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
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].
To Gasifier
FUEL-1

FUEL-2
GASIFC

FUEL

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 LEAK

analysis software package. The model is based on pressure and

flow matching of the turbomachinery components. It includes a STEAM
2 3
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 COMB
AIR COMP TURB EXH 5
based on aftermarket sources with manufacturers values before Nozzle Cooling
using the predictions for commercial decisions. 0
1 Rotor Cooling 4

NOMENCLATURE
A Effective turbine flow area Figure 1: GateCycle Frame 6 Model
CMV Compressor map variable
CS Corrected speed This paper details a method for modeling a GE PG6541B Frame
MW Molecular weight 6 single-shaft engine given standard (though limited) vendor data.
P Absolute pressure The model was produced by connecting individual compressor,
R Gas Constant combustor and expander modules together in the commercial
T Absolute temperature GateCycle powerplant analysis program (Figure 1) [Erbes and
m Mass flow Gay, 1989] [Palmer et al., 1993]. The model results are verified
Ratio of specific heats by comparison with cycle deck data for two low-Btu fuels, as
des Design-point conditions 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

1 Palmer and Erbes

 TABLE 1: DESIGN-POINT DATA

Vendor Model Data Note

Source
Power 38,340 38,402 kW 1,2,4 Model generator efficiency = 0.96,
model's auxiliary losses = 786kW to
match this.
Heat Rate 10860 10713 Btu/kW-hr 1,4 GE value includes margin
Exhaust Flow 1,103,000 1,103,000 lb/hr 1,4 Compressor design inlet flow set to
match this number
Exhaust Temperature 1002 1002 F 1,2,4 Turbine efficiency varied to match this
number
Fuel Flow 19,353 19,122 lb/hr 1,4 GE fuel flow value is assumed to
include 1.2% margin
Pressure Ratio 11.8 11.8 2 PR is from after inlet bell to
compressor discharge
Inlet Pressure Drop 4 4 inches H2O 1
Outlet Pressure Drop 2.5 2.5 inches H2O 1
Firing Temperature 2020 2020F 2,3
Combustor Exit Temperature - 2150F -
Compressor Discharge - 650 F 5 Efficiency set to match this value:
Temperature Polytropic efficiency of 0.91 is near
0.90 of [Consonni, 1992]
Leakage Fraction from 0.2% 0.2% 6
Compressor

fuel specifications given by the Technical Research Centre of

Finland (VTT) at ISO, off-ambient and part-load conditions. ANALYTIC MODEL

DESIGN POINT Compressor

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.
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 Z values. The value of CMV
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

2 Palmer and Erbes

.

1.02 for the whole engine is built into this map. This implies that
overall gas turbine performance variations that may actually be
1 due to turbine effects (such as variation in efficiency) or other
94 96 98 causes are attributed to the compressor. This assumption has
0.98 100 Corrected been made in the absence of detailed information, such as a
0.96 102 Speed turbine map. The authors are aware that this method wrongly
104% attributes performance deviation to the compressor. At two
0.94
Compressor Efficiency
0.92 Normalized Efficiency 106
0.9
1.3 0.89 .
Normalized PR .
CMV=1.0 0.88 . ... .. . .. .. . .................. .......
..........................
1.2 . . ....
. ...................................................
0.87 ..........................................
.
Surge Line CMV=0.75 ... .................................... ...... ...
1.1 0.86 ....... ... ........ ...
. Plant Data .... . ..... .
0.85 ..
1 0.84 'Best Fit' to Data
CMV=0.5
0.9 0.83 Frame 6 Map
106
104 0.82
0.8 102
100 94 96 98 100 102 104 106
0.7 98
96 Corrected Speed
0.6 94
0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 Figure 3: Comparison of Frame 6 Map to Actual Data
Frame 6 plants where the company has on-line monitoring
Normalized Corrected Flow installed (EfficiencyMap) [Gay et al, 1992], the data indicates
that compressor efficiency does not drop off nearly as steeply
Figure 2: Frame 6 Compressor Map with increasing corrected speed as the map indicates (Figure 3).
Expander
manufacturers typical correction factor plot as a function of
ambient temperature [Data Source 7](Figure 6). The compressor In absence of a true 'turbine map' which gives the relationship
map's flow was adjusted to match the given exhaust flow rate. between expansion ratio, corrected turbine speed, flow rate, inlet
The pressure ratio was calculated using the method detailed in the temperature, and gas properties for a given expander, a
Expander section below. The compressors efficiency was relationship is needed to estimate the turbine flow function. In
calculated by matching the overall power. The corrected speed at this model, the turbine flow function is estimated using the
every ambient temperature is known, since the Frame 6 is a following equation relating the inlet flow parameters to an
constant speed machine, and the inlet temperature and gas effective turbine nozzle area
molecular weight are known. The formula for corrected speed is:
m T
100 100 Constant =
CS = = AP Nozzle Inlet
RT / RTdes MWdes * T / MW * Tdes
Here, the value for is[Reynolds and Perkins, 1977]:
+ 1

The above method only provides values for the compressor map
2 1
at one point per speed line (at CMV=0.75), so a method must be =
formulated to generate the remainder of the compressor map. R + 1
The pressure-flow relationship along any speed line is assumed to
be almost vertical, which is typical of industrial engines, as in the when above the critical expansion ratio (choked), and [Streeter
map for a Westinghouse engine [Diakunchak, 1992]. The and Wylie, 1979]:
efficiency lines are set to slope off evenly on either side of the
2 1
running line at any given speed. Note that these are very gross
2 P4 P4
assumptions of the actual turbomachinery behavior. = 1
The compressor map generated from the GE Specification data R 1 P3 P3
using this method is presented in Figure 2. It is important to
note that the performance variation versus ambient temperature

3 Palmer and Erbes

when below the critical expansion ratio. The critical expansion
ratio is:
P3
1 curve) to control fuel flow to maintain firing temperature.
P4 critical =
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:
P T
m=m des
des P T
des Cooling Flow
Combustor/Control System
The actual Frame 6 control system uses an algorithm (control
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 Model Results From Matching Texhaust
1040
Actual Control Curve (Data Source 8)
1030
1020
1010
1000
990
980
970
960
950
140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
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.
4 Palmer and Erbes
 Rotor Temp. (Deg. F) Correction Factor
2030 1.3
Calculated Temp
2025 1.2

2020 1.1

2015 1
2010 0.9
2005 0.8
2000
0.7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
1995
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Compressor Inlet T (Deg. F)
Compressor Inlet Temperature (Deg. F) GE Spec. Power GE Spec. Exh. Flow GE Spec. Heat Rate
Model
Figure 5: Rotor Temperature as Set by Control Curve
for Methane Fuel
Figure 6: Frame 6 Model Run on Methane Fuel: Power,
Tuning to GE Specification Data Exhaust Flow, Heat Rate
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 VERIFICATION OF MODEL RESULTS
model over-predicts fuel flow at the higher ambient temperatures
(over 90F). Figures 6-7 show the results of this comparison. It is To verify that the method of formulating a Frame 6 engine model
important to note, however, that the compressor map and control is appropriate, the model was tested against data from GE cycle
system algorithm were tuned so that the off-design GateCycle deck runs as shown in the following sections.
engine model provided the best fit to this data, so the fact that the Water Injected Cases
model matches well is deceptive.
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 Case 2
Inlet T, Relative Humidity 44 71
Inlet Relative Humidity 60 90
Water Injection Flow, lb/hr 19400 14720
Cycle Deck Model % Difference Cycle Deck Model % Difference
Power, MW 42.010 42.062 0.1 37.550 37.552 0.0005
Heat Rate, Btu/kW-hr 11170 11031 0.05* 11420 11278 0.06*
Exhaust Flow, lb/hr 1,160,000 1,159,300 0.06 1,081,000 1,082,70 0.2
0
Exhaust Temp, F 993 992.7 0.03 1012 1009 0.3
Rotor Inlet Temp, F 2008 1997
Compressor Map Variable 0.776 0.765
* 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

5 Palmer and Erbes

 TABLE 3: COMPARISON OF MODEL TO STEAM- TABLE 4: SFA LOW-BTU FUEL CHARACTERISTICS
INJECTED CYCLE DECK RUN
Composition (mole %)
Item Cycle Model % Fuel #1 - Fuel #2 -
Deck Difference 1600 F 1800 F
Power, MW 42.740 43.447 1.65% Gasifier Gasifier
Heat Rate, Btu/kW-hr 10300 10083 0.9* H2 15.0 13.48
Exhaust Flow, lb/hr 1,148,000 1,146,900 0.1 CO 15.59 16.12
Exhaust Temp, F 987 986.3 0.07 CO2 12.96 11.59
Rotor Inlet Temp, F 1996 CH4 4.71 3.36
H2S 0.01 0.01
Compressor Map Var. 0.805
H2O 15.0 15.0

Using control curve from Figure 4 N2 36.73 40.42
* After removing the assumed margin of the design case Temperature (F) 500 500
Constants: Calculated LHV (Btu/lb) 2108 1851
Inlet T 59 F, Relative Humidity 60%, 0' elevation Required Compressor Air
Inlet loss 4", Exhaust loss 2.5", LHV=21515 Btu/lb Extraction 0.711 0.772
Steam Flow = 44,970 lb/hr, (lb air/lb fuel)
Steam Pressure 230 psia, Temperature 444 F
Exhaust T (Deg. F) engine in the cycle deck data which may be additional margin
1060
added for this case.
1050
1040 Low - Btu Fuel Cases
1030
1020 The authors received data from two GE cycle deck runs for the
1010
Frame 6 at ISO conditions fired with low-Btu biomass fuels
1000
990 (Data Source 6). These fuels were generated in an air-blown
980 GE Spec.
fluidized-bed gasifier operating at high (1600 and 1800 F)
970 temperatures. The fuel characteristics are listed in Table 4. About
960 Model
15% of the required compressor bleed is used for feeding the
950
940
gasifier lock hoppers and is lost to the integrated gasification
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 combined-cycle system; it therefore does not show up in the fuel
Compressor Inlet T composition [Wilhelm, 1994].
Table 5 shows the comparison between the model results and
Figure 7: Frame 6 Model Run on Methane Fuel: the cycle deck data for operation on these fuels. Several
Exhaust Temperature important points concerning these analyses should be noted.
Steam Injected Case First, the model predictions closely match the cycle deck data,
showing that this modeling method is valid for predicting
Table 3 shows the comparison between the model results and behavior on different fuel types.
GE cycle deck runs for a heavily steam-injected turbine (Data Second, the engine model was fired at 2020F in order to match
Source 10). Although the other numbers seem to be in good the cycle deck data. Thus, the rating of the engine has not
agreement, the model over-predicts the power by 1.6%. Most of changed from the natural gas case. This is an important
this error can be attributed to a poor estimate of compressor consideration, as the saturated low-Btu gases increase the heat
efficiency for conditions away from the normal running line (the transfer coefficients of the combustion products, and thus raise
CMV for this case is 0.805 compared with 0.75 on the normal metal temperatures [Brooks, 1992], which may lower the rated
running line). The model is tuned along the running line of a firing temperature. It is important to note, however, that GE may
methane fired engine; steam injection decreases the surge margin assign a special firing temperature based on the fuel. They also
by shifting the operating point away from the compressor map's reserve the right to re-rate the engine at any time.
typical operating line. These results lead the authors to suggest Third, there is a sizable discrepancy between the calculated
caution when using the predictions from this modeling method compressor discharge conditions and the listed air extraction
when surge margin is decreasing, such as when steam injection is conditions. One explanation for this is that the discharge and
present. Some of the error can be attributed to steam injection extraction are not at the same point. There could be piping losses
altering the expander efficiency behavior significantly, a situation between the compressor discharge and the point of extraction
ignored by the constant turbine efficiency assumption. Lastly, but equal to about 10 psia and 10 degrees F. A more probable
least importantly, an energy balance around the GE data indicates explanation is that the initial design-point compressor efficiency
that there is a 0.5% discrepancy in the energy balance around the was only estimated using some plant data, so a 10 F difference
may already be built into the temperature reading. Some of this

6 Palmer and Erbes

 TABLE 5: COMPARISON OF MODEL TO FRAME 6 ON SFA FUELS

Fuel 1 (1600F Gasifier) Fuel 2 (1800F Gasifier)

Cycle Deck GateCycle % Cycle Deck GateCycle %
Data Model Difference Data Model Difference
Compressor Air Flow, lb/hr 1,062,500 1,061,700 0.08 1,062,800 1,062,000 0.08
Air Extraction Flow (lb/hr) 143,030 142,321 0.5 176,760 175,843 0.5
Air Extraction Pressure (psia) 162 (173.5) 7.1 161 (172.5) 7.2
Air Extraction Temperature (F) 650 (660.6) 1.6 648 (658.8) 1.7
Fuel Flow (lb/hr) 201,240 200,170 0.5 228,960 227,770 0.5
Power, MW 39.250 39.305 0.1 38.820 38.766 0.1
Exhaust Flow, lb/hr 1,118,800 1,117,300 0.1 1,113,200 1,111,600 0.1
Exhaust Temp, F 1020 1026.7 0.7 1022 1030.2 0.8
Rotor Inlet Temp (F) 2019 2020
Compressor Map Variable 0.784 0.778
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 TABLE 6: VTT BIOMASS-DERIVED FUEL
model is based on 'total' conditions whereas the GE cycle deck CHARACTERISTICS
data may be based on static conditions (i.e. kinetic energy is not
included). Regardless of cause of the discrepancy, one must Composition (mole %)
make sure when viewing the performance estimates of this model Fuel #1 Fuel #2
for other fuels in an integrated system that these losses or H2 11.86 12.42
discrepancies are accounted for in the extraction air for CO 17.69 18.55
gasification. CO2 11.00 11.62
It must be noted, however, that in these two cases the large CH4 4.22 4.42
required air extraction rate required causes the gas turbine C2H4 0.59 0.62
compressor to operate near its normal operating line. Thus, the H2O 15.43 11.29
model is already 'tuned' to give the proper results for power, flow N2 39.16 41.08
and exhaust temperature. NH3 0.05 2.9e-7
Temperature (F) 491 896
PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES ON OTHER LOW-BTU Calculated LHV (Btu/lb) 2104 2172
FUELS Required Compressor Air
Extraction 0.5797 0.5986
Using the gas turbine engine model, the performance of the
(lb air/lb fuel)
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 Variation with Ambient Temperatures
fuels in Table 4. To estimate the performance of the Frame 6 over a range of
ISO Rating ambient conditions, the engine control system must be simulated.
The actual Texh-CDP control system relationship needs to be
The GateCycle Frame 6 model was run at ISO conditions with designed for these conditions, since the pressure ratio increases
the two fuels specified by VTT. Because the water fraction of the due to the higher pressures associated with the increased fuel
combustion products is less than that for the SFA fuels, the mass flow rate of the low-Btu fuel. To generate the control
engine firing temperature was assumed to stay at 2020F. The curve, the model was run using Fuel #2 fired at a constant rotor
results are presented in Table 7. As the operating point of the temperature over a range of ambient temperatures. The resulting
compressor map (CMV=0.81, which is close to the operating exhaust temperature was plotted versus the compressor discharge
point of the STIG case) has shifted further away from the normal pressure (Figure 8). Then, a straight line (with a maximum
running line (CMV=0.75: where the model was tuned), the temperature limit) was drawn through the points, taking care to
results are certain to be less accurate than those for the fuels in match at the lower ambient temperatures (higher CDP) and
Table 4. intentionally under-estimating at the higher ambient temperatures.

7 Palmer and Erbes

 TABLE 7: ISO PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES WITH VTT FUELS

Description Net Net Fuel Exhaust Exhaust CDP gasif. Comp. CDT Rotor T
Power Effic Flow Flow T flow Map
Var
MW % lb/hr lb/hr deg F psia lb/hr deg F deg F
kg/hr kg/hr deg C bars kg/hr deg C deg C
Fuel 1 42.257 32.9 208,260 1,168,700 1017 181.3 120,740 0.814 669 2021
94467 530122 547 12.50 54,768 354 1105
Fuel 2 40.838 34.5 186,131 1,156,700 1015 179.0 111,420 0.795 664 2019
84429 524679 546 12.34 50540 351 1104

This is done to mimic the qualitative behavior of the Frame 6 Correction Factor
control scheme for standard operation on methane (Figure 5). 1.3

Exhaust T, (Deg. F) 1.2

1080
1070
1.1
1060
1050 1
1040
1030 0.9
1020
1010 0.8
1000 Model with Const Rotor T
990 0.7
Estimated Control Curve 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
980
970 Texh Max=1045, Slope=1.8, CDP Corner=162.5 Compressor Inlet Temperature (Deg. F)
960
140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 Power Flow Heat Rate
Compressor Discharge Pressure
Figure 10: Power, Heat Rate and Exhaust Flow of Frame 6
Figure 8: Estimation of VTT Control System for Fuel 2 Exhaust T, F Fired with VTT Fuel #2
1060
Rotor T (Deg. F) 1050
2040 1040
Calculated Temp. 1030
2030
1020
2020 1010
2010 1000
990
2000 980 Model T
1990 970 Fuel #2
960
1980 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
1970 Compressor Inlet Temperature (Deg. F)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Figure 11: Exhaust Temperature of Frame 6 Fired with
Compressor Inlet Temperature (Deg. F)
VTT Fuel #2
Figure 9: Calculated Firing Temperature of Frame 6 The correction factor plots (Figures 10 and 11) look much the
Fired with VTT Fuel #2 same as those for the methane fueled engine. With this
knowledge, we can then reasonably use the normal correction
Using the control curve derived by the above method, the model factor plots together with a performance estimate at the ISO point
is used to predict behavior on VTT fuel #2. Figure 9 shows how to predict performance on low-Btu fuels to an accuracy sufficient
the control curve varies the firing temperature. The numbers for for system planning studies. Note that the similarity of the
firing temperature versus ambient temperature coincide closely correction factor plot for flow may be deceptive, as the assumed
with the numbers from the machine run on methane (Figure 4). vertical corrected speed lines will automatically exhibit the same
At the two highest inlet temperature points, however, the exhaust flow variation as for methane fuel.
temperature limit of 1045 was reached. The engine firing
temperature was therefore reduced so this limit was not crossed.

8 Palmer and Erbes

 Exhaust Flow Exhaust Flow
Exhaust T (Deg F)
Fraction of Base Load Exhaust T (Deg F) Fraction of Base Load
1200 1.1 1200 1.1
Decreasing Firing Temperature Guide Vane Control Peak Firing 1.05
1100 1.05 1100
GE Spec. EGT 1
1 1000 Exhaust T
1000 Model Exhaust T 0.95
0.95 900
900 0.9
0.9 800
0.85
800 700
0.85 0.8
Exhaust Flow
GE Spec. Flow 600 0.75
700 0.8 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Model Exhaust Flow
600 0.75
Percent Output Fuel #2
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
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 high-
CDP 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

9 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 off-
design 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 off-
design 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 93, ASME IGTI-Vol. 8, pp. 327-
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 Off-
Design Aspects in Steam-Injected Gas Cycles," 23rd Intersociety
Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Volume 4, pp. 99-
108.
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 Least-
Squares Methodology to Thermal Performance Monitoring of
Gas Turbine and Combined Cycle Power Plants, 1992 ASME
Cogen-Turbo, ASME IGTI-Vol. 7, pp. 351-357.
10
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 93, ASME IGTI-Vol.
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
1 GE Performance Curves 499HA542 Rev C, 10/16/89,
Specification TBO-8531A(1291)bp, page 6.2
2 Gas Turbine World 1993 Performance Specs
3 Lavin, Arthur, 1984, "GE MS6001 Heavy-Duty Gas
Turbine", GE Gas Turbine Reference Library GER-3413.
4 Brooks, F.J., 1992, "GE Gas Turbine Performance
Characteristics", GE Report GER-3567C.
5 Derived from South Glens Falls, NY, Frame 6 Plant Data
assuming 'New and Clean' compressor, 1993
6 Cycle Deck data from SFA Pacific: 12/22/92
7 GE Performance Curves 499HA543 Rev A, 10/16/89,
Specification TBO-8531A(1291)bp, page 6.3
8 Mark IV Control system parameters from South Glens
Falls, NY plant
9 Naval Station GT Cycle Deck Runs, 4/28/88, TBO-642763
10 GE Cycle Deck data acquired from the State-of-the-Art
Power Plant Project (SOAPP), 7/11/89, TB-7114G
Palmer and Erbes