Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-04T03:19:14.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combustion characteristics of sustainable aviation fuels in a scaled-down afterburner test rig

Part of: Sustainable Aerospace ISABE 2024

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2024

J. Bae ,
S. Chaudhuri ,
P. Canteenwalla  and
S. Yun Open the ORCID record for S. Yun [Opens in a new window]
J. Bae
Affiliation:
Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
S. Chaudhuri
Affiliation:
Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
P. Canteenwalla
Affiliation:
National Research Council, Ottawa, ON, Canada
S. Yun*
Affiliation:
National Research Council, Ottawa, ON, Canada
*
Corresponding author: S. Yun; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the combustion characteristics (lean blowoff (LBO), flashback, and combustion instability) of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) using a two-staged combustor arranged in tandem. The combustor consists of a first (main) burner with an axial swirler and a second burner (afterburner) with a V-gutter bluff-body. The main burner utilises a constant flow rate of CH4/Air as reactants, while the afterburner operates on the combustion product from the first burner, additional dilution air, and one of the six liquid test fuels (Jet-A, A-2, C-1, C-5, C-9, and JP-8/HRJ) as reactants. When test fuels with higher derived cetane number (DCN) are used in the afterburner, it is observed that LBO occurs at lower afterburner global equivalence ratios (${\phi _{af}}$). This is due to the smaller chemical time scale of those test fuels, which enables the flame to be sustained under higher flow speeds. This is consistent with the results of previous studies. Additionally, this study shows that flashback also occurs at lower equivalence ratio for test fuels with higher DCN. This is a new finding and can be explained in a similar way to LBO. As the operating conditions approach the LBO or exceed flashback limits, the reactivity of shear layer also decreases, creating favourable conditions for them to occur. Moreover, for test fuels with low DCN (C-1 and C-5), blowoff occurs instead of flashback as ${\phi _{af}}$ increases. This can be attributed to the stronger pressure perturbation resulting from combustion instability in these flames compared to others. It demonstrates a stronger correlation between the pressure perturbation and the heat release rate fluctuation for C-1 and C-5 than that of other test fuels at the same equivalence ratio. In conclusion, it was found that test fuels with higher DCN have advantages in terms of LBO and stability, however, they are more prone to flashback.

Keywords

sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)in-tandem combustorflame stability
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 128 , Special Issue 1325: The Aeronautical Journal ISABE 2024 Special Issue , July 2024 , pp. 1429 - 1449
Check for updates
Copyright
© National Research Council Canada, 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Colket, M., Heyne, J., Rumizen, M., Gupta, M., Edwards, T., Roquemore, 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. Overview of the national jet fuels combustion program, AIAA J., 2017, 55, pp 1087–1104.10.2514/1.J055361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyne, J.S., Peiffer, E., Colket, M.B., Jardines, A., Shaw, C., Moder, J.P., Roquemore, W.M., Edwards, J.T., Li, C. and Rumizen, M. Year 3 of the national jet fuels combustion program: practical and scientific impacts of alternative jet fuel research, 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2018, p 1667.10.2514/6.2018-1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Z.J., Podboy, D. and Chang, C. Effects alternative fuels on gas emissions and combustion dynamic characteristics on a 9-point LDI combustor, 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2018, p 2126.10.2514/6.2018-2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corporan, E., Edwards, J.T., Stouffer, S., DeWitt, M., West, Z., Klingshirn, C. and Bruening, C. Impacts of fuel properties on combustor performance, operability and emissions characteristics, 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2017, p 0380.10.2514/6.2017-0380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, C., Valco, D., Toulson, E., Edwards, T. and Lee, T. Ignition behavior and surrogate modeling of JP-8 and of camelina and tallow hydrotreated renewable jet fuels at low temperatures, Combust. Flame, 2013, 160, pp 232–239.10.1016/j.combustflame.2012.