0
Research Papers

Liquid Fuel Property Effects on Lean Blowout in an Aircraft Relevant Combustor

[+] Author and Article Information
Nicholas Rock

Ben T. Zinn Combustion Laboratory,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30318
e-mail: nrock3@gatech.edu

Ianko Chterev

Ben T. Zinn Combustion Laboratory,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30318
e-mail: ianko.chterev@gmail.com

Benjamin Emerson

Ben T. Zinn Combustion Laboratory,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30318
e-mail: bemerson@gatech.edu

Sang Hee Won

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC 29208
e-mail: SANGHEE@mailbox.sc.edu

Jerry Seitzman

Ben T. Zinn Combustion Laboratory,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30318
e-mail: jerry.seitzman@aerospace.gatech.edu

Tim Lieuwen

Ben T. Zinn Combustion Laboratory,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30318
e-mail: tim.lieuwen@aerospace.gatech.edu

Manuscript received July 17, 2018; final manuscript received November 8, 2018; published online January 11, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Gilles Bourque.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141(7), 071005 (Jan 11, 2019) (13 pages) Paper No: GTP-18-1499; doi: 10.1115/1.4042010 History: Received July 17, 2018; Revised November 08, 2018

This paper describes results from an experimental study on influences of liquid fuel properties on lean blowout (LBO) limits in an aero-type combustor. In particular, this work aimed to elucidate the roles of fuel chemical and physical properties on LBO. Fuel chemical properties stem from the fuel chemical structure, thus governing chemical kinetic behaviors of oxidation characteristics (e.g., ignition or extinction time scales) and others (e.g., fuel thermal stability or sooting tendencies). Fuel physical properties affect the spray characteristics (e.g., atomization and evaporation rates). Eighteen different fuels, with a wide range of physical and chemical fuel properties, were tested. Several of these fuels were custom blends, developed to break intercorrelations between various physical and chemical properties. Fuel physical and chemical property effects were further separated by measuring blowout boundaries at three air inlet temperatures between 300 and 550 K, enabling variation in vaporization rates. The condition at 300 K corresponds to a temperature that is less than the flash point for most of the studied fuels and, therefore, forming a flammable mixture was challenging in this regime. The opposite scenario occurred at 550 K, where fuel droplets evaporate quickly, and the temperature actually exceeds the auto-ignition temperatures of some of the fuels. At 300 K, the data suggest that blowout is controlled by fuel physical properties, as a correlation is found between the blowout boundaries and the fuel vaporization temperature. At 450 and 550 K, the blowout boundaries correlated well with the derived cetane number (DCN), related to the global chemical kinetic reactivity.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Colket, M. , Heyne, J. , Rumizen, M. , Gupta, M. , Edwards, T. , Roquermore, W. M. , Andac, G. , Boehm, R. , Lovett, J. , Williams, R. , Condevaux, J. , Turner, D. , Rizk, N. , Tishkoff, J. , Li, C. , Moder, J. , Friend, D. , and Sankaran, V. , 2017, “ Overview of the National Jet Fuels Combustion Program,” AIAA J., 55(4), pp. 1–18.
Longwell, J. P. , Frost, E. E. , and Weiss, M. A. , 1953, “ Flame Stability in Bluff Body Recirculation Zones,” Ind. Eng. Chem., 45(8), pp. 1629–1633. [CrossRef]
Zukoski, E. E. , 1954, “ Flame Stabilization on Bluff Bodies at Low and Intermediate Reynolds Numbers,” California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Zhang, Q. , Noble, D. R. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2007, “ Characterization of Fuel Composition Effects in H2/CO/CH4 Mixtures Upon Lean Blowout,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 129(3), pp. 688–694. [CrossRef]
Shanbhogue, S. J. , Husain, S. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2009, “ Lean Blowoff of Bluff Body Stabilized Flames: Scaling and Dynamics,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 35(1), pp. 98–120. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Q. , Shanghogue, S. , Shreekrishna , Lieuwen, T. , and O'Connor, J. , 2011, “ Strain Characteristics Near the Flame Attachment Point in a Swirling Flow,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 183(7), pp. 665–685. [CrossRef]
Potter , A. E., Jr. , and Wong, E. L. , 1958, “ Effect of Pressure and Duct Geometry on Bluff-Body Flame Stabilization,” National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, Cleveland, OH, Report No. NACA-TN-4381. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930085311
Zhang, Q. , Shanbhogue, S. J. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2010, “ Dynamics of Premixed H2/CH4 Flames Under Near Blowoff Conditions,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 132(11), p. 111502. [CrossRef]
Foley, C. W. , Seitzman, J. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2012, “ Analysis and Scalings of Blowoff Limits of 2D and Axisymmetric Bluff Body Stabilized Flames,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-70048.
Won, S. H. , Haas, F. M. , Dooley, S. , Edwards, T. , and Dryer, F. L. , 2017, “ Reconstruction of Chemical Structure of Real Fuel by Surrogate Formulation Based Upon Combustion Property Targets,” Combust. Flame, 183, pp. 39–49. [CrossRef]
Lefebvre, A. , 1985, “ Fuel Effects on Gas Turbine Combustion—Ignition, Stability, and Combustion Efficiency,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 107(1), pp. 24–37. [CrossRef]
Mellor, A. , 1980, “ Semi-Empirical Correlations for Gas Turbine Emissions, Ignition, and Flame Stabilization,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 6(4), pp. 347–358. [CrossRef]
Burger, V. , Yates, A. , and Viljoen, C. , 2012, “ Influence of Fuel Physical Properties and Reaction Rate on Threshold Heterogeneous Gas Turbine Combustion,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68153.
Burger, V. , Yates, A. , Moxbach, T. , and Gunasekaran, B. , 2014, “ Fuel Influence on Targeted Gas Turbine Combustion Properties—Part II: Detailed Results,” ASME Paper No. GT2014-25105.
Mosbach, T. , Burger, V. , and Gunasekaran, B. , 2015, “ Fuel Composition Influence on Gas Turbine Ignition and Combustion Performance,” ASME Paper No. GT2015-43020.
Peters, J. , 1987, “ Current Gas Turbine Combustion and Fuels Research and Development,” ASME Paper No. 87-GT-107.
Grohmann, J. , Rauch, B. , Kathrotia, T. , Meier, W. , and Aigner, M. , 2018, “ Influence of Single-Component Fuels on Gas-Turbine Model Combustor Lean Blowout,” J. Propul. Power, 34(1), pp. 97–107. [CrossRef]
Rock, N. , Chterev, I. , Smith, T. , Ek, H. , Emerson, B. , Noble, D. R. , Seitzman, J. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2016, “ Reacting Pressurized Spray Combustor Dynamics—Part 1: Fuel Sensitivities and Blowoff Characterization,” ASME Paper No. GT2016-56346.
Rock, N. , Chterev, I. , Emerson, B. , Seitzman, J. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2017, “ Blowout Sensitivities in a Liquid Fueled Combustor: Fuel Composition and Preheat Temperature Effects,” ASME Paper No. GT2017-63305.
Colket, M. , Zeppieri, S. , Dai, Z. , and Hautman, D. , 2012, “ Fuel Research at UTRC,” Multi-Agency Coordinating Council for Combustion Research Fifth Annual Fuel Research Meeting, Livermore, CA, Sept. 17–20.
Stouffer, S. , Hendershott, T. , Monfort, J. , Diemer, J. , Corporan, E. , Wrzesinski, P. , and Caswell, A. , 2017, “ Lean Blowout and Ignition Characteristics of Conventional and Surrogate Fuels Measured in a Swirl Stabilized Combustor,” AIAA Paper No. 2017-1954.
Won, S. H. , Veloo, P. S. , Dooley, S. , Santner, J. , Haas, F. M. , Ju, Y. , and Dryer, F. L. , 2016, “ Predicting the Global Combustion Behaviors of Petroleum-Derived and Alternative Jet Fuels by Simple Fuel Property Measurements,” Fuel, 168, pp. 34–46. [CrossRef]
Dooley, S. , Won, S. H. , Chaos, M. , Heyne, J. , Ju, Y. , Dryer, F. L. , Kumar, K. , Sung, C. H. , Wang, H. , Oehlschlaeger, M. A. , Santoro, R. J. , and Litzinger, T. A. , 2010, “ A Jet Fuel Surrogate Formulated by Real Fuel Properties,” Combust. Flame, 157(12), pp. 2333–2339. [CrossRef]
Dooley, S. , Won, S. H. , Heyne, J. , Farouk, T. I. , Ju, Y. , Dryer, F. L. , Kumar, K. , Hui, X. , Sung, C. H. , Wang, H. , Oehlschlaeger, M. A. , Iyer, V. , Iyer, S. , Litzinger, T. A. , Santoro, R. J. , Malewicki, T. , and Brezinsky, K. , 2012, “ The Experimental Evaluation of a Methodology for Surrogate Fuel Formulation to Emulate Gas Phase Combustion Kinetic Phenomena,” Combust. Flame, 159(4), pp. 1444–1466. [CrossRef]
Dooley, S. , Won, S. H. , Jahangirian, S. , Ju, Y. , Dryer, F. L. , Wang, H. , and Oehlschlaeger, M. A. , 2012, “ The Combustion Kinetics of a Synthetic Paraffinic Jet Aviation Fuel and a Fundamentally Formulated, Experimentally Validated Surrogate Fuel,” Combust. Flame, 159(10), pp. 3014–3020. [CrossRef]
Kim, D. , Martz, J. , and Violi, A. , 2014, “ A Surrogate for Emulating the Physical and Chemical Properties of Conventional Jet Fuel,” Combust. Flame, 161(6), pp. 1489–1498. [CrossRef]
Pitz, W. J. , and Mueller, C. J. , 2011, “ Recent Progress in the Development of Diesel Surrogate Fuels,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 37(3), pp. 330–350. [CrossRef]
Cohen, J. , and Rosfjord, T. , 1993, “ Influences on the Sprays Formed by High-Shear Fuel Nozzle/Swirler Assemblies,” J. Propul. Power, 9(1), pp. 16–27. [CrossRef]
Edwards, J. T. , 2017, “ Reference Jet Fuels for Combustion Testing,” AIAA Paper No. 2017-0146.
Heyne, J. , Colket, M. , Gupta, M. , Jardines, A. , Moder, J. , Edwards, J. T. , Roquermore, W. M. , Li, C. , and Rumizen, M. , 2017, “ Year 2 of the National Jet Fuels Combustion Program: Towards a Streamlined Alternative Jet Fuels Certification Process,” AIAA Paper No. 2017-0145.
Heyne, J. S. , Peiffer, E. , Colket, M. B. , Jardines, A. , Shaw, C. , Moder, J. P. , Roquemore, W. M. , Edwards, J. T. , Li, C. , Rumizen, M. , and Gupta, M. , 2018, “ Year 3 of the National Jet Fuels Combustion Program: Practical and Scientific Impacts of Alternative Jet Fuel Research,” AIAA Paper No. 2018-1667.
Luning Prak, D. J. , Hope Jones, M. , Trulove, P. , McDaniel, A. M. , Dickerson, T. , and Cowart, J. S. , 2015, “ Physical and Chemical Analysis of Alcohol-to-Jet (ATJ) Fuel and Development of Surrogate Fuel Mixtures,” Energy Fuels, 29(6), pp. 3760–3769. [CrossRef]
Dooley, S. , Heyne, J. , Won, S. H. , Dievart, P. , Ju, Y. , and Dryer, F. L. , 2014, “ Importance of a Cycloalkane Functionality in the Oxidation of a Real Fuel,” Energy Fuels, 28(12), pp. 7649–7661. [CrossRef]
Burger, V. , 2017, “ The Influence of Fuel Properties on Threshold Combustion in Aviation Gas Turbine Engines,” University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Chterev, I. , Rock, N. , Ek, H. , Smith, T. , Emerson, B. , Noble, D. R. , Mayhew, E. , Lee, T. , Jiang, N. , and Roy, S. , 2016, “ Reacting Pressurized Spray Combustor Dynamics—Part 2: High Speed Planar Measurements,” ASME Paper No. GT2016-56345.
Chterev, I. , Rock, N. , Ek, H. , Emerson, B. , Seitzman, J. , Jiang, N. , Roy, S. , Lee, T. , Gord, J. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2017, “ Simultaneous Imaging of Fuel, OH, and Three Component Velocity Fields in High Pressure, Liquid Fueled, Swirl Stabilized Flames at 5 kHz,” Combust. Flame, 186, pp. 150–165. [CrossRef]
Foley, C. , Chterev, I. , Noble, D. R. , Seitzman, J. , and Lieuwen, T. , 2017, “ Shear Layer Flame Stabilization Sensitivities in a Swirling Flow,” Int. J. Spray Combust. Dyn., 9(1), pp. 3–18. [CrossRef]
Tyliszczak, A. , Cavaliere, D. E. , and Mastorakos, E. , 2014, “ LES/CMC of Blow-Off in a Liquid Fueled Swirl Burner,” Flow, Turbul. Combust., 92(1–2), pp. 237–267. [CrossRef]
Esclapez, L. , Ma, P. , and Ihme, M. , 2015, “ Large-Eddy Simulation of Fuel Effect on Lean Blow-Out in Gas Turbines,” Annual Research Briefs, Stanford Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford, CA.
Won, S. H. , Dooley, S. , Dryer, F. L. , and Ju, Y. , 2012, “ A Radical Index for the Determination of the Chemical Kinetic Contribution to Diffusion Flame Extinction of Large Hydrocarbon Fuels,” Combust. Flame, 159(2), pp. 541–551. [CrossRef]
Zeuthen, E. D. , and Blunck, D. L. , 2017, “ Radiation Emissions From Turbulent Diffusion Flames Burning Vaporized Jet and Jet-Like Fuels,” Energy Fuels, 31(12), pp. 14150–14160. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Conceptual illustration of the physics limiting LBO across different combustion regimes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of the experimental combustor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Air preparation and routing diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Bulkhead instrumentation placement schematic

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Schematic of the swirler and fuel injector configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Photograph of the fuel cart used to supply fuel for these experiments

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Relationship between T50 (i.e., the temperature at which 50% of the liquid volume had vaporized) and DCN for investigated fuels

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Engine inlet conditions and regions where primary figures of merit correspond to the flight operating range. The stars represent conditions for data acquisition. Taken from Ref. [1].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Instantaneous images of the 450 K inlet air temperature flame (left), 300 K flame (center), and 550 K flame (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Instantaneous (left) and time-averaged (right) reacting velocity field for fuel A-2 at 345 kPa, 450 K, and a global equivalence ratio of 0.45. Background color (contrast) represents out of plane velocity. White (curved) lines denote zero axial velocity points and black (straight) lines represent the jet core. The arrow in the top left indicates a 25 m/s velocity vector for reference.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Recirculation zone boundaries (solid lines) and jet cores (dashed lines) for the time averaged flow fields from fuels A-2, C-1, and C-5 (450 K temperature, 345 kPa pressure, and ϕ = 0.45)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Time history of temperature and fuel flow rate during a series of blowout measurements, illustrating the blowout measurement procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Percent differences in the blowout equivalence ratio between each fuel and A-2. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Dependence of the percent difference in blowout equivalence ratio from A-2 upon T10. The data are compared at a bulkhead temperature of 500 K.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Dependence of the percent difference in blowout equivalence ratio from A-2 upon T50. The data are compared at a bulkhead temperature of 500 K.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Dependence of the percent difference in blowout equivalence ratio from A-2 upon T90. The data are compared at a bulkhead temperature of 500 K.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Average equivalence ratio at blowout versus percentage of A-2 fuel composition for A-2/C-1 blends. Blue (top) symbols represent 300 K data and red (bottom) symbols represent 450 K data.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Dependence of the percent difference in blowout equivalence ratio from A-2 upon the percentage of aromatics in each fuel. The data are compared at a bulkhead temperature of 550 K.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Dependence of the percent difference in blowout equivalence ratio from A-2 upon the DCN. The data are compared at a bulkhead temperature of 500 K.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Dependence of the percent difference in blowout equivalence ratio from A-2 upon the DCN. The data are compared at a bulkhead temperature of 550 K.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Dependence of the percent difference in blowout equivalence ratio from A-2 upon the DCN. The data are compared at a bulkhead temperature of 640 K.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Dependence of bulkhead temperature on the equivalence ratio at blowout for fuel C-4. Orange (top) symbols represent 300 K data, green (middle) symbols represent 450 K data, and blue (bottom) symbols represent 550 K data. The different marker types represent data from separate days that the experiment was run.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Dependence of bulkhead temperature on the equivalence ratio at blowout for fuel A-2. Orange (top) symbols represent 300 K data, green (middle) symbols represent 450 K data, and blue (bottom) symbols represent 550 K data. The different marker types represent data from separate days that the experiment was run.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

R2 value of the blowout equivalence ratio dependence on bulkhead temperature, as a function of the mass accumulated in the quartz crystal microbalance test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

R2 value of the blowout equivalence ratio dependence on bulkhead temperature, as a function of the maximum deposit thickness measured by the JFTOT at 285 C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

R2 value of the blowout equivalence ratio dependence on bulkhead temperature, as a function of the H/C ratio

Tables

Errata

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