Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2014: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition

GT2014
June 16 – 20, 2014, Düsseldorf, Germany

GT2014-25842

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF FUEL PROPERTIES ON SPRAY

PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATIVE JET FUEL

Kumaran Kannaiyan Reza Sadr

Texas A&M University at Qatar Texas A&M University at Qatar
Doha, Qatar Doha, Qatar
kumaran.kannaiyan@qatar.tamu.edu reza.sadr@qatar.tamu.edu

ABSTRACT Oh Ohnesorge number

We Weber number
Increase in energy demand and stringent emission norms lay
emphasis on the need for cleaner, alternative fuels. Application 2. INTRODUCTION
of Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) fuel, a synthetic fuel obtained from
The global transportation sector (aviation and ground transport
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, as an alternate aviation fuel has
combined) consumes about 50% of world petroleum
been the subject of attention in recent years. This is mainly due
production and produces about 60% of all greenhouse gas
to its cleaner combustion characteristics when compared to
emissions worldwide [1]. Aviation industry is expected to see a
conventional jet fuel and the reduction of dependence on the
faster growth when compared to other means of transportation
crude oil supply. However, chemical and physical properties of
in the near future with petroleum based liquid fuels as its major
the GTL are different from conventional jet fuels owing to the
source of power [1]. Nonetheless, the dwindling oil resources,
difference in their production methodology. The change in GTL
increasing environmental concerns, and the urge to ensure
fuel physical properties could potentially alter the atomization
supply security have increased the interest in alternative fuels
characteristics, which, in turn affects the evaporation, mixing,
from other feed-stocks such as biomass, natural gas, and coal.
combustion, and finally the pollutant formation processes.
These synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) fuels are
Therefore, it is important to have a thorough understanding of
increasingly considered as a viable alternative fuel for gas
the combustion precursors of GTL fuel to better understand the
turbine engines as they do not warrant any major modifications
combustion and emission processes. A comprehensive
to the fuel injection/combustor system [2]. Among other SPK
evaluation of the microscopic spray characteristics of GTL and
fuels, GTL, a liquid fuel derived from natural gas through F-T
Jet A-1 fuels are carried out using a point-wise laser diagnostic
synthesis has gained more attention due to its cleaner
technique, Phase Doppler Anemometry at atmospheric
combustion characteristics when compared to other synthetic
condition. The spray characteristics are investigated at several
fuels [3]-[7]. Although, the production cost of GTL fuels is
axial and radial locations of the spray. Results obtained clearly
high at present, it is expected to decrease with the increase in
show that the influence of fuel properties on the spray
the consumption of GTL fuels in the near future [8].
characteristics at atmospheric condition is mostly observed near
the nozzle exit, rather than in regions further downstream. Owing to the difference in the production process between
GTL and conventional jet fuels, their chemical and physical
1. NOMENCLATURE properties are different. This difference in physical and
chemical properties could potentially affect the spray and
F-T Fischer-Tropsch
combustion performance in combustors, respectively. It is well
GTL Gas-to-Liquid
known that the combustion efficiency is very much dependent
GSV Global Sizing Velocimetry
on the rate of evaporation of the liquid fuels, which in turn
MDG Mono-disperse Droplet Generator
depends on the atomization characteristics. Therefore, it is
PDA Phase Doppler Anemometry
essential to have a thorough knowledge of the atomization
SPK Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene
characteristics of GTL fuels to better understand the later
SMD Sauter Mean Diameter

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 processes (such as evaporation, mixing and combustion) inside
the combustor.
Kook and Pickett [9] compared the macroscopic spray
characteristics (penetration length and cone angle) of diesel,
JP-8, Jet-A, GTL, and coal based liquid fuels in a constant
volume chamber at ambient and injection conditions typical of
a diesel engine. They reported a shorter penetration length for
GTL fuel when compared to those of conventional, diesel and
jet fuels, owing to faster evaporation of GTL fuel. Pucher et al.
