Proceedings of GT2005
ASME Turbo Expo 2005: Power for Land, Sea and Air
A NEW CALCULATION APPROACH TO THE ENERGY BALANCE OF A GAS TURBINE
INCLUDING A STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF MEASURED PARAMETERS
Helmer G. Andersen, Dr. Pen-Chung Chen
ALSTOM
2800 Waterford Lake Drive
Midlothian, Virginia 23112
e-mail: helmer.andersen@power.alstom.com
ABSTRACT
Computing the solution to the energy balance around a gas
turbine in order to calculate the intake mass flow and the
turbine inlet temperature requires several iterations. This
makes hand calculations very difficult and, depending on the
software used, even causes significant calculation times on
PCs. While this may not seem all that important considering
the power of today’s personal computers, the approach
described in this paper presents a new way of looking at the
gas turbine process and the resulting simplifications in the
calculations.
This paper offers a new approach to compute the energy
balance around a gas turbine. The energy balance requires that
all energy flows going into and out of the control volume be
accounted for. The difficulty of the energy balance equation
around a gas turbine lies in the fact that the exhaust gas
composition is unknown as long as the intake flow is
unknown. Thus, a composition needs to be assumed when
computing the exhaust gas enthalpy. This allows the
calculation of the intake flow, which in turn provides a new
exhaust gas composition, and so forth.
By viewing the exhaust gas as a flow consisting of ambient air
and combusted fuel, the described iteration can be avoided.
The study presents the formulation of the energy balance
applying this approach and looks at the accuracy of the result
as a function of the inaccuracy of the input parameters.
Furthermore, solutions of the energy balance are presented for
various process scenarios, and the impact of the uncertainty of
key process parameter is analyzed.
Keywords: Performance calculation, gas turbines
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 04/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
June 6-9, 2005, Reno-Tahoe, Nevada, USA
GT2005-68430
INTRODUCTION
As little as 10 years ago, on-line gas turbine performance
calculations were impossible in part due to the limitations in
the CPU’s of personal computers. Thus, during performance
tests of gas turbine or combined-cycle power plants,
significant efforts were undertaken without being able to judge
if any measurement error was present. The performance
calculation is required in order to calculate the compressor
intake flow and the turbine inlet temperature. The desire to
instantly know if the measurements were producing
meaningful results caused the testing community to push for
on-line measurement evaluation systems. Andersen, Chen and
Hartmann describe one example of an on-line measurement
system in [1]. However, these systems were very slow and
required top of the line PC’s in order to perform the
performance calculations. The duration of the calculations
were driven by the fact that the codes required iterations. In
each iteration enthalpies of multiple mixtures have to be
calculated, which is time consuming.
Interestingly enough, all the efforts to reduce calculation times
were focused on improving the coding, such as using more
efficient numeric methods to improve the iterations, and using
faster and more efficient computer programming codes, such
as C++ instead of visual basic. However, none or few efforts
were made to solve the root cause of the problem and develop
a code that avoids the iteration completely.
This paper presents a solution that does not require any
iterative calculations and thus makes it possible to perform the
performance calculations even in spreadsheets. The solution is
based on viewing the problem in a different way. The
traditional method views the exhaust gas as a mixture of
unknown composition that needs to be assumed and then
verified/corrected by means of iterations. The method
1 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 presented in this paper views the exhaust flow as consisting of
excess air (ambient air), stoichiometric combusted fuel and
water (steam).

