4.7 Article

Measurement of laminar burning velocity of high performance alternative aviation fuels

Journal

FUEL
Volume 261, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116466

Keywords

Laminar flame speed; Liquid hydrocarbon; High energy density; Bunsen burner; Flame surface area

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An experimental study was conducted on the measurement of the laminar burning velocity of alternative aviation fuels, in order to assess the feasibility of using the newly developed fuels in aviation applications. Two kinds of high performance hydrocarbon fuels (HPF-1 and 2), having higher density but moderate viscosity as compared with existing conventional aviation fuels, were created, and a Bunsen burner was manufactured to measure their laminar burning velocities at an elevated temperature of 550 K and atmospheric pressure. The measured laminar burning velocity of HPF-1 and 2 at the preheating temperature shows that the peak burning velocity of HPF-1 is approximately 125 cm/s, which is very close to that of the reference fuel (RF) and higher than Jet A-1, while the maximum laminar burning velocity of HPF-2 is shown to be approximately 130 cm/s, which is slightly higher (5-6 cm/s) than those of HPF-1 and RF. Compared with RF and Jet A-1, furthermore, the laminar burning velocity curves of HPFs shift to the fuel-rich side, with a corresponding decrease in the burning velocity on the lean side and an increase on the rich side. Therefore, the equivalence ratio where the laminar burning velocity reaches maximum (Phi(max)) increases slightly for the HPFs; Phi(max)for Jet A-1 and RF are around 1.07 and 1.08, respectively, while those for HPF-1 and 2 are 1.12 and 1.14, respectively. These fundamental data can be used to develop and validate combustion models to enable quantitative performance predictions in engine design for the newly developed fuels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available