Research Papers: Energy Systems Analysis

Comparison of Near-Nozzle Spray Performance of Gas-to-Liquid and Jet A-1 Fuels Using Shadowgraph and Phase Doppler Anemometry

[+] Author and Article Information
Kumaran Kannaiyan

Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University at Qatar,
Education city,
Doha 23874, Qatar

Reza Sadr

Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843
e-mail: reza.sadr@qatar.tamu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Advanced Energy Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 8, 2017; final manuscript received January 24, 2018; published online March 29, 2018. Editor: Hameed Metghalchi.

J. Energy Resour. Technol 140(7), 072009 (Mar 29, 2018) (6 pages) Paper No: JERT-17-1693; doi: 10.1115/1.4039271 History: Received December 08, 2017; Revised January 24, 2018

The gas-to-liquid (GTL) fuel, a liquid fuel synthesized from natural gas through Fischer–Tropsch process, exhibits better combustion and, in turn, lower emission characteristics than the conventional jet fuels. However, the GTL fuel has different fuel properties than those of regular jet fuels, which could potentially affect its atomization and combustion aspects. The objective of the present work is to investigate the near-nozzle atomization characteristics of GTL fuel and compare them with those of the conventional Jet A-1 fuel. The spray experiments are conducted at different nozzle operating conditions under standard ambient conditions. The near-nozzle macroscopic spray characteristics are determined from the shadowgraph images. Near the nozzle exit, a thorough statistical analysis shows that the liquid sheet dynamics of GTL fuel is different from that of Jet A-1 fuel. However, further downstream, the microscopic spray characteristics of GTL fuel are comparable to those of the Jet A-1 fuel.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Agarwal, R. K. , 2011, “Environmentally Responsible Air and Ground Transportation,” AIAA Paper No. 2011-965.
Blakey, S. , Rye, L. , and Wilson, C. W. , 2011, “ Aviation Gas Turbine Alternative Fuels: A Review,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 33(2), pp. 2863–2885. [CrossRef]
Fyffe, D. , Moran, J. , Kumaran, K. , Sadr, R. , and Al-Sharshani, A. , 2011, “Effect of GTL-Like Jet Fuel Composition on GT Engine Altitude Ignition Performance—Part I: Combustor Operability,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45487.
Mosbach, T. , Gebel, G. C. , Le Clercq, P. , Sadr, R. , Kumaran, K. , and Al-Sharshani, A. , 2011, “Investigation of GTL-Like Jet Fuel Composition on GT Engine Altitude Ignition and Combustion Performance—Part II: Detailed Diagnostics,” ASME Paper No. GT2011-45510.
Askari, O. , Elia, M. , Ferrari, M. , and Metghalchi, H. , 2016, “ Auto-Ignition Characteristics Study of Gas-to-Liquid Fuel at High Pressures and Low Temperatures,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 139(1), p. 012204. [CrossRef]
Yu, G. , Askari, O. , Hadi, F. , Wang, Z. , Metghalchi, H. , Kannaiyan, K. , and Sadr, R. , 2016, “ Theoretical Prediction of Laminar Burning Speed and Ignition Delay Time of Gas-to-Liquid Fuel,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 139(2), p. 022202. [CrossRef]
Nash, L. , Klettlinger, J. , and Vasu, S. , 2017, “ Ellipsometric Measurements of the Thermal Stability of Alternative Fuels,” ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol., 139(6), p. 062207. [CrossRef]
Pucher, G. , Allan, W. , LaViolette, M. , and Piotras, P. , 2011, “ Emission From a Gas Turbine Sector Rig Operated With Synthetic Aviation and Biodiesel Fuel,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 133(11), p. 111502. [CrossRef]
Brown, C. T. , Mondragon, U. , and McDonell, V. , 2013, “Behavior of Alternative Fuels Injected as a Liquid Jet Into a Crossflow,” AIAA Paper No. 2013-0161.
Kumaran, K. , and Sadr, R. , 2014, “ Effect of Fuel Properties on Spray Characteristics of Alternative Jet Fuels Using Global Sizing Velocimetry,” Atomization Sprays, 24(7), pp. 575–597. [CrossRef]
Kannaiyan, K. , and Sadr, R. , 2014, “ Experimental Investigation of Spray Characteristics of Alternative Aviation Fuels,” Energy Convers. Manage., 88, pp. 1060–1069.
Zhao, J. , Zhao, B. , Wang, X. , and Yang, X. , 2017, “ Atomization Performance and TG Analysis of Fischer-Tropsch Fuel Compared With RP-3 Aviation Fuel,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 42(29), pp. 18626–18632. [CrossRef]
Kumaran, K. , and Sadr, R. , 2017, “ The Effects of Alumina Nanoparticles as Fuel Additives on the Spray Characteristics of Gas-to-Liquid Jet Fuels,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 87, pp. 93–103. [CrossRef]
Keane, R. D. , and Adrian, R. J. , 1992, “ Theory of Cross-Correlation Analysis of PIV Images,” Appl. Sci. Res., 49(3), pp. 191–215. [CrossRef]
Davy, M. H. , and Loustalan, P. W. , 2007, “ On the Sheet Breakup of Direct-Injection Gasoline Pressure Swirl Atomizer Sprays,” Atomization Sprays, 17(6), pp. 501–528. [CrossRef]
Meinhart, C. D. , Wereley, S. T. , and Santiago, J. G. , 2000, “ A PIV Algorithm for Estimating Time-Averaged Velocity Fields,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 122(2), pp. 285–289. [CrossRef]
Yamine, A. , Kumaran, K. , and Sadr, R. , 2015, “ Spray Visualization of Alternative Aviation Turbine Fuel Embedded With Metallic Nanoparticles,” Tenth Pacific Symposium on Flow Visualization and Image Processing, Naples, Italy, June 15–18, Paper No. 110.
Lefebvre, A. H. , 1989, Atomization and Sprays, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 67–68.
Dombrowski, N. , and Hooped, P. C. , 1962, “ The Effect of Ambient Density on Drop Formation in Sprays,” Chem. Eng. Sci. J., 17(4), pp. 291–305. [CrossRef]
Han, Z. , Xu, Z. , Wooldridge, S. T. , Yi, J. , and Lavoie, G. , 2001, “Modeling of DISI Engine Sprays With Comparison to Experimental In-Cylinder Spray Images,” SAE Paper No. 2001-01-3667.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Graphical representation of the optically accessible spray facility

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Averaging of instantaneous cross-correlations [13]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

The instantaneous images of GTL (top) and Jet A-1 (bottom) fuels highlighting the difference in their liquid sheet breakup length at Rep of 13,700

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the second-order moment (i.e., standard deviation, √σI2) of the image intensities at Rep of 13,700 (left) and 27,450 (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Axial variation (at r/Dn = 0) in standard deviation of the image intensities of GTL and Jet A-1 fuels at Rep of 13,700 (top) and 27,450 (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of contours of kurtosis of GTL (top) and Jet A-1 (bottom) fuels at (a) Rep = 13,700 and (b) Rep = 27,450

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Axial variation in liquid sheet velocities at r/Dn = 0 for GTL and Jet A-1 fuels at Rep = 13,700 (top) and 27,450 (bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Data rate profiles' variation at Rep = 13,700 for GTL and Jet A-1 fuels at different axial locations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of Sauter mean diameter of GTL and Jet A-1 fuels at Rep = 13,700




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In