NOMENCLATURE
cp: specific heat at constant pressure, (kJ/kg K)
h: specific stagnation enthalpy, (kJ/kg)
LHV: lower heating (calorific) value, (kJ/kg of fuel)
Lmin: amount of air required for stoichiometric combustion,
(kg dry Air/kg fuel)
m: mass flow rate, (kg/s)
p: pressure, (bara, barg)
Figure 1: Control volume around a gas turbine
P: power, (kW)
q: specific heat flow rate (kJ/kg s)
Q: heat flow rate (kJ/s)
The following values will typically be measured:
Rh: relative humidity
SH: sensible heat
Intake (cpr0): t, p and Rh.
t: temperature, (deg C)
Compr. Discharge (cpr2): t, p
TIT : turbine inlet temperature
Fuel: composition, flow rate, t
xextr: fraction of extraction air with respect to compressor
Injection fluid: flow rate, t, p
intake flow (mcpr0), (kg/kg of air @ cpr0)
Exhaust (e2): t, p
Electrical: power, paux
x w: fraction of water in the air, (kg/kg of dry air)
The following values are typically estimated based upon
ξi: Mass fraction of the constituent i in a mixture design information:
Losses: bearing, heat, generator, gearbox (if
Subscripts: applicable)
air: air Seal air: flow rates, t
aux: auxiliary Extraction air: m, t
cprod: combustion products
cpr: compressor The schematic and the traditional calculation method is
cpr0: ambient described in detail in [2].
cpr1: compressor inlet
cpr2: compressor outlet The conventional way to formulate the energy balance for the
ex: excess air (not participating in combustion) indicated control volume is:
extr: extraction PNet + P aux + Q extr + Q loss + Q e2 = Q cpr0 + Q fuel + Q inj (1)
el: electrical (losses i.e. generator, transformer)
e1: expansion turbine inlet (= combustor outlet)
e2: expansion turbine outlet => PNet + P aux + Q extr + Qloss - Qfuel - Qinj = (2)
fuel: fuel m cpr1 * (hcpr0 - he2 ) - (mfuel + m inj - m extr) * he2
gen: generator
heat: heat (losses)
Inj: injection (water or steam) In this equation only the compressor intake flow and the
loss: loss (heat or mass or power) exhaust gas enthalpy are unknown. Assuming an exhaust gas
mech: mechanical (losses, i.e. bearing, gearbox) composition, the compressor intake flow mcpr1 can be
seal: compressor or turbine seal air calculated, which in turn supplies an exhaust gas enthalpy
tur: turbine according to equation (7):
w: water
he2 = x e2, air * he2, air + x e2,w * h e2,w + x cprod * hcprod (7)
x: fraction (note: fractions are always referenced to the
dry air flow)
Refer to the appendix for Equations (3) – (6).
ENERGY BALANCE OF A GAS TURBINE
The following schematic (refer to Figure 1), shows all the With the calculated exhaust enthalpy, the intake flow can be
energy and mass flows that need to be considered when calculated according to equation (1) until the assumed exhaust
formulating the energy balance around a gas turbine. enthalpy is equal to the calculated exhaust enthalpy according
to equation (7).

2 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 04/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The enthalpy of the combustion product hcprod is trivial once
the molar flows for the stoichiometric combustion have been
calculated. It should be noted, that even for Dry Low NOx
combustors, where the fuel is burnt in an oxygen-rich
environment, the composition of the exhaust gas is
nevertheless the same as if the fuel were burnt with a
stoichiometric fuel-to-air ratio.
ENERGY & MASS BALANCE OF A GAS TURBINE
(NEW APPROACH)
Note, that all terms used to express me2 are either known or a
function of mcpr0. The next task is to combine the energy and
mass balance equations. The energy balance, as mentioned in
the previous section, equation (1) is expressed as:
PNet+Paux+ Qextr+Qloss + Qe2 = Qcpr0+Qfuel + Qinj (13)
where PNet and Paux are measured. The calculation of the
energy loss due to extraction air and other losses is shown in
the appendix, equation (14) – (16).

The energy balance is exactly the same equation as listed In the following each term will either be expressed as a
above. However, the mass balance, while in principal the function of mcpr0 or a known (measured) entity. The exhaust
same, is formulated differently: energy can be expressed as:

Qe2 = ( mcprod + m e2,w + m ex ) * he2 (17)

= mcprod * h cprod + m e2,w * h e2,w + m ex * he2,air (18)
= mfuel * (1 + L min ) * hcprod
+ [ minj +m cpr0 *(1-(xseal,cpr,loss +x seal,tur,loss )*xw] * h e2,w
+ [mcpr0 *(1-(xseal,cpr,loss +x seal,tur,loss )
-m fuel *Lmin - mextr] * h e2,air (19)

Note that all terms except for the compressor intake mass flow
are known. With that, the entire left side of equation (13) is
known or a function of the compressor intake flow. The terms
on the right side are all known or a function of the compressor
intake flow; refer to the appendix for equations (20) – (22).

Figure 2: Mass balance control volume around a The only remaining unknown in the energy equation is the
gas turbine compressor intake flow mcpr0.

The mass balance for the above control volume may be Solving the energy equation with respect to mcpr0 yields the
written as follows: following equation:

mcpr0 + m fuel + m inj = m e2 + m cpr1 *(xseal,cpr,loss +x seal,tur,loss ) mcpr0 = (1 + x w) * [m fuel *(dqcprod - qfuel) (23)
+m extr (8) + dQ inj + P]/(q cpr0 - qe2,w - qe2,air - qseal - qextr)

Equation (23) can be solved directly, as it only has one

The exhaust flow is consisting of: unknown mcpr0. For the significance of the variables used in
• Combustion products equation (23), refer to the appendix equation (24) – (32).
• Excess air (not participating in the combustion
process) Thus, the first goal of the study to present an equation that
• Water (from the injection as well as from the ambient does not require any iteration for the calculation of the
air) compressor intake flow is achieved.

This may be expressed as:

me2 = m cprod + m e2,w + m ex (9)

where:
mcprod = mfuel * (1 + L min ) (10)
me2,w = m inj +m cpr0,air * (1-(xseal,cpr,loss +x seal,tur,loss ) * x w (11)
mex = mcpr0,air *(1-(xseal,cpr,loss +x seal,tur,loss )-mfuel * Lmin - mextr
(12)

3 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 04/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


OTHER GAS TURBINE CONFIGURATIONS
The most typical performance test by far includes the
calculation of the compressor intake mass flow. However, due
to cost reductions, single-shaft combined cycle plants where
the gas turbine and the steam turbine share a generator, are
becoming more common. In order to test such an arrangement,
where the power of the gas turbine cannot be measured, the
intake flow needs to be determined by other means. This
could, for instance, be done with a bellmouth measurement.
If the compressor intake flow can be determined by other
means, all that remains is to solve the above equation with
respect to P, which is a trivial problem (one equation, one
unknown).
INNER ENERGY & MASS BALANCE OF A GAS
TURBINE (TIT CALCULATION)
The calculation of the turbine inlet temperature TIT requires
either an energy balance around the combustor or an energy
balance around the turbine. The turbine inlet temperature TIT
as defined per ISO2314 is equal to the combustor exit
temperature where the combustor exit flow includes all turbine
cooling airflows. The energy balance in flow direction around
the combustor is the preferred method, although both
obviously yield the same result (this is a good way of checking
the calculation results).
METHOD ONE: MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE
AROUND THE COMBUSTOR
The only new term in these equations is the energy term at the
compressor discharge. Both the composition and the
temperature at that location are known. The mass flow can
easily be derived via a mass balance around the compressor:
Figure 3: Mass balance control volume
around the compressor
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 04/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Mass and energy balance around the combustor:
Mass balance:
me1 = m cpr2 + m inj + m fuel (33)
Energy Balance:
Qcpr2 + Q fuel - Qheat,loss + m inj * h inj = m e1 * h e1 (34)
Note, that in accordance with ISO 2314, the turbine seal air
part that is extracted from the compressor and mixed with the
exhaust mass flow me2, is neglected in the above.
mcpr0 = m cpr2 + m seal,cpr,loss + m seal,tur,loss (35)
and
mcpr2 = mcpr0 * (1 -x seal,cpr,loss - x seal,tur,loss ) (36)
Combining the above equations (34) and (36) and solving
them with respect to the turbine inlet enthalpy yields:
he1 = [mcpr2 *(hcpr2,air +x w*hcpr2,w )+m fuel *(LHV+ c p,fuel *[t fuel -15.5])
+ m inj *hinj ]/[mcpr2 +m fuel + m inj ] (37)
The composition of the mass flow at the turbine inlet is the
same as it is at the turbine exhaust (e2), and thus it is known
from the previous section.
Given that the enthalpy of a mixture is equal to the sum of the
enthalpies of the constituents multiplied by the mass fractions
of the constituents, the solution presents itself as a set of
equations:
hmix (te1 ) = Σ ξi * hi (te1 ) (38)
Depending on the kind of polynomial that is used to
approximate the enthalpy of the constituent, the problem may
require an iterative process to determine the turbine inlet
temperature TIT (= te1). The most commonly used enthalpy
polynomials are those referenced in [4]. These equations are
of the 8th order and thus do not permit the calculation of a
direct solution. In order to present a solution that does not
require iterations, the enthalpy equations must be
approximated by an equation of the 2nd order.
By approximating the polynomials to a 2nd order for the entire
expected temperature range, a certain inaccuracy (approx. 1%)
cannot be avoided. However, it permits the calculation to be
done in a spreadsheet without any iteration. The inaccuracy
can be reduced to an insignificant amount, if the polynomials
are approximated for smaller temperature intervals such as
200°C. For a performance calculation that needs to be in
accordance with a certain code, such as PTC 22 (refer to [2]),
the approach may be to use the 2nd order polynomial to
calculate the starting value for the iteration. That way a time
consuming iteration can be avoided, and, at the same time, the
calculation can claim to be in accordance with the required
codes.
4 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 METHOD TWO: ENERGY AND MASS BALANCE
AROUND THE TURBINE
Figure 4: Mass and energy balance control volume
Mass balance:
me1 = m e2
Energy balance:
PNet + P aux + P loss + P cpr + m e2 * h e2
= m e1 *he1 +m cpr0,air *x seal,tur *(hseal,tur ,air +x w*hseal,tur,w )
Again, in accordance with ISO 2314, the turbine seal airflow
is neglected.
The energy balance around the compressor can be used to
derive the compressor power; refer to Figure #3:
Energy balance around the compressor:
Pcpr + Q cpr0 = Qcpr2 +Qseal,loss+Qseal,turb
=> Pcpr = Qcpr2 - Qcpr0 + (Qseal,loss+Qseal,turb )
Combining the above equations yields:
he1 = [Qcpr2 - Qcpr0 + Qseal,loss + PNet + P aux + P loss
+ me2 *he2 ]/m e2
If everything is done correctly, equation (37) and equation
(43) should yield the same result.
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 04/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
IMPACT OF THE MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTIES
ON THE CALCULATED COMPRESSOR INTAKE
MASS FLOW
In the last section of this study, the impact of measurement
uncertainties on the result of the calculated compressor intake
mass flow shall be investigated.
The energy balance rarely yields the correct result on the first
attempt, unless a huge effort has been undertaken to ensure the
correct measurement of all process data. In most cases, a
reasonable attempt will be made to check all measurements,
and then a pre-test run will be initiated. The performance
engineer is now faced with the task to pinpoint the incorrectly
measured process data and correct the measurements.
The following table shows the typically measured data, the
assumed data (based on design information) and the impact
the listed uncertainty will have on the calculated value of
mcpr0.
The default value of the uncertainty is 0.5%. Only the bold
(39) parameters with a gray background have a different
uncertainty:
• Relative humidity transmitters are not as accurate,
and, in addition, the measured value varies a lot with
(40) the location of the transmitter.
• While laboratories should be able to measure well
within 0.5%, the measurement’s uncertainty is
increased by the uncertainty of how well the sample
represents the fuel used during the test (variations in
the fuel quality).
• Design data is deemed less accurate than measured
values.
(41)
(42)
(43)
5 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 Input Data
Parameter Abbrv. Value Unit delta dMk1 dTIT CONCLUSIONS
Ambient Pres Pcpr0 1013 mbar 5.1 0.0% 0.0
Ambient
Tcpr0 15 °C 1.4 0.2% -1.7
This paper presents a solution to the energy balance around
Temperature the gas turbine that does not require any iterative calculations,
Amb. Rel.
RHcpr0 60 % 6.0 -0.1% -0.1
and thus makes it possible to perform the performance
Humidity calculations even in spreadsheets. The solution is based on
Compr. Disch.
Tcpr2 370 °C 3.2 0.0% 2.6 viewing the problem in a different way. The traditional
Temp. method views the exhaust gas and a mixture of unknown
Fuel Flow Rate mfuel 5.1 kg/s 0.03 0.9% -2.0 composition that needs to be assumed and then verified/
corrected by means of iterations. The method presented in this
Fuel Temp tfuel 150 °C 2.1 0.0% 0.0 study views the exhaust flow as consisting of excess air
Fuel Composition (ambient air), stoichiometric combusted fuel and water
(steam). This approach allows solving the equation directly.
phi_CH4 CH4 95 % vol. 1.0 0.0% 0.0
phi_C2H6 C2H6 2 % vol. 1.0 0.0% 0.0 In order to solve the internal energy balance to gain the turbine
phi_C3H8 C3H8 1 % vol. 1.0 -0.1% 0.2 inlet temperature without iterations, the enthalpy equations
phi_N2 N2 1 % vol. 1.0 -2.7% 4.2 must be approximated with polynomials of the second order.
phi_CO2 CO2 1 % vol. 1.0 -3.7% 7.6 This can be done without sacrificing the accuracy of the result.
Injection Fluid (Steam)
The uncertainty analysis indicates which process parameters
Steam Flow are important to the overall uncertainty of the calculated
minj 12 kg/s 0.06 0.0% -0.2
Rate results. The fuel measurement, both the flow rate as well as
Steam Temp Tinj 320 °C 1.6 0.0% -0.1 the composition, are by far the most important process
Power P 80000 kW 400 -0.3% 1.7 parameters.
Exhaust
Te2 515 °C 2.6 -0.6% 3.6
Temperature

Sealing Flows (Design Data)

REFERENCES
Turb Seal Rel.
xseal,tur 0.432 % 0.1 0.0% -0.3
F Rate [1] Andersen, H., Chen, P-C., and Hartmann, T., “Advanced
Turb Seal loss xseal,tur, Gas Turbine Monitoring and Diagnostic Technology for
0.008 % 0 0.0% 0.0
Rel. F Rate loss Modern Power Plants,” Proceedings of 2003 International
Cpr Seal Rel. F Joint Power Generation Conference, paper no. IJPGC2003-
xseal,cpr 0.13 % 0.1 0.0% 0.0
Rate 40189.
Cpr Seal loss xseal,cpr,
0.065 % 0.1 0.0% 0.0
Rel. F Rate loss [2] ASME Codes and Standards, Gas Turbines, PTC 22-1997
T_Seal_Air “Performance Test Code on Gas Turbines”
tseal 78.5 °C 5 0.0% 0.0
(turb=cpr)
Pgen, [3] ISO Standards, ISO 2314-1989,“Gas Turbines,
Generator Loss loss
1350 kW 14 0.0% 0.0 Acceptance Tests”
Bearing Losses Pbrg, loss 300 kW 10 0.0% 0.0 [4] National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Glenn
Pheat, Research Center, Cleveland, OH, NASA/TP-2002-211556,
Other losses 70 kW 10 0.0% 0.0
loss “Glenn Coefficients for Calculating Thermodynamic
Total (Absolute) 8.7% 24.3 Properties of Individual Species”

Table #1: Required input data with uncertainties and [5] ASME Codes and Standards, Performance Test Codes,
the impact on the results of the energy balance PTC 19.1-1998, “Test Uncertainty”

It is obvious that the focus must be on the fuel flow, both the
flow rate as well as the constituents. In particular, the
constituents that have a significantly different heating value
than methane, such as the inert gases as well as Propane,
Butane, etc. The overall uncertainty of 8.7% as shown above
for the compressor intake flow is hardly acceptable. PCT-19.1,
refer to [5], covers the uncertainty calculation of measurement
data. Furthermore, [2] lists uncertainty requirements for
process measurements.

6 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 04/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Appendix:
Calculation of the exhaust gas enthalpy:

The exhaust flow is consisting of:

• Combustion products
• Water (from the injection as well as from the ambient
air)
• Excess air (not participating in the combustion
process)

me2 = m cpr0 + m fuel + m inj - m ext (3)

x cprod = m fuel * (1 + L min )/me2 (4)
x e2,wt = [(m cpr0 - m extr) * x w + m inj ]/me2 (5)
x e2, air = 1 - x e2,w - x cprod (6)

Qextr = m extr * h extr = x extr * (hextr,air + x w* hextr,w) * m cpr0,air (14)

Energy loss due to Extraction air:

Note: the composition of the extraction air is the same as

ambient air (wet and dry components).

The loss term may be expressed as:

Qloss = mcpr0 *(xseal,cpr,loss *hseal,cpr,loss +x seal,tur,loss *hseal,tur,loss ) (15)
+ Q el + Q heat + Q mech
= mcpr0,air *[x seal,cpr,loss *(hseal,cpr,loss,air +x w * hseal,cpr,loss,w ) (16)
+x seal,tur,loss * (hseal,tur,loss,air + x w * hseal,tur,loss,w )]
+ Q el + Q heat + Q mech

The energy from the intake air, the fuel and injected water or
steam may be expressed as:

Qcpr0 = m cpr0,air * (hcpr0,air + x w * hcpr0,w ) (20)

Qfuel = m fuel *(LHV+SH)=mfuel *(LHV+c p,fuel *[t fuel -15.5]) (21)

Qinj = m inj * h inj (22)

Abreviations:
dqcprod = (1+ L min ) * hcprod - Lmin * h e2,air (24)
qfuel = (LHV+ c p,fuel *[t fuel - 15.5]) (25)
dQinj = m inj * (he2,w - hinj ) (26)
P = P Net + Σ losses (mech & electrial) (27)
qcpr0 = (hcpr0,air + x w * hcpr0,w ) (28)
qe2,w = [1-(xseal,cpr,loss +x seal,tur,loss )-xextr]*x w*he2,w (29)
qe2,air = [1-(xseal,cpr,loss +x seal,tur,loss )-xextr]*he2,air (30)
qseal = x seal,cpr,loss *(hseal,cpr,loss,air +x w*hseal,cpr,loss,w ) (31)
+x seal,tur,loss *(hseal,tur,loss,air +x w*hseal,tur,loss,w )
qextr = x extr * (hextr,air + x w* hextr,w) (32)

7 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 04/10/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use