Fuel 113 (2013) 158–164

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Diffusive burning characteristics of peroxy-fuels

Kirti Bhushan Mishra ⇑, Klaus-Dieter Wehrstedt
Division 2.2 ‘‘Reactive Substances and Systems’’, BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing, Unter den Eichen 87, 12205 Berlin, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The diffusive burning characteristics of four peroxy-fuels (usually known as liquid organic peroxides) and
Received 22 August 2012 one hydrocarbon fuel are experimentally investigated targeting alternative fuels (or as additives to con-
Received in revised form 7 February 2013 ventional fuels) for the future. Measurements are performed in form of pool fires with pool diameters in
Accepted 7 May 2013
the range between 1 cm and 1 m. Mass, momentum and energy transfer studies are carried out by mea-
Available online 10 June 2013
suring the mass burning rate, flame length, flame temperature and radiation heat transfer across the
liquid fuel and gaseous flame. It has been shown that comparatively much less mass of peroxy-fuels
Keywords:
and pressure drop (required to maintained the flow) of fuel are required to produce a given heat flux.
Burning characteristics
Peroxy-fuels
The momentum delivered by the peroxy-fuel vapours are order of magnitude higher than for hydrocar-
Hydrocarbons bons making the visibility of flame to be 4–5 times larger. A heat balance analysis shows that the total
Pool fires heat release rate of a peroxy-fuel fire is contributed equally by convection and radiation. Finally, the three
Three E’s E’s (Efficiency, Economy and Emission) are discussed in the context of present experimental results fol-
lowed by some recommendations concerning safe handling of the proposed fuels.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction there are some investigations done before on organic peroxides

The US Energy Information Administration projects that by
2035 the worlds global energy consumption to be more than dou-
bled of 1990s [1]. Fossil fuels (liquid, solid and gaseous) will fulfil
majority of this excess demand followed by renewables and nucle-
ar [1]. Clearly, combustion will be the major mode of energy con-
version from these fuels at least in the coming decades. The
result of increased volume of combustion will have huge environ-
mental impact in terms of emissions which are either directly or
indirectly contributing towards global warming [2].
In this article the possibilities to utilise organic peroxides as
alternative fuels in industrial combustion processes for an efficient
combustion and to reduced environmental impacts are
investigated.
Organic peroxides belong to energetic materials and are liable
to exothermic decomposition. Some commercially available prod-
ucts may decompose explosively, particularly if confined [3]. Only
few of these are able to propagate a detonation or a deflagration.
However, for such organic peroxides this characteristic is sup-
pressed by adding appropriate diluents and/or the use of suitable
packagings. As initiators, additives and combustion improvers they
are well known [4–7]. Since liquid organic peroxides have not been
actually used in combustion processes yet as main fuels as such
from here onwards they will be called as peroxy-fuels. Although
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 30 81044453; fax: +49 30 81041227.
E-mail address: kirti-bhushan.mishra@bam.de (K.B. Mishra).
[4,5] they do not inform much about the combustion properties
of the same. The detailed investigations on the combustion (non-
premixed) characteristics of peroxy-fuels to the authors best
knowledge were reported in [8–10]. The objective was to investi-
gate the safety aspects of peroxy-fuel pool fires. The laboratory-
and field-scale fires with different peroxy-fuels were performed
and the fire characteristics, e.g. mass burning rate, flame length,
flame temperature and heat flux due to radiation were measured
and were also simulated [8–10].
The next anticipated issue is related to the efficiency, economy
and emissions (the three E’s). Undoubtedly, they are relatively
more efficient than hydrocarbons. The exact estimations of costs
are not possible to report now. However, depending on experience
there should be a remarkable saving in overall costs. Emissions are
expected to be much lower than in case of hydrocarbons for the
reasons stated in Section 4.5.
This paper is organised to address above issues in bit detail
based on experimental facts given in the respective sections
emphasising the conserved quantities.
2. Peroxy-fuels
There is a wide variety of peroxy-fuels that can be explored for
their potential utilisation in various combustion applications. In
this particular study, the discussion is limited only up to four
peroxy-fuels listed in Table 1. Their full names are as follows:
INP: Di-(3,5,5-trimethylhexanoyl) peroxide, TBPEH: tert-Butyl

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.05.031
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Fuel 113 (2013) 158–164 159

Table 1
Properties of investigated peroxy-fuels and kerosene.

Type of fuel? INP TBPEH TBPB DTBP Kerosene Jet A-1

Parameter;
Formula C18H34O4 C12H24O3 C11H14O3 C8H18O2 –
Molar mass (g/mol) 314.5 216.32 194.2 146.2 –
Active oxygen (%) 5.09 7.40 8.24 10.94 –
Enthalpy of combustion (DHc) (MJ/kg) 30.1 34.5 30.1 36.6 43.1
TSADT [3] (K) 293 308 338 358 –
Air to fuel ratio (–) 10.7 10.52 9.23 10.86 15
m_ 00f (kg/m2s) (d = 1 m) 4.22 0.78 0.62 0.29 0.07

Fig. 1. Chemical structures of the investigated peroxy-fuels.

peroxy-2-ethylhexanoate, TBPB: tert-Butyl peroxybenzoate, DTBP:

Di-tert-butyl peroxide.
Peroxy-fuels contain at least one O–O bond in their chemical
structure which is more or less easy to break [6] (Fig. 1). Upon ther-
mal decomposition they release a complete range of products. The
major decomposition products, e.g. of DTBP are acetone and ethane
[9]. The interesting thing in the structure of DTBP is the symmetry
and the associated protection of the O–O bond given by the two
tert-butyl groups (+I-effect) which stabilise the molecule and influ-
ence significantly the combustion process and makes it different
from the others. In contrast, such a stabilisation effect does not ex-
ist in case of INP, e.g. due to the length of the side chains and the
influence of the two carbonyl groups (I-effect) with the conse-
quence that the so called self-accelerating decomposition temper-
ature (SADT) is lower (see Section 3.2). Based on their structure,
the (thermal) stability of TBPB and TBPEH is between DTBP and
INP [11,12].
3. Experiments
3.1. Description and procedure
The combustion characteristics of four different peroxy-fuels
and one hydrocarbon fuel, i.e. kerosene are measured (in form of
pool fires) (Table 1). The arrangement is shown in Fig. 2. The liquid
fuels were filled in pan sizes ranging from d = 0.01 m to 1 m and
were ignited by a hand torch. The average mass loss (burning) rate
(kg/(m2 s)) was measured by a weighing instrument. The weighing
instrument was kept on a stable steel table. In measurements we
recorded the loss of fuel with time. It was seen that the total
amount of peroxy-fuel was consumed in much (10 to 300 times)
lesser time than that taken by kerosene. The average flame lengths
were determined by using video and thermographic images,
respectively. A number of thermocouples were located at the flame
axis and heat flux sensors (at various distances from fire) were lo-
cated on the ground to measure the heat flux (due to radiation).
Fig. 2. Experimental set-up.
3.2. Safety issues
The regulations for safe storage and transportation of hydrocar-
bons depend on many factors. Most importantly prevention from
fire and explosion hazards. Safety distances from fire hazards are
given in terms of thermal radiation (according to NFPA: 5 kW/m2
for skin burn injury) whereas overpressure (5 kPa, typical pressure
for glass breakage) determines the explosion strength. Please see
[10,13,14] for more details.
Apart from above there are some standards developed for the
safe handling (storage and transportation) of peroxy-fuels. The
most widely followed norm is based on the Self-Accelerating
Decomposition Temperature (TSADT) [3,10,11]. It is the lowest
temperature at which the self-accelerated decomposition of per-
oxy-fuels in a defined packaging start. These TSADT values for the
investigated peroxy-fuels are listed in Table 1. It is recommended
that the processing of peroxy-fuels is occur preferably below this
temperatures.
3.3. Uncertainty in measurements
A detailed uncertainty analysis of the measured data is not car-
ried out in the present study. However, it has been approximated
(Table 2) based on the measurement data available in [8–10,15].
The correct estimation of emissivity, convective heat transfer coef-
ficient and sensitivities of heat flux sensors to cross wind condi-
tions are the key parameters to be addressed in future.
4. Result and discussions
The results are presented with an objective to highlight the
average values of conserved quantities, i.e. mass, momentum and
160 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Fuel 113 (2013) 158–164

Table 2
Uncertainties in the measurements.

Parameter Uncertainty Remarks

Mass burning rate ±13% [10] Based on small-scale fire measurements (d 6 0.18 m) under no cross-wind conditions
Flame length ±9% [10] Small-scale fire measurements (d 6 0.18 m) under no cross-wind conditions
Heat flux ±23% to ±43% [24] Large-scale fire measurements (d P 1 m) under no cross-wind and cross-wind conditions
Flame temperature ±10% to ±17% [10] Small- and large-scale fire measurements (0.01 6 d 6 3.4 m), thermographic camera, emissivity set to 0.9 [27]

Fig. 4. Mass burning rate versus pan diameter.

[8–10]. In other words, this excess mass of fuel is being transferred

within the same time. We refer to Archimedes number (Ar) [17] to
explain effect of buoyant forces on burning characteristics. Ar is de-
fined as the buoyant to inertial forces. Due to higher burning rates
Ar values for peroxy-fuels are 1 (prevailing forced convection un-
der atmospheric burning conditions). However, the Ar for kerosene
Fig. 3. Mass balance in a typical pool fire.
is 1 which indicates the dominance of natural convection.
Interestingly, this excess transfer of mass is taking place natu-
rally, i.e. without any external pressure 4p. In order to achieve
energy. The representation of mass conservation has been done by
same burning rate (and similar lengths of flames) like peroxy-fuels
the measurement of average mass burning rate of the fuel. Average
a hydrocarbon fuel, e.g. kerosene has to be burned with higher
flame length and heat flux measurements correspond to the
pressure by using a hydraulic feed pump. This pump pressure is re-
momentum and energy conservation, respectively. At last the three
ferred to as 4p which is connected to mass flow (burning) rate of
E’s and safety aspects are discussed in the context of peroxy-fuels.
fuel (liquid) by the relation given in the following equation:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4.1. Mass burning rate (mass conservation)
_ 00f /
m 4p: ð1Þ

While in case of kerosene an external source of pressure, e.g. a fuel

Mass conservation in a typical pool fire [16] is governed by the
mass of fuel (vapour) crossing the liquid surface. This is shown in
Fig. 3. A simple equation describing the same would be (under
 00 
steady burning conditions): Mass loss of liquid fuel m _ f (density
of
 fuel times velocity of regression) = Mass gain of gaseous flame
_ 00g (density of gases times velocity of gases).
m
The physics behind the measurement of the mass burning rate
is based on the following facts:
1. Liquid fuel was burned under atmospheric conditions and no
external pressure source was used.
2. After ignition (by hand torch) the liquid level regressed with
time and the flame developed.
3. This regression rate (m/s) is further multiplied with the density
of liquid fuel (kg/m3) to get the mass loss rate (kg/(m2 s)). This
mass loss rate is referred as mass burning rate [9,10,12].
 00 
The mass burning rates m _ f plotted against pan diameters (d)
of four different peroxy-fuels and kerosene are shown in Fig. 4. Per-
oxy-fuels (those shown in Fig. 4 and listed in Table 1) are burning
10–333 times faster than kerosene depending on the pan diameter
feed pump would be necessary to transfer the similar quantity per-
oxy-fuels do not enforce such requirement [8–10,18–21]. Due to the
higher supply of mass the total heat release rate per unit burned
area q_ 00 (MW/m2) [22,23] as written below in Eqs. (2) and (3) is also
proportionately increased.
q_ 00 ¼ m
_ 00f 4 Hc ð2Þ
where 4Hc is the heat of combustion in MJ/kg.
q_ 00 / m
_ 00f ð3Þ
The pressure drop 4p required to be maintained for a given flow
rate of a liquid fuel is given by Eq. (1) [2].
For a fixed heat flux from peroxy-fuel and kerosene it can be
postulated (Eq. (3)) that in case of later comparatively larger mass
fluxes of liquid fuel would be needed although any quantitative
description on the same cannot be given at this point of time.
Although heat of combustion of kerosene is higher than of per-
oxy-fuels the total heat flux (depending on the mass burning rate)
in case of peroxy-fuels is much higher. That is purely governed by
the amount of fuel goes into the combustion process. And that is
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Fuel 113 (2013) 158–164
why in order to get an idea of what higher amount of kerosene
would be needed a comparison between diffusive burning of kero-
sene and peroxy-fuels were made. Another fact that contributes to-
wards fast burning is the presence of active oxygen atoms which
would otherwise not be available in pressurised burning of kero-
sene (in air). Moreover the air to fuel ratio required for the com-
plete combustion of peroxy-fuels are also smaller than for
kerosene (Table 1). This imply reduction in the overall volume of
combustion as the fuel and oxidiser quantity required for a given
heat flux are considerably reduced. In addition to this the active
oxygen content helps to accelerate the combustion process [19–
21]. In fact it exhibits an environment like oxy-fuel combustion
(fuel is combusted in pure oxygen and not in air [2]). Under boost
combustion conditions peroxy-fuel did not show any NOx which
would otherwise be not true for kerosene. Due to fast reactions
(small residence times), oxygen enriched combustion and small
air to fuel ratio the advantages of oxy-fuel combustion conditions
are also achieved at the same time.
Another interesting thing to observe in Fig. 4 is that the mass
burning rate of peroxy-fuels do not exhibit significant dependence
on the pan size whereas at the same time kerosene shows this
independence only at or after d = 0.3 m. This has been explained
(for hydrocarbons) before in the literature with some fluid dy-
namic aspects. Very often, at or above d = 0.3 m the pool fires (of
hydrocarbons) become turbulent and hence the mass burning rates
do not change with the pan size [10,12,13,23]. Observing this in
case of peroxy-fuels leads to a conclusion that the peroxy-fuels
are turbulent right from small possible pan sizes (Fig. 4). This kind
of behaviour in pool fires have not been seen before except a few
those reported for alcohols and silicone fluids in [8–10,13,24,25].
Babrauskas [24] measured mass burning rate of alcohols for
pool diameter between 0.2 m and 2 m which covers transition
from convection to radiation region. For diameter 60.2 m that
really weakens the statement. Moreover, for alcohols this is not
that strong as in case of proxy-fuels. For example the fluctuation
in the mean value in case of alcohol is between ±0.08 kg/m2 s
means a deviation of 53%. This value for peroxy-fuel (DTBP) is
±0.07 kg/m2 s for a mean value of 0.25 kg/m2 s with a deviation
of only 28%.
We suspect that the number of measurement points were too
less to conclude something precisely. The above also supports
the fact that peroxy-fuel show this non-dependence on diameter
twice as strongly as alcohols do.
4.2. Flame length (momentum conservation)
For the determination of momentum exchange between liquid
fuel and gaseous flame a number of instantaneous visible flame
images (total number N = 15) were averaged and a time averaged
flame length was obtained. Such a flame length (H) for peroxy-
fuels is 4–5 times higher than a corresponding flame of kerosene
(Fig. 5). When calculated the velocity of fuel vapours u by using
Eq. (4) of Fuel Froude number Frf [26]
_ 00
m u
Fr f ¼ pf ffiffiffiffiffiffi ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi ;
qa gd gd
qa (1.2 kg/m3) and g (9.81 m/s2) are the density of ambient air and
gravitational acceleration, respectively, it reveals that under negli-
gible cross wind conditions, u  0.63 m/s (d = 0.18 m, TBPEH) corre-
sponds to a H of 3 m. The similar calculation for kerosene led to a
value of u  0.04 m/s representing a height of H of 0.6 m. Clearly,
kerosene has to be burned 16 times faster (under external pres-
sure, see Eq. (3)) in order to achieve the similar length of flame. This
higher fuel vapour velocity (consequently the momentum) and
large length of flame are coming from the thermophysical and
161
chemical properties of the fuel. Another interesting fact to mention
here is that for hydrocarbon pool fires (especially the large ones) the
initial fuel vapour leaves the liquid surface with a very low initial
momentum 0.01 m/s [26] whereas in case of peroxy-fuels they
are orders of magnitude higher. This fact is further supported by
analysing the semi-empirical equations developed for estimating
the flame lengths of pool and jet fires. For the pool fires of per-
oxy-fuels the flame lengths show rather proximity to jet fires
2 2
ðH / ðFrf Þ5 Þ than to pool fires ðH / ðFrf Þ3 Þ [10,26]. It has been further
demonstrated in the thermographic images shown in Figs. 6 and 7
where a square section of 0.4 m above the liquid fuel surface of ker-
osene and TBPB are depicted. The temperature profiles indicate that
the kerosene flame is buoyancy driven whereas TBPB clearly exhib-
its similarity to a jet flame. Therefore, naturally burned peroxy-fuel
flames should be considered somewhere between high momentum
jet diffusion flames and pool flames and can be called as low
momentum jet diffusion flames [10].
4.3. Flame temperatures
The measured averaged flame temperatures (by thermographic
camera) of kerosene and DTBP are shown in Fig. 8. DTBP, for the
same diameter, exhibits 200–500 K higher flame temperatures
than kerosene. Due to the fast mixing (fuel and air) and burning
of DTBP the temperatures of the flame rose up to 1500 K
(d = 1 m). Furthermore, the flame temperature measured with
thermographic camera can also be seen in Figs. 6 and 7. The flame
emissivity was set as 0.9 depending on the previous studies carried
out for optically thick fires [10,22]. There also a difference of
250 K between kerosene and DTBP flame is measured [9–11].
The temperatures measured by the thermocouples located at
the flame axis (Fig. 2) were always 50–150 K smaller than those
measured with thermographic camera. The losses due to radiation
(soot deposition on the tip of thermocouples) let the thermocouple
do not see the flame and are obscured by smoke. Hence lower val-
ues of temperatures were measured. The detailed reasons for such
discrepancies are discussed elsewhere [10,27].
4.4. Heat transfer (Energy conservation)
The total energy transfer rate from a pool fire is constituted of
conduction (small d), convection (medium d) and radiation (large
d). A part of total energy is also being lost in forms of unsteadiness
of the process and reradiation effects [24]. However, they are not
discussed here in detail. The total heat release rate Q_ in MW from
a fire is normally obtained by multiplying area of burned surface to
the right hand side of Eq. (2). However, if the burned surface is kept
constant there is no other way to increase the heat release rate ex-
cept by increasing the mass flow rate of fuel (see Eq. (2)). Hence,
under fixed burned surface (AB) conditions the total heat release
rate of a peroxy-fuel flame is higher than of hydrocarbons in the
same proportion as the mass burning rate.
The total heat release rate Q_ total for a peroxy-fuel (e.g. TBPEH,
d = 1 m) is 21 MW. This total heat release rate Q_ total can be divided
into convective Q_ conv and radiative Q_ rad parts, respectively, as writ-
ð4Þ
ten below in Eqs. (5)–(7) [23,24]. For a large diameter pool the heat
transfer due to conduction can be neglected [15].
Q_ total ¼ Q_ conv þ Q_ rad þ Losses ð5Þ
When considering the flame as of cylindrical shape (d = 1 m and
H = 5 m) the convective part becomes
Q_ conv ¼ hAF ðT F  T a Þ þ 2hAFT ð6Þ
or FB
2
where h is the convective heat transfer coefficient (210 W/m K is
based on the heat transfer analysis and assumption for peroxy-fuel
162 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Fuel 113 (2013) 158–164

Fig. 5. Visible flame lengths of kerosene and peroxy-fuels.

Fig. 6. Flame temperatures of kerosene pool fire (0.4 m  0.4 m section above the liquid pool surface).

Fig. 7. Flame temperatures of TBPB pool fire (0.4 m  0.4 m section above the liquid pool surface).
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Fuel 113 (2013) 158–164
Fig. 8. Average flame temperatures of kerosene and DTBP.
flame as a vertical cylinder [10], for hydrocarbon flames it is 21 W/
m2 K [13]); A (m2) and T (K) represent area and temperature and
subscripts FT and FB represent FlameTop and FlameBottom, respec-
tively. The measured TF for TBPEH was 1500 K and Ta was 293 K.
Heat transfer due to radiation can be written as follows
Q_ rad ¼ EAF þ 2EAFT or FB :
where E is the flame emissive power given by Eq. (8) [10]
 
E ¼ re T 4F  T 4a :
In Eq. (8), r is Stefan–Boltzmann constant (5.67  108 W/m2 K4)
and e is the emissivity of flame.
The total average convective and radiative heat release rate as
estimated by Eqs. (6) and (7) are to be about 5.6 MW each (27%
of total heat release rate) which means that both equally contrib-
uting towards the total heat release rate. However, care must be
exercised while selecting the parameters, e.g. h, TF and e. The
uncertainties associated with these quantities are discussed in
Section 3.3.
4.5. The three E’s (Efficiency, Economy and Emission)
The average estimation of thermal efficiency gth for an open
system (pool fire) can be defined as the ratio of output (sum of con-
vective and radiative heat transfer) to input (the total heat release
rate) as written below in Eq. (9).
output output
gth ¼ ¼
_ f AB 4 H C
; ð9Þ
input m emission.
For a fixed output from a fixed burning surface in cases of kerosene
(subscript 1) and peroxy-fuels (subscript 2) it can be written as (the
heats of combustion of kerosene and peroxy-fuels do not differ
appreciably)
gth1 m_ f2
¼ :
gth2 m_ f1
By considering the total output as the sum of convective and radi-
ative power as in the previous section gth for peroxy-fuels has been
estimated to be about 54%. The same for kerosene amounts to be
35%. That means peroxy-fuel burning exhibit about 19% higher effi-
ciency. For fixed efficiencies it can be further shown that only 14% of
fuel will be required when peroxy-fuel is burned like kerosene. Or
in other words almost seven times more kerosene has to be burned
to exhibit a similar flame like peroxy-fuel.
Utilising Eq. (10) for a fixed heat flux from a fixed burned
surface, i.e. AB from hydrocarbons and peroxy-fuels it reveals that
163
peroxy-fuels are on an average basis 10–333 times more efficient
than hydrocarbons.
A detailed analysis on the economy of peroxy-fuels has not been
performed in this work. Although some postulations can be made
on the basis of the presented results. Taking an average cost per-
oxy-fuels are about 4–5 times costlier than kerosene. But as men-
tioned before peroxy-fuels need not to be combusted in the same
amount as kerosene. Instead for the investigated peroxy-fuels this
amount can be brought down to 10–333 times smaller than in case
of kerosene. Such an estimation concludes that peroxy-fuels are
about 5–167 times more economical than kerosene.
Emission from peroxy-fuel combustion is very important to be
addressed here. The proposed fuels are burned only in form of pool
fires and the burning time was about 3–4 min. During this time the
combustion gases were collected at the exhaust hood of a Single
Burning Item (SBI) test facility. The concentration of different spe-
cies (end products of combustion) were measured by Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy.
Considering CO production (d = 6 cm) in a TBPB fire it varied be-
tween 20 ppm and 70 ppm whereas for TBPEH the same was be-
tween 1 and 4 ppm. We have not carried out measurements for
soot production. Nevertheless, visual observation led to the follow-
ing facts:
ð7Þ 1. Both, TBPB and TBPEH showed relatively much soot production.
For d P 1 m, some parts of the flame were seen obscured by
black smoke.
ð8Þ 2. DTBP and INP produced much less soot. Black smoke was seen
(d P 1 m) only on the top of the flames.
On the basis of above we rank the fuels in the following order of
soot and CO production: DTBP < INP < TBPEH < TBPB.
In such measurements there were no NOx production seen
for all investigated peroxy-fuels [unpublished data]. Although
these measurements cannot be treated as the representatives
of real time tests where the fuel is burning (under pressure)
for number of hours in a closed environment we consider it as
a very initial and rough estimation. The reduction in fuel quan-
tity directly leads to a reduction in air amount. The stoichiome-
tric air to fuel ratio of peroxy-fuels are smaller than for kerosene
(see Table 1) and it is the air which brings nitrogen alongwith
and contributes towards NOx formation [28]. In addition to this
the residence times of peroxy-fuel elements in the combustion
process are relatively much smaller than for kerosene which also
helps to produce less favourable conditions to form NOx [29].
Undoubtedly, more experiments under more realistic conditions
are required to be performed for the correct estimation of
The results described in the paper no way relate to a practical
combustion system. All the results and deduction of possible
advantages are made solely on the basis of pool fire like configura-
tion. The factors come from the same source. Nonetheless, the fac-
tors are given for the sake of comparison and no way should be
treated for real combustion systems.
ð10Þ
5. Conclusions and future work
The diffusive burning characteristics of four peroxy-fuels and
one hydrocarbon fuel in form of pool fires were experimentally
investigated. Mass, momentum and energy transfer studies were
performed by measuring the mass burning rates, flame lengths
and the total heat release rates. Additionally, the three E’s (Effi-
ciency, Economy and Emission) were estimated and the safety is-
sues were highlighted. The major conclusions summarised from
this work are as follows:
164 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Fuel 113 (2013) 158–164
1. Peroxy-fuels transfer 10–333 times higher mass in a fixed time
compared to kerosene.
2. The momentum transferred (in form of flame lengths) by the
peroxy-fuels are 4–5 times higher than for kerosene.
3. Total heat release rate of peroxy-fuels are constituted equally
by convection and radiation.
4. Thermal efficiency of the investigated peroxy-fuel pool flames
are up to 19% higher than for kerosene.
5. For fixed thermal efficiencies much less amount of peroxy-fuels
are required than in case of kerosene.
6. Due to significant amount of fuel saving as in (5) peroxy-fuels
would be more economical than kerosene.
7. The emissions from peroxy-fuel combustion are expected to be
comparatively low. However, there must be further experimen-
tal evidences supporting this.
The application of peroxy-fuels in industrial combustion pro-
cesses requires much more detailed studies. This paper can be con-
sidered as a beginning of the same.
References
[1] International Energy Outlook 2011, Report No. DOE/EIA-0484(2011). US
Energy Information Administration; 2011.
[2] Baukal CE. Industrial combustion pollution and control. New York, USA: CRC
Press; 2001. p. 5.
[3] UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model
Regulations, 17th revised ed. New York and Geneva; 2011. p. 99.
[4] Pritchard HO. Anaerobic operation of an internal combustion engine. US Patent
No.4800847.
[5] Pritchard HO, Clothier PQE. J Chem Soc Chem Commun 1986:1529–30.
[6] Meijer J, Hogt AH, Fischer B. Organic peroxides in radical synthesis reactions.
Akzo Nobel Polymer Chemicals Laboratory, Deventer; 2011. p. 1–11.
[7] Eng JA, Leppard WR, Sloane TM. The effect of Di-Tertiary Butyl Peroxide (DTBP)
addition to gasoline on HCCI Combustion. SAE paper No. 2003-01-3170,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2003-01-3170.
[8] Wehrstedt K-D, Wandrey PA. Experimental investigations of pool fires of
organic peroxides, PTB Report No. PTB-W-54. Physikalisch-Technische
Bundesanstalt (PTB) Brunswick; 1993.
[9] Chun H. Experimentelle Untersuchungen und CFD-Simulationen von DTBP-
Poolfeuern, PhD thesis, BAM Dissertation Series 23. Bundesanstalt für
Materialforschung und -prüfung, Berlin; 2007.
[10] Mishra KB. Experimental investigation and CFD simulation of organic peroxide
pool fires (TBPB and TBPEH), BAM Dissertation Series 63. Bundesanstalt für
Materialforschung und -prüfung, Berlin; 2010.
[11] SAFETY AND HANDLING OF ORGANIC PEROXIDES: a guide prepared by the
organic peroxide producers safety division of the society of the plastics
industry, Inc., The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., OPPSD Bulletin AS-109
(2012 edition). <http://www.plasticsindustry.org/files/about/oppsd/AS-
109%20v%208%2006%202012.pdf>.
[12] Mishra KB, Wehrstedt K-D. Decomposition effects on the mass burning rate of
organic peroxide pool fires. J Loss Prevention Process Ind 2012;25(1):224–6.
[13] Mudan KS. Thermal radiation hazards from hydrocarbon pool fires. Prog
Energy Combust Sci 1984;10:59–80.
[14] Mishra KB, Wehrstedt KD, Krebs H. Lessons learned from recent fuel storage
fires. J Fuel Process Technol 2013;107:166–72.
[15] Nakos JT. Uncertainty analysis of steady state incident heat flux measurements
in hydrocarbon fuel fires. Report No. SAND2005-7144. Sandia National
Laboratories; 2009.
[16] Fang J, Tu R, Guan J, Wang JJ, Zhang YM. Influence of low air pressure on
combustion characteristics and flame pulsation frequency of pool fires. Fuel
2011;90:2760–6.
[17] Incropera FP et al. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. 5th ed. Wiley;
2001. ISBN 978-0471386506.
[18] Mishra KB, Wehrstedt K-D. A more efficient and clean fuel for the processing
industry, World Patent No. WO/2011/11026742; 2011.
[19] Mishra KB, Wehrstedt K-D. (2011) Rocket fuel, World Patent No. WO/2011/
091874; 2011.
[20] Mishra KB, Wehrstedt K-D. Burner for peroxy fuels and furnace comprising
such a burner, World Patent No. WO/2011/09187; 2011.
[21] Mishra KB, Wehrstedt K-D. Components for combustion engines operating on
peroxy-fuels, German Patent No. DE102011051228A1; 2012 (filed).
[22] Muñoz M, Arnaldos J, Casal J, Planas E. Analysis of the geometric and radiative
characteristics of hydrocarbon pool fires. Combust Flame 2004;139:
63–277.
[23] Drysdale D. An introduction to fire dynamics. 2nd ed. West Sussex, UK: John
Willey and Sons Ltd.; 2005. p. 161.
[24] Babrauskas V. Estimating large pool fire burning rates. Fire Technol
1983;19:251–61. <http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire92/PDF/f92029.pdf>.
[25] Buch R, Hamins A, Konishi K, Mattingly D, Kashiwagi T. Radiative emission
fraction of pool fires burning silicon fluids. Combust Flame 1997;108:118–26.
[26] Fay JA. Model of large pool fires. J Hazard Mater 2006;B136:19–232.
[27] Mishra KB, Wehrstedt K-D, Schönbucher A. <www.combustion.org.uk/
ECM_2009/P810353.pdf>.
[28] Joshi ML, Darien IL. Oxy-fuel combustion firing configurations. US Patent No.
6398547B1; 2002.
[29] Blakey S, Rye L, Wilson CW. Aviation gas turbine alternative fuels: a review.
Proc Combust Inst 2011;33:2863–85.