Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2013: Turbine Technical Conference and Exposition

GT2013
June 3-7, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA

GT2013-95761

SPRAY CHARACTERISTICS OF FISCHER-TROPSCH ALTERNATE JET FUELS

Kumaran Kannaiyan, Reza Sadr*

Assistant Research Scientist, Assistant Professor,
Micro-Scale Thermo Fluids Laboratory Micro-Scale Thermo Fluids Laboratory
Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar

ABSTRACT
Increase in energy demand and stringent emission norms drive
the need for clean, alternative energy source. Recently, gas-to-
liquid (GTL), a synthetic jet fuel produced from natural gas
using Fischer-Tropsch synthesis has grabbed global attention
due to its cleaner combustion aspects when compared to the
conventional jet fuel. The chemical and physical properties of
GTL fuels are different from the conventional fuels which
could potentially affect the atomization and in turn the
combustion characteristics and pollutant formation. In this
work the spray characteristics of two GTL blends and
conventional Jet A-1 fuels are investigated downstream of a
pressure swirl nozzle exit at two injection pressures and the
results are then compared. Microscopic spray characteristics,
droplet size and velocity distributions are obtained at global as
well as local levels of the spray using global sizing velocimetry
and phase Doppler anemometry measurement techniques,
respectively. Results clearly show that although the GTL fuels
have different physical properties, such as viscosity, density,
and surface tension the spray characteristics of the GTL fuels
are found to be similar to those of Jet A-1 fuel.
1. NOMENCLATURE
GTL Gas-to-Liquid
RME Rapeseed methyl ester
SPK Synthetic Paraffinic kerosene
GSV Global Sizing Velocimetry
PDA Phase Doppler Anemometry
F-T Fischer-Tropsch
H/C ratio Hydrogen to Carbon ratio
CCD Charge-Coupled Device
SMD Sauter mean diameter
NS Nozzle station
2. INTRODUCTION
Increasing concern on the supply security and high cost of
the petroleum based fuels and strict emission policies drive the
need for cleaner, alternate fuel for the transportation sector [1].
The synthetic fuels derived from feed-stocks, such as biomass,
natural gas, and coal are being considered as a viable
alternative fuel for transportation, without any modifications to
the existing fuel injection system and combustor design. It is
expected that consumption of the synthetic fuels increases to
25% of the total fuel consumption in the transportation sector in
the near future in spite of the current limitation in the
production capacity of these fuels at commercial scale [2].
There has been an increased interest in gas-to-liquid (GTL)
synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) fuel derived from natural
gas using Fischer-Tropsch process for diesel and gas turbine
engines due to its cleaner combustion aspects owing to the near
absence of aromatic and sulphur content in the fuel
composition. However, the alternative fuels are expected to
meet the vital qualities such as quick atomization, vaporization,
combustion and emission characteristics of conventional fuel in
order to qualify as a drop-in fuel in the current aviation gas
turbines.
The chemical composition of GTL fuel produced from F-T
synthesis is mainly composed of paraffins (iso- and normal-
paraffins). This composition alters the physical and chemical
properties, such as density, viscosity, surface tension, H/C ratio,
and aromatics content of GTL fuel from those of the
conventional jet fuel. Many studies are carried out recently to
investigate the effect of the change in chemical and physical
properties of GTL fuel on the combustion and emission in
diesel [3] [4] as well as gas turbine [5] [6] engines. On the other
hand, any change in the physical properties of the fuels affects
its macro- and micro-spray characteristics, which eventually
affect the combustion and emission process in the combustor.
This could have significant impact on the pollutant formation,
life, durability and efficiency of the combustor [7]. Hence, it is
essential to have a better understanding of the fuel spray
characteristics that influences the quality of air-fuel mixture
inside the combustor and in turn the combustion and emission
processes.

*Corresponding author: reza.sadr@qatar.tamu.edu 1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Mancarsuo et al., [8] studied the macroscopic spray 3. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
characteristics such as spray cone angle and liquid-phase
penetration length of conventional diesel, bio-diesel, rapeseed 3.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATING
methyl ester, GTL and their blends in various proportions in a CONDITIONS
single cylinder, diesel engine. They reported that no significant Figure 1 shows the schematic of the spray experimental
difference in penetration length was observed in the injection facility and photograph of the spray chamber used in this work.
stage however, with the start of combustion the injection Initially, fuel is pressurized in the pump module to the desired
behavior was reported to be different among the fuels due to the injection pressure and then delivered to the nozzle located
difference in their densities. Kook and Pickett [9] compared the inside the spray chamber. A positive displacement pump is used
spray penetration length and cone angle of diesel, GTL and jet in conjunction with a pulsation dampener to deliver the fuel at
fuels in a constant volume chamber at ambient and injection an injection pressure. The pulsation dampener is attached
conditions typical of a diesel engine. It was found that GTL fuel immediate downstream of the pump exit and it is filled with
has less penetration length when compared to the conventional nitrogen at a pressure of about 85% of the working pressure to
diesel and jet fuel indicating faster evaporation. This was reduce 95% of the pressure pulsations in the fuel line. A
attributed to the lower boiling point of the GTL fuel. Li et al., pressure transducer (Setra Inc., model: C207) is installed just
[10] investigated the microscopic spray characteristics such as upstream of the nozzle exit to monitor the injection pressure.
droplet size distribution and droplet velocity, of diesel, RME
and GTL fuels at different injection pressures. They reported
that GTL sprays have a higher percentage of smaller droplets
and the lowest SMD when compared to the other fuels in that
study.
Pucher et al., [11] investigated the applicability of different
fuels, such as JP-8 (petroleum based jet fuel for military
application), four types of fatty acid methyl esters and GTL in a
military aircraft using a gas turbine combustor rig. They carried
out an open air spray characteristics and pattern factor study for
all the fuels using the same nozzle that was used for their
combustion study. They reported that GTL fuel generated (a)
smaller droplets in the center region of the spray when
compared to JP-8. This was attributed to lower density and
viscosity of the GTL fuel when compared to JP-8. DeWitt et al.,
[12] conducted an evaluation study of the F-T based fuels for
use in aviation engines. They blended JP-8 and GTL and
compared the atomization performance in a T63 turbo-shaft
engine. It was reported that the blend of JP-8 with GTL showed
a dramatic reduction in mean droplet size when compared to
that with JP-8 alone.
The increasing interest in GTL blends as an alternative fuel
has resulted in a few studies on the spray characteristics of GTL
fuel from a diesel engine perspective. However, understanding
of the combustion and emission behavior of these fuels in a gas
turbine/jet engine necessitates the need to look at the spray
characteristics of these fuels from a gas turbine combustor
viewpoint in more details. The present work focuses on the Figure 1. (a) Schematic and (b) photograph of the spray
spray characterization of different GTL fuels and compares experimental facility with component description: (1) supply tank,
(2) ball valve, (3) high pressure fuel pump, (4) pulsation
them with that of the conventional Jet A-1 fuel. Global (Global
dampener, (5) diaphragm, (6) pressure gauge, (7) pressure relief
Sizing Velocimetry, GSV) and local (Phase Doppler valve, (8) fuel filter, (9) 3-way solenoid valve, (10) pressure
Anemometry, PDA) measurement techniques are used to transducer, (11) nozzle fuel supply line, (12) nitrogen supply hood,
measure the droplet size distribution in the spray at different (13) nozzle, (14) spray chamber, (15) PDA transmitter and
injection pressures and axial locations downstream of the receiver probes, (16) CCD camera for GSV, (17) GSV laser sheet
nozzle exit at atmospheric conditions. optics, (18) PDA laser, (19) PDA signal processor, (20) vapor
exhaust duct.

The spray module houses the fuel spray in inert (nitrogen)

ambient at room temperature. It consists of enclosed spray
measurement chamber, nozzle, nitrogen supply line, vapor

2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 extraction duct, a 2D nozzle traversing mechanism at rear side, symmetric about the nozzle axis. The spray characteristics, such
and the optical rails and mounts for the CCD camera as droplet size distribution and velocity are measured at two
(PCO.1600) in the front side. The spray measurement chamber nozzle injection pressures of 0.3MPa and 0.9MPa. The fuel
(0.6m x 0.6m x 1.2m) is made of a transparent, acrylic glass for injection pressures considered in this work represent the
optical access. A pilot scale, pressure swirl nozzle (proprietary pressure differentials encountered in the gas turbine engine at
of Rolls-Royce, UK) having an exit diameter of 1mm is used in different stages of an aircraft flight cycle.
this study and the nozzle exit is positioned vertically
downwards at the middle of the spray chamber via the 2D 3.2 FUEL DETAILS
traverse mechanism. The traverse setup facilitates the Properties SPK-1 SPK-2 Jet A-1
movement of spray enabling the measurement of different Density (kg/m3) 737.5 749.0 788.1
sections of the spray without disturbing the optical alignment. Viscosity at -20C 2.552 3.237 3.424
The spray chamber is continuously purged with nitrogen at very (cSt)
low flow rate through the hood at the top to make an inert Iso-paraffins 55.70 64.81 NA
environment at atmospheric condition. Nitrogen supply hood (% Wt)
and the nozzle exit have a clearance of about 350mm to ensure Normal paraffins 43.40 29.79 NA
(% wt)
that the nitrogen supply does not influence the spray structure.
Napthenes 0.5 5.4 NA
The nitrogen and fuel vapor are extracted continuously through (% Wt)
an exhaust duct to avoid vapor saturation inside the chamber Surface tension 23.53 23.95 26.8
and the liquid fuel is collected at the bottom of the spray (mN/m)
chamber. Carbon cut narrow wide Not
C7-C13 C7-C16 available
Distillation characteristics
T50-T10 (oC) 8.4 9.4 >20
T90-T10 (oC) 20.7 28.7 >40
Table 1 Physical and Chemical properties of the jet fuels
[13]

Figure 2. Field of view and the measurement locations for
the GSV and PDA techniques
Two different measurement techniques of Global Sizing
Velocimetry (GSV) and Phase Doppler Anemometry (PDA) are
used to map droplet diameters in the spray. Figure 2 shows the
schematic of the spray and field of view for the planar GSV
measurement technique and the black dots represent the PDA
measurement locations.
Measurements are carried out in the near nozzle region up
to 123mm downstream of the nozzle exit. The region of interest
is divided into two zones, nozzle station-1 (NS1) and nozzle
station-2 (NS2) as shown in Figure 2. For GSV measurements
these regions (field of view) are constructed based on the focal
length of the camera lens and the chamber dimensions. The
field of view has a width of 55mm and a height of 41mm. The
region of interest in the radial direction is covered in two steps,
each step having a dimension of the field of view as mentioned
above. For PDA measurements data is obtained at the points in
the midsection of NS1 and NS2 as shown in the figure. All the
zones are positioned on one side of the spray, since the spray is
The GTL and conventional Jet A-1 fuels used in this work
are supplied by Shell Inc., and the chemical composition and
property details are summarized in Table 1. The SPK-1
represents the Shell commercial GTL fuel and SPK-2 is a blend
of SPK-1 and ShellSol solvents. The fuel composition of SPK-2
mimics the composition of future commercial GTL fuel from
“Qatar-Pearl” from a pilot plant sample from Shell. The key
difference in chemical composition between SPK-1 and SPK-2
is the carbon range, the former has the narrow carbon range and
the latter has the wide carbon range. Despite the difference in
carbon range, the overall hydrogen to carbon ratio is almost the
same among the GTL fuels. The change in chemical properties
has resulted in an increase in viscosity, density, and surface
tension of SPK-2 by 27%, 2%, and 1.8%, respectively, when
compared to SPK-1. Furthermore, the surface tension of Jet A-1
is higher than SPK-1 and SPK-2 by 12% and 11%, respectively.
An in depth analysis of the compositional details is reported
elsewhere [13].
3.3 OPTICAL DIAGNOSTICS
In this study, the droplet size and velocity in the spray are
measured at planar (global) and point (local) level using Global
Sizing Velocimetry (GSV) and Phase Doppler Anemometry
(PDA), respectively. Details of the measurement techniques are
discussed next.
3.3.1 GLOBAL SIZING VELOCIMETRY
GSV (TSI Inc.,) is a planar, laser-based imaging technique
working on the interferometric principle [14]. A Quantel,

3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Brilliant-b (twins) Nd-YAG pulse laser operating at 532nm
with a power of 320mJ/pulse is used as a light source in this
work. The laser beam is converted into a laser sheet having a
thickness of less than 600µm to illuminate the field of view in
the spray. A CCD camera (PCO.1600) fitted with a 105mm
focal length (f/2.8), 532nm band-pass filter, and neutral density
filters (4x and 8x) is used to collect the out-of-focus image
containing the interference signal [15] emitted by the droplets.
The neutral density filters are fitted in front of the lens to avoid
the saturation of the camera sensor pixel. A slit is also placed in
front of the camera lens to block all but a narrow region of the
out-of-focus image and to reduce the fringe overlap. The CCD
camera is positioned at an angle of 60o to the laser (Figure 3)
since, the angular oscillation spacing exhibited by the droplets
is most insensitive to the fuel refractive index at 60o [14].
Consequently, rectangular fringe patterns that are formed are
captured by the camera.
Figure 3 Laser and camera arrangement for GSV system
[14]
Prior to the spray measurements, the CCD camera is
focused on a 2D calibration target placed in the field of interest
in order to get the magnification factor in the images. Later, the
camera is defocused (by moving the camera away from the
field of view) without disturbing the lens magnification to
capture the out-of-focus angular oscillations emitted by the
droplets [16], [17]. The droplet size information is extracted
from the out-of-focus image based on the spacing between the
oscillations patterns [14]. The droplet velocity information can
also be obtained using a particle tracking technique by
capturing images in frame straddling mode (capturing two
consecutive images separated by a short time interval).
3.3.2 PHASE DOPPLER ANEMOMETRY
A 2-Channel, Phase Doppler Anemometry (PDA) system
from Dantec Dynamics is also installed and integrated with the
experimental facility (Figure 1) for point-wise, droplet size and
velocity measurement. The PDA system consists of a stand-
alone Argon-ion, multiline laser, transmitter probe, receiver
probe, photo detector unit, signal processing hardware and
software. The multiline laser beam operated at a power of
290mW serves as the light source which is then split into green
(λ=532nm) and blue (λ=488nm) beams inside the transmitter.
The resultant power of each laser beam is about 35~40mW.
Bragg cell [18] is used to shift the frequency (by 40MHz) of
one beam of each wavelength to facilitate the measurement of
reverse flows. The green and blue wavelengths are used to
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
measure the axial and radial component of the velocity. The
filtered and frequency shifted beams are transferred to the
transmitter probe using optical fibers. The transmitting probe
then emits the green laser beams along the vertical direction
and the blue beams are transmitted along the horizontal plane
as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Schematic of 2D-PDA transmitter and receiver
probe alignment in a flow field [18]
All the four beams (two green and two blue) are converged
at the focal length of the lens mounted in front of the
transmitting probe to create the measurement volume. PDA is
also developed based on the interferometric principle wherein,
the fringe pattern is created by intersecting two laser beams at
the measurement volume. The spacing between the fringes and
the number of fringes are fixed since the beam parameters, such
as wavelength and diameter are constant. In addition, the fringe
patterns also move continuously at a frequency of 40MHz
caused by the beam frequency shift.
The signal emitted by a droplet crossing the measurement
volume (fringe pattern) is received at the receiver probe. Here,
the receiver is positioned at an angle (42o) to collect the first
order refraction in forward scatter mode. The signals are then
processed using signal processing unit in order to determine the
droplet size and velocity information. At each radial location
the measurement is conducted to collect either a maximum of
10,000 droplet samples or 30s sample time to have statistically
independent droplet measurements. More details about the PDA
principle and methodology are described elsewhere [18].
3.3.3 VERIFICATIONS
In this section, the verification and uncertainty evaluation
methodology for the measurement techniques outlined in the
previous sections are discussed. The measurement techniques
are calibrated using a mono-disperse droplet generator (MDG-
100) from TSI Inc., [19]. The Mono-disperse droplet generator
produces a train of droplets with a uniform diameter when the
excitation frequency applied to the piezo-electric transducers on
the reservoir matches the resonant frequency of the reservoir
(Figure 5). The theoretical droplet diameter, d is obtained using
the excitation frequency and liquid flow rate. Typically, the
system can produce a train of droplets having a diameter in the
range of 50μm to 300μm. This method of droplet generation
has been established as a standard method for droplet size
measurement calibration.
4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
 Figure 5 Schematic of the mono-disperse droplet generator
[19]
In the present work water is used in MDG-100 system to
study the operational performance of both GSV and PDA
measurement techniques. GSV and PDA systems are used with
a combination of six and eight different droplet sizes,
respectively. Figure 6 shows that the measured droplet
diameters are within 15% of the theoretical values for the
system in both the cases. The repeatability of the experiments is
found to be within ± 3µm. Furthermore, Figure 6 shows that the
GSV and PDA calibration results agree very well with each
other.
Figure 6 Comparison of mean droplet diameters measured
by GSV and PDA techniques
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 GLOBAL MEASUREMENTS
In this section the results obtained using planar
measurement technique, GSV at different injection pressures
and axial locations of the spray are presented and discussed.
The GSV results are obtained by capturing 400 images from
which a total of 12,000 to 18,000 droplets are detected for each
condition studied. Figure 7 shows the comparison of droplet
size distribution measured for SPK-1, SPK-2 and Jet A-1 fuels
at Nozzle station, NS1.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Figure 7 Comparison of droplet size distribution of GTL
and Jet A-1 fuels measured at (a) 0.3MPa and (b) 0.9MPa
injection pressures at Nozzle station, NS1
The size distributions are shown only up to 300µm beyond
which the difference in distributions is insignificant. On the
lower side, all the distribution curves start from around 30µm.
This value represents the minimum droplet size that could be
measured with GSV as a result of the camera aperture size and
the defocus distance used in this work. At low injection
pressure, 0.3MPa, some difference is observed near the
distribution peak region, 50µm < d < 125µm. The distribution
peak for Jet A-1 is found to be higher and occurs at a smaller
droplet diameter when compared to those of SPK-1 and SPK-2
fuels. The distribution peak among the GTL fuels are almost the
same. Beyond 75 µm, the SPK-1 distribution is similar to that
of the Jet A-1 fuel. Interestingly, the SPK-2 exhibits a small
second peak at around 110µm which is not seen in the other
cases. Nonetheless, all these differences are within the accuracy
of the GSV experiments mentioned earlier in section 3.3.3. At
the high injection pressure the overall distributions and the
distribution peak exhibit almost similar pattern among the fuels.
In all the cases, the distribution peak is found to be slightly
higher when compared to the low injection pressure case.
Figure 8 shows the comparison of size distributions among
the fuels at nozzle station, NS2 at low and high injection
pressures. The size distribution trends for all the fuels at NS2
are similar to that observed at nozzle station, NS1. The
distribution peaks for all the fuels at NS2 are slightly higher
than those of NS1. At higher injection pressure, there is no
effect of axial distance (from the nozzle exit) on the size
distribution. This is despite the fact that the viscosity of Jet A-1
is higher than SPK-1 and SPK-2 by about 26% and 6%,
respectively and density by about 6% and 5%, respectively.
5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Figure 8 Comparison of droplet size distribution of GTL
and Jet A-1 fuels measured at (a) 0.3MPa and (b) 0.9MPa
injection pressures at Nozzle station, NS2
Figure 9 Variation of mean droplet diameters, d10
(continuous line) and d32 (dashed line) at Nozzle stations, (a)
NS1 and (b) NS2 at different injection pressures
In addition to the size distributions, arithmetic mean
diameter (d10) and Sauter mean diameter (d32) are calculated
and compared among the GTL fuels and with those of Jet A-1
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
fuel in Figure 9. As expected the mean diameters decrease with
an increase in the injection pressure at both locations. In line
with the size distribution, the variation of mean diameters is
found to be within a narrow range among the fuels.
All the above results suggest that the spray characteristics
of GTL fuels obtained from GSV method are very similar to
those of the conventional, Jet A-1 fuel at the conditions studied
in this work. This observation is further ascertained by looking
at the spray characteristics at the local level of the spray as
discussed next.
4.2 LOCAL MEASUREMENTS
In this section, the point-wise measurement results
obtained using PDA are discussed. The measurements are
carried out at several radial locations at the midsection of NS1
and NS2 as shown in Figure 1. The data rate for the
measurement was at 1 kHz and the droplet size validation rate
was found to vary between 65% and 85% depending on the
radial location in the spray. The velocity validation rate was
about 95% along the entire spray region. In general, data rate
was found to be high near the spray core region and decreased
with increase in radial distance. The radial variation of SMD
measured at the midsection of NS1 and NS2 at 0.3MPa and
0.9MPa is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10 Variation of SMD along the radial direction of
the spray at (a) 0.3MPa and (b) 0.9MPa
At both the injection pressures and the nozzle stations, the
SMD is seen to increase with the increase in radial driection
from the nozzle axis. This could be caused by the swirl motion
imparted to the liquid by the nozzle. This trend is consistent
with the trend previously reported in the literature [21]-[23] for
the pressure-swirl nozzle. Errorbars in the plot represents the
6 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
 typical standard deviation of the measured SMD and is only
shown for SPK-2 due to the narrow spread of the data and to
facilitate the discussion. At both pressures, the trend is found to
be prominent with increase in axial distance.
Figure 11 shows the variation of SMD along the axial
direction of the spray at the radial location, r = 0. It is seen that
with the increase in axial distance the SMD increases for all the
fuels. This increase in SMD could be due to the coalescence of
the droplets along the axial direction as reported by Ruger et
al., [24]. Among the GTL fuels, the SPK-2 shows the maximum
increase in SMD with axial distance while Jet A-1 exhibits the
least increase in SMD. With the increase in injection pressure,
the increase in SMD along the axial direction is found to be
less.

Figure 12 Radial variation of the mean axial velocity at (a)

NS1-midsection and (b) NS2-midsection

Figure 11 Variation of SMD along the axial direction of

spray at r=0

The distribution of mean axial velocity along the radial

direction of the spray at the midsection of NS1 and NS2 at
different injection pressures is shown in Figure 12. At low
injection pressure, the mean axial velocity increases
continuously along the radial direction and with an increase in
axial distance the increase in the mean axial velocity flattens
out. However, with increase in injection pressure the axial
velocity peaks at a radial location around r=40mm and the peak
shifted to r=70mm with an increase in axial distance. The steep
decay of axial velocity from the spray periphery to the spray
core could be due to the presence of a vortex zone as evidenced
by the Santolaya et al., [21]. They further reported that at low
injection pressures, the axial velocity is affected by the liquid
sheet break-up length and the entrainment of the ambient gas
due to the swirl motion. Furthermore, the axial velocity decays
with axial distance from the nozzle exit as expected and is
shown in Figure 13.
The point wise measurement results also indicate that the
difference in droplet size and droplet velocity among the fuels
is insignificant although the difference in fuel physical
properties (density, viscosity, and surface tension) between
GTL and Jet A-1 are to a maximum of 6%, 26%, and 12%,
respectively.
Figure 13 Axial variation of the axial velocity at different
injection pressures at r = 0
It is not clear at this point either aerodynamic or surface
tension force, on the droplets, is dominant in the spray regions
investigated here. Variation of Weber number, the ratio of
aerodynamic force to the surface tension force ( ∗ ∗
/ ), is also investigated to identify the dominant forces in the
atomization. Where, ρ is the liquid density in kg/m3, UR is the
relative velocity between the gas environment and the liquid
droplet in m/s. Since the ambient velocity is negligible in this
work the relative velocity is assumed to be equal to the droplet
velocity, UR ≈ UL. L is the characteristic dimension in m (which
is the droplet diameter in the present study), and σ is the surface
tension of the liquid fuel in N/m. Weber number is calculated
using the physical properties of the fuel from Table 1, the mean
droplet diameter (d10), and mean axial velocity from the PDA
measurement at any radial location.

7 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Figure 14 shows the axial variation of the Weber number
for all the fuels along the centerline of the spray (r=0). At both
injection pressures, the Weber number decreases with
increasing axial distance from the nozzle exit, where the
decrease is faster at higher injection pressure. Furthermore, at
all conditions the Weber number among the fuels is seen to vary
within a narrow range indicating small difference in fuel
properties.
Figure 14 Axial variation of Weber number along the
nozzle axis (r=0) at different injection pressures
Although the SMD (and the mean diameter, d10) is seen to
increase with axial distance, Figure 11, the Weber number
decreases as affected by the decrease in mean axial velocity
along the axial direction, Figure 13. This trend clearly
demonstrates that although the surface tension among the fuels
varies by a maximum of 12%, the aerodynamic force is
dominating (We >>1) in the regions of primary and secondary
atomization. This inference is confirmed when considering the
radial variation of the Weber number at 0.3MPa for different
fuels at two axial locations as shown in Figure 15.
Figure 15 Radial variation of Weber number at 0.3MPa
along the midsections of NS1 and NS2
The increase in mean axial velocity along the radial
direction (Figure 12) contributes more to the increase in Weber
number than the increase in the mean diameter in the radial
direction. Furthermore, no distinct difference between different
fuels tested in this work is observed. All the above results
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
clearly show that the local PDA measurement provides more
insight into the fuel spray (mean droplet diameter and velocity)
compared to that of the global (GSV) measurement. It is
interesting to note that, the GTL and Jet A-1 fuels exhibit
similar trend with little difference among the fuels in the point-
wise measurements (at local level) as initially observed with the
planar measurements (global level).
4.3 COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENTS WITH
EMPIRICAL CORRELATION
In this section, the measured SMD values for the GTL and
Jet A-1 spray are compared with that obtained from an
empirical correlation. The estimated SMD is calculated from
the empirical relation proposed by Wang and Lefebrve [20],
. . . . .
2.25. . . .∆ .
where, σ is the surface tension in N/m, µl is the liquid dynamic
viscosity in kg/(m.s), ml is the mass flow rate in kg/s, ΔPl is the
pressure difference in Pa, and ρa is the ambient density in
kg/m3. The estimated SMD values for GTL and Jet A-1fuels
using the empirical relation at different injection pressures are
tabulated in Table 2.
Injection Estimated SMD, µm
pressure SPK-1 SPK-2 Jet A-1
0.3MPa 129 129 135
0.9MPa 93 95 98
Table 2 Estimated SMD values for GTL and Jet A-1 fuels at
0.3MPa and 0.9MPa using the empirical relation
For GSV obtained data, the SMD values are calculated
based on all droplet diameters that are measured in NS1 and
NS2 as shown in Figure 9. On the other hand as PDA is a point-
wise measurement, the global SMD values are calculated based
on a time-average calculation. The PDA measurement at each
radial location provides a time history of droplets sampled
through the measurement volume. Since the sampling rate (i.e.,
arrival time) varies with the radial location of the spray, a
common time period (based on the arrival time of the droplets)
was chosen while post-processing the data. From each radial
location at a given axial distance, the droplet diameters that fall
within the common time period were included for the SMD
determination. Thus the collection of droplet diameters
(selected from the common time period) from all the radial
locations (at a given axial distance from the nozzle exit)
resemble the global size distribution for that condition. In this
work, a common time period of 9000ms is used across all the
radial locations.
Following the above procedure, the SMD values
determined using GSV are found to be higher than the
estimated values by a maximum of 23% and 52% for 0.3MPa
and 0.9MPa, respectively, among the fuels and different nozzle
stations. Two factors affecting this difference are; (1) the
limitation in the measurement of the minimum droplet diameter
by GSV technique and (2) the blockage effects of the higher
8 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
 number of larger droplets detected at the spray periphery, when
compared to those detected in the spray core region. PDA
measurement in Figure 10 shows that, the smaller droplets are
more concentrated closer to the spray axis and the larger
droplets are pushed towards the spray boundary, a common
trend in pressure swirl nozzles [21]. Consequently, the SMD
calculations are more influenced by the bigger droplets that are
detected at the spray boundary causing the SMD values to be
higher than the estimated ones for GSV measurement. On the
other hand, the overall SMD from the PDA data are found to be
within 17% and 13% for all the fuels at different axial distance
and at 0.3MPa and 0.9MPa, respectively. This is because PDA
measurements are less affected by the aforementioned
shortcoming of GSV and more faithfully follow the expected
trend for a pressure swirl nozzle.
5. SUMMRAY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this work, the microscopic spray characteristics, such as
mean droplet diameter, size distribution and velocities are
measured at several radial and axial locations downstream of
the nozzle exit at two injection pressures. Plane-wise and point-
wise measurements are carried out using Global Sizing
Velocimetry and Phase Doppler Anemometry, respectively, and
the results are compared. The measurement techniques and the
measurement locations are overlapped in order to gain more
insights from both the measurements.
The results from the plane-wise measurement clearly show
that although the physical properties of the GTL fuels differ
from the conventional fuel by a maximum of 26%, the spray
characteristics are similar between the GTL fuels and close to
that of the Jet A-1. The difference in the calculated SMD
between Jet A-1 and GTL fuels obtained from GSV
measurement are found to be insignificant. However, the
measured SMD values are found to be higher than the
estimated value obtained using an empirical correlation
available in the literature. This is mainly caused by the
characteristics of the GSV technique used for the measurement
of droplet diameters in the spray.
The results of the PDA measurement also show little
difference between the spray characteristics of the GTL and Jet
A-1 fuels. Point-wise measurement results add more insights by
providing the radial distribution of the droplet size and velocity
in the fuel spray region. The trend of radial variation of the
droplet size in the spray obtained from PDA measurement is
found to be consistent with the trend previously reported for the
pressure swirl nozzle. Interestingly, the point-wise
measurement results for the GTL and Jet A-1 also lead to the
fact that the GTL fuel spray characteristics are close to that of
the Jet A-1 fuel. The variation of Weber number is also
investigated to investigate the nature of dominant force in the
atomization process.
All the results reported here indicate that the spray
performance of GTL fuels at atmospheric condition is similar to
that of conventional Jet A-1 fuel. This is an indication that GTL
fuel may be used in the existing fuel systems and combustors
without compromising the spray quality, and at the same time
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
improving the combustion and emission characteristics of the
combustor. However, more studies at ambient conditions closer
to actual combustors is required to properly account for
volatilization characteristics and chemical processes relevant to
combustion.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Qatar Science and
Technology Park for funding this work. The authors would like
to acknowledge the project partners, Mr. John Moran at Rolls-
Royce (UK), Prof. Chris Wilson at Sheffield University, Dr.
Patrick LeClercq at DLR (Germany), and Dr. Joanna Bauldreay
and Mr. Ali Al-Sharshani at Shell (UK and Qatar) for their
support. We would like to thank Dr. Mahesh Panchagnula at IIT
Madras for his valuable suggestions.
7. REFERENCES
[1] J. I. Hileman, H. M. Wong, D. Ortiz, N. Brown, L.
Maurice, and M. Rumizen, The feasibility and potential
environmental benefits of alternative fuels for commercial
aviation, 26th International congress of the aeronautical
sciences, Alaska, USA, 14-19 September, 2008.
[2] Energy technology perspectives – scenarios and strategies
to 2050, International Energy Agency, 2006.
[3] D. N. Nguyen, H. Ishida, and M. Shioji, Gas-to-Liquid
sprays at different injection and ambient conditions, ASME
J. Eng. Gas Turbines power, 133(3), pp. 10, 2011.
[4] M. Lapuerta, O. Armas, J. J. Hernandez, and A. Tsolakis,
Potential for reducing emissions in a diesel engine by
fuelling with conventional biodiesel and Fischer-Tropsch
diesel. Fuel 89(3), pp. 3106-3113, 2010.
[5] X. Hui, K. Kumar, C. J. Sung, T. Edwards, and D.
Gardner, Experimental studies on the combustion
characteristics of alternative jet fuels, Fuel 98, pp. 176-182,
2012.
[6] V. Vukadinovic, P. Habisreuther, and N. Zarzalis,
Experimental study on combustion characteristics of
conventional and alternative liquid fuels, ASME J. Eng.
Gas Turbines Power, 134 (12), pp. 9, 2012.
[7] K. U. Reddy, and D. P. Mishra, Studies on spray behaviour
of a pressure swirl atomizer in transition regime, Journal of
propulsion and power, 24 (1), pp. 74-80, 2008.
[8] E. Mancaruso, L. Sequino, and B. M. Vaglieco, First and
second generation biodiesel spray characterization in a
diesel engine, Fuel, 90(9), pp. 2870-2883, 2011.
[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] Y. Li, G. Tian, J. Zhang, and H. Xu, Comparative
experimental study on microscopic spray characteristics of
RME, GTL and diesel, SAE paper No. 2010-01-2284,
2010.
9 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
 [11] 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.
[12] 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
aviation applications, Paper 58b, Proceedings of AIChE
Spring National Meeting, Houston, Texas, 2007.
[13] J. M. Bauldreay, P. F Bogers, and A. Al-Sharshani, Use of
surrogate blends to explore combustion-composition links
for synthetic paraffinic kerosines, 12th International
conference on stability, handling and use of liquid fuels,
Florida, USA, 16-20 October, 2011.
[14] G. Pan, J. Shakal, W. Lai, R. Calabria, and P. Massoli,
Spray features investigated by GSV: A new planar laser
technique, 10th International Congress on Liquid
Atomization and Spray Systems, Kyoto, Japan, Aug 27-
Sep1, ICLASS06-283, 2006.
[15] R. Ragucci, A. Cavaliere, and P. Massoli, Particle and
Particle Systems Characterization, 7, pp. 221-225, 1990.
[16] P. Massoli, and R. Calabria, 15th Conference on Liquid
Atomization and Spray Systems, ILASS-Europe, July 5th-
7th, Toulouse, France, 1999.
[17] R. Calabria, A. Casaburi, and P. Massoli, 9th International
Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems –
ICLASS 2003, Italy, 13-17 July, 2003.
[18] PDA reference manual, Dantec Dynamics
(http://www.dantecdynamics.com), 2012.
[19] MDG-100 Monosize droplet generator, operation and
service manual, TSI Inc., USA, 2010.
[20] X. F. Wang, and A. H. Lefebvre, Mean drop sizes from
pressure swirl nozzles, Journal of propulsion and power, 3
(1), pp. 11-18, 1987.
[21] 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.
[22] A. P. Crayford, P. J. Bowen, P. J. Kay, and H. Laget,
Comparison of gas-oil and bio-oil spray performance for
use in a gas turbine, Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo
2010: Power for Land, Sea and Air, June 14-18, Glasgow,
UK, 2010, GT2010-23485.
[23] T. Li, K. Nishida, and H. Hiroyasu, Droplet size
distribution and evaporation characteristics of fuel spray by
a swirl type atomizer, Fuel, 90, pp. 2367-2376, 2011.
[24] M. Ruger, S. Hohmann, M. Sommerfeld, and G.
Kohnen, Euler/Lagrange calculations of turbulent sprays:
the effect of droplet collisions and coalescence,
Atomization and sprays, 10 (1), pp. 47-81, 2000.

10 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/05/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms