AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition: The Next 100 Y AIAA 2003-2660

14-17 July 2003, Dayton, Ohio

FUEL CELL APU FOR COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT

*
David L. Daggett
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, WA
†
Stephan Eelman
Technische Universität München, Garching, Germany
‡
Gustav Kristiansson
University of Mälardalen, Västerås, Sweden

ABSTRACT instead of pneumatic and hydraulic energy to

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF IOWA on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2660

power the aircraft’s various systems, such as

Commercial aircraft are increasingly faced with the
requirement of simultaneously reducing fuel use
and emissions. Thus, new technologies are
required to be developed and implemented to
solve this dilemma. One such technology is the
fuel cell. Utilizing a similar operation principle to
that of a battery, fuel cells harness an
electrochemical process to very efficiently produce
Direct Current (DC) electricity from fuel. If a fuel
cell were to replace a current turbine powered
Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), the benefits would
most likely include; cutting fuel used by the APU
more than half, reduced noise, reduced emissions,
fewer moving parts, improved reliability, reduced
capital costs, and would also enable the production
of water. These benefits may outweigh the
anticipated weight and volume penalties
associated with fuel cells.
Given the rate of progress in reducing the fuel
cell’s weight and volume, as well as the projected
capability to use common fuels, it is projected that
fuel cells will reach a high enough maturity level
within the next 10-15 years to be considered for
use in commercial aircraft.
A More Electric Airplane (MEA) is the next step in
aircraft design philosophy that has been proposed
(1)
by some . Such an aircraft will use electricity
environmental control. With the pneumatic
requirements removed from the APU, a MEA
architecture would ideally be suited for a fuel cell
APU application.
Together, the Boeing company, industry
organizations, fuel cell manufacturers, and
academia are currently conducting research to
evaluate the system level benefits of a future fuel
cell APU. This paper describes the MEA study
airplane platform, the chosen fuel cell type, fuel cell
APU installation, operational requirements, and
also provides an initial systems-level performance
assessment (as compared to a turbine powered
APU).
INTRODUCTION
Good corporate citizens, and especially
responsible global organizations, should be
working to protect the environment to assure that
future generations will inherit a healthy planet.
Sound environmental progress is required for
sustained growth of air travel. Commercial
airplanes have already made substantial progress
towards that goal when compared to the early days
of jet aircraft. Further improvement is being
planned for the next generation by creating ever

*
Technology Leader, Energy & Emissions
†
Principal Investigator, Diploma Engineer
‡
Boeing Intern, Diploma Engineer

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2003 by The Boeing Company. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 cleaner, quieter and more fuel efficient airplanes electricity, both in flight and on the ground. Instead
for the future. of burning jet fuel in the APU and increasing the
load on the main propulsion engines to drive
Improving the environmental performance of electrical generators, a Fuel Cell Auxiliary Power
aircraft includes reducing the use of natural Unit (FCAPU) would provide electrical power
resources (e.g. crude oil-derived jet fuel) as well as through a very efficient electrochemical process.
reducing the emissions of undesirable byproducts
(e.g. noise and gaseous emissions) over the FUEL CELL APU
aircraft’s life cycle.
Two major types of fuel cells, Proton Exchange
Like most modern automobiles, commercial Membrane (PEM) and Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
airplanes have also made improvements in fuel (SOFC), are the most probable choices for an
mileage (some 70% improved) as well as achieved aircraft APU due to their relatively high level of
(2)
large reductions in emissions levels . Since development and potential for commercialization.
aircraft are used as a means of mass For transportation applications, the PEM fuel cell is
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF IOWA on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2660

transportation, their profitable use requires that in the forefront because of its compact size, quick
aircraft be filled with paying customers. Aircraft startup time and low operating temperatures (~80°
typically have high passenger load factors of about C). For stationary applications, the SOFC should
70%. Considering this fact, commercial aircraft become more common because of its ability to
typically have better fuel efficiency, per passenger, easier use converted hydrocarbon fuels, its high
than most automobiles (figure 1). However, even operating temperatures (~1,000°C) and its
though commercial aircraft are a very fuel efficient potential to combine the SOFC with a gas turbine
means of high-speed transportation, continued (3)
to gain even higher efficiency .
improvement is sought after to reduce the
operating cost of the aircraft and to further improve Both fuel cell types primarily use hydrogen as the
environmental performance. fuel to power the electrochemical process that
6
generates electrical power. However, since the
Fuel (US Gal.) per 100 passenger miles

Large SUV aircraft will most likely not carry a large, bulky
in City(1)
5 auxiliary hydrogen fuel tank, the fuel cell APU must
"Average" 1996 be capable of converting jet fuel into hydrogen
4 Vehicle(2) Airplane through the use of a jet fuel reformer.
Envelope (3)
High-speed
3 Train Material makeup of the SOFC makes it less
Airplane
susceptible than a PEM fuel cell to impurities found
2
European in reformed fuels, such as carbon monoxide and
Inter-city train
sulfur. For a SOFC, in certain temperature ranges
1
the carbon monoxide can even act as a fuel,
DD99-15.xls

0
Good
making the system more fuel efficient. Using
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 reformed jet fuel in PEM fuel cells would require
Load Factor (%) the use of large, cumbersome filtration and
1) US average is 1.6 people per vehicle
2) US commuter car is 1.2 per vehicle = Typical Load Factors scrubber systems. Because SOFCs have the
3) 1,500 nmi mission
potential to operate with less external reforming
Figure 1. Although new commercial aircraft are already very
fuel efficient, further fuel mileage improvements are desired.
and could potentially achieve higher efficiencies,
they will be the focus of this paper. Figure 2
shows the makeup of a SOFC and the
(4)
When an aircraft is on the ground and its engines electrochemical process .
are shut off, support power is currently generated
by a turbine-powered auxiliary power unit that is
located in the aft end of the aircraft. During flight,
electrical power for the airplane is produced by
generators that are attached to the main
propulsion engines. One way to reduce the
amount of fuel used is to more efficiently generate
2

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 However, progress has also been made in
reducing capital costs, with further reductions
load
anticipated. If fuel cells were to be mass
4e-
produced, using manufacturing cost reductions
4e- (6)
H O-2 O achieved through programs such as SECA , the
H2 O2
H
ion
O cost will soon become competitive with current gas

Anode
(from air)
turbine engine APUs (Figure 4).

Cathode
O
CO

Electrolyte
C 4e-

Capital Cost (Millions $)

CO2 O O Mass Produced Commercial Fuel Cell
C Price Range
H2O H H
O
By Products
Figure 2. A SOFC can very efficiently produce electrical power Large APU Retail Cost
from reformed jet fuel with almost no pollution byproduct.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF IOWA on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2660

Turbine APU Price Range

DLD01-16.xls
This electrochemical process operates at relatively
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
low temperatures (i.e. 600-1000°C) as compared
Year
to the combustion of fuel inside a turbine engine Figure 4. Mass produced fuel cells can soon become cost
(i.e. >1700°C). It is well known that NOx competitive with turbine powered APUs.
emissions tend to accelerate very rapidly with
(5)
higher combustion temperatures . Thus, because
of the lower operating temperature of a SOFC and However, SOFC technology is still relatively
due to the gas-tight nature of the solid electrolyte, immature and needs substantial development
SOFCs offer negligible NOx emissions. Using a before it will be ready for use in commercial
future (i.e. year 2015) fuel cell APU will reduce aircraft. As such, the design integration of fuel cell
NOx emissions on the ground and in the air as well APUs into aircraft must be undertaken, the
as improve airplane fuel mileage by generating on- potential benefits and liabilities of the system
board electrical power more efficiently. understood, the technology gaps defined, a
business case made for adapting this technology
In the past, fuel cells have been very large, heavy to aviation, and finally, the technology developed
and expensive. However, they have recently sufficiently by industry so that it can be used in
progressed in reducing their size and volume. commercial aircraft.
Further weight and volume reductions are APU DEVELOPMENT PLAN
anticipated to continue as shown in Figure 3.
16
Considering the further development work required
14 of the SOFC unit, the complexity of an aircraft fuel
12 cell APU system, and its integration into the
10
airframe, it is necessary to combine the experience
Fuel Cell System Weight (kg/kW)
of many different organizations to develop such a
8
product. Together, industry, government and
6
academia can provide the basic research and
4
Volume (Ltr/kW)
development in areas such as materials, fuel
2 reformer capability, computational modeling and
DLD01-16.xls

0
system integration.
1990 1995 2000 2005
Year Fuel cell manufacturers are ultimately responsible
Figure 3. Fuel cell weight and size have dramatically reduced
for the development and commercialization of real-
world hardware. This experience will enable an
The capital costs of fuel cells have also been a accurate assessment of state-of-the-art technology
major hurdle to overcome. This has limited their and feasibility for mass production of fuel cells.
use to specialty power producing applications.
3

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 The U.S. Department of Energy has a strong
background in conducting fundamental research
into fuel cells for both transportation and stationary
purposes. This work can be leveraged for the
development of an aviation fuel cell APU.
However, the aerospace application does have Present APU
different requirements as compared to ground-
based power systems.

National aerospace research organizations, such

as NASA, could be instrumental in coordinating
and assisting future work required to adapt
industrial designs and scale up other transportation
fuel cell technologies to fit aviation needs.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF IOWA on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2660

Universities can provide a unique perspective and

can provide a non-biased evaluation of the Future 440 kW Fuel Cell
technology as well as new ideas and basic APU Concept

research. Figure 5. SOFC APU may replace turbine-powered APU

located in the aft part of the aircraft.

Aerospace companies, who will be the end

customers, will be responsible for installing the
FCAPU into the aircraft, system integration, design
of the electrical systems, and certification of the
unit.
There are numerous basic scientific questions that
still need to be resolved. If these technical issues
can be resolved and if the concept continues to
make economical sense, the fuel cell APU would
greatly improve emissions and reduce fuel
consumption for future aircraft.
AIRPLANE PLATFORM
The design of this system and its components
begins with defining the operational requirements
for the airplane. One such design scenario would
be to remove the present turbine powered APU in
the tail of the aircraft and replace it with a fuel cell
Another scenario would be for the aircraft to be
configured as a “More Electric Airplane” (MEA).
This is an architecture wherein new technologies
will be developed to include a dedicated electrical
system to provide compressed cabin air instead of
relying on an engine bleed off-take to pressurize
and condition the aircraft cabin air. A
starter/generator would be directly mounted on the
engine shaft to provide efficient electrical power for
this system. This system should result in
significant improvements in fuel efficiency. This
new electrical architecture would be well suited for
adaptation of a full time fuel cell APU. Through
electrical conditioners, the APU would provide both
AC and DC power for such a system as shown in
Figure 6.
Starter/Generator
Aircraft
Systems

AC

APU as shown in Figure 5. Engine

DC
Environment
Control Motor
System
Gear DC
Lift
Motor Fuel Cell
Auxiliary
Gear
Motor AC Power Unit
Lift
Environment
Control Motor
System Battery
DC
Engine
Aircraft
Systems

AC Starter/Generator

Figure 6. “More electric” airplane architecture is ideally suited

for fuel cell APU.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Under this scenario, the fuel cell APU will no longer
be an auxiliary power unit but a full-time power unit
because of the More Electric Airplane architecture.
As a continuously operating power supply, the
FCAPU would not experience many complete on-
off cycles, although it may still see transients
throughout the mission cycle. The actual FCAPU
mission itself is relatively benign in terms of
transients (Figure 7). Raising the landing gear and
initial powering of the galleys would be
supplemented by engine supplied electrical power,
but generally the power profile is relatively flat.
500
Main Engine Start
450
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF IOWA on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2660
400
APU Load (kW)
350
300
250
200
150
Environmental Control System Load
Environmental Control System
100
50
0 fuel cell stack. The hot air enters the fuel cell,
Gate Start Taxi Climb
Mission Stage
Figure 7. A large “more electric” airplane load is large, but
relatively constant.
CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM
The nature of solid ionic conductors employed as
electrolytes in SOFCs determine the temperature
of operation. For integration in fuel cell/gas turbine
hybrid systems, operation temperatures close to
950-1000°C are preferred. At these temperatures,
there is an opportunity to recover power from the
SOFC exhaust heat. In the present paper, a
hybrid fuel cell APU concept is presented. A radial
compressor acts to pressurize the SOFC stack and
would be driven by a turbine. Due to the enhanced
performance of the fuel cell stack at elevated
pressure, and recovery of exhaust heat/power by
the gas turbine, a hybrid system can achieve much
higher efficiencies than a SOFC alone.
A high-level schematic overview of the system is
presented in Figure 8. In general, two major mass
flows characterize the hybrid fuel cell system: air
and fuel.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Pre-Reformer
AC Heat
Anode
DC Exchanger
Cathode
Jet
Fuel
Burner
Comp. Turbine
Air Heat
Exchanger
Exhaust
Overboard
Total Electrical Load Figure 8. Compressor, Turbine and heat exchangers form the
hybrid SOFC APU.
Air enters the FCAPU inlet and is further
compressed by the turbomachinery compressor.
The air is then routed through a heat exchanger to
recover heat energy. This also brings the air
Load
temperature up closer to the operating point of the
SOFC, thereby lessening thermal stressing of the
Cruise Descent Taxi diffusing through the porous cathode, and when
reaching the three-phase boundary, the gaseous
oxygen suffers a reduction reaction liberating O2
ions that migrate though the ceramic ionic
conductor electrolyte towards the anode. There,
they recombine with the fuel to produce heat,
electricity and byproducts. The exhaust gas leaves
the stack at temperatures over 800°C.
During start up, air is fed into the combustor,
where jet fuel is directly burned to increase the
turbine inlet temperature. A portion of the heated
exit gas can be diverted into the SOFC stack,
bringing it up to operating temperature more
quickly.
Fuel is pumped under pressure from the fuel tanks
into the system. Passing the external heat
exchanger, the fuel is preheated and vaporized. As
hydrogen is required for the operation in the fuel
cell stack, the jet fuel needs to be reformed into
basic elements. Because of efficiency of the
reformation process and thermal strains in the
SOFC stack a considerable proportion of jet fuel
reformation is performed first in the pre-reformer.
The remaining portion is reformed within the stack.
Reformate products are hydrogen (H2), carbon
monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Within
the SOFC stack, the electrochemical reaction
converts H2 to H2O and CO to CO2. The
5
 conceptual system used a gas utilization rate of
about 80%. That is, using 80% of the fuel and
passing 20% through the stack in order to reduce
the stack weight and improve efficiency. The
remaining 20% of the unused fuel can be burned in
an additional catalytic combustor to recover energy
for the turbine and avoid wasting any fuel. A
portion of the hot excess air from the anode is
directed into the combustor while the remaining
portion can be used for some combustor liner and
turbine cooling as well as gas mixing prior to it
entering the turbine.
The arrangement of the entire fuel cell APU system
is designed to provide good access from the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF IOWA on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2660
maintenance door at the bottom of the tail structure
(Figure 9). The heaviest element, the pressure
vessel with SOFC stack and prereformer, are
located near to the firewall to minimize mounting
difficulties. The turbomachinery portion of the fuel
cell and heat exchanger are mounted aft of the
SOFC.
Firewall
APU Tail Structure
Future 2015
Solid Oxide
Fuel Cell
Fuel cell support
hardware
Figure 9. Hybrid SOFC APU design fits comfortably in the
present APU compartment.
Concepts such as this are very efficient and have
been analysed in this study to provide system
efficiencies exceeding 75% in cruise conditions,
based on the use of jet fuel.
Taking into account that the excess fuel is reacted
with air (i.e. combusted), emissions still occur, but
at much lower levels than conventional gas turbine
engine combustion systems.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
SYSTEM BENEFITS
The use of an efficient fuel cell APU in flight will
decrease the fuel consumption needed to provide
power to the airplane. It does this by unloading the
engines and replacing the former generator-
supplied electrical power with fuel cell supplied
electrical power.
Propulsion engines currently have integrated drive
generators that are attached to the turbine core.
When electrical power is extracted, extra fuel must
be supplied to the turbine core to drive the
generators. The turbine engine and generator
combination is about 40-45% efficient in converting
jet fuel into electrical power during aircraft cruise
conditions. When removing the electrical load
from the engine, less fuel is needed to drive the
propulsion engine.
As this fuel cell APU concept may achieve 75%
efficiencies in converting jet fuel into electrical
power, it would be wise to generate most of the on-
board electrical power during flight. When using
the FCAPU instead of the engines to generate
electrical power, less fuel needs to be carried on
board the aircraft. As the aircraft now has to carry
less fuel, it can become appreciably lighter,
especially on long duration flights. Lighter aircraft
achieve better fuel efficiency by not having to
generate as much lift and thrust. This further
improves the airplane fuel efficiency. For a newly
designed airplane, this improved fuel efficiency
would result in a lighter yet airframe design that
would again further improve the airplane fuel
efficiency. This compounding fuel efficiency effect
can multiply the fuel savings realized by using a
fuel cell APU. Figure 10 shows a 40% fuel saving
on the generated electrical power considering
these compounded fuel savings occur on a long
range mission by off-loading the electrical load on
the engines, substituting a FCAPU and designing
an airplane for this combination.