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, D., Kim, D., Kalaskar, V., Violi, A. and Boehman, A.L., Experimental characterization of jet fuels under engine relevant conditions–Part 1: Effect of chemical composition on autoignition of conventional and alternative jet fuels, Fuel, 2019, 239, pp 1388–1404.10.1016/j.fuel.2018.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, L., Cronly, J., Ubogu, E., Ahmed, I., Zhang, Y. and Khandelwal, B. Experimental investigation on alternative fuel combustion performance using a gas turbine combustor, Appl. Energy, 2019, 238, pp 1530–1542.10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casselberry, R.Q., Corporan, E. and DeWitt, M.J. Correlation of combustor lean blowout performance to supercritical pyrolysis products, Fuel, 2019, 252, pp 504–511.10.1016/j.fuel.2019.04.128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peiffer, E.E., Heyne, J.S. and Colket, M. Sustainable aviation fuels approval streamlining: Auxiliary power unit lean blowout testing, AIAA J., 2019, 57, pp 4854–4862.10.2514/1.J058348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsulami, R., Lucas, S., Hageman, M., Knadler, M., Quinlan, J.M. and Windom, B. Coupling effects of physical and chemical properties on jet fuel spray flame blowout, Proc. Combust. Inst., 2021, 38, pp 3333–3341.10.1016/j.proci.2020.09.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosseinpour, S., Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabaei, M. and Khalife, E., Exact estimation of biodiesel cetane number (CN) from its fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) profile using partial least square (PLS) adapted by artificial neural network (ANN), Energy Convers. Manag., 2016, 124, pp 389–398.10.1016/j.enconman.2016.07.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westbrook, C.K., Pitz, W.J., Mehl, M. and Curran, H.J. Detailed chemical kinetic reaction mechanisms for primary reference fuels for diesel cetane number and spark-ignition octane number, Proc. Combust. Inst., 2011, 33, pp 185–192.10.1016/j.proci.2010.05.087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, Z., Li, C., Liu, H., Zhang, Y., Zhong, X. and Yao, M. Experimental study on diesel conventional and low temperature combustion by fueling four isomers of butanol, Fuel, 2015, 141, pp 109–119.10.1016/j.fuel.2014.10.053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanbhogue, S.J., Husain, S. and Lieuwen, T. Lean blowoff of bluff body stabilized flames: Scaling and dynamics, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 2009, 35, pp 98–120.10.1016/j.pecs.2008.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Won, S.H., Rock, N., Lim, S.J., Nates, S., Carpenter, D., Emerson, B., Lieuwen, T., Edwards, T. and Dryer, F.L. Preferential vaporization impacts on lean blow-out of liquid fueled combustors, Combust. Flame, 2019, 205, pp 295–304.10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyne, J.S., Colket, M.B., Gupta, M., Jardines, A., Moder, J.P., Edwards, J.T., Roquemore, M., Li, C. and Rumizen, M. Year 2 of the National jet fuels combustion program: Towards a streamlined alternative jet fuels certification process, 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2017, p 0145.10.2514/6.2017-0145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovett, J., Brogan, T., Philippona, D., Kiel, B. and Thompson, T. Development needs for advanced afterburner designs, 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 2004, p 4192.10.2514/6.2004-4192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zukoski, E.E. Afterburners, 1978.Google Scholar
Nakanishi, S., Velie, W.W. and Bryant, L. An investigation of effects of flame-holder gutter shape on afterburner performance, 1954.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, S., Kostka, S., Renfro, M.W. and Cetegen, B.M. Blowoff dynamics of bluff body stabilized turbulent premixed flames, Combust. Flame, 2010, 157, pp 790–802.10.1016/j.combustflame.2009.10.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, C., Bae, J., Kim, T., Yoon, J., Joo, S. and Yoon, Y. Investigation of flashback characteristics coupled with combustion instability in turbulent premixed bluff body flames using high-speed OH-PLIF and PIV, Proc. Combust. Inst., 2017, 36, pp 1861–1868.10.1016/j.proci.2016.08.077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geikie, M.K. and Ahmed, K.A. Lagrangian mechanisms of flame extinction for lean turbulent premixed flames, Fuel, 2017, 194, pp 239–256.10.1016/j.fuel.2016.12.097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nair, S. and Lieuwen, T. Near-blowoff dynamics of a bluff-body stabilized flame, J. Propul. Power, 2007, 23, pp 421–427.10.2514/1.24650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuttle, S.G., Chaudhuri, S., Kostka, S., Kopp-Vaughan, K.M., Jensen, T.R., Cetegen, B.M. and Renfro, M.W. Time-resolved blowoff transition measurements for two-dimensional bluff body-stabilized flames in vitiated flow, Combust. Flame, 2012, 159, pp 291–305.10.1016/j.combustflame.2011.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pathania, R.S., Skiba, A.W., Ciardiello, R. and Mastorakos, E., Blow-off mechanisms of turbulent premixed bluff-body stabilised flames operated with vapourised kerosene fuels, Proc. Combust. Inst., 2021, 38, pp 2957–2965.10.1016/j.proci.2020.06.213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, P. and Mellor, A. Correlation of lean blowoff of gas turbine combustors using alternative fuels, J. Energy, 1983, 7, pp 729–732.10.2514/3.62722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plee, S. and Mellor, A. Characteristic time correlation for lean blowoff of bluff-body-stabilized flames, Combust. Flame, 1979, 35, pp 61–80.10.1016/0010-2180(79)90007-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z., Hu, B., Zhao, Q. and Xu, J. Towards predicting lean blow-off based on Damköhler number and practical reaction zone, Turbo Expo: Power for Land, Sea, and Air, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2017, p V04AT04A039.10.1115/GT2017-63507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, T., Hu, Z. and Zhou, Y. Numerical analysis on the characteristic chemical time scale and combustion regime of natural gas MILD combustion, Fuel, 2020, 282, p 118811.10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husain, S.A. Analysis of Blowoff Scaling of Bluff Body Stabilized Flames, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2008.Google Scholar
Knaus, D., Magari, P., Hill, R., Phillips, S. and Kiel, B. Predicting augmentor static stability using local Damkohler number, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2008, p 1027.10.2514/6.2008-1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalghatgi, G.T. Auto-ignition quality of practical fuels and implications for fuel requirements of future SI and HCCI engines, SAE Technical Paper 1, 2005, 0239.10.4271/2005-01-0239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowdagiri, S., Wang, W. and Oehlschlaeger, M.A. A shock tube ignition delay study of conventional diesel fuel and hydroprocessed renewable diesel fuel from algal oil, Fuel, 2014, 128, pp 21–29.10.1016/j.fuel.2014.02.064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H. and Oehlschlaeger, M.A. Autoignition studies of conventional and Fischer–Tropsch jet fuels, Fuel, 2012, 98, pp 249–258.10.1016/j.fuel.2012.03.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandersickel, A., Hartmann, M., Vogel, K., Wright, Y.M., Fikri, M., Starke, R., Schulz, C. and Boulouchos, K. The autoignition of practical fuels at HCCI conditions: High-pressure shock tube experiments and phenomenological modeling, Fuel, 2012, 93, pp 492–501.10.1016/j.fuel.2011.10.062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisser, G.A. Modelling of Combustion and Nitric Oxide Formation for Medium-Speed DI Diesel Engines: A Comparative Evaluation of Zero-and Three-Dimensional Approaches, ETH Zurich, 2001.Google Scholar
De Toni, A., Werler, M., Hartmann, R., Cancino, L., Schießl, R., Fikri, M., Schulz, C., Oliveira, A., Oliveira, E. and Rocha, M. Ignition delay times of Jet A-1 fuel: Measurements in a high-pressure shock tube and a rapid compression machine, Proc. Combust. Inst., 2017, 36, pp 3695–3703.10.1016/j.proci.2016.07.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z., Hu, B., Fang, A., Zhao, Q. and Chen, X. Analyzing lean blow-off limits of gas turbine combustors based on local and global Damköhler number of reaction zone, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2021, 111, p 106532.10.1016/j.ast.2021.106532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Chang, J., Ma, J., Wang, Y. and Bao, W. Investigations on flame liftoff characteristics in liquid-kerosene fueled supersonic combustor equipped with thin strut, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2019, 84, pp 686–697.10.1016/j.ast.2018.11.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, T.J. Common failures in gas turbine blades, Eng. Failure Anal., 2005, 12, pp 237–247.10.1016/j.engfailanal.2004.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paxton, B.T., Fugger, C.A., Tomlin, A.S. and Caswell, A.W. Experimental investigation of fuel chemistry on combustion instabilities in a premixed bluff-body combustor, AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, 2020, p 0174.10.2514/6.2020-0174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwan, N., Carmenromano, M., Thiel, M. and Kurths, J. Recurrence plots for the analysis of complex systems, Phys. Rep., 2007, 438, pp 237–329.10.1016/j.physrep.2006.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotoda, H., Nikimoto, H., Miyano, T. and Tachibana, S. Dynamic properties of combustion instability in a lean premixed gas-turbine combustor, Chaos, 2011, 21, p 013124.10.1063/1.3563577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J.T. Reference jet fuels for combustion testing, 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2017, p 0146.10.2514/6.2017-0146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Z., Stachler, R. and Heyne, J.S. Orthogonal reference surrogate fuels for operability testing, Energies, 2020, 13, p 1948.10.3390/en13081948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Won, S.H., Veloo, P.S., Dooley, S., Santner, J., Haas, F.M., Ju, Y. and Dryer, F.L. Predicting the global combustion behaviors of petroleum-derived and alternative jet fuels by simple fuel property measurements, Fuel, 2016, 168, pp 34–46.10.1016/j.fuel.2015.11.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Won, S.H., Haas, F.M., Dooley, S., Edwards, T. and Dryer, F.L. Reconstruction of chemical structure of real fuel by surrogate formulation based upon combustion property targets, Combust. Flame, 2017, 183, pp 39–49.10.1016/j.combustflame.2017.04.032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standard test method for determination of ignition delay and derived cetane number (DCN) of diesel fuel oils by combustion in a constant volume chamber, American Society for Testing Materials: Designation: D 6890-03a, 2003.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, S., Kostka, S., Tuttle, S.G., Renfro, M.W. and Cetegen, B.M. Blowoff mechanism of two dimensional bluff-body stabilized turbulent premixed flames in a prototypical combustor, Combust. Flame, 2011, 158, pp 1358–1371.10.1016/j.combustflame.2010.11.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, A., Wan, J., Liu, Y., Pi, B., Yao, H. and Liu, W. Effect of bluff body shape on the blow-off limit of hydrogen/air flame in a planar micro-combustor, Appl. Thermal Eng., 2014, 62, pp 13–19.10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.09.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hossain, A. and Nakamura, Y. A numerical study on the ability to predict the heat release rate using CH* chemiluminescence in non-sooting counterflow diffusion flames, Combust. Flame, 2014, 161, pp 162–172.10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.08.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sardeshmukh, S., Bedard, M. and Anderson, W. The use of OH* and CH* as heat release markers in combustion dynamics, Int. J. Spray Combust. Dyn., 2017, 9, pp 409–423.10.1177/1756827717718483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, S., Gong, Y., Guo, Q., Yu, G. and Wang, F. Numerical study of CH* chemiluminescence and heat release rate in methane inverse diffusion flame, Fuel, 2024, 357.10.1016/j.fuel.2023.129963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stouffer, S., Hendershott, T., Monfort, J.R., Diemer, J., Corporan, E., Wrzesinski, P. and Caswell, A.W. Lean blowout and ignition characteristics of conventional and surrogate fuels measured in a swirl stabilized combustor, 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2017, p 1954.10.2514/6.2017-1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monfort, J.R., Stouffer, S., Hendershott, T., Wrzesinski, P., Foley, W. and Rein, K.D. Evaluating combustion instability in a swirl-stabilized combustor using simultaneous pressure, temperature, and chemiluminescense measurements at high repetition rates, 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2017, p 1101.10.2514/6.2017-1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieuwen, T.C. Investigation of combustion instability mechanisms in premixed gas turbines, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1999.10.2514/6.1998-641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bae, J., Jeong, S. and Yoon, Y., Effect of delay time on the combustion instability in a single-element combustor, Acta Astronaut., 2021, 178, pp 783–792.10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar