Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2016

GT2016
June 13-17, 2016, Seoul, South Korea

Draft: GT2016-57223

Validation and Application of Chemical Kinetic Models for Enhancing Gas Turbine
Flexibility

Felix Güthe, Martin Gassner, Stefano Bernero, Thiemo Meeuwissen, Torsten Wind
GE Power
Baden, Switzerland

ABSTRACT This example demonstrates nicely how a development over

In recent years, market trends towards higher power
generation flexibility are driving gas turbine requirements of
operation at stable conditions and below environmental
emission guarantees over a wide range of operating conditions,
such as load, and for changing fuels. In order to achieve these
targets, engine components and operation concept need to be
optimized to minimise emissions (e.g. CO, NOx) and
combustion instabilities, as well as to maximize component
lifetime. Therefore the combination of field experience,
experimental studies and theoretical modelling of flames with
state of the art tools play a key role in enabling the
development of such solutions.
For many applications the relative changes of reactivity
due to changes in operation conditions are important thus in
this report a few examples are shown, where chemical kinetics
simulations are used to determine the reactivity and to predict
engine behaviour. The predicted trends are validated by
correlating them to validation data from high pressure test rigs
and real gas turbine operational data. With this approach the
full operational range from highest reactivity (flashback) to
lowest reactivity (blow out or CO emission increase) are
covered. The study is focused on the sequential combustor
(SEV) of reheat engines and addresses both the safety margins
with respect to highly reactive fuels and achievable load
flexibility with respect to part load CO emissions.
The analysis shows that it is necessary to utilize updated
kinetic mechanisms since older schemes have proved to be
inaccurate. A version of the mechanism developed at NUI
Galway in cooperation with Alstom and Texas A&M was used
and the results are encouraging, since they are well in line with
experimental test data and can be matched to GT conditions to
determine, predict, and optimize their operational range.
several years starting from fundamental basic research over
experimental validation finally delivers a product for power
plants. The GT24 / GT26 can not only be operated with H2
containing fuels, but also at very low part load conditions and
with the integration of H2 from electrolysis (~power to gas
~PTG) the turndown capability can even be further improved.
In this way the energy converted at low electricity prices can be
stored and utilised at later times when it is advantageous to run
the GT at lower loads increasing the overall flexibility. This
development is well suited to integrate renewable energy at
highly fluctuating availability and price to the energy
provisioning by co-firing with conventional fuels.
INTRODUCTION
Motivation and objective
In today’s volatile utility markets, the challenges for the
power generation business include not only highly efficient
operation and strict emission compliance, but also an increasing
demand for flexibility with respect to load and fuels. The
integration of renewable energy is expected to even increasing
the demand for flexible power generation and storage, which
require balancing measures for load flexibility and energy
storage. According to several recent studies on the German and
European energy market, the fraction of negative residual
electricity prices will rise from several 100 h per year to over
1000 h per year [1, 2, 3].
This gives rise to promising business opportunities for
energy storage applications. For gas turbine (GT) power plants
this could include power to gas applications [4, 5], where
excess power can be electrolysed to produce H2 that can be
stored, transported and sold or consumed in GT at times when it

