0
Research Papers: Research Papers

Micro Gas Turbine Cycle Humidification for Increased Flexibility: Numerical and Experimental Validation of Different Steam Injection Models

[+] Author and Article Information
Ward De Paepe

Faculty of Engineering,
Thermal Engineering and Combustion Unit
University of Mons (UMONS),
Place du Parc 20,
Mons 7000, Belgium
e-mail: ward.depaepe@umons.ac.be

Massimiliano Renzi

Free University of Bozen/Bolzano,
Faculty of Science and Technology,
Piazza Università 1,
Bolzano 39100, Italy
e-mail: massimiliano.renzi@unibz.it

Marina Montero Carrerro

Thermo and Fluid dynamics (FLOW),
Faculty of Engineering,
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB),
Brussel 1050, Belgium
e-mail: mmontero@vub.ac.be

Carlo Caligiuri

Free University of Bozen/Bolzano,
Faculty of Science and Technology,
Piazza Università, 1,
Bolzano 39100, Italy
e-mail: Carlo.Caligiuri@natec.unibz.it

Francesco Contino

Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB),
Thermo and Fluid dynamics (FLOW),
Faculty of Engineering,
Pleinlaan 2,
Brussels 1050, Belgium
e-mail: fcontino@vub.ac.be

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received June 27, 2018; final manuscript received July 6, 2018; published online September 26, 2018. Editor: Jerzy T. Sawicki.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141(2), 021009 (Sep 26, 2018) (10 pages) Paper No: GTP-18-1387; doi: 10.1115/1.4040859 History: Received June 27, 2018; Revised July 06, 2018

With the current shift from centralized to more decentralized power production, new opportunities arise for small-scale combined heat and power (CHP) production units like micro gas turbines (mGTs). However, to fully embrace these opportunities, the current mGT technology has to become more flexible in terms of operation—decoupling the heat and power production in CHP mode—and in terms of fuel utilization—showing flexibility in the operation with different lower heating value (LHV) fuels. Cycle humidification, e.g., by performing steam injection, is a possible route to handle these problems. Current simulation models are able to correctly assess the impact of humidification on the cycle performance, but they fail to provide detailed information on the combustion process. To fully quantify the potential of cycle humidification, more advanced numerical models—preferably validated—are necessary. These models are not only capable of correctly predicting the cycle performance, but they can also handle the complex chemical kinetics in the combustion chamber. In this paper, we compared and validated such a model with a typical steady-state model of the steam injected mGT cycle based on the Turbec T100. The advanced one is an in-house MATLAB model, based on the NIST database for the characterization of the properties of the gaseous compounds with the combustion mechanisms embedded according to the Gri-MEch 3.0 library. The validation one was constructed using commercial software (Aspen Plus), using the more advance Redlich-Kwong-Soave (RKS)- Boston-Mathias(BM) property method and assuming complete combustion by using a Gibbs reactor. Both models were compared considering steam injection in the compressor outlet or in the combustion chamber, focusing only on the global cycle performance. Simulation results of the steam injection cycle fueled with natural gas and syngas showed some differences between the two presented models (e.g., 5.9% on average for the efficiency increase over the simulated steam injection rates at nominal power output for injection in the compressor outlet); however, the general trends that could be observed are consistent. Additionally, the numerical results of the injection in the compressor outlet were also validated with steam-injection experiments in a Turbec T100, indicating that the advanced MATLAB model overestimates the efficiency improvement by 25–45%. The results show the potential of simulating the humidified cycle using more advanced models; however, in future work, special attention should be paid to the experimental tuning of the model parameters in general and the recuperator performance in particular to allow correct assessment of the cycle performance.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

IEA, 2014, “ Energy, Climate Changed & Environment: 2014 Insights,” International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
EEA, 2013, “ Combined Heat and Power (CHP) (ENER 020)—Assessment,” European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, accessed Aug. 19, 2014, http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/combined-heat-and-power-chp-1/combined-heat-and-power-chp-2
Delattin, F. , Bram, S. , Knoops, S. , and De Ruyck, J. , 2008, “ Effects of Steam Injection on Microturbine Efficiency and Performance,” Energy, 33(2), pp. 241–247. [CrossRef]
De Paepe, W. , Montero Carrero, M. , Bram, S. , Contino, F. , and Parente, A. , 2017, “ Waste Heat Recovery Optimization in Micro Gas Turbine Applications Using Advanced Humidified Gas Turbine Cycle Concepts,” Appl. Energy, 207, pp. 218–229. [CrossRef]
Renzi, M. , Patuzzi, F. , and Baratieri, M. , 2017, “ Syngas Feed of Micro Gas Turbines With Steam Injection: Effects on Performance, Combustion and Pollutants Formation,” Appl. Energy, 206, pp. 697–707. [CrossRef]
Renzi, M. , Riolfi, C. , and Baratieri, M. , 2016, “ Influence of the Syngas Feed on the Combustion Process and Performance of a Micro Gas Turbine With Steam Injection,” Energy Procedia, 105, pp. 1665–1670. [CrossRef]
Jonsson, M. , and Yan, J. , 2005, “ Humidified Gas Turbines—A Review of Proposed and Implemented Cycles,” Energy, 30(7), pp. 1013–1078. [CrossRef]
De Paepe, W. , Montero Carrero, M. , Bram, S. , Parente, A. , and Contino, F. , 2017, “ Toward Higher Micro Gas Turbine Efficiency and Flexibility—Humidified Micro Gas Turbines: A Review,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 140(8), p. 081702. [CrossRef]
Lee, J. J. , Jeon, M. S. , and Kim, T. S. , 2010, “ The Influence of Water and Steam Injection on the Performance of a Recuperated Cycle Microturbine for Combined Heat and Power Application,” Appl. Energy, 87(4), pp. 1307–1316. [CrossRef]
Mochizuki, K. , Shibata, S. , Inoue, U. , Tsuchiya, T. , Sotouchi, H. , and Okamoto, M. , 2005, “ New Concept of a Micro Gas Turbine Based Co-Generation Package for Performance Improvement in Practical Use,” ASME Paper No. PWR2005-50364.
Stathopoulos, P. , and Paschereit, C. , 2015, “ Retrofitting Micro Gas Turbines for Wet Operation: A Way to Increase Operational Flexibility in Distributed CHP Plants,” Appl. Energy, 154, pp. 438 –446. [CrossRef]
De Paepe, W. , Delattin, F. , Bram, S. , and De Ruyck, J. , 2012, “ Steam Injection Experiments in a Microturbine—A Thermodynamic Performance Analysis,” Appl. Energy, 97, pp. 569–576. [CrossRef]
De Paepe, W. , Delattin, F. , Bram, S. , Contino, F. , and De Ruyck, J. , 2013, “ A Study on the Performance of Steam Injection in a Typical Micro Gas Turbine,” ASME Paper No. GT2013-94569.
Ferrari, M. L. , Pascenti, M. , Traverso, A. N. , and Massardo, A. F. , 2012, “ Hybrid System Test Rig: Chemical Composition Emulation With Steam Injection,” Appl. Energy, 97, pp. 809–815. [CrossRef]
Renzi, M. , Caligiuri, C. , and Rossi, M. , 2017, “ Micro-Gas Turbine Feed With Natural Gas and Synthesis Gas: Variation of the Turbomachines Operative Conditions With and Without Steam Injection,” ASME Paper No. GT2017-63801.
Loujendi, D. , Sani, K. , Tofigh, A. , Majidian, A. , and Jouybari, H. , 2012, “ An Economical Evaluation of the Water/Steam Injection in a CHP Microturbine Cycle,” J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Rev., 5(2), pp. 20–25. [CrossRef]
Stathopoulos, P. , and Paschereit, C. O. , 2015, “ Operational Strategies of Wet Cycle Micro Gas Turbines and Their Economic Evaluation,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 138(12), p. 122301. [CrossRef]
Turbec, A. B. , 2000-2001, “ T100 Microturbine CHP System: Technical Description Ver 4.0,” Turbec AB, Malmö, Sweden.
Renzi, M. , Caresana, F. , Pelagalli, L. , and Comodi, G. , 2014, “ Enhancing Micro Gas Turbine Performance Through Fogging Technique: Experimental Analysis,” Appl. Energy, 135, pp. 165–173. [CrossRef]
Goodwin, D. G. , Moffat, H. K. , and Speth, R. L. , 2017, “ Cantera: An Object-Oriented Software Toolkit for Chemical Kinetics, Thermodynamics, and Transport Processes,” Version 2.3.0, accessed Aug. 16, 2018, http://www.cantera.org
Smith, G. P. , Golden, D. M. , Frenklach, M. , Moriarty, N. W. , Eiteneer, B. , Goldenberg, M. , Bowman, C. T. , Hanson, R. K. , Song, S. , Gardiner, W. C., Jr. , Lissianski, V. V. , and Qin, Z. , 2000, “ GRI Mech.,” accessed Aug. 16, 2018, http://www.me.berkeley.edu/gri_mech/
Aspen Technology Inc., 2017, “ Aspen plus v9.0,” AspenTech, Houston, TX, accessed Jan. 29, 2018, https://www.aspentech.com/en/v9
De Paepe, W. , Montero Carrero, M. , Giorgetti, S. , Parente, A. , Bram, S. , and Contino, F. , 2016, “ Exhaust Gas Recirculation on Humidified Flexible Micro Gas Turbines for Carbon Capture Applications,” ASME Paper No. GT2016-57265.
De Paepe, W. , Delattin, F. , Bram, S. , and De Ruyck, J. , 2013, “ Water Injection in a Micro Gas Turbine—Assessment of the Performance Using a Black Box Method,” Appl. Energy, 112, pp. 1291–1302. [CrossRef]
Parente, J. , Traverso, A. , and Massardo, A. F. , 2003, “ Micro Humid Air Cycle—Part A: Thermodynamic and Technical Aspects,” ASME Paper No. GT2003-38326.
Lagerström, G. , and Xie, M. , 2002, “ High Performance and Cost Effective Recuperator for Micro-Gas Turbines,” ASME Paper No. GT2002-30402.
De Paepe, W. , Montero Carrero, M. , Bram, S. , and Contino, F. , 2014, “ T100 Micro Gas Turbine Converted to Full Humid Air Operation: Test Rig Evaluation,” ASME Paper No. GT2014-26123.
Comodi, G. , Renzi, M. , Caresana, F. , and Pelagalli, L. , 2015, “ Enhancing Micro Gas Turbine Performance in Hot Climates Through Inlet Air Cooling Vapour Compression Technique,” Appl. Energy, 147, pp. 40–48. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The Turbec T100 is a typical recuperated Brayton cycle (dark parts), where the air coming from the compressor is preheated in a recuperator by the hot exhaust gases before entering the combustion chamber and turbine. Steam injection in the mGT cycle was simulated in the compressor outlet and in the combustion chamber (light parts).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

For both the Aspen and the MATLAB models, compressor and turbine maps provided by the manufacturer have been used

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The steam injection flow rate is gradually increased to avoid any engine shutdown due to flameout in the combustion chamber

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The predicted performance of the mGT without steam injection at different requested power outputs shows some differences between the MATLAB and the Aspen models, which can be explained by the different implementation of the turbine and parameter tuning

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The dry performance of the mGT at 100 kWe electrical power output for varying inlet air temperature shows good comparison for both MATLAB and Aspen models

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Results of steam injection simulations in the compressor outlet (a) and the combustion chamber (b), obtained with the MATLAB (symbols) and Aspen (lines) models, using natural gas (NG, full lines and diamonds) and syngas (SG, dashed lines and circles) show relative good agreement when predicting the impact on the mGT performance: (a) Steam injection in the compressor outlet and (b) steam injection in the combustion chamber

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison between numerical results obtained with the Aspen and MATLAB models and experimental results using L-gas show good agreement for the Aspen model, validating this numerical model

Tables

Errata

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