The Society shall not be responsible for state-

ments or opinions advanced in papers or in dis-

69-GT-68
cussion at meetings of the Society or of its
Divisions or Sections, or printed in its publications.

Discussion is printed only if the paper is published

in an ASME journal or Proceedings.

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1969/79832/V001T01A067/2390224/v001t01a067-69-gt-68.pdf by guest on 07 June 2024

$1.50 PER COPY Released for general publication upon presentation

750 TO ASME MEMBERS Copyright © 1969 by ASME

Steam Injection, a Source of

Incremental Power
CHARLES BULTZO
Staff Engineer,
Humble Oil & Refining Co.,
Baytown, Texas.
MPm. ASME.

The performance of a gas turbine is normally guaranteed at 80 F, with derating occurring

for temperatures above this point. This reduction in capability must be provided for by
either installing an "oversized" turbine or means by which the horsepower lost due to
derating can be provided by at least two methods. This paper reports on test work that
was done to provide the incremental power and evaluates their comparative cost.

Contributed by the Gas Turbine Division for presentation at the Gas Turbine Conference & Products
Show, Cleveland, Ohio, March 9-13, 1969, of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Manuscript received at ASME Headquarters December 20, 1968.
Copies will be available until January 1, 1970.

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, UNITED ENGINEERING CENTER, 345 EAST 47th STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017
Steam Injection, a Source of
Incremental Power
CHARLES BULTZO

The application of the gas turbine to drive cremental steam turbine horsepower is considerably

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1969/79832/V001T01A067/2390224/v001t01a067-69-gt-68.pdf by guest on 07 June 2024

a process load usually presents the problem of
matching the year-round turbine capability with
load requirements. This is illustrated by Fig.l
which shows the effect of ambient temperature on
capability. In most cases, where at least 100 F
ambient temperatures are experienced, the turbine
must be derated from its normal NEMA rating (100
percent at 80 F ambient and 1000-ft elevation).
This derating most likely puts the process load
requirements in between two frame sizes of avail-
able gas turbines. The application engineer is
then faced with the problem of selecting a turbine
that is too large unaer most conditions to accom-
modate short-term conditions or using some supple-
mental source of power to augment a turbine that
will not meet the short-term basic load require-
ments by itself. This paper reports on test work
that was done on methods to provide the incre-
mental power and evaluates their comparative cost.
In the latter case, there are at least two
alternates. These are: 1) installing the start-
ing device in such a manner as to permit its use
during the high ambient temperature periods and
2) steam injection. The application of the start-
ing turbine is straightforward. An investment is
made at the outset to purchase turbine power above
the starting requirements (if required) to provide
the increment necessary to develop the total horse-
power at derated conditions. The cost of this in-
less than gas turbine horsepower. Quality as re-
lated to steam rate then becomes a function of ex-
pected service factor, i.e., hours of operation
per year.
The second alternate of a source of incre-
mental power is steam injection. This technique
involves the injection of steam with some super-
heat directly into the downstream portion of the
combustion chamber. Fig.2 shows a typical steam
injection ring. Upon entering this chamber, the
steam is superheated and in the process cools the
combustion gases. One immediate result is the re-
duction in exhaust temperature. Since the gas
turbine capability is a direct function of exhaust
temperature, it becomes apparent that additional
horsepower can be realized by increasing the load
until the maximum continuous exhaust temperature
is again reached. Since most process loads remain
essentially constant the year round, steam injec-

130

120
PERCENT OF DESIGN OUTPUT
110

100

90

NO

TO
I • t
60
20 40 60 60 100 120
GAS TURBINE INLET TEMP., *F
Fig.1 Fig.2

1
 STEAM INJECTION RING
MANUAL LOADING
4 150 PSIG -410 'F
STEAM SUPPLY
Fig.3
tion becomes a method of maintaining the desired
exhaust temperature as the ambient temperature
increases.
The original steam injection rate proposed
by one gas turbine manufacturer was that up to
three percent of the mass flow of air could be
tolerated. This would result in total capability
improvement of 10 percent. The turbine that was
used for our test work was a General Electric Com-
pany, Frame 3, converted locomotive gas turbine.
The design air rate of 355,000 lb/hr of air sug-
gested a maximum steam injection rate of 10,800
lb/hr. It was expected that an additional 600 hp
(10 percent) could be realized with steam injec-
tion. During all the test work, the steam had at
least 50 F of superheat. The objective of the
test was to validate the expected power improvement
and/or temperature reduction and to determine a
limit of steam injection. During the test work,
temperature profiles were run of the area immedi-
ately ahead of the first-stage nozzle to establish
if any serious change in temperatures occurred due
to poor distribution of the steam. Finally, the
horsepower capability resulting from the steam in-
jection procedure was validated by using the
helper turbine to drive the exhaust temperature
through the same amount of change and observing
the steam flow and temperature and pressure. From
these, the helper turbine horsepower could be cal-
culated and then related to steam injection horse-
power. The general control arrangement during the
test is shown in Fig.3.
After the test work was begun, it was found
that excessive pressure drops were being experi-
enced in the steam supply piping and across the
control valve. These pressure drops limited the
steam flow to a maximum of 14,300 lb/hr. This
represents 4 percent of the weight flow of air.
All the data are predicated toward a maximum con-
tinuous exhaust temperature of 825 F. With the
load remaining constant, the effect of the helper
turbine horsepower on exhaust temperature is shown
in Fig.4. Slightly less than 800 hp was required
to lower the exhaust temperature 75 F. Fig.5
2
830
825' MAX CONT
820
U 810
800
FU
-
790
I-
m 780
m
x 770
U
160
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1969/79832/V001T01A067/2390224/v001t01a067-69-gt-68.pdf by guest on 07 June 2024
750 " I I I II
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
HELPER TURBINE HORSEPOWER X 100
Fig. 4
shows that approximately 14,000 lb/hr of steam are
required to cause the same decrease in exhaust
temperature. It was interesting to note that the
slope of the curve generated by relating the ex-
haust temperature to steam injection remained es-
sentially constant. Further, Fig.6 shows the re-
lationship of horsepower (as related to gas turbine
exhaust temperature) to steam injection rate. The
calculated water rate for the steam injection was
17.7 lb/hp-hr. During the course of the test, it
was noted that 14,000 lb/hr of steam raised the
compressor discharge pressure only 3 psi (Fig.7).
From the test results, as shown in the foregoing,
it can be seen that hot only was the predicted
performance resulting from steam injection achieved,
it was surp ssed.
i
Since the manufacturerfs maximum recommended
injection rate had been exceeded, the temperature
profiles of the hot gas passages with and without
steam injection were forwarded to the manufacturer
for review. We were advised that the evaluation
of data indicated that the combustor peak tempera-
ture factor, (T peak - T avg)/AT comb, did not
change significantly, nor did the exhaust tempera-
ture spread deteriorate. Further, we were encour-
aged to increase the steam rate to approximatey
20,000 lb/hr to determine if these factors could
be made to change. This has been done with essen-
tially no apparent change in the temperature pro-
file. The additional 6000 lb/hr of steam resulted
in an additional turbine exhaust temperature drop
of 28 F. The net effect of this additional steam
is an extension of the curve shown in Fig.5.
In the two steam-injected gas turbines now
running as part of a combined cycle operation, we
have had no difficulty maintaining a constant
steam generation rate by maintaining the exhaust
temperature constant on a year-round basis. This
is accomplished by using an exhaust temperature
sensor separate from the gas turbine controls sup-
 • ▪
•

100 9

90 8
( 150 PS10-410 )
— 80

m TO 6
0
- 60 0 5
50 x 4
x 40 x 3
x
30 2
eLL 20 1

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1969/79832/V001T01A067/2390224/v001t01a067-69-gt-68.pdf by guest on 07 June 2024

ci 10 0 111111111111 1

0 I 2 3 4 5 6 T 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 STEAM INJECTION X 1000 LBS.
M LBS. STEAM INJECTION
Fig.6
Fig.5

110
plied. As the exhaust temperature rises, a con-
troller senses the difference between the exhaust
100
temperatures and the set point and a 3 - to 15-psi
CI>

signal is sent to the steam injection/helper tur- CC

bine control valves. In our case, 3 to 9 psi is CC

90
used to control the steam injection. At 9 psi,
the air head on the governor begins to move. At 2 80
15-psi output from the controller, the steam in-
jection is at the maximum rate and the helper 17' M
AXIAL COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE PRESSURE
—
steam turbine is developing maximum horsepower. IIII 1II11111
65
0 Selection of the starting turbine is set by I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15
STEAM INJECTION X 1000 LBS.
starting and accelerating requirements of the gas
turbine and the load compr4ssor. Its size, as set Fig.7
by these starting requirements, may be sufficient
to provide the incremental horsepow r required dur-
i '

ing periods of high ambient temperature. These
initial conditions, as well as the properties of
the steam to be used, will set the water rates.
The two turbines discussed thus far have 600-psi
inlet steam. However, one helper turbine has 150-
psi back pressure, while the other has 20-psi back
pressure. As can be seen from Fig.8, the water
rates on these small turbines (approximately 1200
hp) vary quite drastically from full load to part
load. In the low back pressure turbine, the vari-
ation is not nearly as great due to the greater
expansion range available.
Houston experiences many days when ambient
temperatures are 95 F and higher. Using available
performance data, Table 1 has been constructed to
compare operating costs required to maintain total
load capability requirements.
From Table 1 it can be seen that, despite
its higher cost factor (based on 600-150 steam
having the lowest initial cost per thousand
pounds), steam injection can provide the incre-
mental 480 hp required to regain the original
rating for 30 percent less than either of the
other methods. In addition to the lower total
steam cost, credits can be claimed from the sensi-
ble heat in the steam after it leaves the turbine
and goes to a heat recovery system. Although
there is a slight decrease in molecular weight,
the total sensible heat leaving the turbine with
480 hp equivalent of steam injection is approxi-
mately the same as at rated conditions.
Because the gas turbine manufacturer must
make provisions for steam injection, i.e. appro-
priate openings into the combustion chambers and
steam ring, the cost of the resulting incremental
power should be established at the time of pur-
chase. In our particular case, the steam ring and
injection nozzles cost approximately $1000. Based
on the expected 600 hp, it can be seen that this
increment of horsepower was inexpensive. The type
of control, whether automatic or manual, as well
as supply piping costs, will vary with each loca-
tion.
CONCLUSIONS
From the test work performed to date on one
design of gas turbine, we have concluded that at

3
 90 TABLE 1
BOO IBS - 150 LBS-, A
ft AO
I VENDOR I AMBIENT TEMP, •F 90 95 IS
10 GAS TURBINE, H. P 6000 5620 480
I
VENDOR 2 AIR FLOW, M LB/HR 355 348 7.0
\ SO
0 TURBINE EXHAUST, Ta BTU/FAR 114 111.7 2.3
1050 77 6.0
FUEL, M BTU.' HR 83

4 40
00 LBS - 20 LIM-, • COST $/BHP
M LB/HR.
4 ALTERNATES STEAM FACTOR COMP. COST
30
STEAM INJECTION 6 .3 2.08 .036
20 STEAM INJECTION 14.9 1.69 .053
600 - 20

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings-pdf/GT1969/79832/V001T01A067/2390224/v001t01a067-69-gt-68.pdf by guest on 07 June 2024

ISO LBS
600 - ISO 27.35 .057
10

0
200 400 00 800
HORSEPOWER
Fig.8
least 20 percent additional power can be realized
from steam injection. Further, it is expected
that steam injection could be increased to the
point of reaching the equivalent of a low ambient
temperature mechanical limitation on a 95 F day.
Evaluation of the expected performance resulting
from steam injection can be made using published
performance data and existing gas tables. How-
ever, since there are mechanical limitations that
1000 1200
must be considered, it is recommended that the
manufacturer be involved in any rerating program.
Because the concepts of steam injection are
still new and time is required to fully evaluate
the effect of steam on internal components, work
in this area is progressing in a moderate manner.
At this point, it can be seen that steam injection
offers a basis for low-investment horsepower,
reasonable efficiency, and better parts life. It
is the author►s opinion that this will serve as a
basis for one of the turbines of the future, i.e.
"the steam-gas turbine" where a substantial portion
of energy is supplied by steam.