See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237502557

Gas turbine cooling model for evaluation of novel cycles

Article · January 2005

CITATIONS READS

19 320

4 authors, including:

Olav Bolland
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
137 PUBLICATIONS   3,629 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD project: COntrol relevant modeling and nonlinear state estimation applied to SOFC-GT power systems View project

Carbon capture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olav Bolland on 22 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of ECOS 2005
Trondheim, Norway
June 20–22, 2005

GAS TURBINE COOLING MODEL FOR EVALUATION OF

NOVEL CYCLES

Maria Jonsson∗ and Olav Bolland

Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Department of Energy and Process Engineering
NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway

Dominikus Bücker Mike Rost

ALSTOM (Switzerland) Ltd Siemens AG, PG W8IN
Segelhof 1, 5405 Baden-Dättwil P.O. Box 3220, 91050 Erlangen
Switzerland Germany

ABSTRACT

Simulation and parameter variation of novel gas turbine-based cycles require a simple yet reliable
cooled gas turbine model that is easy to implement. This study proposes a generic cooling model
using open-loop cooling. The model has been tuned to represent modern heavy-duty gas turbines
in cooperation with the gas turbine manufacturers involved in the ENCAP (Enhanced Capture of
CO2, EU 6th Framework Programme) project, of which this work is a part. Additionally, a
commercial gas turbine simulation tool has verified the results of the model. Besides the
conventional working fluid air, the model has been investigated for a CO2/H2O working fluid
typical for a semi-closed oxygen-combustion gas turbine cycle, since the cooling model will be
used for simulation of such cycles and pre-combustion cycles within the ENCAP project.
Keywords: gas turbine simulation, cooled turbine model, novel cycles

NOMENCLATURE SCOC-GT semi-closed oxygen-combustion gas

Ac cross-section area for the hot gas [m ] 2 turbine
air-GT gas turbine with air as the working fluid St Stanton number [-]
AQ area for heat transfer [m2] T temperature [°C]
b a cooling model parameter [-] TIT ISO turbine inlet temperature [°C]
cp constant pressure specific heat capacity u velocity [m/s]
[kJ/(kg·K)] W work [kW]
h specific enthalpy [kJ/kg] wspec specific work [kJ/kg]
hT heat transfer coefficient [W/(m2·K)] y mole fraction [mol/mol]
K a cooling model parameter [-] α ratio between AQ and Ac [-]
LHV lower heating value [kJ/kg] ∆η polytropic efficiency reduction due to
m mass flow rate [kg/s] cooling [%]
M Mach number [-] ∆p pressure drop due to cooling [bar]
p pressure [bar] ζ cooling air mixing loss factor [-]
PR compressor pressure ratio [-] η efficiency [%]
Q heat transfer [W] κ specific heat capacity ratio [-]
s a cooling model parameter [-] λ oxygen-fuel equivalence ratio [-]
ρ density [kg/m3]

∗
Corresponding author: Phone: +47 73 59 37 28
Fax: +47 73 59 83 90 E-mail: maria.jonsson@ntnu.no

641
Subscripts
b blade
c cooling fluid, cooling, cooled
cmb combustion chamber
cmpr compressor
cw cooling water
g combustion chamber exit gas
gen generator
i in, before the cooled blade
is isentropic
mech mechanical
o out, after the cooled blade
p polytropic
tbn turbine
uc uncooled
INTRODUCTION
Simulation of gas turbine-based power cycles
requires accurate modelling of the turbine cooling.
However, the cooling models available in the
literature are not always easy to implement,
especially for novel power cycles using non-
conventional working fluids.
In this study, a cooled gas turbine model has been
developed. The main reason for proposing this
model is to have a simple and generic method for
use in general process simulators. The work is part
of the ENCAP (Enhanced Capture of CO2) project,
an integrated project within the 6th EU Framework
Programme. ENCAP’s objective is to develop new
pre-combustion carbon dioxide (CO2) capture
technologies for power generation. Carbon capture
can reduce the CO2 emissions from power
production, thus mitigating climate change.
Included in this project is the investigation of novel
gas turbine-based power cycles with oxygen
combustion and pre-combustion CO2 capture. In
cycles where the fuel is combusted in a nitrogen-
free atmosphere (oxygen-combustion), the exhaust
gas contains mainly CO2 and steam; thus, CO2 can
be separated by condensation of the steam. In pre-
combustion capture cycles, the fuel is processed
into mainly hydrogen and CO2 and the CO2 is
separated before the hydrogen is burnt. Simulation
of such novel cycles requires a simple cooled gas
turbine model that can easily be implemented
within in-house or commercial simulation tools.
This paper presents the theory of the proposed
cooling model and calculation results for air and
CO2/H2O working fluids. The model has been
tuned to represent a generic, large, state-of-the-art
642
F-Class gas turbine in cooperation with the gas
turbine manufacturers participating in the ENCAP
project, Alstom and Siemens. The model has been
verified by comparison to the simulation tool
Thermoflex [1].
BACKGROUND
Increased turbine inlet temperature, matched with
an optimised pressure ratio, generally raises the gas
turbine efficiency, as well as the specific work.
However, material issues restrain the allowable
temperatures. Thus, turbine cooling is necessary
when using turbine inlet temperatures above what
is acceptable for turbine blade materials. For a
given level of cooling technology, a turbine inlet
temperature raise results in augmented efficiency,
up to a point where the gain from increased
temperature is outbalanced by the losses caused by
the cooling. The mixing of the hot gas and the
cooling fluid results in losses due to:
1) reduced temperature of the gas expanding
through the turbine, which decreases the turbine
work
2) reduced momentum of the hot gas as the
cooling fluid has to be accelerated to the speed
and direction of the hot gas
3) disturbances to the flow profile around the
blades, which increase the flow losses.
In most gas turbines, blade cooling is accom-
plished by air extracted from the compressor. In
convective cooling, the air flows through the
blades, cooling them by convection, then the air
exits from the blades and mixes with the hot gas.
Film cooling is used in some more advanced
designs. Here, the air exits from the blades through
a large number of small holes, forming a film that
partially shields the blades from the hot gases.
Recently, some large gas turbines, intended for
combined cycles, using steam from the bottoming
cycle as a coolant in a closed loop, have been
introduced. The heated steam is led back to the
steam cycle, improving the overall plant efficiency.
A detailed analysis of turbine cooling is complex,
especially for film cooling. The analysis requires a
stage-by-stage method with rigorous heat transfer
calculation inside and outside the blade, as well as
through the blade wall. Such a detailed analysis
may produce information about blade surface
temperature profiles. However, for cycle analysis
aiming at efficiency prediction for novel cycles, a
simplified procedure is needed to achieve a certain
number of calculations for various cycle
configurations and parameter values. Most of the
models presented in the literature are unsuitable for
this purpose. Horlock et al. [2] give an overview of
some models suggested in the literature. They
divide these into models that consider:
1) the effect of continuous cooling on the turbine
expansion line and the resulting changes in
polytropic efficiency and reheat factor
2) stage-by-stage analysis of the effect of cooling
on individual blade rows.
Horlock et al. [2] suggested a model belonging to
the second group. This method estimates the
cooling fluid flow rate for each blade row and the
losses in stagnation temperature and pressure
resulting from the mixing of the cooling fluid and
the hot gas. The method applies to convective as
well as film cooling.
Jordal et al. [3] presented three models, one
belonging to the first group, originally presented
by Bolland and Stadaas [4], and two belonging to
the second group. The purpose of the paper was to
investigate the behaviour of a specified cooled gas
turbine when the working fluid was changed from
air to CO2/H2O. It was found that a CO2/H2O gas
turbine would need some re-design, due to the
lower specific heat ratio for this working fluid
compared with air. For a given pressure ratio, both
the compression enthalpy increase and the
expansion enthalpy drop are lower for CO2/H2O.
The model presented by Bolland and Stadaas [4],
belonging to the first group, is based on one model
of Elmasri [5]. In this model, the turbine is
considered to be an expander where work is
continuously extracted through the walls. The
expansion process is divided into a large number of
steps and in each step, three parts are calculated:
1) adiabatic expansion (work extraction)
2) mixing of cooling fluid and hot gas at constant
pressure (loss of stagnation temperature)
3) mixing of cooling fluid and hot gas at constant
enthalpy (loss of stagnation pressure).
THEORY OF THE MODEL
The layout of the proposed cooled gas turbine
model is shown in Figure 1. In this model, the
cooling fluid, taken from the compressor exit, is
mixed with the hot combustion gas before the
turbine inlet. The temperature at which the
expansion begins is the ISO TIT1 [6]. The
1
The ISO TIT is the temperature resulting from mixing all
cooling flows and the combustor exit flow in a single point.
643
fuel m g , Tg , cmb exit
TIT , ptbn , inlet
cooling
cmpr tbn ~
m c , Tc , cmpr exit
ptbn , exit
Figure 1: The generic cooled gas turbine model
expansion work is calculated using the sum of the
combustor exit and cooling fluid flow rates. Three
adjustable parameters (b, K and s) are tuned in
order to represent a gas turbine at a given
technology level. The cooling model calculates the
required cooling fluid flow rate and the reduction
of the turbine polytropic efficiency due to the
cooling. Compared with models found in the
literature, this model is simpler, using merely
cooling fluid from the compressor exit and three
parameters. The model has been developed for
design-point calculations.
The cooling fluid mass flow rate is calculated with
Equation (1). The derivation of this equation is
described in the appendix.
s
m c c p , c ⎛ Tg , cmb exit − Tb ⎞
= b⎜ ⎟ (1)
m g c p , g ⎜ Tb − Tc , cmpr exit ⎟
⎝ ⎠
In this equation, b and s are adjustable parameters
and Tb is the maximum sustainable blade surface
metal temperature. Since the cooling model uses a
lumped model approach, no turbine geometry is
specified and the blade temperature Tb is a generic
surface temperature that describes the ability of the
blade material to withstand high gas temperatures.
The specific heat capacities cp, c and cp, g are
calculated (Equation (2)) as the average values
between the blade temperature and the compressor
exit and combustor exit temperatures, respectively.
The blade enthalpy at compressor exit conditions
(hb, c) is calculated at the blade temperature and the
compressor exit pressure and composition. The
blade enthalpy at combustor exit conditions (hb, g)
is calculated at the same temperature, but using the
combustor exit pressure and composition.
hb , c − hc , cmpr exit hg , cmb exit − hb , g
c p, c = ; c p, g = (2)
Tb − Tc , cmpr exit Tg , cmb exit − Tb
Mixing of the cooling fluid in the hot gas path
reduces the momentum of the hot gas, as the
cooling fluid has to be accelerated to the speed and
direction of the hot gas. This can be expressed as a
pressure loss for the hot gas, calculated with
Equation (3) [4], which is a momentum balance for
the mixing. The pressure loss can be added to the
combustor pressure loss, or it can be converted to a
reduction of the turbine polytropic efficiency.
Equation (4) relates the pressure drop to the loss of
polytropic efficiency. Equation (5) defines the
efficiency loss (∆η).
∆p m c m
=− κ g M g 2ζ = − c K ; ∆p < 0 (3)
ptbn , inlet m g m g
η p , uc tbn + ∆η ln ( ptbn , exit ptbn , inlet )
= (4)
η p , uc tbn ( )
ln ptbn , exit ( ptbn , inlet + ∆p )
η p , c tbn = η p , uc tbn − ∆η ; ∆η > 0
The mixing loss factor ζ accounts for the direction
in which the cooling fluid is injected into the hot
gas flow. If the injection is perpendicular to the hot
gas flow, ζ is in principle equal to unity. The heat
capacity ratio (κg), the Mach number (Mg) and ζ are
summarized in the parameter K. For most air gas
turbines, κg is about 1.3 and Mg is 0.6-0.8. A rough
estimate gives ζ as 0.3-0.6. Hence, K should be in
the range 0.15-0.5. It should be noted that ptbn, exit
can be selected not only as the turbine exit
pressure, but also as an intermediate pressure in the
expansion path. When the expansion is divided
into a cooled and an uncooled part, it can be
convenient to select ptbn, exit as the cooled turbine
exit pressure. Observe that a higher turbine exit
pressure increases the efficiency correction, which
depends on the turbine pressure ratio.
To calculate the compression and expansion end
point states, the polytropic efficiencies are
converted to isentropic efficiencies. The
conversion follows the ASME method [7], [8]. For
the turbine, the polytropic efficiency including the
cooling loss (ηp, c tbn) is used. The gas turbine net
efficiency is calculated with Equation (6), where
the compressor work is defined as negative.
ηnet = ηmechη gen (Wtbn + Wcmpr ) ( m fuel LHV ) (6)
INPUT DATA AND PARAMETER TUNING
Data for a generic gas turbine (Table 1) were
supplied by the ENCAP project partners Siemens
and Alstom. These values represent well the
technology level of large modern gas turbines, like
Fixed values
∆pcmpr, inlet & ∆ptbn, exit [mbar] 10
PR [-] (base case) 17
ηp, cmpr [%] 91.5 Tb [°C] 860
cmb heat loss [%] 0.2 ηmech [%] 99.6
∆pcmb [%] 3 ηgen [%] 98.5
Target values
ηnet=38.50 % at Tcmb, exit=1425 °C
TIT (ISO)=1230 °C at Tcmb, exit=1425 °C
cooling fraction2=22 % at Tcmb, exit=1425 °C
Maximum net efficiency at Tcmb, exit=1350 °C
ηp, uc tbn [%] 89
Tuned parameters
b [-] 0.1884 K [-] 0.237
ηp, uc tbn [%] 87.94 s [-] 1
Table 1: Fixed values, target values and tuned
(5)
parameters for the generic model
Siemens’ SGT5-4000F (formerly V94.3A) and
Alstom’s GT 26B. This technology level is
comparable to that of other manufacturers’ gas
turbines, like GE’s 9351F and Mitsubishi’s 701F.
The data were derived from actual gas turbine
performance data provided by the manufacturers.
However, since these data are confidential, the
model was set up as a generic gas turbine model
that resembles, but does not necessarily replicate,
the performance of the aforesaid gas turbines.
All calculations were performed in the simulation
tool gPROMS [9]. Thermodynamic properties
were calculated with Multiflash [10], with the
advanced Redlich-Kwong-Soave equation of state.
Complete combustion and no dissociation were
assumed. The ambient air and natural gas spec-
ifications are shown in Table 3 in the appendix.
The values of b, K and s were found by tuning the
model to the data in Table 1. The parameter s was
set to 1 since this gave the most reasonable
behaviour of the model. The parameters b and K
were adjusted to yield a net efficiency of 38.50 %
at a combustor exit temperature of 1425 °C with a
cooling fraction of 22 %, at the same time as the
maximum efficiency appeared at a combustor exit
temperature of 1350 °C. To meet these
requirements, the polytropic efficiency of the
uncooled turbine had to be reduced from the
original value of 89 %. The tuning resulted in the
cooling model parameter values in Table 1. Results
2
The cooling fraction is the cooling fluid mass flow rate
divided by the compressor inlet mass flow rate.
644
 air-GT SCOC-GT 50000
a) base case
ηis, cmpr [%] 87.95 89.01 45000

Gross work [kW]

Tcmpr, exit [°C] 410.69 289.15 40000
m fuel [kg/s]3 2.2790 3.0810 35000
Tcmb, exit [°C] 1425 1425 30000 Th.flex, PR=17
cooling fraction [%] 22.00 20.45 25000 generic, PR=17
cp, c [kJ/(kg·K)] 1130.92 1149.80 Th.flex, PR=40
20000
generic, PR=40
cp, g [kJ/(kg·K)] 1308.35 1331.81 15000
TIT (ISO) [°C] 1229.42 1244.21 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
ηp, c tbn [%] 85.77 86.25 Combustor exit temperature [ C]
o

ηis, c tbn [%] 89.65 88.88

40
Ttbn, exit [°C] 581.43 752.53 35
b) base case

Cooling fraction [%]

wspec, cmpr [kJ/kg] 410.97 251.60 30
wspec, tbn [kJ/kg] 808.42 637.88 25
wspec, gas turbine [kJ/kg]4415.88 482.97 20
Th.flex, PR=17
ηnet [%] 38.50 33.07 15
generic, PR=17
ηnet [%] at 38.52 33.11 10
Th.flex, PR=40
5
Tcmb, exit=1350 °C generic, PR=40
0
Table 2: Results for the base case (PR=17, 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Tcmb, exit=1425 °C) for the air gas turbine and the Combustor exit temperature [ C]
o

SCOC-GT cycle
44
c)
43
from the gas turbine model for these parameters
Net efficiency [%]

are shown in Table 2. 42

Th.flex, PR=17
41 generic, PR=17
40 Th.flex, PR=40
VERIFICATION maximum efficiency generic, PR=40
39
After tuning the generic model to manufacturer 38
data, it was compared to a cooled gas turbine 37
base case
model in the simulation tool Thermoflex [1] as 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
verification. The Thermoflex cooling model is Combustor exit temperature [ C]
o

more complex than the generic model in that it

models the cooling of the stator and rotor of each
stage [1], [11]. The Thermoflex model included a
compressor, a combustor and three cooled turbine
stages with cooling air taken from the compressor
exit. Film cooling was used for the first stage;
convective cooling for the second and third stages.
The third stage required cooling only for
combustor temperatures above 1700 °C for PR=17.
The input data for the Thermoflex model was the
same as for the generic model, except for the
values in Table 4 in the appendix.
The Thermoflex model was tuned to give the same
gross work output, fuel mass flow rate, turbine
outlet temperature and cooling fraction as the
generic model base case, see Table 5 in the
appendix. The Thermoflex cooling model includes
3
Based on a compressor inlet mass flow rate of 100 kg/s.
4
The specific work is defined as the total gross work divided
by the compressor inlet mass flow rate.
Figure 2: Comparisons of the generic and the
Thermoflex models
the parameter ARC that corresponds to b in the
generic model and the parameter Y that
corresponds to K. To tune the Thermoflex model,
ARC had to be increased to 2.075 times its default
value and Y had to be decreased to 0.21 times its
default value.
The generic model was compared with the
Thermoflex model for the combustor exit
temperatures 1000-1600 °C, for PR=17 and
PR=40. For PR=40, the same ARC and Y values as
for PR=17 were used. As can be seen in Figure 2a,
the Thermoflex model has a lower work output
than the generic model at high temperatures for
PR=17. For PR=40, the Thermoflex model has a
higher work output for all temperatures.
Comparisons of the fuel mass flow rate and the

645
turbine exit temperature show the same trends as
the work output comparison.
Figure 2b shows the comparison of the cooling
fractions. It can be seen that the generic model
depends more on the pressure ratio than the
Thermoflex model. This is shown by the larger
distance between the curves for PR=17 and PR=40
for the generic model than for the Thermoflex
model. For PR=40, the generic model gives a
significantly higher cooling fraction than the
Thermoflex model, for example, at a combustor
exit temperature of 1250 °C, the generic model
calculates a 30 % higher cooling fraction than the
Thermoflex model. However, the difference is
smaller at higher combustor exit temperatures
since the model was tuned at a combustor exit
temperature of 1425 °C. Furthermore, the Thermo-
flex model is more dependent on the hot gas tem-
perature, as the curves for this model have steeper
slopes than the curves for the generic model. The
Thermoflex cases with lower cooling fractions than
the generic model have correspondingly higher
power outputs and net efficiencies.
Figure 2c shows that the Thermoflex model locates
the maximum net efficiency at lower combustor
exit temperatures for both pressure ratios compared
with the generic model. In total, the comparisons
between the generic model and the Thermoflex
model show that the two models behave similarly.
Another way of verifying the model is to compare
the values of b and K resulting from the tuning
with the theoretically estimated intervals for these
parameters. The value of b, which is estimated in
the appendix, depends on the cooling method:
convective or film cooling. In this study,
convective cooling is applied and the value of s is
set to 1 (see the appendix). The value of b for two
convectively cooled stages should be 0.2-0.7 with
a conservative estimate of the cooling efficiency
and 0.1-0.3 with a less conservative cooling
efficiency estimate. The value of b=0.1884 falls
within the interval estimated for a higher cooling
efficiency. The value of K=0.237 falls within the
range estimated in the theory section (0.15-0.5).
PARAMETER VARIATION
The behaviour of the generic cooled gas turbine
model was investigated for different combustor
exit temperatures (1000-1600 °C) and pressure
ratios (10-40). The compressor inlet mass flow rate
was 100 kg/s in all cases.
646
fuel oxygen
cooling
cmpr tbn ~
CO2 recycle
cool-
er
water
CO2 capture
cw
Figure 3: Semi-closed oxygen-combustion gas
turbine (SCOC-GT) cycle
Figure 4a shows that for a specific pressure ratio,
increasing the combustor exit temperature raises
the net efficiency up to a point where the cooling
fluid flow rate becomes so large that the losses
caused by the cooling outbalance the benefits of
the higher temperature. The maximum net efficien-
cy is higher, and occurs at higher combustor exit
temperatures, for higher pressure ratios.
Figure 4b and Figure 4c show that a higher
pressure ratio for a specific combustor exit
temperature results in a higher cooling fraction and
thus a lower TIT. Figure 4d shows that the larger
cooling fraction for higher pressure ratios reduces
the turbine polytropic efficiency more, except for
PR=10 and PR=20 that have approximately the
same cooled turbine polytropic efficiencies.
SEMI-CLOSED OXYGEN-COMBUSTION
GAS TURBINE CYCLE
The generic cooling model was used for simulation
of a semi-closed oxygen-combustion gas turbine
(SCOC-GT) cycle [12]. In the SCOC-GT, shown
in Figure 3, the fuel is combusted with an oxygen-
rich stream. Thus, the exhaust gas mainly contains
CO2 and steam, which can be separated by cooling
the exhaust gas in the cooler shown in the figure.
In the cooler, part of the steam condenses and is
thereby removed. The cooler can be partially
replaced by a heat recovery steam generator that
generates steam for a steam bottoming cycle,
augmenting the cycle efficiency. A steam cycle
was not included in this study as the main purpose
was to study the turbine cooling and not the cycle
efficiency. A large part of the gaseous stream from
the cooler is recycled to the compressor, to control
the combustor temperature and provide a nitrogen-
free working fluid. The remaining part of
 43 41
a) 30 25 a) 40
42
40 39
41 30
Net efficiency [%]

Net efficiency [%]

Tcmb, exit =
40 37 o
1000 C 25
39 base
20 35 20
38 case
15
37 33 15
o
36 Tcmb, exit = 1300 C 1600 C
o
31 o
35 1000 C
o 1300 C 1600 C
o
PR=10 29 PR=10
34
33 27
175 225 275 325 375 425 475 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Specific work [kJ/kg] Specific work [kJ/kg]

40 40
b) b)
35 35
Cooling fraction [%]

Cooling fraction [%]

30 30
PR=10 PR=10
25 PR=20 25 PR=20
20 PR=30 20 PR=30
PR=40 PR=40
15 15
10 10
5 5
1000 1200 1400 1600 1000 1200 1400 1600
o o
Combustor exit temperature [ C] Combustor exit temperature [ C]

1350 1350
c) c)
1300 1300
1250 1250
1200 PR=10 1200 PR = 10
TIT [oC]

TIT [oC]

PR=20 PR = 20
1150 1150
PR=30 PR = 30
1100 PR=40 1100 PR = 40
1050 1050
1000 1000
950 950
1000 1200 1400 1600 1000 1200 1400 1600
o o
Combustor exit temperature [ C] Combustor exit temperature [ C]

88 88
Cooled turbine polytropic

Cooled turbine polytropic

d) d)
87.5 87.5
87 87
efficiency [%]

efficiency [%]

86.5 PR=10 86.5 PR=10

86 PR=20 86 PR=20
85.5 PR=30 85.5 PR=30
85 PR=40 85 PR=40
84.5 84.5
84 84
83.5 83.5
1000 1200 1400 1600 1000 1200 1400 1600
o o
Combustor exit temperature [ C] Combustor exit temperature [ C]

Figure 4: Results for the generic cooled gas turbine Figure 5: Results for the cooled SCOC-GT cycle

the gaseous stream can be compressed and
sequestered.
The SCOC-GT was simulated with the same input
data as the air gas turbine (air-GT), except for the
data in Table 6 in the appendix. The work required
generating the oxygen-rich stream by, for example,
cryogenic distillation, the cooling water pump
work and the CO2 compression work were not
included in the efficiency. The cooler was
modelled as a counter-current heat exchanger and a
flash chamber. The values of the parameters b, K, s
and ηp, uc tbn were the same as for the air-GT. The

647
cooling model considers the change of the cooling
fluid and hot gas compositions by changed specific
heat capacities. However, a CO2/H2O turbine with
the same polytropic efficiency as the air turbine
would require another design; this might
necessitate other values for b, K and s. On the other
hand, this supposition is countered by:
• b (see the appendix) depends on the Stanton
number and the geometry. It is reasonable to
assume that the Stanton number is about the
same for both working fluids. A changed
turbine design affects the geometry parameter,
but it is impossible to quantify the change.
• K (see Equation [3]) depends on:
o the heat capacity ratio, which is only
slightly smaller for CO2/H2O than for air
o the Mach number, which should be about
the same for both turbines
o the mixing loss factor, which can be
assumed to be the about same for both
working fluids.
• It is valid to assume that s has the same value
for the CO2/H2O turbine as for the air turbine,
since this parameter describes the type of
cooling (convective or film).
Results for the SCOC-GT base case are shown in
Table 2, and in Table 7 in the appendix. In
addition, the behaviour of the SCOC-GT has been
investigated for different combustor exit tempera-
tures (1000-1600 °C) and pressure ratios (10-40).
Figure 5a shows that the SCOC-GT has lower net
efficiency and higher specific work than the air-GT
for all cases in the investigated pressure and
temperature range. Since CO2/H2O has a lower
specific heat ratio than air, both the compressor
enthalpy increase and the turbine enthalpy decrease
are lower in the SCOC-GT than in the air-GT for a
specific pressure ratio. Although the SCOC-GT
compressor work is lower than for the air-GT, the
net efficiency is lower since the SCOC-GT turbine
work is lower and the fuel flow rate is higher.
However, as the compressor work reduction for the
SCOC-GT is so large, the specific work is higher
than for the air-GT.
Figure 5b shows that the SCOC-GT requires a
smaller cooling fraction at a specified pressure
ratio and combustor exit temperature than the air-
GT, except for PR=10 where the required cooling
fractions are about the same. The SCOC-GT has a
lower compressor exit temperature and a higher
cooling fluid heat capacity. According to Equation
(1), this implies a lower cooling fraction. However,
648
the SCOC-GT has higher hot gas heat capacity and
combustor exit mass flow rate, which increase the
cooling fraction. In total, the SCOC-GT has a
lower cooling fraction than the air-GT above
PR=10. Additionally, the impact of the pressure
ratio on the cooling fraction is smaller for the
SCOC-GT, since the compressor specific work and
exit temperature increase less with raised pressure
ratio for the SCOC-GT than for the air-GT. The
smaller cooling fraction for the SCOC-GT com-
pared with the air-GT results in higher TITs for all
pressure ratios above 10, as shown in Figure 5c.
As a consequence of the lower cooling fractions,
the reduction of the cooled turbine polytropic
efficiency is smaller for the SCOC-GT (Figure 5d)
than for the air-GT (Figure 4d). However, for the
SCOC-GT, the reduction of the polytropic
efficiency is largest for the lowest pressure ratio,
while the highest pressure ratio has the lowest
reduction. Tendencies of this behaviour can be
seen for the air-GT in Figure 4d, where the
efficiency reductions for PR=10 and PR=20 are the
same, but for higher pressure ratios; a higher
pressure ratio gives a larger reduction. The
pressure drop due to the cooling calculated with
Equation (3) is always larger for a situation with a
larger cooling fraction. However, the conversion of
the pressure drop to a polytropic efficiency
reduction with Equation (4) will not always result
in a larger efficiency reduction for a case with a
larger cooling fraction.
DISCUSSION
A simple cooled gas turbine model will show
deviations from the behaviour of a real gas turbine,
which will increase with the distance from the
operating point for which the model was tuned.
Additionally, assuming a fixed cooling technology
level for a broad range of pressure ratios and
turbine inlet temperatures is a very simplified
approach. However, including turbine cooling in
the model gives more realistic results than using an
uncooled model. A cooling model ensures that the
efficiency has a maximum for a given pressure
ratio and cannot be increased infinitely by raising
the combustion temperature.
In the proposed cooling model, all of the cooling
fluid is mixed with the combustor exit gas before
the turbine inlet. Thus, the whole thermodynamic
mixing loss is taken at the turbine inlet. As a result,
the mixing losses are overestimated compared with
a real turbine, where the mixing of the hot gas and
the coolant takes place at, on average, a smaller Turbine Cooling Flows. J. of Engineering for Gas
temperature difference. In a real gas turbine, the Turbines and Power 2001;123(July):487-494.
cooling air is extracted from the compressor at [3] Jordal J, Bolland O, Klang A. Aspects of Cooled
different pressure levels to be mixed with the hot Gas Turbine Modeling for the Semi-Closed O2/CO2
Cycle With CO2 Capture. J. of Engineering for Gas
gas at several locations in the turbine. When tuning
Turbines and Power 2004;126(July):507-515.
the cooling model to real gas turbine data, the [4] Bolland O, Stadaas JF. Comparative Evaluation of
overestimated mixing loss at the turbine inlet is Combined Cycles and Gas Turbine Systems with
compensated for by reducing the value of the Water Injection, Steam Injection, and
parameter K. Recuperation. J. of Engineering for Gas Turbines
The cooled generic gas turbine model will be used and Power 1995;117(January):138-145.
for simulation of, for example, combined cycles, [5] Elmasri MA. On Thermodynamics of Gas Turbine
oxygen-combustion cycles and pre-combustion Cycles: Part 2 - A Model for Expansion in Cooled
Turbines. J. of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
cycles. When optimising the efficiency of a gas
Power 1986;108:151-159.
turbine cycle where the energy in the gas turbine [6] International Organization for Standardization. Gas
exhaust gas is recovered, it may benefit the overall Turbines -- Acceptance Tests. ISO 2314:1989.
cycle efficiency to operate at a point where the 1989.
simple cycle gas turbine efficiency is not [7] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers
maximized. A high turbine exit enthalpy means (ASME). Performance Test Code on Compressors
that there is more energy to recover for a and Exhausters. PTC 10-1997. 1998.
bottoming cycle of some kind. [8] Hyprotech, Aspen Technology, Inc. Operations
Guide HYSYS 3.1. 2002.
[9] gPROMS, ModelBuilder version 2.3.1, Process
CONCLUSIONS Systems Enterprise Limited, 2004.
This paper presents a simple, generic, cooled gas [10] Multiflash, version 3.1.31, Infochem Computer
turbine model, which can be used for simulation Services Ltd, 2001.
and parameter variation of novel and conventional [11] Elmasri MA, Pourkey F. Prediction of Cooling
Flow Requirements for Advanced Utility Gas Tur-
cycles. The model has been tuned to represent a
bines - Part 1: Analysis and Scaling of the Effec-
generic large state-of-the-art F-Class gas turbine. tiveness Curve. ASME Paper 86-WA/HT-43, 1986.
The behaviour of the model has been verified as [12] Ulfsnes RE, Bolland O, Jordal K. Modelling and
reasonable for such a gas turbine by the gas turbine Simulation of Transient Performance of the Semi-
manufacturers that participate in the ENCAP Closed O2/CO2 Gas Turbine Cycle for CO2-
project, Siemens and Alstom. In addition, the Capture. In: Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo
model compares reasonably well with the cooled 2003, Atlanta, 2003, ASME Paper GT2003-38068.
turbine model in the simulation tool Thermoflex. [13] Louis JF, Hiraoka K, Elmasri MA. A Comparative
In addition to a cooled air gas turbine, the cooling Study of the Influence of Different Means of
Turbine Cooling on Gas Turbine Performance.
model was used to simulate a semi-closed oxygen- ASME Paper 83-GT-180, 1983.
combustion gas turbine cycle, where the working [14] Horlock JH. Advanced Gas Turbine Cycles.
fluid is mainly a mixture of CO2 and steam. Elsevier Science Ltd, 2003.
Parameter variations show that the behaviour of
the cooled semi-closed cycle is represented APPENDIX
reasonably well by the generic model.
pair [bar] 1.01325 T [°C] 15
Rel. humidity [%] 60 yO2, air 0.2074
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS yN2, air 0.773 yH2O, air 0.0101
This work was sponsored by the 6th EU Framework yAr, air 0.00923 yCO2, air 0.0003
Programme within the ENCAP (Enhanced Capture LHVnat. gas (at 25 °C) [kJ/kg] 46503
of CO2) project. pnat. gas [bar] 70 Tnat. gas [°C] 10
yCH4, nat. gas 0.89 yC5H12, nat. gas 0.00009
REFERENCES yC2H6, nat. gas 0.07 yC6H14, nat. gas 0.00001
[1] Thermoflex, Thermoflow Inc., version 13.0.0. yC3H8, nat. gas 0.01 yCO2, nat. gas 0.02
[2] Horlock JH, Watson DT, Jones TV. Limitations on yC4H10, nat. gas 0.001 yN2, nat. gas 0.0089
Gas Turbine Performance Imposed by Large
Table 3: Ambient air and natural gas specifications

649
 PR=17 PR=40 The ratio α between the heat transfer area, AQ, and the
ηis, uc tbn, stage 1 [%] 89.02 89.36 hot gas cross-section area, Ac, is assumed to be constant
ηis, uc tbn, stage 2 [%] 89.05 89.43 (Equation (9)). The cross-section area is found from the
ηis, uc tbn, stage 3 [%] 89.09 89.50 continuity equation.
Table 4: Isentropic efficiencies for the Thermoflex α = AQ Ac ; Ac = m g ( ρ g ug ) (9)
model, calculated with three uncooled stages (generic
The convective cooling efficiency is inserted in
model) with equal pressure ratios and ηp, tbn=87.94 %
Equation (7) to remove the cooling fluid outlet
temperature and Equation (9) is inserted to remove the
Gen. Th. Rel. Abs. heat transfer area. Equation (10) shows the resulting
mod. flexdiff. diff. expression, note that this equation contains the Stanton
[%] number (Equation (11)).
Wgross [kW] 41588 41592 3.6 0.01
m cc p ,c hT , g Tg ,i −Tb
mfuel [kg/s] 2.279 2.273 -0.01 -0.26 =α (10)
Ttbn, exit [°C] 581.43 581.23 -0.20 -0.04 m g c p , g (
c p , g ρ g u g ηc Tb −Tc ,i )
cool. frac. [%] 22.00 22.01 0.01 0.05
ηnet [%] 38.50 38.60 0.10 0.27
St = hT , g ( c p, g ρ g u g ) (11)

Table 5: Tuning of the Thermoflex model to the generic

model base case (PR=17, Tcmb, exit=1425 °C) Convective cooling
For convective cooling, the cooling efficiency is not
pcmpr, in [bar] 1.01325 yAr, oxygen 0.03 proportional to the hot gas inlet temperature. Thus,
Equation (10) can be rewritten as Equation (12). The
poxygen stream, in = pcmpr, exit Tcmpr, in [°C] 20
parameter b replaces the constant α, the St number and
yO2, oxygen 0.95 Toxygen, in [°C] 15 the cooling efficiency. The constant α is 10-20 for one
yN2, oxygen 0.02 Tcw, in [°C] 15 cooled stage and 20-40 for two cooled stages. The St
∆pcmpr, in & ∆ptbn, exit [mbar] 0 Tcw, out [°C] 25 number is approximately 0.005 for blade cooling. Louis
et al. [13] give the cooling efficiency as 0.3-0.5,
∆pcooler (hot, cold side) [%] 1 λ [-]5 1.02
Horlock [14] gives 0.6-0.8. Thus, with a conservative
Table 6: Additional input data for the SCOC-GT estimate of the cooling efficiency (0.3-0.5), b should be
0.1-0.3 for one cooled stage and 0.2-0.7 for two cooled
moxygen stream [kg/s] 12.0768 stages. With a less conservative estimate of the cooling
efficiency (0.6-0.8), b should be 0.1-0.2 for one cooled
yCO2, cmpr inlet 0.8772 yCO2, tbn exit 0.7738 stage and 0.1-0.3 for two cooled stages. Equation (12) is
yH2O, cmpr inlet 0.0232 yH2O, tbn exit 0.1384 the same as Equation (14) with s=1.
yAr, cmpr inlet 0.0534 yAr, tbn exit 0.0471 m c c p ,c α St ⎛ Tg ,i −Tb ⎞ ⎛ Tg ,i −Tb ⎞
yN2, cmpr inlet 0.0428 yN2, tbn exit 0.0377 = ⎜ ⎟ =b⎜ ⎟ (12)
m g c p , g ηc ⎜⎝ Tb −Tc ,i ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ Tb −Tc ,i ⎟⎠
yO2, cmpr inlet 0.0034 yO2, tbn exit 0.0030
Table 7: Additional results for the base case SCOC-GT
Film cooling
(PR=17, Tcmb, exit=1425 °C)
For film cooling, the cooling efficiency is proportional
to the inverse of hot gas inlet temperature, but the
Derivation of Equation (1)
dependence is also influenced by the cooling fluid
The heat transfer between the cooling fluid in the blade temperature. Consequently, Equation (10) can be
and the hot gas is given by Equation (7). rewritten as Equation (13).
Q = m c T −T(
c p ,c c,o c ,i
= ) m cc p ,c ⎛ Tg ,i −Tb ⎞
∝α St ⎜ ⎟T (13)
(7) m g c p , g ⎜ Tb −Tc ,i ⎟ g ,i
= m c T −T (
g p , g g ,i g ,o
=h )
A T −T
T , g Q g ,i b ( ) ⎝ ⎠
When α·St is replaced by b and the impact of the hot gas
The cooling efficiency, ηc, is defined for convective and inlet temperature is included by the parameter s,
film cooling in Equation (8). Equation (14) results. s is in the range of 1 to 2, where 1
T −T T −T represents convective cooling. b should be 0.05-0.1 for
ηc = c ,o c ,i ( convective); ηc = c ,o c ,i ( film ) (8) one cooled stage and 0.1-0.2 for two cooled stages.
Tb −Tc ,i Tg ,i −Tc ,i
s
m cc p ,c ⎛ Tg ,i −Tb ⎞
=b ⎜ ⎟ (14)
m g c p , g ⎜⎝ Tb −Tc ,i ⎟⎠
5
The amount of oxygen supplied (moles) divided by the
amount of oxygen required for stoichiometric combustion.

View
650