Laminar flame speed of jet fuel surrogates and second generation biojet fuel blends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An understanding of the fundamental combustion properties of alternative fuels is essential for their adoption as replacements for non-renewable sources. In the aviation industry, a promising candidate is hydrotreated renewable jet fuel (HRJF). HRJF can be synthesized in a sustainable and economically viable manner from long chain fatty-acid methyl esters found in jatropha and camelina seed, and the laboratory-scale characterization of the combustion properties of HRJF is an active area of research. Such research is motivated, in part, by the chemical complexity of biojet fuels which are composed of hundreds of hydrocarbon species, similar to conventional aviation grade fuels. The laminar flame speed has been identified as an important combustion parameter for many combustion applications, and is especially relevant to the aviation community. The laminar flame speed is also an important parameter in the validation of chemical kinetic mechanisms, as it is representative of the chemical reactivity of the fuel. In this study, laminar, atmospheric pressure, premixed stagnation flames were used to determine the laminar flame speed of HRJF blended in varying ratios with Jet A-1 aviation fuel, requiring a combination of experimental and numerical methods. Jet A-1 was also studied to allow for comparative benchmarking of the biojet blends. Experiments were carried out in a jet-wall stagnation flame geometry at a pre-heated temperature of 400 K. Centerline velocity profiles were obtained using particle image velocimetry, from which the strained reference flame speeds were determined. Simulations of each experiment were carried out using the CHEMKIN-PRO software package together with a detailed chemical kinetic mechanism, with the specification of necessary boundary conditions taken entirely from experimental measurements. A direct comparison method was used to infer the true laminar flame speed from the experimental and numerical strained reference flame speeds. In order to model the chemical kinetics of Jet A-1 and the biojet blends, it was necessary to identify a surrogate blend that emulates the reactivity of the biojet fuels, while consisting of a much smaller number of pure compounds. Published data shows significant discrepancies for many jet fuel surrogate components, motivating their inclusion in this study. Thus, laminar flame speeds were also obtained for three candidate jet fuel surrogate components: n-decane, methylcyclohexane and toluene, which are representative of the alkane, cycloalkane and aromatic components of conventional aviation fuel, respectively. Results for the pure surrogate components were used to generate a suitable surrogate blend for the biojet blends. The results form this work resolve conflicting laminar flame speed data for the surrogate components, which is essential for the further development of chemical kinetic mechanisms and contributes to the surrogate modelling of jet fuel combustion. The laminar flame speeds of the biojet blends are compared to the Jet A-1 benchmark over a wide range of equivalence ratios. The biojet blends are found to behave similarly to Jet A-1 for low to moderate levels of blending, but show a marked disagreement otherwise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".