A

Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2018

tte
Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition

nd
ee
GT2018
June 11-15, 2018, Oslo, Norway

R
ea
d-
O
nl
GT2018-76374

y
C
op
y
EXTENDED RANGE OF FUEL CAPABILITY FOR GT13E2 AEV BURNER WITH
LIQUID AND GASEOUS FUELS

Martin Zajadatz, Felix Güthe, Ewald Freitag, Jeffrey Goldmeer

Theodoros Ferreira-Providakis, Torsten Wind, General Electric
and Fulvio Magni 1 River Road, 40-503K
General Electric Schenectady, NY 12345-6000
Brown Boveri Str. 7 USA
5401 Baden
Switzerland

C2+ & H2 High reactivity components: C2+, H2

ABSTRACT
AEV Advanced EnVironmental burner2
The gas turbine market tends to drive development towards FAME Fatty acid methyl ester – Biodiesel
higher operational and fuel flexibility. In order to meet these FB Flashback
requirements the GT13E21 combustion system with the AEV FBN Fuel bound nitrogen in weight %
FSR Front Stage ratio
burner has been further developed to extend the range of fuels
HEL Heating oil
according to GE fuel capabilities. LBO Lean blow off
The development includes operation with diluted natural LCO Light crude oil
gas, gases with very high C2+ contents up to liquefied petroleum LHV Lower Heating Value in MJ/kg
gas on the gaseous fuels side and non-standard liquid fuels such LPG Liquified petroleum gas
as biodiesel and light crude oil. Results of full scale high pressure m fuel, front stage Fuel mass flow front stage
single burner combustion test in the test facilities at DLR-Köln
are shown to demonstrate these capabilities. With these tests at m fuel, total Fuel mass flow total
typical pressure and temperature conditions safe operation
ranges with respect to flame flashback and lean blow out were y fuel Fuel mass fraction
identified. In addition, the recent burner mapping at the DLR in X Axial lance position
Köln results in emission behavior similar to typical fuels as x fuel Fuel mole fraction
natural gas and fuel oil #2. It was also possible to achieve low
Ω Water to fuel mass ratio
emission levels with liquid fuels with a high fuel bound nitrogen
content. ρair(0°C ) Density at 0°C (1.293 kg/m3)
Based on these results the GT13E2 gas turbine has
demonstrated capability with a high variety of gaseous and liquid
ρ gas(T ) Fuel gas density at gas temperature T (kg/m3)
fuel at power ranges of 200 MW and above. The fuels can be WI Wobbe index: ρ gas ( T )
applied without specific engine adjustments or major hardware WI net = LHV mass ∗ ρ gas ( T )
changes over a whole range of gas turbine operation including ρ air ( 0 ° C )
startup and GT acceleration. sl Laminar flame speed
st Turbulent flame speed
NOMENCLATURE Tflame Adiabatic flame temperature
n>2 Uburner Burner tube velocity at burner outlet
C2+ Higher hydrocarbons:
∑ [C n H 2n+2 ] m fuel, frontstage
n FSR FSR =
m fuel, total

1 2
GT13E2 is a trademark of General Electric Company AEV is a trademark of General Electric Company

1 Copyright © 2018 ASME

 zeta burner ζ~∆p*2/ρ/uburner2 that are low in ash and trace metals can provide a low-cost
PSR perfectly stirred reactor solution in regions where gas and refined liquid products, i.e.
t PSR, residence distillates, are not available in volume, or at a viable cost for use
PSR time factor: t PSR_factor = in a gas turbine.
t PSR_ext This paper documents an evaluation of these categories of
AEV- Long Lance – long lance version for AEV alternative power generation fuels for use in the GT13E2 AEV
combustion system.

INTRODUCTION GT13E2 OPERATION WITH AEV BURNER

Access to electricity is an important element in creating The GT13E2 [6] is designed with an annular combustor. In
economic growth across the world. According to Peter Voser, the the front plate of this combustor 48 AEV burners are installed.
2011 Energy Community Leader for the World Economic The AEV burner is a dual fuel burner system for dry low NOx
Forum, “without heat, light and power you cannot build or run and for liquid fuel operation with emulsion water.
the factories and cities that provide goods, jobs and homes, nor Development of this AEV burner variant is based on earlier
enjoy the amenities that make life more comfortable and work [7] and included advanced diagnostics [8, 9], modeling and
enjoyable. Energy is the ‘oxygen’ of the economy and the life- thermoacoustic analysis [10, 11]. The principles of operation
blood of growth” [1]. have been described before for GT13E2 gas turbines [12, 13] as
Providing this energy in the form of electricity is the goal of well as for the smaller industrial turbines [14, 15].
the global power generation industry. But, the power generation The AEV burner consists of four quarter shells, which are
industry itself has been undergoing fundamental changes with generating a swirl stabilized air flow field at the burner exit.
large shifts from traditional fossil fuels to renewable power. Downstream of the shells a defined mixing zone generates a
However, this shift is not happening equally across the globe. nearly perfect fuel gas and combustion air mixture. The AEV
Some regions and countries continue a reliance upon more burners are designed based on the staged combustion concept
traditional fossil fuels for power. But, even the traditional fuel with two fuel stages. The main stage gas is injected over small
mix is undergoing transformation as new fuels are being used for injection holes in the slots between the shells. The front stage gas
large-scale gas turbine power generation applications. is injected through multiple holes in the front face of the AEV as
One clear shift is towards the use of natural gas, liquefied displayed in Figure 1. In the lower load range, a high amount of
natural gas (LNG) and shale gas given by the abundance of these front stage gas is supplied to the combustor, which provides a
fuels. Unfortunately, there are no international standards for very reliable operation of the AEV burner with respect to flame
natural gas or LNG. For example, in the US natural gas must extinction and pulsations. At higher load, less external fuel
have more than 70 mol% methane [2], while the EU standard injection is required and correspondingly lower emissions are
requires at least 80 mol% methane [3]. To highlight these achieved.
differences Goldmeer, et al [4, 5] examined available
composition data for LNG and US shale gases. The results
showed that there can be significant variation in composition of
higher hydrocarbons (i.e. ethane, propane, butane) leading to
variations in both heating value and Wobbe index. Given the
range of potential fuels that could be available in any given
region, this suggests that any platform operating on these fuels
needs the capability to operate on a wide range of fuels.
But, there are also global regions where gaseous fuels, i.e. Figure 1: Cross-section of the AEV burner, gas operation.
NG, LNG, shale gases, and/or LPG are not readily available or
not available at economically viable prices. In these situations, The burner geometry is optimized for low combustion air
liquid fuels may be the viable power generation fuel. In Africa, pressure drop at high flow velocities. As a result of the high flow
the Middle East and Asia, diesel fuels, a variety of crude oils and velocities the AEV burner provides also a broad safety margin
heavy fuel oil (HFO) are readily available and are used for power against flashback for reactive fuels.
generation. Depending on the economics of any given region, the The fuel distribution at the AEV burner is defined with the
choice of liquid fuel can vary from higher quality distillates, i.e. front stage ratio
fuel oil #2, to heavier distillates, light and medium crudes, as m fuel, frontstage
well as residual fuels. FSR =
m fuel, total
The interest in increased efficiency in power generation is
shifting in some regions away from the heavier, ash-bearing where mfuel,front stage and mfuel, total are the fuel mass flows through
liquid fuels to distillates and in some cases light crude oils. The the front stage and the total fuel supplied to the GT.
use of light crude oils in advanced, F-class gas turbines has been In liquid fuel operation the main fuel is injected directly over
documented and is in commercial use. The use of light crudes a central lance stage in the head of the conical shaped air swirler
as shown in Figure 2. Due to the highly turbulent flow conditions

2 Copyright © 2018 ASME

and the geometry of the swirler as well as the mixing zone, Figure 4 shows the single burner high pressure test rig as
sufficient residence time is given to complete the atomization, used for the experiments in this report. The high-pressure
pre-vaporization and mixing of the fuel with combustion air. The combustor is accessible via ports in various planes for pulsation
AEV burner can therefore be operated on typical liquid fuels probes, emission measurement rakes and optical probes. The
with a low amount of demineralized emulsion water. flexible design of the test rig allows the arrangement of the
Up to now the liquid fuel capabilities of the AEV burner as pulsation and video probes day by day based on the specific test
of Figure 2 have been limited to oil #2 and fuels with a similar requirements. The first plane in the combustor however was used
distillation curve. This is due to the requirement to pre-vaporize in general for the ignitor and optical side access.
the fuel from the central stage within the burner and to achieve a During the tests the high-pressure combustor was
sufficiently uniform fuel air mixture for low emissions and safe configured with 50 thermocouples and 8 pressure probes for test
operation. Especially a high concentration of liquid fuel at the supervision, in the burner hood a second H2 igniter was installed
burner walls should be avoided, since it can lead to the deposition for the specific flash back and flame holding tests. The high-
of coke and fuel residues along the burner wall and subsequent pressure test rig infrastructure allows the operation of the AEV
flashback or autoignition with flame holding. Next to the liquid burner under pressure, temperature and flow conditions relevant
fuel atomizer characteristics, the ability to achieve evaporation for the GT13E2 gas turbine.
within the burner depends strongly on the temperature and
pressure of the combustion air over the GT load range, in
combination with the distillation curve of the fuel.

Figure 2: Cross-section of the AEV burner, liquid fuel

To allow the combustion of special liquid fuels like light
crude oil (LCO) and biodiesel with the GT13E2 AEV burner, a
Long Lance has been developed at GE Switzerland, as shown in Figure 4: AEV single burner high pressure test rig; standard rig
Figure 3. This configuration comes at the cost of reduced instrumentation
premixing and higher water consumption to achieve low NOx,
but provides the capability to operate on a wide range of different GASEOUS FUEL PROPERTIES
liquid fuels – especially fuels containing components with a high Important parameters differentiating fuels are reactivity (i.e.
distillation temperature – while requiring only a small laminar flame speed sl) and physical properties like density and
modification to the existing combustion system. The axial lance heating value (LHV). The latter can be combined in the Wobbe
tip position is defined in relation to the burner exit plane. index to allow classification of their ability to interchange with a
Retraction of the lance into the burner results in negative axial burner of fixed geometry at a constant gas pressure.
lance position. ρ gas (T )

WI = LHV ∗ ρ gas ( T )
ρ air ( 0 ° C )
The Wobbe index WI considers the lower heating value, the
density and the temperature of the fuel gas. While the focus of
the WI is on the fuel handling system considering valves,
orifices, etc., it also impacts the injection properties within the
burner and can influence mixing and safety features of the
burner.
Figure 3: Cross-section of the AEV burner with long lance with A further differentiator for fuels is the fuel reactivity, as it
liquid fuel injection. can be quantified by chemical kinetics, for example in terms of
The fuel capability of the AEV burner system was investigated flame speed or kinetic time scales [16]. In lean premixed
with a systematic approach based on CFD calculations, full scale combustion beside hydrogen higher hydrocarbons are also
atmospheric water tunnel, spray tests and combustion tests and increasing the reactivity. The most reactive saturated aliphatic is
finally high pressure single burner tests. ethane (C2H6), as can be seen in the comparison of the laminar
flame speed sl in Figure 5. The values were calculated with a

3 Copyright © 2018 ASME

version of the ARAMCO mechanism [17]. All calculations were the high reactivity end a flashback would mean that the flame
performed at the same inlet air temperature of 720K and at a front of the turbulent flame moves against the main flow towards
flame temperature of Tflame = 1700K as well as a combustion the fuel injector, potentially damaging the burner or altering
pressure of 15 bar. These conditions are sampling relevant emissions and stability.
conditions for the GT13 gas turbine. During high pressure tests the dew point of the hydrocarbons
Ethane shows the highest laminar flame speed of all can lead to operational limitations by condensation in the fuel
saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons (CnH2n+2) and therefore serves supply at the respective fuel pressure. This can be mitigated by
as benchmark fuel with respect to reactivity within the natural fuel preheating as can be seen in Figure 6.
gas components. The relative reactivity balances at least two
effects: The hydrocarbons chain length increases slightly the
chemical reactivity, but the larger molecule size slows down the
transport properties, which determine the diffusion across the
flame front and therefore the laminar flame speed. Interestingly
propane has a minimum at these conditions. The sl for an average
C2+ for natural gas is shown additionally. The average C2+ is
composed for natural gas with an average of naturally occurring
composition of C2-C5 in methane.
The comparison for the turbulent flame speed st shows
similar trends as for the laminar flame speed (and are not
explicitly shown here). The turbulent flame speed is increasing
for smaller molecules in the turbulent flow field even more. The
exact determination of turbulent flame speed for the investigated Figure 6: Pressure dependence of dew point temperature of pure
fuels depends for example on assumptions of the thickness of the alkanes and required fuel pressure for the high-pressure test rig.
flame front in the turbulent flow field and Lewis number effects Since the dew point of ethane near baseload pressure is
[18]. The correlations for the turbulent flame speed at the around 0°C, this fuel was operated up to baseload without issues.
temperature and pressure conditions typical for gas turbines st For propane, the dew point at baseload pressure is around 50°C.
are varying depending on the reference and validation is still Since in this campaign the fuel could not be preheated to above
subject of current research as described earlier [19]. ambient temperature, the operation window was. It however was
At the right side of Figure 5 the laminar flame speed over possible to test at 8 bar combustion pressure with 100% C3H8,
the flame temperature for natural gas with 6% C2+ as reference close to the dew point. Operation beyond 8 bar leads to
fuel is shown. Even with 100% ethane the laminar flame speed condensation of propane in the fuel lines and to uncontrolled heat
does not exceed the value that corresponds to an increase of Tflame input into the combustor. Pure butane could not be used without
of 207 K with respect to the reference fuel. Even the reactivity preheating, but it is important to point out that the tests with
of H2 can be expected from Figure 5 to be within the 200 K range unheated propane near the dew point exceeded even the WI
for natural gas up to around 80%vol H2 in CH4. expected for preheated butane above the dew point temperature.

LIQUID FUEL COMPOSITIONS

The relevant parameters for liquid fuel operation are
impurities, ash, carbon residues and metals on one sides and
physical properties like viscosity, heating value, density and
distillation behavior on the other side. Crude oil as fuel for high
temperature gas turbines with high firing temperatures is
restricted by trace elements such as ash, carbon residues and
heavy metal components. The trace elements can lead to deposits
and corrosion in the gas turbine hot gas path [20], while the
physical parameters impact fuel handling and finally
Figure 5: Left side: Co-firing additives (in CH4) compared for combustion. The content of trace elements is typically increasing
laminar flame speed sl. Shown are CnH2n (n = 2 to 5), H2 and an with the density of the fuel. Light crude oil (LCO) often provides
average natural mixture (C2+). Right side: sl variation with Tflame tolerable heavy metal and ash concentration for GT application.
for reference natural gas (6% C2+). For the combustion tests reported here, light crude oil (LCO)
The reactivity builds the basis of determining the as mixture and biodiesel (FAME) were investigated vs. heating
operational envelope of a premix burner or combustion system. fuel (HEL) as standard fuel. Since LCO was not readily
At low reactivity, the risk is flame loss or lean blow out (LBO), available, the available medium heavy crude oil was blended
which might require a different stabilization mechanism, and with ~10 mass % gasoline (unleaded fuel 95) and 40% mass
consequently might come with a penalty in NOx emissions. On heating oil (HEL) to match the distillation curve [21] of the target

4 Copyright © 2018 ASME

fuel. In parallel, density and viscosity were checked for AEV BURNER FUEL GAS CAPABILITIES
consistency. As seen in Figure 7 the distillation temperature
The fuel flexibility capability of the AEV has been proven
range of the blended light crude oil for testing coincides largely
in several high-pressure test campaigns and is confirmed from
with the typical light crude oil targeted.
GT13E2 field experience. Figure 8 gives the range of
The distillation curves of the other investigated special fuels
investigated gases as point cloud in the Wobbe index vs. LHV
are shown in Figure 7 in comparison to typical liquid fuels as
space. The indicated regions represent tested fuels that have
heating oil (HEL) and gasoline (unleaded fuel 95). The light
demonstrated safe and compliant dry operation without the need
crude oil comprises a wide range of species and distillation
for (steam) dilution on either test rigs or gas turbines.
temperatures, which is in contrast to the steep curve of the
biodiesel (FAME).

Figure 8: Fuel capability of GT13E2 AEV burner. Wobbe index

Figure 7: Atmospheric pressure distillation curves of the fuels vs LHV.
used here and of the components used to simulate the light crude
oil. Boiling curves were derived from analysis by Intertek During high-pressure tests natural gas fuel was diluted with
Schweiz through GC analysis and subsequent simulation nitrogen or with CO2 to simulate low LHV fuel gases. During the
(SIMDIS (GC) DIN EN 15199-3). tests a lower heating value (LHV) range between 15 MJ/kg and
50 MJ/kg was investigated and published in [12]. For the lower
The elemental composition and main properties of the WI range a different gas hole pattern was applied to optimize the
investigated liquid fuels are shown in Table 1. fuel gas pressure drop. In a second high-pressure test series the
fuel reactivity was increased by blending natural gas with
hydrogen. Fuel gas mixtures with a maximum hydrogen content
of 60 vol % H2 were successfully tested with the standard AEV
burner. No significant temperature excursions were measured at
the burner and combustor hardware during the H2 tests. Finally,
the AEV burner was tested with 100% ethane and 100% propane.
The latter fuels result in a broad variation of Wobbe index with a
nearly unchanged lower heating value of approx. 49 MJ/kg.

