3.

Hydrogen as Gas Turbine Fuel

29

3 HYDROGEN AS GAS TURBINE FUEL

As it was already stated in the chapters before, hydrogen is supposed to be the fuel for the combustion research presented in this PhD work. But although there has been much research in this field from the past until now, hydrogen is still not a common fuel for gas turbine operations, neither in large nor in small scale applications. So in this chapter, some general information about hydrogen, its properties, chemical reactions, etc. will be presented with a special respect towards the gas turbine applications. There is also a brief introduction into the micromix burning concepts chosen as combustion principles in the following chapters. In addition, some information about the development history and the hydrogen related research at ACUAS will be given for a better understanding of these burning principles.

3.1 Introduction
Although hydrogen is known as a chemical element since 1766 and has related to weight with 120 MJ/kg the highest possible energy content (natural gas 47.7 MJ/kg, propane 46.3 MJ/kg, petrol 42.7 MJ/kg), it is still rather unimportant as an energy carrier. One reason for this might be the fact that there are no natural hydrogen deposits, which will make hydrogen a secondary energy source. It can be extracted from nearly every primary energy source, but you will not find it in a directly useable condition. Even today, there is still no real energy saving - or better energy neutral - way to produce hydrogen in big quantities, which would be needed, if hydrogen should be used in large scale applications around the globe. Another problem is related to the storage of hydrogen. Although hydrogen has the best energy to weight ratio, as already stated above, its energy density of only 10.8 MJ/m at ambient conditions is very poor (natural gas 37.4 MJ/m, propane 93.2 MJ/m in gaseous or 23600 MJ/m in liquefied condition, petrol 31700 MJ/m as liquid). Even in a pressurized condition at 200 bar the energy density of hydrogen rises to only 1825 MJ/m which calls for very bulky tanks in order to store a useful amount of fuel when compared to liquefied propane or petrol. Due to its 14-times smaller density compared to air, one of the first applications for hydrogen was its use as filling gas for balloons and airships. But because of its wide flammability range of 4-75 % fuel volume, there is a permanent danger of fire for hydrogen in this application. Since the fire of the Zeppelin airship LZ 129 Hindenburg (1937), hydrogen became the image as an explosive and dangerous substance. This image lives on until today, although it is a long known fact that the electrical conductive shell of the airship ignites due to static charging and as a consequence the hydrogen flamed up and did not explode at all [90]. In fact, hydrogen has in air a very large distance between the ignition limit of 4 % and the detonation limit of 8 % [91], compared to petrol with 1 and 1.1 %. So normally, escaping hydrogen will immediately burn in contact with an ignition source rather than explode. The huge reactivity of hydrogen consequently leads to another great risk to be taken into account, if hydrogen should be controllable burnt in any kind of combustor. It is the already mentioned risk of flashback for premixed burning concepts which are commonly used for other gaseous fuels like propane or natural gas.

30

One of the biggest advantages of hydrogen as a possible energy source for the future is without any doubt its carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide free combustion. Only nitric oxides (NOx) and water vapour occur, when hydrogen is burnt. But nitric oxides have also a couple of unwanted side effects. Depending on the height were they are released, they could cause acid rain or favour build up of ozone in the lower troposphere and depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. Especially for an application in aircraft propulsion this has to be carefully taken into account. So for every hydrogen burning concept, a minimum of NOx emissions should be considered. Although until today, it never found its way into series production, the use of hydrogen as a fuel for gas turbines has in fact a long tradition. The first gas turbine prototype was tested with hydrogen as fuel in 1937 by von Ohain [92]. Then for the first jets, diesel grade fuels and later kerosene was used as a standard fuel for (aero) gas turbines. But during the 1950ies in the US, the NACA (later NASA) put again a lot of extensive research into the development of hydrogen fuelled gas turbine combustors opted mainly for high altitude military applications. Some examples of this research can be found in Figures 3.1-3.3. In more recent years hydrogen came again into the focus of research as an aero engine fuel [93-95]. Through the creation of hydrogen rich gases (syngas) by synthesis of other primary energy sources, hydrogen combustion research became also very important for stationary gas turbines [96]. The main target is still to find a secure way to burn these gases in power plants with modified existing gas turbines to avoid the very high invests for complete new installations.

Figure 3.1: Sketch of J65-B-3 combustor modified for gaseous hydrogen, 1957 [97]

3. Hydrogen as Gas Turbine Fuel

31

Figure 3.2: Photograph of quarter annulus combustor composed of an array of 8 hydrogen swirl can combustor elements, 1957 [98]

Figure 3.3: Fuel injector configurations used with gaseous hydrogen in a fuel-vaporizing combustor, 1955 [99]

32

3.2 Properties of Hydrogen vs. Hydrocarbon fuels

Although various efforts have been made, hydrogen did not become a standard fuel for gas turbines until this day. Consequently there is no supply infrastructure as for petroleum products and one has to follow more stringent safety rules for handling and operating something with hydrogen. So the question might arise, why nearly every ultra micro gas turbine project started with hydrogen as a fuel and even von Ohain, one of the inventors of the gas turbine, first run his prototype with hydrogen [92]? As more or less all of these ultra micro gas turbines and also von Ohains gas turbine were first hand prototypes, environmental concerns were obviously not the main driver for the use of hydrogen. But a closer look concerning the fuel properties of hydrogen compared to a more common hydrocarbon fuel may answer the question. Table 3.1: Comparison of Hydrogen versus Hydrocarbon properties [65] Fuel property* Hydrogen/ air mixture H2 120 10.8 2 4-75 2.5-5 0.02 858 1 10-6 300 2318 17-25 Hydrocarbon/ air mixture CH1.8 42.8 31700 0.2 0.6-4 0.05-0.5 0.25 500 1 10-5 20 2200 30-42

Nominal composition Fuel specific heating value (MJ/kg) Energy density (LHV) (MJ/m) Diffusion velocity (cm/s) Flammability limits (% by volume) Vaporization rate w/o burning (cm/min) Minimum ignition energy (mJ) Autoignition temperature (K) Characteristic reaction time at 5 atm (s) Flame propagation velocity (cm/s) Stoichiometric adiabatic flame temperature (K) Fraction of thermal energy radiated (%)
*

(in air at STP, unless otherwise specified)

According to Table 3.1, hydrogen has a greater heating value, more rapid rate of vaporization, faster diffusion velocity, shorter reaction time, a much higher flame speed, wider flammability limits, lower ignition energy and radiates less heat to its surroundings compared to a typical hydrocarbon. All these properties make hydrogen a nearly ideal fuel, especially for microcombustion, where short residence times, proper fuel-air mixing and lean burning are the most critical tasks [65]. Hydrogen can also easily be injected into the combustion chamber in gaseous form without the need for vaporization, as it is necessary for most hydrocarbon fuels including kerosene. The broad flammability limits also eliminate the need for a rich burning primary zone followed by a dilution zone as known from conventional combustion chambers, thus reducing length and

3. Hydrogen as Gas Turbine Fuel

33

weight of the combustor. To reach the estimated turbine inlet temperature of 1200 K for the PowerMEMS -scale gas turbine, the precalculated design point ER is 0.167, which lies well above the lean flammability limit for hydrogen of ER=0.1. With the low pressure ratios of approx. 4.5 atm maximum for micro gas turbines, resulting combustor inlet temperatures are around 500-600 K, which is below the autoignition temperature for a hydrogen-air mixture of 858 K. Even the 690 K combustor inlet temperature after recuperation of the PowerMEMS -scale gas turbine is below this temperature. So, as autoignition and flashback are not the main problems as in large scale combustors, nearly all previous microengine projects used some sort of lean premixed hydrogen combustion, including MIT and ONERA [100, 37]. With the introduction of new silicone and/or ceramic based materials in these projects, which are able to withstand temperatures exceeding 1600 K without extra cooling, microcombustors burning hydrogen can be build much less complex than their larger counterparts. Following these arguments it becomes obvious, why hydrogen is nearly the perfect fuel for microcombustion. With hydrogen, many of the hydrocarbon fuel related difficulties like vaporization and cooling can be avoided right from the beginning, which helps much in realizing such a complex new device like a -scale gas turbine. Consequently, for microcombustion, hydrogen as a fuel should not to be seen as the final solution, but as a beginning, opening a new challenging field of engineering.

3.3 History of hydrogen research at ACUAS, development of the micromix burning principle
Originally, hydrogen research at ACUAS started back in 1987/88 with the target to operate existing gas turbines with hydrogen instead of kerosene. This research was funded right from the start from the ministry of research and education of North RhineWestphalia, Germany. As stated above, the biggest concern in hydrogen combustion is the minimization of nitric oxides. Burning hydrogen in existing kerosene optimized combustion chambers would indeed lead, in most cases, to even higher emissions of NOx than with kerosene operation [101]. From this, the need arose for the development of a new low NOx hydrogen burning principle suitable for the operation with (aero) gas turbines the so called micromix burning principle for gaseous hydrogen [102, 103]. To ensure a basic understanding of the relevant NOx formation theories and therefore getting a better insight into the micromix burning principle development, a short introduction on this topic needs to be given. There are three primary formation mechanisms for nitric oxides (NOx) in combustion [104]: thermal NOx, prompt NOx and fuel NOx. The latter ones are nearly solely connected to the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels and therefore not further discussed here. Thus thermal NOx is the mechanism to be looked after for lowering the relevant emissions in hydrogen combustion. The formation of thermal NOx is described in the extended Zeldovich mechanism:

(1) (2) (3)

O + N 2 NO + N N + O 2 NO + O N + OH NO + H

34

Following this mechanism, noteworthy quantities of nitric oxides form above temperatures of approx. 1750 K (1477 C). Consequently, with reduction of the temperature and shortening of the retention time of the hot gases in the combustion zone, an essential influence on the nitric oxide formation is possible. Exactly at this point the so called micromix burning principle comes into action. It relies onto the idea of flame miniaturization, i.e. to put as many small burning points as possible in a combustor instead of a few large ones. With these many small flames the fuel is also transformed much quicker and with much shorter flame lengths. This again helps to keep the retention time of the hot gases as short as possible and therefore prevents the formation of hot spots and the resulting possibility of thermal NOx development as far as possible. These targets could be reached with the introduction of miniaturized hydrogen diffusion flames, the basic concept of the micromix burning principle. Although bearing the same designation micromix, the ACUAS concept should not be mixed up with a (hydrogen) burning principle nowadays in development by the Parker Hannifin Corporation [105, 106]. But although the temperatures are kept low, and thus the formation of thermal NOx is minimized in the micromix concept, there are additional NOx mechanisms which could play a vital role under these circumstances. One of these mechanisms normally connected to lean premixed combustion concepts is the N2O-intermediate mechanism. Especially at lower temperatures, oxygen-rich conditions, and higher pressures, this mechanism can contribute up to 30% of the overall NOx formed during the combustion process [107]. The N2O-intermediate pathway is described by two reversible reactions: N 2 + O + M N 2O + M N 2 O + O 2 NO in which M is a general third body. As both reactions involve the radical O, oxygen-rich conditions are favouring this mechanism. The other NOx formation mechanism which has become widely accepted in the past years and therefore should be also mentioned here is the so called NNH mechanism. It is described by the following reaction sequence [108]:
N 2 + H NNH NNH + O NH + NO Latest results from research are pointing towards the significance of this mechanism at low flame temperatures and short residence times [109, 110]. In 1992 the ACUAS micromix concept was realized in a small industrial gas turbine KHD T 216 and showed safe control together with low NOx emissions. Since 1993 ACUAS became a research partner in the European projects CRYOPLANE and EQHHPP for the development of the control unit, the supply system and low emission combustion concept for gas turbines. This led to contracts with DASA, BGT and ASA in 1994 to convert the Airbus A 320 APU GTCP 36-300 for its operation with gaseous hydrogen. Two years later in 1996 was the first successful run of the GTCP 36-300 with a hydrogen burning micromix combustion chamber, a new supply system for gaseous hydrogen and an adapted control unit. Since then, steady development took place, which lead to the third generation micromix combustion chamber and further reduction of NOx emissions. In parallel some research was undertaken in the field of the supply sys-

3. Hydrogen as Gas Turbine Fuel

35

tem, valves, and pumps for cryogenic hydrogen. In 1998, the conversion of the GTCP 36-300 for the third generation combustion chamber started. First run of this third generation micromix combustion chamber (Figure 3.5) was in 1999 which proved further reduction of nitric oxides. In 2000 a new mobile test rig for the APU 36-300 was introduced for endurance runs of the gas turbine. In 2002 the CRYOPLANE project ended. The research work for the adaption of the micromix burning principle in a -scale gas turbine started in 2005 and a new research project was funded in 2007 for the further development of the third generation regular micromix combustion chamber including the control unit, endurance tests, etc. in a full scale combustor [111]. When talking about NOx emissions, at this point also some real values should be given, enabling the reader to correctly identify the NOx potential of the different miniaturized micromix prototypes presented in the following chapters. Although with an electrical power output of 30 kW in its smallest model still magnitudes larger than the PowerMEMS UMGT, the well established Capstone range of stationary microturbines could be taken as a good reference regarding NOx emissions. When fuelled with natural gas the company is guaranteeing a NOx emission rate of maximum 9ppm @ 15% O2 [112, 113]. But nowadays the 9ppm NOx target is also reached from the large stationary gas turbines fuelled with gaseous fuels like the Siemens SGT6 series [114]. GE is guaranteeing 15 ppm for their aeroderivative LM6000 series [115]. So, although national limits for NOx emissions resulting from stationary gas turbines are still as high as 50-75 ppm @ 15% O2, the overall trend is definitely going towards a one-digit ppm range [116].

3.4 The regular micromix burning principle

The regular micromix burning principle is a diffusive flame type burning concept. It is based on the fluid mechanic phenomenon of jets in crossflow. Mixing of the burning gas (hydrogen) and air is taking place directly in the flame zone inside the combustion chamber, which classifies this principle as a non-premixed burning principle. Relating to this, the principle has the inherited advantage of no flashback possibility, which is an important issue especially for burning gaseous fuels in combustion chambers. For the successfully tested configuration in Figure 3.4, the air is entering the combustion chamber through exactly calibrated U-shaped holes in a guiding panel. Crosswise, in a defined distance from the guiding panel, the hydrogen is injected through small (0.3 mm) calibrated holes into the air flow. It mixes with the air and instantly burns due to the high reactivity. There is exactly one hydrogen injection hole allocated to each Ushaped air hole in the guiding panel. Besides the application of this burning principle for micro combustion, it is currently dealt with in a variety of research projects ranging from an enhanced development in an APU gas turbine [111] as already mentioned above, an in depth investigation into the NOx-mechanism via a CFD and an experimental approach [117, 118], and experimental tests for a possible application in large industrial gas turbines [119].

36

Figure 3.4: Basic view of the regular micromix burning principle with crossflow injection of hydrogen [120, 121]

Figure 3.5: Picture of realized regular micromix combustion chamber prototype for APU 36-300 (1600 diffusion type flames)

3. Hydrogen as Gas Turbine Fuel

37

3.5 The inverse micromix burning principle

Contrary to the regular concept described above, in the so called inverse micromix principle, the air is injected crosswise into the hydrogen mass flow (Figure 3.6). The hydrogen enters the combustion chamber via a permeable sintered metal block, thus forming a homogeneous hydrogen atmosphere in which in a certain upstream distance the air is injected through calibrated holes or slots [122].

Figure 3.6: Basic view of the inverse micromix burning principle [122] Again, this principle is a non-premixed diffusion type burning principle and has the same inherent safety against flashback as the regular micromix principle. Here, the porous metal acts as a natural barrier against flashback. Historically, the regular concept was put in favour of the inverse one mainly because of different problems related to the permeable sintered metal. Even though filters were put in before the sintered metal the pores were slowly clogging after a while, resulting in a higher pressure drop across the porous block and a severely reduced hydrogen mass flow. Another difficulty resulted from the welding seams that connect the porous metal with the combustion chamber casing. The seams not only reduced the porosity in the peripheral zones, they also cracked due to different thermal expansion coefficient of the porous metal and the casing material, leading to an uncontrolled hydrogen mass flow through the cracks. Figure 3.7 shows a partly cut segment of the original concept also intended for the use in the APU GTCP 36-300. Nevertheless it was decided to rethink this inverse concept for a -scale application. So with a slightly altered design, this concept was again now with the help of CFD - successfully realized and tested as described in Chapter 7.

38

Figure 3.7: Picture of realized inverse micromix combustion chamber prototype section for APU GTCP 36-300 with one third sectional cutaway showing inner combustor layout with porous block