Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Marine

Algae Based Hydroprocessed Fuel Use on a Marine Gas Turbine

[+] Author and Article Information
Martín Quiñones

Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Carderock Division,
Philadelphia, PA 19112
e-mail: martin.quinones@navy.mil

Richard Leung

Naval Sea Systems Command,
Washington, DC 20376
e-mail: richard.leung@navy.mil

Sherry Williams

Naval Air Systems Command,
Patuxent River, MD 20670
e-mail: sherry.williams@navy.mil

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received June 21, 2012; final manuscript received July 10, 2012; published online October 11, 2012. Editor: Dilip R. Ballal.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 134(12), 122201 (Oct 11, 2012) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4007339 History: Received June 21, 2012; Revised July 10, 2012

The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD) Philadelphia conducted a full scale gas turbine engine test using Rolls Royce engine models 501-K34 and 250-KS4 to assess engine performance and fuel combustion characteristics of an algae based hydroprocessed fuel. The fuel, hereafter described as alternate fuel, consisted of a 50/50 blend of NATO F-76 fuel and the algae based formulation. It is the first time that the U.S. Navy has used a nonpetroleum based fuel on a marine gas turbine. The test was conducted at the DDG 51 Land Based Engineering Site (LBES) of NSWCCD during Jan. 16–21, 2011. The alternate fuel test conducted on the 501-K34 engine consisted of seven cycles of engine operation, one using NATO F-76 fuel to develop a baseline run and six cycles using alternate fuel. Each cycle was 7 h and 20 min in duration and was composed of 27 distinct load scenarios. The total duration of the test was 44 h. The 250-KS4 engine was used as the starter mechanism for the 501-K34 engine. During the test, parameters for combustion temperature, fuel demand, fuel manifold pressure, engine start time, and operation under various load conditions were recorded. This paper discusses the results of the above test by comparing engine operation using alternate fuel to engine performance using NATO F-76 fuel.

Copyright © 2012 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

SSGTG hot starts—250-KS4 measured gas temperatures (MGT) versus time (s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

501-K34 start profiles—F-76 and alternate fuel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

501-K34 hot start temperature versus speed using F-76 fuel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

F-76 Fuel response for Fig. 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

501-K34 hot start temperature versus speed using alternate fuel—cycle 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

501-K34 hot start temperature versus speed using alternate fuel—cycle 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Alternate fuel response for Fig. 7—cycle 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Temperature and speed plot for engine failed start—cycle 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Fuel schedule for engine failed start—cycle 4




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 eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In