THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

345 E. 47th St., New York, N.Y. 10017

Ji
The Society shall not be responsible for statements or opinions advanced in 94-GT-253
papers or discussion at meetings of the Society or of its Divisions or Sections,
or printed in its publications. Discussion is printed only if the paper is pub-
lished in an ASME Journal. Papers are available from ASME for 15 months
after the meeting.
Printed in U.S.A. Copyright © 1994 by ASME

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1994/78859/V003T06A011/2404772/v003t06a011-94-gt-253.pdf by Mr. Aaron Frost on 07 June 2021

DEVELOPMENT OF A FUEL AIR PREMIXER FOR AERO-
DERIVATIVE DRY LOW EMISSIONS COMBUSTORS.

Narendra D Joshi, Michael J Epstein, Susan Durlak, Steven Marakovits

and Paul E Sabla

General Electric Aircraft Engines

Cincinnati, Ohio

ABSTRACT described in the literature (Sattelmayer et. al. 1990, Becker

An experimental program was conducted to develop
premixer concepts for use in GE's aero-derivative Marine and
Industrial gas turbine engines such as the LM 1600, 2500 and
6000. These engines operate typically at pressure ratios up to
30:1. Extensive tests in 1 and 2 cup test combustors were
carried out to evaluate the Double Annular Counter-Rotating
Swirler (DACRS) premixers at test conditions representative
of the above mentioned engines. These tests also help
establish combustor design parameters. Single digit NOx
emissions were measured at engine operating conditions with
the DACRS II and III premixers. Premixer interactions and
their effects on Lean Blow Out were also studied.
INTRODUCTION
The lean premixed combustion process offers several
advantages over conventional wet NOx suppression systems.
Expensive water treatment plants are not required and low
emissions operation is possible for locations where water is at
a premium. Lean premixed combustion has been chosen for
the design of the low emissions combustion system for GE's
LM series of aero-derivative marine and industrial gas turbine
engines, including the LM6000, which is a derivative of the
successful CF6-80C2 aircraft engine. The operating
conditions of the LM 6000 engine, the highest pressure ratio
engine in the LM family of engines, have been used to
develop the lean premix combustion technology. The
development of the Dry Low Emissions Combustion system
of the LM6000 engine is described in greater detail by
Leonard and Stegmaier (1993). Due to the advanced design of
this engine, significantly higher pressure and inlet preheats
have to be contended with in the design of the low emissions
combustor using the lean premixed combustion process.
Fuel/Air premixers that have been developed for Dry Low NOx
combustors for heavy duty and other gas turbine engines are
et.al . 1986, Smith et.al . 1986, Willis et.al . 1993). Such
designs may not be suitable for advanced aero-derivative
applications due to auto-ignition considerations and the
limitations of size encountered in aero-derivative engines.
Auto-ignition times for fuels in the environment of an aero-
derivative industrial gas turbine engine such as the LM6000
has been estimated to be in the range of 4 milliseconds
(Lefebvre 1983). This necessitates that the mixing process
take not much more that 1 millisecond to complete at design
point to afford a reasonable factor of safety. Although pure
Methane has significantly larger auto-ignition times, it is
concievable that natural gas, with all likely species, could
behave in a manner not too different from liquids when auto-
ignition is concerned. Another limitation to the design of the
premixer is flashback. Flashback typically takes place when
the flame propagates upstream into the premixing duct. This
phenomena has been observed in boundary layers where the
forward velocity of air/fuel mixture is lower than turbulent
flame propagation speed.
DLN COMBUSTOR DESIGN
The design of the LM6000 combustor followed the GE
experience with parrallel staged double and triple annular
design methodology first developed in the low emissions
programs in the seventies and the early eighties (Ekstedt
1987). The double/triple annular design of the combustor has
several very significant advantages. The liner areas to be
cooled are minimized. The package is small and thus will
require minimal engine modifications to implement. The
triple annular design was chosen due to the ease of staging
permitted by the design. With the pilot dome in the center of
the combustor, it is possible to generate 4 ( pilot, pilot +
inner, pilot+ outer and pilot + inner+ outer) staging modes of

Presented at the International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition
The Hague, Netherlands — June 13-16, 1994

Figure 1. Cross section of the LM6000 DLN Combustor
the combustor. With the use of inlet guide vanes, VBV and
bleeds it is possible to cover the entire operating range of the
engine with this configuration.
The combustor/diffuser length had to be limited by the
locations of the compressor exit guide vanes and the turbine
nozzle. A multi-passage diffuser design allows the diffuser to
be shortened. The maintainability constraint, that the fuel
injection system be externally removable, requires that free
space be maintained between the dome and the pre-diffuser, at
least as much as required by the engagement of the fuel
injection system (premixers). In order to maximize the
residence time in the combustor for CO oxidation at part
power conditions, the size of the premixer was apriori set at
0.05 m (2" ) for the mixing duct and 0.0175m (0.7") for the
swirl vanes.
A cross-section of the LM6000 Dry Low Emissions
combustor is shown in Figure 1. The size constraints become
clear when the premixers must pass about 80% of the
combustor air flow to keep the flame temperatures within
limits where low NOx emissions can be maintained (Leonard
and Stegmaier 1993), unlike conventional aero-engines where
between 10 to 20% of the combustor air goes through the
dome and the swirlers (Ekstedt 1987). The conventional
radial inflow swirlers have been replaced by axial inflow
premixers. In addition, to satisfy operability requirements the
number of premixers has been increased to 75 (Leonard and
Stegmaier 1993) in the triple dome arrangement. This reduces
the air flow to each premixer to manageable levels. This
arrangement, though very tight, has mechanical design
advantages of having smaller liner surface area to cool. A
general description of the combustion system can be found in
Leonard and Stegmaier (1993). Since the low emissions
combustor must fit inside the length restrictions of the
existing turbomachinery, an additional length restriction is
imposed on the combustion system design. The flame
temperature in a low NOx emissions combustor is expected to
be lower than that of conventional diffusion flame
combustors. This together with wall quenching can result in
2
OUTER
SIMRLER
MIXING
INNER DUCT PREFER
SIMRLER
CENTERBODY
FUEL
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1994/78859/V003T06A011/2404772/v003t06a011-94-gt-253.pdf by Mr. Aaron Frost on 07 June 2021
INJECTION
HOLES
Figure 2. Cross section of the DACRS I premixer.
increased CO emissions. The bulk residence time of the
combustor must be maximized to minimize CO emissions.
This requirement further constrains the premixer to be as short
as possible, to maximize combustor length.
The work of Roffe and Venkataramani (1978) suggested that
it was indeed feasible to get low NOx emissions at high
pressures and temperatures representative of modern aero-
derivative gas turbine engines. These researchers have used a
perforated plate to conduct their experiments. Their work
showed that the development of the premixer was challenging.
Early groundwork on lean premixed combustion for gas
turbines was laid in the works of Fenimore (1971), Leonard
and Correa (1990 and Correa (1992). The development of
heavy duty gas turbine combustion chambers using lean
premixed combustion technology has been described by
Davis (1992).
DACRS I DESIGN
The Double Annular Counter-Rotating Swirler (DACRS)
premixer, shown in Figure 2, was concieved to satisfy the
constraints of auto-igntion, flashback and size. The duct
diameter is reduced at the exit (in comparison to its inlet ) to
continuously accelerate the air flow in an effort to reduce
boundary layer thickness and limit growth of boundary layers
to prevent flashback in the boundary layers. The area
reduction is about 2:1. The exit velocity is set by design to
be significantly greater than the turbulent flame speed in lean
mixtures (Abdel-Gayed et.al . 1987). The mass averaged
forward velocity is set to be greater than 84 m/sec (275 fps)
for the prototye design. A conical centerbody along the
centerline of the premixer can be utilized to supply liquid fuel
to an atomizer at its tip and gas passages for diffusion
burning at low power conditions.
Swirling flows in the duct give rise to free vortex like flows
with a low static pressure region along the duct's centerline.
Such a situation typically leads to a recirculatory flow into
the duct. This situation is clearly unacceptable. A counter-
rotating inner swirler in the design helps increase the axial
velocity along the centerbody and keeps the flow attached to
the centerbody as well. The counter-rotating swirler also
helps increase shear within the premixing duct. The
 0.9
0.88
0.7 ■ Axial
Vebcity
OUTER
SMRLER
INNER
SLER
MIXING
DUCT
PREMD^R
-/CENTERBODY

A
0.6
0.5 —A Tangential

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1994/78859/V003T06A011/2404772/v003t06a011-94-gt-253.pdf by Mr. Aaron Frost on 07 June 2021

FUEL— —__ _—---—_____
X Velocity
0.4 IN
E 0.3
FUEL
0.2 INJECTION
SPOKES
0.1
0
0 0.5 1
Figure 5. Cross section of the DACRS II Premixer
Figure 3. Velocity profile of 60-30 DACRS I premixer
CIRCUMFERENTIAL
FUEL MANIFOLD

OUTER
SWIRIER MDUNG
DUCT
INNER
SWIRLER

COOLED
CENTERBODY

Figure 6. Cross section of the DACRS III premixer.

Figure 4. Representative Swirl angle of the DACRS family of DACRS II DESIGN

premixers.
substantial increase in shear that this provides along the inner
parts of the duct is expected to help mix the gaseous fuel with
air. Air flow is split between the inner and the outer swirler in
the 1:4 ratio. The premixers are designed for a 4% pressure
drop across the dome.
In the design designated DACRS I, the fuel was injected
into the air stream radially outwards from holes in the
centerbody, just aft of the swirl vanes. The number of fuel jets
was varied (4, 6, 8 and 12 holes) to alter jet penetration. A
typical velocity profile measurement with a combination of
+60-30 degrees (outer: inner swirler swirl angle)
configuration is shown in Figure 3. Note the relative flat axial
velocity profile. The measured swirl angle for this
configuration is shown in Figure 4. This configuration was
tested in a 1 cup test rig, at low pressures and a bistable mode
of operation was seen. The NOx emissions were low (single
digits) in one mode and extremely high (>100 ppm) in the
other mode.
The DACRS I configuration was modified by the addition of
spokes in the location of the holes in the centerbody as shown
in Figure 5. The spokes are expected to increase the
penetration of the fuel and perform the task of 'Macro-mixing'.
The new configuration is designated DACRS II. The first
configuration tested had 8 spokes. The 0.125" diameter
spokes have 3 holes to inject fuel into the air flow stream. The
holes are located such that the fuel jet is perpendicular to the
local air flow. The centerbody tip of the premixer was
modified after low pressure tests to improve tip life. The
downstream end of the centerbody was cooled by internal fuel
impingement.
DACRS III DESIGN
The premixer designs described above have been modified
further by the incorporation of fuel injection holes into the
swirl-vanes of the outer swirler as shown in Figure 6. The fuel
is injected through 3 holes in the trailing edge of each outer
swirl vane and 1 hole in the outer wall of the mixing duct in
between each swirl vane. The 10 outer and the 5 inner swirler
vanes have aerodynamic shape to maximize flow coefficient.
Fuel is fed to the hollow outer vanes through a manifold on
the outside of the premixing duct. The centerbody of the

3

AIR --
I
8FUE SPOKES
60-60 DEG
SWIRLER
FUEL IN
DESIGN 1 ,
FUEL
NOZZLE
.05M (2 ")
MIXING
DUCT
AIR `
Figure 7. Single cup combustor cross section.
premixer is cooled by small amounts of purge air channelled
through a small hole through the center. In addition it is
shorter than the mixing duct which helps to keep it away from
the flame. The basic design has been scaled to accomodate
different air and fuel flows in the inner, the middle and the
outer domes of the triple dome combustor.
1 CUP TEST APPARATUS
The single cup test combustor is shown in Figure 7. The
premixer is attached to the upstream end of the 0.089m (3.5")
nominal diameter cylindrical combustion chamber 0.15m (6")
long. The length of the 1 cup test combustion chamber
simulates the residence time of the LM6000 DLN combustor.
The dome of the combustor is back-side cooled by convection
using the premixer air. The cylindrical section is made of
high temperature ceramic and is uncooled. Emissions
measurements were made using an 'Aero-quench" probe
designed per guidelines of Roffe and Venkataramani (1978).
Care was exercised in the design of the gas sampling probe to
minimize the backpressure at the gas sampling tip to ensure
that a reasonable expansion pressure ratio (>5) was always
maintained. Gas samples were carefully dried before injection
into the NOx analyser. CO2, CO and UHC were also measured
along with 02. The gas sampling system provides a backup
method of calculating fuel air ratio. High pressure tests were
performed using the blowdown facilities at General Applied
Science Labs, Lake Ronkonkoma New York. Air flow for all
tests is measured by a critical flow venturi before it passes
through a pebble bed heater. A temperature feedback control
is used to maintain constant air temperature throughout the
4
SILANE IGNITION PORT
CERAMIC LINER
.089 M (3.5")
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1994/78859/V003T06A011/2404772/v003t06a011-94-gt-253.pdf by Mr. Aaron Frost on 07 June 2021
1.27 MM (0.050") THICK
TBC
TRAVERSING
EMISSIONS
SAMPLING
0.15M PROBE
10 to 20 minute long tests. Air temperature and pressure is
measured just upstream of the test combustion chamber. A
pressure feedback control system is used to maintain
combustion chamber pressure during each test. This pressure
system permits the heat release to be modulated in the
combustion chamber without changing its pressure. The
choked flow inlet venturi keeps the air flow unchanged which
maintains the dome velocity constant during the test.
2 CUP TEST APPARATUS
A two cup test apparatus has been designed to fit within the
test rig shown in Figure 8. This test combustor has two
premixers side by side and thus permits the evaluation of cup-
cup interactions. The first design of this 2 cup test combustor
has been implemented with ceramic uncooled sidewalls. The
subsequent implementation has back-side cooled metal liner
along with heat-shields on the dome which are similar those
designed for the LM6000 combustor. The heatshields have
been manufactured with a removable wall separating adjacent
primary combustion zones. This additional feature permits
the evaluation of interactions between adjacent primary
combustion zones.
An elaborate checklist was used to ensure that all systems
would function properly during the test. The air flow was set
using a critical flow venturi and by regulating the pressure
feeding the venturi. The fuel flow was measured using critical
flow venturi flowmeters. Emissions were measured by aero-
quench gas sampling probes. Two sets of probes were
manufactured for the test. A radial traversing probe was used

Figure 8. Schematic of the 2 cup test combustor showing
metal walls and engine type heat-shields.
for most tests to generate emissions profiles across the exit
plane of the combustion chamber. The axial probe was used
for some tests to establish the axial emissions profile. Water
was sprayed into the combustion chamber exit flows to cool
the flow down to less than 533 K (500 F) for the backpressure
valve.
DACRS II TEST RESULTS
The DACRS II premixer was tested at a variety of conditions
representative of the LM series of gas turbine engines in the 1
cup test apparatus described above. The dome reference
velocity (cold flow velocity) for most tests has been
maintained close to 12 m/sec (40 fps). The radial profiles of
emissions are measured with a single point radial traversing
probe as shown in Figure 7. Representative emissions profile
of NOx and CO are shown in Figure 9. The fact that the
profiles are flat suggests that a representative sample could be
taken along the centerline for gathering data. An axial
emissions profile measured with an axial traversing sampling
probe is shown in Figure 10. This measurement is restricted
to the centerline of the 1 cup combustor due to rig limitations.
It appears that the CO oxidation goes to completion about 0.1
m (4") downstream of the dome. Most of the heat release
appears to have occured in the first 0.05m (2") of the test
combustor based on the combustion efficiency calculated
using CO and CO2 emissions. Emissions data are shown in
Figures 11 and 12. The NOx emissions, corrected to 15%
oxygen dry, correlate over the test conditions to the flame
temperature as seen in Figure 11. CO emissions have been
measured close to the calculated equilibrium values. This is
not surprising since the liner is not cooled. These
measurements show that single digit NOx emissions goals are
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1994/78859/V003T06A011/2404772/v003t06a011-94-gt-253.pdf by Mr. Aaron Frost on 07 June 2021
SECT X—X
not out of reach of engine type hardware. The measurements
of Leonard and Correa (1990) suggest that further
improvements in design could lead to even lower NOx
emissions.
The interaction of adjacent premixers has been studied in
the 2 cup combustor apparatus described earlier. Figure 13
shows an emissions profile measured by a traversing gas
sampling probe that travels across the 2 cup combustor with 1
premixer unfueled and the other premixer fully fueled. In the
Figure 13a both premixers are fueled at the same equivalence
ratio, the centerbody separating the primary combustion
zones of the two premixers has been removed for this test.
This configuration represents adjacent premixers within a
dome of the triple dome combustor shown in Figure 1. In the
Figure 13b, data shown correspond to the condition where an
adjacent premixer within a dome has to be either switched on
or has just been switched off. This configuration is transient
in the combustor and occurs when the mode of combustor is
being staged, i.e. another dome is being lit or switched off.
The complete switching of the peak equivalence ratio
measurement to the centerline of the non-burning cup
suggests that tremendous mixing occurs within the 2 cup
combustor. A strong secondary flow set up within the
confines of the 2 cup liner transports the hot burning gases to
the centerliner of the non-burning premixer. Clearly there is
significant mixing between the flows emanating from the two
premixers. Figure 13c shows the dramatic impact of the
centerbody separating the primary reaction zones of the two
premixers. This configuration represents adjacent domes of
the combustor. With the separation of the primary
combustion zones, the strong secondary flow seen in Figure
13b is absent as seen by the significantly smaller equivalence
ratio peak at the centerline of the non-burning premixer.
 120
12
10- 100 ® 620 K, 5 ATM •
a 8
❑

n 80 ❑ 620 K. 17 ATM
^ r ■4
^ r
ir^.^, r
c
6 60 • 720 K, 21 ATM
0
.^
u

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1994/78859/V003T06A011/2404772/v003t06a011-94-gt-253.pdf by Mr. Aaron Frost on 07 June 2021

a
n A 760 K, 30 ATM
a 2 40 •
U 20
0-
0-0.05 -0.025 0 0.025 0.05 °
1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
distance, m Flame Temperature, K

Figure 9. A representative radial profile of emissions from 1 Figure 12. CO emissions from the DACRS II premixer at a
cup test combustor. P3 = 30 atm, T3 = 755 K variety of test conditons.

1000
2500 1 CUP #1 ER = 0.65
E5
Fu I Fbw
U 800
2000
Combustion Efficiency 0 ' 8 -2
0.6 w s 600
Q 1500 0
U
° 1000 0.4 - - 400 ■
0

500 C0 0.2 0 n 200

LBO
0 0 0
0.15 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0 0.05 0.1
Equivalence Ratio Cup #2
Distance from dome, m

Figure 10. A representative axial profile of emissions from the Figure 14. CO emissions from 2 cup test combustor with one
1 cup test combustor. P3 = 30 atm, T3 = 755 K premixer fueled at lower equivalence ratio and the other
maintained at a constant equivalence ratio. P3 - 10 atm, T3 -
610 K.
35 ® 620 K, 5 ATM
30
0620K, 17 ATM ® 0.8 T
25 0 0.7
= • 720K,21ATM
20 444 0.6
15 © 760 K, 30 ATM 44 o: 0.5
w w
4
10 • Z >< 04LBO
5
Q^0.3
a 0.2
o 0.1
1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
w
1700 1750 0
Flame Temperature, K 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
EQUIVALENCE RATIO IN PREMIXER #2
Figure 11. NOx emissions from the DACRS II premixer at a
variety of test conditions.
Figure 15. Lean Blowout equivalence ratio in each of 2
premixers showing impact of adjacent premixers. P3 10 atm,
T3 -610K.

6
 20 ■■■ 0.7
18 r U.■■
0.6 LA4® g& MAbgA
■ 0.5
E 14
A®® N Both premhcers fueled,
.9 0.4 no cente tody
F5 10 pFi
(A) w 0.3

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1994/78859/V003T06A011/2404772/v003t06a011-94-gt-253.pdf by Mr. Aaron Frost on 07 June 2021

8
6 C0 0.2

4• NOx 0.1
2 On On On On
0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
distance, m Distance, m

700 0.7 One premixer fueled,

-■- CO no centerbody
600 0.6
• NOx ALA
500
0.5

400 (B) 0.4 ®L&A ALA^gAA

300 'u 0.3 ® ALAds

E Lae®
0.2
■
100 ^^ ^ ■■^p 0.1 EQR = 0.84
^ \^ 6 'V ^7 ^■ ^^
r Off On
0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Distance, m Distance, m

250 0.7 One premixer fueled,

■ CO with centeibody
0.6
200 ■ • NOx
0.5
0150
.2 0.4 (C) g®
y ■ W03 da
100 ■
w ^■■t^■■r ^y $r
° d®A
0.2 ^i
50 7■^ ■ EQR = 0.55
01Off On pM
Off On
0 0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
Distance, m Distance, m

Figure 13. Emissions profile measured across a 2 cup test combustor showing the impact on emissions of adjacent non burning preen
the 2 primary combustion zones. P3- 18 atm, T3-710 K.

7
 35

30
25
E 20

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1994/78859/V003T06A011/2404772/v003t06a011-94-gt-253.pdf by Mr. Aaron Frost on 07 June 2021

Z 15
10
®®
5 4,
Leonard and Correa (1990)
0
1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
Flame Temperature, deg K

Figure 16. NOx Emissions from DACRS III premixer in the 2 Figure 17. CO Emissions from DACRS III premixer in the 2
cup test combustor cup test combustor. P3 —18 atm, T3-710 K.

A significant mixing layer appears to form between the

adjacent premixer flows where partial quenching of the CO 40
oxidation reactions appears. The extreme wall flows appear to • 35
be relatively unmixed since the CO emissions measured at the • 30
wall along the non-burning premixer is high, while the 25 0
equivalence ratio is low and the CO emissions along the wall 20 ^r
of the burning premixer is close to equilibrium while the
equivalence ratio is almost equal to the premixer equivalence
ratio. Figure 14 shows the impact on CO emissions of fueling
adjacent cups, whose primary combustion zones are not
separated by a centerbody, at different equivalence ratios. Ut
Mixing between adjacent premixers again appears to promote -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
combustion in the under-fueled premixer. The impact of
adjacent premixers without a separating wall on lean blowout Distance from centerline, m
is shown in Figure 15. When the fuel flow to both premixers
is reduced simultaneously, lean blowout occurs as if the two
premixer streams mix together before burning. When the fuel
flow to one premixer is shut off, the other premixer blows out Figure 18. CO profile measured in the cooled liner 2 cup test
at a somewhat increased Lean blowout fuel flow. This combustor with DACRS III premixers. P3-10 atm, T3-610 K.
suggests that small deviations in the equivalence ratios of
adjacent premixers will be averaged out. This averaging is
important since it helps increase the tolerance to variation in overall contribution of the increased CO emissions near the
individual premixer air and fuel flows. walls has been included in the emissions data shown in Figure
17. Interactions between adjacent premixers observed with
the DACRS III premixer have almost been identical to that of
DACRS III TEST RESULTS the DACRS II premixers.

The DACRS III configuration has been tested in the 2 cup
test combustor. The NOx emissions obtained with the DACRS
III premixer design generally are similar to the DACRS II
design and are shown for a variety of test conditions in Figure
16. As noted before this data is also correlated to the flame
temperature in the two cup combustor. The data obtained by
Leonard and Correa (1990) is significantly lower than the
DACRS III data suggesting that further mixing improvemente
are possible. CO emissions data is shown in Figure 17. A
typical radial traverse is shown in Figure 18. The quenching
of CO oxidation reactions at the walls is clearly seen in the
data. This type of quenching has been observed with the 2
cup test combustor with backside cooled sidewalls. The
Dynamic pressures up to 5 psid pp were measured with the
metal walled 2 cup test combustor. These dynamics did not
adversely affect the operation of the tests though some
hardware damage was encountered. The dynamic pressures
could be reduced by increasing the dome pressure drop or
changing the inlet air temperature. Little effort was expended
in the conduct of these tests to suppress the dynamic
pressures, however considerable effort was expended in
recording the dynamic pressures.

8
 The development plans for the LM6000 DLN combustor
include 15 cup sector tests and full annular combustor tests
before engine tests of the combustor. These tests will be
conducted through the first quarter of 1994.
[S7.Id I11I.1TE
Lean premixed combustion is capable of reducing
emissions from an aero-derivative gas turbine engine.
Significant size and operating constraints (flashback,
autignition etc) imposed by the lineage (aircraft engine) can
be satisfied with compact premixer designs.
Both the DACRS II and DACRS III configuration are capable
of operating with single digit NOx emissions at design points
severe enough to represent the LM6000 engine. CO emissions
in the 1 cup and the 2 cup test combustors of residence times
representative of aero-derivative gas turbine engine
combustors are close to equilibrium. The engine type
hardware tested included the heat-shields on the dome and
backside cooled liners. Though NOx goals of 25 ppm
(corrected to 15% oxygen dry in exhaust) are within reach of
the hardware tested, improvements can still be expected with
further development. Adjacent premixer interactions are
important to the design of the combustor. Small deviations
due to tolerances can be accomodated by the design due to
significant mixing of adjacent premixer flows. Separation of
adjacent premixer primary zones decreases the mixing
significantly, with a strong evidence of a large mixing region
where CO burnout has been affected.
Significantly higher CO emissions occur close to the walls
of the combustor apparantly due to the quenching effect of
backside cooled metal walls.
The DACRS II and DACRS III designs can be applied to all
engines including the LM1600, the LM2500 and the LM6000,
since single digit NOx emissions have been obtained at test
conditions encompassing operating regions of these engines.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of
the Dry Low NOx Combustion design team at GEAE for the
tremendous support in conducting these studies., R. Stickles,
K. Venkataramani, K. Early, and E. Ekstedt, J Maughan, R
Warren, R. Bauer for helping in the design of the test vehicles
and G. Roffe, D Cresci, S Koontz, and Chai at GASL whose
untiring efforts in testing made this study possible.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Gayed, R.G., Bradley, D., and Lawes, M., "Turbulent
Burning Velocities: A General Correlation in Terms of
Straining Rates", Proc. R. Soc. London, A414, pp 389-413
(1987).
Becker, B., Berenbrink, P., and Brandner H., 'Premixing Gas
and Air to Reduce NOx Emissions With Existing Proven Gas
Turbine Combustion Chambers", ASME 86-GT-157.
Correa, S.M., "A Review of NOx Formation Under Gas
Turbine Combustion Conditions," Combustion Science and
Technology, Vol 87, pp329-362, 1992.
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1994/78859/V003T06A011/2404772/v003t06a011-94-gt-253.pdf by Mr. Aaron Frost on 07 June 2021
Davis, L.B., "Dry Low NOx Combustion System For GE
Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines," ASME Cogen-Turbo Conference,
IGTI-Vol 7, pp 255-270, Sept 1992.
Ekstedt, E.E., "Advance Low Emissions Combustgor
Program," Paper AIAA-87-2035 AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE joint
Propulsion Conference, June 1987.
Fenimore, C. P., "Formation of Nitric Oxide in Premixed
Hydrocarbon Flames," 13th Symposium (International) on
Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, PA pp.
373-380 (1971)
Lefebvre A., "Gas Turbine Combustion", Hemisphere
Publishing pp 64-66 (1983).
Leonard, G. and Correa S, "NOx Formation in Premixed
High-Pressure Lean Methane Flames", paper presented at the
2nd ASME Fossil Fuel Combustion Symp. New Orleans,LA,
January 14-17, 1990.ASME/PD vol. 30, ed. Singh, S. N., pp.
69-74 (1990).
Leonard, G., and Stegmaier, J., "Development of An
Aeroderivative Gas Turbine Dry Low Emissions Combustion
System", ASME 93-GT-288, Paper presented at the IGTI
conference in Cincinnati, June 1993.
Roffe, G., and Venkataramani, K.S., "Emissions
Measurements for a Lean Premixed Propane/Air System at
Pressures upto 30 Atmospheres", NASA CR 15921 (1978).
Sattelmayer, T., Felchlin M.P., Haumann, J., Hellat, D., and
Styner, D., "Second Generation Low Emissions Combustors
for ABB Gas Turbines: Burner Development and Tests at
Atmospheric Pressure", ASME 90-GT-162.
Smith, K.O., Angello, L.C., and Kurzynske, F.R., "Design and
Testing of an Ultra-Low NOx Gas Turbine Combustor", ASME
86-GT-263.
Willis, J.D., Toon, I.J., Schweiger, T. and Owen D.A.,
"Industrial RB211 Dry Low Emissions Combustion", ASME
93-GT-391 Paper presented at IGTI conference in Cincinnati,
June 1993.