Combustori di Micro Turbine a Gas Alimentati a Syngas o Miscele

Gas Naturale – Idrogeno

Maria Cristina CAMERETTI

Raffaele TUCCILLO

Roberta DE ROBBIO

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale

Università di Napoli Federico II, Italy

GIORNATA DI STUDIO SUI COMBUSTORI DI TURBINA A GAS

Firenze, 6 Novembre 2018

Fabrizio REALE

Fabio CHIARIELLO

Istituto Motori del CNR,Napoli, Italy

1

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IN GAS TURBINE COMBUSTION BY CFD MODELS

The object of the studies are two micro gas turbine withdifferent combustor:

1. A 100kW MGT with tubular LPP combustor

2. A 30 kW MGT with annular reverse flow combustor

3. A 100 kW MGT with LP

reverse flow combustor

2

MGT features MICRO-GT SPECIFICATIONS Mech. Arrangement Single Shaft Pressure Ratio 3.9 Turbine Inlet Temp. 1223 K Combustor Inlet Temp. 905 K Overall fuel/air Eqv. Ratio 0.125 Rated Mech. Output/ Speed 110 kW / 64000 rpm Compressor 1 Radial Flow Compressor Turbines 1 Radial Flow Turbine

1. A 100kW MGT with tubular LPP combustor

3

Micro gas turbine (MGT) combustorfuelling with gaseous fuels from biomasstreatment or solid waste pyrolysis.

The objective is to optimize the combustor behaviour

under the point of view of combustion efficiency and

pollutant control

Cycle Analysis and CFD simulationhighlight the possible benefits and the

major problems

The combustion development is analyzed by a combined

approach based on the partially stirred reactorhypothesis and on the flamelet concept within aCFD simulation

COMBUSTION ANALYSIS IN A MICRO-GAS TURBINE

SUPPLIED WITH GASEOUS BIO-FUELS

4

Table 1. Natural gas and biogas properties

Fuel Compos.(%, molar)

NAT. GAS (NG)

BIOMO BIOMABIOM(AD)

SW

CH4 92.00 18.00 9.00 65.00 7.00C2H6 3.70 2.00 - - - - 7.00

C3H8 1.00 2.00 - - - - 7.00

C4H10 0.25 2.00 - - - - - -

N2 2.90 8.00 56.00 - - - -

H2 - - 25.00 9.00 - - 18.00CO - - 33.00 12.00 -- 61.00CO2 0.15 10.00 20.00 35.00 - -

H2O - - - - - - - - - -

Mol. Mass, g/mol 17.34 21.92 28.51 25.83 23.76

LHV, kJ/kg 47182 19198 2798 20183 21697

fst 0.0620 0.1680 1.257 0.145 0.1530

Tof, K 2220 2231 1571 2126 2300

f

j

0.0082

0.132

0.0214

0.127

0.191

0.151

0.0202

0.139

0.0177

0.115 5

THE CFD SIMULATIONS WITH THE

STEADY FLAMELET APPROACH

9

Standard and Modified pilot injector locations streamline pattern

(Attempt to approach the MILD Combustion regime)

Standard Pilot

Location

Modified Pilot

Location

10

CFD analysis:

Three chemical reaction set

1) A set of single – step oxidation of the several speciesconstituting the fuel (only the CH4 oxidation proceedsthrough two steps, i.e. partial and CO oxidation)

6,1215,0

104

809

222104

65,1

2

1,0

83

809

2283

65,1

2

1,0

62

809

22262

25,0

2

18

12

22

8,0

2

7,0

4

811

224

10256,1exp10161,4

542

13)5

10256,1exp1062,5

432

7)4

10256,1exp10186,6

322

7)3

102exp10239,2

2

1)2

102exp10012,5

22

3)1

OHCRT

R

OHCOOHC

OHCRT

R

OHCOOHC

OHCRT

R

OHCOOHC

OCORT

R

COOCO

OCHRT

R

OHCOOCH

f

f

f

f

f

11

T

T

T

T

PPP

T

PPPP

T

P

P

T

P

PPPP

T

PPP

eTONR

NOON

eONR

NOON

eTOOHNR

NOON

eCOOR

NOON

eCOOR

NOON

eCOR

OCOCO

e

OOHCOR

COOCO

eCOOCHR

OHCOOCH

68899

5.05.0

22967.14

8

22

52861

22317.10

7

22

69158

7.025.02

5.022

592.146

22

31.3348.6492504880.07911.24613.2

2

)log(7822.48327.29

5

22

6.126467480006.08888.00344.01805.1

20376.0122.14

4

22

31.3348.64925

207163.08144.15

3

22

1.7522398

0127.0891.02

0909.00912.02

0109.0359.11091.0338.142

22

4.269219321987.001426.0

201148.03.1

4004628.0354.13

1

224

10

2)8

10

2)7

10

2)6

10

2)5

10

2)4

10

21)3

10

21)2

10

223)1

the 8-step scheme (Novosselov and Malte,2007) accounts for both thermal and flame-prompt NO formation

the kinetic scheme is pressure-sensitive

Suitable for variable load operations

CFD analysis:

2) An eight-step scheme

The reaction mechanism is based on the

Finite Rate – Eddy Dissipation model

12

3) The GRIMECH 3.0 scheme (53 species, 325 reactions)

The steady, non-adiabatic flamelet concept allows solution of such

a complex system of non-linear equations thanks to the

preliminary set-up of flamelet tables and, consequently, of PDF

(probability density function) tables.

This algorithm replaces in an effective way the attempt to the

simultaneous solution of hundreds of kinetic equations with a

single additional equation of the scalar variable “mean mixture

fraction”

ffvf

t t

t

13

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON COMBUSTIONAND TURBULENCE MODEL.

Table 3. Volume averaged and outlet properties from CFD based

simulations: comparison of different schemes (natural gas fuelling)

OXIDATION SCHEME

Volume Outlet

O2

%,

mol

TmaxK K

[NO]

p.p.m.

[CO]

p.p.m

.

[UHC]

%

1-step 18.05 2700 1180 67 117 0.407

8-step 17.37 2348 1228 63 515 0.043

Flamelet (k-e) 18.17 2308 1147 72 2.8 3.22

Flamelet (k-w) 17.72 2091 1207 99 1.4 1.89

Flamelet (RS) 17.86 2287 1064 71 2.1 3.17

14

Results:Temperature distributions for

different Reaction schemes adopted

Temperature, K

1-Step Oxidation

8-Step Oxidation

Flamelet

flamelet approach returns much smoother temperature profiles

than in the reduced kinetics cases

15

Results: NO profiles for different oxidation

schemes

16

Results:. Axial developments of flame speed

17

The effect of the increased fuel pilot rate on the progress variable and the

turbulent flame speed

To improve the overall reaction speed the

amount of fuel injected through the pilot

line has been increased

18

Temperature distributions

for different pilot injections

BIOMO_1PIL

BIOMO_3PIL

BIOMO_2PIL

SW_1PIL

SW_3PIL

SW_3PIL – Modified Pilot Location

19

• The temperature peaks with the BIOMO and SWfuels are higher than in the methane fuelling case,

because of the combined effect of their hydrogen

contents with the one of the increased pilot flow rate

Volume averaged and outlet properties from CFD based simulations: comparison of different fuels

OXIDATIONSCHEME

Volume Outlet

O2

%, mol

TmaxK K

[NO]p.p.m.

[CO]p.p.m.

[UHC]%

Methane 18.17 2308 1147 72 2.8 3.22

BIOMO_1PIL 18.15 2084 1146 88 3327 1.81

BIOMO_3PIL 17.78 2513 1165 94 2832 1.54

Biogas_3PIL 17.25 2342 1200 68 0.221 3.14SW_3PIL 17.76 2537 1198 126 3301 0.382SW_PIL (mod.) 17.97 2486 1142 62 5444 0.624

20

Profiles of turbulent flame speed and nitric monoxide for different pilot

locations (SW_3PIL case)

21

LIQUID FUEL

SPRAY ANALYSIS

AIRBLAST ATOMIZER

22

LPP Combustor

NOx Emissions

Abatement

• Homogeneous Mixture• Low Flame Temperature• Hot Spots Absence

Fuel % to pilot 10%

Pilot line equiv. Ratio 1

Main line equiv. Ratio 0.5

Overall equiv. Ratio 0.1546

23

LPP Combustor

60° Sector

25

AIRBLAST MODEL

Ligament constant [m] 0.5

Sheet breakup empirical constant 12

Fuel flow rate [kg/s]0.0013 (kerosene)

0.0020 (ethanol)

Spray half angle θ Variable

Maximum relative velocity [m/s] Variable

Fuel Temperature [K] 300

Injector Inner Diameter d [µm] 300

Injector Outer Diameter D [µm] 409.8

Airblast Atomizer

The atomization is due to the high speed inner air flow

• Insensitivity of the outlet temperature traverse to changes in fuel flow.• High pressure fuel pumps are not needed.• Component parts are protected from overheating by the air flowing over them.

26

TURBULENCE:

MULTIPHASE:

SPRAY EVOLUTION:

COMBUSTION:

Realizable k-ε model

Lagrangian Discrete Phase Model

TAB model

Finite Rate – Eddy Dissipation

Models

STOCHASTIC

COLLISION:O’Rourke Algorithm

27

Fuels

FUELKerosene Bio-

Ethanol

LHV, kJ/kg 43124 27500

fst 0.0685 0.0957

Dynamic viscosity, kg/(m s) 0.0024 0.0012

Density, kg/m3 780 794

Surface Tension, N/m 0.0263 0.0223

Vaporiz. Temp , K 341 271

Normal Boiling Point, K 477 351

Volumetric coefficient of

expansion, 1/K0.00099 0.00112

𝑊𝑒 =𝜌𝑔𝑈𝑅

2𝐷

𝜎

𝜙 =𝑓

𝑓𝑠𝑡

Higher fuel consumption

for Ethanol

Responsible of a faster

vaporization

28

1. Cold Flow, Non-Evaporating Conditions:

Kerosene Results

170° 150°

90° 60°

Droplet

Diameter

[mm]

120°

30

1. Cold Flow, Non-Evaporating Conditions:

Comparison

𝑊𝑒 =𝜌𝑔𝑈𝑅

2𝐷

𝜎

FUEL Kerosene Ethanol

σ, N/m 0.0263 0.0223

31

2. Hot Flow, Evaporating Conditions:

Results Kerosene

32

2. Hot Flow, Evaporating Conditions:

Comparison

170°

170°

34

3. Burning Conditions

60°

60°

37

SPRAY ANGLE = 60°

Kerosene

Ethanol

3. Burning Conditions

41

3. Burning ConditionsFuel Kerosene Ethanol

CO [ppm] 1683 171 1138 456

42

2. 30 kW MGT

Annular Combustor

The work is based on a study of the potential of a micro gas

turbine (MGT) combustor when operated under

unconventional conditions, both in terms of variation in the

fuel supplied and concerning the part-load or off-design

operation

1. Description of the combustor of C30 micro gas turbine

2. A CFD analysis of the reacting flow through the MGT combustor checks thecombustion effectiveness under challenging variations of the boundary condition

3. Comparison of the combustor response at base-rating and part load

4. Combined use of natural gas and hydrogen in the micro gas turbine

5. Splitting the fuel delivery into two distinct streams, the first one (with only Hydrogen)

coming from the pilot injection, the second one flowing main injector line with air and

NG premixing

43

• DESCRIPTION OF THE COMBUSTOR

Dimension [mm]

External diameter 242

Minimum internal

diameter51

Outlet diameter 139

Internal liner length 249

External liner length 233

Total length 280

DESCRIPTION OF THE COMBUSTOR

44

Domain Fine Coarse

Pilot 1350 800

Premix 33000 24000

Liner 130000 55000

Core 240000 44000

COMPUTATIONAL MESH

45

• The CFD analysis was performed with the ANSYS-FLUENT solver of the reacting flow

• for each case the related boundary conditions were provided by a thermal cycle analysis

30 kW MGT base-rating data

Shaft Speed 96000 rpmFiring Temperature 1173 KPressure Ratio 3.5Fuel flow rate [kg/s] 0.0026

Fuel Energy rate [kW] 115.4

Fuel Heat rate [kJ/kWh] 14208

Recovered Heat from exhausts [kW] 51.33

Fuel Energy Utilization factor 0.695

Overall Electric efficiency 26.05%

CO2 [kg/h] (kg/kWh) 24.37

(0.812)

46

CHEMICAL KINETICS

• Methane three-step oxidation mechanism (by Novosselov andMalte ) completed by a 5-equation set for the thermal and prompt

NO formation

𝑪𝑯𝟒 +𝟑

𝟐𝑶𝟐 → 𝑪𝑶+ 𝟐𝑯𝟐𝑶

𝑅1 = 1013.354−0.004628𝑃 𝐶𝐻4

1.3−0.01148𝑃 𝑂20.01426 𝐶𝑂 0.1987

𝑒𝑥𝑝 − 182342648 + 2.2398 × 106𝑃 /𝑅𝑇

𝑪𝑶 +𝟏

𝟐𝑶𝟐 → 𝑪𝑶𝟐

𝑅2= 1014.338+0.1091𝑃 𝐶𝑂 1.359−0.0109𝑃 𝐻2𝑂

0.0912+0.0909𝑃 𝑂20.891+0.0127𝑃

𝑒𝑥𝑝 − 186216972 + 6.2438 × 105𝑃 /𝑅𝑇

𝑪𝑶𝟐 → 𝑪𝑶+𝟏

𝟐𝑶𝟐

𝑅3= 1015.8144−0.07163𝑃 𝐶𝑂2 𝑒𝑥𝑝 − 5.3979 × 10

8 − 2.7795 × 106𝑃 /𝑅𝑇

𝑵𝟐 +𝑶𝟐 → 𝟐𝑵𝑶𝑅4 = 10

14.122+0.0376𝑃 𝐶𝑂 0.8888−0.0006𝑃 𝑂21.1805+0.0344𝑃

𝑒𝑥𝑝 − 388662872 + 1.0526 × 106𝑃 /𝑅𝑇

𝑵𝟐 +𝑶𝟐 → 𝟐𝑵𝑶

𝑅5 = 1029.8327−4.7822 log10 𝑃 𝐶𝑂 2.7911−0.04880𝑃 𝑂2

2.4613

𝑒𝑥𝑝 − 509357210 + 5.8589 × 106𝑃 /𝑅𝑇

𝑵𝟐 +𝑶𝟐 → 𝟐𝑵𝑶

𝑅6 = 1014.592 𝑁2 𝐻2𝑂

0.5 𝑂20.25𝑇−0.7𝑒𝑥𝑝(−

574979612

𝑅𝑇)

𝑵𝟐 +𝑶𝟐 → 𝟐𝑵𝑶

𝑅7 = 1010.317 𝑁2 𝑂2 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−

439486354

𝑅𝑇)

𝑵𝟐 +𝑶𝟐 → 𝟐𝑵𝑶

𝑅8 = 1014.967 𝑁2 𝑂2

0.5𝑇−0.5𝑒𝑥𝑝(−572826286

𝑅𝑇)

47

• OXIDATION MECHANISM OF THE OTHER HYDROCARBONS INNATURAL GAS (NG).

𝑪𝟐𝑯𝟔 +𝟕

𝟐𝑶𝟐 → 𝟐𝑪𝑶𝟐 + 𝟑𝑯𝟐𝑶

𝑅9 = 6.186 × 109 𝐶2𝐻6

0.1 𝑂21.65𝑒𝑥𝑝(−

1.256 × 108

𝑅𝑇)

𝑪𝟑𝑯𝟖 +𝟕

𝟐𝑶𝟐 → 𝟑𝑪𝑶𝟐 + 𝟒𝑯𝟐𝑶

𝑅10 = 5.62 × 109 𝐶3𝐻8

0.1 𝑂21.65𝑒𝑥 𝑝 −

1.256 × 108

𝑅𝑇

𝑪𝟒𝑯𝟏𝟎 +𝟏𝟑

𝟐𝑶𝟐 → 𝟒𝑪𝑶𝟐 + 𝟓𝑯𝟐𝑶

𝑅11 = 4.161 × 109 𝐶4𝐻10

0.15 𝑂21.6𝑒𝑥𝑝(−

1.256 × 108

𝑅𝑇)

48

ALL TEST CASES INVOLVING HYDROGEN CONTENTS

HAVE BEEN SIMULATED WITH THE JACHIMOWSKI

REDUCED SCHEME

𝑯+𝑶𝑯+𝑴 = 𝑯𝟐𝑶+𝑴𝑅1 = 2.21 × 10

16 𝐻 𝑂𝐻 𝑇−2

𝑯+𝑯+𝑴 = 𝑯𝟐 +𝑴𝑅2 = 7.3 × 10

11 𝐻 𝐻 𝑇−1

𝑯𝟐 +𝑶𝟐 = 𝑶𝑯+𝑶𝑯

𝑅3 = 1.7 × 1010 𝐻2 𝑂2 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−

2.0083 × 108

𝑅𝑇)

𝑯 + 𝑶𝟐 = 𝑶𝑯+𝑶

𝑅4 = 1.2 × 1014 𝐻 𝑂2 𝑇

−0.91𝑒𝑥𝑝(−6.9086 × 107

𝑅𝑇)

𝑶𝑯+ 𝑯𝟐 = 𝑯𝟐𝑶+𝑯

𝑅5 = 2.2 × 1010 𝑂𝐻 𝐻2 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−

2.1548 × 107

𝑅𝑇)

𝑶+𝑯𝟐 = 𝑶𝑯+𝑯

𝑅6 = 50.6 𝑂 𝐻2 𝑇2.67𝑒𝑥 𝑝 −

2.6317×107

𝑅𝑇(3)

𝑶𝑯+𝑶𝑯 = 𝑯𝟐𝑶+ 𝑶

𝑅7 = 6.3 × 109 𝑂𝐻 𝑂𝐻 𝑒𝑥𝑝(−

4560560

𝑅𝑇)

𝑵 + 𝑵 +𝑴 = 𝑵𝟐 +𝑴𝑅8 = 2.8 × 10

11 𝑁 𝑁 𝑇−0.8

𝑶+ 𝑶+𝑴 = 𝑶𝟐 +𝑴𝑅9 = 1.1 × 10

11 𝑂 𝑂 𝑇−1

𝑵+𝑶𝟐 = 𝑵𝑶+𝑶

𝑅10 = 6400000 × 𝑁 𝑂2 𝑇1𝑒𝑥𝑝(−

2.6359 × 107

𝑅𝑇)

𝑵 + 𝑵𝑶 = 𝑵𝟐 + 𝑶𝑅11 = 1.6 × 10

10 𝑁 𝑁𝑂

𝑵+𝑶𝑯 = 𝑵𝑶+𝑯𝑅12 = 6.3 × 10

8 𝑁 𝑂𝐻 𝑇0.5 49

• combustion modelsand turbulence-chemistry interaction

1) FINITE RATE – EDDY DISSIPATION MODEL (FRED):

reaction rates are compared with those evaluated by the turbulent

mixing of the reactants, the latter estimated by a k-w model

2) COMBUSTION MODEL BASED ON THE EDDY DISSIPATION

CONCEPT (EDC)

• More reliability in the treatment of multiple reactions in hydrogen turbulent combustion

50

PRELIMINARY CFD ASSESSMENT

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS FREDand EDC:

Temperature distributions (K)

FRED Model – Fine Grid

EDC Model – Fine Grid

EDC Model – Coarse Grid

mesh sensitivity analysis

51

Injector plane

Meridional plane

Cross plane

STREAMLINES

53

Turbulent Intensity

Specific Dissipation Rate

54

• EDC model

COMPUTATIONAL TEST-CASES

Boundary condition data for the combustion simulation

(NG Operation)

Base Rating 70% Load

Combustor Inlet Temp. (K) 870 883

Combustor Outlet Pressure (bar) 3.20 2.62

Fuel mass flow rate (kg/s)0.00292

(from premixed line)0.00183

(from pilot line)

Oxidant mass flow rate (kg/s) 0.306 0.270

Overall equivalence ratio 0.143 0.102

55

• Testing the Pilot Line Response

COMPUTATIONAL TEST-CASES

Base – Rating

Rate of

reaction,

kg/(m3s)

70% Load

56

• Testing the Pilot Line Response• at full load the ignition begins near the injector outlet due to

the fuel/air premixing;

• at part load the unmixed fuel reaches the maximum value of the reaction rate far from the injector outlet

• The new proposal is the simultaneous employment of the premixer and pilot line in the case of combined use of natural

gas and hydrogen.

• The purpose is overcoming typical early ignition and flashback limits when firing hydrogen

COMPUTATIONAL TEST-CASES

57

Test cases with combined fuelling of Natural Gas and

Hydrogen

case#1 Base – Rating, Natural Gas from premixer

case#290% NG from premixer – 10% H2 from pilot

(Nitric Oxides from Novosellov and Malte scheme)

case#390% NG from premixer – 10% H2 from pilot

(Nitric Oxides from Jachimowski scheme)

case#475% NG from premixer – 25% H2 from pilot

(Nitric Oxides from Jachimowski scheme)

case#575% NG– 25% H2 mixture from premixer

(Nitric Oxides from Jachimowski scheme)

COMPUTATIONAL TEST-CASES

58

COMPUTATIONAL TEST-CASES

Volume averaged and outlet properties from CFD

based simulations

CASE

Volume Outlet

TmaxK

ToutK

[NO]

p.p.m.

[CO]

p.p.m.

Burned

[CH4] %

Burned

[H2] %

# 1 2567 1206 5.07 462 99.86 --

#2 2274 1159 3.82 841 99.60 99.99

#3 2296 1178 5.38 1153 99.80 99.99

#4 2140 1178 5.88 836 99.63 99.87

#5 2717 1153 8.01 728 99.79 99.99

59

COMPUTATIONAL TEST-CASES

Volume-averaged and maximum

of reactions and nitric oxides rates

Case VALUEOverall NO rate,

kg/(m3s)

CH4 oxidation

rate,

kg/(m3s)

H2 oxidation

rate,

kg/(m3s)

#1Average 1.06 x 10-5 3.97 x 10

-13.46 x 10-5

Maximum 2.70 x 100 23.95 2.27 x 10-1

#2Average 9.64 x 10-5 3.09 x 10

-14.03 x 10-2

Maximum 4.27 x 10-2 5.82 28.49

#3Average 1.87 x 10-6 3.09 x 10

-14.03 x 10-2

Maximum 2.07 x 10-2 12.77 27.92

#4Average 1.48 x 10-6 2.15 x 10

-18.30 x 10-2

Maximum 1.42 x 10-2 14.28 23.46

#5Average 1.76 x 10-4 1.36 x 10

-14.90 x 10-2

Maximum 8.28 x 102 30.77 38.1360

Case#1

Temperature distributions in the combustor, K

Case#2

Case#3

Case#4

Case#5

61

Case#2

Case#3

Case#4

Case#5

Methane Reaction Rate Hydrogen Reaction Ratekg/(m3s)

62

H2 frompilot

NG frompremixer

Comparison between the species mass fraction when injecting H2 from pilot or premixer.

NG and H2 From premixer

63

Comparison between the reaction rates of H2when injected from the pilot or the premixer.

kg/(m3s)

64

Detailed chemistry and flamelet – pdf based approach may provide a

further proof: (TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTIONS)

Grimech 3.0 and flameletReduced mechanisms and EDC67

68

Detailed chemistry and Detached Eddy Simulation (DES)

Detailed chemistry and Detached Eddy Simulation (DES)

69

Methane

Premixed CH4/H2 80%- 20%

Premixed CH4/H2 - Part Load

H2 From Pilot Line- Part Load

Methane

Premixed CH4/H2 80%- 20%

Premixed CH4/H2 - Part Load

H2 From Pilot Line- Part Load

70

authors’ papers:

-- CYCLE OPTIMIZATION AND COMBUSTION ANALYSIS IN A LOW-NOX MICRO-GAS TURBINETURBO-EXPO AND JRNL. OF GAS TURBINES AND POWER 2006

--NOX SUPPRESSION FROM A MICRO-GAS TURBINE APPROACHING THE MILD-COMBUSTION REGIME, TURBO-EXPO 2007

--COMBUSTION SIMULATION OF AN EGR OPERATED MICRO-GAS TURBINE TURBO-EXPO AND JRNL. OF GAS TURBINES AND POWER 2008

--CFD ANALYSIS OF THE FLAMELESS COMBUSTION IN A MICRO-TURBINE

TURBO-EXPO 2009

--COMPARISON OF EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL EGR CONCEPTS FOR LOW EMISSION MICRO GAS TURBINES. ASME TURBO EXPO 2010

-- LIQUID BIO-FUELS IN AN EGR EQUIPPED MICRO GAS TURBINE ASME TURBO EXPO 2011

--FUELLING AN EGR EQUIPPED MICRO GAS TURBINE WITH BIO-FUELS. ASME TURBO EXPO 2012

-- STUDY OF AN EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION EQUIPPED MICRO GAS TURBINE SUPPLIED WITH BIO-FUELS. APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING 2013

- COMBUSTION FEATURES OF A BIO-FUELLED MICRO-GAS TURBINE, APPLIED THERMAL

ENGINEERING , 2015

- CFD STUDY OF A MGT COMBUSTOR SUPPLIED WITH SYNGAS, ENERGY PROCEDIA, 2016

- INNOVATIVE COMBUSTION ANALYSIS OF A MICRO-GAS TURBINE BURNER SUPPLIED WITH

HYDROGEN-NATURAL GAS MIXTURES”. ENERGY PROCEDIA. 2017

- THERMAL CYCLE AND COMBUSTION ANALYSIS OF A SOLAR-ASSISTED MICRO GAS TURBINE.

ENERGIES 2017

- NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF SPRAY DEVELOPMENT IN A MICRO GAS TURBINE LPP

COMBUSTOR WITH AIRBLAST ATOMIZER. ASME TURBO EXPO 201871

72

A 100 kW MGT with Lean Premixed reverse flow combustor

73

EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT

74

T100 COMBUSTOR

tetrahedral grid of 4.7 million of nodes

75

Flow Field inside the T100 Combustor

76

Methane – Hydrogen BlendsNovosellov and Malte + Jachimowski Schemes

77

Methane – Hydrogen BlendsTemperature Distributions

78

Methane – Hydrogen BlendsNitric Monoxide Distributions

79

Methane – Hydrogen BlendsReaction Rates

80

• di Gaeta, A., Reale, F., Chiariello, F., Massoli, P., 2017, "A dynamic model of a 100kW micro gas turbine fuelled with natural gas and hydrogen blends and its applicationin a hybrid energy grid", Energy, Volume 129, Pages 299-320

• Calabria, R. , Chiariello, F., Massoli, P., Reale, F., 2014, “Part load behavior of amicro gas turbine fed with different fuels”, ASME paper no. GT2014-26631

• Reale F., Iannotta V., Tuccillo R. ,“ Numerical Study of a Micro Gas TurbineIntegrated With a Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycle Turbine", ASME paper no.GT2018- 76656

• Calabria, R. , Chiariello, F., Massoli, P., Reale, F., 2015, “CFD Analysis of TurbecT100 Combustor at Part Load by Varying Fuels”, ASME paper no. GT2015-43455

• Reale, F., Calabria, R., Chiariello, F., Pagliara, R., and Massoli, P., 2012, "A microgas turbine fuelled by methane-hydrogen blends", Applied Mechanics and Materials,232, pp. 792-796.

Papers on T100 Combustor form I.M. researchers

81

Thanks for your attention !!

mc.cameretti@unina.it

roberta.derobbio@unina.it

raffaele.tuccillo@unina.it

f.reale@im.cnr.it

f.chiariello@im.cnr.it

mailto:mc.cameretti@unina.itmailto:mc.cameretti@unina.itmailto:roberta.derobbio@unina.itmailto:Raffaele.tuccillo@unina.itmailto:f.reale@im.cnr.itmailto:f.reale@im.cnr.itmailto:Roberta.derobbio@unina.it