Você está na página 1de 8

Proceedings of IJPGC '02

2002 International Joint Power Generation Conference


Phoenix, AZ, USA, June 24-26, 2002

IJPGC2002-26088

DEVELOPMENT OF SURFACE-STABILIZED FUEL INJECTORS WITH SUB-THREE


PPM NOX EMISSIONS

Christopher K. Weakley, Steven J. Greenberg, Robert M. Kendall, and Neil K. McDougald


ALZETA Corporation
2343 Calle del Mundo
Santa Clara, CA 95054
cweakley@alzeta.com
Leonel O. Arellano
Solar Turbines
2200 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92186

ABSTRACT
ALZETA Corporation has developed surface-stabilized fuel (corrected to 15% O2). The control techniques to achieve this
injectors for use with lean premixed combustors which provide goal have fallen into two categories, namely, combustion
extended turndown and ultra-low NOx emission performance. modification in the high-pressure combustor, or post-combustion
These injectors use a patented technique to form interacting clean up systems.
radiant and blue-flame zones immediately above a selectively-
perforated porous metal surface. This allows stable operation at The remainder of this paper will discuss progress towards
low reaction temperatures. This technology is a successful deploying surface-stabilized low-emissions combustion technol-
extension of ALZETAs line of proven Pyromat SB metal fiber ogy, successful in atmospheric pressure boilers and process
burners. A proof-of-concept injector in a full-pressure test rig at heaters, in gas turbine engines. The application of this technol-
NETL in Morgantown, West Virginia achieved sub-3 ppm NOx ogy to gas turbine combustor fuel injectors is being developed
emissions with concurrent single-digit CO emissions, both under the name nanoSTAR.
corrected to 15% O2. Operating conditions ranged between inlet
pressures of 182.4 kPa (1.8 atm) and 1236.2 kPa (12.2 atm), inlet TECHNOLOGY
temperatures between 86o C (186o F) and 455o C (850o F) and Low emissions of NOx, as well as CO and hydrocarbons can
calculated adiabatic flame temperatures between 1466o C (2670o be achieved with thorough fuel/air mixing and control of the
F) and 1593o C (2900o F). Testing with prototype fuel injectors in adiabatic flame temperature of that mixture below about 1922 K
test rigs at Solar Turbines last year yielded similar results. In (3000o F). One of the great difficulties with such lean premixed
May of 2001, a Solar Saturn 1 MW gas-turbine engine was systems has been maintaining flame stability in the narrow flame
operated to 95% load with a surface-stabilized injector. Programs temperature range between high NOx production and lean flame
are moving forward to adapt these injectors to the Solar Turbines extinction. Aerodynamically stabilized injectors have very
Taurus 60 and Titan 130 engines. Engine tests are scheduled to narrow ranges of operation, necessitating multiple burner
begin in 2003. staging (up to four stages in some systems) or piloting [1]. Such
Dry Low NOx, or DLN systems, have been successfully
INTRODUCTION deployed to achieve sub-25 ppm NOx emissions in several gas
Because of the increasing use of gas turbines in power turbine applications, and some have been refined to the point of
generation, the control of their emissions has become a critical achieving 'single digit', or 9 ppm NOx emission levels. To date,
challenge to the technical community. The regulatory however, such systems have not been refined to reliably achieve
community seems to be focusing on a NOx limitation of <3 ppm sub-3 ppm NOx emission levels.

1 Copyright 2002 by ASME


BURNER PLENUM
POROUS METAL FIBER RADIANT
COMBUSTION SURFACE

B FIBER PAD
1 -4 mm MAXIMUM
COMBUSTION
TEMPERATURE

A A
INLET MAXIMUM
FIBER

TEMPERATURE
TEMPERATURE

FLOW

Fuel/Air

Figure 1: Surface-Stabilized Combustion FUEL/AIR INLET


TEMPERATURE
DISTANCE

A more recent development has been the successful DISTRIBUTOR

demonstration of catalytic combustors in gas turbine engines


which can reliably achieve sub-3 ppm NOx emissions [2]. These
combustors use a catalyst to stabilize gas phase combustion at
temperatures less than 1644 K (2500o F). However, precious Figure 2: Porous-Only Radiant Combustor Principles of
metal catalyst life is greatly limited at temperatures above 1310 K Operation
(1900o F), and temperatures considerably higher than 1366 K
(2000o F) are required to realize acceptable destruction of CO and conduction of heat from the outer surface such that the cold face
hydrocarbons. Methods have been developed to circumvent of the mat is very near the incoming gas mixture temperature.
these problems, but they introduce additional complexities and Combustion occurs without any visible flame, and occurs
limitations that result in incompatibility with a number of existing without noise or pressure fluctuations. Fig. 3 shows a typical
gas turbine configurations unless extensive engine modifications porous-only burner operating in the fully radiant mode (the
are performed. burner shown is a ceramic Duratherm burner).

NanoSTAR surface-stabilized combustion is a simpler In normal atmospheric operation, a porous-only surface


approach which can maximize the emissions benefit of fuel/air burner can operate at surface heat release rates up to 630.7
premixing while simultaneously increasing flame stability, and kW/m2 (200 MBtu/hr/ft 2). At normal operating conditions and
doing so in a much more compact and flexible manner. firing rates above 630.7 kW/m2, such burners become unstable
due to excessive flame detachment or "lift off". For this reason
The operation of surface-stabilized combustion is char- the metal fiber mats are selectively perforated to produce
acterized by the schematic to the left of Fig. 1, which shows significant gradients in local mass flux through the metal fiber
premixed fuel and air passing through the metal fiber mat in two mat, allowing substantially higher firing rates to be achieved
distinct zones. In the porous-only zone stable surface before flame liftoff occurs. As a result surface heat release rates
combustion (A) is realized. In the perforated zone, a stretched of over 3.15 MW/m2 (1.0 million Btu/hr/ft 2) may be achieved.
laminar flame (B) is established that is anchored by the surface
combustion. A picture of such a burner in atmospheric operation The porous zone typically operates with a flow velocity at
is shown on the right in Fig. 1. about one-third of the laminar flame speed resulting in an
attached flame over a radiating surface. The perforated zone
The porous-only radiant zone operation is summarized in operates at a flow velocity (relative to the surface area) of up to
Fig. 2. Premixed fuel and air flows through the porous fiber mat. 10 times the laminar flame speed. This implies a factor of ten
The mixture heats as it passes through the mat, and combustion stretch of the laminar flame surface. This, coupled with the
takes place on the outer surface which glows incandescently at a selective arrangement of perforations, produces the alternating
temperature of 816-1093 C (1500-2000 F). The combustion laminar blue flame/radiant red combustion zones shown in the
process continues in the gas phase as the flow leaves the hot right of Fig. 1. This alternating arrangement enhances flame
face of the mat so that peak gas temperatures occur slightly stability by providing a hot wall and a continuous pool of
beyond the hot face. Heat transfer and diffusion of combustion combustion radicals to anchor the edges of each laminar flamelet.
products from the gas phase region back to the burner provide
the feedback necessary to sustain stable combustion. The flow At atmospheric operation, nominal injector output would be
of fuel-air mixture through the fiber mat recuperates any inward 3.15 MW/m2 (1.0 million Btu/hr/ft 2), so an injector with a fired

2 Copyright 2002 by ASME


COMBUSTOR LINER

SINTERED METAL FIBER PAD


LINER DILUTION HOLES

PREMIXED
FUEL/AIR

DISTIBUTOR
SELECTIVE
PERFORATIONS
MOUNTING RING

Figure 4: Surface-Stabilized nanoSTAR Injector


Figure 3: Radiant Burner in Operation
period without a significant loss in operability. Fig. 4 depicts an
injector in a gas turbine combustor liner.
area of .047 m2 (0.5 ft 2) would have a capacity of 146.5 kW
(500,000 Btu/hr). As the operating pressure of the injector The alternating arrangement of laminar blue flames and
changes, the stable operating range of the burner also changes. radiant red combustion zones contributes to lower NOx
As with all fully premixed surface stabilized burners, stable emissions in two ways. The first mechanism is a more rapid
operation requires that a proper balance between flame speed post-flame cooling of each blue-flame zone via the gas phase
and velocity of the premix flow be maintained. The velocity of radiation mechanism. By spreading the flame over a larger
the premix moving away from the burner surface acts to keep the surface, the gas layer thickness at any specific location on the
flame off of the surface, while the propagation of the flame back burner is thin (relative to that of a conventional burner) and can
toward the surface acts to keep the flame attached. more rapidly transfer energy as a result. The second mechanism
is the much lower residence time in the hot combustion zone.
In order to maintain a constant velocity through the burner The peak temperatures are realized in the combustion front
surface in a variable pressure system, mass flow must increase formed by each laminar flamelet which, like that of a Bunsen
linearly with pressure (since density is also increasing linearly burner flame, is very thin. So the residence time in the peak flame
with pressure). Although the laminar flame speed decreases temperature zone for a nanoSTAR injector is a fraction of that of
slowly with pressure [3], the net result is that a balance between a typical aerodynamically-stabilized injector.
the counteracting effects of flame speed and premix velocity can
be maintained by increasing mass flow though the injector These two mechanisms combine in a nanoSTAR injector to
approximately linearly with pressure. This results in a much produce lower NOx emissions than a typical lean premixed
smaller burner size for a given capacity in high pressure systems. aerodynamically-stabilized injector. Fig. 5 shows a comparison
Therefore the 500,000 Btu/hr injector at 1 atm becomes nominally between nanoSTAR injector emission results from a high-
a 5 million Btu/hr injector at 10 atm. Put another way, based on a pressure rig test and perfectly-premixed aerodynamically-
gas turbine with a heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kilowatt-hour and a stabilized emission results from a 1990 paper by Leonard and
combustion pressure of 10 atmospheres, only about one square Correa [4]. In both cases the tests were conducted at 1.01 Mpa
foot of burner surface area would be required for every megawatt (10 atm) and 260-316o C (500-600o F) inlet temperatures.
of gas turbine output.
In addition to lower emissions with a wide turndown
NanoSTAR injectors are constructed of small metal fibers window, nanoSTAR injectors can be designed to fit within
which are compressed and sintered, resulting in an all-metal existing combustor liners and fitted to existing fuel/air premixers
structure. This porous pad is then selectively perforated, without extensive modification to the combustion equipment or
resulting in a surface with the two distinct fluid-flow zones: the pressure case. Furthermore, they require no extraordinary
lower-flow porous zone, and the higher-flow perforated zones. control schemes or equipment beyond that which would be
The metal fiber pads have a very low pressure drop but excellent required for an aerodynamically-stabilized lean-premixed injector.
flow uniformity because of careful attention to internal fluid
dynamics. They also display excellent durability in fired service.
In an atmospheric cycling test, a nanoSTAR metal fiber pad
withstood over 15,000 ignition/cooling cycles over a 30-day

3 Copyright 2002 by ASME


interface smoothly with the test facility, but more importantly
because this design is compatible with a number of Solar
Turbines' existing engine designs.

In order to demonstrate the ability of the nanoSTAR injector


to function at high pressure and to perform over a broad
operating envelope, a designed experiment was used. Critical
test parameters were determined to be pressure, surface firing
rate (burner firing rate per square foot of burner area per
atmosphere of pressure), and adiabatic flame temperature. A
summary of the range over which each parameter was varied is
presented in Table 1.

Testing proceeded according to a central composite test matrix,


which allowed for systematic variation of the three critical
process variables. The matrix was based on a three-parameter
box-and-star approach featuring 15 distinct operating
conditions. Further tests were conducted beyond the test matrix
Figure 5: Surface-stabilized compared to aerodynamically- in order to define the lean operating limit of the nanoSTAR
stabilized emission results; both tests conducted at 1.01 injector at various conditions.
MPa (10 atm) pressure and 260-316o C (500-600o F) inlet
temperatures.
Table 1: Test Parameters and Ranges
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In the initial stages of the nanoSTAR development effort a
relationship was established between ALZETA and Solar
Turbines. The initial target application for nanoSTAR
combustors were Solar gas turbines in the 5-7 MW range. These
engines have annular combustion liners and use 12 fuel
injectors per engine.
The surface-stabilized injector was shown to operate stably
A three-phase development plan was conceived. Phase I over the full pressure range of 0.18 to 1.24 Mpa (1.8 to 12.2 atm)
would involve proof-of-concept tests at a government test at the nominal values of flame temperature and mass flow. The
facility, and would continue with additional development tests at only test point where stable operation could not be established
Solar's single-injector test facility. Phase II would involve the was the high temperature, low flow, 1.01 Mpa (10 atm) condition
design of an entire combustion system for one of Solar's gas selected in this test matrix. The injector did operate stably at all
turbine products, including the nanoSTAR injector, fuel/air mixer, other conditions including three other 1.01 Mpa (10 atm)
and interface hardware. This phase would involve single- operating conditions, so the operating envelope of the injector
injector and multiple injector 'sector' tests at Solar's test facilities. was still shown to be large. These results satisfied one goal of
Finally, Phase III would proceed to tests at Solar's full-annular the test, which was to show that the nanoSTAR injector had an
engine rig test facility and then on to full-scale engine tests operating range and stability at off-design conditions suitable
for use as a gas turbine injector.

PROOF-OF-CONCEPT: TESTING AT NETL FACILITY NOx emissions results are shown in Fig. 6. At the lowest
The first step in adapting surface stabilized combustion flame temperatures, NOx emissions were generally below 2 parts
technology to gas turbine combustors was demonstration of low per million (corrected to 15% O2) and were sometimes below 1
emissions in a simulated gas turbine environment. Using the ppm. The highest value recorded was less than 3.5 ppm. CO
National Energy Technology Laboratorys (NETL) Low Emission production was also low, with sub-10 ppm data points recorded
Combustion Test and Research (LECTR) facility in Morgantown, at every pressure tested (Fig. 7). Three of the low-pressure test
West Virginia, high-pressure combustor tests were performed points did have CO emissions of 50-90 ppm, and one .71 Mpa (7
with a cylindrical injector that could accurately be described as a atm) test point had CO emissions of 14 ppm. All other tested CO
miniature version of an ALZETA commercial boiler burner. emissions were less than 10 ppm, with most points being 5 ppm
Nominal dimensions were 10 cm (4 inch) OD by 17 cm (6.75 inch) and lower.
length. The end of the burner was inactive and was covered by
a ceramic end cap. This injector design was selected partly to

4 Copyright 2002 by ASME


Figure 6: NOx vs. Calculated Adiabatic Flame Temperature Figure 7: CO vs. Calculated Adiabatic Flame Temperature

PROOF-OF-CONCEPT: SOLAR TURBINES TESTS configuration, and which was smaller in diameter to allow more
Following the successful conclusion of the testing at clearance between the burner and liner. Two liner designs were
NETL, the program moved on to proof-of-concept tests which evaluated, one that was a typical louver-cooled configuration
were more focused on the particular environment to be and one that used a backside cooling design developed at
encountered in the Solar gas turbines. Solar. The NOx emissions results were similar to the preliminary
data. However, the backside cooled liner provided greater
Initial tests at Solar Turbines were performed in a high stability and allowed operation to considerably lower adiabatic
pressure test cell. The tests would more closely simulate the 5- flame temperatures. Hydrocarbon and CO emissions continued
7 MW engine target by using a smaller combustor liner and an to be very high.
'off the shelf' fuel/air mixer. The fuel/air mixer was a Solar
SoLoNOx injector, which is currently used to achieve NOx These data were clearly inconsistent with data obtained
emissions in the <25-ppm range. The SoLoNOx injector utilizes during the earlier NETL tests. Two possible causes were non-
an axial swirler and an array of fuel injection spokes for uniform mixing and premature flame quenching. In the post-test
premixing around a diffusion-flame pilot. It was concluded that hardware analysis, it became apparent that air leakage between
the existing fuel/air mixer could be integrated with the the injector and the combustor allowed air to impact the active
nanoSTAR injector to realize a relatively simple retrofit. The surface of the burner. Although this explained the instability as
liner was an 8 inch diameter louver-cooled can, the size of which well as the high CO and hydrocarbon emissions, it did not
was consistent with the dimensions of the annular combustor explain the somewhat higher NOx emissions. A recent
liner in the Solar engines. evaluation of the fuel air mixer used in this application indicates
that it may not provide the level of fuel/air mixing required to
The results of these proof-of-concept tests were mixed. achieve sub-3 ppm NOx emissions. A variation of +/-10% can
The first test used the same type of injector used at NETL. NOx yield variations of adiabatic flame temperatures of greater than
emissions ranged from 3 to 8-ppm over a range of calculated 150o C (300o F). This may be the cause of higher NOx emissions
adiabatic flame temperatures from 1454 to 1677o C (2650 to 3050o and in some cases higher CO and hydrocarbon emissions.
F). The system displayed stable operation up to full load
pressures. However, CO and hydrocarbon emissions were These early full-pressure tests at Solar clearly indicated
elevated. This was ascribed to the interaction of liner cooling that more attention needed to be paid to liner/flamelet
air with the surface-stabilized flamelets. A second series of interaction, liner/injector mounting interface, and, most
tests was performed using a more refined injector, which importantly, to adequate fuel/air mixing. Future single-injector
featured an open, fired endcap, a different perforation tests would address all of these issues.

5 Copyright 2002 by ASME


PROOF-OF-CONCEPT: ENGINE DEMONSTRATION
Rig tests demonstrated the potential of nanoSTAR
technology to deliver ultra-low emissions under gas turbine
operating conditions. However, the ability to provide stable
operation through the start ramp and across the load range of
an engine was as yet undemonstrated. The key difference in
engine operation versus rig tests is the coupling between fuel
and air flows that were independently controlled in rig tests. In
engine operation, combustion air flow can be modulated by
compressor air bleed, inlet guide vane control or variable
geometry, but is never completely uncoupled from fuel flow
which determines the shaft speed. An engine demonstration of
the technology was sought to address these concerns and
determine the control system configuration required for engine
operation. Figure 9: Gas Producer Speed and NOx Emission from Saturn
Test Run
Solar offered the use of a modified one-megawatt Saturn
engine. The engine is outfitted with an external side-mounted manual control of the combustion air butterfly valve. Flame
combustor (Fig. 8) that allowed for easy hardware modification stability and reliable ignition were maintained.
and instrumentation. The side-mounted design also provides
variable geometry in the form of butterfly valves to control the The second day of testing again relied on manual ramping
air flow split between the primary and dilution zones. The of fuel and butterfly valve position through the start ramp.
physical size of the combustor was compatible with ALZETAs However, the ramp rate was increased as operators became
atmospheric commercial boiler products. familiar with the surface-stabilized technology. The butterfly
valve was hand-controlled to maintain adiabatic flame
temperature within 1482 to 1593o C (2700 to 2900o F).
Combustion was stable up to 92% speed when supply pressure
on the fuel circuit limited further increase. Fig. 9 shows the gas
producer speed and NOx emissions from the test run. No effort
was made to optimize emissions performance as operational
characteristics of the technology were the focus of the
demonstration. However, NOx emissions were well below the
typical dry low NOx value of 25 ppm (15% O2).

On the third and final day of testing, fuel during the start
ramp was completely automated. The engine was brought to
idle speed entirely by the control system except for manual
adjustment of the air flow split. While at idle, a transfer
Figure 8: Solar Turbines Saturn Development Engine between fuel circuits was done to remove the fuel limitation
previously encountered. As control of the fuel transfer was
developed, several system shutdowns occurred. The surface-
A burner was designed and built for the Saturn engine, and stabilized technology responded with reliable ignition and
Solar designed and fabricated interface hardware to mount the performance through several start ramps. Once the fuel hand-
burner to the existing fuel delivery and mixing system. The off was completed, the engine ran up to 95% speed before a
burner tested actually shared more in common with a package high temperature limit upstream of the turbine section
boiler burner than a true nanoSTAR injector. This approach prevented the engine from reaching full load.
was adopted to speed the project and reduce costs.
PROTOTYPE INJECTOR FOR THE TAURUS 60
On the first day of testing, the surface-stabilized burner The proof-of-concept tests confirmed that nanoSTAR
took the engine through the start ramp to the point of starter technology can operate under the conditions of pressure and
drop-out, the idle point where combustion provides enough temperature found in a gas turbine engine, and can in fact
energy to maintain air flow through the engine. This first start provide the motive power for an actual gas turbine engine. The
was carefully controlled using small increments in fuel flow and next phase was to design, test, and demonstrate a prototype
injector for Solars Taurus 60 engine.

6 Copyright 2002 by ASME


First, the technology itself was refined based on the results The burner was tested under a variety of conditions,
of the previous tests. The practice, common to Pyromat SB ranging from near-atmospheric all the way up to Taurus 60
boiler burners, of producing the sintered mats as flat sheets and simulated full-load conditions. The burner demonstrated stable
rolling and welding them into shape had significant operational operation at each of 10 pressure, temperature and fuel flow
limitations when applied to gas turbine combustors. Ceramic combinations targeted. The emissions data collected were very
end caps, weld rings, and the welds themselves place a encouraging. Over a broad range of test points wehre no
collection of hardware in the combustor flowpath which specific attempt was made to minimize emissions, NOx
increase the potential for foreign object damage. Therefore, a emissions were below 9 ppm, CO emissions were below 3 ppm,
new generation of nanoSTAR combustors was produced which and HC emissions were below 1 ppm (all corrected to 15% O2).
were 'wet cast' as one piece prior to sintering. This produced a However, at a pressure and air preheat designed to simulate a
simplified combustion surface free of welds or other joints, and full-load operating condition, the fuel flow was reduced to near
allowed the injectors to be produced in a variety of shapes to lean blowout in an effort to identify a point of optimal
interface with any particular combustor liner. emissions. In this range, several data points were collected
with NOx emissions less than 3 ppm and CO emissions less than
In addition, the perforation patterns were refined to shorten 25 ppm. A final data point was collected with NOx emissions
flame lengths while increasing surface firing rate, decreasing the
likelihood of flame impingement on the cooled liner while
allowing the injectors themselves to be smaller. Finally,
extensive atmospheric testing was performed to ensure uniform
flow and flame distribution around the burner surface. An
example of the resulting injector head is shown in Fig. 10 during
an atmospheric test.

Extensive engine cycle analysis was conducted to develop


a burner configuration and operational concept compatible with
the Taurus 60 start transient and loading profile. An example of
the resulting injector design is the one shown previously in Fig.
10. The next step was to conduct thorough single-injector and
sector tests of this injector at Solar's high-pressure test rig
facility. Figure 10: NanoSTAR burner during atmospheric testing

less than 2 ppm, but CO emissions had jumped to about 80 ppm.


In preparation for these tests the issues encountered
The crossover point where NOx and CO emissions are equal
during the proof-of-concept testing were addressed. As
occurred around 4 ppm, corresponding to flame temperatures
described above, the burner was designed to minimize flame
between 1593 and 1621o C (2900 and 2950o F). Fig. 11 shows a
quenching by the cooled liner. Quenching by air infiltration
plot of NOx and CO emissions vs. calculated adiabatic flame
was also eliminated. The test liner was completely backside
temperature. The curve of NOx vs. flame temperature agrees
cooled, with no air introduction until the downstream dilution
with trends previously observed with other surface-stabilized
holes. An air-tight flange was used to mate the injector
burners.
assembly to the premixing hardware and the liner dome. To
achieve nearly complete premixing of the fuel and air, a mixer
Additional testing was conducted to explore the operational
using a SoLoNOx fuel injector, two static mixers, and 1.22 m (4
range of the nanoSTAR burners. Several lean blowout tests
feet) of mixing length was employed. While too long for
were conducted at several pressure and preheat levels, in which
practical use, this mixer allows mixing to be varied to study its
the fuel flow was reduced to the point of burner instability. The
effect on low emissions performance. This mixer was found to
turndown in terms of lowest achievable flame temperature
provide a mixture which is spatially uniform to within 3% of
before instability was not as good as that obtained during the
the mean fuel concentration.
NETL tests. Further refinement in burner pad production
techniques will correct this in the future.
The burners were tested according to a 'ramp' of pressures,
inlet temperatures, and fuel flows which were designed to
Over the course of testing, however, the burner displayed
simulate the Taurus 60 engine operating conditions from zero to
stable, low-emissions operation throughout a broad range of
full load. The inlet fuel concentration and uniformity were
surface firing rates. Closely tied to burner DP/P, Surface Firing
measured by sampling tubes at the burner inlet. The rig air flow
was adjusted to maintain stable burner operation, and to 'tune'
the burner operating conditions for low NOx performance.

7 Copyright 2002 by ASME


Figure 11: Emissions vs. Calculated Adiabatic Flame Figure 12: Demonstrated nanoSTAR Operating Envelope
Temperature

Rate (SFR) is defined as the burner firing rate normalized by


inlet pressure and burner surface area. Fig. 12 shows SFR as a ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
function of inlet pressure for the recent Solar tests as well as This work was funded in part by the California Energy
the NETL tests. It should be noted that no attempt has yet Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy.
been made to explore upper or lower bounds on SFR. The plot
simply illustrates which SFRs have been successfully
demonstrated during testing to date. REFERENCES
[1] Vandervort, C. L., 2001, "9 ppm NOx/CO Combustion
CONCLUSION System for "F" Class Industrial Gas Turbines," ASME J. of
Tests at multiple facilities have clearly established the Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 123, pp. 317-321.
viability of surface-stabilized combustion technology at
pressures and volumetric heat release rates consistent with [2] Yee, D. K., Lundberg, K., and Weakley, C. K., 2001, "Field
current industrial gas turbines. The ability to realize stable sub Demonstration of a 1.5 MW Industrial Gas Turbine With a
3-ppm operation over a calculated adiabatic flame temperature Low Emissions Catalytica Combustion System," ASME J. of
range of at least 105o C (220o F) has been confirmed. It has been Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 123, pp. 550-556.
established that fuel/air mixing and control of flame quenching
in the combustion zone are critical design considerations. [3] Glassman, I., 1987, Combustion, Academic Press, Orlando.
Control of the primary zone flame temperature is required and
will typically require further integration of the system with the [4] Leonard, G. L., and Correa, S. M., 1990, "NOx Formation in
turbine control hardware and software. ALZETA Corporation Premixed High-Pressure Lean Methane Flames," Fossil Fuel
has progressed rapidly with development of nanoSTAR Combustion Symposium 1990, S. N. Singh, ed., American
technology from early proof-of-concept tests through an actual Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 69-74.
engine test to a prototype low-emissions injector for the Taurus
60 gas turbine .

Currently ALZETA and Solar are progressing with the


second phase of deploying nanoSTAR technology in the
Taurus 60. The current development program is scheduled to
culminate in a multi-burner annular combustor test in
September of this year, which will then proceed to an engine
test in 2003. In addition, ALZETA and Solar have recently
initiated a project to apply nanoSTAR technology to the Titan
130 gas turbine.

8 Copyright 2002 by ASME