Ellen Meeks, Chitral V. Naik, Karthik V. Puduppakkam, and Abhijit Modak

Reaction Design, San Diego, California

Fokion N. Egolfopoulos and Theo Tsotsis

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Charles K. Westbrook

Reaction Design, Livermore, California

Experimental and Modeling Studies of the

Combustion Characteristics of Conventional

and Alternative Jet Fuels

Final Report

NASA/CR—2011-216356

May 2011
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Ellen Meeks, Chitral V. Naik, Karthik V. Puduppakkam, and Abhijit Modak

Reaction Design, San Diego, California

Fokion N. Egolfopoulos and Theo Tsotsis

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

Charles K. Westbrook

Reaction Design, Livermore, California

Experimental and Modeling Studies of the

Combustion Characteristics of Conventional

and Alternative Jet Fuels

Final Report

NASA/CR—2011-216356

May 2011

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Prepared under Contract NNC07CB45C

Prepared for the

Turbo Expo 2010

sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom, June 14–18, 2010
Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

This work was sponsored by the Fundamental Aeronautics Program 

at the NASA Glenn Research Center.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by NASA technical management.
NASA/CR—2011-216356 iii 

Contents 

1.0 Overview of Project Objectives .......................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Executive Summary of Results ........................................................................................................... 1

3.0 Technical Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Survey of Alternative Fuels and Their Chemical Properties ..................................................... 3

3.1.1 Fischer-Tropsch Fuels .................................................................................................. 3

3.1.2 Biomass-Derived Jet Fuels ........................................................................................... 6

3.2 Fundamental Combustion Studies of Jet Fuels and Alternative Fuels ...................................... 6

3.2.1 Experimental Methods and Facility Description .......................................................... 6

3.2.2 Uncertainties Identified and Addressed in Initial Experimental System ...................... 9

3.2.3 Vaporization System Upgrade .................................................................................... 10

3.2.4 Effect of Thermal Boundary Layer on Radial Temperature Profile ........................... 11

3.2.5 Effect of Flow Rate on Burner Exit Temperature ...................................................... 12

3.2.6 Effect of Radial Location on Reference Flame Speeds in the Counterflow 

Configuration ............................................................................................................. 15

3.2.7 Development of a Laser Extinction System for Measuring Soot 

Volume Fractions ....................................................................................................... 17

3.2.8 Development of a Counterflow Ignition Burner Rig .................................................. 20

3.2.9 Results From Laminar Flame-Speed and Extinction Strain-Rate Measurements ...... 20

3.2.10 Results From NOx Measurements .............................................................................. 24

3.3 Kinetic Model Development and Reduction ........................................................................... 25

3.3.1 Identification of Appropriate Surrogate Blends for F-T Fuels ................................... 25

3.3.2 Baseline n-Alkane Mechanism up to C12 ................................................................... 29

3.3.3 NOx Sub-mechanism .................................................................................................. 32

3.3.4 PAH Sub-mechanism ................................................................................................. 33

3.3.5 Soot Mechanism ......................................................................................................... 34

3.3.6 Mechanism Reduction ................................................................................................ 34

3.4 Simulations of the Flame Experiments With NOx and Soot Predictions ................................ 38

3.4.1 Iso-Octane—Ignition Times and Laminar Flame Speeds .......................................... 38

3.4.2 n-Decane—Ignition Times and Laminar Flame Speeds ............................................ 40

3.4.3 n-Dodecane—Ignition Times and Laminar Flame Speeds ........................................ 46

3.4.4 F-T Fuel Surrogate—Laminar Flame Speeds, Flame-Extinction, 

and Stirred Reactor Data ............................................................................................ 47

3.4.5 NOx Predictions .......................................................................................................... 51

3.4.6 Prediction of Autoignition Temperature .................................................................... 53

3.4.7 Prediction of Gas-Phase PAH Species ....................................................................... 55

3.4.8 Soot-Particle Growth Predictions ............................................................................... 57

4.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 60

References ................................................................................................................................................... 61

List of Tables 

TABLE 1.—DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR S-8, POSF 4734, USING GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY 

PROVIDED BY AFRL ........................................................................................................................... 4

TABLE 2.—OTHER MEASURED PROPERTIES FOR THE F-T FUEL SAMPLES ............................... 5

TABLE 3.—EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED LAMINAR FLAME SPEEDS, SU

°

’S, OF 

MIXTURES OF S-8, R-8, N-C12H26, JP-7 AND JP-8 WITH AIR AS A FUNCTION OF FUEL TO 

AIR MASS RATIO ............................................................................................................................... 21
NASA/CR—2011-216356 iv 

TABLE 4.—EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED EXTINCTION STRAIN RATES, Kext’S, OF 

MIXTURES OF S-8, R-8, N-C12H26, JP-7 AND JP-8 WITH AIR AS A FUNCTION OF FUELTO-AIR MASS RATIO......................................................................................................................... 23

TABLE 5.—INITIAL SURROGATE MIXTURES PROPOSED FOR THE F-T FUEL (S-8) ................. 26

TABLE 6.—CETANE NUMBER OF TWO F-T FUEL SAMPLES USING DIFFERENT METHODS . 27

TABLE 7.—3-COMPONENT SURROGATE MIXTURES PROPOSED FOR TWO F-T FUELS ......... 27

TABLE 8.—CRITERIA USED IN SURROGATE BLEND OPTIMIZER SOFTWARE TOOL FOR 

TWO F-T SURROGATES .................................................................................................................... 28

TABLE 9.—OPTIMUM COMPOSITION FOUND BY SURROGATE BLEND OPTIMIZER FOR 

TWO F-T SURROGATES .................................................................................................................... 28

TABLE 10.—UPDATED RATE COEFFICIENTS FOR KEY REACTIONS IN THE CORE 

MECHANISM. RATE COEFFICIENTS ARE IN CAL, MOL, CM3

, K UNITS ................................. 30

TABLE 11.—SURVEY OF RECENTLY PUBLISHED NOX MECHANISMS ....................................... 33

TABLE 12.—REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED THROUGH DRG AND CSP ............................................... 36

TABLE 13.—DISCREPANCIES OF PREDICTED FLAME SPEEDS USING REDUCED 

MECHANISMS, IN COMPARISON WITH THE MASTER MECHANISM..................................... 36

List of Figures 

Figure 1.—Comparison of fuel analysis for the new F-T 5172 (Shell) sample versus the previously 

analyzed F-T fuel (S-8). ........................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2.—Schematic of the heated burner. ................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3.—Overall experimental configuration. ........................................................................................... 7

Figure 4.—Stable bunsen flame. ................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5.—Schematic of the vaporization process for the flame experiments involving liquid fuels. ......... 9

Figure 6.—USC heated counter-flow burner rig used for NOx measurements. ............................................ 9

Figure 7.—Schematic of the upgraded vaporization system. ..................................................................... 10

Figure 8.—Photographs of the upgraded vaporization system. .................................................................. 10

Figure 9.—Burner configuration................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 10.—Radial temperature distribution at the nozzle exit. ................................................................. 12

Figure 11.—Flame shape at different exit temperatures. ............................................................................ 12

Figure 12.—Laminar flame speed determination. ...................................................................................... 13

Figure 13.—Variation of exit temperature versus strain rate. ..................................................................... 13

Figure 14.—Variation of laminar flame speed with unburned gas temperature. ........................................ 13

Figure 15.—Variation of the reference flame speed with strain rate with no temperature correction. ....... 14

Figure 16.—Variation of the reference flame speed versus strain rate with temperature correction, 

showing the expected independence of slope versus strain rate with initial temperature. .................... 14

Figure 17.—Radial variation of the radial and axial exit velocity components of counterflow jet 

at room temperature. .............................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 18.—Radial variation of the reference flame speed and stretch rate for flames at 

room temperature. .................................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 19.—Radial variation of the radial and axial exit velocity components of counterflow jet at 

elevated temperature. ............................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 20.—Radial variation of the reference flame speed and stretch rate for flame at elevated 

temperature. ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 21.—Radial variation of the radial and axial exit velocity components of a counterflow jet. ........ 17

Figure 22.—Flame shape and radial variation of the reference flame speed and stretch rate for a 

counterflow flame. ................................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 23.—Schematic of a non-premixed sooting flame set-up with laser light extinction. ..................... 18

Figure 24.—Photograph of a non-premixed sooting flame set-up with a laser light extinction. ................ 19

Figure 25.—Line of transmittance fraction (I/I0) versus distance from bottom burner. ............................. 19
NASA/CR—2011-216356 v 

Figure 26.—Photograph of ignition counterflow burner setup. .................................................................. 20

Figure 27.—Experimentally determined laminar flame speeds, Su

°

’s, of mixtures of S-8, R-8, n-C12H26, 

JP-7 and JP-8 with air as a function of fuel to air mass ratio. ............................................................... 21

Figure 28.—Experimentally determined extinction strain rates, Kext’s, of mixtures of S-8, R-8,

n-C12H26, JP-7 and JP-8 with air, as a function of fuel-to-air mass ratio. .............................................. 22

Figure 29.—Experimentally determined NOx concentration profiles as a function of distance from the 

bottom burner for n-decane/air and n-dodecane/air flames (equivalence ratio = 0.8, K = 166 s–1; 

Tu = 403 K). ........................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 30.—Experimentally determined NOx concentration profiles as a function of distance from the 

bottom burner for n-decane/air and n-dodecane/air flames (equivalence ratio = 1.0, K = 166 s–1; 

Tu = 403 K). ........................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 31.—Experimentally determined NOx concentration profiles as a function of distance from the 

bottom burner for n-decane/air and n-dodecane/air flames (equivalence ratio = 1.2, K = 166 s–1; 

Tu = 403 K). ........................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 32.—Hydrocarbon class analysis of the F-T fuel. ........................................................................... 26

Figure 33.—Carbon number distribution in the F-T fuel. ........................................................................... 26

Figure 34.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of methane to the literature data (Ref. 13). 

Predictions using USC JetSurF mechanism are also shown. ................................................................. 31

Figure 35.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of ethane to the literature data (Ref. 13). 

Predictions using USC mech II are also shown. .................................................................................... 31

Figure 36.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of propane to the literature data (Ref. 13). 

Predictions using USC mech II are also shown. .................................................................................... 31

Figure 37.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of n-heptane to the literature data (Refs. 14 

and 15). .................................................................................................................................................. 32

Figure 38.—Comparisons of predicted flame-speed for n-dodecane, using the full master mechanism 

versus different degrees of mechanism reduction. ................................................................................ 36

Figure 39.—Reaction pathways of n-decane at 775 K, and for the equivalence ratio = 1.5 case. .............. 37

Figure 40.—The most sensitive reactions: Normalized sensitivity coefficients for flow rate, for the 

equivalence ratio = 1.5 case. .................................................................................................................. 38

Figure 41.—Effect of equivalence ratio on iso-octane ignition-delay times. Comparison of calculated 

values with the experimental data of Davidson et al. (Ref. 36) at 1.5 atm. Mixture diluted with 

~93 percent Ar. ...................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 42.—Comparison of calculated iso-octane ignition-delay times with the experimental data of 

Vermeer et al. (Ref. 37). Conditions include 70 percent Ar dilution, pressure of 2 atm and a 

stoichiometric mixture. .......................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 43.—Laminar flame speeds of iso-octane/air at ~298 K and 1 atm. Experimental data compared 

with model predictions over a range of equivalence ratios. .................................................................. 40

Figure 44.—Calculated n-decane/air ignition-delay times compared with the data of Zhukov et al. 

(Ref. 40). Conditions include pressure of 13 atm and a stoichiometric mixture. .................................. 40

Figure 45.—Calculated n-decane/air ignition-delay times compared with the data of Pfahl et al. 

(Ref. 41). Conditions include pressure of 13 atm and a stoichiometric mixture. .................................. 41

Figure 46.—Impact of linear and non-linear extrapolation of flame velocity to zero stretch to obtain 

laminar flame speed of n-dodecane using opposed flow burner configuration at USC Flame Facility. 

Data from Kumar and Sung (Ref. 42) are based on linear extrapolation method. ................................ 41

Figure 47.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of n-decane to the experimental data from 

USC and Kumar and Sung (Ref. 42). .................................................................................................... 42

Figure 48.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for n-decane/O2/N2 burner-stabilized flame 

with the experimental data of Doute et al. (Ref. 44). ............................................................................ 43

Figure 49.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for n-decane/O2/N2 burner-stabilized flame 

with the experimental data of Doute et al. (Ref. 44). ............................................................................ 43
NASA/CR—2011-216356 vi 

Figure 50.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for n-decane/O2/N2 burner-stabilized flame 

with the experimental data of Doute et al. (Ref. 44). ............................................................................ 44

Figure 51.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for n-decane/O2/N2 burner-stabilized flame 

with the experimental data of Doute et al. (Ref. 44). ............................................................................ 44

Figure 52.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for a decane/O2/N2 burner-stabilized flame 

with the experimental data of Doute et al. (Ref. 44). ............................................................................ 45

Figure 53.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for a fuel-rich n-decane/O2/Ar burner-stabilized 

flame with the experimental data of Delfau et al. (Ref. 43). ................................................................. 45

Figure 54.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for a fuel-rich n-decane/O2/Ar burner-stabilized 

flame with the experimental data of Delfau et al. (Ref. 43). ................................................................. 46

Figure 55.—Calculated n-dodecane/air ignition delay times compared with the data of Hanson et al. 

(Ref. 45). Conditions include pressure of 20 atm and a stoichiometric mixture. .................................. 46

Figure 56.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of n-dodecane to the experimental data. ....... 47

Figure 57.—Comparison of predicted flame speeds for the Shell F-T surrogate with the latest USC 

experimental data for S-8, R-8, and n-dodecane. .................................................................................. 48

Figure 58.—Comparison of predicted extinction strain rates for the Shell F-T surrogate with the USC 

experimental data. .................................................................................................................................. 48

Figure 59.—Comparison of measured well-stirred reactor temperature by Stouffer et al. (Ref. 46) 

to those predicted. .................................................................................................................................. 49

Figure 60.—Comparison of measured species in the well-stirred reactor exhaust by Stouffer et al. 

(Ref. 46) to those predicted. Dashed lines represent predictions with heat loss in 

CHEMKIN-PRO model. ....................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 61.—Comparison of NO levels in the well-stirred reactor exhaust measured by Stouffer et al. 

(Ref. 46) to those predicted. .................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 62.—Comparison of emission index of CO in the well-stirred reactor exhaust measured by 

Stouffer et al. (Ref. 46) to those predicted. ............................................................................................ 51

Figure 63.—Comparison of predicted and measured NOx levels for n-pentane/air flame. Symbols 

represent experimental data and lines represent model predictions. ..................................................... 52

Figure 64.—Comparison of predicted and measured NOx levels for n-decane/air and n-dodecane/air 

flames. Symbols represent experimental data and lines represent model predictions. .......................... 52

Figure 65.—Impact of uncertainty in nozzle velocities and nitrogen burner (top burner) temperature on 

NOx predictions for n-dodecane/air flames. Gray symbols represent predictions from Uncertainty 

Analyses in CHEMKIN-PRO. Filled circles are the experimental data. ............................................... 53

Figure 66.—Schematic illustration of the counterflow burner assembly of Bieleveld et al. (Ref. 47). ...... 54

Figure 67.—Comparison of predicted and measured autoignition temperatures for various fuels. 

Symbols represent experimental data from Bieleveld et al. (Ref. 47) and lines 

represent predictions. ............................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 68.—Comparison of predicted and measured acetylene profile by Senkan and Castaldi (Ref. 48) 

for a burner stabilized propane flame. Symbols represent experimental data and lines represent 

predictions. ............................................................................................................................................ 55

Figure 69.—Comparison of predicted and measured propyne-propadiene (C3H4) and butadiene (C4H2) 

profile by Senkan and Castaldi (Ref. 48) for a burner stabilized propane flame. Symbols represent 

experimental data and lines represent predictions. ................................................................................ 56

Figure 70.—Comparison of predicted and measured benzene profile by Senkan and Castaldi (Ref. 48) 

for a burner stabilized propane flame. Symbols represent experimental data and lines represent 

predictions. ............................................................................................................................................ 56

Figure 71.—Comparison of predicted and measured PAH species profiles by Senkan and Castaldi 

(Ref. 48) for a burner stabilized propane flame. Symbols represent experimental data and lines 

represent predictions. ............................................................................................................................. 57
NASA/CR—2011-216356 vii 

Figure 72.—Temperature profile of Wang et al. (Ref. 49) used in current simulation. Conditions include 

atmospheric pressure, inlet velocity of 7.8 cm/sec and an equivalence ratio of 2.5 (mole fractions: 

C2H4- 0.141, O2- 0.170, Ar- 0.689). ...................................................................................................... 57

Figure 73.—Comparison of calculated particle volume fraction with the data of Wang et al. (Ref. 49). 

Conditions include atmospheric pressure, inlet velocity of 7.8 cm/sec and an equivalence ratio of 2.5 

(mole fractions: C2H4- 0.141, O2- 0.170, Ar- 0.689). ............................................................................ 58

Figure 74.—Comparison of calculated particle number density with the data of Wang et al. (Ref. 49). 

Conditions include atmospheric pressure, inlet velocity of 7.8 cm/sec and an equivalence ratio of 2.5 

(mole fractions: C2H4- 0.141, O2- 0.170, Ar- 0.689). ............................................................................ 59

Figure 75.—Comparison of calculated average particle diameter with the data of Wang et al. (Ref. 49). 

Conditions include atmospheric pressure, inlet velocity of 7.8 cm/sec and an equivalence ratio of 2.5 

(mole fractions: C2H4- 0.141, O2- 0.170, Ar- 0.689). ............................................................................ 59

NASA/CR—2011-216356 1 

Experimental and Modeling Studies of the Combustion 

Characteristics of Conventional and Alternative Jet Fuels 

Final Report 

Ellen Meeks, Chitral V. Naik, Karthik V. Puduppakkam, and Abhijit Modak 

Reaction Design 

San Diego, California 92121 

Fokion N. Egolfopoulos and Theo Tsotsis 

University of Southern California 

Los Angeles, California 90089 

Charles K. Westbrook 

Reaction Design 

Livermore, California 94550 

1.0 Overview of Project Objectives 

The objectives of this project have been to develop a comprehensive set of fundamental data 

regarding the combustion behavior of jet fuels and appropriately associated model fuels. Based on the 

fundamental study results, an auxiliary objective was to identify differentiating characteristics of 

molecular fuel components that can be used to explain different fuel behavior and that may ultimately be 

used in the planning and design of optimal fuel-production processes. 

The fuels studied in this project were Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) fuels and biomass-derived jet fuels that 

meet certain specifications of currently used jet propulsion applications. Prior to this project, there were 

no systematic experimental flame data available for such fuels. One of the key goals has been to generate 

such data, and to use this data in developing and verifying effective kinetic models. The models have then 

been reduced through automated means to enable multidimensional simulation of the combustion 

characteristics of such fuels in real combustors. Such reliable kinetic models, validated against 

fundamental data derived from laminar flames using idealized flow models, are key to the development 

and design of optimal combustors and fuels. The models provide direct information about the relative 

contribution of different molecular constituents to the fuel performance and can be used to assess both 

combustion and emissions characteristics. 

2.0 Executive Summary of Results 

Throughout this project, Reaction Design has collaborated closely with researchers at the University 

of Southern California (USC) and Dr. Charles Westbrook, a consultant to Reaction Design, in the analysis 

and testing of jet fuels and fuel surrogates. Led by Professors Egolfopoulos and Tsotsis, USC performed 

fundamental combustion studies that directly compared the combustion behavior of alternative jet fuels 

with conventional fuels, such as JP-7 and JP-8, in terms of flame-propagation and flame-extinction 

characteristics. These experiments provided insight into the differences and similarities between the 

different fuels. In addition, extensive flame experiments were performed on candidate surrogate-fuel 

components, as well as selected surrogate-fuel blends. The focus on surrogate fuels allowed verification 

and improvement of detailed kinetics mechanisms for these fuel components, through comparison of 

one-dimensional flame simulations with data from the USC experiments. The flame experiments were 

designed to facilitate accurate simulation of the flow-field using such one-dimensional models, allowing 

focus on kinetics and species-transport effects. The collaboration between Reaction Design and USC 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 2 

involved iterative comparisons between data and model that led to the discovery of issues with the 

experimental procedures as well as with the chemistry models; improvements to both were important 

outcomes of the project. 

Reaction Design’s efforts were centered on assembling and improving the kinetics mechanism for the 

fuel surrogates, using both the fundamental data provided by USC as well as supplementary data available 

from the literature for non-flame conditions. As part of this activity, simulations were performed for a 

wide variety of experimental conditions, as well as a wide range of temperatures and equivalence ratios 

for fuel/air mixtures. A new flame-extinction model was tested during the project, supplementing the 

flame-speed calculation capabilities already available in CHEMKIN-PRO (Ref. 1). These two models 

provided complementary tests of the high-temperature kinetics representation in the mechanisms. Another 

result of the project was the demonstration of flame simulations using a comprehensive soot-formation 

model, including prediction of particle-size distribution functions. From the literature, shock-tube 

measurements of ignition and stirred-reactor measurements of species profiles were obtained and modeled 

to provide a more comprehensive test of the models’ predictive capabilities. The results of these activities 

include well validated models of key fuel components that are important to modeling alternative jet fuels. 

In addition to fundamental experiments and detailed-kinetics mechanism validation, two other tasks 

were undertaken as part of this project. One was the testing of a systematic method for matching a 

surrogate-fuel blend to a real fuel, based on chemical analysis and physical properties of the targeted fuel. 

The other task was to take the final “master” mechanism for our surrogate fuel blends and perform 

automated mechanism reduction over a range of conditions that would be appropriate for jet combustor 

simulations. A skeletal approach was taken to mechanism reduction, based on the Directed Relation 

Graph Method (Refs. 2 and 3). The results of these activities are a recommended surrogate blend for 

typical F-T and bio-derived jet fuels, as well as a validated and reduced mechanism for that surrogate, 

ready for use in combustor simulations. 

Several general observations and conclusions can be made from the results of this study. These are 

summarized as follows: 

1. In comparing F-T fuels to bio-derived jet fuels, we find almost no discernible difference in the 

combustion behavior, based on the limited samples available for the bio-derived jet fuel. This is 

largely due to the strict jet-fuel standard that both alternative fuels must meet, but also due to the 

chemical nature of the process used to produce the bio-derived fuel. Fuels derived from plant oils 

are typically in the form of long-chain methyl esters. To meet the jet-fuel requirements, these are 

further processed (through hydrogenation) to remove the oxygen from the oxygenate compounds. 

This processing results in a dominant composition of long-chain alkane molecules, very similar to 

what the chemical analysis showed for F-T jet fuels. 

2. Similarly, despite significant differences in the chemical analysis results for two different F-T 

fuels, particularly in carbon-number distribution, the combustion behavior measured for the two 

fuels appears to be identical. This can be explained by the very similar combustion behavior 

observed for different long-chain, unbranched alkane molecules that have chain length greater 

than ~6. In this way, different distributions of alkane chain length do not have a significant effect 

on flame propagation or flame extinction, although modeling studies suggest they might affect the 

quantitative degree of NOx production. 

3. In experimentally comparing the alternative fuels with JP-7 and JP-8, we find that the alternative 

fuels have almost the same flame-propagation speed as JP-7 and that the flame speed for JP-7 is 

slightly higher than for JP-8. This is consistent with JP-8 fuel containing more aromatic 

compounds than JP-7 (or than the F-T and bio-derived fuels), which tends to lower the flame 

speed. For flame-extinction measurements, a similar trend is apparent, although the difference in 

extinction between JP-7 and JP-8 is smaller in that case and close to experimental uncertainty for 

those measurements. 

4. In comparing the flame-propagation and flame-extinction behavior of the normal alkane, 

n-dodecane, which matches the typical average carbon number of an F-T fuel, with the same 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 3 

measurements for the alternative and conventional jet fuels, we find that n-dodecane has about 

the same laminar flame speeds and slightly higher resistance to extinction. This makes 

n-dodecane a reasonable single-component surrogate for all of these fuels under some conditions. 

However, a multicomponent surrogate blend is needed to match other fuel properties, such as 

cetane number, NOx emissions, and sooting propensity. 

5. Laminar flame-speed, flame-extinction strain rate, ignition time, autoignition temperature, NOx

and other species-concentration measurements are well predicted by the chemistry models 

developed for n-alkane/iso-alkane surrogate blends. In most cases, predictions are within 

experimental uncertainty of the data. The mechanisms underwent significant improvement during 

the project. The only area where the mechanisms provide mixed results is for PAH and soot 

predictions, but systematic improvement of these mechanisms was beyond the scope of this 

project. 

6. Surrogate blends are recommended for F-T blends that consist of mixtures of n-dodecane, 

n-decane, and iso-octane. Specific compositions have been proposed for two different F-T fuels 

that provide a best match to cetane number, H/C ratio, lower heating value, T50 boiling point, and 

chemical-analysis data. Tests of these blends against experimental data for flame-propagation and 

flame-extinction strain rate show good agreement. 

7. A successful reduction of the high-temperature mechanism has been achieved that provides a 

~90 percent reduction in the number of species without loss of accuracy in model predictions 

over a range of temperatures and equivalence ratios. 

The remainder of this report provides technical details on the methods employed in each of the tasks 

performed under the project, as well as the data and results that support the conclusions from this study. 

3.0 Technical Discussion 

The 2-year project was divided into several technical tasks, with the first year’s tasks providing the 

foundation necessary to achieve the second year’s goals. The following provides detailed description of 

the methods used for experiment and modeling, as well as the final data obtained in each task. 

3.1 Survey of Alternative Fuels and Their Chemical Properties 

To understand how best to represent alternative jet fuels with a detailed kinetics model, we first 

sought to collect as much data as possible on the chemical composition and properties of the fuels. We 

were interested in both F-T jet fuels as well as biomass-derived jet fuels, which had been certified by the 

Air Force for jet applications. Through external collaboration between the Air Force Research Laboratory 

(AFRL) and USC, we were easily able to obtain the desired information for F-T fuels. Data on bioderived fuels proved much more difficult to obtain, due to the proprietary nature of the processes 

currently in development for such fuels and the limited number of facilities involved with jet-fuel 

production. However, the AFRL was able to provide a fuel sample that USC could test in the flame 

experiments as well as some qualitative information about the chemical properties. This allowed us to 

make some comparisons and draw some conclusions about the differences between the different 

alternative fuels. Data obtained on specific fuel properties are described below. 

3.1.1 Fischer-Tropsch Fuels 

During the first year of the project, the AFRL provided USC with a F-T fuel for testing in the USC 

Combustion and Fuels Laboratory. This particular fuel is labeled by AFRL as S-8 with a designated code 

POSF 4734. The AFRL had performed detailed analysis of the F-T fuel with a gas chromatography—

mass spectrometry method. Later in the project, a second sample was obtained from AFRL, which was 

labeled F-T 5172 and is from Shell. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 4 

The results of the detailed qualitative analysis for S-8 are provided in Table 1, and it can be seen that 

the composition is dominated by n- and iso-paraffins, consisting of C8 to C15 chains. The numbered peaks 

are the largest peak areas recorded on the total ion chromatogram (1 percent or higher). It was noted that 

these areas are raw-data areas and have not been calibrated with a standard. Lettered peaks are for 

components between 0.7 and 1 percent, which were examined when the chromatography was good. 

Double lettered peaks are very early eluting components that were included to provide a suite of light 

components for model development. These peaks were chosen in part for their elution order and in part 

for their chromatographic purity. 

TABLE 1.—DETAILED ANALYSIS FOR S-8, POSF 4734, USING GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY PROVIDED BY AFRL 

Peak 

no. 

Retention 

time, 

min 

Peak 

profile 

Correlation 

coefficient 

Confidence Name CAS no. Area % 

aa 2.119 S 72.2 H 2-methyl heptane 592-27-8 0.323 

bb 2.162 A 41.4 H 3-methyl heptane 589-81-1 0.437 

a 2.310 A 26.3 H 1,2,3-trimethyl cyclopentane 15890-40-1 0.965 

1 2.564 A 44.2 H 2,5-dimethyl heptane 2216-30-0 1.131 

2 2.803 A 33.9 H 4-methyl octane 2216-34-4 2.506 

3 2.869 A 16.9 H 3-methyl octane 2216-33-3 1.323 

4 3.123 A 21.6 H n-nonane 111-84-2 1.623 

5 3.358 A 18.5 M 3,5-dimethyl octane 15869-96-9 1.035 

b 3.456 A 29.0 H 2,6-dimethyl octane 2051-30-1 0.756 

6 3.682 A 54.4 H 4-ethyl octane 15869-86-0 1.032 

7 3.757 A 39.8 H 4-methyl nonane 17301-94-9 1.904 

8 3.792 S 39.2 H 2-methyl nonane 871-83-0 1.019 

9 3.866 A 26.9 H 3-methyl nonane 5911-04-6 1.385 

10 4.186 A 51.4 H n-decane 124-18-5 2.050 

11 4.390 A 16.7 M 2-5-dimethyl nonane 17302-27-1 1.175 

12 4.750 S 12.0 M 5-ethyl-2-methyl octane 62016-18-6 1.015 

13 4.820 A 37.7 H 5-methyl decane 13151-35-4 1.315 

14 4.859 A 42.1 H 4-methyl decane 2847-72-5 1.134 

15 4.902 A 35.4 H 2-methyl decane 6975-98-0 1.529 

16 4.980 A 44.1 H 3-methyl decane 13151-34-3 1.583 

17 5.312 A 50.1 H n-undecane 1120-21-4 2.420 

c 5.484 A NA M x-methyl undecane NA 1.590 

18 5.664 A 11.9 M 3-methyl undecane 1002-43-3 1.15 

19 5.906 A 37.3 H 5-methyl undecane 1632-70-8 1.696 

20 5.949 A 29.5 H 4-methyl undecane 2980-69-0 1.045 

21 5.996 A 15.1 M 2-methyl undecane 7045-71-8 1.072 

22 6.074 A 7.9 U 2,3-dimethyl undecane 17312-77-5 1.213 

23 6.387 A 43.9 H n-dodecane 112-40-3 2.595 

d 6.606 A 8.3 M 4-methyl dodecane 6117-97-1 0.929 

e 6.668 A NA H x-methyl dodecane NA 0.744 

24 7.024 S 28.7 H 2-methyl dodecane 1560-97-0 1.293 

25 7.094 S NA M x-methyl dodecane NA 1.281 

28 7.383 A 36.0 H n-tridecane 629-50-5 1.739 

f 7.923 A 8.7 U 4-methyl tridecane 26730-12-1 0.836 

29 7.970 A 9.8 U 6-propyl tridecane 55045-10-8 1.052 

30 8.040 A NA M x-methyl tridecane NA 1.066 

31 8.306 A 23.3 H n-tetradecane 629-59-4 1.562 

32 8.396 A NA M x-methyl tetradecane NA 1.198 

g 8.490 S 6.4 M 5-methyl tetradecane 25117-32-2 0.720 

33 8.728 S 10.2 H n-pentadecane 629-62-9 1.032 

H 9.232 A NA M x-methyl tetradecane NA 0.727 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 5 

Several cautions apply to these analyses, which were recorded in internal AFRL reports. The first 

column is the peak designator. The second column provides the retention time in minutes, obtained from 

the total ion chromatogram at the peak apex. The peak profile chosen for analysis is next, and is either 

“S” (for a single slice through the chromatographic peak) or “A” (for an average over all or part of the 

chromatographic peak). The correlation coefficient is a fit parameter provided by the software used in the 

analysis, while the confidence (H, for high, M, for medium, and U for uncertain) is assigned on the basis 

of many chromatographic and mass spectral features, and is subjective. The remaining table entries are 

self explanatory. It should be noted that occasionally, one cannot discern the isomerization from the mass 

spectrum. In these instances, the position of a branch is left as a variable x (such as x-methyl dodecane; 

the position of the methyl group is uncertain, even if there is a high level of confidence in the 

assignment). The main application of the detailed analysis is to provide a framework for the modeling. In 

this respect, even if there were a large number of such minor uncertainties, it will not be problematic. 

The analysis of the F-T 5172 fuel composition was also obtained from AFRL and is shown in 

comparison to another sample of the previous F-T fuel (S-8) in Figure 1. Here we can see that the Shell 

fuel (F-T 5172) is similar in chemical class composition, but has a narrower molecular weight range and 

is missing the C12 and greater fractions. This difference suggested that an appropriate surrogate-fuel 

composition would need to be determined for each specific fuel. In other words, one fuel surrogate 

definition might not be appropriate for all F-T fuels, depending on which characteristics of the fuel and 

the combustion behavior need to be modeled. On the other hand, both F-T fuels had the same ignition 

characteristics, as measured by cetane number, with a value of ~60, and both fuels had a H:C ratio of 

about 2.2. A summary of some of the other properties obtained for these fuels is given in Table 2. All of 

this information was important input to the determination of appropriate surrogate-fuel blends, as 

discussed further below. 

Figure 1.—Comparison of fuel analysis for the new F-T 5172 (Shell) sample versus the 

previously analyzed F-T fuel (S-8). 

TABLE 2.—OTHER MEASURED PROPERTIES 

FOR THE F-T FUEL SAMPLES 

Fuel property Shell GTL S-8 

Cetane number 61 60 

H/C molar ratio 2.17 2.17 

Lower heating value, MJ/kg 44.14 44.14 

T50 boiling point, K 445 474 

T20 boiling point, K 433 449 

T90 boiling point, K 456 522 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 6 

3.1.2 Biomass-Derived Jet Fuels 

During this project, USC contacted many fuel manufacturers concerning existing and emerging 

processes for production of various biofuels in order to compile technical specifications of existing 

processes. They identified a new process developed by UOP, which involves the catalytic deoxygenation 

of biologically derived feedstocks. The process, branded “Ecofining” by UOP, results in a renewable fuel 

called “green diesel.” This fuel is an alternative to both standard petroleum diesel and biodiesel and may 

be acceptable as a jet fuel. The process involves processing vegetable oil through a catalytic reaction with 

hydrogen as the reactant in order to remove the oxygen contained in the oil. Typically, vegetable oil 

consists primarily of triglycerides with 1 to 2 percent free fatty acids, and contains 10 to 12 wt% oxygen. 

The removal of oxygen results in an iso-paraffin-rich oil that is free from aromatics and sulfur. Propane 

and naphtha are potentially marketable co-products of the Ecofining process, while water and carbon 

oxides are the undesirable by-products. 

The yield of diesel fuel by the UOP process can range from 88 to 99 liquid vol%, dependent upon the 

feedstock type and operating severity. “Green diesel” has the benefit, according to UOP, of having a high 

cetane number (70 to 90), good cold-flow properties, and a heating value comparable to petroleum diesel 

(green diesel 44 MJ/kg, petroleum diesel 43 MJ/kg). A full-scale production facility is currently being 

constructed in Italy, in collaboration between UOP and the European refiner ENI, and the plan is for the 

facility to come online in 2009. However, a production output of only 6500 barrels per day is planned at 

the initial start-up. This facility will be the only commercial manufacturer, using the Ecofining process, to 

produce “green diesel.” 

A request for a 3 to 4 liter sample of “green diesel” was sent to the director of UOP’s Renewable 

Energy & Chemicals business unit, and a sample was obtained for experimental testing at USC. Although 

detailed chemical analysis of the sample was not possible, the application of elution techniques confirmed 

that the sample had about 4 percent esters, compared to ~95 percent for biodiesel fuels. Based on the 

known chemical characteristics of biodiesel and this result, we would expect to have a very similar 

chemical composition to the F-T fuels described above. 

Later in the project, Dr. Tim Edwards of AFRL provided USC with R-8, a certified jet “biofuel.” The 

feedstock for this fuel is an animal fat/vegetable oil blend from Tyson, which is hydrotreated and is very 

similar to the S-8, which is the standard F-T fuel that has been tested in the past. The R-8 fuel was made 

by Syntroleum and it is very similar to the UOP fuels previously obtained by USC, as well as to the other 

F-T fuel samples. The chemical composition of the R-8 fuel was reported by AFRL to be very similar to 

R-8, although detailed results were again not available. 

3.2 Fundamental Combustion Studies of Jet Fuels and Alternative Fuels 

3.2.1 Experimental Methods and Facility Description 

In the first year of this project, USC designed a heated counterflow burner for the fundamental 

combustion studies of conventional and alternative jet fuels; a general schematic of this burner design is 

shown in Figure 2. This burner system is unique in that it contains both internal liquid heating and 

external heating by ceramic heaters. The burner can be heated up to 300 C. The design will ensure 

temperature uniformity throughout the reactant gas lines. In addition, the internal liquid heat also serves 

to regulate nozzle temperatures over time. The burner system consists of two concentric nozzles and can 

use three different nozzle diameters, 7, 14, and 22 mm, to cover a wide range of flow conditions. In 

addition, each nozzle is aerodynamically shaped so the flow is of a flat top at the exit of the nozzle. The 

overall experimental configuration is shown in Figure 3. The fuel is injected into the first mixing chamber 

along with heated nitrogen and the mixture is further heated in both the first and the second mixing 

chambers, which are maintained at high temperatures using electrically heated elements surrounding their 

walls. Subsequently, sampling is performed to determine the composition of the mixture using Gas 

Chromatography (GC). 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 7 

Figure 2.—Schematic of the heated burner. 

Figure 3.—Overall experimental configuration.
NASA/CR—2011-216356 8 

Figure 4.—Stable bunsen flame. 

The development of the system included several challenges. The main ones pertain to achieving 

steady operation while maintaining the fuel unreacted until it reaches the burner. These are two partially 

contradicting requirements. Achieving steady flow requires that the vaporization is obtained rapidly, 

which in turn implies that the temperatures of the vaporization chamber have to be high. On the other 

hand, high temperatures can result in fuel cracking and this has been confirmed experimentally. So it 

required several iterations through trial and error as well as design modifications to achieve those goals. 

As a result the flames are stable, as shown in Figure 4, and the fuels are uncracked as has been confirmed 

through detailed gas chromatography analysis. 

The experiments utilize steady, laminar, planar premixed and non-premixed flames that are stabilized 

in the counterflow configuration. For laminar flame-speed determination, the twin-flame technique is 

employed, which involves two identical counter-flowing fuel/air jets establishing two symmetrical, 

planar, near adiabatic flames. The premixed extinction configuration involves a N2 jet counter-flowing 

against an opposing fuel/air jet resulting in a single premixed flame. 

Flow-field measurements were performed using the digital particle image velocimetry (DPIV) and the 

laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) techniques. The axial velocity profile along the stagnation streamline is 

measured, and the absolute value of the maximum velocity gradient just upstream of the flame is 

determined as the local strain rate, K. For flame speed measurements, the minimum point of the velocity 

profile is chosen as a reference upstream flame speed Su,ref, corresponding to the imposed stretch rate K. 

Thus by plotting Su,ref against K, the laminar flame speed Su

o

 can be determined through extrapolation to 

K = 0. For premixed extinction, K is determined on the fuel/air jet. Extinction strain rates, Kext, cannot be 

directly measured due to the fact that at the extinction condition, the flow-field is unstable and the flame 

goes out. To avoid extrapolations in the determination of the Kext, a flame is established for a nearextinction condition, and the prevailing K is measured. Subsequently, the fuel flow rate in the fuel/air jet 

is slightly modified to achieve extinction. 

A vaporization system is used to convert the liquid into vapor prior to entering the burners. This is 

accomplished by injecting the liquid fuel into a vaporization chamber as shown in Figure 5, with a 

preheated N2 coflow. Oxygen is subsequently added to the exit flow to create a fuel/air mixture at the 

required equivalence ratio. The reactant gas lines, all the way to the burner exit, are maintained at 

elevated temperatures to ensure that the partial pressure of the liquid fuel is maintained below its vapor 

pressure to prevent condensation. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 9 

Figure 5.—Schematic of the vaporization process for the flame experiments involving liquid fuels.

Figure 6.—USC heated counter-flow burner rig used for NOx measurements. 

A NOx sampling system was also constructed. A water-cooled quartz microprobe that is connected to 

a vacuum pump is used to withdraw the sample, as shown schematically in Figure 6. The sample is 

directed afterwards through Teflon tubing towards a Chemiluminescence NOx Analyzer. The microprobe 

is mounted on a linear stage thus allowing it to be vertically adjustable and, therefore, enabling us to 

determine the NOx concentration structures throughout the flame. The Chemiluminescence analyzer is of 

high accuracy with a lower detectable limit of 0.05 ppm. A new probe positioning system that includes a 

Cathetometer was later established to accurately locate the initial position of the probe within 25 m, 

therefore eliminating a major experimental uncertainty. 

3.2.2 Uncertainties Identified and Addressed in Initial Experimental System 

Despite the care in the design of the burner system, USC discovered some issues with reproducibility 

for the liquid-fuel experiments, discovered due to the duplication of facilities and operation by two 

different students. As a result, USC undertook a very thorough study of the reproducibility and reliability 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 10 

of the experimental procedures used to handle heavy (liquid) hydrocarbon fuels in flame experiments. 

These experiments are difficult and they have learned that, without such care and rigorous testing of 

assumptions, it is relatively easy to produce data that are neither reliable nor accurate. With a focus on 

scientific integrity of the methods being used, then, USC spent significant time reviewing the 

measurements to assure that they were of the highest quality. One outcome of this study was a re-design 

of the vaporization system to provide more reliable vaporization-without-cracking of the liquid fuels. 

They also determined the effect of the thermal boundary layer near the burner and the sensitivity of the 

measurement to the radial location of the probe. These additional studies provided a much better idea of 

the uncertainty and potential pitfalls for these types of measurements. In addition, a deeper understanding 

of the experimental sensitivities enables better use of the data in model development and validation. 

Details of the system upgrades are provided below. 

3.2.3 Vaporization System Upgrade 

The upgraded vaporization system has the capability to handle heavier liquid fuels, including real 

biodiesels. The stainless steel vaporization chamber used previously was substituted with a glass chamber 

to prevent cracking and coking at high temperatures. Additionally, a quartz nebulizer with a flush 

capillary-lapped nozzle has been integrated to the system to introduce the fuel as a fine aerosol into the 

chamber; details are shown in Figure 7. Photographs of the actual setup are also shown in Figure 8. This 

allows for complete vaporization to occur at lower temperatures. The result is more constant vaporization 

and the prevention of fuel cracking. 

Figure 7.—Schematic of the upgraded vaporization system. 

Figure 8.—Photographs of the upgraded vaporization system. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 11 

3.2.4 Effect of Thermal Boundary Layer on Radial Temperature Profile 

In addition to vaporization, USC undertook a thorough investigation of the effects of thermal 

boundary layers in the burner on the measurement of laminar flame speeds and extinction strain rates. 

Figure 9 depicts the configuration of the heated burner used for the current experiments. To attain an 

unburned gas temperature of ~130 C for the lower jet, the burner walls are heated with high-performance 

ceramic heating jackets. When the entire system reaches thermal steady state, the temperatures of the 

burner and nozzle walls are ~150 and 140 C, respectively. The unburned gas temperature is measured at 

the center of the nozzle with an uncoated R-type thermocouple. The tip of the thermocouple is 0.1 mm in 

diameter, and can provide fast response and highly accurate measurements. 

Due to the heat transfer between the nozzle wall and the fuel/air mixture, the radial temperature 

profile at the exit of the nozzle is non-uniform, as shown in Figure 10. The non-uniformity is more severe 

at higher exit temperatures. This thermal boundary layer directly affects the velocity profile of the jet, and 

hence the shape of the flame, as shown in Figure 11. Therefore, the measurement point for velocity 

should be aligned very carefully to the burner centerline. Otherwise the non-uniform velocity profile may 

introduce errors into the reference flame speed’s measurement. For example, accidental placement of the 

laser probe 1 to 2 mm away from the system centerline can result in higher reference flame speeds due to 

thermal effects. 

Figure 9.—Burner configuration. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 12 

Figure 10.—Radial temperature distribution at the nozzle exit. 

Figure 11.—Flame shape at different exit temperatures. 

3.2.5 Effect of Flow Rate on Burner Exit Temperature 

By plotting the reference flame speed, Su,ref, against the strain rate, K, the laminar flame speed, Su

o

, 

could be determined by extrapolating the reference flame speed to zero stretch as indicated in Figure 12. 

K is varied by changing the flow rate through the burner using a bypass system. However, along with the 

change of flow rate, the heat-transfer rate between the mixture and the wall also changes, thus affecting 

the gas exit temperature. Figure 13 depicts the exit temperature variation with K. As expected, results 

indicate that if the flow rate decreases by opening the bypass, the gas exit temperature increases. The 

typical effect of the unburned gas temperature on laminar flame speed is shown in Figure 14. 

Consequently, if a temperature correction is not applied to the raw data, the extrapolation would yield 

incorrect laminar flame speeds at elevated temperatures. 

Figure 15 shows the reference flame-speed variation for stoichiometric toluene/air mixtures at 

different exit temperatures with no temperature correction. As observed, the slope of the raw data is 

positive at room temperature. However, if the exit temperature is increased to 80 C, the slope becomes 

flatter and finally becomes negative when the temperature reaches 130 C. From the theory of stretched 

flames, it is known that the slope of the raw data should be sensitive only to the mixture Lewis number, 

such that the unburned mixture temperature should not change the slope of the data. Figure 16 shows the 

raw data from Figure 15 corrected using the results from Figure 13. Here, as expected, the slope of the 

raw data at different exit temperatures remains the same. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 13 

Figure 12.—Laminar flame speed determination. 

Figure 13.—Variation of exit temperature versus strain rate. 

Figure 14.—Variation of laminar flame speed with unburned gas temperature. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 14 

Figure 15.—Variation of the reference flame speed with strain rate with 

no temperature correction. 

Figure 16.—Variation of the reference flame speed versus strain rate 

with temperature correction, showing the expected independence 

of slope versus strain rate with initial temperature. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 15 

3.2.6 Effect of Radial Location on Reference Flame Speeds in the Counterflow Configuration 

Next, USC looked at the effect of radial location on the exit velocity components, reference flame 

speeds and stretch rates. Figure 17 depicts the variation along the radial distance from the centerline, r, of 

the radial velocity component, v, and the axial velocity component, u, near the nozzle exit, for a 

stoichiometric methane/air flame at room temperature. The variation of v along r is linear, as is expected 

for the counterflow configuration. However, away from the centerline, the u profile starts deviating away 

from that of a plug flow. Figure 18 indicates that the measured Su,ref and K also increase away from the 

centerline. The deviation of the above values is significant for r  1 mm. 

Similar results are shown in Figures 19 and 20, for the case of a stoichiometric methane/air flame at 

an unburned mixture temperature of 130 C. The deviation of Su,ref and K is even more severe in this case 

due to the higher flame speeds and the thermal boundary layer discussed earlier. 

The increase of Su,ref away from the centerline cannot be attributed solely to the increase in stretch rate 

due to the axial velocity gradient. Two-dimensional and curvature effects play a much more significant 

role in the deviation of measurements away from the centerline. Therefore, from the investigations above, 

we conclude the absolute necessity of taking the reference flame speed and axial strain rate measurements 

very close to the nozzle centerline. Thus, discrepancies frequently observed with data obtained from other 

research groups using the counterflow configuration could be attributed to such effects. 

Figure 17.—Radial variation of the radial and axial exit velocity components of counterflow jet at room temperature. 

Figure 18.—Radial variation of the reference flame speed and stretch rate for flames at room temperature. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 16 

Figure 19.—Radial variation of the radial and axial exit velocity components of counterflow jet at elevated temperature. 

Figure 20.—Radial variation of the reference flame speed and stretch rate for flame at elevated temperature. 

A more thorough explanation of some of the observed phenomena can be provided. Figure 21 again 

depicts the variation along the radial distance from the centerline, r, of the radial velocity component, v, 

and the axial velocity component, u, near the nozzle exit, for a stoichiometric methane/air flame at room 

temperature. The variation of v along r is linear, as expected for the counterflow configuration. However, 

the u profile starts deviating away from that of the plug flow away from the centerline. Figure 22 depicts 

the flame shape defined by the axial location of the measured reference flame speed. It is noticed that the 

measured reference flame speed, Su,ref, increases significantly away from the centerline. 

After extensive analysis, it was realized that the slight curvature of the counterflow flame away from 

the centerline has a significant effect on the measurements, since the reference flame speed measured in 

the vertical direction actually is not the true reference flame speed normal to the flame surface. If the total 

velocity at the location of measured reference flame speed is projected onto the normal of the flame 

surface, the corrected and true reference flame speed is obtained. As expected, the profile of the true 

reference flame speed does remain flat in the radial direction. Again, we conclude from the investigations 

above the absolute necessity of taking the reference flame speed and axial strain rate measurements very 

close to the nozzle centerline. Otherwise, the reference flame speed measured would not be the true value 

normal to the flame surface. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 17 

 

Figure 21.—Radial variation of the radial 

and axial exit velocity components of a 

counterflow jet. 

3.2.7 Development of a Laser Extinction System for Measuring Soot Volume Fractions 

In preparation for measurements of sooting characteristics in flames, USC upgraded their 

experimental capabilities with the addition of a system for high-resolution laser extinction measurements 

of soot volume concentration. Soot, a cluster of carbon atoms larger than the surrounding fuel, air, and N2, 

absorbs light. By transmitting a laser through a sooting flame, the amount of light absorbed can be 

calculated and, through an established process, be reversed to find the soot volume fraction. 

The system consists of a 1-mW helium-neon laser mounted on a precision y-z traverse. The laser 

beam can be focused to a minimum thickness of 0.1 mm with a 20-cm plano-convex lens and mounted so 

as to traverse the flames between our burners in the horizontal plane. Laser-beam intensity is recorded by 

a ThorLabs PDA 100A amplified photo-detector. This photo-detector has a sensitive diameter of 

approximately 6 to 8 mm. The traverse mechanism is manually operated and allows for better than 

10-m stepping resolution. Due to the large detection area of the photo-detector the system can be 

configured to permit the detector to remain stationary while only the laser is moved; this greatly 

simplifies the implementation of this technique on more complex apparatuses and limits its susceptibility 

Figure 22.—Flame shape and radial 

variation of the reference flame speed 

and stretch rate for a counterflow flame. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 18 

to vibrations. Photo-detector output is recorded by both a Fluke Digital Multimeter averaged over a period 

of 20 sec for each position and a Tektronix 3630 oscilloscope. The reference readings (I0) are performed 

without a flame or with a non-sooting flame and then readings with a sooting flame (I) are taken to yield 

the line of sight transmittance (I/I0). Following Wang, Du, Sung, and Law (Ref. 4), the local extinction 

coefficient kext is obtained through deconvolution of the integral: 

    



















  y

dr

r y

r k r

I

I y

2 2 ext

0

ln . 

The soot volume fraction (Fv) is then obtained from the relationship, 

Fv m

m k























  21 Im 6

2

2

ext , 

where  is the wavelength of the laser beam—632.8 nm—and m is the complex refractive index, m = 1.58 

to 0.57i. Figure 23 shows a schematic of the set-up and Figure 24 shows a photo of the experimental 

setup. 

The apparatus was tested using an ethylene-N2 mixture with a 0.297 fuel mole fraction and a 0.339 

fuel mole fraction. One data set for the 0.297 fuel mole fraction (Flame A), and one for the 0.339 fuel 

mole fraction (Flame B), are plotted as line of sight transmittance (I/I0) versus distance from the bottom 

burner in Figure 25. Flames A and B start sooting and stop sooting in roughly the same location from the 

exit of the bottom burner, but show significant difference across the flame. The reported data in Figure 25 

are very preliminary (with large uncertainty bars) and are meant just to demonstrate that the system output 

is what is expected qualitatively. During the testing it was found that it is necessary to allow the laser and 

photo-detector to warm up for at least 30 min to ensure stable reference readings. 

As seen in Figure 25, there is significant scatter in the data and attendant uncertainty bars. This is 

likely associated with unsteadiness of the flame related to air currents and burner alignment. Repeatability 

and reliability of the data will have to be assured before any definitive data is produced, but the system 

has been shown to function correctly and has sufficient sensitivity to be of great use in measuring liquid 

fuels once it is properly configured. An enclosure will need to be built to accommodate the sooting 

flames, for health purposes, an N2 environment for eliminating the secondary diffusion flames caused by 

reaction with the ambient air is needed, and the flame must be shielded from air currents associated with 

manually adjusting the traverse mechanism. Adding pure O2 to the top flow will increase the temperature 

and provide a larger range of soot-producing flames. A special thermocouple will also need to be 

incorporated, which will sample the temperature of the flame allowing it to be regulated or held constant. 

Figure 23.—Schematic of a non-premixed sooting flame set-up with laser light extinction. 

Laser PDA100 

Multimeter 

Fuel / N2

Air 

 Soot 

 Flame 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 19 

Figure 24.—Photograph of a non-premixed sooting flame set-up with a laser light extinction. 

-0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

02468

Distance from lower burner

I/I

Flame A - .297 mole fraction

Flame B - .339 mole fraction

Figure 25.—Line of transmittance fraction (I/I0) versus distance from bottom burner. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 20 

3.2.8 Development of a Counterflow Ignition Burner Rig 

A new rig was also developed to study flame ignition that is achieved by heating air or N2 in one of 

the two burners at temperatures well exceeding 1000 K. To achieve this, one burner is replaced by a 

quartz tube equipped with independently controlled helicoidal internal (SiC) and external (Kanthal AI) 

electric heating elements that are capable of raising the temperature of the air jet up to 1600 K; this is 

similar to the approach of Fotache et al. (Ref. 5). A temperature controller/power supply is used to operate 

the internal heater. Feedback to the temperature controller is provided by a B-type thermocouple (Pt-6% 

Rh/Pt-30% Rh) positioned in the hot air stream within the quartz tube close to the surface of the inner 

heater. For a given reactant configuration and reactant composition, the temperature at the quartz tube exit 

is increased and monitored via another B-type thermocouple, until flame ignition occurs, at which point 

the tube exit temperature is defined as the ignition temperature, Tign. The ignition system is shown in 

Figure 26. 

3.2.9 Results From Laminar Flame-Speed and Extinction Strain-Rate Measurements 

The upgraded vaporization system described in the previous section had a massive impact on the 

accuracy and repeatability of the experiments, since the flames are noticeably more stable due to the fuel 

vaporization being much more constant. Hence, new and more accurate sets of laminar flame speeds were 

measured towards the end of the project for mixtures of S-8, R-8, n-C12H26, JP-7, and JP-8 with air at an 

unburned mixture temperature Tu = 403 K. All results are shown graphically in Figure 27 and numerically 

in Table 3 as a function of fuel/air mass ratio.

Figure 26.—Photograph of ignition counterflow burner setup. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 21 

Figure 27.—Experimentally determined laminar flame speeds, Su

°

’s, of mixtures of S-8, R-8, n-C12H26, 

JP-7 and JP-8 with air as a function of fuel to air mass ratio. 

TABLE 3.—EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED LAMINAR FLAME SPEEDS, Su

°

’s, OF MIXTURES 

OF S-8, R-8, N-C12H26, JP-7 AND JP-8 WITH AIR AS A FUNCTION OF FUEL TO AIR MASS RATIO 

S-8 R-8 n-C12H26 JP-7 JP-8 

mF/mA Su

°

[cm/s] 

mF/mA Su

°

[cm/s] 

mF/mA Su

°

[cm/s] 

mF/mA Su

°

[cm/s] 

mF/mA Su

°

[cm/s] 

0.0466 38.8 0.0466 37.3 0.0481 42.0 0.0466 38.5 0.0466 37.3 

0.0533 49.3 0.0533 48.2 0.0534 50.6 0.0533 48.4 0.0533 47.8 

0.0599 57.3 0.0599 57.5 0.0608 57.2 0.0599 55.3 0.0599 53.8 

0.0666 61.5 0.0666 61.5 0.0661 62.2 0.0666 60.1 0.0666 58.5 

0.0732 62.7 0.0732 62.8 0.0701 63.8 0.0732 61.4 0.0732 58.4 

0.0799 58.3 0.0799 58.4 0.0734 63.1 0.0799 55.1 0.0799 51.8 

0.0865 49.5 0.0866 49.5 0.0801 56.3 0.0865 45.4 0.0866 43.6 

0.0932 36.8 0.0932 36.1 0.0868 48.2 0.0932 34.4 0.0932 31.7 

0.0999 26.6 0.0998 26.2 0.0928 36.8 0.0999 25.4 -------- -------- 

-------- -------- -------- -------- 0.1002 27.2 -------- -------- -------- -------- 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 22 

The propagation rates of S-8/air and R-8/air flames are almost identical. Compared to n-C12H26/air, 

the S-8/air and R-8/air laminar flame speeds are 1 to 2 cm/s lower on average. The S-8/air and R-8/air 

flames propagate at approximately the same rate as JP-7/air flames, while they are 2 to 4 cm/s faster than 

JP-8/air flames. 

The extinction strain rates of mixtures of S-8, R-8, n-C12H26, JP-7, and JP-8 with air are shown 

graphically in Figure 28 and numerically in Table 4 for an unburned mixture temperature Tu = 403 K. Due 

to Reynolds number constraints, i.e., for the counterflowing jets to remain laminar, 7-mm nozzles with a 

separation distance of 10 mm are used for higher extinction strain rates, i.e., for fuel-to-air mass ratios, 

F/A > 0.6, while 14-mm nozzles with a separation distance of 14 mm for F/A < 0.6 are used. Further 

experiments using 7-mm nozzles will be conducted soon to cover the entire range within the flammability 

limits for S-8/air and R-8/air flames. It can be seen that the S-8/air and R-8/air flames exhibit identical 

extinction characteristics. Compared to n-C12H26/air flames, they exhibit slightly lower resistance to 

extinction. 

Figure 28.—Experimentally determined extinction strain rates, Kext’s, of mixtures of S-8, R-8,

n-C12H26, JP-7 and JP-8 with air, as a function of fuel-to-air mass ratio. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 23 

TABLE 4.—EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED EXTINCTION STRAIN RATES, Kext’s, OF MIXTURES 

OF S-8, R-8, N-C12H26, JP-7 AND JP-8 WITH AIR AS A FUNCTION OF FUEL-TO-AIR MASS RATIO 

S-8 R-8 n-C12H26 JP-7 JP-8 

mF/mA Kext [s–1] mF/mA Kext [s–1] mF/mA Kext [s–1] mF/mA Kext [s–1] mF/mA Kext [s–1] 

0.0466 232 0.0456 222 0.0491 373 0.0550 503 0.0555 500 

0.0498 304 0.0501 302 0.0510 400 0.0607 655 0.0614 650 

0.0527 359 0.0521 356 0.0550 499 0.0681 852 0.0684 814 

0.0541 428 0.0543 411 0.0577 575 0.0934 862 0.0930 840 

0.0560 496 0.0563 492 0.0618 708 0.1008 670 0.0993 670 

0.0578 563 0.0580 540 0.0496 385 0.0694 892 0.0703 892 

 0.0520 461 0.0759 1015 0.0754 965 

 0.0523 483 0.0883 997 0.0883 951 

 0.0543 509 0.0660 781 0.0656 760 

 0.0596 632 0.0924 910 0.0918 889 

 0.0967 776 

 0.0988 724 

 0.1019 693 

 0.0623 780 

 0.0649 818 

 0.0660 848 

 0.0949 835 

 0.0742 1065 

 0.0882 1042 

 0.0699 888 

 0.0937 897 

 0.0725 978 

 0.0911 1000 

 0.0699 937 

 0.0913 960 

 0.0767 1088 

 0.0853 1079 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 24 

3.2.10 Results From NOx Measurements 

Experiments were carried out with jet fuel surrogate candidates, n-decane and n-dodecane, at an 

unburned mixture temperature, Tu = 403 K, and different equivalence ratios. The NOx concentration 

profiles for n-decane/air and n-dodecane/air flames at equivalence ratios of 0.8, 1, and 1.2 are shown in 

Figures 29 to 31, respectively. It can be seen that the n-decane/air and n-dodecane/air flames produce 

approximately the same amounts of NOx on the lean side, the stoichiometric point and the rich side. 

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Distance from the bottom burner, cm

NOx concentration, ppm

n-decane/air

n-dodecane/air

Figure 29.—Experimentally determined NOx concentration profiles as 

a function of distance from the bottom burner for n-decane/air and 

n-dodecane/air flames (equivalence ratio = 0.8, K = 166 s–1; Tu = 403 K). 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Distance from the bottom burner, cm

NOx concentration, ppm

n-decane/air

n-dodecane/air

Figure 30.—Experimentally determined NOx concentration profiles as 

a function of distance from the bottom burner for n-decane/air and 

n-dodecane/air flames (equivalence ratio = 1.0, K = 166 s–1; Tu = 403 K). 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 25 

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Distance from the bottom burner, cm

NOx concentration, ppm

n-decane/air

n-dodecane/air

Figure 31.—Experimentally determined NOx concentration profiles as 

a function of distance from the bottom burner for n-decane/air and 

n-dodecane/air flames (equivalence ratio = 1.2, K = 166 s–1; Tu = 403 K). 

3.3 Kinetic Model Development and Reduction 

During this project, Reaction Design, in collaboration with Dr. Westbrook, has assembled, tested and 

improved a detailed surrogate mechanism for F-T fuels. Identification of an appropriate surrogate blend 

was based on chemical analysis data obtained by USC through their collaboration with the AFRL. These 

mechanisms were tested against flame data obtained at USC as well as data obtained from external 

sources, as described in the following section of this report. The validated mechanism has also been 

reduced successfully to a size that is reasonable for use in CFD simulations for jet-engine combustor 

design applications. Here we describe the details of the surrogate-blend determination, the mechanism 

development, and the mechanism reduction activities. 

3.3.1 Identification of Appropriate Surrogate Blends for F-T Fuels 

The results of the detailed qualitative analysis for the F-T fuel provided by the Air Force Research 

Laboratory, labeled S-8, are provided in the section titled (F-T) fuels. 

It was found that the dominant components consisted mainly of n-and iso-paraffins of C8 to C15

chains. As seen in Figure 32, iso-paraffins are the major components in the F-T fuel with over 70 mol% 

of the total composition, whereas the rest are n-paraffins. Although high in iso-paraffins, these are much 

less branched compared to gasoline or diesel. Most of the iso-paraffins in the F-T fuel consist of only one 

methyl branch (- CH3) on a long- and straight-chain alkane. Based on the carbon number distribution 

shown in Figure 33, more than half of the alkanes have a C10 to C12 chain. Such long-chain alkanes will 

make the effect of the small branched methyl group less significant. 

We therefore first proposed a binary surrogate mixture containing n-dodecane and n-decane, as 

shown in Table 5. Here, n-dodecane represents the n-alkane class and n-decane represents the iso-alkane 

class in the overall analysis. As discussed, iso-alkanes in the F-T fuels contain only one methyl branch on 

a long straight-chain alkane, so that it is reasonable to use n-decane as a representative of the iso-alkane 

class. However, a more complex surrogate could be used in the future (pending availability of 

mechanisms for low-branched iso-alkanes), as suggested in Table 5. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 26 

F-T fuel (S-8) overall analysis, mol%

iso-alkane

n-alkane

cyclo-alkane

Figure 32.—Hydrocarbon class analysis of the F-T fuel. 

Carbon number distribution in F-T fuel (S-8)

0

5

10

15

20

25

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Carbon #

Mol 

%

Figure 33.—Carbon number distribution in the F-T fuel. 

TABLE 5.—INITIAL SURROGATE MIXTURES PROPOSED FOR THE F-T FUEL (S-8) 

Component Current, 

mol% 

Possible alternative for future, 

mol% 

n-dodecane 24 15 

n-decane 76 10 

4-methyloctane -- 38 

2-methyldodecane -- 37 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 27 

To better account for the branched alkanes in the F-T fuel analysis, we later recommended and 

assembled a 3-component surrogate mixture that included iso-alkane. This was due to the inability of the 

binary mixture of n-decane and n-dodecane to match measured cetane numbers for F-T fuels. Cetane 

number can be an important property to match for a fuel surrogate, as it represents the ignition behavior 

of the fuel. The F-T fuel samples that we received from AFRL have cetane numbers of approximately 60, 

as shown in Table 6. Since n-decane and n-dodecane have cetane numbers of 76 and 80, respectively, it is 

not possible to achieve a lower cetane number with their blends. Iso-alkanes, even with very small side 

chains, decrease the cetane number of F-T fuels. Therefore, we have added iso-octane as a third 

component for our F-T surrogate blend. This allows us to (1) represent the iso-alkane class, (2) match 

cetane number criteria by supplying a component with a very low cetane number of 14, and (3) include a 

component with a smaller carbon number that will facilitate matching the lower boiling point range of the 

real F-T fuel. In addition, having iso-octane as a surrogate component should improve NOx emissions 

predictions for the surrogate model. We chose iso-octane due to its suitability for these purposes the 

availability of a well validated mechanism that was reasonably consistent with our n-alkane base 

mechanisms. Compared to the iso-alkanes with only one or two methyl side chains found in F-T fuels,

iso-octane is a highly branched component. So the amount required in the blend to match the cetane 

number is much less than the fraction of total iso-alkanes in F-T fuels. Based on fuel analysis data on 

carbon number distribution (Fig. 1) and cetane number data (Table 6), we proposed two different 

surrogates as shown in Table 7. These surrogates not only match cetane numbers but also reflect the 

carbon number distribution in the F-T fuels. It is possible to add more components to the surrogate, 

especially for S-8, which has higher carbon-number alkanes, but for this work and the focus on flame 

simulations, we limited the number of components to three. 

TABLE 6.—CETANE NUMBER OF TWO 

F-T FUEL SAMPLES USING 

DIFFERENT METHODS 

Cetane no. IQT ASTM D976 

Shell GTL 59.67 68 

Syntroleum S-8 59.08 57 

TABLE 7.—3-COMPONENT SURROGATE MIXTURES PROPOSED FOR TWO F-T FUELS 

Model fuel component Surrogate for Shell GTL, 

mol% 

Surrogate for Syntroleum S-8, 

mol% 

Cetane no. 

n-dodecane 10 38 80 

n-decane 65 34 76 

iso-octane 25 28 14 

Cetane number 60.9 60.2 -- 

H/C molar ratio 2.21 2.20 -- 

To optimize the match of the surrogate blend to targeted fuel properties, we have developed (under 

separate funding) a software tool called the Surrogate Blend Optimizer (SBO). The SBO software 

performs global and local optimization methods to determine the best surrogate blend, based on matching 

user-defined targets, which may include any combination of: 

1. Chemical class composition 

2. Ignition quality (octane and cetane numbers) 

3. H/C ratio 

4. Lower heating value (LHV) 

5. Several points from the true boiling point curve (ASTM D-2892 method) 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 28 

For calculating blend properties, we employed a linear-blending method for ignition quality and 

LHV. Such properties for neat fuel components are provided by reference as tagged input in the 

thermodynamic data portion of our reaction mechanisms that were used in CHEMKIN-PRO (Ref. 1) 

simulations. The SBO employs two different minimization algorithms: a genetic algorithm for searching 

for a global minimum, and then a directional-set algorithm for accurately finding the local minimum. 

Once a user selects the fuel components to be included in the blend and provides one or more targets to be 

achieved by the blend, the SBO will find an optimum blend that best satisfies all the targets. A weighting 

factor may also be used to give some targets more weight than others. 

We used the SBO to obtain optimum 3-component blends for Shell GTL and for the Syntroleum S-8 

fuels. The targets used for these two F-T fuels are shown in Table 8. The first four targets represent 

measured properties obtained for the real F-T fuels. The additional criteria on the range of boiling points 

have been specified to try to match the trends in boiling curve of the real F-T fuel while only considering 

a 3-component surrogate blend. Also, we have added additional constraints on iso-octane since this is a 

highly branched molecule compared to the iso-alkanes found in F-T fuels. An additional constraint is also 

placed on the n-dodecane mole fraction, which is especially important for the Shell GTL surrogate, since 

it has a very small number of components that are heavier than a C12 hydrocarbon. Based on these criteria, 

the SBO found different surrogate blends for the two F-T fuels, as shown in Table 9. The original blend in 

Table 7 was determined manually before we had completed work on the SBO software. We can see that 

both blends found by the SBO are close to those originally proposed in Table 7. In future, however, we 

will be able to use the SBO method for more complex surrogate blends and to match a wider range of 

properties of the real fuel. 

TABLE 8.—CRITERIA USED IN SURROGATE BLEND OPTIMIZER 

SOFTWARE TOOL FOR TWO F-T SURROGATES 

Target/Criteria Shell GTL S-8 

Cetane no.a 61 60 

H/C molar ratioa 2.17 2.17 

Lower heating value, MJ/kga 44.14 44.14 

T50 boiling point, Ka 445 474 

Additional criteria used to achieve better blend based on fuel 

analysis with limited number of components in the blend: 

T20 boiling point, K 433 449 

T90 boiling point, K 456 522 

iso-Octane, mol fraction 0.25 0.25 

n-Dodecane, mol fraction 0.1 0.33 

a

Measured property of F-T fuels. 

TABLE 9.—OPTIMUM COMPOSITION FOUND BY SURROGATE 

BLEND OPTIMIZER FOR TWO F-T SURROGATES 

Property Shell GTL S-8 

iso-Octane, mol% 28 32 

n-Decane, mol% 61 25 

n-Dodecane, mol% 11 42 

Cetane no. 61 61 

H/C molar ratio 2.21 2.20 

Lower heating value, MJ/kg 44.55 44.45 

T50 boiling point, K 404 447 

While we were not able to obtain detailed chemical analysis for bio-derived jet fuel from UOP or for 

the R-8 fuel discussed in the previous section, we believe it is very likely to have no aromatics, and we 

expect it to have mainly linear and branched paraffins. Thus, their composition is expected to be very 

similar to that of F-T fuel due to removal of oxygen from the ester molecules during the hydrogenation 

process for jet-engine application. For this reason, we expect the same 3-component blends discussed 

above will be applicable for bio-jet fuels as well. We would be able to match specific fuel-property targets 

for bio-jet fuel using the SBO method, but the component fuels should be the same. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 29 

3.3.2 Baseline n-Alkane Mechanism up to C12

A detailed reaction mechanism has been developed for the proposed alternative jet-fuel surrogates. 

The surrogate components include n-dodecane, n-decane, n-heptane, and iso-octane. We started with the 

recent Westbrook et al. (Ref. 6) mechanism for n-alkanes that contains all linear alkanes from n-heptane 

and up to n-hexadecane and contains 2116 species. To reduce the size of the mechanism we (1) removed 

all the species containing more than 12 carbon atoms, and (2) removed reactions pertaining to the lowtemperature kinetics. We removed reaction classes 10 to 25 as defined by Westbrook et al. to be 

important only for the low-temperature conditions. The reaction mechanism for iso-octane was obtained 

from Curran et al. (Ref. 7). The high-temperature sub-mechanism for iso-octane was extracted from the 

Curran mechanism and then merged with the reduced Westbrook mechanism for n-alkanes, up to

n-dodecane. The resulting mechanism now contains all the necessary reactions for high-temperature 

oxidation of all the surrogate fuel components necessary for F-T and bio-jet fuels. 

The initial Westbrook mechanism did not contain transport parameters required for flame simulations. 

Transport parameters for species involved in n-heptane and iso-octane combustion were obtained from 

Curran et al. (Refs. 7 and 8). We estimated the transport parameters for the rest of the species in the 

mechanism. 

Our preliminary surrogate mechanism overpredicted the laminar flame speeds and significantly 

overpredicted the extinction strain rates for all the surrogate components. Based on rate and sensitivity 

analyses, we found that the base or core mechanism up to C2 hydrocarbon has the greatest impact on such 

flame behavior. According to Ji et al. (Ref. 9), transport parameters have greater impact on flame 

extinction than that on propagation. Initially we updated the transport parameters for core species based 

on quantum calculations (Ref. 10). This change resulted in improved laminar flame speed predictions but 

did not improve the extinction strain rate predictions. In order to improve the predictions for flame speed 

as well as extinction strain rates, we took a comprehensive look at the coupling of transport and kinetic 

effects. We have improved both aspects during the term of the project. 

The following changes were made to the core mechanism 

1. Transport parameters for important species in the core mechanism have been updated based upon 

those used in the USC-“JetSurf” mechanism (Ref. 11). 

2. Both the Westbrook et al. (Ref. 6) and the Curran et al. (Ref. 7) mechanisms use explicit reverse 

rate specification, which obfuscates testing of the thermodynamic consistency of the reactions. 

We removed explicit reverse rate specification. This forces the reverse rate calculation based on 

thermodynamics and thus guarantees the mechanism to be microscopically reversible. 

3. Updated rate constants for a few key reactions. The specifics of these updates are shown in 

Table 10. Rate parameters were obtained from the NIST database (Ref. 12) where available. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 30 

TABLE 10.—UPDATED RATE COEFFICIENTS FOR KEY REACTIONS IN THE CORE MECHANISM. RATE 

COEFFICIENTS ARE IN CAL, MOL, CM3

, K UNITS

To verify that predicted flame speeds for the core components are still in agreement with data, we reran 

all of the simulations. Comparisons between flame speeds predicted using the current mechanism and data 

for methane, ethane, and propane (Ref. 13) are shown in Figures 34 to 36. New predictions are in good 

agreement with the data as well as other literature mechanisms, such as the JetSurF mechanism (Ref. 11). 

Reaction A n Ea Reference 

h+o2=o+oh 1.97e+14 0 16540 Baulch et al. 1992 

co+oh=co2+h 7.05e+04 2.053 –356 Joshi et al. 2006 

Duplicate 5.76e+12 –0.664 332 

hco+m = co+h+m 1.87e+17 –1.0 17000 Friedrichs et al. 2002 * 2.00, 

Collision efficiencies: h2/2.0/ h2o/12.0/ co/1.75/ co2/3.6/ adjusted collision efficiency 

h+o2(+m)=ho2(+m) 5.12e+12 0.44 0 Troe et al. 2000, 

Low 6.33e+19 –1.4 0 m = n2 * 1.10 

Troe: 0.5 1e-30 1e+30 

o2/0.85/ h2o/11.89/ co/1.09/ co2/2.18/ ar/0.40/ 

h+oh+m=h2o+m 4.40e+22 –2.0 0 GRI-mech 3.0 * 2.00 

h2/0.73/h2o/12.0/ co/1.90/ co2/3.8/ ar/0.38/ 

ch3+h(+m)=ch4(+m) 1.27e+16 –0.63 383 GRI-mech 3.0 

Low 2.48e+33 –4.76 2440 

Troe: 0.7830 74.00 2941.00 6964 

Collision efficiencies: h2/2.0/ h2o/6.0/ ch4/2.0/ co/1.5/ co2/2.0/ c2h6/3.0/ ar/0.7/ 

ch2(s)+o2=>h+oh+co 2.80e+13 0 0 GRI-mech 3.0 

ch2(s)+o2=co+h2o 1.20e+13 0 0 GRI-mech 3.0 

co+ho2=co2+oh 1.57E+05 2.18 17943 You et al. 2007 

oh+ho2=h2o+o2 6.67E+28 –4.73 5503 Re-fitted You et al. 2007 

Duplicate 2.51E+12 2.0 40000 

hco+h=co+h2 1.20e+14 0 0 Friedrichs et al. 2002 

ch4+h=ch3+h2 6.60e+08 1.62 10840 GRI-mech 3.0 

c2h5+h=2ch3 9.00e+13 0 0 Estimation 

c2h5+h=c2h4+h2 2.00e+12 0 0 Estimation 

c2h3+h=c2h2+h2 1.20e+13 0 0 Baulch et al. 1992 

c2h3+h=h2cc+h2 8.00e+12 0 0 Estimation 

c2h5+h(+m)=c2h6(+m) 5.21e+17 –0.99 1580 GRI-mech 3.0 

Low 1.99e+41 –7.08 6685 

Collision efficiencies: h2/2.0/ h2o/6.0/ ch4/2.0/ co/1.5/ co2/2.0/ c2h6/3.0/ ar/0.7/ 

ch3+ch3(+m)=c2h6(+m) 2.12e+16 –0.97 620 GRI-mech 3.0 

Low 1.77e+50 –9.67 6220 

Troe: 0.5325 151.0 1038.00 4970.0 

Collision efficiencies: h2/2.0/ h2o/6.0/ ch4/2.0/ co/1.5/ co2/2.0/ c2h6/3.0/ ar/0.7/ 

c2h4+h(+m)=c2h5(+m) 1.37e+09 1.463 1355 Miller et al. 2004, 

Low 2.03e+39 –6.642 5769 adjusted collision efficiency 

Troe: -0.569 299.0 9147.0 -152.40 

Collision efficiencies: h2/2.0/ h2o/6.0/ ch4/2.0/ co/1.5/ co2/2.0/ c2h6/2.0/ ar/0.7/ 

c3h5-a+h(+m)=c3h6(+m) 2.00e+14 0 0 Tsang et al. 1991 

Low 1.33e+60 –12.0 5968 

Troe: 0.020 1096.6 1096.6 6859.5 

Collision efficiencies: h2/2/ h2o/6/ ch4/2/ co/1.5/ co2/2/ c2h6/3/ ar/0.7/ 

c2h3+ch3(+m)=c3h6(+m) 2.50e+13 0 0 Tsang et al. 1986 

Low 4.27e+58 –11.94 9770 

Troe: 0.175 1340.6 60000.0 10139.8 

Collision efficiencies: h2/2/ h2o/6/ ch4/2/ co/1.5/ co2/2/ c2h6/3/ ar/0.7/c2h2/3.00/ c2h4/3.00/ 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 31 

Methane

298K, 1 atm

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5

Equivalence ratio

Flame speed (cm/s)

Data

JetSurF mechanism

Current mmechanism

Figure 34.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of 

methane to the literature data (Ref. 13). Predictions using 

USC JetSurF mechanism are also shown. 

Ethane

298K, 1 atm

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7

Equivalence ratio

Flame speed (cm/s)

Data

JetSurf mechanism

Current mechanism

Figure 35.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of 

ethane to the literature data (Ref. 13). Predictions using USC 

mech II are also shown. 

Propane

298K, 1 atm

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7

Equivalence ratio

Flame speed (cm/s)

Data

JetSurF mechanism

Current mechanism

Figure 36.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of 

propane to the literature data (Ref. 13). Predictions using 

USC mech II are also shown. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 32 

n-Heptane/air

1 atm, 298K

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Equivalence ratio

Laminar flame speed (cm/s)

Davis and Law, 1998 (non-linear)

Davis and Law, 1998 (linear)

Kumar et al. 2007

Current mechanism

Curran et al. 1998

Figure 37.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of n-heptane to 

the literature data (Refs. 14 and 15). 

Flame-speed predictions for larger alkanes also agree very well with data. Comparison of the 

predicted laminar flame speed of n-heptane to the data from Davis and Law (Ref. 14) and Kumar 

et al. (Ref. 15) is shown in Figure 37. Also shown, for reference, is the original n-heptane mechanism 

from Curran et al., which was the baseline model prior to the mechanism-development work performed 

throughout this project. 

Validation comparisons for extinction strain-rate predictions are shown in the next section of this 

report. 

3.3.3 NOx Sub-mechanism 

Building on the baseline alkane mechanism, we also focused on improving and testing a NOx submechanism for use with the Fisher-Tropsch surrogate simulations. Initial testing of this sub-mechanism 

was based on experimental data from the literature, which set the stage for later comparisons to NOx data 

from the USC experiments. 

Our starting point for the NOx sub-mechanism was an extraction of NOx kinetics from GRI-Mech 3.0 

(Ref. 16). This set of kinetics predicts thermal and prompt NO reasonably well at high temperatures, as 

the sub-mechanism was validated against data primarily from flame experiments at high temperatures. 

However, at low- to mid-temperature (below 1500 K), the GRI-Mech 3.0-based sub-mechanism fails to 

capture some interesting NOx-hydrocarbon mutual sensitization phenomena that has been observed 

(Ref. 17). Recently, several researchers have proposed new and updated mechanisms for the NOx

sensitization effect, as well as for missing low-temperature NOx pathways, such as HONO production. 

These reactions can be important during ignition and for conditions where there are relatively high NOx

levels. For this work, our goal is to include a fairly complete NOx sub-mechanism that covers a wide 

range of temperature, pressure, and fuel conditions. The complete mechanism can be subsequently 

reduced for specific applications (such as high-temperature-only conditions), using automated 

mechanism-reduction techniques that have been developed at Reaction Design. 

In selecting GRI-Mech 3.0 as the starting point, three other sub-mechanisms were considered but 

after evaluation were discarded. During this quarter, four other mechanisms have been acquired for 

consideration of additional pathways. All eight of these NOx sub-mechanism sources are listed in 

Table 11, along with their applicability limits. The HCN mechanism from Dagaut et al. (Ref. 17) is the 

most recent one that considers various pathways and isomers in NOx production. However, it does not 

include NO-HC mutual sensitization. Mechanisms from Rasmussen, et al. (Ref. 18) and 

Sivaramakrishnan, et al. (Ref. 19) include such mutual sensitization effects. They include complex 

species such as R-NOx and R-O-NOx, where R can be OH, CH3, and C2H5 radical groups. All three 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 33 

mechanisms (Nos. 5, 7, and 8) have been used to improve the GRI-Mech-based NOx sub-mechanism. The 

1998 sub-mechanism from Glarborg et al. (Ref. 20) contains unproven pathways that were discarded in 

more recent mechanisms, so was not considered in this work. Comparisons of the resulting NOx submechanism that will be used in this work to available experimental data will be reported in the next work 

period. 

TABLE 11.—SURVEY OF RECENTLY PUBLISHED NOX MECHANISMS 

No. Source Temperature 

range, K 

Pressure 

range, atm 

Fuels used in 

validation 

Comments Considered in 

this work? 

Ref. 

1 GRI-Mech 3.0 >1300 0.03 to 80 CH4 High temperature Yes 16 

2 Mueller et al. 

2000 

950 to 1040 0.5 to 10 CO/H2O/NO/

SO2

Not for HCs; no 

prompt pathways 

No 21 

3 Hori et al. 1998 600 to 1100 1 C1 – C3 No sensitization; 

limited validation 

No 22 

4 Konnov 2007 1100 to 2200 0.1 to 14 N2O/NH3/ 

N2H4

Not for HCs No 23 

5 Dagaut et al. 

2008 

900 to 1500 1 to 10 ---------- HCN review Yes 17 

6 Glarborg et al. 

1998 

800 to 1500 1 C1 – C2 Superseded by 

later work 

No 24 

7 Rasmussen et al. 

2007 

600 to 900 10 to 100 CH4 Low temperatures; 

high pressures 

Yes 18 

8 Sivaramakrishnan 

et al. 2007 

1000 to 1500 10 to 50 CH4/C2H6/NO Low temperatures; 

high pressures 

Yes 19 

3.3.4 PAH Sub-mechanism 

To facilitate future soot modeling, we further updated the detailed chemical kinetics mechanism for 

the F-T and bio-jet surrogate fuels to include pathways for PAH formation leading to soot and the HACAbased soot-growth mechanism. Several literature mechanisms have been developed to predict PAH from 

the combustion of small alkanes and alkenes, such as ethylene, methane, propane, etc. The hydrogenabstraction-acetylene-addition (HACA) mechanism for molecular-weight growth from unsaturated C2

hydrocarbon flames was first developed by Frenklach and coworkers (Refs. 25 to 27) and has been a 

popular mechanism used by many studying combustion-generated soot in the last decade. Appel et al. 

(Ref. 28) advanced this mechanism by improving the rate constants for several important pathways. In the 

last five years, other researchers have considered more reaction pathways to better describe the PAH 

chemistry and to account for reactions in non-C2 flames. Skjøth-Rasmussen et al. (Ref. 29) studied PAHformation mechanisms from fuel-rich methane oxidation in a laminar flow reactor. Richter et al. 

developed a mechanism for PAH formation in benzene flames. Recently Zhang et al. (Ref. 31) developed 

a mechanism to describe various benzene formation pathways in several fuels. 

It is important to gather the kinetics knowledge available in the literature on various PAH reaction 

pathways to develop a comprehensive, detailed reaction mechanism that can apply to a broad range of 

combustion systems and fuels. We started this process by first incorporating the Appel et al. (Ref. 28) 

PAH sub-mechanism to the current F-T fuel surrogate mechanism. We then added the PAH submechanisms from the Zhang et al. (Ref. 31) and Skjøth-Rasmussen et al. (Ref. 29). The addition of these 

PAH sub-mechanisms increased the size of the master mechanism by 159 species and 831 reactions. 

These three sources describe a variety of PAH formation pathways and we expect them to provide a 

reasonably good starting point for future mechanism improvements. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 34 

3.3.5 Soot Mechanism 

The literature data on soot-growth mechanisms, i.e., after the particles are nucleated from PAH gasphase precursors, is quite limited. In this project, we incorporated the Appel et al. (Ref. 28) soot-growth 

mechanisms as a starting point in development of a more comprehensive soot-growth description, using 

the very general surface-chemistry capabilities of CHEMKIN-PRO. We then extended the original 

mechanism to include condensation of various PAHs, such as pyrene, naphthalene, indene, etc., on the 

soot particle after nucleation. This path is included in addition to the traditional HACA growth 

mechanism that involves acetylene-based carbon addition only. 

3.3.6 Mechanism Reduction 

During the course of this project, Reaction Design tested recently implemented automated 

mechanism-reduction capabilities that work in combination with CHEMKIN-PRO simulations. These 

methods have been implemented to allow operation on a CHEMKIN-PRO “project” that may include a 

number of different conditions for one or more types of reactor models. These conditions are set up as a 

“parameter study” in the CHEMKIN context, and are run first with the full “master” mechanism that 

includes all the elementary reactions. The user can then specify an error tolerance for any target in the 

simulation, such as laminar flame speed, or a particular species concentration prediction. An iterative 

approach then employs one or more reduction methods to determine the smallest possible mechanism that 

can provide the targeted predictions within the specified error. All comparisons are made relative to 

predictions under the same conditions using the master mechanism. In this way, validation and 

improvement of predictions relative to experimental data are separable activities from the automated 

mechanism-reduction process. 

To produce the smallest reasonable F-T surrogate for CFD modeling, we started with the 

2-component surrogate rather than the 3-component surrogate, recognizing that we will have to make 

some compromises on applicability to reduce the compute time of a typical simulation. The hightemperature F-T surrogate master mechanism used for this study contains 549 species and 3246 reactions. 

The mechanism consists of elementary reactions and accounts for a multitude of reaction pathways that 

allow prediction of laminar flame speeds and flame-extinction strain rates, over a wide range of 

temperatures, pressures and equivalence ratios. 

The CHEMKIN-PRO Flame-speed Calculator, which determines the flame-propagation speed for 

laminar, one-dimensional, steady-state, premixed flames, has been used for all the calculations described 

here. For these calculations, we used a 6-cm domain for the computational grid in all cases. This is to 

ensure enough space for the flame to be contained within the computational domain and to satisfy the 

flame-speed model requirements of zero gradients at both the hot and cold boundaries. The solution 

tolerances have been set using absolute and relative tolerances of 10–12 and 10–5, respectively, for all 

calculations, assuring accurate predictions of trace radical species as well as major species. Mixtureaveraged transport properties were used, since use of multicomponent transport properties was more 

computationally expensive and did not impact the calculated flame-speed values significantly. A gridresolution dependency study was also performed, resulting in the conclusion that ~400 grid points should 

be required to eliminate any grid-related uncertainty in the simulations. 

The mechanism reduction operates on model-solution results coming from a parametric matrix of 

runs representing the target conditions. The final reaction set is obtained from the union of the reduced 

reaction sets of the individual targets so that the reduced mechanism generated is valid for all the userspecified target conditions. The reduction can therefore be achieved accurately while accounting for 

spatial and temporal variations, as well as variations in operating conditions. 

Three methods are available in the CHEMKIN-based mechanism-reduction facility; these have been 

tested here for the task of reducing the 2-component F-T surrogate mechanism. 

1. Directed Relation Graph (DRG) method (Refs. 2 and 3). 

2. Principle Component Analysis (PCA) method (Ref. 32). 

3. Computational Singular Perturbation (CSP) method (Refs. 33 to 35). 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 35 

The first two of these methods produce skeletal mechanisms. In skeletal mechanisms, the reactions 

that remain in the mechanism have the same reaction paths and reaction rate parameters as in the master 

mechanism, and the species identities for the remaining species are also identical to their counterparts in 

the master mechanism. In this way reactions and species have either been left unmodified or have been 

removed entirely in comparison to the master mechanism. In more severe mechanism-reduction methods, 

there can be lumping of species and/or reactions, also reactions can be replaced by algebraic expressions 

based on quasi-steady-state assumptions. 

The first skeletal mechanism-reduction method, the Directed Relation Graph (DRG) method, was 

originally developed at Princeton to efficiently resolve species coupling, such that unimportant species 

can be identified and eliminated to create skeletal mechanisms (Refs. 2 and 3). Species coupling indicates 

that the removal of one species from the mechanism induces immediate errors to the production rate of 

another species. DRG relies on the directed relation graph constructed using the production rates of 

species to resolve species coupling. Using an efficient search algorithm, the entire reduction can be 

completed in a time scale that is linearly proportional to the number of reactions in the mechanism. The 

DRG method produces a skeletal reaction mechanism in CHEMKIN input format and can operate on 

species rates-of-production data determined from the solution of any CHEMKIN reactor model. 

The other skeletal mechanism-reduction method considered, the Principle Component Analysis (PCA) 

method (Ref. 32), employs an eigenvalue-eigenvector analysis to extract kinetic information from linear 

sensitivities calculated for species of a reacting system. It studies the effect on the calculated behavior of a 

reaction mechanism brought about by a variation in the rate coefficients. The effect is most sensitive to 

changes in the rate coefficients along the principle axis corresponding to the largest eigenvalue of the 

sensitivity matrix and is least sensitive to changes along the axis corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue. 

Therefore reactions in the principle components with small eigenvalues can be dropped. 

The third reduction technique is a severe reduction method, the Computational Singular Perturbation 

(CSP) method (Refs. 33 to 35). This method is based on the separation of time-scales between chemical 

species. It uses the time-dependent eigenvectors of the Jacobian matrix of the chemical source terms to 

decompose the phase space. The decomposition process introduces slow and fast importance indices 

assessing the relative influence of the slow and fast kinetic components, respectively. Using these indices, 

one can eliminate the quasi-steady-state-approximation (QSSA) species from the mechanism by solving for 

them explicitly in terms of those species that are treated kinetically. The rate equations of the remaining 

reactions are expressed in terms of the rate equations of the reactions in the original mechanism. 

Skeletal mechanisms were first generated using the DRG and PCA methods, and these skeletal 

mechanisms were subsequently reduced further using the severe-reduction technique CSP. Our findings 

were that DRG performed better than PCA for generating skeletal mechanisms. Consequently, the 

mechanisms described in this section employ a combination of DRG and CSP reduction techniques. 

Three reduced mechanisms have been generated. These differ in how much discrepancy we were 

willing to tolerate between the flame-speed predictions of the master mechanism and the reduced 

mechanism. In general, the more discrepancy we were willing to tolerate, the more we could reduce the 

mechanism. The master mechanism consisted of 549 species and we were able to achieve reductions from 

73 to 90 percent in terms of the number of species. The three mechanisms generated were as follows: 

1. A conservatively reduced mechanism, consisting of 148 species. The aim was to keep the 

discrepancies in flame speeds between the reduced and master mechanism to less than 

0.5 cm/sec. 

2. A less conservatively reduced mechanism consisting of 95 species. The aim was to keep the 

discrepancies in flame speeds to less than 1.5 cm/sec. 

3. A more aggressively reduced mechanism consisting of 56 species. The aim was to get the number 

of species close to 50, while maintaining reasonable discrepancies over most of the equivalence 

ratio range. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 36 

These mechanisms were assembled based on a combination of the DRG and CSP methods. Table 12 

shows the reduction achieved through DRG and the additional reduction through CSP. CSP was applied 

for mechanisms 1 and 3 only. We note that CSP reduction had limited additional reduction value 

compared to the pure skeletal DRG reduction. 

The flame speed predictions were made for the same F-T surrogate described above, and for the same 

conditions of 403 K and 1 atm. Figure 38 shows the comparisons of flame-speed predictions between the 

reduced mechanisms and the master mechanism. Table 13 gives the corresponding discrepancy values, 

for ease of understanding the information. 

TABLE 12.—REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED THROUGH DRG AND CSP 

Mechanism Number of species after DRG reduction Number of species after subsequent CSP reduction 

Master mechanism contains 549 species 

Reduced mech 1 174 148 

Reduced mech 2 95 95 (no CSP applied) 

Reduced mech 3 64 56 

TABLE 13.—DISCREPANCIES OF PREDICTED FLAME SPEEDS USING REDUCED 

MECHANISMS, IN COMPARISON WITH THE MASTER MECHANISM 

Equivalence ratio Flame speed, master 

mechanism, 

cm/sec 

Flame speed 

discrepancy: Master 

mechanism minus 

reduced mech 1 

(148 species), 

cm/sec 

Flame speed 

discrepancy: Master 

mechanism minus 

reduced mech 2 

(95 species), 

cm/sec 

Flame speed 

discrepancy: Master 

mechanism minus 

reduced mech 3 

(56 species), 

cm/sec 

0.7 

0.8 

39.85 

50.93 

–0.20 

–0.18 

–1.27 

–1.39 

1.74 

1.53 

0.9 59.47 –0.21 –1.52 1.30 

1 65.00 –0.24 –1.51 1.52 

1.1 66.62 –0.01 –1.48 1.87 

1.2 63.69 –0.34 –1.32 2.73 

1.3 55.61 –0.40 –0.66 4.36 

1.4 43.44 –0.30 1.16 5.94 

1.5 31.40 –0.27 1.15 4.23 

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Equivalence ratio

Flame speed (cm/sec)

Master mech 

(549 species)

Reduced mech 1

(148 species)

Reduced mech 2

(95 species)

Reduced mech 3

(56 species)

Figure 38.—Comparisons of predicted flame-speed for n-dodecane, using the full master mechanism 

versus different degrees of mechanism reduction. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 37 

From Table 13, we can see that our most conservatively reduced mechanism (148 species mech) 

predicts flame-speed values that are very close to the master mechanism, within 0.4 cm/sec over the range 

of equivalence ratios. As we keep reducing the number of species, the discrepancy increases. The 95-

species reduced mechanism is still reasonable, with discrepancies within ~1.5 cm/sec. The 56-species 

mechanism is reasonable over equivalence ratios of 0.7 to 1.2, with discrepancies within 3 cm/sec. The 

discrepancy for the 56-species mechanism increases to ~4 to 6 cm/sec for more fuel-rich conditions. It 

fortuitously happens in this case that for these fuel-rich conditions, the 56-species reduced mechanism 

predicts values closer to data than the master mechanism. However, the main point for this study is that 

we can produce a range of reduced mechanisms and determine quantitatively the discrepancies associated 

with these reduced mechanisms. The Reaction Workbench, which is under development, gives the user 

control over how much discrepancy can be tolerated, and over what range of conditions the mechanism 

reduction is to be performed. 

A logical question at this stage would be how large the discrepancy would be if we keep reducing the 

mechanism further. It appears that as we go below ~50 species, the discrepancy becomes fairly large. A 

47-species mechanism had a significant discrepancy of the peak flame speed and flame speed at fuel-rich 

conditions, as much as 10 cm/s. 

Using CHEMKIN-PRO’s Reaction Path Analyzer for understanding the mechanism and reaction 

pathways, this section provides some insights as to why the mechanism becomes sensitive to further 

removal of species. For the flame speed case at equivalence ratio = 1.5, and using the master mechanism, 

Figure 39 shows the important pathways of n-decane, at 775 K. It can be seen that the large n-decane 

molecule breaks down into smaller alkenes, such as 1-hexene and ethylene. Figure 40 shows the 

normalized sensitivity of flow rate to reaction rates, which is equivalent to the sensitivity of the laminar 

flame speed to the reaction rates, for the equivalence ratio = 1.5 case. Again, the most sensitive reactions 

involve hydrogen chemistry, and small hydrocarbon chemistry. This leads us to conclude that the 

successful skeletal mechanism reduction extends to the reactions and species involved in this core C0-C3

mechanism, as well as the original decomposition of the fuel molecules. 

Figure 39.—Reaction pathways of n-decane at 775 K, and for the equivalence ratio = 1.5 case. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 38 

-0.7

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

h+o2=o+oh

hco+M=h+co+M

c2h2+h(+M)=c2h3(+M)

c3h6=c3h5-a+h

c2h3+h=h2cc+h2

ch3+h(+M)=ch4(+M)

Normalized sensitivity

Figure 40.—The most sensitive reactions: Normalized sensitivity coefficients for flow rate, for the 

equivalence ratio = 1.5 case. 

3.4 Simulations of the Flame Experiments With NOx and Soot Predictions 

Throughout this project, we have performed numerous simulations of the USC flame experiments, as 

well as supplementary experiments reported in the literature, for the purpose of verifying and improving 

the fuel-component mechanisms and for testing the F-T fuel-surrogate definition. This was an iterative 

process that sometimes led to additions or corrections to the mechanism and sometimes led to reassessment of the accuracy of or uncertainties in the experimental data. Here we report results using the 

latest version of the mechanism compared to the latest experimental data after improvements to both 

model and experiment were completed per the discussion in the previous sections. The reporting for these 

simulations is organized as follows: (1) general combustion behavior by fuel component or surrogate 

(n-dodecane, n-decane, iso-octane or F-T fuel surrogate), followed by (2) NOx predictions for a variety of 

fuel components (3) autoignition temperature predictions for various fuel components and the F-T 

surrogate, and (4) PAH and soot predictions. 

3.4.1 Iso-Octane—Ignition Times and Laminar Flame Speeds 

Ignition-delay time data from Davidson et al. (Ref. 36) and Vermeer et al. (Ref. 37) have been 

extracted and catalogued. Both the shock-tube experiments involved reflected shock waves. The modeling 

has been performed using the CHEMKIN-PRO (Ref. 1) zero-dimensional transient closed homogeneous 

reactor model, under constant volume conditions. This modeling approach is consistent with other reports 

in the literature for modeling ignition following reflected shock waves. CHEMKIN-PRO allows various 

definitions of ignition time. For the cases modeled, we have used an ignition time defined by the 

inflection point in the predicted temperature versus time profile. 

Figure 41 compares the calculated ignition delay times with the experimental data of Davidson et al. 

(Ref. 36). The figure shows the effects of varying equivalence ratio on the ignition-delay times, over 

temperatures of ~1300 to 1750 K. The model predictions agree well with the experimental data. They also 

show that the fuel-lean mixtures ignite earlier than the stoichiometric and fuel-rich mixtures, at these 

temperatures. The conditions include 1.5 atm and Ar dilution of ~93 percent. 

Figure 42 compares the model predictions with the experimental data of Vermeer et al. (Ref. 37). The 

stoichiometric iso-octane/O2 is diluted in 70 percent Ar. The experimental data are taken at pressures of 

~1.7 to 2.5 atm, and the model predictions have been performed at 2 atm. The model predictions agree 

well with the experimental data over the temperature range shown. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 39 

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75

1000/Temperature (1/K)

Ignition time (sec)

Model, phi=1, Ar=93.25%

Data, phi=1, Ar=93.25%

Model, phi=0.5, Ar=93.5%

Data, phi=0.5, Ar=93.5%

Model, phi=2, Ar=92.75%

Data, phi=2, Ar=92.75%

iso-octane/O2/Ar 

at 1.5 atm

Figure 41.—Effect of equivalence ratio on iso-octane ignition-delay times. Comparison of 

calculated values with the experimental data of Davidson et al. (Ref. 36) at 1.5 atm. Mixture 

diluted with ~93 percent Ar. 

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8

1000/Temperature (1/K)

Ignition time (sec)

Data, Vermeer et al., ~2 atm

Model, 2 atm

iso-octane/O2 in 70% Ar,

phi=1

Figure 42.—Comparison of calculated iso-octane ignition-delay times with the 

experimental data of Vermeer et al. (Ref. 37). Conditions include 70 percent 

Ar dilution, pressure of 2 atm and a stoichiometric mixture. 

Experimental data of iso-octane/air laminar flame speeds have been collected from Davis et al. 

(Ref. 14), Huang et al. (Ref. 38), Kumar et al. (Ref. 15), and Kwon et al. (Ref. 39). The model predictions 

are compared with these data in Figure 43. The uncertainty in experimental velocity measurements has 

been reported to be 1 to 2 cm/sec by Davis et al. Following the measurements, the unstretched laminar 

flame speed is determined using linear or non-linear extrapolation to zero stretch, and the differences 

between the two extrapolation techniques has been reported to be 1 to 2 cm/sec by Davis et al. and Huang 

et al. Linear extrapolation has been used by Davis et al., Kumar et al. and Huang et al., while Kwon et al. 

report using an empirical technique. Of the experimental flame-speed data in Figure 43, the data of Kwon 

et al. seems to have significant differences with the other three sets of data. Kwon et al. estimated a 

10 percent uncertainty in their flame-speed data, and mention that experimental problems surrounding the 

vaporization and mixing of liquid fuels are factors contributing to experimental uncertainties. They do 

however account for flame stretch, and the reason for the differences with the other sets of data is not 

entirely clear. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 40 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5

Equivalence ratio

Flame speed (cm/sec)

Model

Data, Davis et al.

Data, Huang et al.

Data, Kumar et al.

Data, Kwon et al.

Figure 43.—Laminar flame speeds of iso-octane/air at ~298 K and 1 atm. Experimental data 

compared with model predictions over a range of equivalence ratios. 

 

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85

1000/Temperature (1/K)

Ignition time (sec)

Data, 13 atm, phi=1

Model, 13 atm, phi=1

Figure 44.—Calculated n-decane/air ignition-delay times compared with the data of Zhukov et al. 

(Ref. 40). Conditions include pressure of 13 atm and a stoichiometric mixture. 

Comparing the data of Davis et al., Huang et al., and Kumar et al. with the model predictions, the 

model predicts the flame speed well for the fuel-lean and stoichiometric conditions, but under-predicts 

flame speeds in the fuel-rich regime. In the fuel-lean and stoichiometric regime, considering the 

uncertainty in the flame-speed data discussed above, the model predictions can be considered to be in 

good agreement with the experimental data. The peak flame speed occurs at an equivalence ratio of ~1.1. 

3.4.2 n-Decane—Ignition Times and Laminar Flame Speeds 

Figure 44 compares the calculated ignition-delay times with the experimental data of Zhukov et al. 

(Ref. 40) for a stoichiometric n-decane/air mixture, at a pressure of 13 atm. The predictions agree well 

with the experimental data over the temperature range shown. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 41 

Figure 45 compares model predictions with the experimental data of Pfahl et al. (Ref. 41) for a 

stoichiometric n-decane/air mixture, at a pressure of 13 atm. The predictions compare well with the data 

at these temperatures. 

As discussed in the first section of this report, the extraction of laminar flame speed from the raw 

measurement must be performed very carefully. Noticeable differences in results using linear versus 

non-linear extrapolation methods, for example, were observed by USC researchers. As seen in Figure 46, 

various extrapolations or experimental techniques may produce significantly different laminar flamespeed measurements. We expect non-linear extrapolation to provide more accurate indication of the 

laminar flame speed than one would expect to model with a one-dimensional flame-speed simulation. All 

data from the USC Flame Facility that has been used for comparison with our model, then, employs the 

non-linear extrapolation method, unless explicitly stated otherwise. 

0.00001

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

1000/Temperature (1/K)

Ignition time (sec)

Model

Data

13 bar, phi=1

Figure 45.—Calculated n-decane/air ignition-delay times compared with the data of Pfahl et al. 

(Ref. 41). Conditions include pressure of 13 atm and a stoichiometric mixture. 

n-Dodecane

2 0

2 5

3 0

3 5

4 0

4 5

5 0

5 5

6 0

6 5

7 0

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Equivalence ratio, 

Laminar flam espeed (cm /s) 

USC, Linear

extrapolation

USC, Nonlinear

extrapolation

Kumar and Sung

Figure 46.—Impact of linear and non-linear extrapolation of flame velocity 

to zero stretch to obtain laminar flame speed of n-dodecane using 

opposed flow burner configuration at USC Flame Facility. Data from 

Kumar and Sung (Ref. 42) are based on linear extrapolation method. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 42 

n-Decane

400K, 1 atm

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Equivalence ratio

Laminar flamespeed (cm/s)

USC, non-linear extrapolation

Kumar and Sung (2007)

Year 1 mechanism

Current mechanism

Figure 47.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of

n-decane to the experimental data from USC and Kumar 

and Sung (Ref. 42). 

Comparison of the predicted laminar flame speed of n-decane to experimental data of USC and others 

is shown in Figure 47. We can see that the current mechanism displays improved flame-speed predictions 

over the presented range of equivalence ratios. 

More experimental data for n-decane have been obtained from two literature sources: Delfau et al. 

(Ref. 43) and Doute et al. (Ref. 44). Both studied rich n-decane combustion using a burner-stabilized 

flame, but at different conditions. Delfau et al. studied the combustion at low pressure (6 kPa) and an 

equivalence ratio of 1.9 (n-decane/O2/Ar), while Doute et al. used atmospheric pressure and an 

equivalence ratio of 1.7 (n-decane/O2/N2). Delfau et al. used molecular beam-mass spectrometer 

technique, and Doute et al. used gas chromatography. 

The modeling of these experiments has been performed under fixed-temperature conditions, using the 

temperature profile reported in the papers. Doute et al. estimated the uncertainty in their temperature 

measurements as 5 percent. 

Figures 48 to 52 compare the calculated species profiles for the fuel-rich n-decane/O2/N2 flame at 

atmospheric pressure, with the experimental data of Doute et al. The conditions include atmospheric 

pressure and an equivalence ratio of 1.7 (mole%: 3.2% n-decane, 28.6% O2, 68.2% N2). The inlet velocity 

was 11.7 cm/sec. The comparisons show good agreement for most species. Figure 48 shows the profiles 

of the fuel and oxidizer, n-decane and O2. These reactants are seen to be consumed within ~2 mm from 

the burner, and the model predictions agree well with the experimental data of Doute et al. 

Figure 49 shows the profiles for CO and CO2. For these fuel-rich conditions, more CO is formed than 

CO2, and the model predictions follow the correct trends. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 43 

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Distance from burner (cm)

Mole fraction

Model, n-decane

Data, n-decane

Model, O2

Data, O2

Figure 48.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for n-decane/O2/N2 burner-stabilized flame with 

the experimental data of Doute et al. (Ref. 44). 

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Distance from burner (cm)

Mole fraction

Model, CO

Data, CO

Model, CO2

Data, CO2

Figure 49.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for n-decane/O2/N2 burner-stabilized flame with 

the experimental data of Doute et al. (Ref. 44). 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 44 

Figure 50 shows the profile for another major product, H2. The model predictions of the H2 profile 

agree well with the experimental data. 

Figure 51 shows the profiles of the major hydrocarbon species ethylene and acetylene. The location 

of the ethylene peak concentration is modeled well, but the magnitude of the peak is under-predicted by 

the model. The model predicts correctly that ethylene has the highest peak concentration of all stable 

hydrocarbons. Acetylene, which is a potential soot precursor, has a significant concentration under these 

fuel-rich conditions, and the model prediction of the acetylene profile agrees well with the experimental 

data. 

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Distance from burner (cm)

Mole fraction

Model, H2

Data, H2

Figure 50.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for n-decane/O2/N2 burner-stabilized flame with 

the experimental data of Doute et al. (Ref. 44). 

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Distance from burner (cm)

Mole fraction

Model, C2H4

Data, C2H4

Model, C2H2

Data, C2H2

Figure 51.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for n-decane/O2/N2 burner-stabilized flame with 

the experimental data of Doute et al. (Ref. 44). 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 45 

Figure 52 shows the other major hydrocarbons. Both the alkanes methane and ethane have lower 

concentrations than the alkene (ethylene) and alkyne (acetylene) in the previous figure. The model 

predicts the correct trend that more methane is formed than ethane. While the model predictions agree 

well with the experimental data for methane, the model under-predicts the peak for ethane; the 

concentration of ethane is however small compared to the other hydrocarbons shown. 

Figures 53 and 54 shows the comparisons of model predictions with the experimental data of 

Delfau et al. The fuel-rich n-decane/O2/Ar combustion occurs at a low pressure of 6 kPa and at an 

equivalence ratio of 1.9 (mole%: 5.1% n-decane, 41.2% O2, 53.7% Ar). The inlet velocity was 

18.6 cm/sec. These simulations have also been performed using fixed-temperature conditions specified by 

the experimental temperature profile. Figure 53 shows the profiles of the major products CO and CO2. 

Since the equivalence ratio employed by Delfau et al. is 1.9, the peak CO/CO2 ratio is large. The model 

predictions agree well with the experimental data. 

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Distance from burner (cm)

Mole fraction

Model, CH4

Data, CH4

Model, C2H6

Data, C2H6

Figure 52.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for a decane/O2/N2 burner-stabilized flame with 

the experimental data of Doute et al. (Ref. 44). 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Distance from burner (cm)

Mole fraction

Model, CO

Data, CO

Model, CO2

Data, CO2

Figure 53.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for a fuel-rich n-decane/O2/Ar burner-stabilized 

flame with the experimental data of Delfau et al. (Ref. 43). 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 46 

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Distance from burner (cm)

Mole fraction

Model, C2H4

Data, C2H4

Figure 54.—Comparison of predicted species profiles for a fuel-rich n-decane/O2/Ar burner-stabilized 

flame with the experimental data of Delfau et al. (Ref. 43). 

1.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

0.85 0.9 0.95 1

1000/Temperature (1/K)

Ignition time (sec)

Data, Hanson et al.

Model

20 atm, phi=1

Figure 55.—Calculated n-dodecane/air ignition delay times compared 

with the data of Hanson et al. (Ref. 45). Conditions include 

pressure of 20 atm and a stoichiometric mixture. 

Figure 54 shows the profiles of ethylene. The model predictions for the ethylene profile and its peak 

value are consistent with the experimental data. 

Overall, the model predicts consistent trends of species profiles for both the low-pressure conditions 

of Delfau et al. and the atmospheric conditions of Doute et al. 

3.4.3 n-Dodecane—Ignition Times and Laminar Flame Speeds 

Figure 55 compares the calculated ignition-delay times with the experimental data of Hanson et al. 

(Ref. 45) for a stoichiometric n-dodecane/air mixture, at a pressure of 20 atm. The predicted ignition time 

at temperatures above 1100 K are within a factor of two. However, the mechanism could not capture the 

faster ignition measured near 1000 K. A lack of low-temperature kinetics in the current mechanism is the 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 47 

n-Dodecane

400K, 1 atm

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Equivalence ratio 

Laminar flamespeed (cm/s)

Kumar and Sung

USC, Linear extrapolation

USC, Nonlinear extrapolation

Current mechanism

Year 1 mechanism

Figure 56.—Comparison of predicted laminar flame speed of

n-dodecane to the experimental data. 

reason for this deviation at low temperatures. But for applications to jet engines, high temperature kinetics 

dominates and low temperature kinetics do not play a significant role. Also, we note that the data from 

Hanson et al. is preliminary, pre-published data. 

Comparison of predicted laminar flame speeds of n-dodecane to the experimental data from USC and 

from the literature is shown in Figure 56. We can see the current mechanism displays improved flame 

speed predictions for n-dodecane components over a range of equivalence ratios. 

3.4.4 F-T Fuel Surrogate—Laminar Flame Speeds, Flame-Extinction, and Stirred Reactor Data 

With good agreement found from the model comparisons to data for the surrogate-fuel components, 

the next step was to test the surrogate blend proposed against the F-T fuel data. Here we have used 

surrogate proposed in Table 7 to test the model against the S-8 and R-8 real-fuel data measured by USC. 

The CHEMKIN-PRO flame-speed simulations included thermal diffusion, and used mixture-averaged 

transport properties. Grid-dependency studies were again performed to assure that the grid is sufficiently 

refined such that further refinement would not affect the flame-speed values predicted. As shown in 

Figure 57, predictions are in excellent agreement with the data for these alternative fuels. Any 

discrepancies between the predictions and the data are well within experimental uncertainties. We also 

note that in simulation trials, different surrogate compositions for both F-T fuels from Tables 7 and 8 give 

almost the same predicted laminar flame speed as that shown in Figure 57. This suggests that both F-T 

fuels should have the same flame-propagation behavior despite the differences in carbon number 

distributions. It also suggests that laminar flame-speed measurements are not sufficiently sensitive to 

differences in fuel composition when the fuels are mostly normal alkanes greater than ~C5. 

We next modeled extinction strain rates for this F-T surrogate. Since extinction strain rate 

calculations take more time to solve than flame-speed calculations, and since our kinetic mechanism is 

large, we first generated a reduced mechanism for the extinction strain rate calculations. The mechanism 

reduction was performed using methods previously reported, to produce a mechanism that is still accurate 

over a wide range of equivalence ratios. This was verified by comparing flame-speed predictions. The 

reduced mechanism consisted of 234 species and 1605 reactions. Since the mechanism reduction was 

targeted for a range of high-temperature conditions, and since we were conservative in the extent of 

reduction, we expect the reduced mechanism to perform as well as the full mechanism would for the 

extinction strain rate calculations. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 48 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120

Fuel to Air Mass Ratio, mf/ma

Laminar Flame Speed,

Su°, cm/s

S‐8

R‐8

n‐Dodecane

F‐T Surrogate

Model

Tu = 403 K

Figure 57.—Comparison of predicted flame speeds for the Shell F-T surrogate with 

the latest USC experimental data for S-8, R-8, and n-dodecane. 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Fuel/Air Mass Ratio

Extinction Strain Rate, local (1/sec) 

USC Data

Model

Figure 58.—Comparison of predicted extinction strain rates for the Shell F-T surrogate with the USC 

experimental data. 

Figure 58 shows that the model predictions for extinction strain rates compare well with the USC 

experimental data, over the range of fuel/air ratios studied. The conditions involved fuel/air mixtures 

exiting from a nozzle at 403 K, and nitrogen exiting the other nozzle at 296 K. Mixture-averaged 

transport properties have been used in the simulations, and we included thermal diffusion effects. While 

the use of multicomponent transport properties is preferable for extinction strain-rate calculations, it is 

significantly more computationally expensive. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 49 

The good agreement between the predictions and the USC experimental data, for both the extinction 

strain rates and laminar flame speeds, provides confidence in the fuel-component mechanisms and in the 

surrogate-blending methodology used to determine the surrogate composition. 

To supplement the flame experiments, we searched the literature for any available data that can 

augment our model validation of F-T surrogates. Results from a recent study by Stouffer et al. (Ref. 46) 

was provided to us by AFRL. They used a well-stirred reactor to study Syntroleum S-8 F-T fuel and 

measured combustion products, NOx, and CO in the exhaust. They also studied Lean Blow Off (LBO) but 

this modeling is beyond the scope of this project. The fuel-air equivalence ratio of the study was from 0.4 

to 0.6, which resulted in reactor temperatures of 1300 to 1700 K. Two different flow rates were tested that 

resulted in residence times ranging from 5 to 12 ms in the reactor. Despite mixing effects and heat losses 

observed in the reactor, modeling using the Perfectly Stirred Reactor in CHEMKIN-PRO captures the 

overall trends reasonably well. 

We have used the proposed S-8 surrogate (Table 2) for all the CHEMKIN simulations. Measured and 

predicted well-stirred reactor temperatures are shown in Figure 59. Our initial simulations with adiabatic 

reactor conditions showed that the measured reactor temperatures are more than 50 K below those 

predicted by kinetics, or by thermodynamic equilibrium. Uncertainty in measured residence time up to 1 

to 2 ms could not account for such a difference in temperature. Therefore, the lower reactor temperature 

has to be the result of heat losses or imperfect mixing in the experiment. Since it is not possible to account 

for mixing effects using a PSR model, we have used a fixed heat loss rate of 180 cal/sec (an arbitrary 

factor to match the temperature at one point) for all simulations. Predicted temperatures with this heat loss 

then correctly match the measured temperatures as shown in Figure 59. Data and predictions for two 

different residence times with nominal values of 5.5 and 11 ms are shown in all comparisons. For 

predictions, the parallel lines represent the differences due to different residence times. Figure 60 shows 

the comparison of measured and predicted species profiles in the reactor exhaust. Predicted profiles agree 

well with the data for adiabatic simulations as well as those with heat loss adjustment. 

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

Equivalence ratio

Temperature (K)

Model, with heat

loss

Model,

adiabatic

Data, higher

residence time

Data, lower

residence time

Figure 59.—Comparison of measured well-stirred reactor temperature by 

Stouffer et al. (Ref. 46) to those predicted. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 50 

4

6

8

10

12

0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

Equivalence ratio

% Species

O2

H2O

CO2

Figure 60.—Comparison of measured species in the well-stirred reactor 

exhaust by Stouffer et al. (Ref. 46) to those predicted. Dashed lines 

represent predictions with heat loss in CHEMKIN-PRO model. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

1300 1400 1500 1600 1700

Temperature (K)

NO (ppm)

Model, with

heat loss

Model,

adiabatic

Data, higher

residence time

Data, lower

residence time

Figure 61.—Comparison of NO levels in the well-stirred reactor exhaust 

measured by Stouffer et al. (Ref. 46) to those predicted. 

Emissions of NO at different temperatures are shown in Figure 61. Predictions capture the onset of 

NO production but the predicted increase in NO with temperature is more rapid than that observed. This 

could be due either to the impact of imperfect mixing or merely to the uncertainty in measuring such low 

levels of NO. The emission indices for CO are shown in Figure 62. The predicted emission index of CO 

for the high residence time agrees well with the data. However, measurements did not show as significant 

an impact on NO due to changes in residence time as was predicted. Despite such differences, overall 

predictions are reasonably good, considering the simplicity of the surrogate for these F-T fuels. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 51 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

1300 1400 1500 1600 1700

Temperature (K)

Emission Index CO (g/g fuel)

Model, with

heat loss

Model,

adiabatic

Data, higher

residence time

Data, lower

residence time

Figure 62.—Comparison of emission index of CO in the well-stirred reactor 

exhaust measured by Stouffer et al. (Ref. 46) to those predicted. 

3.4.5 NOx Predictions 

For the NOx measurements in flames, USC provided data on small alkanes as well as for the heavier 

hydrocarbon fuels. This allowed us to first test the model’s predictive capabilities against data where 

experimental uncertainties were smaller. It is expected that the core mechanism controlling NOx

production is the same for all of the hydrocarbon species, with small differences due to the alkane size or 

branching, but this is something that we wanted to test and confirm systematically. 

Predicted NOx from n-pentane/air flame is shown in Figure 63. Experimental data were obtained by 

USC using the counter-flow burner assembly with fuel/air from the bottom burner at elevated temperature to 

vaporize the mixture and nitrogen from the top burner at room temperature. The burner separation distance 

was 1.4 cm and the equivalence ratio used was 0.8. As seen in the figure, predictions and measured NOx are 

in excellent agreement. Based on the model, we found that most NOx is in the form of NO. 

Comparisons of predicted and measured NOx for n-decane/air and n-dodecane/air flames are shown in 

Figure 64. Note that the fuel/air mixture temperature and strain rate for these flames are higher than for 

the n-pentane/air flame shown in Figure 63, which contributes to the higher overall NOx levels. The 

measured NOx peak is around 30 ppmd (ppm on dry basis) for both n-decane and n-dodecane flames. The 

model under-predicts the peak NOx by 4 ppmd for n-decane and by 7 ppmd for n-dodecane. In further 

analysis, however, we found that the chemical pathways for NOx productions in n-dodecane and

n-pentane flames are similar, which led us to question whether the higher measured values were reliable. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 52 

phi 0.8, 1 atm

T (fuel/air) 323 K

Strain rate 120 1/s

0

10

20

30

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Distance from the bottom burner (cm)

NOx concentration (ppm)

n-Pentane

n-Pentane

Figure 63.—Comparison of predicted and measured NOx levels for n-pentane/air flame. 

Symbols represent experimental data and lines represent model predictions. 

phi 0.8, 1 atm

T (fuel/air) 403 K

Strain rate 166 1/s

0

10

20

30

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Distance from the bottom burner (cm)

NOx (ppmd)

n-decane

n-dodecane

n-decane

n-dodecane

Figure 64.—Comparison of predicted and measured NOx levels for n-decane/air and

n-dodecane/air flames. Symbols represent experimental data and lines represent model 

predictions. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 53 

T(fuel/air) 403 K, T(N2) 296 K 

phi 0.8, 1 atm, K 166 1/s

0

10

20

30

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Distance from the bottom burner (cm)

NOx (ppmd)

n-dodecane

n-dodecane

10 K std. dev. in N2

nozzle temperature

5% relative std. dev. in

nozzle velocities

Figure 65.—Impact of uncertainty in nozzle velocities and nitrogen burner (top burner) temperature on NOx

predictions for n-dodecane/air flames. Gray symbols represent predictions from Uncertainty Analyses in 

CHEMKIN-PRO. Filled circles are the experimental data. 

In order to estimate the impact of the uncertainty of various experimental parameters on NOx, we 

performed an uncertainty analysis on (1) burner velocities and (2) nitrogen nozzle temperatures. 

Uncertainty in fuel/air burner temperature was not considered for the uncertainty analysis, since that 

burner is heated and maintained at a specified temperature, whereas the temperature of the nitrogen 

burner was not controlled. The Uncertainty Analysis feature in CHEMKIN-PRO was used for the 

simulations. As shown in Figure 65, a 5 percent relative standard deviation in nozzle velocities can 

change the peak NOx level by 7 ppmd. Uncertainty in the nitrogen burner temperature can also 

significantly affect the NOx levels at distances closer to that burner. Considering the impact of these 

experimental uncertainties on NOx levels, we concluded from this that the model predictions for n-decane 

and n-dodecane should be considered to be good, or within the range of experimental accuracy possible. 

3.4.6 Prediction of Autoignition Temperature 

To augment the USC flame data in providing a broader test of the surrogate-fuel mechanisms, we 

investigated the availability of ignition data that may better differentiate different surrogate-fuel 

components. Recently, Bieleveld et al. (Ref. 47) measured autoignition temperature of various fuels in a 

counter-flow burner assembly as shown in Figure 66. They increased the temperature of air until the fuel 

auto-ignites. Measured autoignition temperatures of n-heptane and iso-octane as a function of strain rates 

for a fixed fuel mass fraction of 0.4 are reported and reproduced in Figure 67. Simulations of these 

experiments have been performed using the CHEMKIN-PRO Opposed-flow Flame model (Ref. 1), by 

gradually increasing the temperature of air. Comparison of predicted and measured autoignition 

temperatures are shown in Figure 67. As shown in the figure, the model captures the autoignition 

temperatures of n-heptane and iso-octane very well. 

To predict the autoignition behavior of F-T fuels, we performed simulations using the 3-component 

surrogate for S-8 fuel (n-dodecane/n-decane/iso-octane: 38/34/28 mol%). As shown in Figure 67, 

autoignition temperatures for F-T fuels are closer to those of iso-octane at lower strain rates and shift 

towards those of n-heptane at higher strain rates. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 54 

Figure 66.—Schematic illustration of the counterflow 

burner assembly of Bieleveld et al. (Ref. 47). 

Fuel mass fraction 0.4

Fuel nozzle temperature 468 K

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

200 300 400 500 600 700

Strain rate, a2 (1/s)

Temperature at autoignition, T2,I (K)

n-Heptane

iso-Octane

n-Heptane

iso-Octane

F-T (S-8 surrogate)

Figure 67.—Comparison of predicted and measured autoignition temperatures for various fuels. 

Symbols represent experimental data from Bieleveld et al. (Ref. 47) and lines represent predictions. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 55 

3.4.7 Prediction of Gas-Phase PAH Species 

Many researchers have performed PAH and soot measurements for burner-stabilized flames of 

various smaller hydrocarbon fuels. In order to validate the PAH and soot-growth mechanism recently 

incorporated into the F-T fuel-surrogate mechanism, we started by performing flame simulations for core 

fuel components (C3 and smaller). During this quarter, we used two sets of experimental data for 

simulation under sooting flame conditions with an equivalence ratio of 2.5 at 1 atm: (1) Senkan and 

Castaldi (Ref. 48) propane/O2 flame diluted with 45.1% Ar, and (2) Wang et al. (Ref. 49) ethylene/O2

flame diluted with 68.9% Ar. Senkan and Castaldi measured profiles of various product species but did 

not measure soot. Wang et al. did not report the measured PAH species profiles but reported the measured 

particle density, diameter, and volume fraction. The CHEMKIN-PRO Burner-Stabilized Premixed-Flame 

model (Ref. 1) was used for simulations, with the measured temperature profile as a fixed-temperature 

constraint on the simulations. 

Comparisons of various species predicted and measured by Senkan and Castaldi are shown in 

Figures 68 to 71. Major products acetylene (C2H2) and benzene (C6H6) are predicted reasonably well. 

Propyne-propadiene (C3H4) and butadiene (C4H2) are slightly underpredicted. Trends in PAH species 

naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene are captured by the model, but the predicted levels were more than 

an order of magnitude lower than those observed between 4 to 16 ppm. Underprediction of these soot 

precursors will potentially result in underprediction of soot particles. This suggests that there is more 

work needed to extend and refine the reaction paths involved in PAH-formation, before meaningful 

refinement of the soot-particle growth models can be achieved. 

Propane/O2/Ar, phi 2.5, 1 atm

0.0E+00

1.0E-02

2.0E-02

3.0E-02

4.0E-02

5.0E-02

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Distance from the burner (cm)

Mole fraction

c2h2

c2h2

Figure 68.—Comparison of predicted and measured acetylene profile by Senkan and Castaldi 

(Ref. 48) for a burner stabilized propane flame. Symbols represent experimental data and lines 

represent predictions. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 56 

Propane/O2/Ar, phi 2.5, 1 atm

0.0E+00

5.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.5E-03

2.0E-03

2.5E-03

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Distance from the burner (cm)

Mole fraction

c4h2

c3h4

c4h2

c3h4

Figure 69.—Comparison of predicted and measured propyne-propadiene (C3H4) and butadiene 

(C4H2) profile by Senkan and Castaldi (Ref. 48) for a burner stabilized propane flame. Symbols 

represent experimental data and lines represent predictions. 

Propane/O2/Ar, phi 2.5, 1 atm

0.0E+00

1.0E-04

2.0E-04

3.0E-04

4.0E-04

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Distance from the burner (cm)

Mole fraction

c6h6

c6h6

Figure 70.—Comparison of predicted and measured benzene profile by Senkan and Castaldi 

(Ref. 48) for a burner stabilized propane flame. Symbols represent experimental data and lines 

represent predictions. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 57 

Propane/air, phi 2.5, 1 atm

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

1.0E-04

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Distance from the burner (cm)

Mole fraction

naphthalene

phenanthrene

pyrene

naphthalene

phenanthrene

pyrene

Figure 71.—Comparison of predicted and measured PAH species profiles by Senkan and Castaldi 

(Ref. 48) for a burner stabilized propane flame. Symbols represent experimental data and lines 

represent predictions. 

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

0 0.5 1 1.5

Distance from burner (cm)

Temperature (K)

Data, Wang 2002

Figure 72.—Temperature profile of Wang et al. (Ref. 49) used in current simulation. 

Conditions include atmospheric pressure, inlet velocity of 7.8 cm/sec and an 

equivalence ratio of 2.5 (mole fractions: C2H4- 0.141, O2- 0.170, Ar- 0.689). 

3.4.8 Soot-Particle Growth Predictions 

To test both the PAH sub-mechanism and the soot-particle growth mechanism, we also performed 

some validation studies against soot measurements in the literature. During this quarter, we used the 

experimental data of Wang et al. (Ref. 49), under sooting flame conditions. Wang et al. (Ref. 49) studied 

soot in burner-stabilized premixed flames of fuel-rich ethylene/O2/Ar at atmospheric conditions. The 

equivalence ratio was 2.5, and the inlet velocity was 7.8 cm/sec. They reported their temperature profile; 

this profile, shown in Figure 72, has been used in our simulations. 

 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 58 

0.0E+00

1.0E-07

2.0E-07

3.0E-07

4.0E-07

5.0E-07

6.0E-07

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

Distance from burner (cm)

Particle volume fraction

Model

Data, Wang 2002

Figure 73.—Comparison of calculated particle volume fraction with the data of 

Wang et al. (Ref. 49). Conditions include atmospheric pressure, inlet velocity 

of 7.8 cm/sec and an equivalence ratio of 2.5 (mole fractions: C2H4- 0.141, 

O2- 0.170, Ar- 0.689). 

Wang et al. studied soot development using small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) (Ref. 49). They 

could characterize and quantify particles of sizes in the 1 to 100 nm size range in flames using this 

technique. They reported that the soot contained only carbon and hydrogen with a carbon-to-hydrogen 

ratio of 5.5±0.1, a value consistent with the ratio for mature soot particles measured in similar ethylene 

flames. The soot-growth mechanism includes the surface reactions that describe the HACA-soot growth 

mechanism of Appel et al. and the newly added PAH-condensation on the soot-particle surface. 

Figure 73 compared the calculated particle volume fraction with the experimental data of Wang et al. 

The model shows the soot forming at a slightly more distant location from the burner surface than the 

data, but the trends exhibited by the model are consistent with the experimental data. 

Figure 74 compares the calculated particle number density with the experimental data of Wang et al. 

Both the model and the data show the number density on the order of ~1011, with the model underpredicting by about a factor of two. The experimental number density reported is for particles with radius 

greater than or equal to 4 nm. Regarding experimental uncertainties, Wang et al. noted that a worst case 

of uncertainties might result in the number density values increasing by a factor of three. 

The modeling results show particle number density increasing as a function of distance until ~1.2 cm, 

and subsequently the number density decreases. Factors contributing to this behavior include the decrease 

in particle number due to coagulation, and the increase in particle number due to nucleation and growth of 

new particles. Until 1.2 cm, the formation of new particles is more than the decrease in particle number 

due to coagulation, and the particle number density increases. Figure 73 shows the particle volume 

fraction continuously increasing as a function of distance. This, in combination with the results shown in 

Figure 74, indicates that increase in soot volume fraction as a function of distance at locations far away 

from the burner is primarily due to increases in particle size. 

Figure 75 compares the calculated average particle diameter with the experimental data of Wang et al. 

The experimental data shows a fairly tight range for the particle diameters, and the model is not able to 

capture that effect. These results show that the models are “in the right ball-park” but will need 

refinement to be quantitatively predictive. The starting point should be to improve the formation 

pathways for soot precursors and the second step will be to then refine the nucleation and soot-growth as 

well as oxidation descriptions. While such a project is beyond the scope of this work, these tests provide a 

good understanding of the baseline capability with our current surrogate-fuel mechanisms. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 59 

0.0E+00

2.0E+10

4.0E+10

6.0E+10

8.0E+10

1.0E+11

1.2E+11

1.4E+11

1.6E+11

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

Distance from burner (cm)

Particle number densit

y

Model

Data, Wang 2002

Figure 74.—Comparison of calculated particle number density with the data of 

Wang et al. (Ref. 49). Conditions include atmospheric pressure, inlet velocity 

of 7.8 cm/sec and an equivalence ratio of 2.5 (mole fractions: C2H4- 0.141, 

O2- 0.170, Ar- 0.689). 

 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2

Distance from burner (cm)

Average particle diameter (nm)

Model

Data, Wang 2002

Figure 75.—Comparison of calculated average particle diameter with the data of 

Wang et al. (Ref. 49). Conditions include atmospheric pressure, inlet velocity 

of 7.8 cm/sec and an equivalence ratio of 2.5 (mole fractions: C2H4- 0.141, 

O2- 0.170, Ar- 0.689). 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 60 

4.0 Conclusions 

This project combined state-of-the-art experimental investigation of heavy (liquid) hydrocarbon fuels 

in flame experiments with state-of-the-art kinetics and numerical modeling. While results include 

improvements to both the models and the experimental methods, the important outcome is a deeper 

understanding of the similarities and differences in combustion behavior of different conventional and 

alternative jet fuels. 

In comparing F-T fuels to bio-derived jet fuels, we find almost no discernable difference in the 

combustion behavior, based on the limited samples available for the bio-derived jet fuel. This is largely 

due to the strict jet-fuel standard that both alternative fuels must meet, but also due to the chemical nature 

of the process used to produce the bio-derived fuel. Fuel derived from plant oils are typically in the form 

of long-chain methyl esters. To meet the jet-fuel requirements, these are further processed (through 

hydrogenation) to remove the oxygen from the oxygenate compounds. This processing results in a 

dominant composition of long-chain alkane molecules, very similar to what the chemical analysis showed 

for F-T jet fuels. 

Similarly, despite significant differences in the carbon-number distribution for two different F-T 

fuels, the combustion behavior measured appears to be identical. This can be explained by the very 

similar combustion behavior observed for different long-chain alkane molecules that have chain length 

greater than ~6. In this way, different distributions of alkane chain length do not have a significant effect 

on flame propagation or flame extinction, although they might affect the quantitative degree of NOx

production. Furthermore, though branched alkanes are prevalent in the F-T fuels, these tend to have very 

low branching, such that normal-alkane behaviore tends to dominate the F-T fuel combustion. 

In experimentally comparing the alternative fuels with JP-7 and JP-8, we find that the alternative 

fuels have almost the same flame-propagation speed as JP-7 and that the flame-speed for JP-7 is slightly 

faster than for JP-8. This is consistent with JP-8 fuel containing more aromatic compounds than JP-7 

(or than the F-T and bio-derived fuels), which tends to lower the flame speed. For flame-extinction 

measurements, a similar trend is apparent, although the difference in extinction between JP-7 and JP-8 is 

smaller in that case and close to experimental uncertainty for those measurements. 

In comparing the flame-propagation and flame-extinction behavior of the normal alkane, n-dodecane, 

which matches the typical average carbon number of an F-T fuel, with the same measurements for the 

alternative and conventional jet fuels, we find that n-dodecane has about the same laminar flame speed 

and slightly higher resistance to extinction. This makes n-dodecane a reasonable single-component 

surrogate for all of these fuels under flame-simulation conditions. However, a multicomponent surrogate 

blend is needed to match other fuel properties, such as cetane number or sooting propensity. 

Laminar flame-speed, flame-extinction strain rate, ignition time, auto-ignition temperature, NOx and 

other species-concentration measurements are well predicted by the chemistry models developed for nalkane/iso-alkane surrogate blends. In most cases, predictions are within experimental uncertainty of the 

data. The mechanisms underwent significant improvement during the project. The only area where the 

mechanisms provide mixed results is for PAH and soot predictions. Systematic improvement of these 

sub-mechanisms was beyond the scope of this project, although the results provide a good baseline for 

such an undertaking. 

We have recommended surrogate blends for F-T blends that consist of mixtures of n-dodecane, 

n-decane, and iso-octane. In addition, we have described a systematic approach to generating a specific 

blend to match a specific fuel. Compositions for specific surrogates of two different F-T fuels have been 

proposed that provide a best match to cetane number, H/C ratio, lower heating value, T50 boiling point, 

and chemical-analysis data. Tests of these blends against experimental data for flame-propagation and 

flame-extinction strain rate show good agreement. 

A successful reduction of the high-temperature F-T surrogate mechanism has been achieved that 

provides a ~90 percent reduction in the number of species without significant loss of accuracy in flamespeed predictions for a range equivalence ratios. The mechanism was reduced using a combination of 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 61 

Directed Relation Graph and Computational Singular Perturbation mechanism-reduction methods, applied 

to a range of conditions. The results are verified against the full “master” mechanism that was 

independently validated in the experiment/model comparisons. 

References 

1. CHEMKIN-PRO Release 15081, Reaction Design, San Diego, CA, 2008. 

2. Lu, T.; Law, C.K. “A directed relation graph method for mechanism reduction,” Proceedings of the 

Combustion Institute 2005, 30, 1333–1341. 

3. Lu, T.; Law, C.K. “Linear time reduction of large kinetic mechanisms with directed relation graph: nheptane and iso-octane,” Combustion and Flame 2006, 144, 24–36. 

4. Wang, H.; Du, D.X.; Sung, C.J.; Law, C.K. “Experiments and Numerical Simulation on Soot 

Formation in Opposed-Jet Ethylene Diffusion Flames,” Proceedings of the Combustion Institute

1996, 26, 2359–2368. 

5. Fotache, C.G.; Kreutz, T.G.; Zhu, D.L.; Law, C.K. “An experimental study of ignition in 

nonpremixed counterflowing hydrogen versus heated air,” Combustion Science and Technology 1995, 

109, 373–393. 

6. Westbrook, C.K.; Pitz, W.; Herbinet, O.; Curran, H.J.; Silke, E.J. “A Detailed Chemical Kinetic 

Reaction Mechanism for Combustion of n-Alkanes from n-Octane to n-Hexadecane,” Combustion 

and Flame 2009, 156, 181–191. 

7. Curran, H.J.; Gaffuri, P.; Pitz, W.J.; Westbrook, C.K. “A Comprehensive Modeling Study of IsoOctane Oxidation,” Combustion and Flame 2002, 129, 253–280. 

8. Curran, H.J.; Gaffuri, P.; Pitz, W.J.; Westbrook, C.K. “A Comprehensive Modeling Study of nHeptane Oxidation,” Combustion and Flame 1998, 114, 149–177. 

9. Ji, C.; You, X.; Holley, A.T.; Wang, Y.L.; Egolfopoulos, F.N.; Wang, H. “Propagation and Extinction 

of Premixed n-Dodecane/Air Flames,” 32nd International Symposium on Combustion, Montreal, 

Canada, 2008. 

10. Lengyel, I.; Naik, C.V.; Puduppakkam, K.; Meeks, E. “Automatic Generation of Model-fuel 

Mechanisms for Use in Engine Combustion Simulation,” 235th ACS National Meeting, New Orleans, 

2008. 

11. Wang, H.; You, X.; Joshi, A.V.; Davis, S.G.; Laskin, A.; Egolfopoulos, F.; Law, C.K. USC Mech 

Version II. High-Temperature Combustion Reaction Model of H2/CO/C1-C4 Compounds, 

http://ignis.usc.edu/USC_Mech_II.htm, 2007. 

12. NIST Chemical Kinetics Database, http://kinetics.nist.gov/kinetics/, NIST. 

13. Vagelopoulos, C.M.; Egolfopoulos, F.N. “Direct experimental determination of laminar flame 

speeds,” Twenty-seventh Symposium (International) on Combustion, 1998; p. 513. 

14. Davis, S.G.; Law, C.K. “Laminar flame speeds and oxidation kinetics of iso-octane-air and nheptane-air flames,” 27th Symposium (International) on Combustion, 1998; pp. 521–527. 

15. Kumar, K.; Freeh, J.E.; Sung, C.J.; Huang, Y. “Laminar flame speeds of preheated iso-octane/O2/N2

and n-heptane/O2/N2 mixtures,” Journal of Propulsion and Power 2007, 23, 430. 

16. Smith, G.P.; Golden, D.M.; Frenklach, M.; Moriarty, N.W.; Eiteneer, B.; Goldenberg, M.; Bowman, 

C.T.; Hanson, R.K.; Song, S.; Gandiner, W.C., Jr.; Lissianski, V.V.; Qin, Z. GRI-Mech Home Page, 

http://www.me.berkeley.edu/gri_mech/. 

17. Dagaut, P.; Glarborg, P.; Alzueta, M. U. “The Oxidation of Hydrogen Cyanide and Related 

Chemistry,” Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2008, 34, 1–46. 

18. Rasmussen, C.L.; Rasmussen, A.E.; Glarborg, P. “Sensitizing effects of NOx on CH4 oxidation at 

high pressure,” Combustion and Flame 2008, in press. 

19. Sivaramakrishnan, R.; Brezinsky, K.; Dayma, G.; Dagaut, P. “High pressure effects on the mutual 

sensitization of the oxidation of NO and CH4–C2H6 blends,” Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2007, 9, 4230 

–4244. 

20. Dagaut, P.; Daly, C.; Simmie, J.M.; Cathonnet, M. “The oxidation and ignition of dimethylether from 

low to high temperature (500-1600 K): Experiments and kinetic modeling,” 27th Symposium 

(International) on Combustion, 1998; pp. 361–369. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 62 

21. Mueller, M.A.; Yetter, R.A.; Dryer, F.L. “Kinetic Modeling of the CO/H2O/O2/NO/SO2 System: 

Implications for High-Pressure Fall-off in the SO2 + O(+M) = SO3(+M) Reaction,” Int. J. Chem. 

Kinet. 2000, 32, 317–339. 

22. Hori, M.; Marinov, N.; Matsunaga, N.; Pitz, W.; Westbrook, C. “An Experimental and Kinetic 

Calculation of the Promotion Effect of Hydrocarbons on the,” Twenty-Seventh Symposium 

(International) on Combustion, United States, 1998; p Size: 1.7 Mbytes. 

23. Konnov, A.A. Detailed Reaction Mechanism for Small Hydrocarbons Combustion Release 0.5, 

http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~akonnov/, 2000. 

24. Glarborg, P.; Alzueta, M.U.; Dam-Johansen, K.; Miller, J.A. “Kinetic Modeling of 

Hydrocarbon/Nitric Oxide Interactions in a Flow Reactor,” Combustion and Flame 1998, 115, 1–27. 

25. Frenklach, M.; Warnatz, J. “Detailed Modeling of PAH Profiles in a Sooting Low-Pressure Acetylene 

Flame,” Combustion Science and Technology 1987, 51, 265–283. 

26. Frenklach, M.; Wang, H. “Detailed Modeling of Soot Particle Nucleation and Growth,” Proceedings 

of the Combustion Institute 1990, 23, 1559–1566. 

27. Wang, H.; Frenklach, M. “A detailed kinetic modeling study of aromatic formation in laminar 

premixed acetylene and ethylene flames,” Combustion and Flame 1997, 110, 173. 

28. Appel, J.; Bockhorn, H.; Frenklach, M. “Kinetic Modeling of Soot Formation with Detailed 

Chemistry and Physics: Laminar Premixed Flames of C2 Hydrocarbons,” Combustion and Flame

2000, 121, 122–136. 

29. Skjøth-Rasmussen, M.S.; Glarborg, P.; Østberg, M.; Johannessen, J.T.; Livbjerg, H.; Jensen, A.D.; 

Christensen, T.S. “Formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and soot in fuel-rich oxidation of 

methane in a laminar flow reactor,” Combustion and Flame 2004, 136, 91–128. 

30. Richter, H.; Granata, S.; Green, W.H.; Howard, J.B. “Detailed modeling of PAH and soot formation 

in a laminar premixed benzene/oxygen/argon low-pressure flame,” Proc. Comb. Inst. 2005, 30, 1397–

1405. 

31. Zhang, H.R.; Eddings, E.G.; Sarofim, A.F.; Westbrook, C.K. “Fuel Dependence of Benzene 

Pathways,” Proc. Comb. Inst. 2009, 32. 

32. Vajda, S.; Valko, P.; Turanyi, T. “Principle component analysis of kinetic models,” International 

Journal of Chemical Kinetics 1985, 17, 55–81. 

33. Lam, S.H. “Using CSP to understand complex chemical kinetics,” Combustion Science and 

Technology 1993, 89, 375. 

34. Lam, S.H.; Goussis, D.A. “The CSP method for simplifying kinetics,” International Journal of 

Chemical Kinetics 1994, 26, 461–486. 

35. Massias, A.; Diamantis, D.; Mastorakos, E.; Goussis, D.A. “An algorithm for the construction of 

global reduced mechanisms with CSP data,” Combustion and Flame 1999, 117, 685–708. 

36. Davidson, D.F.; Oehlschlaeger, M.A.; Herbon, J.T.; Hanson, R.K. “Shock tube measurements of isooctane ignition times and OH concentration time histories,” Proceedings of the Combustion Institute

2002, 29, 1295–1301. 

37. Vermeer, D.J.; Meyer, J.W.; Oppenheim, A.K. “Auto-ignition of hydrocarbons behind reflected 

shock waves,” Combustion and Flame 1972, 18, 327–336. 

38. Huang, Y.; Sung, C.J.; Eng, J.A. “Laminar flame speeds of primary reference fuels and reformer gas 

mixtures,” Combustion and Flame 2004, 139, 239–251. 

39. Kwon, O.C.; Hassan, M.I.; Faeth, G.M. “Flame/stretch interactions of premixed fuel-vapor/O2/N2

flames,” Journal of Propulsion and Power 2000, 16, 513–522. 

40. Zhukov, V.P.; Sechenov, V.A.; Starikovskii, A.Y. “Autoignition of n-decane at high pressure,” 

Comb. Flame 2008, 153, 130–136. 

41. Pfahl, U.; Fieweger, K.; Adomeit, G. “Self-ignition of diesel-relevant hydrocarbon-air mixtures under 

engine conditions,” 26th Symposium (International) on Combustion, 1996; pp. 781–789. 

42. Kumar, K.; Sung, C.-J. “Laminar Flame Speeds and Extinction Limits of Preheated n-Decane/O2/N2

and n-Dodecane/O2/N2 Mixtures,” Comb. Flame 2007, 151, 209–224. 

43. Delfau, J.-L.; Bouhria, M.; Reuillon, M.; Sanogo, O.; Akrich, R.; Vovelle, C. “Experimental and 

Computational Investigation of the Structure of a Sooting Decane-O2-Ar Flame,” Proc. Comb. Inst.

1990, 23, 1567–1572. 
NASA/CR—2011-216356 63 

44. Doute, C.; Delfau, J.-L.; Vovelle, C. “Modeling of the structure of a premixed n-decane flame,” 

Combustion Science and Technology 1997, 130, 269–313. 

45. Hanson, R.K.; Davidson, D.F.; Haylett, D.; Farooq, A.; Vasu, S.S.; Ranganath, S. In NIST Fuel 

Summit; ed., 2008; Vol. 

46. Stouffer, S.D.; Heyne, J.; Justinger, G.; Ballal, D.; Pawlik, R.; Zelina, J. “Combustion Performance 

and Emissions Characteristics for a Well-Stirred Reactor for Low Volatility Hydrocarbon Fuels,” 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2007. 

47. Bieleveld, T.; Frassoldati, A.; Cuoci, A.; Faravelli, T.; Ranzi, E.; Niemann, U.; Seshadri, K. 

“Experimental and kinetic modeling study of combustion of gasoline, its surrogates and components 

in laminar non-premixed flows,” Proc. Comb. Inst. 2009, 32, 493–500. 

48. Senkan, S.; Castaldi, M. “Formation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in the Methane 

Combustion: Comparative New Results from Premixed Flames,” Combust. Flame 1996, 107, 141–

150. 

49. Wang, H.; Zhao, B.; Wyslouzil, B.; Streletzky, K. “Small-angled Neutron Scattering of Soot Formed 

in Laminar Premixed Ethylene Flames,” Proc. Comb. Inst. 2002, 29, 2749–2757. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-05-2011 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final Contractor Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Experimental and Modeling Studies of the Combustion Characteristics of Conventional and 

Alternative Jet Fuels 

Final Report

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

NNC07CB45C 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Meeks, Ellen; Naik, Chitral, V.; Puduppakkam, Karthik, V.; Modak, Abhijit; Egolfopoulos, 

Fokion, N.; Tsotsis, Theo; Westbrook, Charles, K. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 561581.02.08.03.16.02 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Reaction Design 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17292 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/CR-2011-216356 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 07, 25, and 28 

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

The objectives of this project have been to develop a comprehensive set of fundamental data regarding the combustion behavior of jet fuels and appropriately associated model 

fuels. Based on the fundamental study results, an auxiliary objective was to identify differentiating characteristics of molecular fuel components that can be used to explain 

different fuel behavior and that may ultimately be used in the planning and design of optimal fuel-production processes.The fuels studied in this project were Fischer-Tropsch 

(F-T) fuels and biomass-derived jet fuels that meet certain specifications of currently used jet propulsion applications. Prior to this project, there were no systematic 

experimental flame data available for such fuels. One of the key goals has been to generate such data, and to use this data in developing and verifying effective kinetic models. 

The models have then been reduced through automated means to enable multidimensional simulation of the combustion characteristics of such fuels in real combustors. Such 

reliable kinetic models, validated against fundamental data derived from laminar flames using idealized flow models, are key to the development and design of optimal 

combustors and fuels. The models provide direct information about the relative contribution of different molecular constituents to the fuel performance and can be used to 

assess both combustion and emissions characteristics.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Aerothermodynamics; Chemistry; Combustion physics; Fluid mechanics thermodynamics; Gas dynamics; Aircraft fuels; Jet engine 

fuels; Synthetic fuels; Fuels; Chemical reactions; Hydrocarbon fuels; Liquid fuels 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

74 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18