Hydrocarbon Condensate Trapping in

Deepwater Facilities

Theo Mallinson, Siemens Energy, Inc.

Dr. Richard Joklik, Combustion Science and
Engineering, Inc
Abstract
Production facilities often produce hydrocarbon condensates as a byproduct of gas compression,
fuel gas dewpointing, and other typical processes. This light hydrocarbon stream can in many
cases be spiked into either the crude or gas export/reinjection lines. However the vapor pressure
requirement for crude exported by tanker and the hydrocarbon dewpoint requirement for
exported/reinjected gas can result in a composition trap, and the built up light condensate stream
can not be spiked into either line. Additionally, some fields producing crudes with asphaltene
content can have light condensate solvent washing concerns associated with reintroduction of the
condensate stream into the separation system, resulting in asphaltene deposition and associated
operational problems. To avoid safety concerns with storage and transfer of the condensate in an
offshore environment a processing scheme to allow this fluid to be used as supplemental fuel for
a combustion turbine has been developed. This pretreatment technology avoids operational
problems associated with high heating value fuel gas by introducing a dilution gas stream of site
generated nitrogen. The system is tuneable for a wide rage of inlet compositions and rates and
can be used to match a target heating value, Wobbe index, or other operational target.
Additionally, the system can be integrated with existing utilities and is appropriate for both
greenfield and brownfield projects, including tiebacks of new production fluids to existing
processing facilities. Benefits associated with this system include meeting export specifications,
eliminating storage of unstabilized high vapor pressure hydrocarbons, addressing potential
export/reinjection flow assurance issues and providing a marginal increase in gas export rates
through fuel gas reduction.
Summary and background
A simulation model of a typical deepwater facility has been prepared, based on a dry tree spar
platform in 7000 ft of water producing 100 kbopd with a gas to oil ratio of 1500 scf/bbl (Figure
1). A standard processing scheme using a three step separation system with vessels operating at
500, 50, and 10 psig respectively separates the production fluids into oil, gas, and produced
water streams. The gas streams from the production separators are fed to appropriate
compression stages corresponding to high, intermediate, and low pressure compression blocks.
The gas stream is dehydrated using a triethylene glycol system to a water dewpoint of 10 deg F
(corresponding to approximately 4.7 lbs H20/MMSCFD gas) and subsequently autorefrigerated
by low temperature cross exchange to achieve a 20 deg F hydrocarbon dewpoint. The
hydrocarbon condensate stream from this dewpointing process is mixed with the separated
condensate coming from the compression block scrubbers (primarily from the scrubber
downstream of the first stage of IP compression).

Figure 1: Field schematic for deepwater production facility

The gas dewpoint for both water and hydrocarbon is established to prevent condensation in the
gas line. For deepwater facilities the effective ambient temperature is the global ocean
temperature minimum occurring around 35 deg F. Dewpoints above this temperature at pipeline
operating pressure can result in condensation, leading to hydrate formation, erosion due to liquid
droplet impingement, or slugging if liquid builds up in sloped or pocketed pipeline sections. In
practice some engineering margin is built into the target dewpoints. For the processing plant the
glycol system must achieve a lower water dewpoint than the operating temperature of the
hydrocarbon dewpointing process to avoid ice or hydrates in the low temperature cross exchange
vessel.
For the export crude, when a pipeline is planned or an existing network is available, generally the
maximum allowable vapor pressures are easy to meet. Since the export line is operating at
significant pressure, even fluids with appreciable vapor pressures will be well below the bubble
point. However, operating close to the bubble point can result in similar flow assurance issues to
gas lines, especially with respect to slugging. The crude vapor pressure requirements are much
more stringent when exporting to a tanker. The inert gas blanketed crude tanks in a typical
trading tanker effectively operate at atmospheric pressure, so the incoming crude must have a
vapor pressure below gauge for all ambient conditions expected to be encountered to avoid
venting and creation of a flammable mixture. A typical crude requirement is a Reid vapor
pressure (RVP) of 10-12 psia. RVP is determined by ASTM test D-323, and is performed at 100
deg F. This vapor pressure target may require some process heating for the last stage of
separation depending on the arrival temperature and composition of the produced fluids.

The first pass processing approach for condensate recovered from the topsides facility is to rerun
it to an appropriate production separator. In most cases this is the last stage of separation,
operating at the lowest pressure. In the model developed, this results in a minimum crude vapor
pressure of 28.7 psia at 100 deg F. It is not possible to reduce this vapor pressure further without
rerouting the condensate for disposal elsewhere. Spiking the recovered condensate directly into
the crude export line has a slightly worse effect on final vapor pressure than returning to the last
stage of separation since light components do not have a chance to flash off. The only other
traditional options are to spike the condensate into the gas line or store the condensate onboard
and export by tanker. Spiking into the gas line can reduce the dewpoint margin and cause the
operational issues previously noted. Storing unstabilized condensate in pressurized vessels on the
facility topsides presents an operational risk associated with these fluids, and transport of this
fluid is relatively uncommon (cannot be done in standard hull tanks). For storage of stabilized
condensates (i.e. split in to component based products), although the transfer of this fluid is a
more standard procedure, there is an additional topsides space and weight requirement for the
fractionation equipment.
In order to meet lower crude vapor pressures associated with tanker transport, it is therefore
necessary to dispose of the light hydrocarbons in another manner. By collecting the recovered
condensate from gas compression scrubbers and hydrocarbon dewpointing in the previous model
(adiabatic last stage separator), it is possible to drop the exported crude vapor pressure to 18.4
psia at 100 deg F. By increasing the last stage operating temperature it is possible to achieve
lower export crude vapor pressures. For the simulation model developed (Figure 2), last stage
separator operating temperatures of 155 to 167 deg F result in export crude vapor pressures of 12
to 10 psia at 100 deg F.

1019 Psig, 99 F 5000 Psig, 100 F

ST Reinjection Gas

ST CM
T G C
ST
1x100%
ST Reinject.
Skid 1
Package A To condensate
CM
T G C
To Condensate
1x100%
Glycol Regenerator 315 Psig, 20 F Reinject.
Contactor Skid 1
1x100% Package A To condensate

ST

CM
C G T Condensate
ST Pig Launcher
1x100% M
Reinject.
Skid 1
To condensate Package A CM
C G T 3x34% 1514 Psig, 56 F

1x100%
To condensate LP. Skid 1 Condensate
Export

ST

CM
C G T

1x100% ST
LP. Skid 1
To condensate CM
C G M

1x100%
To condensate Vapor. Skid
550 Psig 1
Fluid Stream 1 From :RESERVOIR Separator
138 F
Input Stream Stage 1
1x100%

To condensate
49 Psig
Separator
129 F
Stage 2
1x100%

ST 10 Psig
Separator Legend
154 F
Stage 3
HM 1x100%
AC Air Cooling
PC Printed Circuit
PL M PL Plate
M
Pig Launcher
ST Shell and Tube
RW
Export Pump(s) CM Cooling Medium
Booster Pump(s) 3x50% HM Heating Medium
2x100% 800 Psig, 131 F RW Raw Water
C Centrifugal
Crude Export R Reciprocating
Produced S Lubricated Screw
Water Treatment M Motor
T Turbine
E Engine
G Gear
Dumped Overboard OIL
GAS
WATER
MULTIPHASE
CM/HM

Oil & Gas Manager (OGM) - SOR Flow Scheme

Case DOT_2011_Export_10psia Facility SPAR01-Offshore
Company Name Company Name
Note
OGM Version 1.7.3.0 8/30/2011
Siemens 10:00:31 PM

Figure 2: Summary process flow diagram

Introduction of LPP
A lean, prevaporized, premixed (LPP) combustion technology has been developed that converts
these light hydrocarbons into a proxy for natural gas. This prepared fuel can then be burned with
low emissions in virtually any combustion device in place of natural gas, or to supplement an
existing fuel gas stream.
In order to take full advantage of these liquids as a fuel source in a standard gas turbine with Dry
Low NOx (DLN) combustors, it is necessary to vaporize the liquid components. However, the
resultant fuel will have combustion properties very different from a typical site prepared fuel gas.
The impact of fuel gas composition on combustor performance has been extensively studied. In
general, the addition of higher hydrocarbons to natural gas (methane) results in reduced ignition
delay time and increased flame speed [2-6], which may have impacts on flashback and
combustor dynamics depending on the design of the fuel injectors and combustion system [7].
These effects may be mitigated, however, by dilution of the fuel with an inert gas such as
nitrogen [8, 9]. This process, namely prevaporization and mixing with an inert diluent with
subsequent premixed combustion, has been developed and demonstrated for a wide range of
liquid fuels [9-11]. Application of the LPP process to natural gas condensate involves the
addition of diluent to the raw gas stream to control both the Wobbe Index and dew point of the
fuel mixture, and subsequently heating to ensure that the mixture is maintained at a temperature
safely above the dew point.

LPP technology overview

A patented fuel vaporization and conditioning process [10] has been developed that achieves low
emissions (NOx, CO and particulate matter) comparable to those of natural gas while operating
on liquid fuels. In this approach, liquid fuel is vaporized in an inert environment to create a fuel
vapor/inert gas mixture with combustion properties similar to those of natural gas. Properties of
the fuel mixture, referred to as LPP GasTM, such as dew point, Wobbe Index, and autoignition
tendency are controlled by the level of inert gas added during the vaporization process. The LPP
GasTM can be used as a substitute for natural gas in any combustion device originally designed
for natural gas, including DLN combustion systems. This allows the achievement of state-of-the-
art NOx and CO emissions from liquid fuels without water addition, traditional liquid fuel skids,
or liquid fuel combustors. Tests conducted in both atmospheric and high pressure test rigs
utilizing commercial swirl-stabilized burners (designed for natural gas) found operation similar
to that achieved when burning natural gas [9, 11] with LPP GasTM derived from a range of liquid
fuels (fuel oil #1 and #2, biodiesel, and Fischer-Tropsch synthetic JP-8). Extended lean operation
was observed for the liquid fuels due to the wider lean flammability range for these fuels
compared with natural gas.
Liquid fuel is supplied to the LPP fuel conditioning skid using a fuel pump and is pre-heated (the
amount of pre-heat depends on the liquid fuel being used) in order to reduce the heat input
required to the vaporizer. The fuel is introduced into the vaporizer along with an inert gas and
heat sufficient to vaporize the liquid fuel. The inert gas may be nitrogen, oxygen depleted air,
exhaust gas or carbon dioxide, although testing to date has used nitrogen and nitrogen with a
small amount of oxygen. In laboratory testing the heat has been applied to the skid using
electrical heaters. However, electrical, combustion, waste heat or any combination thereof could
be used. Waste heat utilization would be the preferred method in order to maximize system
efficiency in a commercial application. A laboratory LPP skid is shown in Figure 3. The body of
the vaporizer (wrapped in insulation) can be seen in the center-left of the picture. Pre-heated
diluent (nitrogen and oxygen supplied from high pressure gas cylinders) enters from the top, as
does pre-heated fuel. The heat-traced LPP GasTM transfer line connecting the vaporizer to an
atmospheric pressure lean, pre-mixed burner mounted vertically with a quartz liner can be seen
on the right side of the picture.

Figure 3: LPP skid and atmospheric pressure test rig with DLN burner
Experimental procedure
The Capstone C30 is a 30 kW power generation system designed for use with natural gas. In
premixed combustion mode, it produces nominally 9 ppm NOx and 30 ppm of CO. The C30
operates in diffusion mode at lower loads, with the transition to premixed mode occurring
between 20 and 25 kW. The combustion system operates at approximately 4 atm. An LPP
system was developed that interfaces with the turbine's natural gas fuel supply, allowing for
operation on LPP GasTM, natural gas, or a mixture of the two. Figure 4 shows the test facility
developed for the C30 testing, and Figure 5 shows a schematic of the LPP vaporizer and
connection to the C30. Nitrogen and methane flows into the vaporizer are supplied under
pressure and regulated using mass flow controllers. Pre-heated liquid naphtha is pumped at high
pressure (690 to 1379 kPag / 100 to 200 psig) through a control valve, rotometer, and nozzle into
the vaporizer, which is electrically heated. The LPP GasTM exiting the vaporizer is routed to the
microturbine through heat traced tubing. A high temperature control valve interfaced to the C30
control system meters the flow of LPP GasTM into the turbine. The exhaust from the turbine is
sampled from the 10.2 cm (4 in) diameter stack at a location 2 m from the turbine exit. The
sample probe is a 6.4 mm (1/4 in) stainless steel tube located at the centerline of the stack. The
sample is routed to a suite of Continuous Emissions Monitors (CEMs) using 6.4 mm (1/4 in)
Teflon tubing. NOx (chemiluminescent), CO (NDIR), and O2 (paramagnetic) analyzers are used
to provide measurements of NOx and CO corrected to 15 % O2 with estimated uncertainty of 1
% at 50 ppm and 10 % at 5 ppm levels. A cold trap is used to remove water before the
measurements, so the results are reported on a dry basis.
Figure 4: Capstone C30 test facility used to evaluate emissions for various fuels using the
LPP combustion technology

N2 CH4 Turbine Control

Heat In Valve

Vaporizer
Emissions
Microturbine
Naphtha

Pump

Figure 5: Schematic of LPP vaporizer and Capstone C30

LPP GasTM preparation
An LPP GasTM derived from a mixture of methane, nitrogen, and naphtha was prepared using a
lab-scale LPP system and burned in a Capstone C30 microturbine. This mixture is intended to
model a typical natural gas condensate stream. The composition of natural gas condensate
composition from a production facility is highly variable, in this case depending primarily on the
well fluid properties and the restrictions on export fluids. The simulation result for the "export"
condensate from the notional deepwater spar production facility is shown in Table 1 (first set of
values).

Dilution of the raw NGC with nitrogen changes both the dew point of the mixture and the
Modified Wobbe Index (MWI) of the mixture. MWI is a convenient metric for comparing
gaseous fuels at different temperatures [12], and is defined as:

LHV
MWI
SG T

where LHV is the fuel gas lower heating value (BTU/ft3), SG is the fuel gas specific gravity
relative to air, and T is the fuel gas absolute temperature (deg R). Although no one metric is
sufficient for predicting all aspects of a fuel's performance in a lean, premixed combustion
system, MWI is a convenient and commonly used basis for comparison of different fuels in a
given combustion system. The variation of dew point plus 14 deg K (25 deg F) of superheat with
nitrogen dilution is shown in Figure 6. The dew point is calculated using SUPERTRAPP [13] at
a pressure of 31.6 atm (450 psig, a typical supply pressure for a oil and gas industry gas turbines).
Also plotted is the temperature required to match the MWI of methane at 288 deg K (59 deg F)
as a function of nitrogen dilution. The minimum temperature and nitrogen dilution occurs at the
crossing point at about 36% mol nitrogen and 395 deg K. Lower nitrogen dilution requires
temperatures above the dew point to match methane MWI, involves a trade-off between heating
and nitrogen costs, and may start to hit material limits for fuel gas lines. Higher dilution requires
temperatures below the dew point to match methane MWI, and in this case the MWI criterion
must be relaxed. The composition of LPP GasTM derived from mixing the calculated simulation
export condensate with 36% mol nitrogen is shown in Table 1 (second set of results).
 Export NGC LPP Surrogate LPP
Condensate GasTM GasTM
mol % vol % vol %
H 2O 2.6 1.66
N2 - N2 36 N2 27
CO2 - CO2 - C1 35
H 2S - H2 S - Naphtha 38
C1 11 C1 7.04
C2 6.7 C2 4.29
C3 14.6 C3 9.34
C4 29.8 C4 19.08
C5+ 35.3 C5+ 22.59
Total 100 Total 100 Total 100
MW 54.77 MW 44.30 MW 51.4

Table 1: Natural Gas Condensate and LPP GasTM Compositions

800

Match CH4 MWI

700
Dew T + 25F Superheat

600
T [K]

500

400

300

200
0 10 20 30 40 50
N2 mole %

Figure 6: Variation of LPP GasTM dewpoint and MWI with nitrogen dilution

A surrogate NGC based LPP GasTM was prepared for testing in the C30 by blending methane,
nitrogen, and vaporized naphtha. The composition of naphtha is shown in Figure 7, in which the
species distribution is plotted by molecular weight for the major component classes: alkanes,
aromatics, and cycloalkanes. The naphtha composition by class is: alkane 95.5 mol %; aromatic
4.499 mol %; and cycloalkane 0.001 mol %, with total molecular weight of 100.4. This
distribution was determined by matching measured molecular weight, class composition, and
distillation curve [14]. The naphtha mole fraction roughly matches the >C3 content of the
hypothetical export condensate derived LPP GasTM. The nitrogen dilution was chosen to
roughly match the MWI of methane at 288 deg K (59 deg F) with surrogate LPP GasTM delivery
temperature of 523 deg K (482 deg F) (4% difference in MWI). The surrogate LPP GasTM
composition is shown in Table 1 (third set of results).

Distribution
0.5
Cycloalkanes
0.45
Aromatics
0.4
Alkanes
0.35
Mole Fraction

Naphtha (MW 100)

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
MW

Figure 7: Naphtha composition (mol fraction vs molecular weight) normalized to unity for
each component class
Results
NOx emissions (ppmv corrected to 15% O2) at 5 different loads are reported in Table 2 for C30
operation on methane, diluted naphtha (vaporized with 82% vol N2 with a resultant MWI of 23.2,
~50% of the cold methane value), and surrogate NGC LPP GasTM. The three methane runs were
made on separate days over a span of several weeks, and serve to provide an estimate of the error
in the data. This error includes factors such as measurement error and day to day differences in
turbine operation due to variation in ambient temperature, pressure, and humidity. Within the
error of the data, there is no difference in the NOx emissions between the three fuels in either the
diffusion or premixed combustion modes. This can be seen in Figure 8, in which the average
value of the NOx emissions for the three methane runs is plotted with the naphtha and surrogate
NGC LPP GasTM NOx data. Note that in the premixed mode NOx levels are below 5 ppmv in all
three cases.

Load Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 AVG STDEV Error Naphtha LPP Gas
[Kw] [ppm] [ppm] [ppm] [ppm] [ppm] [%] [ppm] [ppm]
5 50.85 43.53 50.39 48.26 4.10 8.49 39.64
10 53.84 49.17 54.22 52.41 2.81 5.37 52.14 48.02
15 61.12 53.12 59.79 58.01 4.28 7.39 56.54 53.74
20 66.65 58.77 55.91 60.44 5.56 9.20 73.45 67.84
25 3.46 3.04 4.04 3.51 0.50 14.35 3.95 3.30

Table 2: NOx emissions (ppmv corrected to 15% O2) for methane, diluted naphtha, and
surrogate NGC LPP GasTM

The CO emissions for C30 operation on methane, diluted naphtha, and surrogate NGC LPP
GasTM are shown in Table 3. The error in the CO measurements is larger than that of the NOx
measurements due to the fact that variation in ambient temperature can have a large effect on CO
emissions [15]. In an effort to quantify this error the error estimates in Table 3 are based on 9 sets
of measurements using various fuels over multiple days. As can be seen in Figure 9, the CO
emissions from the three fuels fall within the error bars except for the high load case, for which
the methane data point appears to be an outlier.

Load CH4 Est Error Naphtha LPP Gas

[Kw] [ppm] [ppm] [ppm] [ppm]
5 87.38 46.7 75.29
10 45.48 37.4 38.42 50.68
15 39.18 30.1 27.04 35.01
20 28.41 24.1 16.86 27.66
25 39.67 19.4 5.74 12.91
Table 3: CO emissions (ppmv corrected to 15% O2) for methane, diluted naphtha, and
surrogate NGC LPP GasTM

No operability issues were noted on either of the LPP fuels (naphtha or surrogate NGC LPP
GasTM). There were no instances of flashback (in premixed mode) or increased combustion
dynamics, and the transition between diffusion and premixed modes was normal.

80.00
Methane
70.00
Naphtha
60.00
NOx [ppm] @15% O2

NGC LPP Gas

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Load [KW]

Figure 8: NOx emissions (ppmv corrected to 15% O2) for methane, diluted naphtha, and
surrogate NGC LPP GasTM
 120.00

Methane
100.00
Naphtha
CO [ppm] @15% O2

80.00
NGC LPP Gas

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Load [KW]

Figure 9: CO emissions (ppmv corrected to 15% O2) for methane, diluted naphtha, and
surrogate NGC LPP GasTM
Conclusion
This work describes a phenomenon in which export stream specifications for deepwater facilities
may produce undesired natural condensates and demonstrates that these streams can be
converted into an LPP GasTM which can be burned in a gas turbine designed for DLN operation
on gas only. The LPP system can be utilized for greenfield or brownfield projects, including
tiebacks of new production fluids to existing processing facilities.

Results were obtained using a Capstone C30 microturbine and are similar to those observed for a
variety of liquid fuel derived LPP GasesTM tested using a common industry fuel injector designed
for DLN operation on natural gas [9].

NOx emissions for the surrogate NGC were less than 5 ppm in premix mode. CO
emissions were less than 20 ppm in premix mode.

No impact on operability (flashback and dynamics) was observed.

NOx and CO emissions are the same as those for natural gas operation in both diffusion
and premixed combustion modes.

Operation of a gas turbine on a NGC derived LPP GasTM allows utilization of these stranded
natural gas condensates for power generation or mechanical drive applications without the need
for typical fuel gas processing. Such an arrangement enables facilities to meet export
specifications and addresses the safety, operability, and cost of equipment associated with
handling natural gas condensates in a deepwater site.
References

[1] Manning, F.S. and Thompson, R.E., Oilfield Processing of Petroleum (Volume One:
Natural Gas), Pennwell Books, Tulsa, OK 1991.
[2] Plee, S.L. and Mellor, A.M., Review of Flashback in Prevaporizing/Premixing
Combustors, Combust. Flame 32, pp. 193-203, 1978.
[3] Oumejjoud, K., Stuttaford, P., Jennings, S., Rizkalla, H., Henriquez, J., and Chen, Y.,
Emissions, LBO and Combustion Characterization for Several Alternative Fuels, Proc.
ASME Turbo Expo 2005, Paper # GT2005-68561, 2005.
[4] Bourque, G., Healy, D., Curran, H., Simmie, J., de Vries, J., Antonovski, V., Corbin, B.,
Zinner, C., and Petersen, E., Effect of Higher order Hydrocarbons on Methane-Based Fuel
Chemistry at Gas Turbine Pressures, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2007, Paper # GT2007-
28039, 2007..
[5] Boschek, E., Griebel, P. and Jansohn, P., Fuel Variability Effects on Turbulent, Lean
Premixed Flames at High Pressures, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2007, Paper # GT2007-
27496, 2007.
[6] Bourque, G., Healy, D., Curran, H., Zinner, C., Kalitan, D., de Vries, J., Aul, C., and
Petersen, E., Ignition and Flame Speed Kinetics of Two Natural Gas Blends with High
Levels of Heavier Hydrocarbons, Proc ASME Turbo Expo 2008, Paper # GT2008-51344,
2008.
[7] Stuttaford, P., Alternative Fuel Considerations for Gas Turbine Combustion, Proc. ASME
Turbo Expo 2007, Paper # GT2007-27549, 2007.
[8] Lifshitz, A., Chemical and Combustion Kinetics, in Handbook of Shock Waves, Vol. 3,
Academic Press, New York, N.Y., 2001.
[9] Gokulakrishnan, P., Ramotowski, M. J., Gaines, G., Fuller, C., Joklik, R., Eskin, L.D.,
Klassen, M.S., and Roby, R.J., A Novel Low- NOx, Lean, Premixed Prevaporized
Combustion System for Liquid Fuels, ASME Turbo Expo 2007, Montreal, Canada, May
14-17, Paper GT2007-27552.
[10] Roby, R.J., Klassen, M.S. and C.F. Schemel, 2006, System for Vaporization of Liquid
Fuels for Combustion and Method of Use, U.S. Patent, #7,089,745 B2.
[11] Ramotowski, M.J., Roby, R.J., Eskin, L.D., and Klassen, M.S., Fuel Flexibility for Dry
Low Emission Gas Turbines Cleanly Burning Biofuels, Coal Liquids and Petroleum
Fuels, PowerGen Conference and Exposition 2007, New Orleans, LA., USA, December
10-13.
[12] Tiratsoo, E.N., Natural Gas, Scientific Press Ltd., Beaconsfield, England, 1972.
[13] Joklik, R., Fuller, C., Turner, B., and Gokulakrishnan, P., The Effect of Multi-Component
Fuel Evaporation on the Ignition of JP-8, Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2010, Paper # GT2010-
22990, 2010.
[14] Huber, M.L., NIST Standard Reference Database 4, NIST Thermophysical Properties of
Hydrocarbon Mixtures, Program Supertrapp, v. 3.2, Gaithersburg, MD, 2007.
[15] Lefebvre, A.H., Gas Turbine Combustion (2nd edition), Taylor & Francis, Philadelpia, PA,
1999