0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Coal, Biomass, and Alternative Fuels

# Gas Turbines Fired With Biomass Pyrolysis Syngas: Analysis of the Overheating of Hot Gas Path Components

[+] Author and Article Information
Simone Colantoni

GE Oil & Gas, Via F. Matteucci 2, 50127 Florence, Italysimone.colantoni@ge.com

Stefania Della Gatta, Roberto De Prosperis, Alessandro Russo

GE Oil & Gas, Via F. Matteucci 2, 50127 Florence, Italy

Francesco Fantozzi, Umberto Desideri

Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Perugia, Via G. Duranti 1A/4, 06125 Perugia, Italy

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 132(6), 061401 (Mar 19, 2010) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000134 History: Received April 15, 2009; Revised July 14, 2009; Published March 19, 2010; Online March 19, 2010

## Abstract

Alternative resources, such as biomass, and municipal and industrial waste are being considered as a source for the production of syngas to replace natural gas as a power turbine fuel. Pyrolysis of biomass produces a syngas composed primarily of CO, $CO2$, $CH4$, and $H2$ with a medium-low lower heating value that is strongly dependent on the process boundary conditions such as the pyrolysis temperature and product residence time in the reactor. The issues associated with conventional gas turbines also apply to syngas turbines with the added complexity of the fuel and impurities. At present, syngas turbines are operated at firing temperatures similar to those of turbines fired on natural gas by increasing the fuel mass flow through the turbine. While this produces a higher turbine power output, the heat transferred to the hot flow-path vanes and blades is also greater. The aim of this paper is to report on the use of numerical modeling to analyze the fundamental impact of firing gas turbines with biomass pyrolysis syngas. To complete the analysis, the results have been compared with data from the literature on gas turbines fired with coal gasification syngas. The test engine used to perform this analysis is a General Electric GE10-2 gas turbine. The performance, aerodynamics and secondary flows were computed using proprietary software, while a commercial finite element software was used to perform the thermal and local creep analyses.

<>

## Figures

Figure 1

IPRP plant layout (3) and gas turbine engine (GE10-2)

Figure 2

Differences in total temperature between Fuel A and CH4, respectively, at the inlet and exit of the first stage blade

Figure 3

GE10-2 S1B thermal boundary conditions PS and SS; ΔTb(°C)=(Tb Fuel A(°C))−(Tb natural gas(°C))

Figure 4

GE10-2 S1B thermal analysis PS and SS; ΔT(°C)=(T Fuel A(°C))−(T natural gas(°C))

Figure 5

GE10-2 S1B local creep analysis PS and SS at 500,000 h; Δε=(ε Fuel A)−(ε natural gas)

Figure 6

Δε(%)=(ε Fuel A(%))−(ε natural gas(%)) versus time (h)

## Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections