2

Outline

●  Challenges faced by today’s combustor designers

●  Alternative strategies available to address the challenges

●  Announcing Energico

●  Summary

3

RD software enables “virtual” experimentation ●  RD’s software allows designers to visualize the effects of

chemistry on their engine designs ●  Chemistry simulation can help determine key parameters that

can affect efficiency and emissions ●  Exclusive developer and licensor of CHEMKIN

4

The Combustor Designer’s Dilemma

• Cost of Experiments • Mechanism Size • CFD Complexity • Cost of Design Mistakes • Design Complexity • Fuel Options

• Emissions Regulations • Fuel Consumption • Design Cycle Time • Design Resources

5

Global Issues Driving Change

●  Low Emissions Regulations –  ICAO limits on nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO)

and Unburned Hydrocarbons –  New Soot/Particulate emissions regulations for commercial

aircraft in airports ●  Fuel Flexibility

–  Alternative Fuels –  Opportunity Fuels –  Biofuels for carbon

dioxide (CO2) reduction

International Civil Aviation Organization NOx Limits

2012 (Proposed)

2009

2006 2003

Certification Test Data

(Engine Size)

Source: ICAO Colloquium on Aviation Emissions, May, 2007

6

While Testing Costs Keep Going Up

Example: 250 MW Turbine

7

●  Syngas from Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)

●  Opportunity Fuels –  Blast Furnace Gas –  Landfill Gas

●  Coal-derived, F-T fuels ●  Bio-fuels

–  High in methyl esters –  Sources differ regionally and

are changing ●  Oil-sand derived fuels

–  High in aromatics

Diverse Fuel Sources Add Risk to Design

Syngas and Fischer-Tropsch

Bio-Diesel

Biomass and Waste Fuels

8

Design Changes Introduce Risk to Combustor Stability ●  Lean-premixed combustion with low

flame temperature slows burn rates –  Lean Blow Off (LBO) when mixing

overpowers burning –  Flashback in premixed systems when

flow velocity is less than flame velocity –  Ignition more difficult with lean mixtures

●  Opportunity fuels can have inconsistent composition and flow rate –  Fuel composition impacts stability –  Combustor experiences transient conditions

with rapid load changes

9

Today, Designers Use CFD and Extensive Physical Testing

●  Computational Fluid Dynamics –  Geometry resolution –  3-D flow field representation –  Accurate prediction of mass flows –  Accurate heat transfer –  Simplified chemistry

●  Performance and emission requirements drive combustor testing –  10-20 tests per typical combustor design –  $50k-200k per test in a physical prototype

10

Detailed Chemistry Drives Accurate Simulation ●  Traditional CFD and empirical approaches do not

accurately predict emissions and stability

NOx Under Predicted by CFD CO Over Predicted by CFD

Measured

Measured

NOx NOx

NOx NOx NOx NOx NOx NOx

12

Designers Say They Need:

●  Fewer, better directed experiments

●  The ability to simulate conditions that cannot be experimentally tested

●  A way to complete rapid evaluations of fuel and operating condition effects

●  An accurate applications engineering tool for combustion stability assessment

13

Equivalent Reactor Networks (ERNs) are Being Used to Abstract the Chemistry

Air Pre-mixed Fuel + Air

Mixing

Flame

Recirculation Post-flame

Equivalent Reactor Network

Air

Benefits of ERNs •  ERNs use detailed chemistry to accurately simulate pollutant emissions •  ERNs can identify regions where emissions are formed

Drawbacks of ERNs •  Can takes expert >1 month to create by hand •  Difficult to map results back onto combustor geometry

14

Energico Adds Chemistry to the Design Flow

3-D CFD Solution

Automatically create ERN

Map chemistry results onto geometry view

Map chemistry results onto geometry view

15

Combustor Flow Field Automatically Divided Into Zones

●  Zone creation algorithm eliminates manual analysis and errors

●  Designer can easily adjust and refine the algorithm to capture flow/flame structures

●  Energico accurately tracks all flows to “stitch” together the zones into an ERN

16

“Instant” Equivalent Reactor Networks

●  Automation supports commercial design timelines –  Creates ERNs in minutes rather than months –  Enables widespread use by combustor designers

●  Accurately follows specific set of rules –  Correct-by-Construction

17

Viewing ERN Results on Combustor Geometry Facilitates Design Modifications

NOx Production

CO Concentrations

Identify where NOx emissions are formed

Identify where CO emissions are quenched

18

Assess Lean Blow Off (LBO)

●  Capture the flame ●  Conduct detailed

chemistry analysis locally in flame –  Chemistry rate from

reaction mechanism –  Mixing rate from CFD

●  Determine how close flame is to LBO

●  Visualize flame within geometry to guide design modifications

19

Energico has Completed a Rigorous Validation Program on Real Turbine Designs ●  RD conducted extensive internal benchmarking with

designs supplied from industry prior to release ●  Three major gas turbine manufacturers involved in

Program –  Mitsubishi Heavy Industries –  Kawasaki Heavy Industries –  Large United States manufacturer

●  Over 60% of power generation gas turbine market represented by validators

●  Program included validation of Energico on well understood designs –  Emissions predictions –  Lean Blow Off assessments

20

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

●  MHI is the largest gas turbine manufacturer in Japan

●  Energico Validation Summary: –  Energico predicted emissions well

within a 5% margin on natural gas –  Test cases on 25ppm NOx and less than 10ppm NOx cases –  Focused LBO testing on both fundamental experiments and

large scale combustor tests ●  MHI Turbine Business Division Manager:

–  “Energico can help MHI reduce costly and time consuming experimental testing”

21

Kawasaki Heavy Industries

●  Mid-size engine range up to 25MW ●  Energico Validation Summary:

–  Test cases focused on a parametric variation of fuel/air ratio in production combustor

–  Emissions of NOx and CO predicted within 5% of experimental data

22

US-based Gas Turbine Manufacturer

●  50MW to 400MW turbine systems ●  Energico Validation Results:

–  Compared emissions results from experiments to Energico

–  Emissions for NOx and CO within 1ppm of experimental data

–  Fuel impacts on emissions predicted (syngas from IGCC)

–  LBO tool provides new data for effective simulation ●  Team Leader, Combustor Simulation:

–  “Energico is clearly superior to CFD for accurate emissions results”

23

Sample Energico Validation Results

Class of Combustor (all CO less than 10ppm) Fuel Type NO

Variance CO

Variance

10MW Less than 10ppm NOx Natural Gas 1ppm 2ppm

25MW 25ppm NOx Natural Gas 2ppm 2ppm

250MW Less than 10ppm NOx Natural Gas 1ppm 2ppm

250MW 25ppm NOx Natural Gas 2ppm 2ppm

250MW 25ppm NOx Syngas 2ppm 2ppm

24

ENERGICO: Revolutionary Simulation Package

Mechanisms become more

detailed to capture required effects

Combustor designs are becoming

more complex

Sustainable fuels

introduce combustion uncertainty

Mechanisms become more

detailed to capture required effects

Mechanisms become more

Combustor designs are becoming

more complexmore complex

Mechanisms become more

Sustainable fuels

introduce combustion combustion uncertaintyuncertaintyuncertaintyuncertainty

Current Industry Concerns

•  Reduced Need for Physical Engine Testing •  Ability to take Advantage of Opportunity Fuels •  Increased Speed-to-Market for New Designs •  Reduced Field Failures with Capability to Accurately Simulate Emissions and LBO

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � n� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