IGTI-Vol.

8, ASME COGEN-TURBO
ASME 1993

GATECYCLE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE LM2500 GAS

TURBINE UTILIZING LOW HEATING VALUE FUELS

Carl A. Palmer and Michael R. Erbes

Enter Software Inc., Menlo Park, California

Peter A. Pechtl
Enter Software, Graz, Austria

ABSTRACT variety of conditions, control limits exist due to phenomena such

A new breed of high-efficiency aeroderivative gas turbine
engines has gained acceptance as the primary source of power in
many cogeneration plants. These high-firing-temperature,
highly-cooled, multishaft engines are often operated quite
differently than mainframe gas turbines. Therefore, the ability to
model the off-design behavior of these engines is critical in
economic, thermal and condition-monitoring studies. In
addition, because of their flexible operation, these aeroderivative
engines are well suited for applications involving alternative
fuels, such as biomass and coal-derived fuels. This paper
presents performance predictions for an LM2500 gas turbine
fired with a low heating value fuel. Issues relevant to this
fuel/turbine combination are discussed. The off-design LM2500
engine model was developed using the GateCycle analysis
software package. The GateCycle engine model is based on
energy and flow matching of the turbomachinery components. It
includes compressor maps and turbine flow analysis procedures
that account for changes in gas molecular composition.
INTRODUCTION
Recent advancements in gasification technology make solid
fuels economically available for combustion in gas turbines,
which have traditionally use only premium fuels like natural gas
and fuel oil. Biomass gasification is such a source for alternative
fuels. Gasification derived fuels differ from natural gas in that
their heating value is considerably lower (medium to low Btu
gases). To maintain the same firing temperature, more fuel has to
enter the combustor and consequently more mass flow passes
through the turbine expander. This causes a gas turbine to
operate away from its design point. Even though gas turbines,
particularly aeroderivative turbines, operate well under a wide
as compressor surging, overspeed, and shaft torque limits.
Performance prediction and identification of operational limits
is of extreme importance when investigating the suitability of
operation on a low Btu fuel gas for a particular gas turbine. The
use of low Btu fuel gases is a fairly new application for
aeroderivative gas turbines, hence relatively little experimental
data exists. Computer-based gas turbine performance simulation
offers a viable and inexpensive way to generate these data at
reasonable accuracy. Tools such as the GateCycle computer
software code (Erbes, et al., 1989) help by providing an accurate
analytical framework that includes all the necessary relations for
modeling gas turbine performance. This paper focuses on
thermodynamic performance issues of gas turbine operation with
a biofuel synthesis gas. It will not address other critical issues
relating to corrosion, emissions, combustor/fuel supply design
and the actual gasification process used.
For a comparison to industrial units using coal derived fuel
gases, Starheim and Todd (1992) is a good reference source for
how an industrial engine performs with coal derived low-Btu
fuels: "Because of the lower heating value produced in a
gasification process relative to lower heating value of the
gasification process relative to natural gas, approximately 6-8
times the massflow is needed to maintain the same firing
temperature in the gas turbine. The additional massflow ...
results in a 20% increase in gas turbine output, resulting in a
nominal low-heating value rating of 192 MW (vs. 159 MW on
natural gas) for the Frame 7FA. ... Except for only minor
hardware modifications (i.e. combustion components and fuel
supply), the additional output is realized without any cost
increase in the gas turbine". Johnson (1991) provides detailed
performance simulation results using coal derived fuel gas with
large engines.

1 Pages 69-76

Combustor Power Turbine
Compressor HP Turbine
Fuel Generator
DP Inlet
P3, T3 Net Power
DP Exhaust
T Combust T54, P54
T Rotor T Exhaust
FIGURE 1: SIMPLIFIED LM2500 ENGINE SCHEMATIC
Power generation biomass gasification processes utilize a
considerably smaller plant size (20-50MW range) (Becker et al.,
1986)(Larson, 1990) than comparable coal gasification processes
(250MW+ range), because of fuel supply considerations. So,
whereas large engines such as the GE7FA are being installed for
coal IGCC service, they will not be used for biomass systems.
An engine such as the GE LM2500 is well suited for biomass
gasification projects because: a) it is in the right size range, and
b) it is flexible in operation, since it is designed to allow
additional steam injection for power augmentation as well as for
NOx control.
The LM2500 aeroderivative engine is operated differently than
traditional industrial units: an example of this difference is seen
in the variation in output with compressor inlet temperature. The
control system of the usual industrial engine keeps the firing
temperature essentially constant at all ambient temperatures. For
the LM2500-PE, at higher temperatures (>60F), the power
turbine inlet temperature is kept constant, thus keeping the firing
temperature approximately constant, as in the industrial units.
However, at lower temperatures (<40F) the firing temperature is
reduced since the compressor corrected speed must not exceed a
specified maximum value (Smith, 1991). Between these limits,
there is a third control limit on the actual compressor RPM
(Smith, 1991) (Fogg et al., 1986) (Leonard, 1992). Compressor
operation and control is more critical for aero-derivative engines
than for industrial engines, since on aero-derivatives the
compressor shaft is not connected to a generator, and therefore
spins freely (see Figure 1).
The operation of the LM2500 on low-btu fuels depends entirely
on what the control system allows the engine to do. The key
assumption used for this study is that the control system will be
designed to keep the corrected speed, power turbine inlet
temperature, and rotor bulk metal temperatures below their
maximum limits, and that an acceptable compressor surge margin
is maintained at all times.
This paper presents an investigation of the performance of a GE
LM2500 fired by low-btu biomass-derived fuels. Three different
2 Palmer, Erbes and Pechtl
fuel scenarios are investigated: two using different fuel gases, and
one using low Btu fuel gas as well as steam injection up to the
control limit. The variation in performance with fuel and
compressor inlet temperature is also presented.
The LM2500 engine model used in this study was developed
using GateCycle, which includes advanced features for gas
turbine simulation. The model employs compressor map data and
incorporates the engineering principles behind gas turbine
operation in order to accurately predict variations in performance.
GATECYCLE MODELING METHOD DETAILS
The GateCycle software package was developed to provide
power plant designers and engineers with a powerful and flexible
tool to analyze gas-turbine-based power plant systems (Erbes and
Gay, 1989). GateCycle includes several levels of gas turbine
models. Of the methods, the Advanced GT module is the
appropriate modeling method for accurate assessment of aero-
derivative engine performance. It models the off-design
performance of gas turbine engines using detailed models for
each component of the engine: up to 2 compressors, 2
combustors/steam injection and 3 expander sections are allowed,
as in the most complex engines in the electrical generation field.
Examples of this "most complex engine" are the General Electric
LM5000 or the United Technologies FT8. The components are
aerodynamically coupled along the flow and cooling paths
(satisfying mass continuity). They are mechanically coupled by
shafts according to the configuration of the engine (energy
balance).
The type of numerical schemes used for these "component
matching" calculations can be found in Palmer (1991),
Cottington, (1974) Sellers and Teren, (1974), and Ismail, (1991),
as well as the several papers by Saravanamuttoo [e.g. (w/
MacIsaac 1983, w/ Zhu, 1992)]. Cohen et al., (1987) is the place
to learn the fundamentals of gas turbine component matching.
The compressor model in the Advanced GT relies on a
compressor map that relates the compressor flow, speed, pressure
ratio and efficiency. The compressor map used in the LM2500
model for this study is based on the map found in Spector and
Miller (1983). Once the operating point on the map (i.e. flow,
pressure ratio, and efficiency) is found in each iteration of the
engine model, the power used by the compressor can be
calculated by the following procedure:
First, the isentropic compressor exit temperature is calculated by
applying a polytropic efficiency of 1 to find the temperature rise
across several (40 steps are used) small pressure ratios until the
final pressure ratio is reached.
γ− 1
( )
Ti + 1  Pi + 1  γ
= 
Ti  Pi 
This method is used so that specific heat changes with
temperature and gas composition effects are included. The actual
compressor discharge temperature (enthalpy) is calculated from
the isentropic enthalpy calculated above and the efficiency from
the compressor map by:
h2, isentropic − h1
h2 = h1 +
ηcompressor
Power is calculated as this actual enthalpy rise multiplied by the
compressor flow read from the map.
W&compressor = m&1, (map) (h2 − h1 )
For the LM2500, because the compressor is attached on a free-
spinning spool to the high pressure turbine, the matching
calculations will equate the power of those two components, with
a shaft mechanical efficiency included.
W&compressor = ηshaft W&HP turbine
Unlike the compressor model, which uses an overall isentropic
efficiency, the expander model in GateCycle uses a quasi-
polytropic efficiency, which is assumed to remain constant. The
map that relates flow, temperature and pressure into the first-
stage nozzle of each turbine takes the form:
 m& T 
Constant = κ  ensure an adequate surge margin. Case 2 in Table 1 shows the
 AP  Nozzle Inlet
Here, the constant κis a very slight function of temperature and
composition when the nozzle is choked (the usual case). When
the nozzle is not choked, κ is a more complex function of
pressure as well as temperature and composition. See Streeter
and Wylie (1979) for the full equations for choked and unchoked
flow as well as how to calculate the expansion ratio at which
choking occurs. In the above equations, temperature and
pressure are in absolute units. Area refers to the turbine flow area
(not necessarily the nozzle inlet area). Note that the "shadow
effect" (Fayrweather, 1992) -- the effective nozzle area changing
with corrected turbine speed due to shock wave distortion -- is
not included.
For the LM2500 model, the cooling flow for each turbine is
assumed to be a constant fraction of the nozzle flow, although the
advanced GT does have options for more complex cooling
calculations. This is probably a good assumption as both the off-
design cooling flow rates and the turbine inlet flows will vary
linearly with compressor discharge pressure, and thus vary in
nearly constant proportion to each other. The cooling air is
assumed to all come from the exit of the compressor, although in
reality there are cooling bleed ports at various stages along the
compressor for the different turbine stages.
3 Palmer, Erbes and Pechtl
The combustor exit temperature and composition is calculated
based on complete combustion of the fuel. A combustion
efficiency parameter allows for heat losses or incomplete
combustion. Pressure drop is assumed to be a constant fraction
of the inlet pressure. The fuel flow rate into the combustor is
determined by the overall control philosophy chosen - such as a
constant rotor inlet temperature, constant power turbine inlet
temperature or a given turbine exhaust temperature. The
combustor module also accepts steam and water injection.
BASE LM2500 MODEL(S)
With help from GE personnel for some of the internal engine
parameters, a base model of an LM2500-PE engine was built,
matching published data with its inherent margins (Diesel & Gas
Turbine Worldwide Catalog, 1992). This design case of the
engine was used to calculate the nozzle areas of the turbine
sections as well as set the appropriate pressure ratio, efficiency
and flow rate to use as 'design values' for un-normalizing the
compressor map. The results are presented as case 1 of Table 1.
The PE engine can allow up to 5.04 kg/s (40,000 lb/hr) of steam
injection for power augmentation (Smith, 1991, p.11). However,
when that much steam is admitted to the gas turbine, the control
system decreases the firing temperature of the gas turbine to
engine output with 3.78 kg/s of steam injection (30,000 lb/hr).
To allow a high firing temperature along with steam injection,
GE opened the nozzle area of the HP turbine by approximately
3% and reduced the power turbine nozzle area by approximately
6% (designated case 4). GE refers to this modified engine as the
LM2500-PH. The effect of these changes was to allow the
compressor of the PH engine injected with 5.04 kg/s (40,000
lb/hr) of steam to run at nearly the same operating point that it
did with the (dry) PE engine. Of course, the trade-off is that the
dry PH engine (case 3) operates away from the optimal design
point. Figure 2 shows the operating points on the compressor
map for the four model case results of the LM2500 PE and PH
engines with and without steam injection. Notice how points 1
and 4 are nearly coincident.
LOW-BTU GASES
The two low-btu fuels used in this study are created by an air-
blown biomass gasification process with air supply from the gas
turbine compressor. The first fuel is from a gasification system
employing a conventional water wash; the second is from a
system concept with hot-gas cleanup. The composition, heating
value, and required compressor air extraction level needed for the
gasification processes are shown in Table 2
 TABLE 1: SIMULATION RESULTS

Case Description Net Power Net η Fuel Exhaust Exhaust Power Comp Comp Steam Corrected Rotor
# Flow Flow Temp Turb Discharge Discharge Flow Speed Temp
inlet Temp Pressure
Temp
Units MW - kg/hr kg/hr C C C Bars kg/hr % of ISO C
1 Natural Gas- 21.549 35.1 4639 248117 526 804 449 18.87 0 100.0 1232
LM2500 PE-Dry
2 Natural Gas- 24.314 38.3 4796 268393 488 767 466 20.30 13608 101.5 1167
LM2500 PE-
Steam Inj.
3 Natural Gas- 18.949 34.4 4158 222604 531 804 418 16.30 0 96.6 1206
LM2500 PH-Dry
4 Natural Gas- 26.680 40.0 5040 265860 503 804 460 19.81 18144 99.9 1185
LM2500 PH-
Steam Inj.
5 Fuel #1- 24.013 36.2 48765 267574 521 804 463 20.08 0 100.8 1215
LM2500 PE Dry
6 Fuel #2- 23.081 38.0 43321 262003 523 804 458 19.64 0 100.2 1219
LM2500 PE Dry
7 Fuel #1- 24.241 36.7 48653 253835 543 842 446 18.66 0 98.5 1238
LM2500 PH
Dry
8 Fuel #2- 23.263 38.4 43185 248133 546 843 441 18.23 0 98.1 1243
LM2500 PH Dry
9 Fuel #2- 28.295 42.9 46960 279934 501 804 469 20.55 18144 100.0 1174
LM2500 PH
40Klb st. inj.
10 Fuel #2- 24.452 40.5 43045 258928 513 804 448 19.32 9072 98.4 1183
LM2500 PH
20Klb st inj.

Assumptions: ISO ambient conditions: 15 deg C, 60% relative humidity, 1.01325 bar pressure
10 mbar (4" water) inlet and 25 mbar (10" water) outlet pressure losses Natural Gas LHV: 47640 kJ/kg (20500 Btu/lb)
Steam properties: 22.4 bar (325 psia), 357 C (675 F) from (Smith, 1991)

TABLE 2: LOW BTU GAS CHARACTERISTICS

Composition (mole %) Fuel #1 Fuel #2 Fuel #1 Fuel #2

H2 11.86 12.42 Temperature (C) 255 480
CO 17.69 18.55 Calculated LHV, kJ/kg 4890.2 5047.1
(Btu/lb) (2104) (2172)
CO2 11.00 11.62 Required Compressor Air 0.5797 0.5986
Extraction (kg air/kg fuel)
CH4 4.22 4.42
C2H4 0.59 0.62
H2O 15.43 11.29
N2 39.16 41.08
NH3 0.05 2.9e-7

4 Palmer, Erbes and Pechtl

 1.5
Normalized
Pressure
Ratio
1 10
0.5
94.3
% Corrected Speed
0
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85
Normalized Corrected Flow
FIGURE 2: COMPRESSOR MAP OPERATING POINTS FOR ALL CASES
OPERATION ON LOW BTU GAS
Operation of the LM2500 on low-btu gas is analogous to
operation under high-steam injection conditions in that a large
mass flow from an external source enters the gas turbine. This
has the effect of "crowding out" compressor flow in the first stage
turbine nozzles. The resulting combination of a rise in
compressor pressure ratio and decrease in compressor flow
reduces the compressor surge margin. In the case of a natural-
gas-fired steam-injected engine, GE's recommended solution is to
substitute a LM2500-PH engine. GE would probably also
recommend the same solution for a non-steam injected low-btu
application, because of the increased fuel mass flow. However,
in the present study, substantial compressor bleed requirements
increase the available surge margin. So both engines were
investigated.
The model predictions for operation on low-btu fuels 1 and 2
are given in Table 1 as cases 5-6 (PE) and 7-8 (PH). For both
fuels, the engine performance (power and efficiency) increased
relative to natural gas firing due to the extra fuel mass flow.
Figure 2 shows that the compressor surge margin was not
significantly reduced for any of these cases. This implies that the
required compressor bleed is large enough so that the PE engine
need not be de-rated. Notice that use of the PH engine allows a
higher firing temperature; the output and efficiency are therefore
better than for the PE engine. The firing temperature (gas
temperature at the first rotor inlet) was selected to maintain a
constant (quasi-) bulk metal temperature as compared to (the
5 Palmer, Erbes and Pechtl
Surge Line
9 2
46 5
1
8 7
3
110.8
105.3
Operating 99.8
Points
0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1
design) case 1. The quasi-bulk metal temperature is calculated by
assuming a constant cooling effectiveness, ε, of 0.53, where:
Trotor − Tbulk
εcool =
Trotor − Tcooling
(Cohn and Waters, 1982) This simplification approximates the
method GE would use to pick a new base firing temperature for a
re-designed control system.
The reported heat rate (efficiency) for both low-btu fuels is not
based on a 'true' energy balance. It is calculated using the
traditional method of ignoring the sensible enthalpy of the fuel.
Because of the high temperature of the biogas used, this method
is not appropriate when comparing the performance of the low-
btu engine to the natural gas engine. The GateCycle model was
run using a range of fuel temperatures, so that the engine
performance could be corrected to the same standard for the
different fuels. Figures 3 and 4 show the variation in the engine
performance versus fuel temperature for natural gas and low-btu
fuel #2. Notice how over a 400C fuel temperature change, the
natural gas engine fuel flow (traditional heat rate) changes by
~3.5%, whereas the low-btu engine changes by ~13%. This
strong sensitivity to fuel temperature for low-btu fuel operation
underscores the need for careful design of the gasification,
cleanup, handling and fuel transmission systems in order to retain
the sensible energy in the fuel stream.
Correction 45
Factor Efficiency
40
1.02 Fuel #1 - PH
%
1.01 35
Corrected Heat Rate Fuel #1 - PE
1 30 Nat. Gas - PE
Power Power
0.99 Heat Rate
(1/efficiency) 25 Fuel #1 - PE Fuel #1 - PH
0.98 MW
20
0.97
Nat. Gas - PE
Fuel Flow 15
0.96 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Inlet Temperature (C)
0.95
-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Fuel Temperature (C)
FIGURE 5: OFF-AMBIENT OPERATION - FUEL #1.
FIGURE 3: FUEL TEMPERATURE EFFECTS - NATURAL
GAS
When considering operation over a range of ambient
Correction temperatures, firing with low-btu gas has the effect of shifting the
Factor points where the different control limits take precedence. Figure
1.2
5 shows that the point where the power turbine inlet temperature
1.15 Fuel Flow limit shifts to the corrected compressor speed limit occurs at a
higher ambient temperature for the PE engine (from 9 to 12
1.1 degrees C). Note that the performance of the PE engine on low-
Heat Rate btu fuel #1 is still better than the natural gas engine over the
1.05 whole range. The PH engine does not reach the corrected speed
Power
limit until the ambient temperature drops below 0 C. Given the
1
wider range of conditions at which the PH engine can run at its
0.95 Corrected Heat Rate rated firing temperature, the PH engine would probably be the
preferred configuration for this low-btu fuel; however, the surge
0.9 margin should be analyzed before operating the engine at these
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 lower temperatures.
Fuel Temperature (C)

Part Load Conditions

FIGURE 4: FUEL TEMPERATURE EFFECTS - FUEL #2
A 'true' energy accounting around the engine would penalize the
fuel sensible (temperature-related) enthalpy and credit the
compressor bleed leaving the LM2500 that actually comes back
into the gas turbine cycle during fuel gas production. The
'corrected' heat rate shown in the fuel temperature curves show
that there is very little real thermodynamic effect of fuel
temperature on engine performance inside the engine. A more
complete study of energy flows in the system would also need to
account for effects such as the additional fuel compression
needed to go through the gasification process as well as the fuel
nozzles.
NON-REFERENCE CASE OPERATION
Non-ISO Conditions
Figure 6 shows how key engine parameters vary when the
engine operates between 30% and 110% load at ISO conditions
using fuel 1 in the PE engine. This variation with load is not
significantly different than that for natural gas (Figure 7). Note
that the actual values of the parameters would be different
because the point used as the 100% power point is case 1 for
natural gas and case 5 for fuel 1.
Steam Injection with Low-Btu Fuel
With natural gas, steam injection is best utilized with the
LM2500-PH engine, as the engine firing temperature need not be
decreased. For steam injection using gas 2, the same conclusion
can be made. The main consideration is how much steam can be
injected safely, as some of the excess flow that the increased
turbine nozzle area allows has been taken up by the increased
low-btu fuel flow. With natural gas, a steam injection level of
5.04 kg/s (40,000 lb/hr) is permitted. The compressor map in
figure 2 shows that injecting this much steam while firing on

6 Palmer, Erbes and Pechtl

Fraction behavior and control limits is critical. The accuracy of the
of 100% load value performance predictions for operation under extreme off-design
1.2 conditions is related closely to the accuracy of the compressor
1.1 map, and this data is nearly impossible to get from the engine
1 vendors. It is sometimes difficult to get 'average engine' data for
0.9 the statepoints through the engine at one operating point.
0.8 However, a good basic knowledge of gas turbine engines can
0.7
provide a starting point for these types of studies.
Comp Discharge T (K/K)
Analysis tools such as the Advanced GT model in GateCycle
0.6
Exhaust T (K/K) provide a convenient framework for these calculations, since a
0.5 Efficiency sophisticated basic knowledge of gas turbines is built in.
0.4 Comp Discharge P Applying this tool to study the performance of a LM2500 fired
Fuel Flow
0.3 by specific low-btu fuels, the following conclusions can be made:
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
%Load (ISO conditions) 1) The temperature of the low-btu fuel has a substantially greater
effect on engine operation than does the temperature of
natural gas fuel because of the increased mass flow. Thus,
FIGURE 6: PART-LOAD OPERATION - FUEL #1 measures should be taken in gasifier design to reduce heat
losses.
2) The required compressor bleed from the compressor (for
Fraction
production of the biomass fuel) alleviates most of the
of 100% load value
potential surge margin problems. However, the maximum
1.2 allowed steam injection is limited.
1.1
1 3) The ambient temperature at which the compressor control
0.9
limit shifts from power turbine inlet temperature to corrected
speed increases. This effect might influence the design of
0.8
potential inlet air heaters or chillers and may also lead to use
0.7 of the LM2500PH configuration instead of the PE engine.
0.6 Comp Discharge T
Exhaust T 4) The normalized variation of engine parameters (such as
0.5 Efficiency compressor discharge pressure, discharge temperature and
0.4 Comp Discharge P turbine exhaust temperature) with load is approximately the
Fuel Flow
0.3 same when firing on natural gas as when firing with low-btu
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 fuels. Note that the absolute performance values are, of
%Load (ISO conditions) course, different. This means that one could probably be
reasonably accurate when applying design point correction
curves starting from off-design points.
FIGURE 7: PART-LOAD OPERATION - NATURAL GAS.

low-btu fuel could lead to an unacceptably low surge margin ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

(case 9). Operation under these conditions would have to be
reviewed with the engine manufacturer. Using an adequate surge
margin (approximated by operating the engine along an
imaginary line parallel to the surge line through the STIG point -
case 4) it appears that approximately 2.52 kg/s (20000 lb/hr) of
steam injection would be appropriate for this fuel. This operating
point is denoted as case 10. The effects of increased firing
temperatures were not investigated for this case.
The authors wish to acknowledge the advice and encouragement
received from Dr. Gary Leonard of the Marine & Industrial Gas
Turbine Division, General Electric Aircraft Engine Business in
Cincinnati, Ohio. The Technical Research Centre of Finland
provided the full financial support for this study. The GateCycle
analysis program was developed by Enter Software under the
sponsorship of EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute.

CONCLUSIONS
The most important factor affecting the accuracy of predictions
of gas turbine performance on low-btu fuel is the availability of
good information about the engine under study, as well as
understanding and justifying all the assumptions used. As this
study has shown, a thorough understanding of the control system
REFERENCES
Becker, L.J., Nobe, J.A., and Watson, R.W., 1986, "Design and
Comparative Economics for a 10MW Biomass-Fired, Combined-
Cycle Cogeneration Plant," Industrial Power on the Rebound,
ASME Pwr-Vol. 1, pp. 97-103.

7 Palmer, Erbes and Pechtl

 Cohen, H., Rogers, G.F.C., and Saravanamuttoo, H.I.H., 1987, Streeter Victor L. and Wylie, E. Benjamin, 1979, Fluid
Gas Turbine Theory, Third Edition, Longman Scientific & Mechanics, Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 275.
Technical, Harlow Essex, England, Chapter 8. Zhu, Ping and Saravanamuttoo, H.I.H., 1992, "Simulation of an
Cohn, Arthur, and Waters, Mark, 1982, "The Effect of Advanced Twin-Spool Industrial Gas Turbine", Journal of
Alternative Turbine Cooling Schemes on the Performance of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 114, April 1992,
Utility Gas Turbine Powerplants", ASME 82-JPGC-GT-19. pp. 180-186.
Cottington, R.V., 1974, "Total Powerplant Simulation",
AGARD-CP-151, Ustaoset, Norway, paper no. 24.
Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide Catalog, 1992, Publisher
R.A. Wilson, Brookfield, WI, Volume 57, Page 531.
Erbes, M.R., Gay. R. R. and Cohn, A., "GATE: A Simulation
Code for Analysis of Gas-Turbine Power Plants", IGTI/ASME
Gas Turbine Congress, Toronto, Ontario, July, 1989.
Erbes M.R. and Gay, R.R., 1989, "GATE/CYCLE Predictions
of the Off-Design Performance of Combined-Cycle Power
Plants", Simulation of Thermal Energy Systems, ASME AES-
Vol. 6/HTD-Vol. 124, pp.43-51, (ASME Winter Annual
Meeting, December 1989).
Fayrweather, Dan J., 1992, Hudson Engineering Corporation,
Personal Communication.
Fogg, Harold E., McCormack, Tedd R., and Miller Harold E.,
1986, "GE LM1600 Aircraft-Derivative Gas Turbine System",
General Electric Gas Turbine Reference Library Report GER-
3466B.
Ismail, I.H., and Bhinder F.S., 1991, "Simulation of Aircraft
Gas Turbine Engines", Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines
and Power, Vol. 113, January 1991, pp. 95-99.
Johnson, M.S., 1992, "Prediction of Gas Turbine On- and Off-
Design Performance When Firing Coal-Derived Syngas", Journal
of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 114, April
1992, pp. 380-385.
Larson, E.D. and Williams, R.H., 1990, "Biomass-Gasifier
Steam-Injected Gas Turbine Cogeneration Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, Vol. 112, April 1990,
pp. 157-163.
Leonard, G., 1992, General Electric Company, Personal
Communication.
Palmer, C.A., 1991, Dynamic Simulation of a Solid Fueled Gas
Turbine System, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
May 1991.
Saravanamuttoo, H.I.H., and MacIsaac B.D., 1983,
"Thermodynamic Models for Pipeline Gas Turbine Diagnostics",
Journal of Engineering for Power, Vol. 105, October, 1983, pp.
875-884.
Sellers, J., and Teren, F., 1974, "Generalized Dynamic Engine
Simulation Techniques for the Digital Computer", AGARD-CP-
151, Ustaoset, Norway, paper no. 23.
Smith, S.S., 1991? "GE Aeroderivative Gas Turbine
Performance", General Electric Gas Turbine Reference Library
Report GER-3572B.
Spector, Richard B. and Miller Albert A., 1983 "GE LM2500
Aircraft-Derivative Gas Turbine System", General Electric Gas
Turbine Reference Library Report GER-3431.
Starheim, Gregory J. and Todd, Douglas M., 1992, "Efficient
Power Systems Applications With Low Grade Petroleum Fuels,"
General Electric Gas Turbine Reference Library Report .

8 Palmer, Erbes and Pechtl