4.7 Article

Experimental study of micro-explosion and puffing of gas-to-liquid (GTL) fuel blends by suspended droplet method

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 218, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119462

Keywords

GTL fuel; Suspended droplet; Evaporation behaviour; Micro-explosion; Puffing; Child droplet

Funding

  1. Yayasan Universiti Teknologi Petronas [015Lc0-133]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study revealed that among the tested GTL-diesel fuel blends, G100 does not exhibit puffing, while G20 shows no micro-explosions. In comparison, the other blends experience both phenomena. Additionally, G50 has the highest number of child droplets, and G20 has the highest enlargement factor observed.
In this study, a set of GTL-diesel fuel blends (G20, G50, G80, and G100, where the number represents the percentage of GTL fuel in the fuel blend) are prepared. Subsequently, using the suspended droplet method in a controlled heating chamber, the evaporation behaviour of these GTL fuel blends is visualised using a high-speed camera connected to a long-distance microscope. It is found that, among the tested fuel blends, puffing is not observable for G100, whereas micro-explosions are absent for G20. In comparison, the remaining fuel blends experience both these phenomena. In addition, the highest enlargement factor is observed for G20, followed by G50 and G80, whereas G50 has the highest micro-explosion intensity, followed by G80 and G100. Finally, the numbers and sizes of the child droplets are determined by adjusting the detection threshold, and it is found that G50 has the highest number of child droplets, followed by G80, G100, and G20. The results indicate that the presence of 50% GTL fuel in a GTL-diesel fuel blend (by volume) can lead to the best droplet micro explosions compared to the rest of the tested fuel blends. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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