Hydrogen Blending
In Figure 9 the NOx emissions are shown for various
hydrogen- and C2+ blended fuels versus a normalized flame
temperature with 100% main stage operation. The reference
temperature corresponds to the flame temperature at GT13E2
base load conditions. The AEV burner was capable of operating
highly reactive fuels with up to 60 vol% H2 [16] also beyond the
Table 1: Liquid fuel properties for the tested fuels from external reference flame temperature without noticeable flashback or
analysis. safety risks at nominal burner velocity. The operational limits in
these test series were given by the maximum H2 mass flow rather
than the burner. The increase in reactivity is resulting in only
slightly increased NOx emissions.

5 Copyright © 2018 ASME

 Figure 11: NOx emissions for 45 vol% H2 in natural gas at base
Figure 9: NOx emissions for various H2 blends vs. Tflame at base load with varied FSR.
load and FSR = 0. Blends are vol % in natural gas.
Ethane Operation
The flashback safety is also confirmed by combustion air
Stable operation with low combustion dynamics on 100%
pressure loss measurements over the burner. The variation in the
ethane fuel was achieved during high pressure testing, also for
pressure loss coefficient zeta burner is characterizing the
operating conditions well exceeding GT13E2 base load. The
distance of the flame in the combustor to the burner exit. The
measured NOx emission data for operation on ethane at base load
increase of the dimensionless burner pressure loss zeta (ζ) shown are shown in Figure 12. The curves with 100% main stage gas
in Figure 10 is only moderate even for highly reactive fuels. and best premixing are similar for natural gas and ethane,
indicating a good mixing within the AEV burner. NOx production
at well mixed conditions seems to depend mainly on the post
flame production and varies only little with the fuel.

Figure 10: Dimensionless pressure loss coefficient zeta for

various H2 blends at base load.
The operation with staged fuel injection- defined by the
front stage ratio FSR - is shown in Figure 11 for an example of
45% H2 content. Note that at the reference temperature there is Figure 12: NOx emissions vs. Tflame for natural gas and 100%
still a sufficient FSR margin to remain within (25 ppm) emission ethane with FSR variation from 0 to 15% at base load.
compliance, despite increased NOx levels. At very high flame When adding front stage fuel NOx emissions increase
temperature and low FSR the flame moves closer to the burner approximately linear with FSR and the temperature dependence
exit, which results for these cases in higher NOx emissions. for a given FSR is reduced. Generally, the NOx values with FSR
> 0 are slightly higher for ethane compared to natural gas. Since
main stage emissions are similar, this indicates a different
behavior of the front stage flame. Potential reasons could be a
change in the flame position, different prompt NOx formation of
the front stage flame or the maximum adiabatic stochiometric
temperature for ethane being ca. 35 K higher than for CH4.

6 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Propane Operation
The plots in Figure 13 show a moderate rise in NOx at Tref with
15% FSR up to 60% propane at simulated base load condition. A
few points were taken at Tref -50 K and with 15% FSR with pure
propane, NOx emission at the full flame temperature is expected
to be slightly higher. The burner pressure drop coefficient zeta
stayed constant and combustion dynamics were low during the
ramp, both are an indication of safe burner operation.

Figure 13: NOx at simulated base load. NOx for Tref and 15% FSR
for propane blends, Tref -50 K 15% FSR with 100% propane
Note that the unheated propane of this test corresponds to a
Wobbe index of > 70 MJ/m3, which even exceeds the value
expected for pure butane at base load supply pressure and the
respective dew point temperature. In terms of Wobbe index this
test is thus very representative of even the most challenging LPG
application.
Flashback and Flame Holding Test with 100% Ethane Fuel
The operation of the AEV burner is considered flashback-
safe with all fuel compositions reported above (including H2 and
C2H6 and C3H8). To establish a measure of the flash back margin
it was attempted to approach a flame flashback by running at off-
design conditions and with 100% ethane fuel. First indications
were encountered when reducing the burner air velocity by 25%
below the nominal velocity at GT13E2 full load conditions and
at an elevated flame temperature of Tref +150 K. Such indications
are sporadic dynamics peaks, spikes in the material temperature Figure 14: Flashback precursors and flame holding test. 100%
at the end of the burner mixing section, and elevated pressure ethane, Tflame = Tref +150K, 75% of nominal mean burner
loss values zeta burner, as shown in Figure 14. These temperature velocity, 5% FSR. Top: time traces of flashback precursors and
spikes, which are caused by flame flashes into the mixing successful flame holding test. Bottom: Flame images to illustrate
section, are precursors of flash back. On top of the flashback flame holding test procedure. Upstream view from combustion
margin determination described above, flame holding tests were chamber exit facing AEV burner exit, respectively mixing
performed to demonstrate that even in case of a full flashback section of the burner.
event when the flame reaches the main stage fuel jets in the of the burner after shutoff of the torch. The procedure is
swirler slots, the flame will still be washed out and does not illustrated by the time traces and flame images in Figure 14.
permanently stabilize within the burner. Such a flame holding Image 1: Stable operation at test conditions before the test.
test is visualized in Figure 14. The flame is ignited with an H2- Image 2: H2-torch in operation, flame inside the mixing section
torch directly at the main fuel injectors in the conical burner and at the main fuel injectors. The metal temperature of the
section. The test is successfully passed if the flame is washed out burner mixing section and the burner pressure loss rise. Image 3:

7 Copyright © 2018 ASME

H2-torch off, flame just still sitting inside the mixing section. pressure spectra with Long Lance show similar or even smaller
Image 4 (=1): the flame is washed out of the burner and stable amplitudes than the standard AEV3.
operation is resumed.
As mentioned above, for characterization of the operational
burner range the two measures relevant: first flash back, which
describes an upstream movement of the flame front against the
flow and second, the flame holding criterion, which tests the
propensity for fuel ignited in the reaction zone to stay at a given
position and hold the flame at conditions near the injector
(upstream of the desired flame position). Depending on the
geometry and operation of the burner, different criteria might be
relevant. For flame holding this can be rationalized as described
earlier [22, 23] by comparing the chemical blow out time
(minimum residence time in a PSR reactor for ignition to occur)
at stoichiometric condition to the flow time scale near the
injector (which can be defined several ways).
Flame holding tests were performed at various operating
conditions and with various fuels, with the most critical Figure 15: NOx emissions vs. FSR at base load conditions, fuel
conditions being the ones described above and in Figure 14. gas operation.
Even at this extreme off-design point, where already flash back
indicators occurred, the burner is resistant against flame holding One difference though is the burner pressure loss behavior
and the flame was flushed out into the combustion chamber after with Long Lance. Due to the flame position, the burner pressure
switching off the H2-torch. All this leads to the conclusion that loss coefficient (zeta) is slightly higher than for the standard
the AEV burner is not only very robust against flashback, but configuration. On the other hand, the dependence of zeta on the
also that flame holding is not a risk. flame temperature as observed for the standard configuration,
Attempting to rationalize this for flashback, a similar (Figure 10) is eliminated, since the central recirculation zone and
criterium can be constructed, which needs to consider different with it the flame root are now anchored at the lance tip (see
flashback mechanisms and explanations should include Figure 16).
quantities like turbulent flame speed st of the burner as described
elsewhere [24]. Such studies are underway and are excluded
from this work.

EXTENDED AEV LIQUID FUEL CAPABILITIES

In this section test results of the AEV configuration with
Long Lance as shown in Figure 3, fueled with heating oil,
biodiesel and light crude oil are presented, as well as the
confirmation of maintained gas fuel performance vs. the original
configuration. Liquid fuel measurements as reported here were
performed at base load and idle operating conditions. For liquid
fuel combustion demineralized water was used to control NOx
emissions, where Ω represents the ratio of water to fuel mass
flows. Experimental results for the AEV burner with standard
liquid fuel injection as displayed in Figure 2 were already Figure 16: Burner pressure drop coefficient Zeta AEV vs. flame
documented in [12]. temperature. Fuel gas operation with 100% main stage (0% FSR)
Gas Fuel Base Load Results with Long Lance at base load conditions.

Before assessing the liquid fuel performance, the Long Lance When changing the axial position of the lance tip with
configuration has been tested on fuel gas to ensure that the gas respect to the burner exit plane, the flame and central
performance is not compromised. Figure 15 below gives an recirculation zone can be moved back and forth. By pulling the
overview of the NOx emission performance in gas operation of lance tip back into the burner, the central recirculation zone with
the Long Lance vs the standard configuration. No significant the flame restricts the burner flow and the pressure drop rises.
difference is observed. In addition the measured dynamic
3
Note that the above statement cannot be directly translated to the behavior
of the Long Lance AEV configuration within an engine. A thorough thermo-
acoustic analysis is needed to confirm acceptable dynamics levels.

8 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Axial positions of the lance tip between 0 and -40mm from the
burner exit plane have been investigated during testing, see
Figure 18.

Liquid Fuel Results at Base Load Operating Conditions

Figure 17 shows the measured NOx emissions of the AEV
with Long Lance as a function of water to fuel ratio Ω for
biodiesel (FAME), light crude oil (LCO) and heating oil (HEL)
at base load conditions. As a reference, the standard AEV NOx
curve is given as well. Ω for the standard configuration is
calculated from the overall fuel and water flows to both main and
front stage.

Figure 18: Burner pressure drop coefficient zeta burner vs. axial
lance tip position for operation with gas and liquid fuels. Base
load and idle conditions, Ω = 0 to 1.
For all three liquid fuels a fuel changeover at base load
conditions from gas to liquid operation has been demonstrated
without dynamics peaks or other issues. Only during the early
phase of fuel changeover from gas to liquid a temperature
increase was monitored at the furthest forward axial lance
position (0 mm). For all other lance positions no indications of
elevated tip temperature were seen. In addition dry oil operation
with Ω = 0 has been demonstrated for all three fuels. The
combustion behavior is the same as described above, the only
Figure 17: NOx and CO vs Ω at base load conditions. Filled difference is a significantly higher NOx emission level around
symbols = NOx, empty symbols = CO. 250 – 300 ppm.
Due to the elimination of pre-vaporization and mixing of the Liquid Fuel Results at Idle (FSNL) Operating Conditions
main stage fuel within the burner, more water is needed to The AEV Long Lance configuration offers a significant
achieve the same NOx level. While Ω = 0.4 is sufficient to simplification of the liquid fuel system, since the number of fuel
achieve the usual emission limit of 42 ppm in the standard circuits needed can be reduced from two to one. To assess a
configuration with heating oil (HEL), the Long Lance requires potential drawback at idle and low load conditions, GT13E2 idle
an increase of the water consumption to Ω = 0.8. Biodiesel conditions have been investigated as well.
requires less Ω = 0.7, but due to the lower heating value of
biodiesel (see Table 1) in absolute terms the water consumption
is similar to fuel #2. With biodiesel, very low NOx emissions
below 10 ppm have been achieved at an high water flow rate.
Light crude oil on the other hand requires, with Ω = 1.2,
significantly more water to achieve 42 ppm NOx. The latter
observation is mostly attributed to the high fuel bound nitrogen
content of about 2100 ppm (weight), see also Table 1.
The measured CO emission values are also given in Figure 17.
Values are far below 10 ppm even for light crude oil and show
no increase even for the highest tested water flows. In general,
the combustion behavior of the AEV Long Lance is very stable
with respect to changes in operating parameters such as air
pressure & temperature, flame temperature, Ω or burner velocity.
The pressure loss coefficient is constant, combustion dynamics Figure 19: NOx, CO vs Tflame at idle conditions. Dry oil operation,
amplitudes are low and the spectra do not change significantly. Ω = 0. Filled symbols = NOx, empty symbols = CO.
For the AEV Long Lance configuration, the only parameter Since no emission guarantees need to be met and to achieve the
found to show a significant effect on the burner pressure loss best LBO performance, no water is injected, Ω = 0.
coefficient is the axial position of the lance tip, see Figure 18.

9 Copyright © 2018 ASME

 As seen in Figure 19, NOx emissions reduce gradually with of the contributions from FBN and the thermal NOx of the flame.
reduced flame temperature. Again, LCO shows higher NOx With the measured NOx emission at high omega values (Ω =1.6)
values than FAME and fuel #2. LBO is encountered at the left of around 30 vppm even with negligible thermal NOx the
end of the curves in Figure 19, significantly below the typical conversion efficiency must be below 35 %.
idle flame temperature Tref idle. For all three fuels the Long The discrepancy between the measured NOx and the
Lance configuration is extending roughly the LBO margin with assumption of 100% conversion of FBN should be further
respect to the standard AEV configuration for about 100K. studied. A problem is that at least two effects are relevant and
While reducing the flame temperature, CO emission values cannot easily be separated: with high water content and low
start to rise at about Tref idle +150K and cross the typical 100 ppm temperature the thermal NOx production is reduced. A potential
limit at around Tref idle. No significant differences in CO reburning of fuel bound nitrogen and NOx to form N2 can occur
emissions have been observed for the different fuels, even LCO at certain kinetic conditions and will be increased with longer
with a significant portion of heavy components shows no reaction times and in the presence of water. In the available
increase with respect to the other fuels. Both CO and NOx literature, it has been stated that at high FBN content 100%
emissions at idle conditions are within GT experience range. conversion cannot be assumed any longer [25]. Conversion
The general combustion behavior with the Long Lance at ratios of 48%-70% have been reported for fuels with 0.16 -0.33
idle is similar to the behavior at base load – stable without % mass FBN [26]. However, the literature on this topic seems
significant combustion dynamics and with no significant not to be fully conclusive and does not report conversion rates as
influence of the operating conditions. A significant difference low as the one observed here.
exists between the emission performance of Long Lance and To test and rationalize these findings we have run an easy
standard AEV, which is due to the very different design and model to sample the kinetic behavior near the expected operation
combustion characteristics of the central lance tip atomizer and range. While this is not a model it could yield a plausibility for a
the front stage injector. given observation i.e. FBN conversion. We have run perfectly
stirred reactors (PSR) in CHEMKIN as simple reactor for a flame
Fuel Bound Nitrogen Analysis
and varied the FBN by doping natural gas with NH3 or HCN
The conversion efficiency of fuel bound nitrogen (FBN) to species. The calculations were carried out with various kinetic
exhaust NOx is an interesting parameter that is key to the overall models and results were very similar for each kinetic model.
emissions when burning fuels with high nitrogen content, but the Tested were the GRI30 [27] and the NUI Galway model with
basic process seems not to be fully understood or quantified yet. recent NOx -kinetics from Texas A&M [28] and modified NOx-
Assuming 100% conversion leads to an almost constant value of thermochemistry [29] from NUI Galway. Only the latter model
91 vppm (dry @15%O2) NOx from FBN for LCO and <1 vppm is shown in Figure 21. The other models do not deviate
for HEL and FAME in the experiments. Interestingly, this value substantially.
is not dependent on Tflame, since the calibration to 15% O2
compensates for variation in φ.

Figure 20: NOx emissions for light crude oil at varied water Figure 21: PSR simulation with varied residence time in multiple
content Ω and Tflame. For comparison the calculated emissions of the extinction time for NH3 doping and HCN doping of varied
assuming 100% conversion of FBN (only) is given. levels (FBN from 1 ppm to 5 %) (NUIG & Texas A&M model).

The measured NOx for light crude oil (LCO) omega The conversion rate depends on the FBN amount, the time
mappings with the Long Lance at -40mm axial lance tip position and the chemical binding (N bound to C in HCN or only reduced
are shown in Figure 20. The reference for FBN assuming 100% N in NH3). The residence time was varied systematically in a the
conversion is shown to exceed the measured values at high Ω > PSR and is displayed as multiple of the PSR residence time to
0.6. The produced total NOx emission is mainly a combination

10 Copyright © 2018 ASME

the extinction time tPSR_ext, referring to the minimum residence crude oil or biodiesel – caused by insufficient pre-vaporization
time for ignition as described elsewhere [16, 22, 23]. of those fuels within the mixing section – an optional
t PSR, residence modification of the AEV burner was developed that uses a Long
t PSR_factor = Lance to inject the liquid fuel close to the exit of the burner
t PSR_ext mixing section.
The fuel capabilities of the AEV burner in both standard and
The FBN with N-fuel doping (mass fraction y) was
Long Lance configuration were demonstrated in a single burner
calculated as (mole fraction x):
M exhaust high pressure test rig at full GT13E2 combustion temperature
FBN doped = ([NH 3 ] + [HCN ]) ⋅ ⋅ y fuel ⋅ 100 % and pressure conditions. Reliable, stable and flashback-safe dry
M fuel
premixed combustion was demonstrated for a broad range of fuel
The conversion rate was calculated as gases covering a wide span of LHVs and Wobbe indices. The
following fuel gas capabilities have been confirmed:
conversion rate_FBN =
(NO x, abs doped + NO x, abs 0 ) • Natural gas was tested with a high content of inert species
FBN doped down to a LHV of 15 MJ/kg and a Wobbe index below 20
MJ/m3 without compromise on emissions level.
The numeric results of all parameter variations are
• With hydrogen blended natural gas with an amount of up to
summarized in Figure 21 and could not explain a conversion
60 vol% H2 without dilution NOx emissions below 15 vppm
efficiency of less than 70%. In general, the increase of N-doping
are achieved at the highest hydrogen content at base load
in the fuel reduces the conversion rate and at long times lower
conditions and with a moderate rise of the burner pressure
conversion is simulated. The simulated results show some trends
loss and no indications of flame flash back.
that can help to understand the dependencies seen in
experiments. The comparison is far from being quantitative, but • Pure ethane combustion as fuel gas was demonstrated
probably resembles some trends qualitatively. To achieve better without major increase of NOx emission or pressure drop
prediction on fuel bound NOx conversion some more work with respect to natural gas and no indications of flashback
should be invested on over a wide range of design and off-design conditions.
1. Systematic conduction of experiments to obtain • Pure propane fuel gas was tested at simulated base load
comprehensive and robust data, conditions, limited by the fuel dew point temperature, with a
moderate increase of NOx emission with respect to natural
2. Further validation of the reaction chemistry and gas and no indications of flashback.
3. lastly also in the model application (to fine tune the • A flashback test was performed with 100% ethane fuel gas
results of a better kinetics to better experiments). representing the highest reactivity of all alkanes. At a flame
temperature 150K above the nominal GT13E2 base load
For the experimental results with 2100 ppm FBN for LCO condition the burner velocity could be reduced by 25%
it seems plausible that conversion < 100% occurs but the before precursors of flash back, spikes of burner metal
observed value ≪ 40 % is not yet explained by the current temperature indicating temporary flame propagation into the
kinetics and reactor model. With a better understanding the mixing tube, could be observed.
operation parameters to reduce NOx emission could be better • At the same operation point, already showing flashback
understood and controlled to minimize NOx. precursor signs, a full flame flash back was forced using a
To clarify the conversion of FBN with more confidence it hydrogen torch firing onto the fuel gas injectors in the swirler
should be tested in a real flame preferably a GT burner with air slot. After deactivating the torch the flame was flushed
defined fuel doping and otherwise identical basis fuel. For out of the burner back to a regular flame position. These
example, the doping with NH3 or N-components with CN bonds results confirm the excellent flash back resistance of the AEV
should be undertaken. There might a difference between simple burner for gaseous fuels.
amines (NH3 or aniline) and heteroaromatic compounds with CN
bonds (like pyridine, piperidine etc.). Along with that some The AEV configuration with Long Lance has been
revision of the kinetics could be considered since the FBN confirmed to provide a similar gas performance as the standard
conversion is most likely not been a target of the N-chemistry AEV burner with a slightly higher burner pressure loss. In liquid
formulation. fuel operation, the application of the AEV with Long Lance
results in a generally stable combustion at base load and idle
SUMMARY conditions with and without emulsion water for NOx reduction.
• At base load condition light crude oil operation with sub 42
The GT13E2 AEV burner has been further developed to
extend the range of fuels according to the GE fuel capability ppm NOx at a water to fuel ratio of Ω = 1.2 was successfully
requirements. The AEV burner is designed based on the staged demonstrated, although the fuel bound nitrogen content was
combustion concept with two fuel stages and with a distinct in the range of 0.21 mass %. A further conclusion of this
mixing zone that enables low NOx emissions in both gas and result is that the conversion efficiency of fuel bound nitrogen
liquid fuel operation. In order to burn special liquid fuels like can be lower than published up to now and that even fuels

11 Copyright © 2018 ASME

 with a high nitrogen content can be burned with low NOx • At idle operation condition the AEV could be operated with
emission. approximately 100 K higher flame temperature margin to
• Biodiesel (FAME) could be operated at base load with sub lean blow compared to the standard AEV burner. Both CO
42 ppm NOx at Ω = 0.7 and sub 10 ppm NOx emissions at and NOx emission values are within the GT experience range
Ω = 1.4. at idle conditions.
• Operation on heating oil (HEL) at base load has been
demonstrated without issues. Sub 42 ppm NOx is achieved at Acknowledgment
Ω = 0.8 and minimum NOx emissions come close to 10 ppm. The authors particularly would like to thank Mr. Ralf Meyer
• For all liquid fuels, negligible CO emissions have been from Engie for the supply of the medium heavy crude oil. The
observed within the typical emission guarantee load range. authors want to thank Marcel Ziegert by the independent test lab
• Several fuel changeovers from gas to liquid fuels were Intertek (Switzerland) Ltd. for the great support and the
demonstrated at base load pressure and temperature professional handling of our non-standard requests on LCO
conditions without issues. mixing and FBN analysis in Crude oil.

Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 132, 111503

REFERENCES (2010).
1 World Economic Forum - Energy for Economic Growth, 12 M. Zajadatz, D. Pennell, S. Bernero, B. Paikert, R. Zoli and
Energy Vision Update 2012, http://reports.weforum.org/energy- K. Döbbeling, "Development and Implementation of the AEV
for-economic-growth-energy-vision-update-2012/ Burner for the Alstom GT13E2", J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
2 Standards for Performance of Combustion Turbines; Final 135, 061503 (2013).
Rule, Federal Register, 40 CFR 60, Part III Environmental 13 M. R. Bothien, D. A. Pennell, M. Zajadatz and K. Döbbeling,
Protection Agency, July 6, 2006, p. 38505. ”On Key Features of the AEV Burner Engine Implementation for
3 European Union (large combustion plants) regulations (2012), Operational Flexibility”, ASME Turbo Expo 2013, GT2013-
Statutory Instruments, S.I. No. 566 of 2012. 95693.
4 Goldmeer, J., Vandervort, C, Sternberg, J., “New capabilities 14 Lantz, A., Collin, R., Aldén, M., Lindholm, A., Larfeldt, J.,
and developments in GE’s DLN 2.6 combustion system”, Power- Lörstad, D; “Investigation of hydrogen enriched natural gas
Gen International (2017) flames in a SGT-700/800 burner using OH PLIF and
5 Goldmeer, J., York, W., Glaser, P., “Fuel and Combustion chemiluminescence imaging”. J. Eng. Gas Turbines and Power,
System Capabilities of GE’s F and HA Class Gas Turbines”, 031505-1 to 8, Vol 137, 2015.
ASME TurboExpo, GT2017-64588 (2017) 15 D. Lörstad, A. Ljung and A. Abou-Taouk, “Investigation of
6 Tripod, B., Döbbeling, K., Pfeiffer, C., Heimerl, R., Siemens SGT-800 Industrial Gas Turbine Combustor Using
“Increasing Power Generation Efficiency in Russia and CIS Different Combustion and Turbulence Models”, ASME Turbo
Countries through further Development of the Alstom GT13E2 Expo 2016, GT2016-57694. .
Gas Turbine “, Russia Power in Moscow, Russia, 05-07 March 16 T. Wind, F. Güthe, K. Syed, Co-Firing of Hydrogen and
2012. Natural Gases in Lean Premix Conventional and Reheat Burners
7 P. Jansohn, T. Ruck, C. Steinbach, H.-P. Knöpfel, T. (Alstom GT26), ASME Turbo Expo 2014, Düsseldorf, Germany,
Sattelmayer and C. Troger, “Development of the Advanced EV GT2014-25813
(AEV) Burner for the ABB GTX100 Gas Turbine “,ASME Turbo 17 N. Donohoe, A. Heufer, W. K. Metcalfe, H. J. Curran, M. L.
Expo 1997, 97-AA-139. Brower, O. Mathieu, E. L. Petersen, G. Bourque, F. Güthe,
8 C. Willert, Stockhausen, M. Voges, J. Klinner, R. Schodl, C. “Ignition delay time experiments and mechanism validation for
Hassa, B. Schuermans, F. Guethe, “"Selected Applications of natural gas/hydrogen blends at elevated pressures", Combustion
Planar imaging Velocimetry in Combustion Test Facilities", and Flame, 161, 1432 (2013)
Topic of applied Physics , (2007) 18 M. Brower, E. Petersen, W. Metcalfe, H. Curran, N. Aluri, F.
9 W. Hubschmid, R. Bombach, A. Inauen, F. Güthe, S. Schenker, Guethe, M. Füri, G. Bourque, "Ignition Delay Time and Laminar
N. Tylli, W. Kreutner, "Thermoacoustically driven flame motion Flame Speed Calculations for Natural Gas/Hydrogen Blends at
and heat release variation in a swirl-stabilized gas turbine Elevated Pressures", Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines
burner investigated by LIF and chemiluminescence", Exp Fluids and Power, 135, 021504-1 (2013)
(2008) 45:167–182 19 Eoin M. Burke, F. Güthe, Rory F.D. Monaghan, “A
10 D. Guyot, F. Guethe, B. Schuermans, "CH*/OH* Comparison Of Turbulent Flame Speed Correlations For
Chemiluminescence Response of an atmospheric Premixed Hydrocarbon Fuels At Elevated Pressures", ASME Turbo Expo,
Flame under varying conditions", ASME Turbo Expo, GT2010- GT2016-57804, (2016)
23135 20 N. Marikkar, M. Vierling, M. Aboujaib, D. Sokolov, B.
11 B. Schuermans, F. Guethe, D. Guyot, D. Pennel, O. C. Monetti, R. Russell, D. Meskers, C. Verdy, M. Moliere,
Paschereit, "Thermoacoustic Modeling of a Gas Turbine Using “Improving the efficiency of heavy-fuelled gas turbines: The
Transfer Functions Measured Under Full Engine Pressure ",

12 Copyright © 2018 ASME

 26 O. Ogunsola, B. Herath “Use of multivariate analysis to
successful experience achieved at the Yugadanavi 300 MW determine the influence of some liquid-fuel properties on fuel-
CCGT in Sri Lanka”, GT2016- 56531 (2016). bound nitrogen-to-NOx conversion”, Fuel Vol 69, Iss 12, Pgs
21 J. Goldmeer, R. Symonds, P. Glaser, B. Mohammad, Z. Nagel, 1465-1592.
P. Perez-Diaz, “Evaluation of Arabian Super Light Crude Oil for 27 Gregory P. Smith, David M. Golden, Michael Frenklach,
Use in A F-Class DLN Combustion System”, GT2014-25351, Nigel W. Moriarty, Boris Eiteneer, Mikhail Goldenberg, C.
(2014). Thomas Bowman, Ronald K. Hanson, Soonho Song, William C.
22 J. Blouch, H. Li, M. Mueller, and R. Hook, “Fuel Flexibility Gardiner, Jr., Vitali V. Lissianski, and Zhiwei Qin
in LM2500 and LM6000 Dry Low Emission Engines", ASME http://www.me.berkeley.edu/gri_mech/
Turbo Expo, GT2011-45387, (2011) 28 O. Mathieu, E. L. Petersen, A. Heufer, N. Donohoe, W.
23 K. J. Wisniewski, S. Handelsman, “Expanding Fuel Metcalfe, H. J. Curran, F. Güthe, G. Bourque , "Numerical Study
Flexibility Capability in GE’s Aeroderivative Engines", ASME on the Effect of Real Syngas Compositions on Ignition Delay
Turbo Expo, GT2010-23546, (2010) Times and Laminar Flame Speeds at Gas Turbine Conditions ",
24 T Lieuwen, V. Mcdonell, Domenic Santavicca, T. Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 136,
Sattelmayer, “Burner Development and Operability Issues 011502-1 (2014).
Associated with Steady Flowing Syngas Fired Combustors”, 29 J. Bugler, K. P. Somers, J. M. Simmie, F. Güthe, and H. J.
Combust. Sci. Technol., 180 1169. (2008) Curran, “Modeling Nitrogen Species as Pollutants:
25 P. R. Mulik P. P. Singh, Pa. A. Cohn, “Effect of Water Injection Thermochemical Influences ", J. Phys. Chem. A 120 (36), 7192,
for NO x Reduction with Synthetic Liquid Fuels Containing High (2016)
Fuel-Bound Nitrogen in a Gas Turbine Combustor”, The
American Society Of Mechanical Engineers, , 81-GT-51

13 Copyright © 2018 ASME