1

 Modified Wobbie Index

We are having 2 GE frame 7FA with DLN 2.6 technology gas turbines.
As we are receiving the Natural Gas from different gas plants, the natural gas parameters usually changes
frequently,

Based on LHV & specific Gravity of natural gas changes, the Heating contro v/v output changes to
increase/decrease the fuel gas temperature accordingly. to minimize the upset, we incorporated the logic to
clamp the value when LHV reaches to 930 BTU/SCF on low range & 1310 BTU/SCF at high range. also
specific gravity value will clamp at 0.65 at high range & 0.5 at low range.

Currently the natural gas specific gravity is high (>0.65) so both LHV & SG values clamped at 930 BTU/Scf &
0.65.

But the actual LHV is 1000 BTU/scf & specific gravity is 0.69.

In this case, the fuel gas temperature is maintaining bases on clamped values but not actual values.

I want to know that will it harm the Combustion hardware?

 I am just becoming familiar with the effects of varying Wobbe indices on turbine operation and
don't have a lot of experience with it to date. But, I have to say from the importance placed on it by GE
and other combustion turbine manufacturers it would seem that the operation you describe can lead to
some premature turbine hot gas path part failures. You should really be asking this question of GE as they
have the best ability to respond with their view of how operation outside the limits of expected Wobbe
indices will affect the turbine and its components.

Wobbe index alarm and unit trip

We have machine GE frame9FA during running an alarm came "FUEL GAS SYS LOWER DUE TO WOBBE
INDEX" AND UNIT START TO RUNBACK DUE TO THIS ALARM during runback fuel gas control valve D5
start to open and alarm vibration came and reach to shutdown value in the turbine bearing no.2 i need to
know this is normal to open D5 as soon as the alarm " Fuel sys lower due to wobbe index"

 Origin of the alarm you mentioned is in most cases too low gas temperature. Burning the
combustible gas in such conditions can lead to excessive combustion dynamics. In that case the run back
command is issued by code (what you mentioned) that reduces the turbine load very quickly (typical rate
is 1.32%/min so it would take apr 3 min to go down from Base Load to zero MW). If the run back
originated in the low gas temperature (what I assume), run back would be stopped for TTRF1 lower than
1750F (K26LFTG constant, check constants on your site) what transferred to MW would mean that
turbine would be un-loaded till app 35MW. During the turbine un-loading sequencing, D5 valve opens at
the instance that turbine operating mode goes out of Premix i.e. at apr. 120...110MW (check settings on
your site).

Conclusion: opening of the D5 valve is part of the run back process.

Mentioned by you high vibrations might be the consequence of the rapidness of the turbine un-loading.
Burning the gas with low temperature (what I assume was the origine of the run-back) do produces high
combustion dynamics what could also contribute to higher vibrations. Do you record high vibrations also
at normal (i.e. slow) turbine shut down?
 2
 Thanks for your reply put the stringer things is that after make trend and analyze what is the
happen? i found the D5 start to cut in service and PM4 and PM1 start to close at approximately 217MW
this change in combustion mode i think its make a high shutdown vibration alarm beside the wobbe
index alarm for unit i need to ask again this change in combustion mode is normal at this load if no what
is the causes for the change in mode at this load
 Please confirm with code on your site: when wobbie index alarm is present you loose permissive
to run on Premix (L3FXMS) and at the same time runback begins (turbine un loading).

As result D5 (G1) will open (L3G1 =1)and at the same time G2/G3 will begin closing as consequence of
turbine de-loading and second reason as result of D5 opening (all three valves share the total requested
gas flow).
 Thanks for your replay after i checked the logic i found that the value of wobbe index control
constant between the ranges 43.8 n/d and 48.44 n/d.

if the value of the wobbe index more than 48.44n/d or less than 43.8 n/d the alarm is coming and affect
on premix loading permissive
L3FGW_PERM = 0 and going to reduce load L70L (Runback). but it is not clear if this runback give
command to D5 to cut in or not please if u have any answer please reply
 but it is not clear if this runback give command to D5 to
> cut in or not please if u have any answer please reply

Hi,

You did not provide details so I assume that this is 9FA turbine with DLN 2+ system that has three gas
valves, not DLN 2.6 with four gas valves.

Please compare below description with code on your site.

You write that as consequence of wobbie index alarm, gas valve D5 has opened so I assume that before
the issue began, turbine was operating on Premix: G2 and G3 were opened and G1 (D5) was closed and
the gas line for this valve was under purge.

Valve D5 did not start opening as consequence of run back but as consequence of transfer to Piloted
Premix being the consequence of the lost permissive to run on Premix. Wobbie index out of limits
initiated two processes: transfer from Premix to Piloted Premix and turbine unloading (runback).

With typical configuration, when wobbie index is out of permissible limits (L3FGW_PERM becomes 0) it
is lost request to operate on Premix (L3FXMS becomes 0 and L3FXHS becomes 1). As consequence purge
process on G1 line is stopped: L20PG1ON is disenergized and when both purge valves (PG1 and PG2) are
closed, confirmed by their limit switches (L33PG1C and L33PG2C both become 1) prefill of G1 (D5) will
begin and finally L3FXHC becomes 1 so L83FXH becomes 1, and all three valves will take position
requested by Piloted Premix mode: D5 will open and G2 and G3 will remain opened but to different
positions than before the event.

At the same time it should appear alarm: ‘High CRT for Piloted Premix’ because TTRF1 at this instant is
above the thresold for transfer out of Premix.

When wobbie index is out of limits, the run back process starts so all three valves continuously will be
driven down by reduced request for gas flow.
 3

 GT load reduction due to wobbe index

What is the load setpoint/TNR during Fuel Gas System lower due to Wobbe Index* (L70L_76)?

Or the load setpoint/TNR is variable depending on the actual wobbe index that time?

What will be the effect in the gas turbine during high/low wobbe index? I compared the fuel gas inlet
temperature in GE (110oC) and Siemens (59oC)using the same source of NG. Why in GE at approx. 61oC,
load reduction already occured due to wobbe index?

*Wobbe Index varies based on LHV, SG and GT fuel gas inlet temperature.

 Wide Wobbe control is new for many manufacturers and as with most control schemes,
manufacturers may and will likely use different approaches to implementing a particular control scheme
(something about that "NIH" phenomenon: Not Invented Here). Without being able to look at the GE
application code you are reviewing, it's impossible to say what's happening or why. Also, Wide Wobbe
control is likely undergoing some development at experience with it is being gained, by all
manufacturers.

A comparison between different control schemes is good, but it's not very informative if one doesn't
understand the underlying philosophy and "motivation" for each scheme as well as the specific
implementation. I haven't seen very much "published" or provided by GE for their implementation(s) to
date.

It's interesting you have some control schemes from two prime combustion turbine manufacturers.
 As far as I could understand from the original post, I don't think that the Siemens machine has a
Wide Wobbe Control system installed. As CSA already mentioned, it is impossible to say what is
happening with this small amount of information.

Concerning fact that the Siemens unit runs perfectly at a fuel gas temperature of 59°C while the GE unit
already reduces the load at 61°C gas temperature: Both units probably have a completely different design
of the combustion system. The design is optimized for a certain gas quality with a certain gas
temperature (for the Siemens machine this would logically be 59°C while for the GE machine this would
be 110°C). If the incoming gas temperature differs to much from the design value, the unit should deload
to protect the machine (e.g. due to the limit of the wide wobbe control).

Even with two combustion systems that carry the same name, the optimal gas temperature can be
different due differences in orifice sizes and differences in the diameter of the fuel injection holes.
 Not in use here YET but it would be useful(NG/H2/other blends).

Here's a reference from GE:

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/serv/env_serv/en/downloads/turbo_international.pdf
 Very informative link. Thanks.

Does anyone here having the same protection as our GT? What is your MWI (Modified Wobbe Index)
range? What is your operating gas inlet temperature?

MWI = LHV / sqr rt of SG * NG Temp

 4

LHV in Btu/scf
NG Temp in Rankine
SG - fuel specific gravity

Our MWI range are 47.2 (High) and 42.7 (Low). Automatic load reduction during this limit (L70L_76).
Hoping to hear some response about others GT MWI operating range.

 Wobbie index
In 9FA gas turbine,we come across the word "wobbie index". what does that mean actually. send your
replies to my mail "pawanp7 [at] gmail.com"
 Have you looked up Wobbie Index using your preferred Internet search engine?

Have you looked in the Control Specification for the Speedtronic panel, section 05.02?
 The Wobbe Index is a factor used to compare the combustion energy output of different
composition fuel gases in combustion chambers. If two fuels have identical Wobbe Indices then for given
pressure and valve settings the energy output will also be identical. The Wobbe index is calculated using
the Heating Value of the fuel (GE typically uses the Lower heating value) and the fuel specific gravity.

WI = LHV / sqrt ( SG )
LHV - Lower Heating Value (Btu/scf)
SG - Fuel Specific Gravity

However, GE uses the modified wobbe index, in this definition the natural gas temperature is also taken
into account:

WI = LHV / sqrt( SG * NG Temp )

LHV - Lower Heating Value (Btu/scf)

SG - Fuel Specific Gravity
NG Temp - Natural gas temperature (Rankine)

In the gei41040j, GE states the following about the interchangeability of gases in a gas turbine:

"Gas turbines can operate with fuel gases having a very wide range of heating values, but the amount of
variation that a specific fuel system design can accommodate is limited. The fuel nozzles are designed to
operate within a fixed range of pressure ratios and changes in heating value are accommodated for by
increasing or decreasing the fuel nozzle area or gas temperature. A measure of the interchangeability of
gas fuels for a given system design is the MWI."

A combustion system installed at a certain plant is typically designed for a given fuel gas composition and
temperature (a certain MWI) and as long as the MWI does not change significantly (with respect to
certain limits in gas composition), no combustion problems are expected (GE typically allows a 5% MWI
variability).

MARK V Fuel Gas Flow Calculation

Following are the instantaneous value inputs to the GAS_FLOW_CALC1 Block for the GE Frame 5 gas turbine.

Note: following are snapshot values.

 5
FDG1 : 574 mmWc
FDG2 : 575mmWc
FPG3 : 17.30 Kg/Cm2
FQG : 1.17 Kg/S
FQKGDB : 76
FQKGG : 1.046
FQKGSG : 0.608
FQKGSL : 737
FTG : 53 Deg C

Orifice details available from performance guarantee test calculation sheet given at the commissioning time
are as follows:

Diameter of Pipe @ 20 Deg C : D' = 0.154051 m

Diameter of Pipe during test : D = 0.154109842 m
Flowing Temp : FT = 54.95 Deg C
Beta : 0.582160533

Problem: the FQG calculated by Mark V is 1.17 Kg/s. using a Daniel's flow calculator for these values the gas
flow reading is 1.46 Kg/s. (I'm not sure if the Daniel's flow calculator that I have is a licensed version.)

Given these facts, is there a reason to believe that Mark V's FQG may be wrong and needs some change of
constants?
 How long ago was the orifice plate and metering tube installed?

When was the last time the orifice plate dimension was inspected, for diameter and for the sharpness of
the knife edge and for correct installation?

When was the last time the differential flow transducers were calculated?

1.17 kg/s is about half of rated flow-rate for a Frame 5 as I recall; what speed/load was this data taken at?

Usually when performance data is gathered from the meter tube/orifice assembly during commissioning,
a water-tube manometer is used and the readings are manually recorded and used to calculate the flow-
rate for performance characteristics.

As has been said before on control.com, the fuel flow monitoring instrumentation on the Mark V (or Mark
IV or Mark VI) are not "revenue" quality. They can't be used as a check against some meter or flow
totalizer which is being used to determine volume for billing purposes. That kind of accuracy is simply
not required for GE-design heavy-duty gas turbine fuel flow-rate measurement. Most often, the flow-rate
is only used for calculating Wet Low NOx injection flow-rates or Power Augmentation Injection flow-
rates, neither of which require extremely high accuracy.
 >How long ago was the orifice plate and
>metering tube installed?

The Orifice Plate, DP Transmitters were installed Five years ago

>When was the last time the orifice

>plate dimension was inspected, for
 6
>diameter and for the sharpness of the
>knife edge and for correct
>installation?

Orifice Plate has never been inspected snce installation

>When was the last time the differential

>flow transducers were calculated?

Four months ago.

>1.17 kg/s is about half of rated

>flow-rate for a Frame 5 as I recall;
>what speed/load was this data taken
>at?

16MW - Preselect load

N - 5100RPM
 One of the things I've always done when this was raised as a problem is to use a water tube
manometer (inexpensive or easily made) to measure the differential pressure across the orifice plate to
confirm that value being transmitted by the transmitter is accurate. I've also used a calibrated gage or
pressure instrument to measure the upstream pressure of the natural gas supply. It's usually discovered
that there's something amiss with the calibration of the transmitters, or the condition of the orifice.

I'm not personally familiar with a "Daniels flow calculator" but presume that it may be programmed for
the particular characteristics of Daniels flow-measuring equipment and may not be 100% compatible
with the instrumentation at your site. This could also be part of the problem. Have you tried manually
calculating the flow-rate using industry-standard equations to see if the flow-rate is satisfactory?

What is the fuel flow-rate measurement being used for in the Mark V Control Sequence Program? Wet
Low NOx flow-rate calculation? Power Augmentation flow-rate calculation?
 >One of the things I've always done when
>this was raised as a problem is to use a
>water tube manometer (inexpensive or
>easily made) to measure the
>differential pressure across the
>orifice plate to confirm that value
>being transmitted by the transmitter is
>accurate. I've also used a calibrated
>gage or pressure instrument to measure
>the upstream pressure of the natural
>gas supply. It's usually discovered
>that there's something amiss with the
>calibration of the transmitters, or the
>condition of the orifice. <

We did not suspect the transmitters 'til now because both of them were showing the same DP (excuse the
1mmWc difference), but it's true that the orifice has never been checked since installation. Secondly, even
if the DP is wrong, with all other parameters constant, the flow calculation by Mark V and a flow
 7
calculator should app. match (if DP is wrong, then calculations will differ from the true value, but the
wrong value should match).

>I'm not personally familiar with a

>"Daniels flow calculator" but presume
>that it may be programmed for the
>particular characteristics of Daniels
>flow-measuring equipment and may not be
>100% compatible with the instrumentation
>at your site. This could also be part of
>the problem. Have you tried manually
>calculating the flow-rate using
>industry-standard equations to see if
>the flow-rate is satisfactory? <

We calculated the flow using the same DP values using an AGA3 software again. Manual calculation is too
mathematical, so didn't try it. Plus, I don't have a simpler equation. The performance test booklet talks of
so many parameters viz., flowing temp, reference temp, flowing pressure, reference pressure, density at
STP, density at flowing condition, orifice dia. at STP, Orifice dia. at flowing conditions, orifice expansion
coefficients, etc. The complete equation is scary.

Another thing that I did not understand is that these parameters don't appear in Fuel_Gas_calc bbl as
inputs. Can this explain the difference, because the flow calculators I am using (Daniel or AGA3) ask for
all these parameters?

>What is the fuel flow-rate measurement

>being used for in the Mark V Control
>Sequence Program? Wet Low NOx flow-rate
>calculation? Power Augmentation
>flow-rate calculation? <

Yes sir, the FQG appears only in two rungs. seq_nox5 & seq_nox6. seq_nox5 is the Gas_flow_calc bbl and
seq_nox6 is injection block. I am not aware of power augmentation part but FQG search did not result in
any other rungs except those mentioned above.

If we get a flow metering party or a third party to validate the flow metering instrumentation and still
observe the difference from Mark V calculation which constant can be changed to match it with the
validated readings.

 Fuel Consumption Issue for Gas Turbine 9fa

This issue about gas turbine frame 9fa. I want to ask why fuel consumption at low loads is higher than base
load. For example at base load 245 mw fuel flow rate is 14 kg/s and load 150 mw is 10 kg/s.

