Proceedings of GT2005
ASME Turbo Expo 2005: Power for Land, Sea and Air
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT OF SWIRL VANE ANGLE ON FUEL CONCENTRATION
AND VELOCITY FIELDS IN GAS TURBINE MIXERS
Louis J. Turek *
University of Central Florida
Dept. of Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace
Engineering
Marcos Chaos †
University of Central Florida
Dept. of Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace
Engineering
mchaos@ucf.edu
ABSTRACT
The flow fields of two different Siemens-Westinghouse
gas turbine mixers were studied experimentally in an effort to
better understand fuel-air mixing in confined swirling flows
found in industrial applications. The mixers consist of an
annular flow region and mixing is achieved using swirl vanes,
the pressure side of which is used to inject the fuel. The
difference between the two mixers studied is the degree of swirl
imparted on the flow by the swirl vanes (45o vs. 55o). Velocity
(both axial and azimuthal) and fuel concentration profiles were
obtained for non-reacting, atmospheric pressure flows at
several axial and radial locations downstream of the swirl vanes
by the use of LDV and infrared laser light absorption
techniques, respectively. The fuel used in this work was a
methane/air mixture, which was injected at a momentum flux
ratio comparable to that under operational conditions. Results
show that flow uniformity, as evidenced by velocity and fuel
concentration profiles, is reached further downstream of the
swirl vanes for the 45o mixer than for the 55o mixer. This
indicates a lesser mixing performance in the 45o mixer. The
axial and azimuthal RMS velocities were consistently higher
for the 55o degree mixer and this was a likely contributor to its
superior mixing performance. High velocity and fuel
concentration gradients are common for both mixers and
* Current affiliation: Rini Technologies Inc., Orlando, FL
†
Current affiliation: Combustion and Fuels Research Lab, Princeton University
‡
Corresponding author
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2005/71119/ on 03/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
June 6-9, 2005, Reno-Tahoe, Nevada, USA
GT2005-68152
Robert W. Dawson
Siemens-Westinghouse Power Corporation
Combustion Technology
robert.w.dawson@swpc.siemens.com
Ruey-Hung Chen ‡
University of Central Florida
Dept. of Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace
Engineering
P.O. Box 162450
Orlando, FL 32816-2450, USA
Tel: 407-823-3402; Fax: 407-823-0208
chenrh@mail.ucf.edu
present in the near-field region close to the swirl vanes. The
data obtained indicates that the flow behavior in the region near
the swirl vanes strongly influences the mixing of the fuel and
air. Frequency analysis of the fuel concentration data shows
that some turbulent structures prevail throughout the mixing
region in both mixers, revealing that some large scale flow
features emanating from the swirl vanes are not dissipated even
in the high degree of swirl hardware. Lastly, unmixedness
levels in both mixers tested are calculated and compared with a
discussion on how they might impact NOx emission levels.
Keywords: fuel-air mixing, unmixedness, swirl vanes,
turbulence, LDV, infrared absorption.
INTRODUCTION
The need for reduction of NOx emissions from gas turbines
is due to the detrimental effect these chemical species have on
ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere [1]. A great deal of
work has focused on reduction of NOx formation and emission
in practical combustion systems. This work has largely focused
on the reduction of NOx during the combustion of lean
premixed flows, which are often used in gas turbine
applications. Under such conditions, fuel-air mixing has a
significant effect on the NOx formed [2, 3]. This is due to the
1 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 fact that incomplete mixing of fuel and air result in regions of
high temperature and these regions can generate high levels of
NOx by the thermal mechanism, as discussed by Turns [4]. The
data of Fric [5] supports the thermal mechanism as being a
significant contributor to the amount of NOx formed during
combustion of lean premixed flows. Fric [5] used a coflow jet
arrangement to vary the unmixedness of the flow, which he
defined by:
c′ 2
U=
cave (1 − cave )
With the mean equivalence ratio in the flow being held constant
at φ = 0.5, Fric [5] found that for an unmixedness value of 10%
(U = 0.1), the NOx formation was double that of a perfectly
mixed flow (U = 0.0). Steele [6] also showed that the thermal
mechanism is important in NOx generation during lean
premixed combustion by comparing NOx levels versus flame
temperature. In addition, the work of Barnes and Mellor [7, 8]
predicted that for a lean premixed flame which was swirling
due to the presence of swirl vanes upstream of the reaction
zone, 70% of the NOx would be generated by regions which
had an equivalence ratio larger than the average equivalence