40-45% Efficient
(Jet-A to electrical
during cruise)
≈75% Efficient
(Overall system at cruise)
Future 2015
SOFC APU
Figure 10. Using a FCAPU in flight will unload the main
engines and improve fuel efficiency 40% for aircraft electrical
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF IOWA on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2660
power needs.
While the aircraft is on the ground, fuel can also be
saved by using the FCAPU instead of the turbine
APU to generate electrical power. Turbine APUs
reach peak fuel-to-electrical conversion
efficiencies of around 20%. However, this
efficiency drops as the load is decreased. When
considering the overall operating conditions, a
typical APU for a large airplane achieves about
15% fuel efficiency over a typical operating cycle.
SOFC systems typically do not experience as
dramatic a fall off in efficiency at part load
conditions. When operating the FCAPU on the
ground, it is expected to achieve approximately
60% overall efficiency in converting jet fuel into
electrical power. When comparing turbine APU
fuel efficiency to FCAPU fuel efficiency, a 75%
reduction in fuel consumption is anticipated as is
shown in Figure 11.
Typical Turbine-
powered APU
15% Efficient
(over average operating cycle)
Future 2015
SOFC APU
60% Efficient
(at std. sea-level conditions)
Figure 11. Hybrid fuel cell APU may use 75% less fuel than
turbine powered APU while on the ground.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
When comparing the anticipated annual fuel
savings for a large aircraft using the fuel cell APU,
most of the savings will be realized on the ground
(Figure 12). Combining the cruise and ground fuel
savings will result in a large airplane operator
saving substantial amounts of fuel per year,
= Jet-A
thereby reducing operating cost and emissions.
1 litre
40% less
fuel used
Fuel Saved (kg/year)
=
100’s of thousands
Jet-A
0.6 litre
DLD02-31.xls
0
Ground Cruise
(replace APU) (offload engines)
Figure 12. Substantial fuel savings will be realized both on the
ground and in the air.
AVIATION FCAPU CHALLENGES
Several challenges need to be overcome before
the technology will be ready for use in aircraft.
Technology Readiness Level: Although rapid
progress is being made by industry to
commercialize the technology, the current state of
the art is still 5-10 years away from enabling a solid
oxide fuel cell APU. Technology development
needs to be pushed harder to enable a fuel cell
APU to be developed in a reasonable amount of
time for application to aircraft.
Power density: Current fuel cells are still too heavy
= Jet-A for use in aircraft. However, some manufacturers
have designs and prototypes that may begin to
1 litre
meet aerospace requirements of roughly 1kW/kg
75% less
fuel used for the stack. These laboratory demonstrations
need to be further developed to the point of
commercialization.
=
Jet-A
0.25 litre
Ability to use jet fuel: Airline customers require
airplanes and APUs that use logistical (e.g. Jet-A)
fuel. In order to extract hydrogen and carbon
monoxide from the jet fuel, reformers need to be
further developed and commercialized. However,
as jet fuel is very similar to diesel fuel, industry
efforts to reform diesel fuel can be leveraged for
aircraft applications.
7
 Future fuel properties: Sulfur is generally
poisonous to fuel cells. World Jet-A fuel sulfur
levels are all below 1200PPM and generally below
500PPM. However, as the fuel specification limit is
3000 PPM, significant steps may be necessary to
either make fuel cells tolerant to these levels or
lower jet fuel sulfur levels to an acceptable limit for
use in fuel cells.
Size, weight, life issues: Size, weight (power
density noted above), and life of the fuel cells need
to be improved. The industrial unit life limit goals
of around 40,000 hours should be acceptable to
aviation needs, but aircraft need this life in smaller,
lighter weight, more vibration-resistant units (e.g.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF IOWA on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2660
Substantial fuel savings and emissions reductions
on future airplanes should be realized as the
technology matures to the point of
commercialization. The development of fuel cells
for aviation can leverage the research and
development work taking place for industrial and
other transportation applications. However, as this
technology is not yet mature either, substantial
investment and industry collaboration is required.
At this early development stage, both PEM and
SOFC technologies are being evaluated for use as
an aircraft FCAPU.
Although several challenges remain, progress is

ceramic brittleness and high temperature sealing being made and fuel cell technology appears
issues) than the industrial sector is considering. capable of achieving sufficient maturity level and
power density within the next 10 years to be
Cost reduction: Present fuel cells are much more considered for used on aircraft (Figure 13).
expensive than turbine APUs. However, programs
such as SECA have the goal of reducing costs to 1.30
1.20
$400/kW ... a range that would make a FCAPU
Stack Power Density (kW/kg)
1.10
system very competitive with turbine APUs. Fuel Cell APU
1.00 Requirement Estimate
0.90
Safety/certification: The FCAPU must be safe to
0.80
operate under all conditions. The units must Latest Designs
0.70
undergo significant testing and failure mode
0.60
analysis before they can be certified for use on 0.50
aircraft. 0.40
0.30
Models for simulating the system design: As 0.20 Demonstrated
aviation applications have unique integration 0.10
opportunities, modeling capabilities need to be 0.00
developed so that an optimal configuration can be 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
identified. Year
Figure 13. Fuel cell stack power density progress should meet
Power quality: The fuel cell must be able to aircraft requirements in the near future.
provide power of sufficient quality to feed all of the
airplane electrical systems. The FCAPU also
needs to be able to quickly respond to power REFERENCES
demand fluctuations.
1. Ruffles, Phil. “The Challenges for Engine
Scaling factors: The ability to scale up the small Makers”, Aviation Week & Space Technology,
laboratory reformers and fuel cells into a several January 1, 2000, Page 55.
hundred kilowatt system remains to be proven. 2. Daggett, D. et. al. “Airplane Technologies to
reduce Jet Fuel Use”, SAE Paper 01WAC-83,
SUMMARY April 2001

Replacing turbine-powered APUs on commercial 3. “Hybrid Fuel Cell Technology Overview”, CD

aircraft with (disruptive technology) fuel cells would Format. U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy
be the first step in helping to revolutionize the Technology Laboratory, DOE/NETL-
aviation industry and would also promote fuel cell 2002/1145, May 2001.
technology within other industrial sectors.
8

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 th
4. “Fuel Cell Handbook”, 6 Edition, CD format,
U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory, DOE/NETL-
2002/1179, November 2002.
5. Lefebvre, Arthur. “Gas Turbine Combustion”,
Taylor & Francis, 1998.
6. Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance
(SECA), U.S. Dept. of Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory
http://www.seca.doe.gov/
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF IOWA on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2660

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics