×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

2 CT'S AT IDENTICAL LOADS BUT ONE HAS HIGHER CO2

2 CT'S AT IDENTICAL LOADS BUT ONE HAS HIGHER CO2

2 CT'S AT IDENTICAL LOADS BUT ONE HAS HIGHER CO2

(OP)
PONDERING AS TO WHY I, HAVE TO UNITS THAT ARE AT IDENTICAL LOADS MW WISE, BUT THE OTHER HAS HIGHER CO2 AT MINIUM LOADS AT ABOUT 60% OR 107 MW. THE CO2 IS ABOUT 5 TIMES AS HIGH AS THE OTHER.  ALL GAS VALVES ON THESE TWO MACHINES (DLN) ARE PRETTY IDENTICAL, IGV'S THE SAME! CAN ANY ONE SUGGEST SOMETHING?  CAN THESE BE A BAD SWIRLER ISSUE AT LOW LOADS WHEN PILOT FLAME BEGINS MAKE AN ENTRENCE BACK INTO THE SCEM OF THINGS? SOMEWHERE FUEL IS NOT BEING BURNED!

FLORIDA,
BIGDOG50

RE: 2 CT'S AT IDENTICAL LOADS BUT ONE HAS HIGHER CO2

What causes you to believe your instrumentation?

rmw

RE: 2 CT'S AT IDENTICAL LOADS BUT ONE HAS HIGHER CO2

Are all the gas nozzles identical?  Could a gas nozzle have worked loose or be working loose?  How does the fuel consumption vs. load compare between the two units?

Many years ago, I had experience with a GT that eventually suffered massive damage (melt-down) due to a lost gas nozzle, but the unit operated "normally" until the nozzle completely fell off.  Even after the nozzle fell off, performance deteriorated gradually over a period of hours.  Back then, no one measured CO2.  The exhaust temperature measurement locations were not sufficiently dispersed to detect the failure in the early stages.

RE: 2 CT'S AT IDENTICAL LOADS BUT ONE HAS HIGHER CO2

Are the bladepath temperatures uniformly distributed around the blade ring, and are they comparable between units?

Picking up on rmw's question, are all other emissions measurements comparable? CO, SOx, etc?

How does EGT map versus fuel flow and IGV position? Do the units have different characteristics?

----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

RE: 2 CT'S AT IDENTICAL LOADS BUT ONE HAS HIGHER CO2

Iwould calibrate the CO2 instrument first. Then go from there. Verify the data thats being given to you will help
save you some steps. It could be your CO2 monitor is not functioning properly and that you have a bad sensor




Good Luck!!

Quote: "Its not what you know, its who you know" - anybody trying to find a decent job

RE: 2 CT'S AT IDENTICAL LOADS BUT ONE HAS HIGHER CO2

Bigdog50
All of the above replies seem logical and important to verify however you make no mention of the type of units in question. The reasons for high CO readings, aside from the obvious issues listed in the above replies, can vary greatly with each specific OEM, engine type, and combustion system used.

High CO is a result of many potential causes including incomplete combustion, too much air and not enough fuel, too much fuel and not enough air, too much cooling air flow, missing seals etc.

If after verification of you instrumentation and callibrations prove correct there are some warning signs you can look for depending on the monitoring equipment installed and the type of engine in question.  

I am assuming by the language used here (ie swirler, blade path spread, pilot flame etc) that some of these replies are originating from Siemens Westinghouse experience.

Regards
Romefu12

RE: 2 CT'S AT IDENTICAL LOADS BUT ONE HAS HIGHER CO2

Why can’t we calculate the CO2? All you need is the fuel flow and fuel composition. It should also be a lot cheaper. You could calculate it for both engines and see if there is this difference. 5 times more CO2 almost means the measurement is wrong because what you are also saying is that one unit is 5 times more thermally efficiency because CO2 emissions is proportional to the fuel burnt. This is very unlikely.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources