0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

Predicting Flameholding for Hydrogen and Natural Gas Flames at Gas Turbine Premixer Conditions

[+] Author and Article Information
Elliot Sullivan-Lewis

UCI Combustion Laboratory,
University of California,
Irvine, CA 92697
e-mail: esl@ucicl.uci.edu

Vincent McDonell

UCI Combustion Laboratory,
University of California,
Irvine, CA 92697
e-mail: mcdonell@ucicl.uci.edu

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received June 11, 2016; final manuscript received June 14, 2016; published online August 2, 2016. Editor: David Wisler.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(12), 121502 (Aug 02, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: GTP-16-1212; doi: 10.1115/1.4034000 History: Received June 11, 2016; Revised June 14, 2016

Lean-premixed gas turbines are now common devices for low emissions stationary power generation. By creating a homogeneous mixture of fuel and air upstream of the combustion chamber, temperature variations are reduced within the combustor, which reduces emissions of nitrogen oxides. However, by premixing fuel and air, a potentially flammable mixture is established in a part of the engine not designed to contain a flame. If the flame propagates upstream from the combustor (flashback), significant engine damage can result. While significant effort has been put into developing flashback resistant combustors, these combustors are only capable of preventing flashback during steady operation of the engine. Transient events (e.g., auto-ignition within the premixer and pressure spikes during ignition) can trigger flashback that cannot be prevented with even the best combustor design. In these cases, preventing engine damage requires designing premixers that will not allow a flame to be sustained. Experimental studies were conducted to determine under what conditions premixed flames of hydrogen and natural gas can be anchored in a simulated gas turbine premixer. Tests have been conducted at pressures up to 9 atm, temperatures up to 750 K, and freestream velocities between 20 and 100 m/s. Flames were anchored in the wakes of features typical of premixer passageways, including cylinders, steps, and airfoils. The results of this study have been used to develop an engineering tool that predicts under what conditions a flame will anchor, and can be used for development of flame anchoring resistant gas turbine premixers.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Flameholder test stand in the UC Irvine high-pressure combustion facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Cross section of flameholding test section projected onto renderings of production premixer passageways

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

UC Irvine combustion lab flameholding apparatus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Four test features constructed for this experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Reynolds number distribution of reacting experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Schematic of LDV test points

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Velocity profiles measured with LDV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Turbulence intensity profiles measured with LDV

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Separated flow in the wake of the rotated airfoil

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The 13 mm cylinder and rotated airfoil flame attachment width comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Equivalence ratio at blow off as a function of velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Adiabatic flame temperature at blow off as a function of velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Laminar flame speed as a function of velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Local displacement flame speed at blow off as a function of velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Damköhler number at blow off as function of Reynolds number

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Empirical blow off correlation as a function of freestream velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Probability of blow off as a function of slope

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Empirical blow off correlation of current study and that of Potter and Wong [18] as a function of freestream velocity

Tables

Errata

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 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