ratio of the flow (which was φ = 0.6 for their work). They
subsequently were able to predict the unmixedness of a
combustion reaction by measuring the NOx levels in the
exhaust gases [8].
With the importance of the thermal mechanism and
therefore the unmixedness established, researchers have
analyzed the effect of various parameters on the unmixedness
of the flow of swirled lean premixed flows. Frey et al. [9]
examined the effect of both free stream turbulence and
premixer length on the mixing of fuel and air in the flow
emanating from a gas turbine premixer. Variations in fuel
concentration at the exit of the premixer were measured using a
Mie scattering technique, and 1 µm sized aluminum oxide
particles were used to simulate the fuel. The turbulence of the
flow was measured by hot wire anemometry. The use of
different inlet grids allowed for the turbulence of the flow to be
varied from 2.5% up to 8%. With no inlet grids the
unmixedness of the flow was found to be U = 0.29. With the
inlet grids in place, the unmixedness was reduced only to 0.27
for the 2.5 % turbulence level and to 0.23 for the 8% turbulence
level. They speculated that the turbulence due to the wakes of
the swirl vanes and the spray bars were sufficiently strong such
that the turbulence due to the inlet grids was not significant to
the mixing of the fuel and air. A more significant reduction in
unmixedness observed by Frey et al. [9] was due to increased
premixer length. Two different extensions of 2.5 cm and 5 cm
were added to increase the length of the mixing channel by
57% and 116%, respectively. The 2.5 cm extension reduced
the unmixedness from U = 0.29 to 0.23, and the 5 cm extension
reduced the unmixedness to 0.19. Hence, the work of Frey et
al. [9] conclusively shows that the flow near the swirl vanes
and the length of the premixer can have a significant effect on
the unmixedness of the flow. Thomsen et al. [10] and
Stufflebeam et al. [11] used LIF techniques to examine the flow
emanating from gas turbine premixers and showed that changes
in parameters such as fuel injection angle and momentum ratio
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2005/71119/ on 03/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
can affect the unmixedness at the exit of the premixer. Mori et
al. [12] used a second order Reynolds Stress Model, which
predicted that the wakes of the swirl vanes in a lean premixed
flow would be highly dissipative and contribute significantly to
the mixing of fuel and air. Their Reynolds Stress Model was
successful in accurately predicting the fuel concentration
profile at the exit of the premixer, as confirmed by
concentration measurements. As with Frey et al. [9], the data
were taken only at the exit of the premixer.
The goal of the experimental work discussed here is to
(1) examine the effect of a variation in swirl vane angle on the
mixing of fuel and air in gas turbine premixers. Swirling flows
have been the subject of extensive research [3, 9-16] due to the
beneficial effects these flows have on mixing and combustion
stability. As opposed to previous studies [9-16], however, the
experimental efforts described herein capture spatial velocity
and fuel concentration fields (with the help of nonintrusive
laser diagnostics) along the length of the premixing region
rather than at the exit plane of the premixers.
NOMENCLATURE
c′ RMS fuel concentration
cave average fuel concentration
cv swirl vane chord length
C fuel concentration measured by probe
Cf fuel concentration in injected methane/air mixture
CRMS RMS fuel concentration
Dh hydraulic diameter
Dhub premixer hub diameter
hv swirl vane height
I measured laser intensity when sample present
Io baseline laser intensity,
L sample cell length
lcamber swirl vane camber length
Ptotal absolute pressure
r distance from swirler hub in radial direction
R annular gap in premixer
Ru universal gas constant, 82.06 atm cm3/(mol K)
T temperature
tmax maximum swirl vane thickness
U unmixedness
V velocity measured by LDV
Vbulk bulk flow velocity
VRMS RMS velocity
x length along premixer
ε molar extinction coefficient
φ equivalence ratio
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The two gas turbine premixers examined were analyzed
under cold flow, atmospheric conditions. However, due to the
different working conditions between normal gas turbine
operation (i.e. high pressure and temperature) and the
experiments described herein, based on similarity, two
parameters were maintained constant and equal to those
encountered in the actual gas turbines the premixers would be
used in: 1) the ratio of the pressure drop across the premixers to
the working (i.e. atmospheric) pressure and 2) the momentum
flux ratio of fuel and air flows through the test hardware.
2 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 LDV
Table 1. Geometric parameters of swirl vanes.
o o
Parameter 45 Premixer 55 Premixer
Inlet
cv/Dhub 0.54 0.47
h v/Dhub 0.34 0.44 Hub
t max/Dhub 0.14 0.14 Test
l camber/Dhub 0.61 0.61 Hardware

tmax Seeded room

air drawn by
Focusing fan motor
Lens
lcamber
hv
Figure 2. Diagram of LDV and test hardware.
cv

Figure 1. Diagram of swirl vane geometric parameters.
The swirl vanes in the two premixers had dimensions as
shown Fig. 1, and as listed in Table 1 (normalized by the hub
diameter of the premixers). The premixers are referred to
simply as the 45o premixer and the 55o premixer. As shown in
Fig. 2, room air entered the premixers through the inlet, and
was drawn by a fan motor located at the downstream end of the
test rig. The overall mass flowrate through the test hardware
was on the order of 0.45 kg/s. The fan motor was located well
downstream of the exit of the premixers and was connected
through a sealed plexiglass tube containing flow conditioners
(i.e. flow straighteners) so that any flow instabilities introduced
by the motor would not be felt by the flow through the
premixers. Axial and azimuthal velocity measurements in the
premixing region were performed using a two-component LDV
operated in the backscatter mode. Frequency shifting (i.e.
Bragg cell) was used to provide directional sensitivity. The
LDV probe volume dimensions were 655 µm length and 131
µm diameter with a fringe spacing of 1.38 µm. The flow
through the premixers was seeded at the inlet with 1 µm TiO2
particles in order to generate the Doppler signals. To allow
optical access to the test hardware, grooves approximately 15
mm tall were machined along the length of each of the
premixers and were fitted with antireflective fused silica
windows. The entire LDV system was mounted on a 3-axis
traversing table with a resolution of 2.5 µm and positioned as
Fuel/Air (RFA) analyzer [17, 18]. As shown in Fig. 3, a
vacuum pump extracts a sample from the test section through a
small (1/16 in. diameter) probe, which passes through a 50-mm
long sample cell. The cell is capped by sapphire windows and
infrared (IR) radiation at approximately 3.4 µm from a He-Ne
laser is directed through it. As seen in Fig. 4, this wavelength
coincides well with the strong transitions in the P-branch of the
ν3 vibrational band of methane [19, 20]. An IR detector
measures the amount of absorbed laser light by the gas present
in the sample cell. Right after passing through the cell, a
thermocouple and pressure transducer monitor the temperature
and pressure, respectively, of the sample gas. The entire setup
was mounted on the same 3-axis traversing table, as was the
LDV.
The concentration of methane present in the sample can be
related to the absorption measured by the IR detector using Eq.
(2):
⎛ I ⎞ RT
C = − Log ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ u (2)
⎝ I o ⎠ εPtotal L
Since the absorption spectrum (Fig. 4) suffers from
pressure broadening as well as being temperature dependent,
1
Absorbance (a.u.)

0.8
shown in Fig. 2.
Methane concentration was obtained using a Real-time 0.6

0.4

Pressure Reading To 0.2

Probe Draws Sample
from Test Section Temperature Reading Computer 0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
To Vacuum Pump Wavenumber (cm-1)
IR Detector
IR He-Ne Laser
Sample
10 8 6 4 2
Cell
Wavelength (µm)

Figure 4. Rovibrational spectra of CH4 at atmospheric

Voltage Reading
(to Computer)
Mount conditions obtained from the HITRAN database [21]. Note
the strong line strengths corresponding to the spectral
Figure 3. RFA (Real-time Fuel-to-air Analyzer) schematic. region near 3.4 µm (3000 cm-1).

3 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2005/71119/ on 03/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 was delivered to the test hardware by a bolt on feed flange and
Table 2. Data collection locations. emanated from a row of holes located on the pressure side of
x/Dh x/Dh the swirl vanes. The fuel used was a mixture of air diluted with
Location x (cm) o o
(45 premixer) (55 premixer) methane, yielding a bulk concentration, Cf, in the premixers of
1 1 0.89 0.87 5,000 ppm. The dilution was done so as to avoid having a
2 2 1.11 1.06 combustible mixture within the test rig.
3 3 1.32 1.25 At each measurement location, 4,096 readings were taken
4 5 1.74 1.63 of both velocity and fuel concentration. LDV data rates were
5 7 2.17 2.02 on the order of 2,000 Hz except when the laser probe neared the
6 8 --- 2.21 walls of the premixers in which case the data rate dropped to
7 9 2.60 --- 250-500 Hz, approximately, due to the large laser scatter the
8 10 --- 2.60 walls generated. It is estimated that the uncertainty in velocity
9 11 3.02 --- measurements was on the order of 5% increasing to 10-15% for
measurements performed near the premixer walls. Fuel
concentration measurements were performed at a sampling rate
calibration runs using inert gases with known methane of 2,000 Hz. The RFA system is highly sensitive to fuel
concentration had to be performed in order to accurately concentration changes and variations of ±100 ppm were easily
determine the extinction coefficient, ε, for the isothermal and captured; this value represents ±2% of the average methane
isobaric conditions studied. concentration introduced in the premixers.
As summarized in Table 2 and Fig. 5, both velocity and
fuel concentration data were collected at seven different axial RESULTS
locations in the test hardware. The locations varied from 0.87 Mean Axial Velocity
to 3.02 hydraulic diameters downstream of the trailing edge of The mean axial velocity data are shown in Fig. 6 and Fig.
the swirl vanes of the premixers. At each axial location, data 7. Note that in all figures presented in this section, the radial
was collected at 20 radial locations in the annular region of the location at which data was collected, r, has been normalized by
premixers. Note that the premixers had slightly different the outer radius of the premixers (i.e. percent span, r/R). To
hydraulic diameters. The axial locations selected, however, determine how accurately the axial velocity measurements
yielded very comparable x/Dh values. taken satisfy mass conservation, the velocity profiles shown in
The concentration probe was inserted into the test Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 were numerically integrated (assuming a no-
hardware by means of a series of small holes drilled into the slip condition at the premixer walls) at each axial location.
wall of the premixers at the selected axial locations. The fuel Results from these calculations were always within 5%, which
assure the consistency of the data shown in the figures.
Comparison of Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 shows that the velocity curves
for the 55o premixer exhibit less variation over the annular
profile than do those of the 45o premixer. In Fig. 6 the
normalized velocities vary between 1.13 and 1.27 over the
r range 0.2 < r/R < 0.8 at x/Dh= 0.89; these variations are larger
than the fluctuations between 1.12 and 1.2 over 0.2 < r/R < 0.8
x in Fig. 7 for x/Dh = 0.87 in the 55o premixer. These variations
diminish at axial locations x/Dh > 1.3 for both premixers. The
smaller variations in the velocity profiles of the 55o premixer
are very important since they indicate that the flow of the 55o
Swirl premixer is dissipating the velocity gradients more rapidly than
123 4 5 7 9
Vanes
Location
the 45o premixer. This is indicative of superior mixing
(a) performance of the 55o premixer.
Inspection of Fig. 7 reveals that the 55o premixer has a
strong trend of boundary layer growth near the inner annular
region (i.e. small values of r/R). This can be seen by the low
r V/Vbulk values near these locations. The value of the V/Vbulk
profile for x/Dh = 0.87 in Fig. 6 reaches a value greater than 1.0
x at r/R = 0.12, while the radial profile for x/Dh = 2.60 reaches a
value greater than 1.0 at r/R = 0.22. The fact that the
normalized velocity ratio is reaching the bulk velocity value at
a greater distance from the inner wall as the flow has
Swirl progressed through the premixer is a clear illustration of
Vanes
1 2 3 4 56 8
boundary layer growth. For the 45o premixer, the radial profile
Location
(b) for x/Dh = 0.89 becomes greater than 1.0 at r/R = 0.11, while
the profile for x/Dh = 3.02 becomes greater than 1.0 at r/R =
Figure 5. Data collection locations for (a) the 45o premixer 0.12. The significance of greater boundary layer growth in the
and (b) the 55o premixer. Location numbers correspond to 55o premixer is higher turbulence levels, which help promote
the values listed in Table 2. the mixing of fuel and air.

4 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2005/71119/ on 03/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Figure 6. Normalized axial velocity for the 45o premixer.
RMS Axial Velocity
Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 show the normalized axial RMS velocity
data from the two premixers. Examination of these figures
shows that the normalized axial RMS velocity is higher for the
55o premixer than for the 45o premixer. The average value of
the radial profile for x/Dh = 0.87 in Fig. 9 is 0.124, while the
average value for x/Dh = 0.89 in Fig. 8 is 0.11. This trend is
apparent at all axial locations, and is very significant since a
higher RMS velocity will promote the mixing of fuel and air
and thus have implications towards the formation of NOx
during combustion. For x/Dh = 2.02 in Fig. 9, the average
normalized axial RMS velocity is 0.136, while for x/Dh = 2.17
in the 45o premixer in Fig. 8 the average value is 0.114. In
addition, Fig. 9 shows higher RMS values near the hub of the
55o premixer, which further supports the trend of boundary
layer growth indicated in Fig. 7 and is indicative of higher
turbulence levels. For example, in Fig. 9, the axial RMS
velocity steadily increases from a value of 0.15 to 0.25 from the
upstream to the downstream end of the premixer. The axial
RMS velocity value at the downstream end of the 55o premixer
was the highest observed throughout the flow. This difference
in flow behavior and mixing between the two premixers is an
important consequence of the different swirl angles.
It should be noted that the axial RMS value for both
Figure 8. Normalized axial RMS velocity for the 45o
premixer.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2005/71119/ on 03/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Figure 7. Normalized axial velocity for the 55o premixer.
premixers was higher across the radius at the most downstream
locations and is more evident in the 45o premixer (Fig. 8) since
this hardware had initially lower RMS values and the last
measuring location is closer to the premixer exit (see Table 2).
This is believed to be due to the fact that these locations are
within several cm of the exit, and thus flow conditions (i.e.
flow recirculation) at the exit may have affected the RMS
velocity at these locations.
Mean Azimuthal Velocity
The mean azimuthal (tangential) velocity data from the two
premixers are shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. It is immediately
apparent that the maximum normalized velocity values of the
55o premixer are larger than those of the 45o premixer, which is
not surprising considering its larger swirl angle. Also, the peak
azimuthal velocity of both premixers decays as the flow
progresses, which is to be expected. From the most upstream to
the most downstream location, the peak normalized azimuthal
velocity for the 45o premixer decreased by 9% from 1.56 to
1.42, while the peak normalized azimuthal velocity for the 55o
premixer decreased by 12% from 2.37 to 2.08.
Figure 10 and Fig. 11 are further evidence of the boundary
layer growth that was reflected in Figs. 6-9. For example, at
r/R = 0.2, the normalized azimuthal velocity is 18% lower at
x/Dh = 2.60 than at x/Dh = 0.87 (decreasing from V/Vbulk = 2.327
Figure 9. Normalized axial RMS velocity for the 55o
premixer.
5 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 Figure 10. Normalized azimuthal velocity for the 45o
premixer.
to 1.906). For the 45o premixer, at r/R = 0.2, there was only a
4% decrease from V/Vbulk= 1.491 at x/Dh = 0.89 to V/Vbulk=
1.429 at x/Dh = 3.02.
Azimuthal RMS Velocity
Figure 12 and Fig. 13 show the normalized azimuthal RMS
velocity for the two premixers and, as in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, show
that the average value for azimuthal RMS velocity for the 55o
premixer is higher than that for the 45o premixer (typically by a
value of 8% to 20%). This, again, is significant since higher
RMS velocity values will be beneficial to the mixing of fuel
and air. Another factor which likely contributes to the growth
of the boundary layer in the inner annular region of the 55o
premixer is the fact that with a greater swirl angle, there will be
a greater centripetal force on the flow molecules due to the
higher azimuthal velocity. This larger centripetal force will
tend to pull the air molecules away from the hub more in the
55o premixer than the 45o premixer, promoting the boundary
layer growth that was observed. Also, the RMS velocity at the
inner annular region in Fig. 13 can be seen to increase as the
flow moves towards the downstream end of the premixer,
which again reinforces the fact the 55o premixer has a strong
trend of inner boundary layer growth.
Figure 12. Normalized azimuthal RMS velocity for the 45o
premixer.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2005/71119/ on 03/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Figure 11. Normalized azimuthal velocity for the 55o
premixer.
Mean Fuel Concentration
The mean fuel concentration data from both premixers are
shown in Fig. 14 and Fig. 15, respectively. It is easy to see by
inspection that the variations across the annular profile are
larger for the 45o premixer (Fig. 14) than for the 55o premixer
(Fig. 15). All methane concentration measurements were
normalized by the methane concentration at the point of fuel
injection (i.e. 5,000 ppm), which was on the pressure side of the
swirl vanes. Thus, for example, a value of C/Cf of 0.1 indicates
that the measured value of methane was 10% of the methane
concentration at the point of fuel injection, and the fuel has
therefore been diluted by the bulk air flow by a factor of 10.
In Fig. 14, the normalized concentration in the 45o
premixer varies between 0.025 and 0.11 at the most upstream
location and between 0.047 and 0.064 at the most downstream
location. In Fig. 15 the normalized concentration in the 55o
premixer varies between 0.044 and 0.077 at the most upstream
location and between 0.046 and 0.050 at the most downstream
location. Thus, the fuel concentration profiles for the 55o
premixer are more spatially uniform and indicate a more
homogeneous fuel-air mixture generated by this hardware. In
addition, Fig. 14 and Fig. 15 show that even for the most
upstream axial location, the variations in the mean
concentration value are smaller for the 55o premixer than for
Figure 13. Normalized azimuthal RMS velocity for the 55o
premixer.
6 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Figure 14. Normalized fuel concentration for the 45o
premixer.
the 45o premixer. This illustrates that the flow near the swirl
vanes is important in the mixing of the fuel and air. Figure 14
and Fig. 15 also show the importance of mixing length. In Fig.
15, for example, the peak value in the methane concentration
for the 55o premixer diminishes from approximately 0.10 at
x/Dh = 0.87 to only 0.06 at x/Dh = 1.63. The distance between
these two axial locations is only 30% of the total distance
between the trailing edge of the swirl vanes and the exit plane
for the 55o premixer. This is in agreement with the results
reported by Frey et al. [7].
RMS Fuel Concentration
The RMS fuel concentration data are shown in Fig. 16 and
Fig. 17, and are very important since they are related to the
unmixedness of the flow (see Eq. 1). Inspection of Fig. 16 and
Fig. 17 show that the normalized RMS concentration of the 55o
premixer is overall lower than that of the 45o premixer. The
normalized RMS methane concentration for the 45o premixer in
Fig. 16 reaches a peak value of 0.025 to 0.03, whereas the peak
normalized RMS methane concentration for the 55o premixer in
Fig. 17 is approximately 0.02. Figure 16 and Fig. 17 also
reveal that the greatest variations occur at large values of r/R
for both premixers. At small values of r/R for the 45o premixer
the variations reach a peak of 0.022, while the profiles for the
Figure 16. Normalized RMS fuel concentration for the 45o
premixer.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2005/71119/ on 03/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Figure 15. Normalized fuel concentration for the 55o
premixer.
55o premixer are nearly constant at a value of 0.01. These
trends are to be expected since at large values of r/R, RMS
velocity values are low (see Figs. 8, 9, 12, and 13) indicating
low turbulence levels which lead to insufficient mixing when
compared to locations near the hub. Thus, it can be seen that
both premixers exhibit the same trend of larger variations in the
CRMS/Cf profiles at large r/R values, and that these variations are
smaller for the 55o premixer than for the 45o premixer. Overall,
the smaller variations in CRMS/Cf for the 55o premixer indicate
more uniform mixing.
Unmixedness
The unmixedness of the fuel concentration data was
calculated by Eq. (1), and is shown in Fig. 18 through Fig. 20.
Figure 18 shows the unmixedness data for the most upstream
data collection locations for both premixers, and it can be seen
that their values are very similar and large variations exist.
This is to be expected since, in this region, the flow is
developing and mixing is far from uniform. The fact that the
unmixedness is lower in the inner annular region (small values
of r/R) is significant since this region, as discussed above, has
larger RMS velocity levels, which will promote the mixing of
fuel and air.
The data in Fig. 19 are taken at an axial location
approximately half way between the swirl vanes and the exit
Figure 17. Normalized RMS fuel concentration for the 55o
premixer.
7 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 r/R