[10] investigated the applicability of JP-8, four types of fatty
acid methyl esters, and GTL fuel in a military aircraft using a
gas turbine combustor rig. The spray characteristics were
measured at an injection pressure of 100 psi (0.69 MPa) using
PDA technique at one location close to the nozzle exit. Their
results show that GTL fuel generated smaller droplets in the
centre region of the spray when compared to JP-8. This was
attributed to lower GTL fuel properties (density and viscosity)
than those of JP-8. DeWitt et al. [11] conducted an evaluation
study of the F-T based fuels for use in aviation engines. They
blended JP-8 and F-T synthetic fuel (natural gas derived) and
compared their atomization performance in a T63 turbo-shaft
engine. They reported a dramatic reduction in mean droplet size
for the blend of JP-8 with synthetic fuel when compared to that
of JP-8 alone.
Mondragon et al. [12] studied the spray and combustion
behaviour of alternative jet fuels, such as Bio-jet, Jet-A, JP-8,
and F-T based synthetic fuels. Although GTL fuel was included
in their combustion study, the spray characteristics of GTL fuel
was not reported in that work. For other alternative fuels, the
spray characteristics such as SMD, dispersion, and spray cone
angle were studied using a pressure swirl nozzle in a quiescent
environment. It was reported that the measured and predicted
SMD for the fuels studied are within 5% of each other. The
small difference in SMD among the fuels was attributed to the
change in their physical properties. Recently, Kumaran and
Sadr [13] compared the spray characteristics of three GTL fuels
with the conventional Jet A-1 fuel measured at atmospheric
condition using the planar laser diagnostic technique of GSV.
They reported similar droplet size distribution for GTL and Jet
A-1 fuels at atmospheric conditions. Later, they compared the
spray characteristics of GTL and Jet A-1 fuels measured using
two different laser-diagnostic techniques, GSV and PDA, for
axial locations of 60 mm and 100 mm, downstream of the
nozzle exit to gain insight on the results reported earlier [14].
All the above studies highlight the increasing interest on
application of GTL fuel as an alternative to the conventional jet
fuels. It is worth mentioning here that although a few studies
have investigated the GTL spray characteristics none included a
thorough near nozzle microscopic spray evolution for GTL
fuels. The present work focuses on the near nozzle spray
characterization of two GTL fuels and compares them with
those of the conventional Jet A-1 fuel at atmospheric condition.
The point-wise, laser diagnostic measurement technique, PDA
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
is used to measure the droplet size and velocity simultaneously
in the spray field at different spatial locations downstream of a
pilot-scale pressure swirl nozzle, that is typically employed as a
pilot nozzle in commercial jet engines.
3. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
3.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATING
CONDITIONS
Figure 1 shows the schematic of the experimental facility used
in this work. Initially fuel is pressurized in the fuel delivery
unit until the desired injection pressure and then delivered to
the nozzle located inside the spray chamber. A pilot scale,
pressure-swirl nozzle (propriety of Rolls-Royce, UK) having
an exit diameter of 1 mm is placed inside the spray chamber
vertically downwards in middle of the spray chamber via the
2-D traverse mechanism. The traverse setup facilitates the
movement of the spray enabling the measurement of different
sections of the spray without disturbing the optical alignment.
The spray chamber is continuously purged with nitrogen
through the hood at the top to make an inert environment at
atmospheric condition. More details about the spray
experimental facility and its method of operation are discussed
in detail elsewhere [14].
Figure 1 Schematic of the experimental facility with component
description: (1) supply tank, (2) valve, (3) high pressure fuel
pump, (4) pulsation dampener, (5) pressure gauge, (6) relief valve,
(7) fuel filter, (8) 3-way solenoid valve, (9) pressure transducer,
(10) nozzle-fuel supply line, (11) nitrogen cylinder, (12) hood, (13)
nozzle, (14) spray chamber, (15) transmitter and receiver probes,
(16) photomultiplier, (17) argon-ion laser, (18) signal processor,
(19) vapour exhaust, and (20) liquid drain.
The PDA measurements are carried out at several axial and
radial locations in the near nozzle region up to 100 mm from
the nozzle exit as shown in Figure 2. At each axial location,
measurements in the radial direction are carried out in steps of
2.5 mm (Δr) up to x=40 mm and thereafter, in steps of 5 mm
(Δr) up to 100 mm, as shown in Figure 2. The maximum radial
measurement location for a given axial location is decided
based on the measurement data rate. This is discussed in detail
in a later section.
