 FT 10.2Mn
TAKEOFF

-
BIAS PRECISION
Fnt (@ EPR = K) -+.36% -
+.14%
Fgt (@ EPR = K) -+.36% -+.14%
TSFC (@ p ~ ~ / P abr=n K) -+.57% -+.37%
= bK)
C D ~ ( @p ~ ~ / P a m -+.56% -+.22%
CVF(@ p ~ ~ / P a m = bK) -+.27% -+.14%
CGF(@ P ~ ~ f P a m = bK) -+.43% -+.19%
* U95 & U99 = 95% confidence & 99%
confidence uncertainty limits

FIGURE 18
THRUST TOTAL UNCERTAINTY
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

CROSS STAND VALIDATION

To ensure that no large unknown bias
errors are present in the altitude and sea
level facility/measurement systems, a
PW4084 engine was tested in the AEDC
Laboratory at a simulated flight condition
of approximately 15000 feet, 0.2 Mach
Number and at the outdoor sea level test
facility C11 stand in Florida. The sea
level test results are with the turbulence
control structure installed. Figure 19
shows a comparison of nozzle coefficient
test data between the two facilities 1.4 1 :6 1 .8 2 0'
together with predicted 95% uncertainty PTF / PAMB
bands. Correlation of the test data
between the altitude and sea level test FIGURE 19
facilities is within -
0.3% well within the COMPARISON OF NOZZLE
predicted uncertainty.
COEFFICIENTS MEASURED IN
SEA LEVEL AND ATF
----8/8/94 MODEL COEFFICIENT AT STA 14.0
g 15K
a SEA LEVEL COMPARISON WITH SUB-SCALE
MODEL
Early in the development program sub-
scale model tests of the primary and fan
exhaust nozzle systems were run by the
Boeing Company and Pratt & Whitney.
These measurements represent nozzle
system losses and are referred to an axial
station at the entry to the nozzle exhaust
system.

Pressure measurements were made

/ , , , / 4 , : , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , upstream of the fan exit guide vanes, and
1.A 1 .6 1.8 2.0 were adjusted to the nozzle entry station
PTF / PAMB
via a "residual error" analysis. This
analysis technique computes a pressure
loss between the measuring station and
reference station which minimizes the
error in both flow and force measurements
(CD & CG) when compared to sub-scale
model coefficients. The losses calculated
by this method agree with design system
FEGV, fan case strut, and instrumentation
losses obtained from PW4000 and
PW4084 testing. Comparison of full scale
engine measured coefficients, adjusted
1.4 116 118 2.0 via the residual error method, with sub-
PTF / PAMB
scale model coefficients is shown in
Figure 20. The sub-scale thrust, specific
thrust and flow coefficients are within
0.296, 0.3% and 0.3%, respectively, of
the engine measured coefficients at the
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

high altitude cruise. At the low Mach

number take-off conditions the scale
model and engine thrust, specific thrust,
and flow coefficients are nearly identical
for both ATF testing at AEDC and sea
level testing at West Palm Beach. This is
very good agreement, well within the
statistically defined measurement
process.

C O E F F I C I E N T AT STA 14.0
J
-
3
I ' ' I ~ " " " 1 " " ~ " I " " ~ "
7.2 i.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
PTF / PAMB

FIGURE 20
COMPARISON OF ENGINE
MEASURED & SUB-SCALE
NOZZLE COEFFICIENT

1.2 1: 6 2:0 2:4 2.8

PTF / PAMB SUMMARY
The partnership process followed by the
P&W/AEDC team utilized all available
resources including Willgoos experience,
P&W and AEDC engineering analysis and
design capabilities. Much assistance was
also received from the Boeing Company.
This team approach resulted in
achievement of high accuracy
thrusffperformance measurements in the
AEDC-C2 test facility and contributed to
4 , , # , , ~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 the successful development and
1.2 1 .6 2.0 2.4 2.8 certification of the PW4084 engine for the
PTF / PAMB
Boeing 777 aircraft.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Bath , Saturday, July 28, 2018

References
9) Runyan, W.B.; Matkins, E.; Boals,
1) Roberts, J.H.; Lewis, J.L.; Glicken, w.o.; Sanders, D., "AEDC
D.H.; et al, "Engine Thrust Measurement System Capabilities for
Measurement Uncertainty", Paper No. Testing Large Turbofan Engines",
AIA-85-1404, AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE Presentation at SAE Aerotech
21st Joint Propulsion Conference, Conference, Los Angeles, California
Monterey, Calif., July 10, 1985. October 3-6, 1994.

2) SAE AIR 1703, "In-Flight Thrust

Determination", prepared by SAE
Committee E-33.

3) SAE AIR 1678, "Uncertainty of In-

Flight Thrust Determination", prepared
by SAE Committee E-33.

4) Roberts, J.H.; Guidone, J.A.;

Mancuso, B; Babilon, J; Mcilveen, M,
"Engine testing at Simulated altitude
condition", paper no AIA 93-2452
AIAAISAE, ASMEIJoint Propulsion
Conference, Monterey, California,
June 28, 1993.

5) W.D. Colletti and J.P. Nikkanen ,

Internal P& W Research

6) Prufert, M.B.; Power G.D.; McClure,

"Computational Support to Engine
Testing; paper No. SAE 942141 SAE
Aerotech Conference Los Angeles,
California October 3-6. 1994.

7) Abernethy and J.W. Thompson, Jr.,

"Handbook Uncertainty in Gas
Turbine Measurements", AEDC-TR-
73-5, February 1973, reprinted as
"Instrument Society of America
Measurement Uncertainty Handbook",
Revised 1980, ISBN: 87664-483-3.

8) The History and Statistical

Development of the new ASME-SAE-
IS0 Measurement Uncertainty
Methodology, R.B. Abernethy and
Barbara Ringhiser, Paper No. AlAA
85-1403, AIAA/SAE/ASME Joint
Propulsion Conference, July 8-11,
1985, Monterey, California.