Figure 18. Unmixedness at x/Dh= 0.89 for the 45o premixer

and x/Dh= 0.87 for the 55o premixer.

Figure 21. Fuel concentration spectrum at selected axial

locations for the 45o premixer.
r/R

the velocity and fuel concentration data presented in this report,

and is likely a result of the higher RMS velocity of the 55o
premixer. It should be noted that the values in Fig. 20 compare
well to the unmixedness values obtained by Frey et al. [7].

Figure 19. Unmixedness at x/Dh= 1.74 for the 45 premixer
and x/Dh= 1.63 for the 55o premixer.
r/R
Concentration Spectrum
o The power spectrum of the fuel concentration was
examined in an effort to gain understanding of the flow as fuel
and air were passing through the premixers. The spectra of the
concentration at selected axial locations for both premixers are
shown in Fig. 21 and Fig. 22, respectively. For ease of
comparison, a line with a slope of -5/3 is placed next to each
power spectrum so that its slope of decay may be compared to
this value, since this slope is indicative that the flow is
receiving turbulent energy at large scales and dissipating it at
small scales.

Both spectra show a preferred frequency at approximately

Figure 20. Unmixedness at x/Dh= 2.60 for the 45o premixer
and x/Dh= 2.60 for the 55o premixer.
planes of the premixers, and it can be seen that the
unmixedness values for both premixers have decreased.
However, the decrease for the 55o premixer is much more
dramatic than for the 45o premixer. By the time the flow has
reached the most downstream data collection location (near the
exit of the premixers), as shown in Fig. 20, the large variations
in unmixedness have dissipated in both premixers. However,
the unmixedness for the 55o premixer is lower than for the 45o
premixer. This is a logical result of the superior mixing
performance of the 55o premixer that was exhibited throughout
142 Hz, and this frequency appears intermittently throughout
the length of the premixers, and is likely to be an effect of the
wakes of the swirl vanes. The fact that these fluctuations
appeared intermittently suggests that the vane wakes are a
localized effect in the flow, even at the most downstream
locations in the premixers. The intensity of this preferred
frequency was seen to decrease slightly along the premixer
length. For example, in Fig. 21 the 142 Hz frequency has a
power spectral density of 0.009 at x/Dh = 0.89, while at x/Dh =
2.17 its power spectral density is approximately three times
lower. Also, in Fig. 22 the power spectral density of the 142
Hz peak is 0.004 at x/Dh = 0.87 and is 0.003 at x/Dh = 2.60,
which is a decrease of only 25%.
In examining the spectrum data, it was found that the
power spectral density of the 142 Hz peak discussed above was
typically on the same order of magnitude for both premixers.
The maximum power spectral density values observed were
typically on the order of 0.004 to 0.0015. Thus, it can be seen
that the flow throughout the premixers is affected by this
fluctuation in methane concentration, and that the relative

8 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2005/71119/ on 03/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo


Figure 22. Fuel concentration spectrum at selected axial
locations for the 55o premixer.
strength of this fluctuation was similar in the premixers. The
fact that this peak is an effect of the swirl vanes and is present
throughout the length of the premixers is evidence that the
turbulence due to the swirl vanes persists in the flow during the
duration of its passage through the premixers.
The power spectrum of both premixers, however, clearly
follows the trend of the -5/3 slope line. This is significant since
it suggests that the flow is receiving turbulent energy at large
scales and dissipating this energy at small scales, as previously
discussed. In the case of flow through a premixer such as the
two examined here, the swirl vanes are an obvious and
significant source of turbulence.
CONCLUSIONS
The velocity and fuel concentration fields of two gas
turbine premixers have been examined experimentally in an
effort to observe the effect of different swirl vane angles.
Experiments were performed under cold flow, atmospheric
conditions. However, based on similarity theory, working
pressure drop ratio and fuel-air momentum flux ratio were
maintained constant and comparable to those encountered
under normal operating conditions. The data collected,
therefore, may serve to validate recently developed Siemens-
Westinghouse in-house numerical flow codes. Once these
codes can reproduce the less stringent conditions reported here
(i.e. low pressure and temperature), they could be extended to
model actual operating conditions. In addition, fuel
concentration profiles obtained in this study may also be uesd
as inlet boundary conditions to the combustion chamber in
combustive calculations.
The data was consistent in that the 55o premixer had a
mixing performance superior to that of the 45o premixer, which
was expected. The data gathered indicated that the improved
mixing of the 55o premixer was present even at locations very
near the swirl vanes, which is in agreement with work done by
other researchers that showed that the flow in the region near
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2005/71119/ on 03/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
the swirl vanes can be highly dissipative and thus important in
the mixing of fuel and air. Velocity and fuel concentration data
could be correlated by considering RMS values. Flow regions
where RMS velocities were high corresponded with more
uniform mixtures of fuel and air. Thus, RMS velocities were a
good indication of the flow turbulence and were seen to be
particularly high in the area near the premixer hub, indicative of
boundary layer growth.
The 55o premixer performance was manifested most
significantly in the calculated unmixedness. This hardware
reached near uniform fuel concentration profiles and, thus, low
unmixedness values at a much lower downstream position
(from the swirl vanes) than the 45o premixer. This suggests
that the 55o premixer would tend to generate smaller amounts
of NOx by the thermal mechanism during combustion. The
spectrum data from the two premixers also showed that
turbulent flow structures from the swirl vanes can affect the
flow field throughout the premixers and may not be dissipated.
Hence, any effort to improve the mixing of fuel and air in gas
turbine mixers must consider heavily the design of the swirl
vanes and the resulting flow behavior around them.
Increasing the swirl angle, although beneficial as shown in
this study, may have downfalls, however. A higher degree of
swirl decreases effective area and increases the pressure drop
across the premixer all of which act to lower burner efficiency.
Further studies similar to the one described here are planned at
high temperatures and pressures to determine the range of swirl
angles that improve mixing and NOx reduction while
maintaining proper operating efficiencies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Siemens-Westinghouse
Power Corporation for financially supporting this work and for
supplying the gas turbine premixers that were examined.
REFERENCES
1. Seinfeld, J. H., 1986, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
of Air Pollution, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
2. Edelman, R., Boccio, J., and Weilerstein, G., 1973, “Roles
of Mixing and Kinetics in Combustion Generated NOx,”
AIChE Symposium Series, 71, pp. 162-172.
3. Terasaki, T. and Hayashi, S., 1996, “Effects of Fuel-Air
Mixing on NOx formation in Non-Premixed Swirl
Burners,” Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 26, pp.
2733-2739.
4. Turns, S. R., 1996, An Introduction to Combustion,
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
5. Fric, T. F., 1993, “Effect of Fuel/Air Unmixedness on NOx
Emissions,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, 9, pp. 708-
713.
6. Steele, R.C., Jarret, A., and Nicol, D., 1995, “Variables
Affecting NOx Formation in Lean-Premixed Combustion,”
ASME Paper No. 95-GT-107.
7. Barnes, J.C. and Mellor, A. M., 1998, “Effect of
Unmixedness in Piloted-Lean Premixed Gas Turbine
Combustors,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, 14, pp.
967-973.
8. Barnes, J.C. and Mellor, A. M., 1998, “Quantifying
Unmixedness in Lean Premixed Combustors Operating at
9 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 High Pressure, Fired Conditions,” Journal of Propulsion Newnham, D. A., Perrin, A., Rinsland, C. P., Schroeder, J.,
and Power, 14, pp. 974-986. Smith, K. M., Smith, M. A. H., Tang, K., Toth, R. A.,
9. Frey, S.F., Eaton, A. R., Cusano, D. M., Plesniak, M. W., Vander Auwera, J., Varanasi, P., and Yoshino, K., 2003,
and Sojka, P. E., 2000, “Effect of Inlet Turbulence and “The HITRAN Molecular Spectroscopic Database: Edition
Premixer Length on Fuel Distribution in Swirling Gas of 2000 Including Updates through 2001,” Journal of
Turbine Premixer,” Journal of Propulsion and Power, 16, Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 82, pp.
pp. 837-844. 5-44.
10. Thomsen, D.D., Ravikrishna, R. V., Cooper, C. S., Jiang,
Y., and Laurendeau, N. M., 2001, “Concentration
Measurements in a Mixing Module for Lean, Premixed
Gas Turbine Combustors,” Journal of Propulsion and
Power, 17, pp. 218-222.
11. Stufflebeam, J. H., Kendrick, D. W., Sowa, W. A., and
Snyder, T. S., 2002, “Quantifying Fuel/Air Unmixedness
in Premixed Nozzles Using and Acetone Fluorescence
Technique,” Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
Power, 124, pp. 39-45.
12. Mori, G., Razore, S., Ubaldi, M., and Zunino, P., 2001,
“Integrated Experimental and Numerical Approach for
Fuel-Air Mixing Prediction in a Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine
LP Burner,” Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
Power, 123, pp. 803-809.
13. Mularz, E. J., 1975, “Flow Characteristics of Various
Swirl-Can Module Designs,” NASA Technical
Memorandum X-3236.
14. Gupta, A. K., Ramavajjala, M. S., Chomiak, J., and
Marchionna, N., 1991, “Burner Geometry Effects on
Combustion and NOx Emission Characteristics Using a
Variable Geometry Swirl Combustor,” Journal of
Propulsion and Power, 7, pp. 473-480.
15. Micklow, G. J. and Shivaraman, K., 1994, “Effect of Swirl
and Wall Geometry on the Emissions of Advanced Gas
Turbine Combustors,” ASME paper no. 94-GT-259.
16. Eaton, A. R., Frey, S. F., Cusano, D. M., Plesniak, M. W.,
and Sojka, P. E., 1999, “Evaluation of Fuel Distribution in
a Gas-Turbine Premixer: Influence of Swirl,” Journal of
Propulsion and Power, 15, pp. 731-734.
17. Girard, J. W., Dibble, R. W., Arellano, L. O., and Smith,
K. O., 2001, “Use of an Extractive Laser Probe for Time-
Resolved Mixture Fraction Measurements in a 9 Atm Gas
Turbine Fuel Injector,” ASME paper no. 2001-GT-0372.
18. Mongia, R. K., Tomita, E., Hsu, F. K., Talbot, L., and
Dibble, R. W., 1996, “Use of an Optical Probe for Time-
Resolved In Situ Measurement of Local Air-to-Fuel Ratio
and Extent of Fuel Mixing with Applications to Low NOx
Emissions in Premixed Gas Turbines,” Proceedings of the
Combustion Institute, 26, pp. 2749-2755.
19. Gray, D. L., and Robiette, A. G., 1979, “Extended
Measurement and Analysis of the ν3 Infrared Band of
Methane,” Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 77, pp. 440-
456.
20. Tsuboi, T., Inomata, K., Tsunoda, Y., Isobe, A., and
Nagoya, K., 1985, “Light Absorption by Hydrocarbon
Molecules at 3.392 mm of He-Ne Laser,” Japanese Journal
of Applied Physics, 24, pp. 8-13.
21. Rothman, L. S., Barbe, A., Chris Benner, D., Brown, L. R.,
Camy-Peyret, C., Carleer, M. R., Chance, K., Clerbaux, C.,
Dana, V., Devi, V. M., Fayt, A., Flaud, J.-M., Gamache, R.
R., Goldman, A., Jacquemart, D., Jucks, K. W., Lafferty,
W. J., Mandin, J.-Y., Massie, S. T., Nemtchinov, V.,

10 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/gt2005/71119/ on 03/25/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo