QUANTIFYING THE EFFECTS OF SALT AND WATER ON GAS TURBINE INLET FILTRATION

2011 GMRC Gas Machinery Conference Nashville, Tennessee October2-5, 2011

By Melissa Wilcox, Southwest Research Institute Nathan Poerner, Southwest Research Institute Rainer Kurz, Solar Turbines Incorporated Klaus Brun, Southwest Research Institute

ABSTRACT
One factor that contributes to the life of gas turbines is the quality of the air entering the turbine. This quality is controlled by the gas turbine inlet filtration system, which is an arrangement of various filters selected for the turbine based on the required inlet air quality and the environment where the turbine is operating. Filters are selected based on what type of contaminants they remove (liquid or solid) and their classification based on standardized testing for how well they remove the particular contaminants. There are many variations in the phase, type, and quantity of contaminants that make this task challenging and site specific. And to add to this difficulty, current test standards for fiber filters only account for the solid particle filtration. They do not include considerations for the effects of liquids, which may cause the performance of the filter to change; or soluble particles, which can be carried through some filters by liquid and then released downstream into the turbine. This is an important topic because soluble particles, most predominately sodium chloride, can lead to fouling and corrosion in the gas turbine. In 2010 GMRC took the initiative to begin developing a test procedure that would quantify the effects of water and salt on the performance of filters. This paper reviews the procedures development with a discussion of the approach to testing filters, the results of preliminary validation testing, and the future development of the procedure.

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 1

1.

INTRODUCTION

Inlet filtration is essential to the successful operation of a gas turbine. The filtration system protects the gas turbine from harmful contaminants from the environment where it operates. There are various different contaminants that can be present including dust, rain, exhaust emissions, air borne salt, insects, oil vapors, etc. The filters for the system are chosen based on what type of contaminants they must remove and the required filter performance. The filters performance is primarily defined by the filtration efficiency but other factors such as material compatibility, filter life, and expected pressure loss are considered too. The filters that are used for gas turbines are currently classified by one of three standards: ASHRAE 52.2 (2007), EN 779 (2002) or EN 1822 (2009). These test standards challenge the filters with dry particles in laboratory environments to estimate the filtration efficiency. While these standards do provide a good baseline comparison of the filters dry performance, they do not consider the effects of some of the common contaminants that are experienced in gas turbine inlet filtration such as water and salt/water mixtures. A filters performance can potentially degrade significantly when it is wet. Also, the interaction of salt and water on the filter can lead to salt leaching through the filter and entering the gas turbine. The presence of salt in the gas turbine can lead to fouling or corrosion. It is important that the effects of salt and water on the filter performance be understood. The Gas Machinery Research Council took the initiative in 2010 to begin developing a test procedure with the objective of quantifying the effects of salt and water on the performance of filters. This paper provides a brief review of the justification and development of this test procedure. The information in this paper includes a summary of the current test standards, a review of how salt and water affect gas turbine inlet filtration, a highlight of the key sections of the test procedure, a discussion of the validation testing completed thus far, and an outline of the future tasks needed to finalize the procedure.

2.

REVIEW OF CURRENT TEST STANDARDS

Filters which are used in gas turbine inlet filtration systems are currently tested against one of three standards: ASHRAE 52.2 (2007), EN 779 (2002), or EN 1822 (2009). Filters used in United States (US) are classically rated against the ASHRAE 52.2 standard. European and most other countries outside of the US utilize the EN standards. For low and medium efficiency classifications the ASHRAE 52.2 or EN 779 standards are used. EN 1822 is used when classifying a high efficiency filter. Recall that most inlet filtration systems in gas turbines have multiple stages. Figure 2-1 shows an example of a multi-stage filter system. This system first has mist eliminators (to remove large water particles), then a set of pre-filters and lastly a stage of high efficiency filters. Typical filter classifications for the pre-filter and high efficiency filter stages are listed in the figure. Pre-filters fall underneath the ASHRAE 52.2 or EN 779 standards and high efficiency filters can fall under all three test standards discussed. Note that the first stage is not necessarily mist eliminators in a filter system. In actual applications it could also be weather hoods, coalescers, insect screens, or even a set of coarse filters.

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 2

Inlet Filtration System

1. Mist Eliminators 2. Pre-Filter Stage MERV 1-14 (ASHRAE 52.2) G1-G4, F5-F8 (EN 779) 3. High Efficiency Filter Stage MERV 11-16 (ASHRAE 52.2) F6-F9 (EN 779) E10-E12 (EN 1822)

Silencer Gas Turbine

Figure 2-1.

Multi-stage inlet filtration system

In the succeeding paragraphs, a brief description of each test standard and how the standard classifies filters is reviewed. After all the standards have been reviewed, the deficiencies of the standards in regards to considering the effects of water and salt are discussed. 2.1 ASHRAE 52.2 (2007)

The ASHRAE 52.2 standard was developed around 1990, when it was realized that there was a need for particle size efficiency and a test standard for higher efficiency filters. Research was funded in order to develop the procedures outlined in the standard today. This standard addresses two important characteristics of filters: the ability of the device to remove solid particles from the airstream and the resistance of airflow through the filter. The rating system employed by this standard is the Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV). The testing in this standard focuses on testing of fine particles. The filtration efficiency is found for three different particle size ranges: 0.3 to 1.0 microns, 1.0 to 3.0 microns, and 3.0 to 10.0 microns. Tests following the ASHRAE 52.2 standard are conducted at the specified air flow rate (within 472 to 3000 cfm) and up to a defined final filter pressure loss. If these values are not specified for the test filter, then the test is conducted at a face velocity of 492 fpm (2.5 m/s) and with a specified final filter pressure loss of 1.4 inH2O (350 Pa). The efficiency of the filter is measured with a Potassium Chloride (KCl) test aerosol. The filter pressure loss and efficiency is measured on six separate loading intervals. A loading interval consists of releasing ASHRAE test dust into the test duct which is captured by the filter. This loads the filter with dust which causes a change in the filter efficiency and an increase in the pressure loss across the filter. Once the six loading and measurement intervals are complete the efficiency for the three particle size ranges are calculated for each test. The
Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration Page 3

efficiency reported for each size range is the average minimum efficiency measured across all six test intervals and particles sizes in that range. Figure 2-2 shows an example of finding the minimum efficiency for each size range. The particle size efficiencies for each measurement and load interval are plotted. The division of each range is indicated. The circles indicate the location of the average minimum efficiency for that particle size range. The filter performance results shown in Figure 2-2 would indicates that the filter has a rating of MERV 10. The minimum particle size efficiency, weight arrestance, and final pressure loss of the filter are used to determine the Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) rating of the filter. The efficiency values in the three particle size ranges that are used to determine the MERV rating are listed in Table 2-1 [1].

100 90 80
Particle Size Efficiency (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.1 1 Particle Size (micron) 10

E1 (0.3 - 1) E2 (1 - 3) E3 (3 - 10)

Figure 2-2.

Particle size efficiency graphed with average minimum composite efficiencies indicated in each particle size range [2]

2.2

EN 779 (2002)

The EN 779 standard addresses the coarse and fine particulate filters. The filters tested under this standard have an initial efficiency of less than 98% with respect to 0.4 micron size particles. The standard describes the tests that are required to determine the average efficiency and average arrestance of the filters. These values are used to determine the classification of the filter which is outlined in the standard. It should be noted that a revision of the EN 779 standard is being released in the fall of 2011. There are some significant changes to the standard including a modification to the classification system. Filter classifications based on the revised standard will be based on both an average and minimum efficiency. In addition, the F5 and F6 names are being changed to M5 and M6. Since the 2011 revision was not released when the test
Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration Page 4

procedure development in the paper was completed, the rest of the discussion in this paper is based on the EN 779 (2002) standard.
Table 2-1. ASHRAE Filter Class MERV Filter classification parameters for ASHRAE 52.2 (2007) [1] Average Particles Size Efficiencies in X - Y micron (%) E1 E2 E3 0.3 - 1.0 1.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 10.0 Minimum Final Pressure Loss (Pa)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

< 75 75 - 85 85 - 95 > 95

< 50 50 - 65 65 - 80 > 80 > 90 > 90 > 90 > 95

< 20 < 20 < 20 < 20 20 - 35 35 - 50 50 - 70 > 70 > 85 > 85 > 85 > 90 > 90 > 90 > 90 > 95

75 75 75 75 150 150 150 150 250 250 250 250 350 350 350 350

The test procedure outlined in the EN 779 is similar to that in the ASHRAE 52.2 standard. The filters are subjected to six loading intervals and in between each interval, the filter efficiency and pressure loss is measured. The EN 779 test uses a Di-Ethyl-Hexyl-Sebacate (DEHS) liquid aerosol. Coarse filters (G1-G4) are loaded with the ASHRAE test dust (same as in ASHRAE 52.2 test) and fine filters (F5-F9) are loaded with ISO-12103-1 test dust (commonly referred to as Arizona road dust). The ISO-12103-1 test dust has a particle size distribution which is skewed to the smaller particles. The EN 779 standard states that filters should be tested at 2000 cfm (0.994 m3/s) and up to a final filter pressure loss of 1 inH2O (250 Pa) or 1.8 inH2O (450 Pa) for G and F filters, respectively. Filters may be tested at conditions different than these and if they are, the test conditions must be reported with the filter classification. Three different results are calculated based on the measured values during the filter test: average filter particle size efficiency, weight arrestance, and dust holding capacity. The filters particle size efficiency is found from the ratio of the number of particles upstream and downstream of the test filter when challenged with the test aerosol. The average efficiency is then calculated in each particle size range for all dust loading intervals. After calculating the particle size efficiencies for the filter, the uncertainty of the efficiency results should be calculated. At each test interval, the weight arrestance of the filter is calculated (weight arrestance is a mass efficiency, ratio of mass in and mass out of filter). The last value calculated from the test measurements is the dust holding capacity (how much dust the filter can hold).
Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration Page 5

The filter classification is based on the weight arrestance (coarse filters, G1-G4) or average efficiency for 0.4 micron particles (fine filters, F5-F9) at their final pressure drop (250 Pa for coarse filters and 450 for fine filters). The 2011 standard also includes a criterion for the minimum filter efficiency for fine filters (F7-F9). Table 2-2 summarizes the classification parameters for the filter. The changes to the filter classification in the 2011 standards are shown in bolded text [3].
Table 2-2. Filter classification parameters for EN 779 (2002) (Changes to standard in 2011 version are bolded) [3] EN Filter Class Average Weight Arrestance (Am) Average Separation Efficiency at 0.4 microns (Em) Minimum Efficiency for 0.4 micron particles

G1 G2 G3 G4 F5 (M5) F6 (M6) F7 F8 F9

50 Am < 65 65 Am < 80 80 Am < 90 90 Am 40 Em < 60 60 Em < 80 80 Em < 90 90 Em < 95 95 Em

35 55 70

2.3

EN 1822 (2009)

Efficient Particulate Air (EPA) filters, High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters, and Ultra Low Particulate Air (ULPA) filters are classified with the EN 1822 standard. UPLA filters are not used with gas turbines; therefore, they will not be discussed in the rest of this paper. The measurements in this standard are based on particle counting methods. The efficiency is found with particle counts at the most penetrating particle size (MPPS). The MPPS is the particle size in the range of 0.15 to 0.3 microns that has the lowest filtration efficiency. In this test, the average and local filter efficiencies are measured. The test aerosol can be one of three common test aerosols: DEHS (used in EN 779 test described above), Di-octyl Phthalate (DOP), or low viscosity paraffin oil. An EN 1822 test is different from the tests described in ASHRAE 52.2 and EN 779. In the EN 1822 test, the filter is not loaded with dust at several intervals. Instead, the filter is tested in the new condition at several different particles sizes. These tests are used to determine the MPPS efficiency of the filter. Once the MPPS is determined, the leakage test can be completed. In this test, the local penetration across the filter is measured for the MPPS. This involved taking particle samples downstream of the filter across the full filter face. To accomplish this, a sampling tube will traverse the full filter surface. For an EN 1822 test, the filtration efficiency is only measured in the filters new condition which is different from the ASHRAE 52.2 and EN 779 tests. The filters are classified based on the average filter efficiency and the minimum local penetration values for the MPPS. Table 2-3 shows the filtration efficiency and local efficiencies that are used to classify the filters [4-8].

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 6

Table 2-3.

Filter classification parameters for EN 1822 (2009) [4] EN Filter Class Total Filtration Separation Efficiency (%) Local Filtration Separation Efficiency (%)

E10 E11 E12 H13 H14

U15 U16 U17

85 95 99.5 99.95 99.995 99.9995 99.99995 99.999995 99.75 99.975 99.9975 99.99975 99.9999

2.4

EXISTING STANDARD SUMMARY

Three different standards were presented above that classify the filters that are used in gas turbine inlet filtration systems. It is important to note that these standards were not developed for filters solely used with gas turbines. They also cover filters used in other applications such as building air ventilation. Therefore, there are many issues that occur with gas turbine filters which are not addressed in the filter efficiency determination. In an environment where a gas turbine is operating there are many different contaminants that the filter must remove. Solid particulates, oil vapors, hydrocarbon aerosols, water, and salts are a few examples. The filter may also interact with gaseous hydrocarbons and emissions from nearby exhaust stacks. Many of these contaminants cause the filter performance to degrade beyond what is experienced in tests following one of the standards described above. The existing test standards do not include testing to determine the influence of these contaminants. Two of the contaminants which have been found to cause many headaches in gas turbine filter performance are water and salt. The remainder of this paper will discuss the influence of these two contaminants and the development of a test procedure to quantify the effects of them on the filters performance.

3.

INFLUENCE OF WATER AND SALT ON FILTER PERFORMANCE

There are many environments where water and salt (NaCl) are present in the air which is ingested by the gas turbine. Some examples are coastal regions, offshore platforms, marine vessels, and near salt beds. Salt concentration can range from 0.001 to 0.4 ppm (by weight) in the ambient air [9]. Water is present in many different forms in the ambient air. Table 3-1 summarizes the various types of moisture that can be experience with their particle size.

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 7

Table 3-1.

Different types of moisture seen in gas turbine inlet filtration systems [10, 11] Description Liquid Size (micron)

Humidity Smog (more smoke than humidity) Cooling Tower Aerosols Water mist Clouds and fog Water Spray (ship wake, ocean spray) Drizzle Rain

vapor form 0.01 to 2 1 to 50 1 to 50 2 to 150 10 to 500 50 to 400 400 to 1000

Salt can have a direct effect on the life of a gas turbine if not removed properly. Gas turbine manufacturers usually recommend stringent criteria on the amount of salt which can be allowed to enter the gas turbine (less than 0.01 ppm). If salt is allowed into the gas turbine the results can be fouling of the compressor, cold corrosion on the compressor components, or hot corrosion of the combustion and turbine sections. Compressor fouling is a reversible phenomenon; however, if salt is collecting on the compressor components, there is a high probability that corrosion is also occurring. Corrosion is a non-reversible process. If corrosion does occur, then the corroded components must be replaced in order to recover performance degradation and avoid catastrophic failures. Gas turbine inlet filtration systems can be designed to combat the ingestion of salt and water. Mist elimination systems or coalescers are effective for capturing particles greater than 5 to 10 microns, pre-filters target solid particles greater than 5 microns and high efficiency filters can remove particles smaller than 1 micron. Filter systems with pre-filters and high efficiency filters do well at removing dry salt particles. However, when water is present is when problems arise. The difference between the filters particle removal efficiency operation in wet and dry conditions can be significant. In some cases, the pressure loss across a filter can increase significantly even with a little moisture. This is true for cellulose fiber filters which swell when they are wet. These filters will also retain the moisture which can lead to long periods of time when the pressure loss across the filter is elevated. Since salt is soluble, the salt captured on the filters can be dissolved in the water and then the water can carry the salt through to the inlet of the gas turbine. It is important to note that not all filters experience this phenomenon. Filters which prevent the penetration of water will not have the issue of salt carryover, but a large portion of the filters that are in operation in gas turbines can experience salt carryover. Salt carryover can also lead to corrosion in the intake housing [10-15]. The current test procedures used to determine the performance of gas turbine inlet filters do not address the influences of water or salt. These two components have been seen to degrade the performance of the inlet filtration system and pose a risk for performance degradation of the gas turbine through fouling and corrosion. The Gas Machinery Research Council (GMRC) took the initiative in 2010 to begin developing a procedure which can be used to quantify the effects of salt and water on the inlet filtration system performance.

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 8

4.

TEST PROCEDURE FOR LIQUID AND SOLUBLE PARTICLES

An abbreviated version of the test procedure developed by GMRC to determine the influences of salt (NaCl) and water on filter performance is outlined in this section. The details included are a general description of the test set-up, review of the measurements made to quantify the filter performance, and description of tests to be performed. 4.1 TEST SET-UP

The test set-up used for ASHRAE 52.2 and EN 779 tests was the basis for the test set-up for measuring salt/water filter and filter system efficiency. The recommended setup for the salt/water testing is shown in Figure 4-1. The largest modifications from the existing standards are the inclusion of a nozzle array for entraining liquid into the air stream (shown as reverse spray to ensure good downstream distribution of water particles), and the addition of a set of drains to measure liquid that falls out of the airflow. Also, for tests of filter systems, the single filter element will be replaced by the components of the filter system.
Manometer To Flame Air Property Photometer and Sensor Particle Count (T,P, RH) Measurement Perforated Diffusion Plate Mixing Orifice

HEPA Filter These ducts connected if re-circulating

Air Flow

Flow Measurement Nozzle Mixing Orifice Window for Optical Sensor Manometer

Air Property Sensor (T,P, RH)

Water Inlet (Fogging)

Heating Element

Water/Saltwater Feed

Perforated To Flame Diffusion Plate Photometer Air Property and Particle Sensor Count (T,P, RH) Measurement

Dehumidifying System

HEPA Filter Drain

HEPA Filter Salt Feed

Window for Optical Sensor Salinity Drain Scale (Mass)

Test Filter

Drain Scale (Mass)

Salinity

Figure 4-1.

General test set-up for salt and water testing [16]

Other modifications include the addition of either windows, or clear test sections to allow optical sensors to be placed outside of the test duct for measuring particle size and counts if they are used. An additional sampling tube is needed upstream and downstream of the test section to take samples for a compositional analysis with a sodium flame photometer or another similar technology. The dust feeder described in the existing standards could remain in this setup, but for the purposes of this testing it would be used to inject a mixture of test dust and dry salt particles. Some of the specifications of the test set-up are outlined in Table 4-1 [16].

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 9

Table 4-1.

Summary of specifications for test set-up [16]

Item Water and saltwater sprays

Salt feed Drains Window and Optical Particle Counters Sampling System Relative Humidity Control Blower

Specification Droplet size range for nozzles: 1 to 100 microns, concentration of 1000 particles/cm3 or greater (50% by weight of the particles under 30 microns and 95% by weight of the particles under 100 microns), saltwater comprised of a ratio of 35 g of salt dissolved in 1 liter of distilled water 50% dry salt (NaCl, particles less than 30 microns with 50% by count under 1 microns and 95% under 10 microns) and 50% ISO fine test dust, feeder must have continuous and consistent dust feeding Capture liquid that falls out of air stream during test Particle counters with sampling tubes: monitor for salt build up and water slugging In-flow particles counters allowed to avoid issues with sampling tubes (duct requires windows for these) Either system must measure particles from 1 to 30 microns Needed for compositional measurements of salt and water mixture in flow stream Additional equipment needed (outside of standard test ducts) to increase or decrease relative humidity inside test duct Recommend placing blower upstream of test section (operate on positive pressure), blower must be able to provide test air flow rate

4.2

MEASUREMENTS

To characterize the effects of salt and water on the filters performance, several different efficiencies are calculated. First, the efficiency of the filter is measured using the procedure outlined in ASHRAE 52.2. This involves the use of a KCl particle generator and particle count measurement upstream and downstream. This efficiency measurement is taken with the filter in a new condition, in between each test loading interval, and after completion of a test. This measurement shows how the filters dry particle performance is influenced by the tested parameter (water performance, salt performance, etc.). The second efficiency measurement is calculated using the upstream and downstream compositional analyses. Samples of the air flow at both the upstream and downstream locations are taken when salt is either being loaded as a dry mixture or a salt water spray. The comparison of the upstream and downstream measurements provides salt removal efficiency. The compositional samples should be taken at each test interval to quantify how the salt removal efficiency changes during the test. The last efficiency measurement is taken when the filter is being loaded with salt dust mixture, water, or salt water. A particle count measurement (with typical particle size ranges measured) should be taken continuously upstream and downstream of the test filter during the loading intervals. The particle count measurements allows for a particle count efficiency to be calculated. The calculated efficiency provides information on how the filter performs with the substance it is being loaded with. These efficiencies will be different than the efficiencies measured with the KCl aerosol in the ASHRAE 52.2 efficiency test [16].

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 10

Several measurements are needed in order to calculate the efficiencies described above. These are summarized in the list below [16]. Dry efficiency measurement: Efficiency measurement following ASHRAE 52.2 procedure with dry KCl aerosol Compositional measurement: Taken upstream and downstream of the filter with a sample probe. A sodium flame photometer is recommended for this measurement. Air flow particle measurement: Measure particle count and size upstream and downstream of test filter. Can use in-flow optical particle counter or take samples and measure particle count and size from sample flow. Relative humidity: Required to quantify the amount of moisture in the air and characterize the thermodynamic properties of the flow stream. Filter differential pressure: The differential pressure across the filter must be measured to monitor how it changes as the filter is challenged with salt and water. Test duct static pressure and temperature: The test duct static pressure and temperature is needed to fully characterize the thermodynamic properties of the flow stream. Air flow rate: The air flow rate must be measured since filters are design for certain air flow rates and their performance will vary at different flow rates. TEST PROCEDURE

4.3

The test procedure recommends performing six different tests in order to quantify the effects of salt and water on the filter performance. A brief description of each test is provided below [16]. 1. Water Spray in Low Humidity: This test will provide information on the test filter systems ability to remove liquid droplets from the air stream and how the filters performance is influenced by water. This test is similar to what is expected for units that are close to locations of high wave or surf activity that could create sprays of water in low humidity. The liquid water should be injected at a flow rate to create a concentration of 1000 particles/cm3 or more, and the relative humidity of the inlet air should be maintained between 0% and 40% before the water injection location. 2. Saltwater Spray in Low Humidity: Similar to the previous test, this test considers units that are close to high wave or surf activity that has the potential to create spray, but this test will determine how the filter performs with liquid containing a soluble component. The saltwater needs to be injected at a flow rate to create a concentration of 1000 particles/cm3 or greater, with inlet air that has a relative humidity between 0% and 40%. 3. Water Spray with Loaded Test Filter in Low Humidity: This test is meant to determine the performance of the filter, when due to some environmental factor a large quantity of water particles encounter a filter with a high amount of soluble particles already collected within the filter; such as a heavy rain storm in areas where salt can collect in the filter during normal conditions. The first step of this test will be to load the test filter with the salt dust mixture. The salt dust mixture can be injected at the highest rate possible, but not above a duct concentration of 72 mg/m3. The filter will be loaded until the test filter
Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration Page 11

pressure differential increases by 1.8 inH2O. After the filter is fully loaded, water will be sprayed onto the filter at a flow rate to create a concentration of 1000 particles/cm3 or greater, with inlet air that has a relative humidity between 0% and 40%. 4. Loaded Test Filter in High Humidity: Similar to the previous test, this test is looking at a filter loaded with salt particles, and then determining the filter performance when the humidity is increased to an extreme level. This test simulates scenarios where instead of a heavy rain; there may be high humidity and salt present. The loading process and efficiency measurements of the dry salt dust loading will be identical to Test 3. After loading with the salt mixture, the relative humidity will be increased and maintained at near 100%; actual humidity level should be maintained between 95% and 98%. Also, the temperature of the test duct should be held from 80 to 90 deg F. 5. Saltwater Spray in High Humidity: This test will determine filter efficiencies for when the filter could experience very high amounts of saltwater spray during periods of high humidity. This test will be nearly identical to Test 2 with the exception that the humidity should be set and maintained between 95% and 98%. 6. Cycle Testing Simulation: The final test is to more closely simulate the normal operating conditions for a test filter. This procedure will incorporate both salt injection and humidity control. Keeping a constant airflow through the test duct of the maximum rated airflow for the filter, the temperature, relative humidity, and salt injection rate will be cycled over a 4-hour period to simulate the values that might be seen in a 2-day period.

5.

VALIDATION TESTING

With the development of any test procedure, there must be a series of tests run to validate the procedure and ensure that results obtained meet the test objectives and are repeatable. During the development of the salt/water testing procedure, several tests were performed for validation of the procedure. It should be noted that the tests completed were not sufficient to ensure the repeatability of the procedure, but they were useful in determining if the outlined steps could show the influence of salt and water on the filters performance. This section will cover what tests were performed in the validation testing and some of the results. 5.1 TESTING APPROACH

During the validation testing, two of the six tests outlined in the test procedure were performed: Test 2 Saltwater spray in low humidity and Test 4 Loaded test filter in high humidity. For each test, the filter was loaded on intervals. For example, in Test 2, the filter was sprayed with water on multiple intervals. In between each water spray interval, the efficiency was measured. The tests were broken into intervals in order to monitor how the filter performance changed. The intervals used for each test are outlined in Table 5-1. As specified in the test procedure described in Section 4, three different efficiencies were measured. 1. ASHRAE 52.2 efficiency: At the beginning of each test, in between test intervals, and at the end of each test, the efficiency of the filter was measured following ASHRAE 52.2 procedures.

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 12

2. Compositional analysis efficiency: During the test intervals where salt was involved, the salt removal efficiency was measured. For instance, when the salt was being loaded into the filter for Test 4, the salt concentrations upstream and downstream were measured. This measurement was done with a sodium flame photometer. 3. Particle count efficiency: Also during the test intervals, the particle count efficiency was measured. A system was used which can take a representative sample from the flow stream of larger liquid or dry particles (on the order of 40 microns) and measure the particle size and count the number of particles.
Table 5-1.
Step No. Test Interval

Summary of intervals for validation tests.

Test 2 - Salt Water Spray in Low Humidity Measurements Dry/new filter dp Zero readings of particle measurement systems and photometer Dry/new filter ASHRAE efficiency Temperature and relative humidity Air flow rate Composition and particle count efficiency Water flow rate Filter dp ASHRAE efficiency Temperature and relative humidity Air flow rate Collect water in drains for mass and salinity measurement Repeat Water Spray 1 Repeat Measurement 1 Test 4 - Loaded Test Filter in High Humidity Measurements Dry/new filter dp Zero readings of particle measurement systems and photometer Dry/new filter ASHRAE efficiency Temperature and relative humidity Air flow rate Composition and particle count efficiency Filter dp ASHRAE efficiency Temperature and relative humidity Air flow rate Repeat Salt Loading 1 Repeat Measurement 2 Composition and particle count efficiency Temperature and relative humidity Repeat Measurement 2

Measurements 0

Water Spray 1

Measurements 1

4 5 Step No.

Water Spray 2 Measurement 2 Test Interval

Measurements 0

2 3 4 5 6 7

Salt Loading 1 Measurements 1 Salt Loading 2 Measurement 2 High Humidity Measurement 3

5.2

TEST SET-UP

The test set-up used for the validation testing is similar to that outlined in the procedure and discussed in Section 4.1 of this paper. Figure 5-1 shows an overview of the validation test
Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration Page 13

set-up. The test duct used for the test was designed for ASHRAE 52.2 testing. The blower is positioned at the inlet to the test duct (positive pressure on the test section). Immediately downstream of the blower is a HEPA filter for conditioning the inlet air. After the HEPA filter, is the area where the water, test dust, and test aerosols are fed into the test section. A mixing orifice and diffusion plate are positioned downstream of the feeding area. Downstream of the diffusion plate is the sampling location and temperature and relative humidity measurements. After this is the test filter section. This section has a drain immediately upstream and downstream of the test filter, the test filter, and a manometer placed across the filter for pressure loss measurements. After the test filter section is the downstream temperature and relative humidity measurement. This is followed by a second set of mixing orifice and diffusion plate. The downstream sampling tube is located after the second diffusion plate. After this are the nozzle and manometer for air flow rate measurement and then the final HEPA filter. During each test, there were slight modifications to the test set-up to accommodate the test. These are described below.
Manometer Mixing Orifice Perforated Diffusion Plate HEPA Filter Air Property Sensor (T, RH)

Flow Measurement Nozzle Sampling Location Manometer Water/Saltwater Feed Air Property Sensor (T, RH)

Test Filter

HEPA Filter Feeder Sampling Location Drain Perforated Diffusion Plate Mixing Orifice Drain

Figure 5-1.

Test set-up for validation testing

Test 2 Saltwater spray in low humidity: During this test salt water was sprayed into the test duct at various intervals. The efficiency of the filter was measured at the beginning of the test, in between salt sprays, and at the end of the test.. o Feeder: The feeder was only used during ASHRAE efficiency tests.

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 14

o Mixing orifice and diffusion plate: These were removed upstream of the test filter while the saltwater was being sprayed. During the filter efficiency measurements, they were included in the test duct. o Sampling location: During the salt spraying, the sampling probe was connected to a system which measured the liquid flow concentration and particle size both upstream and downstream. In addition, another sampling probe was placed upstream and downstream of the test filter to collect samples for compositional measurements with the sodium flame photometer. This device quantified the amount of salt upstream and downstream of the filter. During the ASHRAE efficiency tests, the sampling tube was used to collect samples for particle count and size measurement. Test 4 Loaded test filter in high humidity: For this test, the filter was first loaded with salt at various test intervals and then the filter was exposed to air with high humidity (> 95%). The ASHRAE efficiency of the filter was measured at the beginning of the test, in between salt loading intervals, and at the end of the test.. o Water feed: The water feed nozzles were not installed during this test. o Feeder: The feeder tube was used to feed salt when loading the filter and feed KCl aerosol when conducting ASHRAE efficiency tests. o Mixing orifice and diffusion plate: testing. These devices were installed during all

o Sampling location: During salt loading and when the filter was exposed to high humidity the sampling probes were connected to the photometer and the particle size/count system. For ASHRAE efficiency tests, the sampling probes were connected to the particle counter. o During the high humidity test, the discharge of the duct was connected to the inlet of the duct via a humidity generation system. This allowed the duct to operate in a closed loop and for the humidity to be controlled. This feature is not shown in Figure 5-1. 5.3 TEST RESULTS

A rectangular mini-pleat fiber type filter was used for both validation tests. The filter had a MERV rating of 14 and was classified by EN 779 as a F8 filter. The minimum efficiencies of the filter from the ASHRAE 52.2 rating were reported to be 82%, 99%, and 100% for the 0.3 to 1.0, 1.0 to 3.0, and 3.0 to 10.0 micron intervals, respectively. 5.3.1 TEST 2 SALTWATER SPRAY IN LOW HUMIDITY Figure 5-2 shows the ASHRAE efficiencies for Test 2. Four different sets of data are shown: the new filter efficiency, the filter efficiency after two rounds of water spraying, and the efficiency report in the literature for the test filter. It should be noted that the efficiency from the literature is an average of the efficiencies in a range of particles sizes. The data from testing was averaged on the particle size intervals and the results are shown in Figure 5-3. The ASHRAE efficiencies measured for the new filter match those reported in the literature well.

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 15

Two things should be noted from the graphs. First the tests did show a change in the performance of the filter when it was challenged with salt water. Secondly, both Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3 show that as the filter was sprayed with salt water, the efficiency of the filter decreased. If the measured efficiencies obtained during the validation testing were used to rate the filter according the criteria of ASHRAE 52.2, the filter rating would be lowered to a MERV 13. It should be noted that since this was part of the validation testing, the tests were not run to completion. Therefore, the efficiencies measured at the completion of Test 2 may be different than that report in these results.
100 95 90
Particle Count Efficiency

85 80 75 70 65 60 0.1

New After R1 After R2 Literature

0.3

1 Particle Size (microns)

3.0

10

Figure 5-2.
100 95 90

ASHRAE efficiency results from Test 2

Particle Count Efficiency

85 80 75 70 65 60 0.1

New After R1 After R2 Literature

0.3

1 Particle Size (microns)

3.0

10

Figure 5-3.

Average ASHRAE efficiency results from Test 2

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 16

During Test 2, the sodium flame photometer was used to measure the concentration of the salt upstream and downstream of the test filter. The measured salt removal efficiencies for the first and second water sprays were 96.2 0.77 and 95.4 0.58, respectively. Since the compositional measurements showed that salt was present downstream of the test filter, it can be concluded that the water allowed some salt to pass through the filter. 5.3.2 TEST 4 LOADED TEST FILTER IN HIGH HUMIDITY In the second test the filter was first loaded on two intervals with salt and then challenged with humid air. Figure 5-4 shows the ASHRAE efficiencies measured after each interval during the test. The results from this test show that the filter loaded with salt had a higher efficiency than the new filter. This result is consistent with what is seen in a standard ASHRAE efficiency tests: as the filter is loaded with dust, the efficiency improves. It should be noted after the filter was challenged with high humidity, the efficiency decreased from the dry salt loading efficiencies.
100 95 90 New 85 80 75 70 65 0.1 After 30g After 390g After humidity Literature

Particle Count Efficiency

0.3

1 Particle Size (microns)

3.0

10

Figure 5-4.

ASHRAE efficiency results from Test 4.

Figure 5-5 shows the average ASHRAE efficiencies from Test 4. The efficiency of the new filter was lower than that which was reported in the literature, but the efficiency is still within the range of a MERV 14 rating. This graph shows the same trends already discussed for Figure 5-4. In all tests, the filter maintained the particle size efficiencies required for a MERV 14 rating. However, as in Test 2, it should be noted that since this was part of the validation testing, the tests were not run to completion. Therefore, the efficiencies measured at the completion of test 4 may be different than that reported in these results. During Test 4, the salt concentration upstream and downstream of the test section was measured during all testing intervals. The dust feeder that was used to load the salt into the test filter did not deliver a consistent and continuous dust feeding. The inconsistent feeding was also due to the clumping of the salt dust. Because of the inconsistent feeding, the salt concentration measurements were sporadic. Therefore, no clear conclusions could be drawn about the dry salt removal efficiency of the filter.
Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration Page 17

100 95 90 New 85 80 75 70 65 0.1 After 30g After 390g After humidity Literature

Particle Count Efficiency

0.3

1 Particle Size (microns)

3.0

10

Figure 5-5.

Average ASHRAE efficiency results from Test 4

The salt concentration was measured downstream of the test filter during the period where the filter was challenged with high humidity. It should be noted that during this time period, salt was not being loaded into the filter; therefore, a compositional measurement was not taken upstream of the filter. The salt concentration downstream of the test filter was found to be zero. After the test was completed, the filter was found to be moist on the upstream side, but was still dry on the downstream side. Therefore, the filter was not fully saturated during the testing. If the filter is not fully saturated, then there is low or no probability that salt can be carried over to the downstream side of the filter. In actual filter operation where high humidity is present, filters often become fully saturated. In future validation testing, the length of time which the filter is exposed to high humidity will be extended to ensure that the filter will be fully saturated.

6.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

The validation testing showed that there is a change in the filter performance when the filter is challenged with salt and/or water. The results also revealed many areas for improvement in the procedure. There are still several tests that need to be completed in order to validate the procedure and ensure the repeatability or results. The bulleted list below outlines some of the challenges with the testing that need to be addressed and also the testing that needs to be completed to have a fully validate procedure. Overview o During the initial validation testing tests 2 and 4 were completed. Tests 1, 3, 5, and 6 have not been conducted and should be completed (in future work) to validate the recommended procedure. o Multiple tests need to be conducted in order to validate the repeatability of the proposed tests.
Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration Page 18

o In the procedure, it is recommended that the diffusion plate and mixing orifice be removed when water is sprayed. The necessity of this was not verified with testing. o The minimum number of intervals for each test needs to be defined. o The specifics on how to calculate each efficiency and the uncertainty of the results needs to be outlined. o A method to classify the filter based on the three efficiencies calculated in the procedure needs to be defined. Test 4 o During test 4 in the initial validation testing, it was found that no salt was detected downstream of the filter when there was high humidity. High humidity air was flowed through the filter for approximately 45 minutes. The test filter was found to be moist on the upstream side of the filter, but the fiber material was not fully saturated. It is thought that since the fiber material was not fully saturated, the salt could not leach through and be released downstream. This needs to be verified with further testing. Essentially the test needs to be conducted until the filter is fully saturated. Measurements o During testing, the upstream relative humidity (RH) sensor failed when it was exposed to high humidity. The majority if not all RH sensors will fail when exposed to 100% humidity. Since the filter is being tested in near 100% relative humidity conditions in several tests, a RH sensor which can tolerate 100% RH should be identified or a method to protect the RH sensor needs to be outlined for the test. o It is best to have electronic logging of all test data during the test. This is recommended for any additional validation testing. o If possible, it is best to have simultaneous upstream and downstream measurements of particle counts during loading intervals. Any changes in the loading will have a significant effect on the results if simultaneous measurements are not used. If simultaneous measurements are not used, then the results should be averaged over specified intervals. These intervals need to be determined. o The use of an external optical particle counter in the proposed procedures needs to be tested. o During the testing with the humidity, the windows on the test duct fogged over. This will cause error if an external optical particle counter is used. Investigate if there is a way (a coating or surface treatment) that can be used to prevent the window from fogging over. Salt dust feed

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 19

o During the initial validation testing it was found that loading the test filter with only salt was very difficult. Therefore, the current procedure proposes the use of a test dust which is a mixture of dry salt and ISO fine test dust. The inclusion of salt will still allow for the test objectives to be met and the inclusion of ISO fine test dust allows for the filter to be loaded at a faster rate. In addition, it is thought that the ISO fine test dust will help the salt adhere to the test filter. However, this has not been verified. o When using a dust feeder, it was found that the ground salt clumped together, which made it difficult to feed into the test duct. Some of the salts considered for testing (but not used during initial validation testing) had an additive that made the salt more free flowing (or in other words, not clump). It is recommended that the use of additives to minimize salt dust clumping be investigated in the future. It is important to ensure that any additives used with salt do not change the hygroscopic behavior of the salt. o For salt loading, the use of the dust feeder is not the preferred method, but it is the most convenient method for loading large amounts of salt quickly into the filter. A tray/wheel type feeder was used in the initial validation tests. This type of feeder was found to feed the dust sporadically (not constant over time). While this is not an issue for a typically ASHRAE 52.2 test, it does present problems when using the sodium flame photometer. The photometer (since it is currently a manual/analog device) does not work well with non-continuous salt events. This device requires a continuous stream of particles in the air flow in order to obtain a steady measurement. The issue with the photometer can be solved in two ways: 1) use a digital photometer which can record time varying feed events (this is not currently available and is dependent on the photometer suppliers) or 2) have a consistent (over time) dust feed. It is recommended in further development of this procedure that a dust feeder which produces a more consistent dust feed be used. o During the initial validation testing a dust feeder was used to load the filter with salt. This was done because an aerosol generator was not available with the capacity required for the dust feed. The use of an aerosol generator for the salt loading needs to be validated with testing. o In preparations for testing, it was found that salt dust (for dry salt feeding) with the particle distribution desired was not available for purchase. The salt was ground in-house for the testing with a coffee grinder. Either a vendor which can supply the ground salt to the specification should be identified or a procedure for grinding the salt to get consistent particle size distribution needs to be developed. It should be noted that a large amount of salt will be required for loading the test filter (1000g or more). Once the items outlined above are addressed, the test procedure can be finalized and provide a methodology by which gas turbine filters can be tested to determine the effects of salt and water on their performance.

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 20

7.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) would like thank the GMRC project team for their support in the development of this test procedure. SwRI would also like to acknowledge with thanks Robert Burkhead and Blue Heaven Technologies for use of their test equipment and assistance in the validation testing.

8.
[1]

REFERENCES
ASHRAE 52.2 Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., 2007. Wilcox, M. et al, Guideline for Gas Turbine Inlet Air Filtration Systems, Gas Machinery Research Council, April 2010. DIN EN 779 Particulate Air Filters for General Ventilation Determination of the Filtration Performance, European Committee for Standardization, November 2002. DIN EN1 1822: High Efficiency Air Filters Part 1: Classification, Performance Testing, Marking, European Committee for Standardization, 2009. DIN EN2 1822: High Efficiency Air Filters Part 2: Aerosol Production, Measuring Equipment, Particle Counting Statistics, European Committee for Standardization, 2009. DIN EN3 1822: High Efficiency Air Filters Part 3: Testing Flat Sheet Filter Media, European Committee for Standardization, 2009. DIN EN4 1822: High Efficiency Air Filters Part 4: Determining Leakage of Filter Element (Scan Method), European Committee for Standardization, 2009. DIN EN5 1822: High Efficiency Air Filters Part 5: Determining The Efficiency of Filter Element, European Committee for Standardization, 2009. Stalder, J., Bromley, A., Gas Turbine Power Degradation and Compressor Washing, Tutorial Session 15-12 at ASME TurboExpo 2011, Vancouver, Canada, June 9, 2011. McGuigan, P. T., 2004, Salt in the Marine Environment and the Creation of a Standard Input for Gas Turbine Air Intake Filtration Systems, Proceedings of ASME TurboExpo, Power for Land, Sea, and Air, Vienna, Austria. Stalder, J. and Sire, J., 2001, Salt Percolation through Gas Turbine Air Filtration Systems and Its Contribution to Total Contaminant Level, Proceedings of the Joint Power Generation Conference, New Orleans, LA. Kurz, R. and Brun, K., 2007, Gas Turbine Tutorial Maintenance and Operating Practices Effects on Degradation and Life, Proceedings of 36th Turbomachinery Symposium. Howes, S., 2004, Selecting Gas-Turbine Inlet Air Systems for New, Retrofit Applications, Combined Cycle Journal, Second Quarter. Syverud, E., Brekke, O., and Bakken, L., 2007, Axial Compressor Deterioration Caused by Saltwater Ingestion, Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 129, pg. 119-126. Baden, T. Z., 1980, Losses in Gas Turbines Due to Deposits on the Blading, Brown Boveri Review, 67 (12), pg. 715-722. Wilcox, M., Poerner, N., Gas Turbine Filter Efficiency Test Procedure: Liquid and Soluble Particles, Report to Gas Machinery Research Council, March 9, 2011.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

[11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Quantifying the Effects of Salt and Water on Gas Turbine Inlet Filtration

Page 21