© 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH. All rights reserved. Information contained in this document is indicative only. No representation or
warranty is given or should be relied on that it is complete or correct or will apply to any particular project. This will depend on the technical and
commercial circumstances. It is provided without liability and is subject to change without notice. Reproduction, use or disclosure to third parties, without
express written authority, is strictly prohibited.
1 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH
is technically beneficial and economically rewarding [6, 7]. The
economy of such application depends on the value and the
usage of the produced H2. Possible utilisations include the
addition to the gas pipeline or usage for automotive mobility.
Another application is to utilise the produced fuel in the gas
turbine to reduce fuel costs.
This can also be achieved after methanisation, i.e. the use
of H2 for reduction of CO2 to CH4, but direct H2 usage allows
much higher efficiency of the overall process and additionally
can be exploited to extend operational flexibility by enabling
GTs to operate at conditions where they would normally not
operate. It will be shown that the GT operation can be extended
into the part load range at times when electricity prices are low
and availability at low actual fuel consumption cost is
rewarding.
Integrating the PTG- conversion into the scope of power
plant operation offers some interesting economic opportunities
for highly flexible power plants become interesting. A
prerequisite for this is a GT which is highly flexible with
respect to load and fuel variations, which is capable to produce
energy from natural gas co fired with H2 from electrolysis or
even from gasification plants. Apart such PTG-applications,
combusting fuels of varying composition is a relevant challenge
for syngas applications (e.g. co-firing of refinery gases, or
generated through gasification), and for power plants that are
affected by major changes of the available gas (e.g. due to
seasonal variation of suppliers through pipelines and/or LNG).
The relevant parameters for combustion thereby include
not only energetic and volumetric properties such as heating
value and Wobbe index, but also its reactivity (i.e. ignition
properties and flame speeds), which significantly affects
combustion stability and emissions. Since these characteristics
are particularly sensitive to pressure, high pressure tests in
engine conditions are usually considered a mandatory step in
the development of new combustors or their upgrade. High
pressure testing is yet complex and very costly, and is therefore
to be kept at the strict minimum. In past years, this has
motivated the development of accurate kinetic reaction models
to capture the behaviour of a variety of fuel blends. The
application of such models in the design phase has the potential
to reduce development time and the need for extensive testing
of new hardware or alternative operation concepts, and thus
significant improve cost, quality and time-to-market.
In this scenario combustion in the GT is still crucial to the
power generation schemes of the next decades, even at reduced
fossil fuel consumption and carbon foot print this technology
will be required for stabilization of the grid to allow the
integration of renewable energy and their optimised utilisation.
Well suited for such application are modern GTs like reheat
GT26 / GT24 with sequential combustion [8]. They have been
described earlier and consist of two consecutive combustors
separated by a high pressure turbine. The two combustor
operate in different regimes and some detail of the burner
development has been reported [9]. They are developed for low
emissions and high flexibility and a load change between the
combustors allows stable operation over a wide range of fuels
2 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH
and load points. This GTs have are to cope with a variety of
fuels and allow for emission-compliant operation at very low
loads [8, 9, 10].
With the objective to demonstrate the utility and benefits of
such an approach, this paper recapitulates the major validation
steps of an detailed kinetic reaction mechanism for natural gas
blends including significant amounts of higher hydrocarbons
(C2+) and hydrogen, and demonstrates the benefits of such an
approach for the design of new products and upgrades targeting
flexibility.
This work demonstrates the fuel flexibility with the goal to
further increase the load flexibility utilising the fuel flexible
combustor and the converted renewable energy (PTG-H2) at
lowest cost to operate independently over an even wider range
of energy prices while remaining connected to the grid.
Development steps
The development of new combustion features can be
separated into several steps:
1. As first step of the fuel flexible GT pants development the
combustion behaviour has to be predicted using proper
chemical kinetics tools including kinetics at GT condition
for natural gas and hydrogen fuels, since many older
chemical mechanisms are not accurate enough. The
chemical parameters of interest are calculated for GT
conditions [11].
2. The next step includes the validation in the laboratory [12]
and for wider conditions included in the chemical kinetics
mechanism [13]. The mechanisms are developed in
cooperation with the National University of Galway
(NUIG) and Texas A & M University (TAMU) over the last
decade to update the hydrocarbon chemistry for higher
alkanes and to include H2 as fuel.
3. A further step in the development is the high pressure (HP)
validation [14] on full scale test rigs, which is highlighted in
this work.
4. As last step (4) the field engine validation and experience in
commercial operation can lead to validated co-firing
concepts for C2+. Based on the validation results, the
confidence gained with the implemented tools and process
can enable the extension of such concepts to include H2
fuels.
OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLES AND BOUNDARIES OF
REHEAT COMBUSTORS
The combustor of reheat engines can be operated over a
wide range of conditions, such as fuel composition and power
output at very high efficiency. Limiting the operation of a gas
turbine combustor are the lean blow-off limit (often indicated
by increasing pulsations or CO emissions as a precursor and
finally leading to flame blow out) and at the rich limit flashback
events which risk to reduce the lifetime of combustor and
burner hardware. In reheat engines, the two combustors are
coupled [8] through the fact that the first combustor’s output
(temperature and composition) is determining the sequential
combustor’s input. Consequently both combustors have to be
optimized and kept in the stable operation range, but through
their coupling both follow the same trend (with fuel reactivity)
allowing an elegant compensation and the fuel split between
first and second fuel flow even offers additional freedom.

Figure 1: EV Flashback. Increased reactivity in the EV

burner flow field causes the flame to move upstream

First (EV) combustor: Flashback and Lean Blow-Off

The first combustor is usually operated at lower
temperature and uses an aerodynamic stabilization mechanism
like a vortex stabilized premixed combustion (EnVironmental
vortex - EV) and produce hot gas as inlet into the high pressure
turbine (HPT) and sequential combustor (SEV). The reactivity
of the EV is dominated by the turbulent flame speed (st) and
parameters that influence that, like turbulence and laminar
flame speed (sl). The latter is changing with fuel composition
and with hot gas temperature Thg. Mixing quality and stability
can also be influenced by the staging ratio of the two fuel
stages within the EV burner. An increase of reactivity causes
the flame to move upstream against the gas flow as
schematically indicated in Figure 1.
For aerodynamically stabilized flames, when increasing
reactivity an operation point can be reached where the flame
jumps to a new location, as indicated by thermocouple
readings, changes in pressure drop and sudden increase of NOx
formation in the performed tests that have been reported earlier
[14]. H2 contents of over >50%vol have been tested at base
load and part load conditions and largely increased Thg
(+200K). Although signs of flame movements were observable
at high Thg, no damage on burners was observed and the H2
content was limited by the fuel supply system rather than the
burner performance.
The EV burner has proven to be robust against reactivity
changes due to fuel composition variation. NOx emissions seem
to scale with reactivity due to changes in flame position but no
clear impact of changes in the Wobbe index can be identified
(Figure 2). Plotted are data from series of reference fuel
(natural gas) and additions of H2, N2, C2+ and C2+&H2, where
C2+ is the sum of all higher hydrocarbons in the fuel
composition and H2 is the hydrogen content. The NOx shown
are not directly measured but interpolated from HP data series
to correspond to the same Thg.
Figure 2 NOx values for interpolated to fixed Thg = Tref .
plotted vs. fuel content (C2+ & H2) and plotted vs. Wobbe
index
While the data plotted vs. Wobbe index seem to be
uncorrelated, the plot vs. C2+&H2 reveals some correlation
with higher NOx for fuels of higher reactivity, assuming a linear
relationship to C2+&H2 and similar contribution of C2+ and H2
to reactivity. A more accurate description could eventually
improve the match, but within the required accuracy and for the
sake of simplicity a linear index is preferred for concentrations
< 60% C2+&H2. The NOx increase can be compensated by
reducing Thg, which is also required for the reduction of SEV
inlet conditions. Not that also the lean blow out (LBO) limit
shift with fuel reactivity.
On the low reactivity end the burner limit is given by the
flame moving away from the stabilizing vortex out of the
burner into the combustor. This can be accompanied by
eventual pulsations and CO increase before actual blow out.
Both limits can be related to the turbulent flame speed st and
are subject to ongoing studies for a wide range of conditions,
fuels [15, 16] and pressures.
The weak correlation of the Wobbe index with the NOx
demonstrates the small impact on the mixing quality of the EV

3 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH

compared to the flame position and fuel reactivity. The Wobbe
index is useful to assess the impact of fuel changes on fuel
pressure drop for given burners and fuel handling systems. The
same quantity also impacts jet penetration when fuel is injected
into the burner, but any impact on burner mixing and NOx
emission of the EV-burner is secondary compared to the flame
moving according to its reactivity.
The correlation to C2+&H2 is not perfect but shows a
reasonable trend. Note also that the scaling of fuel composition
with reactivity does not have to be linear, nor has the addition
of different fuel components (C2, C3, or H2) to be of similar
magnitude. Therefore the scaling of NOx with the combined
index C2+&H2 is remarkably good and useful for adjustment of
GTs.
Figure 3: SEV flashback from [14]. SEV burner and
schematic flame position on the left and temperature level
on the right
SEV combustor: Flashback and CO emissions
The SEV (Sequential EnVironmental) is an auto-igniting
combustor where fuel is injected into the hot exhaust gas of the
high pressure turbine (see [8] for details). The combustion of
the gas then consists of several (overlapping) phases and time
scales, which are governed by different parameters: ignition,
heat release and CO burnout. The kinetics in the ignition phase
are principally dependent on the temperature and composition
of the reactants (i.e. THPT_out ( ~TSEV_in), fuel/air ratio, fuel
composition and temperature). The ignition time tignition
determines the flame position within the combustor. The heat
release and CO oxidation time scales are mainly governed by
the hot gas temperature (Thg) as well as fuel composition. The
inlet temperature influences the auto-ignition delay time and
therefore the residence time after ignition. This again is
indirectly controlling the CO burnout.
The operational limits of the SEV are between flashback
and LBO, which is usually indicated by gradual rise in CO for
the sequential combustor, rather than pulsations or
instantaneous flame loss. The latter turns out to be a convenient
feature of the reheat flame. The flashback has been discussed
earlier [14] and is demonstrated in Figure 3. Depending on the
flame reactivity the flame moves upstream towards the injector.
When the inlet temperature is increased (Figure 3 upper left)
4 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH
also the thermocouple reading (Figure 3 middle left) increases
proportional to the increase of heat input by the vitiated air, but
also tign decreases so that the flame approaches the
thermocouple and additional heat input increases the
thermocouple reading indicating the vicinity of the flame tip.
This is visible as kink in the TC reading. The Delta TC curve
(Figure 3 lower left) shows schematically the difference
between the expected temperature caused only by TSEVin
increase and the measurement. Although no damages to the
burner have been detected this point was used as boundary to
limit the operation of the burner and has been termed flashback.
The lean limit of operation has been determined by the
completion of the CO oxidation within the gas turbine. Since
oxidation is slowed down by cooling, further reaction in the
turbine can be neglected and only the CO oxidation within the
combustor is relevant.
Based on time scales, a qualitative criterion (Equation 1)
was formulated [17] for CO emissions relating the combustor
residence time (tres) to the chemical time scales tign, which is
mainly depending on the inlet temperature and tburnout mainly
depending on the hot gas temperature of the SEV combustor
(~TLPT in):
t res  tign (TSEV _ IN )  tCO_burnout(Thotgas)
Equation 1
In general, CO emissions can be low (near the equilibrium)
when the residence time is longer than the required overall
reaction time to equilibrium, i.e. the time for the ignition and
oxidation of CO.
MODELLING APPROACH
For the sequential combustion both combustors have to be
kept within the stability limits of each combustion system.
What at first sight seems to be an additional constraint but
actually turns into an advantage is the coupling of the first and
the sequential stage. A change of fuel reactivity can be
compensated with a change of fuel split between the two
burners retaining the combustor stable at constant power.
It is assumed that exact matching of flame shape and
position is not required for an accurate prediction of trends with
varying fuels and inlet conditions. The hypothesis is rather that
scaling according to physical principal parameters seems useful
to predict GT behaviour and emissions. Other than for NOx
predictions, where mixing plays a major role, for the LBO and
CO predictions premixed conditions appear sufficient in the
reactor calculations coupled to experimental validation. Any a
priori quantitative CO prediction would have to include more
physical effects like mixing, leakages of cold streams or
quenching effects of the CO oxidation.
The relative reactivities of the two combustors can be
calculated using chemical kinetics simulations like the laminar
flame speed solver PREMIX or the perfectly stirred reactor
(PSR) for the first (EV) combustor operating at lean premixed
conditions and a plug flow reactor (PFR) for the reheat
combustor (SEV). Solvers used are from either the Chemkin
Pro program package from Reaction Design/Ansys or a
corresponding open source software like Cantera.
Kinetic models
The choice of the chemical reaction mechanism proves to
be important as will be shown later. The validation of the
chemical models for the correct conditions is crucial when
using the model predictions for GT operations. The model used
here is based on the work done in former years incrementally
increasing confidence by validation on all levels of maturity
[11, 12, 13, 14] with the engine validation demonstrated here. .
The kinetic model is under continuous improvement at NUI
Galway and is referred to as NUIG model. We have used a
version of the AramcoMech1.3 (2013) [18], with minor
modifications for improved numerical convergence. To give an
impression of the importance of choosing the right model and
of the improvements that has been made to the chemical
kinetics in matching GT conditions some results are compared
to the GRI3.0 model [19], which still serves as standard for
many applied researchers.
For a more quantitative assessment of the CO burnout the
ignition and oxidation times are normalised to a scale
representing the residence time, which provides a
dimensionless quantity that characterises the time required for
complete burnout vs. the time available in the combustor. The
reduced reaction time (RTR) is defined in Equation 2. As a
rough estimate, the residence time scale is assumed
proportional to the ratio of hot gas volume flow at the
combustor exit (including also cooling air) and the geometrical
volume of the combustor.
t ign  t burnout
RTR 
t res
Equation 2

Premix combustor model

The reactivity in the first premix combustor (i. e. EV) can
be described by the laminar flame speed sl calculated for
example with the PREMIX code or the PSR extinction time
tPSR_ext , which is defined [14] as the shortest residence time of a
PSR that allows ignition to take place. In turbulent flow fields
the extension to the turbulent flame speed st seems desirable.
For natural gas mixtures st correlations (described in [15, 16])
are useful while they tend to be less accurately validated for Figure 4 CO-profile for the reheat -tignition flame
predictions of H2 and C2+ containing fuels over varying Tinlet
Theoretically, a value of RTR = 1 represents just sufficient
and Thg. Especially for the atmospheric testing and
time for complete burnout, and lower values indicate
extrapolations to higher pressures this leaves some gaps to be
insufficient residence time and thus incomplete conversion of
filled by expensive full scale testing.
CO. Due to the simple representation of the SEV combustor
To understand the influence of different fuels or other
(i.e. a closed, uncooled plug-flow reactor, perfectly mixed inlet
parameters on the stability of the burners the chemical
conditions, usage of average quantities instead of detailed local
reactivity needs to be scaled in the turbulent field.
conditions), this phenomenological approach does yet not
attempt a direct prediction of CO emissions from reaction
Sequential combustor model
kinetics. Instead, it provides a non-dimensional indicator
For the sequential combustor one combustion limit is given quantifying the relative influence of the governing phenomena,
by the highest reactivity or shortest allowable tign, which is to which CO emissions can be correlated.
referred to as flashback, while the lower end of reactivity LBO
is indicated by insufficient CO burnout and the rise CO VALIDATION WITH RIG DATA
emissions. In the simulation within the PFR this is resembled
Experimental validation of the kinetic predictions are done
by the combination of tign and tburnout as indicated by Equation 1.
at full scale combustors at DLR Köln at full pressure and are in
Both quantities can also be predicted as shown in Figure 4.
part described in [14]. Test were done for a wide range of fuels,
The two cases modelled both represent part load
changing C2+, H2, N2 and fuel temperature as well as operating
conditions, but one with higher TSEV_in (and shorther tign) and
conditions.
lower Thg (and longer tburnout) compared to the other extreme.
Two types of tests are highlighted here:
The ignition time tign can be defined on the profile of
1. For the flashback testing the test was started with a given
temperature (i.e. 3/4 of T-rise) or species (i. e. CH, or CH2 ) and
fuel at low TSEVinlet. As explained in Figure 3 TSEVinlet was
the burnout time tburnout can be defined as CO passing a value of
then increased to force the flame moving inward as
1.5 times the equilibrium value. All definitions seem equivalent
observed on the thermocouple reading. From the continuous
but should be used consistently for comparisons.

5 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH

 data recordings (~1 Hz) the corresponding condition were
extracted and calculated (Figure 5).
2. For the LBO tests the CO were carefully measured for each
fuel at defined TSEVinlet and Thg allowing sufficient time for
equilibrated emission measurements (Figure 6).
Flashback behaviour
The flash back test were conducted [14] for natural gas
fuels with up to 45% H2 and 35% C2+ added. With this
procedure ca. 20 cases were recorded were the flame was in the
vicinity of the thermocouple indicating a similar flame position
and varying TSEVin. These cases (for given fuel and TSEVin) were
analysed using the PFR model including a given fraction of
cooling air from lance and burner. The obtained values for tign
all correspond to the same flame position. They are plotted in
Figure 5 as histogram (note the log scale for distance) for the
distance that is derived from multiplication of tign with the mean
burner velocity.
GRI 3.0 seems not appropriate to lay out a combustor operation
concept for varying fuels while the NUIG gives satisfactory
results without tuning of the results.
CO emissions
The second criterion concerns the LBO which is indicated
by increased CO emissions. Since the flame is not lost the GT
can be operated close to a defined guarantee level at part load.
Experimental data for some selected fuels and conditions are
shown in Figure 6. CO emissions at part load depend on TSEVin,
fuel reactivity and on Thg. Natural gas is taken as reference
(green line). Note that two different test runs yield almost
identical results. At reduced Thg (upper graph blue) the CO
emissions increase for given TSEVin reducing the CO emission
compliant operation.

Figure 5: Histogram and distribution probability of

ignition distance calculated from the flashback
condition for different fuels (C2+, H2 and N2) and
burner temperature (log spacing)
The position of the thermocouple is given as black square
around 0.22m and very near the centre of the distribution of
ignition events for the NUIG model (events shown in red bars-
centre shown by the green arrow). The GRI30 results are shown
as blue bars and are 2-3 times shorter. Also the accuracy to
predict the ignition position for different fuels show relatively Figure 6: Measured CO values for low load operation
small scatter (10%) with the NUIG model while the GRI data with varied fuel, TAT vs. Thg (lower graph) and vs TAT
seem less consistent (25% scatter). The scatter is given by the (upper graph)
standard deviation relative to the mean. For comparison a
The lower graph shows the CO increase with decreasing
Gaussian distribution from mean and standard deviation is
Thg, which means decreased power output and fuel
plotted as lines (blue –dashed for GRI and red continuous for
consumption. This can be mitigated in part by operating at
NUIG) and actual events are indicated by symbols.
higher TSEVin (red graph) or with more reactive fuel (yellow).
The comparison of the magnitude and the scatter of results
The dilution with N2 is accompanied by cooling and leads to
indicates the importance of the accurate kinetic model for
less reactive conditions and increased CO emissions. The
predictions and of burner behaviour also in GT operations. The

6 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH

largely reduced CO emission with 20% H2 fuel basically are
promising for low load operation in compliance with
environmental regulations.
While some trends are observable, an overall picture is
maybe difficult to extract from the graph. Only a selection of
the available measurements has been chosen for the graph since
some other data are referring to slightly different conditions and
therefore should not be connected by one line. For example
several C2+ points were not included.
A better understanding is obtained if all measurement
points could be included into one larger validation dataset and
put into one graph. To achieve this, the reduced reaction time
RTR (Equation 2) is calculated for measurement points at
varied and fuel compositions and temperatures.
For complete burnout the CO concentration is reaching the
equilibrium value regardless of the residence time or reaction
rates. This is an important boundary case to refer the data to.
Since the equilibrium value is changing with Thg the data would
look more scattered if they were plotted as absolute values. In
Figure 7 the CO values are normalised to that equilibrium
value.
Figure 7: Measured CO values (normalised to CO
equilibrium) for low load operation with varied fuel (H2 and
C2+ up to 45%), TAT and Thg vs. reduced reaction time for
the updated model (NUIG) and the GRI3.0 (inserted) .
For short RTR (and complete combustion) a value of 1 is
expected but for some points actually lower values (by a factor
1-3) are measured. This depends on the specific probe and
sample treatment since the CO concentration is still decreasing
while cooling the extracted combusted gases within the
sampling probe before it is quenched to a value that is finally
detected. For hot temperature and high CO values this reduces
the concentration further, while the effect is less important for
low temperatures and higher CO values like the part load cases
considered here, where the CO reaction is quenched before the
combusted gases are sampled.
The CO values vs. RTR are plotted in Figure 7 for all part
load operation point calculated with the NUIG model and the
GRI3.0 model (inserted). Shown are data from three different
test runs over all fuels (summarising H2, C2+, N2 and Tfuel
variation) and temperature variation. The coherence of the data
is not as good as for the flashback data but a clear correlation of
CO emissions to RTR can be seen for the validated NUIG
7 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH
mechanisms while the GRI data are much more scattered. For
high reactivity the CO values are near the equilibrium values as
expected. In the logarithmic plot the CO-values seem to start
increasing for RTR>1 while the GRI data scatter around half of
that values. As indicted by the hand-drawn average line for low
reactivity (high ) the CO values approach a fixed value where
either all fuel is converted to CO or no reaction takes place at
all, corresponding to low CO for very high tign.
This kind of plot enables to interpret all fuel variations in
one plot rather treating each fuel separately and therefore uses
validation on a large data base. It validates the approach to use
chemical kinetics simulations for full scale combustor
behaviour and includes C2+, N2, but also H2, for which GT data
are rare. It also highlights the importance to use the validated
accurate model since this would not give useful correlations
with the inaccurate model (i. e: the GRI 3.0).
The next step of validation of the approach is the
application of the model to real GT data and the transfer of the
single burner high pressure with H2 to engine validation.
ASSESSMENT WITH FLEET DATA
As a last validation step of the kinetic mechanism and
engine models, its predictions are assessed with available
adjustment and test data from GT26 fleet engines. Compared to
laboratory experiments (e.g. shock tubes) and combustor rig
tests, engine data can thereby be expected to show larger scatter
due to a number of additional parameters whose influence
cannot be accurately determined or controlled. GT24 / GT26
gas turbines are featured with annular combustion chambers
that unite up to 24 individual burners in a mechanically
sophisticated assembly [20]. Manufacturing and assembly
tolerances, and resulting differences in cooling and leakage
flows thereby cause local flow conditions through the
individual burners to marginally differ, which can affect the
overall behaviour of the combustor. CO emissions are thereby
particularly sensitive due to the strong influence of local
conditions around the flame zone on the burnout. A part this
direct influence, indirect effects are caused by the need for
controlling the engines’ pulsation behaviour. As a specific
measure, combustor staging, i.e. the creation of temperature
inhomogeneities in the annular combustor to uncouple flame-
structure interactions, results in a few colder burners that
produce over proportionally more CO than compensated by the
hotter-than-average combustion zones.
The following paragraphs illustrate the validation of the
kinetic models for an individual engine and a representative
subset of the GT26 fleet. The validation is thereby only feasible
with respect to CO behaviour and subject to available fuel
composition on-site. A flashback assessment as carried out in
the rig tests is not shown since fleet engines have not been
instrumented for this purpose. They are inherently kept safe by
appropriate control measures that ensure sufficient margin.
Individual engine characteristics
In analogy to the rig test data presented above, Figure 8
shows measured CO emissions of a representative GT26 engine
with respect to the normalised reaction time in the SEV
combustor (Equation 2). The latter has been determined from
the operation data and an appropriate model of the engine. The
SEV inlet temperature (TSEVin) and the fuel composition (only
C2+) are directly measured, whereas the air composition, air
and fuel flow are derived from design models considering
ambient conditions and various measured parameters across the
engine.
relationship in the data, and results in the formation of several
clusters. At the part load emission target of 100 [mg/m3], RTR
seems to lie a factor 2-3 lower and scattered over a wide range
depending on the fuel.
Fleet characteristics
In order to illustrate the validity of the models in an overall
fleet context, the assessment of the previous paragraphs is
completed here through a comparison of the characteristics of a
representative ensemble of reasonably similar engines. The
units considered for this purpose form a fleet of a specific
GT26 rating with identical turbomachinery components, yet
allowing for minor differences in some details of the combustor
parts and their manufacturing process. Paired with minor
differences in the assembly and accordingly the cooling and
leakage flows, this affects the engines’ emission and pulsation
behaviour. An engine-specific adjustment of the combustor
staging and operational parameters is therefore required, which
takes also site-specific conditions (e.g. ambient conditions, fuel
composition) and requirements (local emission regulations,
commercial operation strategies) into account.

Figure 8: Measured CO emissions vs. normalised reaction

time for a specific engine with large variation of fuel C2+
content (colours). Data points span 3.5 years (28’000 EOH)
of operation.
The data depicted in Figure 8 has been collected at
different occasions spread over a full maintenance interval of
the engine, i.e. from initial new commissioning until its first
overhaul after 28’000 equivalent operation hours (EOH). The
specific site has thereby been subject to large variations of fuel
composition. In particular, the content of higher hydrocarbons
(C2+) is varying between 0% to more than 9%mol, which
significantly affects the reactivity of the fuel. The resulting
impact on the ignition kinetics causes the CO emissions of the
engine to vary by one order of magnitude for identical
operation points. As illustrated by the graph, the engine model
is able to capture such large variations with reasonable
accuracy if an appropriate kinetic model is used. The
application of the NUIG-mechanism collapses the data from
these very different operation points and fuel composition Figure 9: Comparison of fleet data with expected characteristics
within an accuracy of RTR ±0.1, which is a reasonably accurate derived from reaction kinetics. Coloured points indicate fleet
model to be applied with confidence for predicting the engine engines at a specific fixed CO emission limit (~MEL), lines
behaviour. For a reduced reaction time near 1 a typical part load (black: NUIG, grey: GRI3.0) represent design data at a constant
emission target of 100 [mg/m3] seems achievable. The overall RTR of 1 (full lines) ± 0.1 (dotted lines).
correlation is similar to the HP test data (Figure 7). As shown in
comparison in the upper left frame of the figure, the less Figure 9 summarises the CO behaviour of the selected
accurate GRI3.0 mechanism fails to provide a distinctive GT26 fleet engines with respect to the C2+ content of the

8 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH

available fuel. The lines on the graph indicate the expected fuels. At least with the reheat engines PTG applications appear
evolution of an engine’s relative load at constant RTR for to be feasible.
changing fuel gas reactivity. As demonstrated in the previous
chapters, the RTR can thereby be considered representative for
CO emissions. When fuel C2+ content is high, relative load can
be significantly reduced since the reduction of firing
temperature (and therefore oxidation kinetics) is compensated
by a faster ignition phase of the more reactive fuel components.
The black line, calculated using the NUIG model-
mechanism, sketches a physical limit of the minimum
achievable load level for a given C2+ content and CO emission
limit (i.e. at RTR=1). The grey line represents the same
characteristic calculated with the GRI3.0-mechanisms, which
would predict much lower loads to be compliant with MEL.
These predictions are compared to the final adjustment of
the engines after new commissioning or a major overhaul with Figure 10: schematic reduction of MEL with increased
replacement/reconditioning of hot gas parts. These points are reactivity fuel.
coloured with respect to the SEV inlet temperature (TSEVin),
The advantage of PTG –H2 for low load operation is
which illustrates the differences of the individual adjustment of
briefly sketched in Figure 10. The MEL can be expressed at
the units. Adjusting to higher TSEVin would reduce RTR and
fuel saved while remaining on the grid in fast load response.
allow lower loads (shift to the left). An upper limit at high TSEVin
The low load operation makes particular use produced H2 at
is given for lifetime reasons considering higher metal
operation points, which could not be achieved without the H2.
temperatures. The flashback risk at reduced reactivity is not
This should be economically rewarding if prices fluctuate and if
increased for slightly higher TSEVin. Therefore not all points in
low load parking operation for GT (allowing fast load changes)
the graph have been optimized to low part load behavior1. They
are awarded financially.
are however limited by the red / orange points (Tref+ 20/30K),
which are lying close to the predictions of the NUIG
CONCLUSIONS
mechanism. Despite the scatter2, the data indicate that this
simple combustor model based on the accurate NUIG reaction Key to the successful product development was starting
kinetics captures the overall behaviour of the fleet engines quite with fundamental research extending the validation of the
well when appropriate kinetic schemes are used. The grey line kinetic mechanism. While the GRI3.0 fails to predict the
represents the same characteristic calculated with the GRI3.0- experimental outcome the NUIG model (ARAMCO1.3) can be
mechanisms, which obviously fails to characterise the used to predict GT combustion behaviour for a wide range of
behaviour of the fleet. fuel reactivity including C2+ and H2 fuels.
Following the reasoning form the HP-tests the same The fuel flexibility for GT has been demonstrated on the
prediction can be used for H2 co-firing when replacing C2+ by example of the reheat GT using sequential combustors. In a
a C2+&H2 ordinate. comprehensive development cycle, fundamental studies on
As demonstrated in Figure 9 reheat engines can not only kinetics and the physical combustion process and validation
operate at high reactivities due to C2+; the addition of C2+ can work has been followed by experimental full scale burner
also extend the operational range of the GT in compliance with validation up to engine pressures. Further field engine
emission regulations and effectively reduces the minimum validation for C2+ fuels (where different fuels were available
environmental load (MEL). The comparison with the HP single but not freely selectable) has demonstrated the prediction
burner full scale test can be used to transfer the H2 experience capacity of the models. The missing gap in the validation could
to the GTs and allows estimating the operation for H2 be sufficiently closed by full scale high pressure tests with
containing fuels. It further allows predicting an extended varied H2 content.
operation range utilising the H2 fuel, especially for C2+ poor The fuel flexibility with respect to C2+ and H2 is therefore
demonstrated at least with respect of the reheat combustion
system to be possible with minimal output power changes. With
1
For the non-negligible number of points that are situated in the the systematic characterisation and the improved understanding
suboptimal domain (i.e. on the upper right of the characteristic line), the of the physical combustion processes the fuel flexibility of
colouring of the data suggests that these engines are commissioned to lower other GT frames can be understood and extended. This will be
TSEVin (and thus higher CO). This indicates that due to various possible reasons, useful for several applications of H2 co-combustion. The usage
less emphasis might have been put to operate the engine at lowest CO
emissions in the low part load domain. of H2 from electrolysis and PTG on power plants in co-firing
2
Other engine adjustment parameters (e.g. fuel staging, secondary air with natural gas can be combined with part load extension
flows etc) are known to influence the emission and pulsation behaviour, but are obtaining a further advantage of the H2 which could not be
omitted here since a systematic assessment is difficult to integrate in the simple obtained with less reactive fuels. This way the H2 is not only
models as applied here.

9 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH

stored energy but also used with a specific advantage when
utilising it by keeping a plant running at very low loads when 5 Karl-Friedrich Ziegahn et al., “Von Kohlehalden und
electricity prices are low and availability must be retained. Wasserstoff Energiespeicher – zentrale Elemente der
A large portion of the required flexibility in the energy Energieversorgung”, Herausgeber: Deutsche
market will have to be realised by gas turbines. Combustion Bunsengesellschaft für Physikalische Chemie, 2013 Frankfurt
will continue to play a big role in the energy market for the next am Main.
decades even when integrating more and more renewables into 6 Jens Hüttenrauch ,“ Zumischung von Wasserstoff zum Erdgas
the energy mix the GT’s will serve as an intermediate storage “, Energie |/ Wasser-Praxis 2010.
medium highly efficient and flexible gas turbines are a must. 7 Gert Müller-Syring et al., Abschlussbericht "Entwicklung von
modularen Konzepten zur Erzeugung, Speicherung und
NOMENCLATURE Einspeisung von Wasserstoff und Methan ins Erdgasnetz" (G
1/07/10) Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches
GT gas turbine
e.V.2013.
PTG Power to gas
8 F. Güthe, J. Hellat, P. Floor: The reheat concept: The proven
EV EnVironmental (burner / combustor) pathway to ultra-low emissions and high efficiency and
SEV Sequential EnVironmental (burner /
flexibility, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
combustor)
HPT/LPT high pressure turbine / low pressure turbine
Power, 131, 021503 (2009)
9 K. Michael Düsing, Andrea Ciani, Urs Benz, Adnan Eroglu,
Thg Hot gas temperature
Klaus Knapp: Development of GT24 and GT26 (Upgrades
THPT_out Turbine outlet Temperature (HPT: High
2011) Reheat Combustors, Achieving Reduced Emissions And
(~TSEV_in), Pressure Turbine / LPT: Low Pressure
Increased Fuel Flexibility, ASME Turbo Expo 2013, San
Turbine)
Antonio, Texas, USA, GT2013-95437
tign Ignition delay time scale 10 D. Therkorn, M. Gassner, V. Lonneux, M. Zhang,
tburnout CO- oxidation time scale S. Bernero: CCPP operational flexibility extension below 30%
tres Residence time scale load using reheat burner switch-off concept, ASME Turbo
RTR reduced reaction time Expo 2015, Montréal, Canada, GT2015-42446
sl Laminar flame speed 11 M. Brower, E. Petersen, W. Metcalfe, H. Curran, N. Aluri, F.
st Turbulent flame speed Guethe, M. Füri, G. Bourque, "Ignition Delay Time and
LBO lean blow out Laminar Flame Speed Calculations for Natural Gas/Hydrogen
PSR perfectly stirred reactor Blends at Elevated Pressures", Journal of Engineering for Gas
PFR Plug flow reactor Turbines and Power, 135, 021504-1 (2013)
tPSR ext PSR extinction time 12 M. L. Brower, O. Mathieu, E. L. Petersen, N. Donohoe, A.
C2+ relative content of higher alkanes Heufer, W. K. Metcalfe, H. J. Curran, G. Bourque, F. Güthe,
C2+&H2 relative content of higher alkanes and H2 "Ignition Delay Time Experiments For Natural Gas/Hydrogen
MEL Minimum Environmental Load Blends At Elevated Pressures", ASME Turbo Expo 2013, San
Antonio, Texas, USA, GT2013-95151
REFERENCES 13 N. Donohoe, A. Heufer, W. M. Metcalfe, H. J. Curran,
M. L. Davis, O. Mathieu, D. Plichta A. Morones,
E. L. Petersen, F. Güthe: Ignition delay times, laminar flame
1 Kohler, S., Agricola, A., Seidl, H., Höflich, B. et al. – Dena
speeds, and mechanism validation for natural gas/hydrogen
Grid Study II, Integration of Renewable Energy Sources in the
blends at elevated pressure, Combustion and Flame 2014, pp.
German Power Supply System from 2015 – 2020 with an
Outlook to 2025, German Energy Agency, 2010 1432-1443.
2 Philipp Götz, Dr. Johannes Henkel, Thorsten Lenck, Dr. 14 T. Wind, F. Güthe, K. Syed, Co-Firing of Hydrogen and
Konstantin Lenz, “Negative Strompreise”, Energy Brainpool: Natural Gases in Lean Premix Conventional and Reheat
Studie Analyse, Energy Brainpool, for Agora Energiewende, Burners (Alstom GT26), ASME Turbo Expo 2014, Düsseldorf,
2014 Germany, GT2014-25813
3 Philipp Götz, Marie-Louise Heddrich, Dr. Johannes Henkel, 15 S. Ravi, A. Morones, E. L. Petersen, F. Güthe, Effects Of
Tobias Kurth, Thorsten Lenck ”Zukünftige Auswirkungen der Hydrogen Addition On The Flame Speeds Of Natural Gas
Sechs-Stunden-Regelung gemäß § 24 EEG 2014”, Kurzstudie Blends Under Uniform Turbulent Conditions, ASME Turbo
im Auftrag des Bundesverbands WindEnergie e.V, 2014 Expo 2015, Montreal, Canada, GT2015-42903
4 Nadia Grimm, Immo Zoch, Uta Weiß, 16 E. M. Burke, F. Güthe, R. F.D. Monaghan, A Comparison of
Fachbroschuere_Power_to_Gas, “Integration erneuerbaren Turbulent Flame Speed Correlations for Hydrocarbon Fuels at
Stroms in das Erdgasnetz.- Power to Gas – eine innovative Elevated Pressures, ASME Turbo Expo 2016, Seoul, South
Systemlösung für die Energieversorgung von morgen Korea, GT2016-57804
entwickeln.“, Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (dena), 5/2012. 17 F. Guethe, D. Stankovic, F. Genin, K. Syed, D. Winkler,
Flue Gas Recirculation of the Alstom Sequential Gas Turbine

10 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH

Combustor Tested at high Pressure, ASME Turbo Expo 2011,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Germany, GT2011-
45379
18 http://c3.nuigalway.ie/mechanisms.html
19 Gregory P. Smith, David M. Golden, Michael Frenklach,
Nigel W. Moriarty, Boris Eiteneer, Mikhail Goldenberg, C.
Thomas Bowman, Ronald K. Hanson, Soonho Song, William
C. Gardiner, Jr., Vitali V. Lissianski, and Zhiwei Qin
http://www.me.berkeley.edu/gri_mech/
20 K. Döbbeling, J. Hellat, H. Koch, 25 Years of
BBC/ABB/Alstom Lean Premix Combustion Technologies, J.
Eng. Gas Tubines Power 2005 (129).

11 Copyright © 2016 by General Electric Technology GmbH