Proceedings of the ASME 2018

International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition

IMECE2018
November 9-15, 2018, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

IMECE2018-87387

SPRAY PERFORMANCE OF ALTERNATIVE JET FUEL BASED NANOFUELS AT

HIGH-AMBIENT CONDITIONS

Mohamed Soltan Buthaina Al Abdulla

Undergraduate student, Mechanical Engineering, Undergraduate student, Chemical Engineering,
Texas A&M University at Qatar Texas A&M University at Qatar
Doha, Qatar Doha, Qatar

AlReem Al Dosari Kumaran Kannaiyan Reza Sadr

Undergraduate student, Assistant Research Scientist, Associate Professor,
Petroleum Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University at Qatar Texas A&M University at Qatar Texas A&M University,
Doha, Qatar Doha, Qatar College Station, TX, USA

ABSTRACT: Keywords: Alternative fuels, Sprays, fuel additives,

Dispersion of nanoparticles in pure fuels alters their key
fuel physical properties, which could affect their atomization
process, and in turn, their combustion and emission
characteristics in a combustion chamber. Therefore, it is
essential to have a thorough knowledge of the atomization
characteristics of nanofuels (nanoparticles dispersed in pure
fuels) to better understand their latter processes. This serves as
the motivation for the present work, which attempts to gain a
good understanding of the atomization process of the
alternative, gas-to-liquid (GTL), jet fuel based nanofuels. The
macroscopic spray characteristics such as spray cone angle,
liquid sheet breakup, and liquid sheet velocity are determined
by employing shadowgraph imaging technique. The effect of
nanoparticles weight concentration and ambient pressures on
the spray characteristics are investigated in a high pressure-
high temperature constant volume spray rig. To this end, a
pressure swirl nozzle with an exit diameter of 0.8 mm is used to
atomize the fuels. The macroscopic spray results demonstrate
that the nanoparticles dispersion at low concentrations affect
the near nozzle region. The spray liquid sheet breakup distance
is reduced by the presence of nanoparticle due to the early
onset of disruption in the liquid sheet. Consequently, the liquid
sheet velocity in that spray region is higher for nanofuels when
compared to that of pure fuels. Also, the ambient pressure has a
significant effect on the spray features as reported in the
literature.
shadowgraph, nanoparticles.
INTRODUCTION:
Increasing environmental concerns have been driving the
aviation industry to find a sustainable alternative clean energy
source [1]. Among other alternative fuels derived from different
feedstocks, gas-to-liquid (GTL), synthetic paraffinic kerosene
(SPK) fuel derived from natural gas has gained significant
attention in the recent past because of its better combustion
characteristics when compared to those of conventional fuels
[2-6]. On the other hand, high energetic (i.e., containing high
energy per unit volume) metal particles are dispersed in liquid
hydrocarbon fuels as fuel additives to enhance the combustion
heat release and at the same time reduce the emission
characteristics. Initially, the metal particles in size range of few
micrometers were added to liquid fuels at high concentrations,
typically in the range of 20-40 wt. % (called as slurry fuels) [7,
8]. However, the ignition delay of slurry fuels was longer than
that of pure fuels. This factor negated the positive impact of
dispersion of metal particles in liquid fuels. The increase in
ignition delay was attributed to the size of the metal particles,
and, it was reported that the reduction of metal particles size
from micrometer to nanometer would help to overcome this
negative effect [9-11]. With the advent of nanotechnologies,
there has been a renewed interest in dispersing metal/metal
oxide nanoparticles (MNPs) in liquid fuels to enhance the fuel

1 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 performance [12-15]. A brief review of literature pertaining to
the dispersion of metal nanoparticles in jet fuels or surrogate jet
fuels is presented next.
On the thermophysical properties side, Sonawane et al.
[16, 17] investigated the effect of MNPs concentration, size,
material, and temperature on the thermophysical properties and
heat transfer properties of aviation turbine fuel. Three MNPs
(aluminum oxide, Al2O3; Titanium oxide, TiO2; and Copper
Oxide, CuO) were investigated. Among them, CuO was
reported to have a 50% heat transfer enhancement at 0.3 vol.
%. Tanvir and Qiao [18] reported that addition of MNPs to
hydrocarbon fuels increases the surface tension. Yue et al. [19]
investigated the heat sink characteristics of pure jet fuel and jet
fuel dispersed with 3nm of MNPs (Palladium, Pd). Their results
confirmed that the presence of MNPs enhances the heat
absorption properties when compared to that of pure kerosene
fuel. The evaporation characteristics of kerosene droplets
dispersed with MNPs (Aluminum, Al) at dense concentrations
(up to 7 wt. %) were investigated by Javed et al. [20]. Micro-
explosion phenomena was observed with kerosene droplets
dispersed with MNPs, whereas it was not observed for pure
kerosene droplets at the conditions investigated. This, in turn,
was reported to alter the evaporation process from the classical
d2-law. Shariatmadar and Pakdehi [21] reported that dispersion
of boron nanoparticles in aviation turbine kerosene fuel at 2-4
wt. % concentration increase the dynamic viscosity by 24% at 5
o
C, however, the dynamic viscosity decreased by 67% when the
temperature was increased to 40 oC. Also, the overall energy
content increased with MNPs concentration.