2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 are in similar range as their fuel physical properties are
narrowly separated (see Table 1). In addition to the local SMD
variation it may also be worth investigating the velocity trends
at these spatial locations, and this is presented next.
Figure 7 shows the radial variation of the mean axial
droplet velocity measured at several axial locations for different
fuels. The trends of velocity profiles at x=20 mm shows a
significant difference in the region 0<r<5 mm between the
fuels. In the region, 0<r<5 mm, all the fuels exhibit a
decreasing trend in outward radial direction from nozzle axis.
However, the rate of decrease is different among the fuels, in
increasing order, Jet A-1, B-2, and CSPK. Thereafter, the
velocity profile reaches a peak near the spray periphery and
then decreases gradually. The peak values are similar among
the fuels.
Figure 7 Comparison of the radial variation of the mean axial
droplet velocity measured at different axial locations for CSPK, B-
2, and Jet A-1 fuel sprays operated at 0.6 MPa injection pressure
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
In the region, 0<r<20 mm, the velocity profiles at different
axial locations also show a narrow spread in the case of CSPK,
whereas they spread out for B-2 and Jet A-1 fuels (in increasing
order) in the same region. Similarly at x=20 mm, the mean
axial droplet velocity for CSPK is higher than B-2 and Jet A-1
fuels at the nozzle axis (r=0). At other axial locations, GTL
fuels have similar velocity magnitudes at the nozzle axis and
higher than those of Jet A-1 fuel, indicating faster axial decay
in Jet A-1 fuel. The radial trends at x=40 mm and 60 mm are
similar between the GTL fuels. At these axial locations, the
mean axial droplet velocity near the spray periphery region in
Jet A-1 is higher than those in CSPK and B-2 fuels. The radial
variation of droplet velocity at x=80 mm and 100 mm are
almost flat in Jet A-1. Whereas, GTL fuels show larger radial
variation at these locations, with CSPK exhibiting steeper
variation than B-2 fuel. Although the mean axial droplet
velocity range is similar among the fuels, the subtle differences
are evidently seen in the radial variation owing to the
difference in their physical properties.
Both the radial variation of local SMD and mean axial
droplet velocity results show that the differences between the
fuels are more noticeable near the nozzle exit locations. These
results are used to calculate non-dimensional parameters of
Weber number We = ρgUR2d/σ and Ohnesorge number
Oh=µL/(ρLdσ)0.5. These non-dimensional numbers provide the
means to investigate the influence of fuel properties on
different forces (viscous, aerodynamic, and surface tension) on
the spray characteristics. Here, ρL and ρg are the liquid and gas
phase densities respectively, and UR is the relative velocity
between the gas environment and droplet. Since the ambient
velocity is negligible in this work, the relative velocity is
assumed to be equal to the droplet velocity, UR ≈ UL. Also, d is
the characteristic dimension (here SMD), µL is the liquid phase
dynamic viscosity, and σ is the surface tension of the liquid
fuel. The non-dimensional numbers are calculated using the
physical properties of the fuels from Table 1.
The maximum difference among the fuel physical
properties is observed in viscosity and surface tension of the
fuels. Figure 8 shows the calculated Ohnesorge number, ratio
of viscous to surface tension force, based on the local SMD. In
all the cases, the localized Ohnesorge number is found to be
less than 0.1. For pressure atomization, the effect of viscosity
on the droplet breakup is expected to be small when the Oh is
less than 0.1 as reported by Hsiang and Faeth [22].
Nevertheless, the influence of fuel properties in the radial
variation of Oh is observed at different axial locations as shown
in Figure 8. For all the fuels tested in this work Oh decreases
with the increase in axial distance from nozzle exit. Along the
nozzle axis (r=0), the axial decay is much higher in Jet A-1 and
B-2 compared to CSPK in spite of the similar axial decay for
SMD among the fuels. This can be attributed to the dominance
of the viscous force. At axial locations x=20 mm and 40 mm
although the local SMD radial variation is similar between the
fuels, the variation of Oh is significantly different between the
6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 ambiguity. The green and blue wavelengths are used to
measure the axial and radial component of the velocity. The
details about the operational parameters of the PDA system are
summarized in Table 2.
Operating Parameters
Transmitting optics
Focal length 400 mm
Beam spacing 38 mm
Beam waist 1.35 mm
Receiving optics
Focal length 500 mm
Scattering 42 o
angle
Aperture mask Mask-B
Measurement volume
Diameter (dx) 189 µm
Length (dz) 3.97 mm
Fringe spacing 5.27 µm
No. of Fringes 36
Table 2 2-D Fibre PDA system operational parameters [16]
In PDA, the droplet diameter is determined from the
difference in the phase shift between two Doppler burst signals
emitted by the droplet crossing the measurement volume while,
the droplet velocity is determined from the Doppler burst
frequency. The receiver probe is positioned at an angle of 42o
(shown as φ in Figure 3) to collect the first order refraction
Doppler signal in forward scatter mode. The signals are then
processed using a signal processing unit to determine the
droplet size and velocity information. More details about the
PDA principle and methodology are described elsewhere [17].
The typical validation rate along the spray field is in the range
of 60-80% for droplet sizes and 80-90% for droplet velocities.
At each radial location, the measurements are conducted to
collect either a maximum of 10,000 droplet samples or 15s
sampling time to have statistically independent droplet
measurements.
3.4 METHODOLOGY VERIFICATION
In this study, the operation of the PDA technique is verified
using a mono-disperse droplet generator (MDG) [18]. The
MDG produces a train of constant diameter droplets when the
excitation frequency of the piezo-electric transducers in the
reservoir matches its resonant frequency. The droplet diameter
expected out of MDG is obtained using a correlation reported
in the literature [19]. Figure 4 shows the comparison of the
expected droplet diameter from MDG and the droplet diameter
measured using PDA technique. Each droplet diameter size
represent the characteristic diameter for a given flow rate.
The PDA measurements have captured the trend very well,
however, the droplet diameters measured using PDA exhibit a
constant shift (~10%) from the expected diameter values. After
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
careful examination and discussion with the TSI engineers it is
found that MDG may also produce a very small droplet (called
satellite droplets) along with the parent droplet. The flow rate
and the frequency conditions are adjusted to eliminate the
occurrence of satellite droplets as suggested by TSI. However,
no significant improvements are observed in the measurements.
This defect in the operation of MDG and the PDA optical
settings together could have possibly contributed to the bias
error. Under this situation, the measured values are found to be
within 10% of the expected droplet diameter values. The results
reported in later sections are without correcting for this (~10%)
bias trend. The standard deviation (based on three trials) of the
PDA measurements is shown as error bars in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Comparison of measured droplet diameters with the
expected diameter
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the influence of fuel properties on the local
spray characteristics such as SMD, axial droplet velocity,
Ohnesorge number, and Weber number are presented and
discussed.
The local spray characteristics are measured at several
radial and axial locations downstream of the nozzle exit. In this
study, the measurement data rate is utilized as a metric to
decide the maximum radial distance for measurement. The
radial profiles of the normalized measurement data rate at
several axial locations are presented in Figure 5. The radial data
rates are normalized using the maximum data rate at a given
axial location. The measurements in the radial direction are
continued until the point at which the measurement data rate
drops by more than 90%, see Figure 5. The data rate profiles
are presented only for CSPK and Jet A-1 fuels, as they exhibit
the maximum difference in their physical properties. It is
interesting to see that the difference between the fuels is seen in
the data rate as well.
The CSPK fuel at axial locations, x=20 mm, 40 mm, and
60 mm, show an initial drop before reaching a peak and then
decreases gradually to less than 10% of the peak value. It must
4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 be noted that the radial location of the inversion point (i.e. the
radial location at which data rate starts increasing after the
initial decline) moves outward in radial direction. This may be
due to the differences in the recirculation zone inside the
hollow region of the pressure-swirl nozzle. Beyond x=60 mm,
the inversion point is not prominently seen. These trends are
not observed for Jet A-1 fuel. All these differences in the data
rate could be attributed to the difference in their fuel physical
properties.
Figure 5 Radial variation of the normalized measurement data
rate at different axial locations for CSPK and Jet A-1 fuel sprays
operated at 0.6 MPa injection pressure
Figure 6 shows the comparison of radial variation of the
SMD measured at different axial locations downstream of the
nozzle exit. The localized SMD presented here is calculated
based on the droplet size measurement at individual radial
locations. In all the fuels, the local SMD is seen to initially
decrease with an increase in radial distance from the nozzle
axis. It then increases as moving outward in radial direction.
This trend may be attributed to the swirl motion imparted to the
liquid by the nozzle as previously reported for a pressure-swirl
nozzle [20], [21]. Typical standard deviation of SMD
measurement (based on three independent trials) is shown as
error bars for data points at two axial locations of x=60 mm and
100 mm. At the nozzle axis (r=0), the local SMD measured at
x=20 mm for Jet A-1 fuel is lower than the GTL fuels, CSPK
and B-2. However, with increase in axial distance the local
SMD of former is higher than those of latter fuels. It is
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
observed that the spread of SMD in the region (0<r<20 mm) is
narrow for CSPK, whereas SMD profiles spread out gradually
for B-2 and Jet A-1 fuels in the same region, in an increasing
order. Also, the SMD trends at x=20 mm are different among
the fuels; Jet A-1 has a higher peak than the GTL fuels. At axial
locations x=40 mm and 60 mm the trends are similar between
the fuels.
Figure 6 Comparison of the radial variation of the local SMD
measured at different axial locations for CSPK, B-2, and Jet A-1
fuel sprays operated at 0.6 MPa injection pressure
At axial locations far from the nozzle exit, x=80 mm and
100 mm, the SMD profile near the spray periphery shows a
different trend among the fuels. For CSPK, the SMD variation
reaches a peak and tapers down, while in the other two fuels,
the SMD trends are seen to be approaching a peak.
Furthermore, SMD values near the spray periphery are higher
in CSPK when compared to those of Jet A-1 and B-2.
Interestingly, measured SMD values for B-2 and Jet A-1 fuels
5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 are in similar range as their fuel physical properties are
narrowly separated (see Table 1). In addition to the local SMD
variation it may also be worth investigating the velocity trends
at these spatial locations, and this is presented next.
Figure 7 shows the radial variation of the mean axial
droplet velocity measured at several axial locations for different
fuels. The trends of velocity profiles at x=20 mm shows a
significant difference in the region 0<r<5 mm between the
fuels. In the region, 0<r<5 mm, all the fuels exhibit a
decreasing trend in outward radial direction from nozzle axis.
However, the rate of decrease is different among the fuels, in
increasing order, Jet A-1, B-2, and CSPK. Thereafter, the
velocity profile reaches a peak near the spray periphery and
then decreases gradually. The peak values are similar among
the fuels.
Figure 7 Comparison of the radial variation of the mean axial
droplet velocity measured at different axial locations for CSPK, B-
2, and Jet A-1 fuel sprays operated at 0.6 MPa injection pressure
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
In the region, 0<r<20 mm, the velocity profiles at different
axial locations also show a narrow spread in the case of CSPK,
whereas they spread out for B-2 and Jet A-1 fuels (in increasing
order) in the same region. Similarly at x=20 mm, the mean
axial droplet velocity for CSPK is higher than B-2 and Jet A-1
fuels at the nozzle axis (r=0). At other axial locations, GTL
fuels have similar velocity magnitudes at the nozzle axis and
higher than those of Jet A-1 fuel, indicating faster axial decay
in Jet A-1 fuel. The radial trends at x=40 mm and 60 mm are
similar between the GTL fuels. At these axial locations, the
mean axial droplet velocity near the spray periphery region in
Jet A-1 is higher than those in CSPK and B-2 fuels. The radial
variation of droplet velocity at x=80 mm and 100 mm are
almost flat in Jet A-1. Whereas, GTL fuels show larger radial
variation at these locations, with CSPK exhibiting steeper
variation than B-2 fuel. Although the mean axial droplet
velocity range is similar among the fuels, the subtle differences
are evidently seen in the radial variation owing to the
difference in their physical properties.
Both the radial variation of local SMD and mean axial
droplet velocity results show that the differences between the
fuels are more noticeable near the nozzle exit locations. These
results are used to calculate non-dimensional parameters of
Weber number We = ρgUR2d/σ and Ohnesorge number
Oh=µL/(ρLdσ)0.5. These non-dimensional numbers provide the
means to investigate the influence of fuel properties on
different forces (viscous, aerodynamic, and surface tension) on
the spray characteristics. Here, ρL and ρg are the liquid and gas
phase densities respectively, and UR is the relative velocity
between the gas environment and droplet. Since the ambient
velocity is negligible in this work, the relative velocity is
assumed to be equal to the droplet velocity, UR ≈ UL. Also, d is
the characteristic dimension (here SMD), µL is the liquid phase
dynamic viscosity, and σ is the surface tension of the liquid
fuel. The non-dimensional numbers are calculated using the
physical properties of the fuels from Table 1.
The maximum difference among the fuel physical
properties is observed in viscosity and surface tension of the
fuels. Figure 8 shows the calculated Ohnesorge number, ratio
of viscous to surface tension force, based on the local SMD. In
all the cases, the localized Ohnesorge number is found to be
less than 0.1. For pressure atomization, the effect of viscosity
on the droplet breakup is expected to be small when the Oh is
less than 0.1 as reported by Hsiang and Faeth [22].
Nevertheless, the influence of fuel properties in the radial
variation of Oh is observed at different axial locations as shown
in Figure 8. For all the fuels tested in this work Oh decreases
with the increase in axial distance from nozzle exit. Along the
nozzle axis (r=0), the axial decay is much higher in Jet A-1 and
B-2 compared to CSPK in spite of the similar axial decay for
SMD among the fuels. This can be attributed to the dominance
of the viscous force. At axial locations x=20 mm and 40 mm
although the local SMD radial variation is similar between the
fuels, the variation of Oh is significantly different between the
6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 ambiguity. The green and blue wavelengths are used to
measure the axial and radial component of the velocity. The
details about the operational parameters of the PDA system are
summarized in Table 2.
Operating Parameters
Transmitting optics
Focal length 400 mm
Beam spacing 38 mm
Beam waist 1.35 mm
Receiving optics
Focal length 500 mm
Scattering 42 o
angle
Aperture mask Mask-B
Measurement volume
Diameter (dx) 189 µm
Length (dz) 3.97 mm
Fringe spacing 5.27 µm
No. of Fringes 36
Table 2 2-D Fibre PDA system operational parameters [16]
In PDA, the droplet diameter is determined from the
difference in the phase shift between two Doppler burst signals
emitted by the droplet crossing the measurement volume while,
the droplet velocity is determined from the Doppler burst
frequency. The receiver probe is positioned at an angle of 42o
(shown as φ in Figure 3) to collect the first order refraction
Doppler signal in forward scatter mode. The signals are then
processed using a signal processing unit to determine the
droplet size and velocity information. More details about the
PDA principle and methodology are described elsewhere [17].
The typical validation rate along the spray field is in the range
of 60-80% for droplet sizes and 80-90% for droplet velocities.
At each radial location, the measurements are conducted to
collect either a maximum of 10,000 droplet samples or 15s
sampling time to have statistically independent droplet
measurements.
3.4 METHODOLOGY VERIFICATION
In this study, the operation of the PDA technique is verified
using a mono-disperse droplet generator (MDG) [18]. The
MDG produces a train of constant diameter droplets when the
excitation frequency of the piezo-electric transducers in the
reservoir matches its resonant frequency. The droplet diameter
expected out of MDG is obtained using a correlation reported
in the literature [19]. Figure 4 shows the comparison of the
expected droplet diameter from MDG and the droplet diameter
measured using PDA technique. Each droplet diameter size
represent the characteristic diameter for a given flow rate.
The PDA measurements have captured the trend very well,
however, the droplet diameters measured using PDA exhibit a
constant shift (~10%) from the expected diameter values. After
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
careful examination and discussion with the TSI engineers it is
found that MDG may also produce a very small droplet (called
satellite droplets) along with the parent droplet. The flow rate
and the frequency conditions are adjusted to eliminate the
occurrence of satellite droplets as suggested by TSI. However,
no significant improvements are observed in the measurements.
This defect in the operation of MDG and the PDA optical
settings together could have possibly contributed to the bias
error. Under this situation, the measured values are found to be
within 10% of the expected droplet diameter values. The results
reported in later sections are without correcting for this (~10%)
bias trend. The standard deviation (based on three trials) of the
PDA measurements is shown as error bars in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Comparison of measured droplet diameters with the
expected diameter
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the influence of fuel properties on the local
spray characteristics such as SMD, axial droplet velocity,
Ohnesorge number, and Weber number are presented and
discussed.
The local spray characteristics are measured at several
radial and axial locations downstream of the nozzle exit. In this
study, the measurement data rate is utilized as a metric to
decide the maximum radial distance for measurement. The
radial profiles of the normalized measurement data rate at
several axial locations are presented in Figure 5. The radial data
rates are normalized using the maximum data rate at a given
axial location. The measurements in the radial direction are
continued until the point at which the measurement data rate
drops by more than 90%, see Figure 5. The data rate profiles
are presented only for CSPK and Jet A-1 fuels, as they exhibit
the maximum difference in their physical properties. It is
interesting to see that the difference between the fuels is seen in
the data rate as well.
The CSPK fuel at axial locations, x=20 mm, 40 mm, and
60 mm, show an initial drop before reaching a peak and then
decreases gradually to less than 10% of the peak value. It must
4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 local spray characteristics between the fuels is evidently seen in
these results.
All the results presented here highlight the influence of
fuel physical properties on the local spray characteristics at
atmospheric condition. However, it is important to note that
since the distillation characteristics of the fuels are significantly
different, the spray features could be completely different from
what shown here when the evaporation characteristics are taken
in to account. Therefore, it is essential to conduct experiments
on these fuels at operating conditions similar to that
encountered in practical combustors to fully understand the
merits of GTL fuels.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this work, an optically accessible spray experimental facility
was used to compare the spray characteristics of GTL fuel to
those of conventional Jet A-1 fuel. A point wise, laser
diagnostic measurement technique, Phase Doppler
Anemometry, was employed to measure the microscopic spray
characteristics of a pilot-scale pressure swirl nozzle at different
spatial locations downstream of the nozzle exit.
The local spray characteristics were presented at different
spatial locations downstream of the nozzle exit. The radial
trends of the local SMD and mean axial droplet velocity show
the influence of GTL and Jet A-1 fuel properties on their spray
characteristics. Furthermore, although the Ohnesorge number is
less than 0.1 in all the cases, the influence of viscosity was
evidently seen at axial locations closer to the nozzle exit. The
shift of force from fuel properties to inertial force was also
shown in the radial trends of the Weber number. The
differences in local spray characteristics between the fuels were
mostly observed in the near nozzle region than those observed
at far downstream locations.
The results presented here clearly highlight the influence
of fuel properties on the microscopic spray characteristics in
the region investigated. Although, spray characteristics of the
fuels at atmospheric condition are different than the spray
characteristics under combustor operating conditions, the
results of this work would help to decouple the effect of fuel
property from that of the ambient assisted evaporation. In view
of the significant difference in distillation characteristics
between GTL and Jet A-1 fuels, it is important to investigate
their spray characteristics at elevated ambient conditions to
fully understand the true merits of the GTL fuels.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This publication was made possible by funding from Qatar
Science and Technology Park (QSTP) GTL consortium
program and NPRP grant # 09-1183-2-461. The authors also
wish to thank the project partners, Rolls-Royce, UK, Shell (UK
and Qatar), and DLR, Germany for their support in the course
of this research.
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
7. REFERENCES
[1] R. K. Agarwal, Environmentally responsible air and
ground transportation, 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, Orlando, Florida; 2011, AIAA-2011-0965.
[2] S. Blakey, L. Rye, and C. W. Wilson, Aviation gas turbine
alternative fuels: A review, Proceedings of the Combustion
Institute, 33 (2), pp. 2863-2885, 2011.
[3] E. Corporan, M. J. DeWitt, V. Belovich, R. Pawlik, A. C.
Lynch, J. R. Gord, and T. R. Meyer, Emission
characteristics of a turbine engine and research combustor
burning a Fischer-Tropsch jet fuel, Energy Fuels, 21 (5),
pp. 2615-2626, 2007.
[4] P. Le Clercq, M. K. Domenico, M. Rachner, E. Ivanova,
and M. Aigner, Impact of Fischer-Tropsch fuels on aero-
engine combustion performance, 48th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, Orlando, Florida; 2010, AIAA-2010-
613.
[5] D. Fyffe, J. Moran, K. Kumaran, R. Sadr, and A. Al-
Sharshani, Effect of GTL-like Jet Fuel Composition on GT
Engine Altitude Ignition performance Part I: Combustor
Operability, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2011:
Power for Land, Sea and Air, Vancouver, Canada, 2011,
GT2011-45487.
[6] T. Mosbach, G. C. Gebel, P. Le Clercq, R. Sadr, K.
Kumaran, and A. Al-Sharshani, Investigation of GTL-like
Jet Fuel Composition on GT Engine Altitude Ignition and
Combustion performance Part II: Detailed Diagnostics,
Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2011: Power for Land,
Sea and Air, Vancouver, Canada, 2011, GT2011-45510.
[7] P. Lobo, L. Rye, P. I. Williams, S. Christie, I. Uryga-
Bugajska, C. W. Wilson, D. E. Hagen, P. D. Whitefield, S.
Blakey, H. Coe, D. Raper, and M. Pourkashanian, Impact
of alternative fuels on emission characteristics of a gas
turbine engine-part 1: Gaseous and particulate matter
emissions, Environmental Science and Technology, 46, pp.
10805-10811, 2012.
[8] D. A. Wood, C. Nwaoha, and B. F. Towler, Gas-to-liquids
(GTL): A review of an industry offering several routes for
monetizing natural gas, Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Engineering, 9, pp. 196-208, 2012.
[9] S. Kook, and L. M. Pickett, Liquid length and vapor
penetration of conventional, Fischer-Tropsch, coal-
derived, and surrogate fuel sprays at high-temperature and
high-pressure ambient conditions, Fuel 93, pp. 539-548,
2012.
[10] G. Pucher, W. Allan, M. LaViolette, and P. Piotras,
Emission from a gas turbine sector rig operated with
synthetic aviation and biodiesel fuel, Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 133, pp.
111502:1-8, 2011.
[11] M. J. DeWitt, R. Striebich, L. Shafer, S. Zabarnick, W. E.
Harrison, D. E. Minus, and T. Edwards, Evaluation of fuel
produced via the Fischer-Tropsch process for use in
8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 aviation applications, Proceedings of AIChE Spring
National Meeting, Houston, Texas, 2007, Paper 58b.
[12] U. M. Mondragon, C. T. Brown, and V. G. McDonell,
Evaluation of spray and combustion behavior of alternative
fuels for JP-8, 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
Nashville, Tennessee, 2012, AIAA-2012-0348.
[13] K. Kumaran, and R. Sadr, Spray characterization of Gas-
to-Liquid synthetic aviation fuels, Proceedings of 12th
ICLASS, Heidelberg, Germany, 2-6 Sep, 2012, ICLASS-
198.
[14] K. Kumaran, and R. Sadr, Spray characteristics of Fisher-
Trophsch alternate jet fuels, Proceedings of ASME Turbo
Expo 2013, San Antanio, Texas, USA, 3-7 June, 2013,
GT2013-95761.
[15] J. M. Bauldreay, P. F. Bogers, and A. Al-Sharshani, Use of
surrogate blends to explore combustion-composition links
for synthetic paraffinic kerosines, Proceedings of 12th
International conference on stability, handling and use of
liquid fuels, Florida, 2010.
[16] PDA reference manual, Dantec Dynamics
(http://www.dantecdynamics.com), 2012.
[17] H. E. Albrecht, M. Borys, N. Damaschke, and C. Tropea,
Laser Doppler and phase Doppler measurement
techniques, Springer –Verlag, Berlin; 2003.
[18] MDG-100 Monosize droplet generator, operation and
service manual, TSI Inc., USA; 2010.
[19] R. N. Berglund, and B. Y. H. Liu, Generation of
monodisperse aerosol standards, Environmental Science
and Technology, 7 (2), pp. 147-153, 1973.
[20] J. L. Santolaya, L. A. Aisa, E. Calvo, I. Garcia, and L. M.
Cerecedo, Experimental study of near-field flow structure
in hollow cone pressure swirl sprays, Journal of Propulsion
and Power, 23 (2), pp. 382-389, 2007.
[21] T. Li, and K. Nishida, H. Hiroyasu, Droplet size
distribution and evaporation characteristics of fuel spray
by a swirl type atomizer, Fuel, 90, pp. 2367-2376, 2011.
[22] L. P. Hsiang, and G. M. Faeth, Near-limit drop
deformation and secondary breakup, International Journal
of Multiphase Flow, 18 (5), pp. 635-655, 1992.

9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms