You are on page 1of 10

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



Carl A. Palmer and Michael R. Erbes

Enter Software Inc.
Menlo Park, CA, 94025

The ability to model the behavior of gas turbine engines is
critical in economic, thermal and condition monitoring studies. Since the gas turbine is the prime mover in cogeneration cycles,
This is especially true for applications involving alternative fuels, an accurate performance estimate of the turbine is essential in
such as biomass and coal derived fuels, where the engine operates evaluating the economics of a proposed plant. This is especially
far from its ISO performance ratings found in publications such true in plants that will run far from ISO rated conditions, as in
as Gas Turbine World. This paper presents an approach taken for integrated gasification combined-cycles. Thus, a systematic
modeling a Frame 6 engine and its control system given a fairly method of predicting engine behavior given limited data is of use
limited set of available data. The approach and model are tested for preliminary powerplant studies [Benvenuti et al., 1993].
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 To Gasifier



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
based on aftermarket sources with manufacturers values before Nozzle Cooling
using the predictions for commercial decisions. 0
1 Rotor Cooling 4

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


Vendor Model Data Note

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
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

fuel specifications given by the Technical Research Centre of

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


The first step in designing an engine model is to match the In the design mode, the compressor pressure ratio, efficiency
model closely at one point, usually the ISO rated point. The (calculated from a specified discharge temperature) and flow rate
PG6541B engine model was designed to match published vendor can be set to certain values. In off-design runs, the compressor
data (which includes margins) at the ISO point (59F, 14.697 psia, will use these values as the design-point for its compressor map.
60% relative humidity) run on methane (LHV=21515 Btu/lb). The compressor section for the GE Frame 6 engine consists of 17
Table 1 shows the vendor data and model data, with notes to stages. All flow extracted for gasification and leakage flow out of
clarify some of the results. The GateCycle program provides a the turbine is assumed to occur after the final compressor stage.
'design mode' that sizes the equipment and sets the efficiencies at The turbine nozzle cooling flow is also taken from the
the design point. compressor discharge conditions. The turbine rotor cooling flow
A key point about matching vendor data at an ISO rated point is comes from the 16th stage bleed [Lavin, 1984]. To calculate the
that the model must deal with the commercial margins the vendor conditions between any two stages, the calculations assume a
has placed in the published data, or the model will not achieve an equal pressure ratio per stage and an equal polytropic efficiency
energy balance. Usually these margins are on the order of 2-3% for each blade.
on both power and heat rate [Pequot, 1993] [Smith, 1991]. For The compressor's off-design performance is determined entirely
the Frame 6 model, the margin in the predicted power is included by its normalized compressor map, which relates pressure ratio,
inside the generator efficiency and auxiliary loss numbers. Part efficiency and flow as function of corrected speed and
of the margin in heat rate (i.e. fuel flow) is left out, as the extra compressor map variable (CMV). Different organizations
energy coming into the engine with the fuel flow would name this CMV beta lines or Z values. The value of CMV
necessitate taking this same energy out of the engine in another essentially represents a position along a corrected speed line on
form, presumably as extra margin in the generator. Thus instead the compressor map (Figure 2). At design, the map variable is
of specifying the fuel flow from the vendor numbers, the model is 0.75: at the point of compressor surge, it is 1.0. Thus, the CMV
set up to calculate fuel flow by matching a desired combustor exit can be used as an indication of surge margin. The compressor
temperature. map flow and efficiency as a function of corrected speed at the
design CMV (i.e. along the typical 'running line': only one point
Data Source numbers refer to Table 8 at the end of this paper. 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
Compressor Efficiency
0.92 Normalized Efficiency 106
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
0.9 0.83 Frame 6 Map
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).
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 Combustor/Control System
ratio is:
The actual Frame 6 control system uses an algorithm (control

1 curve) to control fuel flow to maintain firing temperature.
P4 critical =

Because it is impractical to measure temperature in the
2 1 combustion chambers or at the turbine inlet directly ... from
thermodynamic relationships and known site conditions, firing
+ 1 temperature can be determined as a function of the exhaust
temperature and the pressure ratio across the turbine. The latter
During the design run of the turbine, the effective nozzle area is is determined by the compressor discharge pressure ... In this
determined using the values for inlet pressure, (passed controller, firing temperature is limited by a linearized function of
downstream from the compressor with losses in the combustor), exhaust temperature and CDP [GE Mark IV, 19??]. To find the
inlet temperature (determined by the combustor energy balance), control curve for natural gas used for the Frame 6 engine, the fuel
and inlet flow rate. For off-design analysis, the inlet pressure is flow into the model was varied to match the exhaust temperature
calculated from the above equations using the inlet temperature from the specification at each ambient temperature [Data Source
and flow, together with the effective area calculated at the design 7]. This results in a set of calculated points that relate the model's
point. This pressure signal is sent back to upstream components calculated compressor discharge pressure to the exhaust
(to the compressor, for example). Note that the 'shadow effect' temperature. In a testament to the appropriateness of this method
[Fayrweather, 1992] of the effective nozzle area change with for finding the control curve, the calculated points lie almost
variation in speed is not included in these formulations. In the exactly upon an actual control curve [Data Source 8] as shown in
(rare) case that turbine map data is available, the calculations can Figure 4.
be set up to use the map instead.
At the design point, the model calculates the turbine polytropic Exhaust Temperature (Deg F)
efficiency to match a specified exit temperature. In the absence 1060
of data on turbine efficiency variations, the efficiency is assumed 1050 Model Results From Matching Texhaust
to be constant off-design. This is a relatively good assumption 1040
Actual Control Curve (Data Source 8)
[Cohen et al, 1987]. However, it has been suggested [Huo, 1993] 1030
that future studies take advantage of the relationship of turbine 1020
efficiency to blade-jet speed ratio [Glassman, 1972]. 1010
Estimation of cooling flows is very important for model 1000

accuracy. In the design point model of the Frame 6 engine, the 990
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 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
turbine consists of 3 nozzle/rotor pairs. Seventy percent of the Compressor Discharge Pressure (psia)
total cooling flow to the nozzles is assumed to go to the first
stage; the remainder cools the second stage. The cooling air to Figure 4: Frame 6 Control Curve Generation
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
Using the control curve derived as described above, the model
to the turbine first stage rotor, the remainder cools the second
was run over a range of ambient temperatures (0-120F) to
stage rotor. From examining photographs of the Frame 6 buckets
evaluate the variation of the actual rotor inlet temperature with
in marketing literature, [Lavin, 1984] it was assumed that most
ambient temperature. For low inlet temperatures (0-70F), the
(90%) of the air to each rotor stage is mixed after the rotating
control system holds the rotor inlet temperature almost constant.
stage, and thus does not produce work in that stage (i.e. is not
At higher inlet temperatures, the rotor inlet temperature starts to
"chargeable"), as the location of the cooling holes on the buckets
fall from the 2020F value (Figure 5). When estimating the
was at the tip and trailing edge of the blade.
control system behavior on other fuels, we would like to
The off-design cooling flow rate to both the nozzles and rotors
duplicate this firing temperature behavior, as this is what the
is assumed to keep the same 'friction factor' along the cooling
control system algorithm was designed to achieve. Again, note
flow paths as in the design case [Consonni et al, 1988]. Thus the
that the control settings for the gas turbine are determined solely
off-design flow can be calculated with the following equation:
by the engine manufacturer.

m=m des
des P T
des Cooling Flow

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
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
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
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).


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
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

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
added for this case.
1040 Low - Btu Fuel Cases
1020 The authors received data from two GE cycle deck runs for the
Frame 6 at ISO conditions fired with low-Btu biomass fuels
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
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


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
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
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


Description Net Net Fuel Exhaust Exhaust CDP gasif. Comp. CDT Rotor T
Power Effic Flow Flow T flow Map
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

1050 1
1030 0.9
1010 0.8
1000 Model with Const Rotor T
990 0.7
Estimated Control Curve 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
970 Texh Max=1045, Slope=1.8, CDP Corner=162.5 Compressor Inlet Temperature (Deg. F)
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
Rotor T (Deg. F) 1050
2040 1040
Calculated Temp. 1030
2020 1010
2010 1000
2000 980 Model T
1990 970 Fuel #2
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
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

Figure 13: Frame 6 Part Load on Low-Btu Fuel #2
Part-Load Performance Estimates 3) Estimate the control curve by varying fuel flow to match the
The Frame 6 engine performance was also estimated at part-load specified exhaust temperature while performing task 2).
operation at ISO conditions for VTT fuel #2. During part-load Draw a straight line through the plot of Texh versus
operation, the control system maintains a constant firing calculated CDP.
temperature as the guide vanes are closed. After the guide vanes 4) Run the turbine model using the control curve from 3). Plot
are fully closed, (the guide vane limit) the control system reduces the firing temperature as a function of inlet temperature.
the firing temperature to achieve the desired power output (Figure 5) Run the turbine model fired at the same temperature as
12). natural gas to generate a control curve of Texh vs. CDP for
First, the Frame 6 model was run against part-load correction the low-Btu engine. Draw a best-fit line through the high-
curves on methane fuel [Data Source 1] to 1) determine the guide CDP points. This assumes the water content of your fuel is
vane limit and 2) assess the accuracy of the model at part-load not large enough to necessitate a lower firing temperature.
conditions. Figure 12 shows the results. The guide vane limit 6) Run the low-Btu engine with the control curve from 5) to
was calculated to be at the point where the inlet flow was at 82% generate performance estimates.
of its design value. The results from the model match the data 7) Verify important data with the vendor before making
reasonably well. Some of the error would be caused by the commercial decisions.
compressor map in the model not changing its shape with the
guide vane shift, as is actually the case [General Electric, 19??]. OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Also, the actual turbine efficiency should change under part-load A model of the Frame 6 engine was generated using the
operation. individual gas turbine component modules inside the GateCycle
The part load performance of the Frame 6 fired with VTT fuel software. The design-point efficiencies and flow relationships
#2 is presented in Figure 13. were generated by matching published guarantee data at the ISO
point. The off-design compressor map was tuned so that the
MODELING SUMMARY engine matched GE correction curves.
The modeling procedure to predict gas turbine performance on The model was tested against cycle deck runs to assess its
low-Btu fuels given limited data is summarized below. accuracy. The results were good for all natural gas fired cases
1) Match the engine at design. Modeling decisions that have to except for a case with high steam injection (the model was 1.6%
be made at this point are: high on power) This is a clear indication that something
a) Estimation of compressor efficiency/discharge temperature, important has not been taken into account at this condition. The
compressor leakage, and combustor exit temperature. comparisons to cycle deck runs using low-Btu fuels were also
Hopefully, the modeler has other data sources to guide good, except for discrepancies on compressor extraction
these estimates. conditions.
b) How to build vendor margins into the model, and which to The Frame 6 engine model was then applied to operation on two
include after the thermodynamic analysis (e.g. heat rate). low-Btu fuels as specified by Technical Research Centre of
c) Estimation of rotor cooling flows given the calculated Finland. Given the degree of accuracy shown by the comparison
nozzle flow rates. of the model to the cycle deck runs, the overall predictions should
2) Generate a compressor map by matching the vendor's be reasonably accurate. One needs to be careful, though, as the
correction curves for flow and power as a function of ambient compressor operating point was farther away from the points
temperature. 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 GE Mark IV, 19??, General Electic Mark IV Frame 6 Control
system, or deficiencies in the modeling method. System Manual from South Glens Falls.
One major area of weakness in the method is that all of the off- General Electric, 19??, General Electric Report GER-3120.
design performance variation in the specification data is Glassman, 1972, Turbine Design and Application, Volume One,
attributed to the compressor. Comparison of the model results NASA SP-290. p 51.
with actual engine data indicates that the compressor efficiency Huo, Shuang., 1993, Westinghouse Marine, Personal
does not change as markedly over the ambient temperature range Communication.
as the model predicts. Also, the performance of the model at Lavin, Arthur, 1984, "GE MS6001 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine",
points away from the compressor's natural gas running line GE Gas Turbine Reference Library GER-3413.
should be verified. The one case tested in this region (the steam Palmer, Erbes and Pechtl, 1993, GateCycle Performance
injection case) is where the model results were the least accurate. Analysis of the LM2500 Gas Turbine Utilizing Low Heating
This shows that the assumptions of how the compressor map Value Fuels, ASME Cogen Turbo Power 93, ASME IGTI-Vol.
varies along the speed lines need to be refined. 8, pp. 69-76.
The first major step to take to make the model more accurate Pequot Publishing, 1993, Gas Turbine World 1993 Performance
would be to improve the compressor map. To derive a map, data Specs
is needed for compressor discharge pressure and temperature Reynolds and Perkins, 1977, Engineering Thermodynamics,
from cycle deck runs, both under normal operation and at McGraw-Hill, p 502.
conditions with lower surge margin (such as during steam Smith, S. S., 1991, "GE Aeroderivative Gas Turbine
injection or operation on low-Btu fuels with low amounts of Performance", GE Gas Turbine Reference Library GER-3572B.
compressor extraction air). Other useful information would be Streeter and Wylie, 1979, Fluid Mechanics, Seventh Edition,
the actual control system equations that would be set up for the McGraw-Hill, p. 274.
any given fuel. Finally, a more sophisticated algorithm for off- Wilhelm, D., 1994, SFA Pacific, Personal Communication.
design turbine efficiency and flow variation could help the
modeling results significantly. TABLE 8: NUMERICAL DATA SOURCES FOR STUDY


Benvenuti, Bettocchi, Cantore, Negri di Montenegro and Spina, 1 GE Performance Curves 499HA542 Rev C, 10/16/89,
1993, Gas Turbine Cycle Modeling Oriented to Component Specification TBO-8531A(1291)bp, page 6.2
Performance Evaluation from Limited Design or Test Data, 2 Gas Turbine World 1993 Performance Specs
ASME Cogen Turbo Power 93, ASME IGTI-Vol. 8, pp. 327- 3 Lavin, Arthur, 1984, "GE MS6001 Heavy-Duty Gas
337. Turbine", GE Gas Turbine Reference Library GER-3413.
Brooks, F.J., 1992, "GE Gas Turbine Performance 4 Brooks, F.J., 1992, "GE Gas Turbine Performance
Characteristics", GE Report GER-3567C. Characteristics", GE Report GER-3567C.
Cohen, Rogers and Saravanamuttoo, 1987, Gas Turbine Theory, 5 Derived from South Glens Falls, NY, Frame 6 Plant Data
Third Edition, Longman Scientific & Technical, p. 295. assuming 'New and Clean' compressor, 1993
Consonni, Stefano, 1992, Performance Prediction of Gas/Steam 6 Cycle Deck data from SFA Pacific: 12/22/92
Cycles for Power Generation, Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton 7 GE Performance Curves 499HA543 Rev A, 10/16/89,
University, p. C-5. Specification TBO-8531A(1291)bp, page 6.3
Consonni, Lozza and Macchi, 1988, "Turbomachinery and Off- 8 Mark IV Control system parameters from South Glens
Design Aspects in Steam-Injected Gas Cycles," 23rd Intersociety Falls, NY plant
Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Volume 4, pp. 99- 9 Naval Station GT Cycle Deck Runs, 4/28/88, TBO-642763
10 GE Cycle Deck data acquired from the State-of-the-Art
Diakunchak, I. S., 1992, Performance Deterioration in
Power Plant Project (SOAPP), 7/11/89, TB-7114G
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
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 Palmer and Erbes