On the combustion side, Javed et al. [22, 23] investigated
the autoignition and combustion characteristics of kerosene
fuel droplets dispersed with MNPs (Al) at elevated
temperatures. At dilute concentrations (up to 1 wt. %), the
MNPs were reported to decrease the minimum ignition
temperature when compared to that of pure kerosene fuel
droplets. Kim et al. [24] investigated the effect of MNPs (Al)
concentration on the ignition characteristics of kerosene fuel
droplets at ambient temperatures varying from 400-700 oC and
ambient pressures varying from 0.1-2.5 MPa. They reported
that the ignition delay time decreased exponentially with
increasing temperature. However, with ambient pressure, the
ignition delay decreased up to a critical pressure, and thereafter,
it increased. Ghamari and Ratner [25] investigated the effect of
carbon based nanoparticles in size range of 2 to 100 nm on the
evaporation and combustion performance of jet fuel droplets.
The jet fuel droplets dispersed with nanoparticles were reported
to follow the classical d2-law. Among the nanoparticles
investigated, the carbon nanotubes were reported to yield the
highest burning rate enhancement. Xiu et al. [26] investigated
the influence of 8 nm nanoparticles (platinum, Pt, and Pd) on
the ignition and combustion characteristics of the jet fuel. The
nanoparticles concentrations were varied from 20 to 500 parts
per million (ppm). They reported that MNPs, Pt and Pd, at 100
ppm could assist in reducing the ignition activation energy of
the jet fuel by 54% and 76%, respectively. Also, the
2 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
combustion heat release was enhanced by the addition of
MNPs.
All the above studies highlight the renewed interest in
MNPs dispersed in jet fuels. Most of these studies focused
either on the thermophysical properties or the combustion
aspects of convectional jet fuels dispersed with MNPs.
However, it must be noted that any change in thermophysical
properties due to the addition of MNPs will have an effect on
the fuel atomization characteristics. Until now, only the authors
have investigated the effect of MNPs on the spray
characteristics of jet fuels at atmospheric ambient conditions. It
was reported that the dispersion of MNPs alters the near nozzle
spray characteristics of the conventional (jet A-1) [27] as well
as alternative jet fuel (GTL) [28] even at atmospheric ambient
conditions. Since the atmospheric ambient condition does not
truly represent the actual conditions encountered in practical
engines, it essential to investigate and gain a good
understanding of the spray characteristics at elevated ambient
conditions.
Objective:
The above factors serve as the motivation for the present
study, where the spray characteristics of alternative jet fuel
(GTL) dispersed with MNPs (Al2O3) at weight concentrations
of 2 and 4 wt. % are investigated. The macroscopic spray
characteristics such as spray cone angle, sheet breakup
distance, and liquid sheet velocity are measured with the help
of optical diagnostic technique of Shadowgraph. The spray
characteristics are compared between pure GTL fuel and GTL
fuel dispersed with MNPs.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND METHODOLOGY:
The nanofuel (i.e., GTL fuel dispersed with MNPs) spray
experiments were conducted in a high-pressure high-
temperature (HPHT) spray facility. The schematic of the HPHT
spray facility is shown in Figure 1. The key component of the
facility is the spray chamber, which is made of 316 Stainless
Steel as per pressure vessel regulations stipulated by ASME –
section VIII, Division 2 code and with an overall factor of
safety of four. The spray chamber is built with a wall thickness
of 3.125 inches to withstand very high pressures and
temperatures. However, the maximum operating conditions are
limited by the presence of optical windows, where the chamber
wall thickness reduces to 2.25 inch. Nevertheless, even at these
locations, the chamber wall thickness is much higher than the
required wall thickness suggested by Pipe and Shell design
catalog, to ensure safe operation. With optical windows, the
spray chamber may be operated safely for pressures up to 2.5
MPa, and temperatures up to 450 K. The spray chamber is
equipped with four (quartz) optical windows, each with a
viewing diameter of 75 mm, as shown in Figure 1 to provide
optical accesses for spray visualization, and to measure the
droplet characteristics using non-intrusive laser diagnostic
techniques. In addition, the bottom flange has a provision to
 Figure 5 Comparison of averaged shadowgraph images at different ambient gas pressures (AGP) and nanofuel concentrations (NF). In all
the cases, the ambient gas temperature (Tg) is 400 K and pressure differential across the nozzle (ΔP) is 300 kPa.
Figure 6 Variation of spray cone angle as a function of ambient gas
pressures and nanofuel concentrations
At atmospheric ambient gas pressure (AGP=100 kPa), the
peak location of the base fuel is away from the nozzle exit
when compared to the other two nanofuels. This indicates that
the sheet breakup distance is longer for the base fuel when
compared to the nanofuels. Also, it can be seen that for the
nanofuels, the second order moment starts to increase much
earlier than the base fuel highlighting the early occurence of
disruption (due to instabilities) in the liquid sheet. It is
interesting to note that the addition of MNPs at 2 wt. % causes
an early disruption but further increase in MNPs concentration
to 4 wt. % shows a delay in the onset of disruption when
compared to 2 wt. % case, however, it is still earlier than the
base fuel case.
For the type of nozzle studied, the disruption of the liquid
sheet is mainly caused by the propagation of wave instability
[31]. At AGP=100 kPa, the magnitude of the peaks of
nanofuels are lower than that of the base fuel. This difference
in the peak values is related to the difference in the fluctuation
of the image intensities between the fuels, which could serve as
an indicator of the frequency of the instability traveling on the
spray sheet. However, further investigation is warranted to
confirm this interpretation. This aspect of the data analysis is
not performed in this work. It will be carried out in the future.
With the increase in AGP to 500 and 900 kPa, the aerodynamic
drag on the spray boundary increases and in turn the spray
transforms from hollow cone spray towards a solid spray cone
(in which the inner hollow region is filled with droplets [31])
due to the increased entrainment of fuel droplets. This is
evident in Figure 5, where the spray remains as hollow cone
spray for all the fuels at AGP=100 kPa. However, with the
increase in AGP, more and more droplets are entrained and
hence, the spray transitions to a spray with a dense distribution
of droplets in the hollow region, which is a characteristic of a
solid cone spray. The onset of instability trends at these AGP
are similar to that at AGP=100 kPa. However, the magnitude of
the peaks are observed to different, where the nanofuel

6 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 bottom. Experiments were repeated to ensure repeatability.
Also, while changing the fuel sample from one concentration to
other, the fuel line was purged with base fuel (GTL) to remove
the nanoparticles, if any in the fuel line. The fluid Reynolds
number was calculated based on the pressure difference across
the nozzle using [28]:
where, ρL and µL are the fluid density and dynamic viscosity,
and ΔP is the pressure difference across the nozzle.
Table 1 Operational parameters for the nanofuel spray
experiments
Operational Parameters
Ambient gas pressures (kPa) 100, 500, 900
Ambient gas temperature (K) 400
Pressure difference across the
300
nozzle (kPa)
Fuel temperature (K) 288
Nanofuel weight concentrations
0, 2, 4
(wt. %)
Reynolds number (-) 16750 ± 160
Uncertainty in pressure (kPa) ±6
Uncertainty in Temperature (K) ±2
NANOFUEL PREPARATION:
In this work, pure GTL fuel is considered as the base fuel for
nanofuel preparation. The MNPs (Aluminum oxide, Al2O3,
with a mean diameter of 16 nm from Sigma Aldrich, USA) was
used for the preparation of nanofuels at 2 and 4 wt. %
concentrations. Stable nanofuels were achieved through both
chemical and mechanical dispersion techniques. First, in
chemical stabilization, surfactant (sorbitan monooleate,
commercially known as Span80) was mixed with the base fuel
at a volume concentration of 0.5 %. The choice of this
surfactant and the surfactant-to-base fuel volume ratio was
arrived based on a systematic stability study performed as part
of the preliminary work [28]. Also, among other surfactants,
Span80 was identified as the best option in the literature [21].
Therefore, hereafter, the term ‘base fuel’ represents a mixture
of pure GTL and surfactant. The surfactant reduces the surface
energy of MNPs and it turn reduces the possibility of MNPs
agglomeration.
After mixing with surfactant and MNPs, the mixture is
exposed to a mechanical mode of dispersion to achieve stable
nanofuels. In mechanical stabilization, the mixture is subjected
to ultrasonication process using an immersion type probe
sonicator (QSonica S-4000, at 20 kHz) in a cyclic manner for a
duration of 2 hours to produce a stable homogenous nanofuel
sample. The sonication was conducted in a temperature
controlled environment using a chiller (Julabo, Germany) to
4 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
mitigate the formation of fuel vapor. For more details about the
nanofuel preparation refer to Ref.’s [27, 28]. Pictures of stable
nanofuel samples after 8 hours of observation is shown in
Figure 3. Furthermore, the chemical characteristics of the GTL
fuel were not altered due to the addition of surfactant and
nanoparticles as confirmed by Fourier-Transform Infra-Red
(FTIR) spectroscopy [28]. The physical properties that are
relevant to atomization process were measured and reported in
Table 2.
Figure 3 Pictures of samples of base fuel (NF=0), and nanofuels
(NF=2 and 4 wt. %). Nanofuel images are taken 8 hours after
sonication.
Table 2 Fuel physical properties measured at 22 oC [28].
Physical Nanofuels (wt. %)
Properties 0 (Base fuel) 2.0 4.0
Density
750.9 ± 1.3 763.6 ± 2 774 ± 2
(kg/m3)
Dynamic
1.005 ± 0.003 1.020 ± 0.004 1.041 ± 0.004
Viscosity (cP)
Surface
tension 24.1 ± 0.06 23.15 ± 0.065 22.78 ± 0.05
(mN/m)
Refractive
1.417 ± 0.003 1.441 ± 0.003 1.449 ± 0.003
index (-)
IMAGING TECHNIQUE AND POST-PROCESSING:
The near nozzle spray images were captured using the optical
diagnostic technique of shadowgraph. The schematic of the
shadowgraph technique and its alignment with the spray
chamber is shown in Figure 2. A high-speed CMOS camera
(Vision Research Phantom v12.1) fitted with a macro lens
(Sigma Macro 105mm / f#5.4) was positioned at one side of the
spray, and the light source (150 W Halogen Dedo lights,
Germany) was placed on the other side of the spray as shown in
Figure 2. The camera was operated at an image acquisition rate
of 32,000 frames per second with an exposure time of 2 µs.
The resolution of each image was 480 x 304 pixels. Each image
captures the nozzle exit as well as the hollow cone spray up to
10 mm downstream of the nozzle exit. The real-to-image
coordinate conversion was 34 µm/pixel. More details about the
shadowgraph technique and the operation methodology were
reported elsewhere [28]. The camera and the fuel supply valve
were synchronized using external signals. The camera was
triggered with a delay of 500 ms after the fuel valve opening to
ensure that the spray images were captured in steady state
operation.
 From the shadowgraph images, the near nozzle
macroscopic spray characteristics such as spray cone angle
(2θ), liquid sheet breakup distance (L, i.e., the vertical distance
from the nozzle exit until the start of the liquid sheet
disintegration) were determined using a statistical approach
with the help of MATLAB program. About 5,000 images were
used for this purpose. Whereas, the liquid sheet velocity was
determined using the cross-correlation approach [29, 30] using
an in-house MATLAB code. About 1,000 image pairs were
used for this purpose. For the cross-correlation technique,
about 418 interrogation centers were defined inside the spray
cone as shown in Figure 4. Each interrogation window has a
size of about 20x20 pixels, and 60 pixels was used as the
search radius around the interrogation centers. About More
details about the application of cross-correlation is reported
elsewhere [28].
Figure 4 Overlay of the interrogation windows on an averaged
spray image, where y: axial distance from nozzle exit, r: radial
distance, and Dn: nozzle exit diameter.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this section, the macroscopic spray results such as spray
cone angle, spray liquid sheet breakup distance, and liquid
sheet velocity, of the base fuel and nanofuels, are presented and
discussed. For safety reasons, the chamber is filled with
nitrogen instead of air, and in this work, the ambient gas
pressure (AGP) refers to the stagnant gas pressure inside the
chamber. As mentioned earlier, the ambient gas (i.e., nitrogen)
temperature inside the spray chamber is maintained constant at
400 K, the fuel supply to the nozzle is maintained at 288 K, and
the pressure difference across the nozzle is held constant at 300
kPa, for all the cases reported here.
A comparison of shadowgraph images is shown in Figure 5
as a function of AGP for the base fuel (NF=0), and nanofuels
(NF=2 and NF=4 represent the MNPs concentrations of 2 and 4
wt. % respectively, in the base fuel). In this figure, each image
is an average of 5,000 instantaneous shadowgraph images
captured in sequence. In all the cases, close to the nozzle exit
(i.e., 1<y/Dn < 2.5), the spray cone half-angle is similar at all
AGP, 32±2 degrees. This is because, for the type of nozzle
studied here, the spray cone angle mainly depends on the
nozzle geometric dimensions [31], which remains the same for
5 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
all the fuels types. Further downstream, for a given fuel, the
increase in AGP decreases the spray cone angle as reported for
the base fuel [31]. Far downstream, the spray liquid sheet
emerging at high velocity from the nozzle entrains the ambient
gas into the spray axis. As a result, the droplets are drawn
towards the spray axis. With the increase in AGP, the pressure
one the inner side of the spray boundary is lower than the AGP
and hence, the spray cone angle decreases when compared to
those very close to the nozzle exit [31]. The nanofuels also
exhibit the same trend with the increase in AGP.
The effect of MNPs concentration on the spray cone angle
can be seen by comparing the images in the vertical direction at
a given AGP. From this figure, it can be seen that at a given
AGP, the increase in MNPs concentration has only a moderate
effect in reducing the spray cone angle in the downstream
region. This can be attributed to the early disruption of the
liquids sheet due to the presence of MNPs and in turn the
reduction of the spray cone angle. The effect of AGP and
MNPs concentration on the spray cone angle is shown in
Figure 6. The spray cone angles are quantified using the edge
detection method in MATLAB program. This figure shows that
with an increase in AGP and MNPs concentration the reduction
in spray cone. However, the effect of AGP on spray cone angle
is significant when compared to that of MNPs concentration.
The slight difference in near nozzle spray cone half-angle
between the fuels is due to the weak dependence of the spray
cone angle to the change in fluid properties like density and
viscosity. The error bars represent the typical deviation of the
measured spray cone angle at 95% confidence interval [32].
The influence of MNPs on the disruption of the liquid
sheet can be further investigated by employing a statistical
approach. The second order statistical moment (i.e., standard
deviation) of the image intensities of about 5,000 consecutive
shadowgraph images will help to identify the liquid sheet
breakup dynamics [28] and also to ascertain the trend observed
in the spray cone angle. This parameter is used because it
captures the fluctuation in the image intensities mainly due to
the spray operation. Figure 7 shows the axial variation (y) of
the second order moment of normalized image intensity along
the nozzle axis (i.e., r/Dn=0, see Figure 4). The image
intensities are normalized using the background image intensity
(i.e., the image taken without the spray operation). This is
performed to avoid the influence of non-uniformity of the light
intensity on the spray results. The peaks of the second order
moment indicate the maximum image intensity fluctuation,
which in turn corresponds to the location of high liquid sheet
instability. It has been established in an earlier work that the
location of the second order moment peak serves as a good
indicator for the liquid sheet breakup distance [28]. It must be
noted that the axial variation is shown from y/Dn = 1 to avoid
the nozzle region.
 performance [12-15]. A brief review of literature pertaining to
the dispersion of metal nanoparticles in jet fuels or surrogate jet
fuels is presented next.
On the thermophysical properties side, Sonawane et al.
[16, 17] investigated the effect of MNPs concentration, size,
material, and temperature on the thermophysical properties and
heat transfer properties of aviation turbine fuel. Three MNPs
(aluminum oxide, Al2O3; Titanium oxide, TiO2; and Copper
Oxide, CuO) were investigated. Among them, CuO was
reported to have a 50% heat transfer enhancement at 0.3 vol.
%. Tanvir and Qiao [18] reported that addition of MNPs to
hydrocarbon fuels increases the surface tension. Yue et al. [19]
investigated the heat sink characteristics of pure jet fuel and jet
fuel dispersed with 3nm of MNPs (Palladium, Pd). Their results
confirmed that the presence of MNPs enhances the heat
absorption properties when compared to that of pure kerosene
fuel. The evaporation characteristics of kerosene droplets
dispersed with MNPs (Aluminum, Al) at dense concentrations
(up to 7 wt. %) were investigated by Javed et al. [20]. Micro-
explosion phenomena was observed with kerosene droplets
dispersed with MNPs, whereas it was not observed for pure
kerosene droplets at the conditions investigated. This, in turn,
was reported to alter the evaporation process from the classical
d2-law. Shariatmadar and Pakdehi [21] reported that dispersion
of boron nanoparticles in aviation turbine kerosene fuel at 2-4
wt. % concentration increase the dynamic viscosity by 24% at 5
o
C, however, the dynamic viscosity decreased by 67% when the
temperature was increased to 40 oC. Also, the overall energy
content increased with MNPs concentration.
On the combustion side, Javed et al. [22, 23] investigated
the autoignition and combustion characteristics of kerosene
fuel droplets dispersed with MNPs (Al) at elevated
temperatures. At dilute concentrations (up to 1 wt. %), the
MNPs were reported to decrease the minimum ignition
temperature when compared to that of pure kerosene fuel
droplets. Kim et al. [24] investigated the effect of MNPs (Al)
concentration on the ignition characteristics of kerosene fuel
droplets at ambient temperatures varying from 400-700 oC and
ambient pressures varying from 0.1-2.5 MPa. They reported
that the ignition delay time decreased exponentially with
increasing temperature. However, with ambient pressure, the
ignition delay decreased up to a critical pressure, and thereafter,
it increased. Ghamari and Ratner [25] investigated the effect of
carbon based nanoparticles in size range of 2 to 100 nm on the
evaporation and combustion performance of jet fuel droplets.
The jet fuel droplets dispersed with nanoparticles were reported
to follow the classical d2-law. Among the nanoparticles
investigated, the carbon nanotubes were reported to yield the
highest burning rate enhancement. Xiu et al. [26] investigated
the influence of 8 nm nanoparticles (platinum, Pt, and Pd) on
the ignition and combustion characteristics of the jet fuel. The
nanoparticles concentrations were varied from 20 to 500 parts
per million (ppm). They reported that MNPs, Pt and Pd, at 100
ppm could assist in reducing the ignition activation energy of
the jet fuel by 54% and 76%, respectively. Also, the
2 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
combustion heat release was enhanced by the addition of
MNPs.
All the above studies highlight the renewed interest in
MNPs dispersed in jet fuels. Most of these studies focused
either on the thermophysical properties or the combustion
aspects of convectional jet fuels dispersed with MNPs.
However, it must be noted that any change in thermophysical
properties due to the addition of MNPs will have an effect on
the fuel atomization characteristics. Until now, only the authors
have investigated the effect of MNPs on the spray
characteristics of jet fuels at atmospheric ambient conditions. It
was reported that the dispersion of MNPs alters the near nozzle
spray characteristics of the conventional (jet A-1) [27] as well
as alternative jet fuel (GTL) [28] even at atmospheric ambient
conditions. Since the atmospheric ambient condition does not
truly represent the actual conditions encountered in practical
engines, it essential to investigate and gain a good
understanding of the spray characteristics at elevated ambient
conditions.
Objective:
The above factors serve as the motivation for the present
study, where the spray characteristics of alternative jet fuel
(GTL) dispersed with MNPs (Al2O3) at weight concentrations
of 2 and 4 wt. % are investigated. The macroscopic spray
characteristics such as spray cone angle, sheet breakup
distance, and liquid sheet velocity are measured with the help
of optical diagnostic technique of Shadowgraph. The spray
characteristics are compared between pure GTL fuel and GTL
fuel dispersed with MNPs.
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND METHODOLOGY:
The nanofuel (i.e., GTL fuel dispersed with MNPs) spray
experiments were conducted in a high-pressure high-
temperature (HPHT) spray facility. The schematic of the HPHT
spray facility is shown in Figure 1. The key component of the
facility is the spray chamber, which is made of 316 Stainless
Steel as per pressure vessel regulations stipulated by ASME –
section VIII, Division 2 code and with an overall factor of
safety of four. The spray chamber is built with a wall thickness
of 3.125 inches to withstand very high pressures and
temperatures. However, the maximum operating conditions are
limited by the presence of optical windows, where the chamber
wall thickness reduces to 2.25 inch. Nevertheless, even at these
locations, the chamber wall thickness is much higher than the
required wall thickness suggested by Pipe and Shell design
catalog, to ensure safe operation. With optical windows, the
spray chamber may be operated safely for pressures up to 2.5
MPa, and temperatures up to 450 K. The spray chamber is
equipped with four (quartz) optical windows, each with a
viewing diameter of 75 mm, as shown in Figure 1 to provide
optical accesses for spray visualization, and to measure the
droplet characteristics using non-intrusive laser diagnostic
techniques. In addition, the bottom flange has a provision to
 Figure 5 Comparison of averaged shadowgraph images at different ambient gas pressures (AGP) and nanofuel concentrations (NF). In all
the cases, the ambient gas temperature (Tg) is 400 K and pressure differential across the nozzle (ΔP) is 300 kPa.
Figure 6 Variation of spray cone angle as a function of ambient gas
pressures and nanofuel concentrations
At atmospheric ambient gas pressure (AGP=100 kPa), the
peak location of the base fuel is away from the nozzle exit
when compared to the other two nanofuels. This indicates that
the sheet breakup distance is longer for the base fuel when
compared to the nanofuels. Also, it can be seen that for the
nanofuels, the second order moment starts to increase much
earlier than the base fuel highlighting the early occurence of
disruption (due to instabilities) in the liquid sheet. It is
interesting to note that the addition of MNPs at 2 wt. % causes
an early disruption but further increase in MNPs concentration
to 4 wt. % shows a delay in the onset of disruption when
compared to 2 wt. % case, however, it is still earlier than the
base fuel case.
For the type of nozzle studied, the disruption of the liquid
sheet is mainly caused by the propagation of wave instability
[31]. At AGP=100 kPa, the magnitude of the peaks of
nanofuels are lower than that of the base fuel. This difference
in the peak values is related to the difference in the fluctuation
of the image intensities between the fuels, which could serve as
an indicator of the frequency of the instability traveling on the
spray sheet. However, further investigation is warranted to
confirm this interpretation. This aspect of the data analysis is
not performed in this work. It will be carried out in the future.
With the increase in AGP to 500 and 900 kPa, the aerodynamic
drag on the spray boundary increases and in turn the spray
transforms from hollow cone spray towards a solid spray cone
(in which the inner hollow region is filled with droplets [31])
due to the increased entrainment of fuel droplets. This is
evident in Figure 5, where the spray remains as hollow cone
spray for all the fuels at AGP=100 kPa. However, with the
increase in AGP, more and more droplets are entrained and
hence, the spray transitions to a spray with a dense distribution
of droplets in the hollow region, which is a characteristic of a
solid cone spray. The onset of instability trends at these AGP
are similar to that at AGP=100 kPa. However, the magnitude of
the peaks are observed to different, where the nanofuel

6 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 concentration. In the image processing method employed here,
the cross-correlation factor is used to identify the spatial
displacement [29]. In order to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio,
the cross-correlation factor of 1,000 image pairs is averaged,
which is reported to provide accurate results in the literature
[30]. The mean velocity at each interrogation window center
depends on the accuracy of the spatial displacement of the
peak, and hence, the maximum error in the displacement could
not be more than the half peak width. This is represented in the
error bar at 95% confidence interval [32]. In all the cases, the
sheet velocity decreases along the nozzle axis due to the drag
as reported in the literature. As mentioned earlier, the increase
in aerodynamic drag due to the increase in ambient gas
pressure results in the faster decay of the liquid sheet velocity.
At AGP=100 kPa, closer to nozzle exit, the liquid sheet
velocities are comparable between the base fuel and nanofuels,
however, further downstream, the nanofuels exhibit higher
velocities than the base fuel. The cross over point between the
fuels corroborates well with the region of peaks in the
corresponding plot in Figure 7. This indicates that the early
occurrence of instabilities in nanofuels results in disruption of
the sheet into ligaments and droplets, which travel faster when
compared to the bulk fluid as in the case of base fuel. Figure 7
also confirms that nanofuel sheet dynamics at 2 wt. % is
different from that of the nanofuel at 4 wt. %. With an increase
in AGP, the aerodynamic drag on the spray boundary increases
and reduces the velocity. As a result of this more droplets are
entrained in to the hollow cone (inner) region and hence, the
spray transitions from hollow cone towards solid cone spray.
Also, this transition becomes more pronounced with an
increase in AGP, where, the inner hollow region is densely
packed with droplets, and causes a significant decrease in the
velocity. Although the nanofuel trends are similar at higher
AGP, the spray boundary velocities of nanofuels are higher
than those of the base fuel. This can be attributed to the early
disruption of the sheet at higher velocities for nanofuel when
compared to that at the base fuel.
To summarize, all the results presented above demonstrate
the influence of nanoparticles on the macroscopic spray
characteristics when dispersed in base fuel at high ambient
pressures.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the effect of nanoparticles concentration on
the spray performance of alternative jet fuel was investigated at
different ambient gas pressures relevant to practical conditions.
To this end, the near nozzle macroscopic spray characteristics
were measured using the optical diagnostic technique of
shadowgraph. The macroscopic spray features such as spray
cone angle, sheet break up length, and sheet velocity were
determined using image processing techniques. The spray
features were compared between the base fuel and nanofuels at
different operating conditions and the following conclusions
can be drawn.
8 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 Very close to the nozzle exit, the spray cone angle remains
similar for the base fuel and nanofuels.
 Further downstream, the increase in ambient gas pressure
decreased the spray cone angle of the base fuel as
expected. Nanofuels also exhibited a similar trend.
 At a given ambient gas pressure, the spray cone angle of
the nanofuel was slightly smaller than that of the base fuel.
 The second order statistical moment of the image intensity
indicated that in the case of nanofuel sprays the onset of
disruption in the liquid sheet (i.e., instabilities) was earlier
than that in the base fuel.
 The peak location of the second order moment indicated
that the liquid sheet breakup distance of the nanofuels were
shorted than that of the base fuel.
 The increase in nanoparticles concentration exhibited a
different trend in the near nozzle sheet dynamics.
 The velocities at the spray boundary obtained using cross-
correlation technique showed that the mean axial velocities
of nanofuels were higher than those of base fuel, at the
condition studied.
All these outcomes clearly highlight the influence of
nanoparticles dispersion on the non-reacting near nozzle spray
characteristics of alternative jet fuel. It is essential to consider
these changes while investigating the evaporation/combustion
characteristics of such nanofuels.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to greatly acknowledge the
financial support provided by Qatar National Research Fund
(QNRF) through its Undergraduate Research Experience
Program (UREP21-098-2-044). Also, the authors would like to
thank QNRF for their financial support to develop the spray
experimental facility through the NPRP grant (NPRP-7-1449-
2-523).
REFERENCES
[1] Agarwal, R., 2011, "Environmentally Responsible Air and
Ground Transportation," 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and
Aerospace Exposition, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics.
[2] Fyffe, D., Moran, J., Kannaiyan, 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," (54624), pp. 485-494.
[3] Mosbach, T., Gebel, G. C., Le Clercq, P., Sadr, R.,
Kannaiyan, 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," (54624), pp. 507-517.
[4] Blakey, S., Rye, L., and Wilson, C. W., 2011, "Aviation gas
turbine alternative fuels: A review," Proceedings of the
Combustion Institute, 33(2), pp. 2863-2885.
 [5] Kannaiyan, K., and Sadr, R., 2014, "Experimental
investigation of spray characteristics of alternative aviation
fuels," Energy Conversion and Management, 88, pp. 1060-
1069.
[6] Kannaiyan , K., and Sadr, R., 2014, "EFFECT OF FUEL
PROPERTIES ON SPRAY CHARACTERISTICS OF
ALTERNATIVE JET FUELS USING GLOBAL SIZING
VELOCIMETRY," 24(7), pp. 575-597.
[7] Peleg, I., and Timnat, Y. M., 1982, "Combustion of
aluminum and boron slurry fuels in a dump combustor,"
Symposium (International) on Combustion, 19(1), pp. 557-
563.
[8] Roy Choudhury, P., 1992, "Slurry fuels," Progress in
Energy and Combustion Science, 18(5), pp. 409-427.
[9] Hunt, E. M., and Pantoya, M. L., 2005, "Ignition dynamics
and activation energies of metallic thermites: From nano-
to micron-scale particulate composites," Journal of Applied
Physics, 98(3), p. 034909.
[10] Gan, Y., and Qiao, L., 2011, "Combustion characteristics
of fuel droplets with addition of nano and micron-sized
aluminum particles," Combustion and Flame, 158(2), pp.
354-368.
[11] Yetter, R. A., Risha, G. A., and Son, S. F., 2009, "Metal
particle combustion and nanotechnology," Proceedings of
the Combustion Institute, 32(2), pp. 1819-1838.
[12] Guerieri, P. M., Jacob, R. J., DeLisio, J. B., Rehwoldt, M.
C., and Zachariah, M. R., 2018, "Stabilized microparticle
aggregates of oxygen-containing nanoparticles in kerosene
for enhanced droplet combustion," Combustion and Flame,
187, pp. 77-86.
[13] Guerieri, P. M., DeLisio, J. B., and Zachariah, M. R., 2017,
"Nanoaluminum/Nitrocellulose microparticle additive for
burn enhancement of liquid fuels," Combustion and Flame,
176, pp. 220-228.
[14] Basu, S., and Miglani, A., 2016, "Combustion and heat
transfer characteristics of nanofluid fuel droplets: A short
review," International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,
96, pp. 482-503.
[15] Mehregan, M., and Moghiman, M., 2014, "Effect of
aluminum nanoparticles on combustion characteristics and
pollutants emission of liquid fuels – A numerical study,"
Fuel, 119, pp. 57-61.
[16] Sonawane, S., Patankar, K., Fogla, A., Puranik, B.,
Bhandarkar, U., and Sunil Kumar, S., 2011, "An
experimental investigation of thermo-physical properties
and heat transfer performance of Al2O3-Aviation Turbine
Fuel nanofluids," Applied Thermal Engineering, 31(14),
pp. 2841-2849.
[17] Sonawane, S., Bhandarkar, U., Puranik, B., and Kumar, S.
S., 2012, "Convective Heat Transfer Characterization of
Aviation Turbine Fuel-Metal Oxide Nanofluids," Journal
of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, 26(4), pp. 619-628.
[18] Tanvir, S., and Qiao, L., 2012, "Surface tension of
Nanofluid-type fuels containing suspended nanomaterials,"
Nanoscale Research Letters, 7(1), p. 226.
9 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 02/22/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[19] Yue, L., Lu, X., Chi, H., Guo, Y., Xu, L., Fang, W., Li, Y.,
and Hu, S., 2014, "Heat-sink enhancement of decalin and
aviation kerosene prepared as nanofluids with palladium
nanoparticles," Fuel, 121, pp. 149-156.
[20] Javed, I., Baek, S. W., and Waheed, K., 2014, "Effects of
dense concentrations of aluminum nanoparticles on the
evaporation behavior of kerosene droplet at elevated
temperatures: The phenomenon of microexplosion,"
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 56, pp. 33-44.
[21] Shariatmadar, F. S., and Pakdehi, S. G., 2017, "Synthesis
and characterization of aviation turbine kerosene nanofuel
containing boron nanoparticles," Applied Thermal
Engineering, 112, pp. 1195-1204.
[22] Javed, I., Baek, S. W., and Waheed, K., 2015,
"Autoignition and combustion characteristics of kerosene
droplets with dilute concentrations of aluminum
nanoparticles at elevated temperatures," Combustion and
Flame, 162(3), pp. 774-787.
[23] Javed, I., Baek, S. W., Waheed, K., Ali, G., and Cho, S. O.,
2013, "Evaporation characteristics of kerosene droplets
with dilute concentrations of ligand-protected aluminum
nanoparticles at elevated temperatures," Combustion and
Flame, 160(12), pp. 2955-2963.
[24] Kim, D. M., Baek, S. W., and Yoon, J., 2016, "Ignition
characteristics of kerosene droplets with the addition of
aluminum nanoparticles at elevated temperature and
pressure," Combustion and Flame, 173, pp. 106-113.
[25] Ghamari, M., and Ratner, A., 2017, "Combustion
characteristics of colloidal droplets of jet fuel and carbon
based nanoparticles," Fuel, 188, pp. 182-189.
[26] E, X.-t.-f., Zhi, X., Zhang, X., Wang, L., Xu, S., and Zou,
J.-J., 2018, "Ignition and Combustion Performances of
High-Energy-Density Jet Fuels Catalyzed by Pt and Pd
Nanoparticles," Energy & Fuels, 32(2), pp. 2163-2169.
[27] Kannaiyan, K., Anoop, K., and Sadr, R., 2016, "Effect of
Nanoparticles on the Fuel Properties and Spray
Performance of Aviation Turbine Fuel," Journal of Energy
Resources Technology, 139(3), pp. 032201-032201-
032208.
[28] Kannaiyan, K., and Sadr, R., 2017, "The effects of alumina
nanoparticles as fuel additives on the spray characteristics
of gas-to-liquid jet fuels," Experimental Thermal and Fluid
Science, 87, pp. 93-103.
[29] Keane, R. D., and Adrian, R. J., 1992, "Theory of cross-
correlation analysis of PIV images," Applied Scientific
Research, 49(3), pp. 191-215.
[30] Meinhart, C. D., Wereley, S. T., and Santiago, J. G., 2000,
"A PIV Algorithm for Estimating Time-Averaged Velocity
Fields," Journal of Fluids Engineering, 122(2), pp. 285-
289.
[31] Lefebvre, A. H., 1989, Atomization and Sprays, First
Edition, CRC Press, USA.
[32] Benedict, L. H., and Gould, R. D., 1996, "Towards better
uncertainty estimates for turbulence statistics,"
Experiments in Fluids, 22(2), pp. 129-136.