0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

An Experimental Study of Swirling Supercritical Hydrocarbon Fuel Jets

[+] Author and Article Information
R. R. Rachedi, L. C. Crook

Maurice J. Zucrow Laboratories, School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906-2014

P. E. Sojka

Maurice J. Zucrow Laboratories, School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906-2014sojka@ecn.purdue.edu

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 132(8), 081502 (May 18, 2010) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3124668 History: Received July 24, 2007; Revised April 08, 2008; Published May 18, 2010

An experimental investigation was conducted to examine the behavior of swirling supercritical hydrocarbon fuel (SCF) jets injected into nitrogen environments whose temperatures and pressures exceeded the fuel critical values. Measurements of jet full-cone angle, mass concentration field, and penetration length were made using a schlieren system; the images were captured by a high-speed digital camera and processed using the camera’s software, plus MATLAB codes. Test parameters were the internal geometry of the pressure-swirl nozzle, fuel flow rate, and density ratio. The density ratio was varied by altering the reduced temperature of the injected fluid and nitrogen environment. SCF injections were studied at reduced temperatures (Tjet/Tcrit with both reported in Kelvin) ranging between 1.01 and 1.10, a reduced pressure (pjet/pcrit with both reported in bars) of 1.05, and fuel flowrates of 1.0 g/s, 2.0 g/s, and 3.0 g/s. The variable internal geometry pressure-swirl atomizer produced jets having swirl numbers (SN) of 0 (straight bore), 0.25, 0.50, and 1.00 (high swirl). As expected, increasing the swirl number for a SCF jet had by far the largest effect on jet cone angle, followed by a change in the density ratio; changing the fuel flow rate had very little effect. The SCF jet penetration length increased when either the fuel flow rate or density ratio increased. The mass concentration profiles demonstrated the jets to be self-similar in nature, and correlation to a Gaussian profile showed the mass concentration field to be independent of swirl number, density ratio, and fuel flow rate. Finally, it was found that there was a linear relationship between the jet half-width and the swirl number. The current study characterized the behavior of swirling hydrocarbon fuel SCF jets for the first time. Aspects of jet behavior similar to that of gas jets include: Gaussian mass concentration profiles and jet boundaries that scale with swirl number. Finally, CO2 was found to be a suitable surrogate fluid for hydrocarbon fuels since the behavior of the hydrocarbon SCF jets was similar to that of CO2 SCF jets.

Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Pressure-swirl nozzle

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) Schlieren system and (b) typical schlieren image (averaged over 1 s) captured using the system shown in (a)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Full-cone angle versus density ratio for SN=0.0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Full-cone angle versus density ratio for SN=0.25

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Full-cone angle versus density ratio for SN=0.50

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Full-cone angle versus density ratio for SN=1.00

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

θ20 versus density ratio for a fuel flow rate of 1.0 g/s

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

θ10 versus density ratio for SN=0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

θ20 versus density ratio as fuel flow rate varies for SN=0.25

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

θ20 versus density ratio as fuel flow rate varies for SN=0.50

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Fuel mass distribution versus jet radial location normalized by the jet half-radius, SN=0 and x/do=60

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Fuel mass distribution versus jet radial location normalized by the jet half-radius, SN=0.25 and x/do=60

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Fuel mass distribution versus jet radial location normalized by the jet half-radius, SN=0.50 and x/do=60

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Fuel mass distribution versus jet radial location normalized by the jet half-radius, SN=1.00 and x/do=60

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Penetration length versus axial position, SN=0.5, ρJP-10/ρN2≈8.8

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Penetration length versus axial position, SN=0.5, ρJP-10/ρN2≈7.2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Penetration length versus axial position, SN=0.5, ρJP-10/ρN2≈6.7

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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

Related Content

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

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

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

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