This is related to firing temp and it must be constant all the time or different with load?
 As this is a 9FA ,it will be running a DLN 2.6 fuel system. This means at different stages, it will be
using different fuel nozzles.

I think that you need to read up on DLN before trying to analyze flows.
 8
 Every GE-design heavy duty gas turbine control system I ever worked on came with a document
(sometimes three documents) called the 'Control Specification.' That document detailed much of the
operating parameters, expected and design, for the turbine and auxiliaries.

Section 05 of the document contained a section entitled 'Expected Fuel Characteristics.' It was a crude
table of fuel flow-rates and expected FSR (Fuel Stroke Reference) values and expected loads for the fuel
that was specified during the design and requisition phase of the turbine and auxiliaries. The fuel analysis
for the fuel expected to be available on site was supplied by the purchaser to GE or one of its packagers
and this was used to order fuel control valves and develop the table in the 'Expected Fuel Characteristics'
section.

This included rows for firing FSR (the process of establishing flame); warm-up FSR (just after flame was
established), FSNL (Full Speed-No Load--100% rated speed) FSR; 1/4 load FSR; 2/4 load FSR; 3;4 load
FSR; and 4/4 load (Base Load) FSR. If there were higher loads purchased and available, they were also
listed in the table.

Each row had the expected (calculated) FSR value, the fuel flow-rate (sometimes in various Engineering
units), etc.

This information is invaluable in understanding the expected fuel flow-rates at various operating
conditions.

One thing that is important to understand and remember: It requires a certain amount of fuel just to
achieve and maintain rated speed (FSNL). Once the generator breaker closes and the unit is "loaded," the
fuel flow-rate increases, usually at a relatively linear rate, to Base Load.

These numbers are just for exemplary purposes; I didn't pull them from any Control Specification, but
they are very typical of most GE-design heavy duty gas turbines. It usually requires approximately 25% of
rated fuel flow-rate just to maintain rated speed (FSNL). (The axial compressor requires a LOT of energy
to keep it spinning at rated speed and moving air through the unit.) And it requires approximately 75% of
rated fuel flow to make power from generator breaker closure (0 MW) to Base Load.

So, let's say the FSR at FSNL was 18%, and the FSR at Base Load was 72% (FSR is just as much a measure
of fuel flow-rate as it is valve position--in fact, it's really about flow, not so much position; it just so
happens that the configuration of valves that GE formerly used (non-DLN combustor-equipped machines)
flow-rate was directly proportional to stroke). So that means that if we divide 72% by 4 we end up with
18%, which is one-quarter of rated fuel flow-rate--and which corresponds to FSNL (rated speed, 0 MW).
Now, that leaves (72% - 18%) 54% of FSR to produce rated power (from FSNL to Base Load). So, 1/3 of
rated load would occur at (18% + 18%) 36% FSR; and 2/3 of rated load would occur at approximately
(18% + 18% + 18%) 54% FSR. And full load would occur at approximately (18% + 18% + 18% +18%)
72% FSR, which is 100% of rated fuel flow-rate.

So, the fuel flow-rate <i>at any load</i> includes the amount of fuel required to maintain FSNL PLUS the
amount of fuel required to achieve that load. And, as can be seen from the example, the amount of load is
proportional to the amount of fuel (over and above the amount of fuel required to maintain FSNL). In
other words, load change is roughly linear with the change in fuel flow-rate--over and above the amount
of fuel required to maintain FSNL.
 9
Finally, because of the way the IGVs are operated on units with DLN combustors, and if IBH (Inlet Bleed
Heat) is used (and it is on most GE-design heavy duty F-class gas turbines) the efficiency of the unit at
part load (just the gas turbine) is lower than it would be if the unit didn't have DLN combustors, but just
slightly so. As the unit approaches Base Load the efficiency gets better (as IBH is shut off, and the IGVs
reach full open operating angle).

The takeaway from all of this is: First, you should find the Control Specification for your unit (they are
specific to every turbine), and then go to the 'Expected Fuel Characteristics' section for expected flows
and loads. Second, you need to remember that the fuel flow-rate at any load includes the amount of fuel
required just to maintain rated speed (FSNL; 0 MW), and so when comparing fuel flow-rates at different
loads one must subtract the FSNL fuel flow-rate from both loads to arrive at the true fuel flow difference
between the two loads being compared. I think you will find that the fuel flow-rate between FSNL (0 MW)
and Base Load is very linear (proportional to) with respect to the change in load, or the change in load is
very linear (proportional to) with respect to the change in fuel flow-rate.

I hope this helps!

 Thank you for your brief description and details. but I ask if I use 14 kg/s at 245 mw, why at 150
mw I didn't consume half value of fuel compared to 245 mw for ex 7 kg /s?

This mean there is other controlled parameter which make more fuel consumed. I think it is firing temp
as at low loads cpd decrease so firing temp decrease. so increase fuel fuel to increase firing temp to
increase efficiency of combined cycle as it increased by increasing exhaust temp, which it is indication to
firing temp and used to control firing temp. so I think we it consume more fuel at low loads to increase
exhaust temp and increase efficiency as combined cycle. That's I think.

So I ask does firing temp is constant and must be reached all time? or it different from load to load and
different from simple cycle and combined cycle?
 I was pretty certain it was going to come to this.

If it takes 25% of rated fuel flow-rate <i>just to maintain FSNL</i>, then this amount of fuel must be
subtracted from any calculation of fuel versus electrical power produced to compare apples to apples--
that amount of fuel is common to both loads being compared.

As to your question about firing temperature, for simple cycle machines with conventional combustors
the firing temperature varies with load at most all loads between 0 MW and Base Load. For units with
conventional combustors being used in combined cycle mode (meaning that the IGVs are being used to
maximize exhaust temperature), the firing temperature still varies with load. And, for units with DLN
combustors using IBH (Inlet Bleed Heat) firing temperature still varies with load.

Since you are discussing working with a GE-design 9FA heavy duty gas turbine, it will most likely have
DLN combustors, and so the turbine control system will be calculating firing temperature; the value is
either TTRF (for older units) or TTRF1 for newer units. Monitor TTRF (or TTRF1) during loading from 0
MW to Base Load. You will see that it varies mostly with load, so as load increases TTRF (or TTRF1) will
increase, fairly linearly.

Now, if you want to look at fuel flow-rate versus load, trend FQG (for gas fuel flow-rate) versus DW
during loading (which begins at 0 MW after the unit has reached FSNL and is synchronized to the grid).
So, the amount of fuel flowing at FSNL just prior to synchronization must be subtracted from any loads
which are compared AFTER the generator breaker closes and the unit is producing electrical power.
 10

In the example above, the maximum fuel flow-rate (at Base Load) was 72%. And the fuel flow-rate for
FSNL was 18% (or 25% of the maximum fuel flow-rate, 72%). So, to compare fuel flow-rates at any load
one must subtract the FSNL fuel flow-rate from BOTH fuel flow-rates at the two loads being compared to
determine if the amount of fuel is proportional to the loads being produced.

To accurately compare how much load is being produced at any two (or more) loads, one MUST
SUBTRACT the amount of fuel required to hold FSNL--that fuel isn't producing any load, but it's still
required to maintain rated speed, which is critical to any AC power generation system.

So, you said it took 14 kg/s to produce 245 MW (100% of rated power), and you said it took 10 kg/s to
produce (150 MW/245 MW) approximately 61% of rated power. Let's use the typical value of 25% of
rated fuel flow to maintain FSNL, so 25% of 14 kg/s would be 3.5 kg/s. Now, subtracting 3.5 kg/s from 15
kg/s leaves 10.5 kg/s for 0 MW (0% load) to 245 MW (100% load). So, to determine approximately how
much fuel would be required to produce 61% of rated load one would multiply 10.5 kg/s times .61 to
arrive at approximately 6.405 kg/s, then add 3.5 kg/s (the approximate amount of fuel required to
maintain FSNL) to arrive at 9.905 kg/s. That number is just about equal to the 10 kg/s you reported (and
since you didn't report any decimal places, if we round 9.905 to the closest whole number, that makes
exactly 10 kg/s!).

You can't compare the fuel flow-rates at two loads without subtracting the amount of fuel required to
maintain rated speed (FSNL; 0 MW) from the fuel flow-rate at each load. Using the numbers you provided
and from the paragraph above, the fuel flow-rate should increase by approximately (10.5 kg/s /10) 1.05
kg/s for every 10% increase in load (or, 24.5 MW).

At 0 MW, the fuel flow-rate would be (3.5 kg/s + 0 kg/s) 3.5 kg/s.

For 24.5 MW (10% rated load), the fuel flow-rate would be (3.5 kg/s + 1.05 kg/s) 4.55 kg/s.

For 25 % rated load (.25 * 245 MW=61.25 MW), the fuel flow-rate would be (3.5 kg/s + (2.5 * 1.05 kg/s))
6.125 kg/s.

For 50% rated load, the fuel flow-rate would be (3.5 kg/s + (5 * 1.05 kg/s)) 8.75 kg/s.

For approximately 61% rated load (approximately 150 MW), the fuel flow-rate would be (3.5 kg/s + (6.1
* 1.05 kg/s) 9.905 kg/s (or 10 kg/s, since we're not reporting decimal places and we're rounding to the
nearest whole number!).

For 75% of rated load (.75 * 245 MW=184 MW), the fuel flow-rate would be (3.5 kg/s + (7.5 * 1.05 kg/s))
11.375 kg/s.

For 100% of rated load (245 MW), the fuel flow-rate would be (3.5 kg/s + (10 * 1.05 kg/s) 14 kg/s.

As a final check, let's calculate how much fuel flow would be required to make rated power by adding the
fuel 25% fuel flow-rate and the 75% fuel flow-rate. (2.5 * 1.05 kg/s) + (7.5 * 1.05 kg/s) = (2.625 kg/s +
7.875 kg/s) = 10.5 kg/s PLUS 3.5 kg/s (the amount of fuel required to maintain FSNL) = 14 kg/s. And we
previously determined that using a typical value of approximately 25% of rated fuel flow is required to
maintain rated speed that would mean that (14 kg/s - (.25 * 14 kg/s)) = 10.5 kg/s, which is equal to the
amount of fuel required to produce 100% of rated power from 0 MW (rated speed) to Base Load (245
 11
MW). Add 3.5 kg/s (the amount of fuel required to maintain 0 MW (rated speed)) and you get 14 kg/s.
And checking it with the one data point you provided, 150 MW (approximately 61% of rated load), we
can see that all the numbers just about add up perfectly. (Whew!)

I hope this clears at least the maths part of this up. (Where's Phil when I'm doing maths?!?!?!) Load can
only be compared to the amount of fuel being used to produce load; the amount used to maintain FSNL
(rated speed; 0 MW) isn't valid in this comparison. Yes; you factor total fuel flow in when determining
efficiency or heat rate, but we're just trying to determine if the fuel flow-rate is proportional to load, and
we determined--first using an example, then using the whole numbers you provided--that the fuel flow-
rates you provided were pretty proportional to the fuel flow-rate that is used to produce load (when the
amount of fuel used to maintain rated speed is subtracted from each load--because it's common to each
load). If you want to calculate how much fuel is required to produce a certain load, you need to know how
much fuel is required just to produce electricity then add the amount of fuel required to maintain rated
speed.

And that's the end of my maths for this year!

 Thank you very much for your effort for explaining and make more calculations this year as it
seem it is boring for you
 The maths aren't boring. I don't much like maths as an answer to a question because it sometimes
muddles the answer and the question.

But mostly, I prefer when people do the maths themselves and ask for clarification if needed. Personally,
when I work through an answer (using maths if necessary) and derive the answer myself I retain the
information much better and for longer than if someone just gives me the answer. I find many--but not
all--people are like this; you seem not to be one of the many, but I didn't know that before.

So, please excuse my weak attempt at humor and frustration with maths. Hopefully you found the
information helpful. (The reference to Phil was to a former contributor who chided me for not using
maths in my answers to electrical questions.)

 Changing the Turbine Fuel Composition

We have 3 GE Gas Turbine generator, Frame 5, the properties of Fuel gas composition that issue by GE is as
below(mole):

Methane: min=85 max=100

Ethane: min=0 max=15
propane: min=0 max=15
...

our fuel gas composition is:

Methane = 99.4%
Ethane = 0.6%

now we want to use the fuel with Methane=60% and

Ethane =40%.

1- Can we use fuel with this composition?

2- What is the effect of this change on the performance of Gas Turbine?

 12

any help will be appreciated

 You should contact the gas turbine supplier (GE). I cannot tell you the impact. It is a fuel that can
be used, but you may well need modifications. It could require new gas fuel nozzles. It will very likely
require new control constants.

You should provide a detailed gas analysis to GE if you have it (to save time, because they will ask for it).
 You should have a heat content value (LHV) for the new fuel that you can compare to the heat
content of the existing fuel supply. That would be the best indication of how much more--or less--fuel
flow you will need to maintain rated load.

otised is right, though; you should contact the turbine manufacturer or a knowledgeable engineering
person or firm who can analyze the turbine at your site and its configuration (type of combustion system;
size of fuel nozzle orifices; fuel control valve trim; fuel supply pressure and flow-rate; etc.) and give you a
proper answer after you've supplied the pertinent data.

There are too many variables for us to give you a better answer without knowing a lot more
information--and you're going to have to provide this information to someone at some point if you are
really serious about changing fuels.

Please write back to let us know how this project progresses.

 Frame 9E Higher Gas Consumption on 1 Gas Turbine

We have two Frame 9E gas turbines namely GT1 and GT2. As you can see in the attached data (plant data
jpeg file), the heat rate for GT2 is higher than GT1. Compressor in GT2 is replaced early 2012 with honey
comb brush seals at the inner barrel. The CPD achieved after the compressor replacement is 11bars
compared to 10.3bars previously.

My question is, what can cause the gas consumption to be higher? Both GTs have same control settings. Is
tuning necessary after the Major Overhaul works? We suspect that the turbine is working harder to drive
the compressor due to the honey comb brush seals. I appreciate any information or guidance given. I am
willing to provide all the data required.
 Heavy-duty gas turbine performance and efficiency are a function of MANY parameters and
internal clearances. Turbine inlet air filter type and condition; axial compressor cleanliness; turbine hot
gas path components and fit/alignment; turbine nozzle and -bucket condition; exhaust back-pressure;
and IGV LVDT calibration, are just a few of the many parameters that all affect performance and heat rate.
Do both units have exactly the same turbine inlet air filters, with exactly the same differential pressure
(bot dp's measured with one set of instrumentation) and are the IGV LVDTs on both units calibrated
properly and are the axial compressors on both units in nearly identical states of cleanliness and are the
turbine nozzles and -buckets in both units in exactly the same condition (age; wear; clearances)?

Even if you have two automobiles built one right after the other on the same assembly line by the same
workmen with all of the same equipment and accessories and driven by the same individuals (at separate
times, of course) the performance and mileage of the two cars will vary.

Many times I find the instrumentation used to measure gas fuel flow is less than ideal and yet it's being
used to measure heat rate and compared against revenue-quality metering. Differences in
 13
instrumentation calibration, metering tube and orifice conditions, etc., can contribute to some error in
the readings.

You would be correct that the compressor should require more horsepower if it were more efficient, but
gas turbines are mass flow machines and the increased air (mass) flow should increase total power
output AND allow for slightly more fuel to be burned <b>when operating at Base Load.</b>

There are simply too many intangibles to be able to say with any degree of certainty why there is a
discrepancy in heat rate between two units, even two units installed and commissioned at the same time
and being operated with the same parameters and in a similar manner. Generally, the periods between
maintenance outages are staggered somewhat, as are the periods between off-line compressor washes.
The components being used in the maintenance outages are never exactly the same, and are never
assembled exactly the same (with the same tolerances). If the gas turbines exhaust into HRSGs ("boilers")
then the back-pressures of the boilers are never usually identical.

I wish the news was better, but it's virtually impossible for us to pinpoint anything for you without a lot
more information, and even then, this is a free forum and what you are asking for requires a lot of effort--
some of which should require some very detailed calculations and data analysis, and which should be
contracted and appropriately compensated.

The last comment I wish to make regards your reference to the 'Expected Operating Parameters' section
of the Control Specification. Those values were calculated at the time the turbine was being built based on
information provided to the OEM about the expected fuels available on the site at the time the turbine is
to be commissioned. Many sites experience changes in fuel composition over time; sometimes, gas fuel
composition can vary greatly over 10 or 20 years, or even shorter periods depending on the site and
where the gas fuel originates. Those values are guidelines and it's also interesting that the date of the
drawing is missing from the bottom of the .pdf file.

Whenever using these sections of the Control Specification, they should be used as references and
guidelines and for a proper comparison to current operating conditions one should have a very recent
fuel analysis to use to note any differences between the Control Specification values and current fuel
make-up and composition.
 Great reply by CSA. Most of his answers are stock (right out of the book) but I would assume that
you have already done your homework and are looking for something not quite so obvious. Let me
reference you to an article I wrote back in 1997 and I believe is still not fully realized by many in the
industry. Although most refurbishment shops added the procedure of "polishing" their refurbished
components after the article was published, I still believe most power plants and even some
refurbishment shops don't even have a surface finish measuring device. I gave a presentation on this
subject at PowerGen (I can't remember the year) and as I walked around the show floor there were all
kinds of booths peddling their refurbishment prowess and I was stunned to see components with the
surface finish of sandpaper! Note in the article I had measured newly refurbished nozzles with a 400
micro inch surface finish. If this was the case on your first stage nozzle, using GE's information (Table 1),
you will have approximately a 2.8% increase in heat rate on just that one component alone! If you
remember installing any gas path components ANYWHERE on GT 2 that didn't have a velvety smooth
finish, bingo, that may be your problem.
 Wobbie index
 Can anyone let me know clearly the importance of wobbie index in gas turbines and why this
wobbie index is applicable for only GE9FA machines. Why the turbine gets unloaded when wobbie index
protection acts?
 14

Is there any difference between wobbie index and modified wobbie index?
 It's not only for GE 9FA machines. And it's only for machines that can have gas fuel from various
sources (LNG, or different gas fields) or which is heated (performance heating).

Have you tried searching the World Wide Web using your preferred search engine to understand Wobbe
Index and it's relation to fuel flow and characteristics?

I can't answer the question of specifically what role Wobbe Index plays--again, I believe some of that is
proprietary--but I do believe that because of the nature of DLN combustion systems and the propensity
for them to experience high dynamic pressure oscillations in the combustors that monitoring fuel
characteristics is important to prevent catastrophic damage to nozzles, combustion liners, and transition
pieces.

And, there's also that bit about Premix Combustion, where diffusion flame does not exist. Again, I believe
this is mostly GE proprietary information.

If your site has a Remote Monitoring & Diagnostics agreement or a Contractual Services Agreement with
GE or one of its packagers, you could probably ask for a better explanation--from the source. If you feel
you are experiencing nuisance and inappropriate problems with the sequencing, you can always ask for a
review of the situation but you need to provide good information (Trends, VIEWn files, etc.) about the
events.

Another good source of information about F-class machines are the GE Users Groups. I know there is one
for the 7F machines, and I would be very surprised if there weren't one for 9Fs as well.

Another possible source of information is GE Controls Connect. You can search control.com for the
precise URL, register (if you haven't already done so), and according to the GE employee who posted the
URL on control.com you can ask for help by email or telephone. Again, be prepared to provide actionable
details--not just anecdotal information.

But, it's not just <b>YOUR</b> unit that experiences these issues. And, isn't the <b>real</b> issue
controlling the fuel temperature and characteristics? Because it sounds like you are really looking for
justification for "disabling" the protection because of other problems, instead of resolving the root cause
of the problem.

You have several possible avenues above for help with your problem. It would seem, since you've posted
this issue here before, that there isn't anyone who can provide the precise information you are looking
for. So, use the other potential sources--and let us know what you learn! "Feedback is the most important
contribution!"(c) here at control.com! It's really what lets others know if the information was helpful or
not--and that's the real benefit of forums like this. It's not just for one person, but for many--and feedback
is the part that makes this site work so well for GE-design heavy duty gas turbine control-related issues.

will affect the turbine and its components.

 Nox level high

We are having GE frame 7FA DLN 2.6 Gas turbines, 99% of the time we are running on base load

We are experiencing at typical problem, the scenario is like this:

 15

Both GT were running on base load. in the morning shift we received a call from Fuel gas supplier (natural
gas) that are performing fuel gas line scrapping activity. however they opened the blowdown at their end to
remove any moisture and any contaminants in the fuel gas.

Scrapping activity was going on since morning shift.

in the evening shift suddenly we observed step load change from 140 MW to 155 MW in 10seconds!!!

we have observed increased in machine vibration, increased NOX values, change in fuel gas composition,
flame intensities increased from 65% to 104 %, change in spread values

Please find the below parameters

Changes in fuel gas composition were noticed and major changes were occurred in Methane & Ethane
composition. Both compositions were out of ECA limit (Methane- 76.4% & Ethane 11.6%)

Methane - 90% to 60%

Ethane - 3.8% to 33%
Changes in vibration profile and GT flame intensity were also observed Under normal condition
GT #1/2 vibration (max) - 2.4/3.2 mm/sec
During the sales gas disturbance
GT #1/2 vibration (max) - 7/11 mm/sec

Normal condition flame intensity

GT#1/2 flame intensity (max) –65 to 80%
During disturbance
GT#1/2 flame intensity (max)- 103-104%

Changes in GT Nox Emissions was noticed

Normal condition
GT1# 12 PPM, GT#02 15 PPM

during disturbance
GT#01 69.5 PPM, GT#02 74.8 PPM

1. we have moisture separator at battery limit to remove any moisture & dirt from fuel gas, moisture
separator filter DP found increased from 0.4 Bard to 0.7 Bard

2. There was no change observed in fuel gas duplex strainer dp (upstream of SRV)

3. After the disturbance all parameters came to normal except the Nox values. it is still remaining on higher
side, CO and O2 values also became normal (CO# 13 PPM, O2# 12.2 %)

4.GT#01 Spread values became normal (SP1# 35, SP2# 33, SP3# 40)

5. GT#02 spread in fact improved!!!! before the disturbance SP1# 52, SP2# 46, SP3# 45. after disturbance
SP1# 43, SP2# 35, SP3# 35
 16
6. Vibration also became normal

7. there was no black smoke observed from chimney,

8. Online NOx analyzer, CO analyzer & O2 analyzer values compared with portable analyzer and both values
are matching

I have given suggestion to reduce the GT load below 90 M (where mode changes from 6Q to mode 5Q) and
raise again and observed the Nox values whether there is a change or not.

Can you please give us your expert advice on above subject?

 I presume "scrapping" is scraping, where the interior walls of pipes are cleaned using an abrasive
method to remove deposits and such.

One would think scraping (or scrapping; it may be called different things in different parts of the world)
would release bits of debris into the gas stream, some of which might not be caught by filters and or
strainers.

Those bits might cause blockages in the smaller fuel nozzle orifices.

Flow imbalances caused by nozzle blockages can cause high NOx, increased dynamic pressure pulsations
which can manifest themselves as increased vibrations if high enough.

GE have many diagrams and flow-charts for DLN combustion problems. Yours being an F-class unit it
would be very unusual for the site not to have some kind of Control Services Agreement or Remote
Monitoring & Diagnostics service which would allow you to avail yourself of the troubleshooting tools GE
has for their F-class fleet DLN combustion systems.

Please write back to let us know what is the result of the troubleshooting.
 We have contacted GE, but GE is advising us to replace few thermocouples, I wonder replacing the
thermocuples will not help Nox level going down, for further trouble shooting we have done following
things

1. Bring down the load of hte machine from base load to 75 MW (where DLN 2.6 mode changes from 6Q
to 5Q diffusion mode), NOx level increased up to 118 PPM, O2 level no change observed (12.29%), CO
level no significant change observed (19.5 PPM to 21.46 PPM)

2. after analyzing the data again we increased the machine load to base load, but still Nox value remaining
on higher side (40 PPM)

We are planning to do borescope inspection end of this month to check the Combustion hardware

I will update you once the inspection done

 We did the boroscope inspection, so far we have inspected 5 combustion chambers and out of 5
we found 3 combustors having damaged nozzles ( very badly) and also one of the combustor liner top
part found missing,

This concludes that we must trip teh machine if such situation occurs or we should shutdown
immediately
 17

The conclusion is change in fule gas composition (heavy hydro carbon like ethane) caused the combustor
hard ware damage,

can you please explain why heavy hydrogen carbon damages the nozzles, are thy contain high energy? or
do they easily convert in to liquid when there is a drop in pressure across control v/Vs?
 Thanks for the reply. But, I'm not a combustion engineer. You should ask these questions of GE,
and you would do well to have some samples of the gas fuel you were supplied after the "scrapping".

Something seems really wrong with the fuel you received for some period of time.
 In combustion, there are 3 major role to have complete combustion. There are fuel, ignition and
oxygen. I would to know either do you have any analyser before the combustion happen. It might be
cause of over heated the nozzle.

 How Gas Composition variation affecting the Fuel gas temperature

 Earlier the set point used to maintain between 90 oc to 110 oc , Can any one explain how the
variation in gas composition affecting the GT inlet fuel gas temperature setpoint. The wobbe index used
to maintain around 1150 n/d but now around 1205 n/d. we contacted gas supplier is there any change in
gas composition , they said there is no change..How it affeting the gas fuel temperature can any one
explain to me.
 It would seem you are using an on-site gas chromatograph to measure some gas constituents?

Are you certain of the calibration of the instrument?

If there is doubt about the gas supply, then it would seem prudent to have a gas sample tested by an
independent third party. That would also be a good check on the calibration of the on-site instrument.

 Gas Chromo readings

Please tell me what is retention time of gas chromo and its effect in chromotograph reading?
 The flow volumes in a gc are rather small, so any excess volumes in tubing and valves can result in
excessive long time delays, between acquisition of the sample and its analysis.

minimizing the delays involves detailed engineering design.

 In regards to the statement:

"Moderator's note: I think "chromotograph" is actually "chromo to graph"

I believe that "chromotograph" is actually "chromatograph," an analysis method where the material is
routed through a column (tube), which has a material in it which selectively delays the components
through the column and each component are measured by various methods when they come out.

<b>Moderator says thanks for the clarification.</b>

In regards to retention time:

Retention time (tR) is the time it takes a solute to travel through the column. The retention time is
assigned to the corresponding solute peak. The retention time is a measure of the amount of time a solute
spends in a column. It is the sum of the time spent in the stationary phase and the mobile phase.