Fuel 89 (2010) 37353741

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Atomization and combustion of canola methyl ester biofuel spray

Jaime A. Erazo Jr., Ramkumar Parthasarathy *, Subramanyam Gollahalli
Combustion and Flame Dynamics Laboratory, School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, 865 Asp Ave Room 212, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 14 July 2009
Received in revised form 10 June 2010
Accepted 15 July 2010
Available online 25 July 2010
Keywords:
Biofuel
Combustion
Spray
Emission
Drops

a b s t r a c t
The spray atomization and combustion characteristics of canola methyl ester (CME) biofuel are compared
to those of petroleum based No. 2 diesel fuel in this paper. The spray ame was contained in an optically
accessible combustor which was operated at atmospheric pressure with a co-ow of heated air. Fuel was
delivered through a swirl-type air-blast atomizer with an injector orice diameter of 300 lm. A two-component phase Doppler particle analyzer was used to measure the spray droplet size, axial velocity, and
radial velocity distributions. Radial and axial distributions of NO, CO, CO2 and O2 concentrations were also
obtained. Axial and radial distributions of ame temperature were recorded with a PtPt/13%Rh (type R)
thermocouple. The volumetric ow rates of fuel, atomization air and co-ow air were kept constant for
both fuels. The droplet Sauter mean diameter (SMD) at the nozzle exit for CME biofuel spray was smaller
than that of the No. 2 diesel fuel spray, implying faster vaporization rates for the former. The ame temperature decreased more rapidly for the CME biofuel spray ame than for the No. 2 diesel fuel spray ame
in both axial and radial directions. CME biofuel spray ames produced lower in-ame NO and CO peak
concentrations than No. 2 diesel fuel spray ames.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Because of the uncertain petroleum prices and the impetus to
develop renewable energy sources, biofuels are emerging as alternatives to petroleum fuels with practical applicability to diesel engines, gas turbines, and industrial continuous combustors.
Biodiesel fuel has many important advantages over conventional
petroleum based fuels. Biodiesel is renewable, carbon-neutral from
an environment standpoint, and is sulfur-free. However, one drawback in the use of biodiesel fuels seems to be the increase in NO by
114% that has been reported from biodiesel fuelled compression
ignition engines [13]. A variety of reasons have been cited for this
increase in NO emissions. Increasing iodine number has been correlated with increasing NO emissions from biodiesel fuelled engines [1,4]. Another recent study attributed the increased NO
emissions to the increased presence of double bonds in biodiesel
fuels [4]. It has also been suggested that the bulk modulus difference between biodiesel and No. 2 diesel fuel causes an advance
in the fuel injection when using biodiesel [46], resulting in higher
temperatures and higher NO. However, the results of experiments
with continuous combustion systems such as gas turbine combustors and oil furnaces show the opposite effect: NOx seems to be
lowered when certain biofuels are substituted for petroleum fuels,
either in the pure form or as blends [79].

The laser imaging studies by Dec [10] have revealed that the
mechanisms and processes in the combustion of a fuel spray in a
diesel engine signicantly differ from the earlier model proposed
by Faeth [11] that was also applicable to continuous spray combustors. Therefore, the NO emission increases observed in biodiesel
fuelled engines may not occur in continuous combustors such as
gas turbines. To understand this discrepancy, studies on ame
structure of sprays, in a more controlled environment than the
complex thermo-chemical environment existing in engines are
needed; this idea formed the basis of the present study.
In this paper, combustion characteristics of canola methyl ester
(CME) biodiesel were documented in a continuous combustor setup. In a companion project, biodiesel combustion in a laminar
ame was studied to isolate fuel chemistry effects [12], the results
of which provide baseline data for comparison. The specic goal of
this paper was to investigate the differences in the combustion and
emission characteristics between No. 2 diesel and CME spray
ames. Parameters, such as air-preheat temperature, atomization
air, and global equivalence ratio, were controlled to provide direct
comparison. In-ame temperature, in-ame concentrations of NO,
CO, CO2 and O2, and spray droplet size and mean droplet axial/radial velocities were measured.

2. Experimental apparatus
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.A. Erazo Jr.), [email protected]
(R. Parthasarathy), [email protected] (S. Gollahalli).
0016-2361/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2010.07.022

The experiments were conducted in a large, steel combustion

chamber, shown in Fig. 1. A preheated, air co-ow system was used

3736

J.A. Erazo Jr. et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 37353741

1 Fuel Inlet
2 Air Inlet
3 Settling Chamber
with Marbles
4 Screen
5 Air Co- Flow Inlet
6 Flame Chamber
7 Injector
8 Set Screw

10
1 Air Filter and
Rotameter
2 Co Flow Air Heater
3 Fuel Rotameter
4 Air Rotameter
5 Settling Chamber
6 Flame Chamber
7 Fuel Tank
8 Nitrogen Tank
9 Steel Chamber
10 Exhaust Vent

51.8 cm
7

Not to Scale

Not to Scale

20.3 cm

Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of combustion chamber.

Fig. 2. Schematic drawing of air and fuel tubing.

to deliver combustion air obtained from the lab supply line. Heating was accomplished using a 10 kW electrical resistance heater in
conjunction with a temperature controller. A settling chamber was
used to provide a uniform ow of air surrounding the spray. The
ame was contained in a stainless steel test unit with Vycor glass
windows for optical accessibility.
The fuel tank was pressurized with nitrogen, while the atomization air was supplied from an air cylinder. An air-blast atomizer
with an injector diameter of 300 lm was used to produce the
spray. A schematic diagram of the air/fuel tubing is presented in
Fig. 2.
The spray droplet size and velocity distributions were measured
using a 2-channel phase Doppler particle analyzer (PDPA) [13,14].
The source of light was an argon-ion laser operated at 225 mW,
which was split into the green (514 nm) and blue (488 nm) light.
Bragg cells were used to frequency shift one beam of each color
to facilitate the measurement of reversed ows. The receiving optics was set-up in the off-axis (30) forward-scatter mode. The
diameter-measurement system was calibrated with a mono-disperse droplet generator. In general, approximately 10,000 data
points were collected at each measurement location in the spray
ame and averaged. At certain locations in the spray ame, such
as at the edges and far downstream of the injector, it was not possible to collect such a high number of data points within a reasonable amount of time. On an average, approximately 120 s were
needed to collect the data points at a given location. The PDPA
transmitting and receiving optics were mounted on three-way traverses to move the measuring volume to different locations in the
spray ame. The ame was almost symmetric about the vertical
axis, therefore, only half-width proles are presented.
Species concentration proles of CO, CO2, NO, and O2 were measured using a portable gas analyzer. CO and CO2 concentrations

were measured using a non-disperse infrared detector (NDIR)

based on the attenuation of the infrared wavelength beam specic
to the species [15], while NOx and O2 concentrations were measured using electro-chemical detectors [16]. The samples were collected using a 1 mm diameter orice, uncooled quartz probe. An
inline lter and a condenser were used to lter the moisture and
particles before passing the ue gases through the analyzers. The
probe was mounted on a two-way traverse. Access into the ame
was accomplished by using two custom cut Vycor glass pieces
which provided a narrow slot through which the probe was inserted. A thin ceramic gasket material was used to cover the excess
slot area. The ame temperature was measured using a silicacoated type R thermocouple (Pt/PtRh 13%), with a 0.35 mm bead
diameter. Data acquisition was accomplished using LabView software and a personal computer. All thermocouple data were corrected for radiation and convection errors. Radial proles of
temperature and species concentration proles were recorded at
axial locations at 25%, 50%, and 75% of the visible ame length from
the burner exit; the ame length was recorded by a digital camera
with a long-time exposure (1 s) in background lighting.
The properties of the fuels are provided in Table 1. Test conditions including the fuel and atomization air ow rates are presented in Table 2. A global equivalence ratio of nominal value
0.68 was used to simulate lean burning combustors. All test conditions were held constant with the exception of the air-preheat
temperature. CME has a higher initial boiling point than No. 2 diesel fuel (Table 1). Preheating the fuel would aid the atomization
and evaporation processes; however, overheating could result in
the fuel coking and clogging the atomizer tip. Therefore, the fuel
was not preheated. The heat release and pollutant emissions are
dependent on the vaporization and modes of combustion of the
drops in the spray. In order to minimize the inuence of the differ-

3737

J.A. Erazo Jr. et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 37353741

Table 1
Physical and chemical properties of No. 2 diesel fuel and canola methyl ester fuel.
Fuel

Molecular formula

Density (kg/m3)

Boiling point (C)

Viscosity (cSt)

Heating value (MJ/kg)

Iodine number

No. 2 diesel fuel

Canola methyl ester

C16H34
C19H36O2

850
881

150350
340405

2.63 at 40 C
4.37 at 40 C

42.6
37.4

8.6
115

Table 2
Fuel and air ow rates and temperature settings.

No. 2 diesel fuel

Canola methyl ester

Atomization air ow rate (l/min)

Co-ow air ow rate (l/min)

Co-ow air temperature (C)

Fuel ow rate (ml/min)

6.32
6.32

58
58

100
232

4.6
4.6

ence in boiling points on the combustion characteristics, the

co-ow air temperature was adjusted to be a constant fraction
(two-thirds) of the initial boiling point in both spray ames. The
uncertainties in the measurements were computed following standard procedures and are shown as uncertainty bars in the gures
displaying measurements. More details of the set-up and procedure are presented by Erazo [17].
3. Results and discussion
The spray droplet Sauter mean diameter (SMD) proles for No.
2 diesel fuel and CME fuel are presented in Fig. 3. The refractive
index of the drops changes due to the heat transfer in the ame;
the change in refractive index was estimated to be 6.8% [18]. The
maximum estimated error in the SMD measurement due to the
change in refractive index was 5% for the 30-lm drops and 8%
for the 60-lm drops [19]. The drop diameter calibration curve
slope was set at the initial refractive index value, as suggested by
Schneider and Hirleman [19]. In general, the droplet size increased
with increasing radial distance from the injector at all axial locations. Due to the swirl imparted by the injector, the large drops
were thrown to the spray edge, and took longer to evaporate and
burn, resulting in an increase in SMD in the outer edge of the spray,
similar to observations made in other investigations [2022]. The
drop sizes in both spray ames are comparable in the near-injector
region. Farther downstream of the injector, the drop sizes were
comparable for both sprays. At an axial distance of 3 cm from the
injector, the SMD of CME was larger than that of the diesel spray
ame; this could be due to the smaller drops of CME evaporating
faster than the diesel drops [23], leaving the larger drops to remain
at this axial location.

No. 2 Diesel Fuel

Vf = 4.6 ml/min
Vaa = 6.32 l/min
Vcf = 58 l/min
Tcf = 100 C

60

0.5 cm
1 cm
2 cm
3 cm
3.5 cm

40

20

80

Axial Distances Downstream of Nozzle

Sauter Mean Diameter (micron)

Sauter Mean Diameter (micron)

80

The axial and radial components of velocity of the No. 2 diesel

and CME fuel droplets at varying axial locations in the spray ame
are presented in Figs. 4 and 5 respectively. Similar trends are observed in both fuel sprays. The mean droplet axial velocity peaked
at the centerline and decreased with increasing radial distance
from the injector. The mean axial component of droplet velocity
decreased with increasing axial distance from the injector as the
spray width increased. This behavior is similar to the gas velocity
prole in a jet. The mean axial velocity of the CME drops was higher than that of the diesel drops near the spray edge due to the
smaller SMD at these locations. The axial momentum injected
was constant for both fuels; the smaller SMD drops have less slip,
and therefore higher velocity near the edge.
The mean radial component of droplet velocity, on the other
hand, increased with increasing radial distance from the injector
axis. The swirl effect coupled with the preferential combustion of
smaller droplets depleted the number of smaller droplets at the
spray edges leaving only larger droplets with more momentum.
The radial velocity of the CME spray drops was smaller than the radial velocity of the diesel spray drops because of their smaller size
in the near-injector region.
A comparison of the in-ame temperature proles (Fig. 6) of the
two spray ames indicates that in the near-injector region (25%
ame height) the ame temperatures were similar, but in the
far-injector region the CME spray ame had lower temperatures.
In some places, the CME in-ame temperature was lower by as
much as 200 K than in the No. 2 diesel spray ame.
The in-ame concentration proles of CO, CO2, O2 and NO at different axial locations (25%, 50%, and 75% of visible ame height)
are presented in Figs. 7 and 8. The NO concentration measurements are plotted together with the in-ame temperatures to eval-

0.5
1
1.5
Radial Position (cm)

CME Fuel
Vf = 4.6 ml/min
Vaa = 6.32 l/min
Vcf = 58 l/min
Tcf = 232 C

Axial Distances Downstream of Nozzle

60

0.5 cm
1 cm
2 cm
3 cm

40

20

0.5
1
1.5
Radial Position (cm)

Fig. 3. Sauter mean diameter proles for No. 2 diesel fuel and CME fuel spray ames.

J.A. Erazo Jr. et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 37353741

Mean Droplet Axial Velocity (m/s)

18

No. 2 Diesel Fuel

Vf = 4.6 ml/min
Vaa = 6.32 l/min
Vcf = 58 l/min
Tcf = 100 C

15

Axial Distances Downstream of Nozzle

0.5 cm
1 cm
2 cm
3 cm
3.5 cm

12
9
6
3
0
0

0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75

Radial Position (cm)

18
Mean Droplet Axial Velocity (m/s)

3738

15

CME Fuel
Vf = 4.6 ml/min
Vaa = 6.32 l/min
Vcf = 58 l/min
Tcf = 232 C

Axial Distances Downstream of Nozzle

0.5 cm
1 cm
2 cm
3 cm

12
9
6
3
0
0

0.25 0.5 0.75

1.25 1.5 1.75

Radial Position (cm)

Mean Droplet Radial Velocity (m/s)

Mean Droplet Radial Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 4. Mean droplet axial velocity proles for No. 2 diesel fuel and CME fuel spray ames.

4
3
2
1
0
Axial Distances Downstream of Nozzle

-1

0.5 cm
1 cm
2 cm
3 cm
3.5 cm

No. 2 Diesel Fuel

Vf = 4.6 ml/min
Vaa = 6.32 l/min
Vcf = 58 l/min
Tcf = 100 C

-2
-3
0

0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75

Radial Position (cm)

5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2

CME Fuel
Vf = 4.6 ml/min
Vaa = 6.32 l/min
Vcf = 58 l/min
Tcf = 232 C

-3
0

Axial Distances Downstream of Nozzle

0.5 cm
1 cm
2 cm
3 cm

0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75

Radial Position (cm)

Fig. 5. Mean radial droplet velocity proles for No. 2 diesel fuel and CME fuel spray ames.

2000
1800
1600
No. 2 Diesel Fuel
Vf = 4.6 ml/min
Vaa = 6.32 l/min
Vcf = 58 l/min
Tcf = 100 C

1400
1200

2200

Axial Distances Downstream of Nozzle

25% Flame Length
50% Flame Length
75% Flame Length

Flame Temperature (K)

Flame Temperature (K)

2200

0.5
1
1.5
Radial Position (cm)

Axial Distances Downstream of Nozzle

25% Flame Length
50% Flame Length
75% Flame Length

2000
1800
1600
CME Fuel
Vf = 4.6 ml/min
Vaa = 6.32 l/min
Vcf = 58 l/min
Tcf = 232 C

1400
1200

0.5
1
1.5
Radial Position (cm)

Fig. 6. In-ame temperature proles for No.2 diesel fuel and CME fuel spray ames.

uate the signicance of NO production by the Zeldovich mechanism, which is closely correlated with ame temperature. In the
diesel spray ame, the concentrations of CO, CO2 and NO peaked
at 0.75 cm in the radial direction, while the O2 concentration
was at a minimum at this location. The in-ame temperature prole also correlated well with the in-ame concentration proles of
NO, with proles having peaks at this same location. This behavior

indicates that NO formation in these ames is strongly driven by

the Zeldovich mechanism. The in-ame concentration trends imply that the reaction front of the spray ame at this ame height
is at approximately 0.75 cm from the ame axis in the radial direction. This behavior was observed at all the ame heights.
The CME in-ame concentration proles displayed trends different from those observed in the diesel spray ame. A clear-cut

J.A. Erazo Jr. et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 37353741

3739

Fig. 7. In-ame concentration proles of CO, CO2, O2 and NO of No. 2 diesel fuel spray ame.

reaction front was not observed in the CME spray ame. At 25%
ame height, the CO concentration peaked at approximately
1.25 cm in the radial direction. The O2 concentration reached a
minimum at the centerline and increased in the radial direction,
whereas the CO2 concentration peaked at the centerline and decreased in the radial direction. The NO and in-ame temperature
proles did not display any correlation. At all ame heights, the
CME spray ame produced less NO than the No. 2 diesel fuel spray
ame. This behavior was seen at other ame heights, but in a less
pronounced fashion.
From these measurements, distinctly different combustion processes can be discerned in the two spray ames. The No. 2 diesel
fuel burned in a heterogeneous combustion environment, where
fuel droplets of varying size were evaporating and burning. Soot
formation and oxidation was evident from the luminous, yellow
ame produced. This combustion mode resulted in an increase
in-ame temperature and NO formation, as seen in the in-ame
measurements. In contrast, increased droplet evaporation, less
luminosity, and reduced in-ame temperatures in the CME spray

ame are all indicative of signicant homogenous gas phase reactions. The difference is due to the fuel-bound oxygen present in the
ester functional group of the CME fuel molecule, which aids the
oxidation process and suppresses soot precursors [24].
The lower NO concentrations in the CME spray ame are opposite to the observations of increased NO emissions in biodiesel
fuelled, intermittent combustion, compressionignition engines
reported in various studies [13]; however, recent spray ame
studies under continuous combustion conditions similar to those
simulated in this paper, have reported decreases in NOx emissions
[79] in agreement with our work.
This disagreement between the compressionignition engine
and other spray ame studies, at a rst glance, may be attributed
to the large differences in variability of pressure, temperature,
and residence time between compressionignition engines and
continuous combustors. According to the long-accepted Faeths
model [11] for spray combustion, both spray ames (intermittent
or continuous) exhibit similar behavior; therefore, it was initially
difcult to rationalize these observations. Besides, we were sur-

3740

J.A. Erazo Jr. et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 37353741

Fig. 8. In-ame concentration proles of CO, CO2, O2 and NO of CME fuel spray ame.

prised to see that NOx emissions were higher for biofuels than for
the diesel fuel when their vapors were burned in gas-ame burners
[12], in agreement with the observations made in CI engines. A
much closer examination of the more recent, laser-diagnostics
based combustion model of Dec [10], reveals that most of the fuel
injected into a compressionignition engine burns in the homogeneous gas-ame mode, and hence accounts for the congruence of
observations between the gas burners and CI engines, and variance
from those in continuous spray combustors.
4. Summary and conclusions
Spray ames of No. 2 diesel fuel and CME fuel were studied under conditions simulating continuous combustors. Droplet size,
velocity, in-ame temperature, and in-ame species concentration
proles were obtained for the two ames. The CME spray ame
displayed higher rates of droplet evaporation compared to the
No. 2 diesel spray. The No. 2 diesel fuel spray produced larger droplets. The smaller drops in the CME spray ame had higher mean axial velocities and lower radial velocities in the far-injector region.
The CME spray ame produced less NO at all ame heights compared to the No. 2 diesel ame. Also, the CME spray ame was

up to 200 K cooler than the No. 2 diesel spray ame in the far-burner region. Overall, the No. 2 diesel spray ame operated mostly in
the heterogeneous combustion mode, in contrast to more homogenous, gas phase combustion demonstrated by the CME fuel spray
ame. The CME spray ame behavior was in agreement with other
biodiesel spray ame studies under similar continuous combustion
conditions. Also, the variation between CI engine and continues
spray combustion in the NOx production of biofuels compared to
petroleum fuel can be explained by the differences of the dominant
combustion mode.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant from the Oklahoma Bioenergy Center. The rst author would also like to thank the US
Department of Education for funding received through a GAANN
fellowship.
References
[1] McCormick RL, Graboski MS, Alleman TL, Herring AM. Impact of source
material and chemical structure on emissions of criteria pollutants from a
heavy-duty engine. Environ Sci Technol 2001;35:17427.

J.A. Erazo Jr. et al. / Fuel 89 (2010) 37353741

[2] Lin Y, Wu YG, Chang CT. Combustion characteristics of waste-oil produced
biodiesel/diesel fuel blends. Fuel 2007;86:177280.
[3] Tat ME, Van Gerpen JH. Fuel property effects on biodiesel. ASAE annual
international meeting, paper no. 036034; 2003.
[4] Ban-Weiss G, Chen JY, Buchholz BA, Dibble RW. A numerical investigation into
the anomalous slight NOx increase when burning biodiesel: a new (old) theory.
Am Chem Soc, Fuel Chem Div 2006;51(1):2430.
[5] Szybist JP, Boehman AL, Taylor JD, McCormick RL. Evaluation of formulation
strategies to eliminate the biodiesel NOx effect. Fuel Process Technol
2005;86:110926.
[6] Mueller CJ, Boehman AL, Martin GC. An experimental investigation of the
origin of increased NOx emissions when fueling a heavy-duty compression
ignition engine with soy biodiesel. SAE paper no. 2009-01-1792; 2009.
[7] Li L. Experimental study of biodiesel spray and combustion characteristics. SAE
power train and uid systems conference and exhibit, paper 2006-01-3250;
October 2006.
[8] Hashimoto N, Ozawa Y, Mori N, Yuri I, Hamamatsu T. Fundamental combustion
characteristics of palm methyl ester as alternative fuel for gas turbines. Fuel
2008;87:33738.
[9] Habib Z, Parthasarathy RN, Gollahalli SR. Effects of biodiesel on the
performance and emission characteristics of a small-scale gas turbine. 47th
AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, AIAA 2009-0827, Orlando; 2009.
[10] Dec JE. A conceptual model of DI diesel engine combustion based on laser
sheet imaging. SAE paper no. 910224; 1997.
[11] Faeth GM. Current status of droplet and liquid combustion. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 1977;3:191224.
[12] Love N, Parthasarathy RN, Gollahalli SR. Rapid characterization of radiation
and pollutant emissions of biodiesel and hydrocarbon liquid fuels. J Energy Res
Technol 2009;131:012202-12-8.
[13] Bachalo WD, Houser MJ. Phase/doppler spray analyzer for simultaneous
measurements of drop size and velocity distributions. Opt Eng
1984;23:58390.

3741

[14] Sankar SV, Bachalo WD. Response characteristics of the phase Doppler particle
analyzer for sizing spherical particles larger than the light wavelength. Appl
Opt 1991;30:148796.
[15] Yi SH, Park YW, Han SO, Min N, Kim ES, Ahn TW. Novel NDIR CO2 sensor for
indoor air quality monitoring. In: 13th International conference on solid-state
sensors, actuators and microsystems, Seoul, South Korea; 2005.
[16] Nova Analytical Systems Inc. Instruction manual for NOVA model 7466K
portable engine exhaust analyzer. New York: Nova Analytical Systems Inc.
[17] Erazo Jr JA. Effects of droplet size and fuel iodine number on biodiesel spray
ames. MS thesis. Norman, Oklahoma: School of Aerospace and Mechanical
Engineering, University of Oklahoma.
[18] Lipkin MR, Kurtz SS. Temperature coefcient of density and refractive index
for hydrocarbons in the liquid state. Ind Eng Chem 1941;13:2915.
[19] Schneider M, Hirleman ED. Inuence of internal refractive index gradients on
size measurements of spherically symmetric particles by phase Doppler
anemometry. Appl Opt 1994;33:237987.
[20] Gupta AK, Presser C, Hodges JT, Avedisian CT. Role of combustion on droplet
transport in pressure-atomized spray ames. J Propul Power 1996;12:54353.
[21] Marchine T, Allouis C, Amoresano A, Beretta F. Experimental investigation of a
pressure swirl atomizer spray. J Propul Power 2007;23:1096101.
[22] Lee SG. Geometrical effects on spray characteristics of air-pressurized swirl
ows. J Mech Sci Technol 2008;22:16339.
[23] Morin C, Chauveau C, Dagaut P, Gokalp I, Cathonnet M. Vaporization and
oxidation of liquid fuel droplets at high temperature and high pressure:
application to n-alkanes and vegetable oil methyl esters. Combust Sci Technol
2004;176:499529.
[24] Kitamura T, Ito T, Senda J, Fujimoto H. Detailed chemical kinetic modeling of
diesel spray combustion with oxygenated fuels. Society of automotive
engineers, SAE 2001 World congress, paper no. 2001-01-1262.