Presented at the 1994 ASME Cogen Turbo Power, October 25-27, Portland, Oregon

SIMULATION METHODS USED TO ANALYZE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GE PG6541B GAS TURBINE UTILIZING LOW HEATING VALUE FUELS

Carl A. Palmer and Michael R. Erbes

Enter Software Inc. Menlo Park, CA, 94025

ABSTRACT The ability to model the behavior of gas turbine engines is critical in economic, thermal and condition monitoring studies. This is especially true for applications involving alternative fuels, such as biomass and coal derived fuels, where the engine operates far from its ISO performance ratings found in publications such as Gas Turbine World. This paper presents an approach taken for modeling a Frame 6 engine and its control system given a fairly limited set of available data. The approach and model are tested against vendor cycle deck data for both natural gas and a low-Btu biogas fuel. The model is then used to predict behavior of the Frame 6 engine fired by another biomass-derived fuel over a range of ambient and loading conditions. Issues relevant to this fuel/turbine combination and limitations of the modeling method are discussed. The engine model was developed using the individual turbomachinery component modules in the GateCycle analysis software package. The model is based on pressure and flow matching of the turbomachinery components. It includes a compressor map, a relationship to simulate a turbine 'map', and cooling flow calculations. Regardless of the accuracy of the modeling methods, it is always advisable to verify calculations based on aftermarket sources with manufacturer values before s using the predictions for commercial decisions. NOMENCLATURE A CMV CS MW P R T m des Effective turbine flow area Compressor map variable Corrected speed Molecular weight Absolute pressure Gas Constant Absolute temperature Mass flow Ratio of specific heats Design-point conditions Figure 1: GateCycle Frame 6 Model This paper details a method for modeling a GE PG6541B Frame 6 single-shaft engine given standard (though limited) vendor data. The model was produced by connecting individual compressor, combustor and expander modules together in the commercial GateCycle powerplant analysis program (Figure 1) [Erbes and Gay, 1989] [Palmer et al., 1993]. The model results are verified by comparison with cycle deck data for two low-Btu fuels, as well as steam and water injection with natural gas. Then the model is used to predict the behavior of the Frame 6 run on two INTRODUCTION Since the gas turbine is the prime mover in cogeneration cycles, an accurate performance estimate of the turbine is essential in evaluating the economics of a proposed plant. This is especially true in plants that will run far from ISO rated conditions, as in integrated gasification combined-cycles. Thus, a systematic method of predicting engine behavior given limited data is of use for preliminary powerplant studies [Benvenuti et al., 1993].
FUEL-1 FUEL-2

GASIFC

LEAK

FUEL

To Gasifier

STEAM 2 3

COMB AIR 0 1 COMP TURB

Nozzle Cooling Rotor Cooling

4

EXH

Palmer and Erbes

TABLE 1: DESIGN-POINT DATA Vendor Power 38,340 Model 38,402 kW Data Source 1,2,4 Note Model generator efficiency = 0.96, model's auxiliary losses = 786kW to match this. GE value includes margin Compressor design inlet flow set to match this number Turbine efficiency varied to match this number GE fuel flow value is assumed to include 1.2% margin PR is from after inlet bell to compressor discharge

Heat Rate Exhaust Flow Exhaust Temperature Fuel Flow Pressure Ratio Inlet Pressure Drop Outlet Pressure Drop Firing Temperature Combustor Exit Temperature Compressor Discharge Temperature Leakage Fraction from Compressor

10860 1,103,000 1002 19,353 11.8 4 2.5 2020 -

10713 Btu/kW-hr 1,103,000 lb/hr 1002 F 19,122 lb/hr 11.8 4 inches H2O 2.5 inches H2O 2020F 2150F 650 F

1,4 1,4 1,2,4 1,4 2 1 1 2,3 5

Efficiency set to match this value: Polytropic efficiency of 0.91 is near 0.90 of [Consonni, 1992]

0.2%

0.2%

fuel specifications given by the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) at ISO, off-ambient and part-load conditions. DESIGN POINT The first step in designing an engine model is to match the model closely at one point, usually the ISO rated point. The PG6541B engine model was designed to match published vendor data (which includes margins) at the ISO point (59F, 14.697 psia, 60% relative humidity) run on methane (LHV=21515 Btu/lb). Table 1 shows the vendor data and model data, with notes to clarify some of the results. The GateCycle program provides a 'design mode' that sizes the equipment and sets the efficiencies at the design point. A key point about matching vendor data at an ISO rated point is that the model must deal with the commercial margins the vendor has placed in the published data, or the model will not achieve an energy balance. Usually these margins are on the order of 2-3% on both power and heat rate [Pequot, 1993] [Smith, 1991]. For the Frame 6 model, the margin in the predicted power is included inside the generator efficiency and auxiliary loss numbers. Part of the margin in heat rate (i.e. fuel flow) is left out, as the extra energy coming into the engine with the fuel flow would necessitate taking this same energy out of the engine in another form, presumably as extra margin in the generator. Thus instead of specifying the fuel flow from the vendor numbers, the model is set up to calculate fuel flow by matching a desired combustor exit temperature.
Data Source numbers refer to Table 8 at the end of this paper.

ANALYTIC MODEL Compressor In the design mode, the compressor pressure ratio, efficiency (calculated from a specified discharge temperature) and flow rate can be set to certain values. In off-design runs, the compressor will use these values as the design-point for its compressor map. The compressor section for the GE Frame 6 engine consists of 17 stages. All flow extracted for gasification and leakage flow out of the turbine is assumed to occur after the final compressor stage. The turbine nozzle cooling flow is also taken from the compressor discharge conditions. The turbine rotor cooling flow comes from the 16th stage bleed [Lavin, 1984]. To calculate the conditions between any two stages, the calculations assume a equal pressure ratio per stage and an equal polytropic efficiency for each blade. The compressor's off-design performance is determined entirely by its normalized compressor map, which relates pressure ratio, efficiency and flow as function of corrected speed and compressor map variable (CMV). Different organizations name this CMV beta lines or values. The value of CMV Z essentially represents a position along a corrected speed line on the compressor map (Figure 2). At design, the map variable is 0.75: at the point of compressor surge, it is 1.0. Thus, the CMV can be used as an indication of surge margin. The compressor map flow and efficiency as a function of corrected speed at the design CMV (i.e. along the typical 'running line': only one point per speed line) was generated by matching data from a

Palmer and Erbes

1.02 1 0.98 0.96 0.94 94 96 98 100 Corrected Speed 102 104%

for the whole engine is built into this map. This implies that overall gas turbine performance variations that may actually be due to turbine effects (such as variation in efficiency) or other causes are attributed to the compressor. This assumption has been made in the absence of detailed information, such as a turbine map. The authors are aware that this method wrongly attributes performance deviation to the compressor. At two

0.92 Normalized Efficiency 106 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.85 94 0.9 96 98
CMV=0.5

Compressor Efficiency 0.9 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.82

Normalized PR
Surge Line

CMV=1.0 CMV=0.75

.. .... . . .............. .. ..... ................... ...... . ..

. Plant Data
Frame 6 Map

. . ... .. . . .. . . . .............................. .. .. .... . ... .. ... . ................................. . .. .. ...... ... ..................... . .... . ... ..... ............. .. ...... .. . .. . ..... . . .. . . ...... . .

'Best Fit' to Data

106 104 102 100

94

96

98 100 102 104 106 Corrected Speed

0.95

1.05

1.1

1.15

Normalized Corrected Flow

Figure 2: Frame 6 Compressor Map manufacturer typical correction factor plot as a function of s ambient temperature [Data Source 7](Figure 6). The compressor map's flow was adjusted to match the given exhaust flow rate. The pressure ratio was calculated using the method detailed in the Expander section below. The compressor efficiency was s calculated by matching the overall power. The corrected speed at every ambient temperature is known, since the Frame 6 is a constant speed machine, and the inlet temperature and gas molecular weight are known. The formula for corrected speed is:

Figure 3: Comparison of Frame 6 Map to Actual Data Frame 6 plants where the company has on-line monitoring installed (EfficiencyMap) [Gay et al, 1992], the data indicates that compressor efficiency does not drop off nearly as steeply with increasing corrected speed as the map indicates (Figure 3). Expander In absence of a true 'turbine map' which gives the relationship between expansion ratio, corrected turbine speed, flow rate, inlet temperature, and gas properties for a given expander, a relationship is needed to estimate the turbine flow function. In this model, the turbine flow function is estimated using the following equation relating the inlet flow parameters to an effective turbine nozzle area

CS =

100 = RT / RTdes

100 MWdes * T / MW * Tdes

m T Constant = AP Nozzle Inlet

Here, the value for is[Reynolds and Perkins, 1977]:
1 +

The above method only provides values for the compressor map at one point per speed line (at CMV=0.75), so a method must be formulated to generate the remainder of the compressor map. The pressure-flow relationship along any speed line is assumed to be almost vertical, which is typical of industrial engines, as in the map for a Westinghouse engine [Diakunchak, 1992]. The efficiency lines are set to slope off evenly on either side of the running line at any given speed. Note that these are very gross assumptions of the actual turbomachinery behavior. The compressor map generated from the GE Specification data using this method is presented in Figure 2. It is important to note that the performance variation versus ambient temperature

2 1 R + 1

when above the critical expansion ratio (choked), and [Streeter and Wylie, 1979]:
2 1 2 P4 P4 P 1 P 3 3 R 1

Palmer and Erbes

when below the critical expansion ratio. The critical expansion ratio is:

Combustor/Control System The actual Frame 6 control system uses an algorithm (control curve) to control fuel flow to maintain firing temperature. Because it is impractical to measure temperature in the combustion chambers or at the turbine inlet directly ... from thermodynamic relationships and known site conditions, firing temperature can be determined as a function of the exhaust temperature and the pressure ratio across the turbine. The latter is determined by the compressor discharge pressure ... In this controller, firing temperature is limited by a linearized function of exhaust temperature and CDP [GE Mark IV, 19??]. To find the control curve for natural gas used for the Frame 6 engine, the fuel flow into the model was varied to match the exhaust temperature from the specification at each ambient temperature [Data Source 7]. This results in a set of calculated points that relate the model's calculated compressor discharge pressure to the exhaust temperature. In a testament to the appropriateness of this method for finding the control curve, the calculated points lie almost exactly upon an actual control curve [Data Source 8] as shown in Figure 4.
Exhaust Temperature (Deg F)
1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1010 1000 990 980 970 960 950 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 Model Results From Matching Texhaust Actual Control Curve (Data Source 8)

P3 P4 critical =

1 2 1 + 1

During the design run of the turbine, the effective nozzle area is determined using the values for inlet pressure, (passed downstream from the compressor with losses in the combustor), inlet temperature (determined by the combustor energy balance), and inlet flow rate. For off-design analysis, the inlet pressure is calculated from the above equations using the inlet temperature and flow, together with the effective area calculated at the design point. This pressure signal is sent back to upstream components (to the compressor, for example). Note that the 'shadow effect' [Fayrweather, 1992] of the effective nozzle area change with variation in speed is not included in these formulations. In the (rare) case that turbine map data is available, the calculations can be set up to use the map instead. At the design point, the model calculates the turbine polytropic efficiency to match a specified exit temperature. In the absence of data on turbine efficiency variations, the efficiency is assumed to be constant off-design. This is a relatively good assumption [Cohen et al, 1987]. However, it has been suggested [Huo, 1993] that future studies take advantage of the relationship of turbine efficiency to blade-jet speed ratio [Glassman, 1972]. Estimation of cooling flows is very important for model accuracy. In the design point model of the Frame 6 engine, the total cooling air to the nozzles is varied until a 2020F temperature to the first rotating stage inlet is reached (GE's definition of firing temperature for Frame turbines). The resulting cooling flow equals 15.3% of the total inlet gas flow to the expander. The turbine consists of 3 nozzle/rotor pairs. Seventy percent of the total cooling flow to the nozzles is assumed to go to the first stage; the remainder cools the second stage. The cooling air to the rotors is assumed to be 4% of the total expander inlet gas flow. Seventy percent of this rotor cooling flow is assumed to go to the turbine first stage rotor, the remainder cools the second stage rotor. From examining photographs of the Frame 6 buckets in marketing literature, [Lavin, 1984] it was assumed that most (90%) of the air to each rotor stage is mixed after the rotating stage, and thus does not produce work in that stage (i.e. is not "chargeable"), as the location of the cooling holes on the buckets was at the tip and trailing edge of the blade. The off-design cooling flow rate to both the nozzles and rotors is assumed to keep the same 'friction factor' along the cooling flow paths as in the design case [Consonni et al, 1988]. Thus the off-design flow can be calculated with the following equation:

Compressor Discharge Pressure (psia)

Figure 4: Frame 6 Control Curve Generation Using the control curve derived as described above, the model was run over a range of ambient temperatures (0-120F) to evaluate the variation of the actual rotor inlet temperature with ambient temperature. For low inlet temperatures (0-70F), the control system holds the rotor inlet temperature almost constant. At higher inlet temperatures, the rotor inlet temperature starts to fall from the 2020F value (Figure 5). When estimating the control system behavior on other fuels, we would like to duplicate this firing temperature behavior, as this is what the control system algorithm was designed to achieve. Again, note that the control settings for the gas turbine are determined solely by the engine manufacturer.

P m=m des P des

T des T
Cooling Flow

Palmer and Erbes

Rotor Temp. (Deg. F) 2030 2025 2020 2015 2010 2005 2000 1995 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Calculated Temp

Correction Factor 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0 20 GE Spec. Power Model 40 60 80 100 Compressor Inlet T (Deg. F) GE Spec. Exh. Flow 120 140

Compressor Inlet Temperature (Deg. F)

GE Spec. Heat Rate

Figure 5: Rotor Temperature as Set by Control Curve for Methane Fuel Tuning to GE Specification Data The Frame 6 engine model using the natural gas control system was run over a range of ambient temperatures and the results compared with GE Specification data from Data Source 7. The model results are in good agreement with the specifications. The model over-predicts fuel flow at the higher ambient temperatures (over 90F). Figures 6-7 show the results of this comparison. It is important to note, however, that the compressor map and control system algorithm were tuned so that the off-design GateCycle engine model provided the best fit to this data, so the fact that the model matches well is deceptive.

Figure 6: Frame 6 Model Run on Methane Fuel: Power, Exhaust Flow, Heat Rate

VERIFICATION OF MODEL RESULTS To verify that the method of formulating a Frame 6 engine model is appropriate, the model was tested against data from GE cycle deck runs as shown in the following sections. Water Injected Cases Table 2 shows good agreement between the GateCycle engine model results and the data from two GE cycle deck runs for a water-injected gas turbine (Data Source 9). Note that the operating point on the compressor map is near the point where the model was tuned (as indicated by the CMV value).

TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF MODEL RESULTS WITH WATER-INJECTED CYCLE DECK DATA Case 1 44 60 19400 Model 42.062 11031 1,159,300 992.7 2008 0.776 Case 2 71 90 14720 Model 37.552 11278 1,082,70 0 1009 1997 0.765

Inlet T, Relative Humidity Inlet Relative Humidity Water Injection Flow, lb/hr Power, MW Heat Rate, Btu/kW-hr Exhaust Flow, lb/hr Exhaust Temp, F Rotor Inlet Temp, F Compressor Map Variable Cycle Deck 42.010 11170 1,160,000 993

% Difference 0.1 0.05* 0.06 0.03

Cycle Deck 37.550 11420 1,081,000 1012

% Difference 0.0005 0.06* 0.2 0.3

* After removing the assumed margin of the design case Using control curve from actual site. Constants: Inlet loss 4", Exhaust loss 12", LHV=20422 Btu/lb, 20' elevation

Palmer and Erbes

TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF MODEL TO STEAMINJECTED CYCLE DECK RUN Item Power, MW Heat Rate, Btu/kW-hr Exhaust Flow, lb/hr Exhaust Temp, F Rotor Inlet Temp, F Compressor Map Var.

TABLE 4: SFA LOW-BTU FUEL CHARACTERISTICS Composition (mole %) Fuel #2 Fuel #1 1800 F 1600 F Gasifier Gasifier 15.0 13.48 15.59 16.12 12.96 11.59 4.71 3.36 0.01 0.01 15.0 15.0 36.73 40.42 500 500 2108 1851 0.711 0.772

Cycle Deck 42.740 10300 1,148,000 987

Model 43.447 10083 1,146,900 986.3 1996 0.805

% Difference 1.65% 0.9* 0.1 0.07

Using control curve from Figure 4 * After removing the assumed margin of the design case Constants: Inlet T 59 F, Relative Humidity 60%, 0' elevation Inlet loss 4", Exhaust loss 2.5", LHV=21515 Btu/lb Steam Flow = 44,970 lb/hr, Steam Pressure 230 psia, Temperature 444 F
Exhaust T (Deg. F) 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1010 1000 990 980 970 960 950 940 0 20

H2 CO CO2 CH4 H2S H2O N2 Temperature (F) Calculated LHV (Btu/lb) Required Compressor Air Extraction (lb air/lb fuel)

engine in the cycle deck data which may be additional margin added for this case. Low - Btu Fuel Cases The authors received data from two GE cycle deck runs for the Frame 6 at ISO conditions fired with low-Btu biomass fuels (Data Source 6). These fuels were generated in an air-blown fluidized-bed gasifier operating at high (1600 and 1800 F) temperatures. The fuel characteristics are listed in Table 4. About 15% of the required compressor bleed is used for feeding the gasifier lock hoppers and is lost to the integrated gasification combined-cycle system; it therefore does not show up in the fuel composition [Wilhelm, 1994]. Table 5 shows the comparison between the model results and the cycle deck data for operation on these fuels. Several important points concerning these analyses should be noted. First, the model predictions closely match the cycle deck data, showing that this modeling method is valid for predicting behavior on different fuel types. Second, the engine model was fired at 2020F in order to match the cycle deck data. Thus, the rating of the engine has not changed from the natural gas case. This is an important consideration, as the saturated low-Btu gases increase the heat transfer coefficients of the combustion products, and thus raise metal temperatures [Brooks, 1992], which may lower the rated firing temperature. It is important to note, however, that GE may assign a special firing temperature based on the fuel. They also reserve the right to re-rate the engine at any time. Third, there is a sizable discrepancy between the calculated compressor discharge conditions and the listed air extraction conditions. One explanation for this is that the discharge and extraction are not at the same point. There could be piping losses between the compressor discharge and the point of extraction equal to about 10 psia and 10 degrees F. A more probable explanation is that the initial design-point compressor efficiency was only estimated using some plant data, so a 10 F difference may already be built into the temperature reading. Some of this

GE Spec. Model

40

60 80 Compressor Inlet T

100

120

140

Figure 7: Frame 6 Model Run on Methane Fuel: Exhaust Temperature Steam Injected Case Table 3 shows the comparison between the model results and GE cycle deck runs for a heavily steam-injected turbine (Data Source 10). Although the other numbers seem to be in good agreement, the model over-predicts the power by 1.6%. Most of this error can be attributed to a poor estimate of compressor efficiency for conditions away from the normal running line (the CMV for this case is 0.805 compared with 0.75 on the normal running line). The model is tuned along the running line of a methane fired engine; steam injection decreases the surge margin by shifting the operating point away from the compressor map's typical operating line. These results lead the authors to suggest caution when using the predictions from this modeling method when surge margin is decreasing, such as when steam injection is present. Some of the error can be attributed to steam injection altering the expander efficiency behavior significantly, a situation ignored by the constant turbine efficiency assumption. Lastly, but least importantly, an energy balance around the GE data indicates that there is a 0.5% discrepancy in the energy balance around the

Palmer and Erbes

TABLE 5: COMPARISON OF MODEL TO FRAME 6 ON SFA FUELS Fuel 1 (1600F Gasifier) Cycle Deck GateCycle % Data Model Difference 1,062,500 1,061,700 0.08 143,030 142,321 0.5 162 (173.5) 7.1 650 (660.6) 1.6 201,240 200,170 0.5 39.250 39.305 0.1 1,118,800 1,117,300 0.1 1020 1026.7 0.7 2019 0.784 Fuel 2 (1800F Gasifier) Cycle Deck GateCycle % Data Model Difference 1,062,800 1,062,000 0.08 176,760 175,843 0.5 161 (172.5) 7.2 648 (658.8) 1.7 228,960 227,770 0.5 38.820 38.766 0.1 1,113,200 1,111,600 0.1 1022 1030.2 0.8 2020 0.778

Compressor Air Flow, lb/hr Air Extraction Flow (lb/hr) Air Extraction Pressure (psia) Air Extraction Temperature (F) Fuel Flow (lb/hr) Power, MW Exhaust Flow, lb/hr Exhaust Temp, F Rotor Inlet Temp (F) Compressor Map Variable Constants: Ambient T = 59 F, Ambient P = 14.39 psia (600 ft. elevation),Ambient Relative Humidity = 60% Inlet loss 4", Exhaust loss 15" discrepancy may also be attributed to the fact that the gas turbine model is based on 'total' conditions whereas the GE cycle deck data may be based on static conditions (i.e. kinetic energy is not included). Regardless of cause of the discrepancy, one must make sure when viewing the performance estimates of this model for other fuels in an integrated system that these losses or discrepancies are accounted for in the extraction air for gasification. It must be noted, however, that in these two cases the large required air extraction rate required causes the gas turbine compressor to operate near its normal operating line. Thus, the model is already 'tuned' to give the proper results for power, flow and exhaust temperature. PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES ON OTHER LOW-BTU FUELS Using the gas turbine engine model, the performance of the Frame 6 engine was then estimated for operation on two low-Btu biomass-derived fuels as specified by the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT). The fuel characteristics are shown in Table 6. Note that the air extraction rate is lower than that for the fuels in Table 4. ISO Rating The GateCycle Frame 6 model was run at ISO conditions with the two fuels specified by VTT. Because the water fraction of the combustion products is less than that for the SFA fuels, the engine firing temperature was assumed to stay at 2020F. The results are presented in Table 7. As the operating point of the compressor map (CMV=0.81, which is close to the operating point of the STIG case) has shifted further away from the normal running line (CMV=0.75: where the model was tuned), the results are certain to be less accurate than those for the fuels in Table 4.

TABLE 6: VTT BIOMASS-DERIVED FUEL CHARACTERISTICS Composition (mole %) Fuel #1 Fuel #2 11.86 12.42 17.69 18.55 11.00 11.62 4.22 4.42 0.59 0.62 15.43 11.29 39.16 41.08 0.05 2.9e-7 491 896 2104 2172 0.5797 0.5986

H2 CO CO2 CH4 C2H4 H2O N2 NH3 Temperature (F) Calculated LHV (Btu/lb) Required Compressor Air Extraction (lb air/lb fuel)

Variation with Ambient Temperatures To estimate the performance of the Frame 6 over a range of ambient conditions, the engine control system must be simulated. The actual Texh-CDP control system relationship needs to be designed for these conditions, since the pressure ratio increases due to the higher pressures associated with the increased fuel mass flow rate of the low-Btu fuel. To generate the control curve, the model was run using Fuel #2 fired at a constant rotor temperature over a range of ambient temperatures. The resulting exhaust temperature was plotted versus the compressor discharge pressure (Figure 8). Then, a straight line (with a maximum temperature limit) was drawn through the points, taking care to match at the lower ambient temperatures (higher CDP) and intentionally under-estimating at the higher ambient temperatures.

Palmer and Erbes

TABLE 7: ISO PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES WITH VTT FUELS

Description

Net Power MW

Net Effic %
32.9 34.5

Fuel Flow lb/hr kg/hr

208,260 94467 186,131 84429

Exhaust Flow lb/hr kg/hr

1,168,700 530122 1,156,700 524679

Exhaust T deg F deg C

1017 547 1015 546

CDP

gasif. flow lb/hr kg/hr

120,740 54,768 111,420 50540

Comp. Map Var

CDT

Rotor T

psia bars
181.3 12.50 179.0 12.34

deg F deg C
0.814 0.795 669 354 664 351

deg F deg C
2021 1105 2019 1104

Fuel 1 Fuel 2

42.257 40.838

This is done to mimic the qualitative behavior of the Frame 6 control scheme for standard operation on methane (Figure 5).
Exhaust T, (Deg. F) 1080 1070 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1010 1000 Model with Const Rotor T 990 Estimated Control Curve 980 Texh Max=1045, Slope=1.8, CDP Corner=162.5 970 960 140 150 160 170 180 190 Compressor Discharge Pressure

Correction Factor 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Compressor Inlet Temperature (Deg. F) Power Flow Heat Rate

200

210

220

Figure 8: Estimation of VTT Control System for Fuel 2

Rotor T (Deg. F) 2040 2030 2020 2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 0 20

Calculated Temp.

Figure 10: Power, Heat Rate and Exhaust Flow of Frame 6 Fired with VTT Fuel #2 Exhaust T, F 1060 1050 1040 1030 1020 1010 1000 990 Model T 980 970 Fuel #2 960 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Compressor Inlet Temperature (Deg. F)

40 60 80 100 120 Compressor Inlet Temperature (Deg. F)

140

Figure 11: Exhaust Temperature of Frame 6 Fired with VTT Fuel #2 The correction factor plots (Figures 10 and 11) look much the same as those for the methane fueled engine. With this knowledge, we can then reasonably use the normal correction factor plots together with a performance estimate at the ISO point to predict performance on low-Btu fuels to an accuracy sufficient for system planning studies. Note that the similarity of the correction factor plot for flow may be deceptive, as the assumed vertical corrected speed lines will automatically exhibit the same flow variation as for methane fuel.

Figure 9: Calculated Firing Temperature of Frame 6 Fired with VTT Fuel #2 Using the control curve derived by the above method, the model is used to predict behavior on VTT fuel #2. Figure 9 shows how the control curve varies the firing temperature. The numbers for firing temperature versus ambient temperature coincide closely with the numbers from the machine run on methane (Figure 4). At the two highest inlet temperature points, however, the exhaust temperature limit of 1045 was reached. The engine firing temperature was therefore reduced so this limit was not crossed.

Palmer and Erbes

Exhaust T (Deg F)
1200 Decreasing Firing Temperature 1100 1000 900

Exhaust Flow Fraction of Base Load

1.1 Guide Vane Control 1.05

Exhaust T (Deg F)
1200 1100 1000 900

Exhaust Flow Fraction of Base Load

1.1

Peak Firing Exhaust T

1.05 1 0.95

GE Spec. EGT Model Exhaust T

1 0.95 0.9

0.9 800 700 600 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0.85

800 700 600 20

0.85

GE Spec. Flow
0.8

Exhaust Flow
90 100 110

0.8 0.75 120

Model Exhaust Flow

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0.75 100 110 120

Percent Output

Fuel #2

Percent Output

Natural Gas

Figure 12: Frame 6 Part Load Performance on Methane Part-Load Performance Estimates The Frame 6 engine performance was also estimated at part-load operation at ISO conditions for VTT fuel #2. During part-load operation, the control system maintains a constant firing temperature as the guide vanes are closed. After the guide vanes are fully closed, (the guide vane limit) the control system reduces the firing temperature to achieve the desired power output (Figure 12). First, the Frame 6 model was run against part-load correction curves on methane fuel [Data Source 1] to 1) determine the guide vane limit and 2) assess the accuracy of the model at part-load conditions. Figure 12 shows the results. The guide vane limit was calculated to be at the point where the inlet flow was at 82% of its design value. The results from the model match the data reasonably well. Some of the error would be caused by the compressor map in the model not changing its shape with the guide vane shift, as is actually the case [General Electric, 19??]. Also, the actual turbine efficiency should change under part-load operation. The part load performance of the Frame 6 fired with VTT fuel #2 is presented in Figure 13. MODELING SUMMARY The modeling procedure to predict gas turbine performance on low-Btu fuels given limited data is summarized below. 1) Match the engine at design. Modeling decisions that have to be made at this point are: a) Estimation of compressor efficiency/discharge temperature, compressor leakage, and combustor exit temperature. Hopefully, the modeler has other data sources to guide these estimates. b) How to build vendor margins into the model, and which to include after the thermodynamic analysis (e.g. heat rate). c) Estimation of rotor cooling flows given the calculated nozzle flow rates. 2) Generate a compressor map by matching the vendor's correction curves for flow and power as a function of ambient temperature. Figure 13: Frame 6 Part Load on Low-Btu Fuel #2 3) Estimate the control curve by varying fuel flow to match the specified exhaust temperature while performing task 2). Draw a straight line through the plot of Texh versus calculated CDP. 4) Run the turbine model using the control curve from 3). Plot the firing temperature as a function of inlet temperature. 5) Run the turbine model fired at the same temperature as natural gas to generate a control curve of Texh vs. CDP for the low-Btu engine. Draw a best-fit line through the highCDP points. This assumes the water content of your fuel is not large enough to necessitate a lower firing temperature. 6) Run the low-Btu engine with the control curve from 5) to generate performance estimates. 7) Verify important data with the vendor before making commercial decisions. OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A model of the Frame 6 engine was generated using the individual gas turbine component modules inside the GateCycle software. The design-point efficiencies and flow relationships were generated by matching published guarantee data at the ISO point. The off-design compressor map was tuned so that the engine matched GE correction curves. The model was tested against cycle deck runs to assess its accuracy. The results were good for all natural gas fired cases except for a case with high steam injection (the model was 1.6% high on power) This is a clear indication that something important has not been taken into account at this condition. The comparisons to cycle deck runs using low-Btu fuels were also good, except for discrepancies on compressor extraction conditions. The Frame 6 engine model was then applied to operation on two low-Btu fuels as specified by Technical Research Centre of Finland. Given the degree of accuracy shown by the comparison of the model to the cycle deck runs, the overall predictions should be reasonably accurate. One needs to be careful, though, as the compressor operating point was farther away from the points where the model was tuned. For some conditions there might even be larger inaccuracies generated from insufficient technical

Palmer and Erbes

data, insufficient knowledge about the engine and its control system, or deficiencies in the modeling method. One major area of weakness in the method is that all of the offdesign performance variation in the specification data is attributed to the compressor. Comparison of the model results with actual engine data indicates that the compressor efficiency does not change as markedly over the ambient temperature range as the model predicts. Also, the performance of the model at points away from the compressor's natural gas running line should be verified. The one case tested in this region (the steam injection case) is where the model results were the least accurate. This shows that the assumptions of how the compressor map varies along the speed lines need to be refined. The first major step to take to make the model more accurate would be to improve the compressor map. To derive a map, data is needed for compressor discharge pressure and temperature from cycle deck runs, both under normal operation and at conditions with lower surge margin (such as during steam injection or operation on low-Btu fuels with low amounts of compressor extraction air). Other useful information would be the actual control system equations that would be set up for the any given fuel. Finally, a more sophisticated algorithm for offdesign turbine efficiency and flow variation could help the modeling results significantly. REFERENCES Benvenuti, Bettocchi, Cantore, Negri di Montenegro and Spina, 1993, Gas Turbine Cycle Modeling Oriented to Component Performance Evaluation from Limited Design or Test Data, ASME Cogen Turbo Power ASME IGTI-Vol. 8, pp. 32793, 337. Brooks, F.J., 1992, "GE Gas Turbine Performance Characteristics", GE Report GER-3567C. Cohen, Rogers and Saravanamuttoo, 1987, Gas Turbine Theory, Third Edition, Longman Scientific & Technical, p. 295. Consonni, Stefano, 1992, Performance Prediction of Gas/Steam Cycles for Power Generation, Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University, p. C-5. Consonni, Lozza and Macchi, 1988, "Turbomachinery and OffDesign Aspects in Steam-Injected Gas Cycles," 23rd Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Volume 4, pp. 99108. Diakunchak, I. S., 1992, Performance Deterioration in Industrial Gas Turbines, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, April 1992, Volume 114, pp. 161-168. Erbes, M.R. and Gay, R. R., 1989, Gate/Cycle Predictions of the Off-Design Performance of Combined-Cycle Power Plants, Simulation of Energy Systems, ASME HTD-Vol. 124, AES-Vol. 6, pp. 43-51. Fayrweather D., 1992, Hudson Engineering, Personal Communication. Gay, Eskin, Palmer and Hinrichs, 1992, Application of LeastSquares Methodology to Thermal Performance Monitoring of Gas Turbine and Combined Cycle Power Plants, 1992 ASME Cogen-Turbo, ASME IGTI-Vol. 7, pp. 351-357.

GE Mark IV, 19??, General Electic Mark IV Frame 6 Control System Manual from South Glens Falls. General Electric, 19??, General Electric Report GER-3120. Glassman, 1972, Turbine Design and Application, Volume One, NASA SP-290. p 51. Huo, Shuang., 1993, Westinghouse Marine, Personal Communication. Lavin, Arthur, 1984, "GE MS6001 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine", GE Gas Turbine Reference Library GER-3413. Palmer, Erbes and Pechtl, 1993, GateCycle Performance Analysis of the LM2500 Gas Turbine Utilizing Low Heating Value Fuels, ASME Cogen Turbo Power ASME IGTI-Vol. 93, 8, pp. 69-76. Pequot Publishing, 1993, Gas Turbine World 1993 Performance Specs Reynolds and Perkins, 1977, Engineering Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, p 502. Smith, S. S., 1991, "GE Aeroderivative Gas Turbine Performance", GE Gas Turbine Reference Library GER-3572B. Streeter and Wylie, 1979, Fluid Mechanics, Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill, p. 274. Wilhelm, D., 1994, SFA Pacific, Personal Communication. TABLE 8: NUMERICAL DATA SOURCES FOR STUDY Data Source GE Performance Curves 499HA542 Rev C, 10/16/89, Specification TBO-8531A(1291)bp, page 6.2 Gas Turbine World 1993 Performance Specs Lavin, Arthur, 1984, "GE MS6001 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine", GE Gas Turbine Reference Library GER-3413. Brooks, F.J., 1992, "GE Gas Turbine Performance Characteristics", GE Report GER-3567C. Derived from South Glens Falls, NY, Frame 6 Plant Data assuming 'New and Clean' compressor, 1993 Cycle Deck data from SFA Pacific: 12/22/92 GE Performance Curves 499HA543 Rev A, 10/16/89, Specification TBO-8531A(1291)bp, page 6.3 Mark IV Control system parameters from South Glens Falls, NY plant Naval Station GT Cycle Deck Runs, 4/28/88, TBO-642763 GE Cycle Deck data acquired from the State-of-the-Art Power Plant Project (SOAPP), 7/11/89, TB-7114G

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10

Palmer and Erbes