Article pubs.acs.org/EF
Certification of Alternative Aviation Fuels and Blend Components George R. Wilson, III,† Tim Edwards,‡ Edwin Corporan,‡ and Robert L. Freerks*,§ †
Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas 78238, United States United States Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433, United States § Rentech, Incorporated, 1331 17th Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, United States ‡
ABSTRACT: Aviation turbine engine fuel specifications are governed by ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, and the British Ministry of Defence (MOD). ASTM D1655 Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels and MOD Defence Standard 91-91 are the guiding specifications for this fuel throughout most of the world. Both of these documents rely heavily on the vast amount of experience in production and use of turbine engine fuels from conventional sources, such as crude oil, natural gas condensates, heavy oil, shale oil, and oil sands. Turbine engine fuel derived from these resources and meeting the above specifications has properties that are generally considered acceptable for fuels to be used in turbine engines. Alternative and synthetic fuel components are approved for use to blend with conventional turbine engine fuels after considerable testing. ASTM has established a specification for fuels containing synthesized hydrocarbons under D7566, and the MOD has included additional requirements for fuels containing synthetic components under Annex D of DS91-91. New turbine engine fuel additives and blend components need to be evaluated using ASTM D4054, Standard Practice for Qualification and Approval of New Aviation Turbine Fuels and Fuel Additives. This paper discusses these specifications and testing requirements in light of recent literature claiming that some biomass-derived blend components, which have been used to blend in conventional aviation fuel, meet the requirements for aviation turbine fuels as specified by ASTM and the MOD. The “Table 1” requirements listed in both D1655 and DS91-91 are predicated on the assumption that the feedstocks used to make fuels meeting these requirements are from approved sources. Recent papers have implied that commercial jet fuel can be blended with renewable components that are not hydrocarbons (such as fatty acid methyl esters). These are not allowed blend components for turbine engine fuels as discussed in this paper.
■
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Aviation turbine engines were initially developed to burn fuels that perhaps otherwise could not be blended into gasoline aviation fuels and, therefore, were of lower value and cost to produce. However, as both engine technology and refining technology have advanced, turbine engine fuels have evolved into the most highly regulated transportation fuels with the most extensive set of specifications in the industry. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is the governing body for establishing the requirements for aviation fuels in ASTM D1655 Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels.1 The British Ministry of Defence (MOD) is likewise the governing body for establishing the requirements in Defense Standard 91-91 (DS91-91).2 Both of these fuel specifications have materials and manufacture requirements limiting the feedstocks to petroleum crude oil, natural gas condensates, heavy crude oil, shale oil, and oil sands. The reasoning behind this feedstock requirement is that not all properties of a fuel are listed in the established specifications and that producing fuels from alternative feedstocks may lead to changes in properties not explicitly included in the ASTM D1655 Table 1 (hereafter referred to as Table 1) requirements. A detailed discussion of some of these properties is included in the “Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties” published by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC).3 Some of the fuel properties discussed in the CRC Handbook and not included in the Table 1, are commonly referred to as "fit-for-purpose" properties. These include: 1) thermal coefficient of expansion, (2) surface tension, (3) specific heat, (4) thermal conductivity, © 2013 American Chemical Society
(5) enthalpy of vaporization, (6) dielectric constant, (7) electrical conductivity, (8) flammability limits versus altitude, (9) minimum spark ignition energy, (10) spontaneous ignition, (11) bulk modulus, (12) solubility of gases and water, and (13) thermal oxidation stability. This is not an exhaustive list of fuel properties because not all fit-for-purpose properties may even be known. Original turbine aviation fuel specifications and properties were developed with the assumption of a given source of product, namely, crude oil; thus, there is the need for caution when contemplating new sources for jet fuel blend components. Also included in the CRC Handbook and of high importance to flight safety is materials compatibility. ASTM D4054, the Standard Practice for Qualification and Approval of New Aviation Turbine Fuels and Fuel Additives,4 provides guidance for evaluating these properties. The reason that all of the above properties are not specified in the aviation fuel standards is that they do not vary significantly when produced from conventional feedstocks. These additional fuel properties are assumed to be consistent and that the entire fuel system will respond in predictable ways to fuels produced from known and acceptable feedstocks meeting the Table 1 requirements. Jet fuel was initially produced from crude oil by simple distillation and treatment to remove active sulfur species that Received: November 20, 2012 Revised: January 14, 2013 Published: January 15, 2013 962
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301888b | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 962−966
Energy & Fuels
Article
conventional jet fuel (up to 50:50 by volume) have been demonstrated to perform acceptably with regard to seal elastomer compatibility. For SPK to be approved for use as a blend component, it must be shown to be compatible with both new and older turbine engines and with all fuel handling systems both on the ground and in the aircraft. Because the SPK compatibility issue is related to the lack of aromatics, the solution is to blend with refined jet fuel. As part of the Sasol program, it was determined that 8% aromatics was a reasonable minimum requirement. It was also concluded that the maximum blend limit of SPK with conventional refined jet fuel should be set at 50% because there was no experience at that time with blends of greater than 50% SPK with refined jet fuel. The approval process for FT SPK began with evaluation of candidate fuels by the Air Force Petroleum Lab and Air Force Research Lab and by the Naval Fuels Lab at Pax River Naval Air Station. FT SPK was found to meet all Table 1 requirements, except density, and was further extensively tested in both laboratory combustor and stationary turbine engines. In line with the MOD DS91-91 guidance on the use of Sasol SPK, a 50:50 blend of FT SPK was tested against all specifications and fuel properties in the CRC Handbook and found to be within the normal range of variability of properties for turbine engine fuels. The FT SPK, in a 50:50 blend in conventional JP-8 fuel, was then flight-tested in several military aircraft before being approved as blend fuels meeting the military specification MIL-DTL-83133F (subsequently updated to 83133H).5 The approval was accomplished by adding Table 2 and Appendix A to the specification. Table 2, “Chemical and Physical Requirements and Test Methods for JP-8 with up to 50 Percent IPK Blend Component”, sets requirements for the blended fuel, including minimum aromatics content at 8.0%. Appendix A isoparaffinic kerosene (IPK) sets requirements for the synthetic blend component itself, including distillation requirements that are not in Table 1 of the specification. Concurrent to the approval of FT SPK, another fuel was proposed for use for blending into turbine engine fuels. This originally was known as bio-derived synthetic paraffinic kerosene (Bio-SPK) or hydroprocessed renewable jet (HRJ) and was produced by hydrotreating animal and vegetable oils into paraffins and hydroisomerizing these paraffins into kerosene boiling range hydrocarbons to meet the properties of Table 1 (except for density). These paraffinic fuels were very similar to FT SPK in boiling range and chemical composition and, thus, were able to build on existing data already developed for FT SPK. In the middle of the evaluation and approval process, HRJ fuels were renamed to HEFA because HRJ is rather generic and HEFA is more descriptive of the feedstock and process used to produce the synthetic blend component. The Executive Summary of the Evaluation of Bio-derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPK) report states: “It’s the intent of this report to demonstrate that a suitable SPK can be produced from a bioderived source (Bio-SPK) that can satisfy the requirements outlined in D7566-09. Further, it’s also the intent of this report to demonstrate that a 50% (v) Bio-SPK fuel blend with conventional petroleum jet fuel is suitable for use in turbine engines for commercial aviation. The report followed the guidelines outlined in the current version of ASTM D4054, ‘Standard Practice for the qualification and Approval of new Aviation Turbine Fuels and Fuels Additives’. Samples of Bio-SPK fuels were provided from six different fuel producers using a variety of feedstocks. The 100% and 50% (v) Bio-SPK fuels were compared to 100% and 50% (v) FT-SPK fuels using the same analytical method and plotted on the same graph whenever possible. FT-SPK fuel samples were produced by Sasol, Syntroleum, and Shell”. The ASTM D4054-based process for approval of new synthetic blend components can be summarized as follows: (1) evaluation of specification properties, (2) evaluation of fit-for-purpose properties, (3) component/rig/APU testing, (4) engine testing, (5) flight testing, (6) documentation in an ASTM research report, (7) approval of the research report by OEM’s and the ASTM turbine fuels committee, and (8) approval of the ASTM ballot incorporating the fuel into a specification.
could corrode soft metal components of the fuel system. As refining technology advanced, a considerable amount of hydroprocessed fuel blend components were produced and used to blend turbine engine fuel. These components were found to be more prone to oxidation, and therefore, both D1655 and DS91-91 were modified to require that hydroprocessed blend components be treated with an approved antioxidant just after production and before exposure to atmospheric oxygen. This is just one example of how turbine fuel standards have evolved to incorporate changes in process technology. The British MOD and ASTM are both actively approving new turbine engine fuel blend components. This effort started when Sasol in South Africa requested that synthetic hydrocarbons produced by the Fischer−Tropsch (FT) process be approved for blending with conventional jet fuel to be used at the Johannesburg International Airport (now known as O. R. Tambo International Airport). ASTM subsequently harmonized D1655 to include these blend components. ASTM and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) have also approved the use of generic synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) produced by the low-temperature FT process. This fuel can be produced from any carbon-containing resource. The approval process is discussed in a following section. Hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids (HEFA), a chemically similar fuel blend component derived from animal and vegetable oils, has also recently been approved. Because this is a different process and feedstock, a separate approval process was used, although all of the same requirements and steps as used for the FT SPK were followed.
■
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR FT SPK AND HEFA SYNTHETIC BLEND COMPONENTS
Certification of a new blend component for aviation turbine fuels, whether for ASTM or MOD, follows a very rigorous path, as outlined in ASTM D4054. The path includes setting specifications for the proposed fuel blend component, evaluation of the fuel against all ASTM D1655 Table 1 requirements and properties outlined in the CRC Handbook, and finally, full engine and flight testing (if necessary, in critical applications) of the proposed fuel blend. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), through the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI), is involved in the fuel certification effort because it has oversight and responsibility for all equipment manufactured to build, maintain, and fly commercial aircraft, including the fuel. The U.S. DOD has oversight for fuels used by the military, with most research conducted by scientists at either Wright-Patterson Air Force Base or Patuxent River Naval Air Station. Also involved in the evaluation of new fuel blend components are turbine engine and airframe manufacturers, as well as component manufacturers, because these organizations must be assured that fuels that will be used in their equipment will perform appropriately and within design specification for the equipment. The MOD sets requirements in DS91-91 by a committee approach using input from the manufacturers and users of turbine engine fuels, while ASTM sets requirements in D1655 by a consensus approach using input from manufacturers, users, and general interest members of the appropriate committees within ASTM. The SPK produced by the low-temperature FT process involves hydrocracking and hydroprocessing raw FT liquid and wax into kerosene range distillate fuel. This fuel contains negligible aromatic and sulfur species and meets all requirements of Table 1 of D1655 and DS91-91, except for density. However, even if this fuel met density requirements, it would still not be considered aviation turbine fuel because 100% SPK is not compatible with aircraft systems issues with material compatibility, specifically the limited swelling of elastomeric seals due to the lack of aromatic compounds. Blends of SPK with 963
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301888b | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 962−966
Energy & Fuels
Article
For component/rig/APU testing, engine testing, and flight testing, as a type of material is better known, such as SPK, the amount of this testing is often reduced. This ASTM process resulted in the approval of ASTM D7566-09 Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons.6 Table 1 of ASTM D7566 is essentially identical to Table 1 of ASTM D1655. Annex A includes requirements for the SPK blend component. The intent of D7566 is that a fuel meeting this specification and all appropriate Annexes of the specification will then be considered to meet all of the requirements of ASTM D1655. In 2011, ASTM D7566 was updated to include Annex B, which gives specification for HEFA SPK blend components. A review of the HEFA research report, ASTM RR:D02-1739,7 would be instructive for understanding the breadth of the effort. On the basis of experience gained in developing and evaluating FT and HEFA SPK synthetic blend components, ASTM Committee D.02.J0.06 on Emerging Turbine Fuels expanded ASTM D4054, initially written to provide guidance on approval of new fuel additives, to include guidance for approval of new alternative turbine fuel blend components. The above discussion is a brief overview of the more than a 10 year effort needed to approve FT and HEFA SPK fuels for use in military and commercial aircraft. Additional fuels are in the approval pathway and are discussed briefly below.
distribution. C8 oligomers are near the flash point limit for jet fuel; C12 hydrocarbons are nicely in the middle of the boiling range; and C16 hydrocarbons are near the distillation end point for kerosene. Thus, a fuel derived from butanol feedstocks will have a different distillation profile compared to conventional jet fuel paraffins. There are additional alcohol conversion technologies being proposed to ASTM, including conversion of alcohols to hydrocarbons using zeolitic catalysts. These processes can produce jet fuel containing both paraffinic and aromatic compounds leading to potentially a 100% synthetic jet fuel. These fuels will also be thoroughly evaluated because there is little experience with these in turbine engines. These differences in ATJ blend components from SPK paraffins derived from the FT or HEFA processes cause concern with turbine engine manufacturers because the different carbon distributions of the fuel might impact engine performance. ASTM subcommittees are addressing these issues. How ATJ fuels are incorporated into ASTM D7566 will depend upon the outcome of the extensive testing program with these blend components. There are other pathways currently being evaluated. A highpriority pathway is adding an aromatic component to the process that currently generates FT and HEFA SPKs. This could make the 50% blend goal easier to accomplish and produce a fully synthetic jet fuel that meets the Table 1 and fitfor-purpose requirements. Some pathways to aromatics may produce single or limited numbers of individual aromatic components, such as mesitylene. Production of aromatics that are not found in conventional jet fuel or have a distribution that is not typical of conventional jet fuel will be reviewed by ASTM according to D4054. There are several efforts devoted to catalytic or metabolic conversion of biomass to hydrocarbons. The common theme in all of the current efforts is their intent to produce hydrocarbons from biomass. The industry has spent and is still spending considerable sums to understand how hydrocarbons work in turbine fuel. That performance is fairly well-understood, but some issues remain, such as the impact on processes that generate limited chemical species. The intent is that the international turbine fuel pool, Jet A/A1 in accordance with ASTM D1655 or U.K. (MOD) DS91-91, will only be comprised of hydrocarbons.
■
EVALUATION OF ALCOHOL-TO-JET (ATJ) BLEND COMPONENTS AND OTHER BIOMASS-DERIVED BLEND COMPONENTS FT and HEFA SPK represent a class of synthetic paraffinic hydrocarbons that have a continuous boiling range and carbon distribution found in conventional aviation turbine fuel. In addition, all of the components of these synthetic hydrocarbons are found in conventional turbine fuels. Thus, there is only a small amount of risk for incorporating these blend components into existing fuel specifications. The advent of conversion of alcohols to hydrocarbon fuels has changed this perception to a certain extent as some ATJ blend components may have a limited carbon distribution. The acceptability of ATJ blend components will be based on test and demonstration data, and risk will be mitigated by determining an appropriate blend limit for ATJ just as was determined for SPK. Alcohols as a chemical class are not desirable blend components for aviation turbine fuels because they have properties significantly different from conventional fuels. These differences include fuel density, energy content per mass and volume, water compatibility, low-temperature properties, and ultimately flight range and fit-for-purpose properties. As the gasoline fuel market becomes saturated with oxygenate blend components, alcohol manufacturers are seeking additional outlets for their products. Alcohols can be converted into hydrocarbons (i.e., ATJ) using a range of processes and, thus, make a range of products depending upon the feed alcohol and the process selected. For example, ethanol can be dehydrated into ethylene and polymerized into a hydrocarbon in the kerosene fuel boiling range. Ethylene oligomers may need to be further processed to meet all SPK specifications, with the main issue being low-temperature performance (freeze point and viscosity). This product may be different from conventional turbine fuel because it might only contain even carbon numbers. For an example of ethylene oligomerization, see the study by Heveling et al.19 Butanol (both normal- and iso-) can also be dehydrated and oligomerized into kerosene boiling range products. However, this approach will produce fuels with a limited hydrocarbon
■
EVALUATION OF OTHER BLEND COMPONENTS The above discussion intends to summarize the rather complex process for approval of new synthetic aviation fuel blend components for the benefit of the aviation community. In addition, this paper was prompted by a recent literature report by Llamas et al.,8 which proposed that oxygenated products, specifically fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) distillate fractions, can be used as blend components for producing fuel meeting ASTM D1655 specifications. Llamas et al. stated: “The blends of camelina FAME and atmospheric distillation cut have met the following specifications: density, kinematic viscosity at −20 °C, and lower heating value. With these preliminary results, it can be concluded that it would be feasible to blend babassu and camelina biokerosenes prepared in this way with commercial Jet-A1 up to 10 vol % of the former, if these blends prove to accomplish all the ASTM D1655-09 standards”. This statement is both technically incorrect and highly misleading. First and foremost, FAME has never been approved for use in blending any aviation turbine fuel by ASTM or the British MOD (which 964
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301888b | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 962−966
Energy & Fuels
Article
requirements for aviation turbine fuel. In addition, the cold filter plugging point, ASTM D6371-05,18 is also an irrelevant test for aviation turbine fuel. As discussed previously, kinematic viscosity at −20 °C is an important consideration, because fuel viscosity at low temperature affects high-altitude relight performance of turbine engines and auxiliary power units (APUs), both of which are critical to flight safety. Fuel Gauging Performance and Other Performance Properties. Accurate fuel gauging (measurement of fuel in an aircraft fuel tank) depends upon the dielectric constant and speed of sound in the fuel. The dielectric constant and speed of sound of FAME are substantially different from that of hydrocarbons, and the addition of FAME to hydrocarbon jet fuels would alter the properties of the blend outside of the range of validity of the gauging equipment, another safety-offlight issue. Ground handling of jet fuels also depends upon water solubility and water separation, again properties significantly affected by FAME and affecting safety-of-flight.
is stated in the paper by Llamas et al.). Actually, FAME is considered a contaminant in jet fuel and limited to only 5 ppm.9 Other issues with the fuel evaluations performed by Llamas et al. are discussed below. Oxidation. Rancimat (EN14214)10 testing is a totally inappropriate test for oxidation stability of jet fuel. ASTM D3241 Standard Test Method for Thermal Oxidation Stability of Aviation Turbine Fuels11 is the only acceptable measurement.12 This test challenges fuel at much higher temperatures (260 °C for conventional fuels and 325 °C for SPK) than found in the Rancimat. Hydrocarbon fuels that pass these criteria have proven to provide excellent in-service performance. Thermal stability has historically been the key to service life, and with the expected service life for commercial engines approaching 20 000 h, the test has proven very effective. Experience with FAME in jet fuel at percentage levels is that it can have devastating effects on D3241 results. It is possible to produce FAME blends that will pass the standard test but that would just open a new line of research to determine if the method provides suitable results with such a fuel. In the text, they also state “Jet fuel additives are used to prevent the formation of oxidation deposits in aircraft engines and fuel systems”. While there are limited applications for high-performance thermal stability additives, they are not in general use. Most hydrotreated fuels include phenolic antioxidants for storage stability, but they have no direct impact on deposition. Lower Heating Value. ASTM D240 is not an appropriate test for measuring the lower heating value of aviation turbine fuel.13 ASTM D1655 lists two correlation tests that are only applicable to hydrocarbon fuels meeting D1655 and one combustion method, D4809,14 which would be the most appropriate method for measuring the lower heating value of new blend components for aviation turbine fuels. D4809 would also be more appropriate for any potential oxygenated fuel because such are included in the scope of the method, unlike D240. The use of any oxygenated fuel in significant quantities without explicit knowledge and approval could have safety of flight implications as well as impose significant performance (range) penalties. Kinematic Viscosity. Llamas et al. attempted to estimate kinematic viscosity of blended fuels using linear relationships and measurements at 40 and 100 °C. Because potentially waxy FAME blend components have been shown to have poor lowtemperature performance, it is inappropriate to estimate this critical performance parameter by extrapolation and then indicate that aviation turbine fuel could be formulated with FAME blend components. The actual viscosity requirement is based on the need to be able to start the engine at −40 °C/°F. Measuring the performance at −20 °C already relies on Newtonian prediction, the validity of which is bolstered by evaluation of the freeze point. Fluidity at Low Temperature. Llamas et al. used cloud point and pour point measurements to establish low-temperature performance characteristics of the blended fuels. However, only freeze point tests, such as ASTM D2386,15 D5972,16 or D7153,17 are acceptable tests for determining conformance to D1655. The term “freeze point” actually describes the recovery temperature of the fuel, which is the temperature at which the fuel will be in the liquid phase regardless of how cold it has been. This temperature is always higher than the cloud and pour points. On the basis of that, it is possible to surmise that none of the blends would meet the
■
CONCLUSION Approval of alternative fuels for use as blend components in conventional aviation fuel is a long and rigorous process. Considerable evaluations are required to ensure acceptable engine performance, fuel compatibility with aircraft systems, and proper fuel performance during storage and throughout all aircraft operating environments. Aviation turbine engine fuel specifications are governed by the ASTM and the British MOD. ASTM D1655 Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels and MOD Defence Standard 91-91 are the guiding specifications for aviation fuels and rely heavily on the vast amount of experience in production of turbine engine fuels from conventional sources, such as crude oil, natural gas condensates, heavy oil, shale oil, and oil sands. A recent publication by Llamas et al. made the following statement in their conclusion: “With these preliminary results, we can conclude that it would be feasible to blend babassu and camelina biokerosenes prepared in this way with commercial Jet-A1, up to 10 vol % of the former, as partial substitutes of fossil jet fuels, if these blends prove to accomplish all the ASTM D1655-09 standards”. ASTM is not considering use of FAME or FAME distillate components from any source; thus, it is inappropriate to conclude that FAME in any amount could be used to blend turbine fuels that are interchangeable with the current fuel supply. Llamas et al. introduces substantial risk in drawing that conclusion. If taken literally by those not familiar with all of the requirements for producing approved turbine engine fuels, FAME blends with jet fuel could be introduced into the marketplace and lead to flight safety issues and equipment failures. Thus, the authors strongly recommend that any research organization wishing to study the use of alternative components for producing aviation turbine engine fuels, contact members of the appropriate ASTM committee at the least or become active participants in the fuel approval process. This ensures that they are exposed to the wealth of information and history behind the specifications used to set requirements for aviation fuels.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*Telephone: 720-274-3545. Fax: 303-298-8010. E-mail:
[email protected]. 965
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301888b | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 962−966
Energy & Fuels
Article
Notes
Calorimeter (Precision Method); ASTM International: West Conshohoken, PA, 2009. (15) ASTM International. ASTM D2386-06, Standard Test Method for Freezing Point of Aviation Fuels; ASTM International: West Conshohoken, PA, 2006. (16) ASTM International. ASTM D5972-05, Standard Test Method for Freezing Point of Aviation Fuels (Automatic Phase Transition Method); ASTM International: West Conshohoken, PA, 2005. (17) ASTM International. ASTM D7153-05, Standard Test Method for Freezing Point of Aviation Fuels (Automatic Laser Method); ASTM International: West Conshohoken, PA, 2005. (18) ASTM International. ASTM D6371-05, Standard Test Method for Cold Filter Plugging Point of Diesel and Heating Fuels; ASTM International: West Conshohoken, PA, 2005. (19) Heveling, J.; Nicolaides, C. P.; Scurrell, M. S. Catalysts and conditions for the highly efficient, selective and stable heterogeneous oligomerisation of ethylene. Appl. Catal., A 1998, 173 (1), 1−9.
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This summary discussion about ASTM fuels certification and specification processes builds on the wealth of information contained in the body of participants of all ASTM committees and subcommittees, the experience of military and civilian personnel dedicated to providing safe and reliable sources of fuel for the U.S. Military, including Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Air Force Petroleum Agency (AFPET), U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Defense Logistics Agency Energy (DLA-E), and other military organizations, Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, and all jet fuel and jet fuel blend component producers that also contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the manufacture, transportation, and delivery of aviation turbine fuels to the end user.
■
REFERENCES
(1) ASTM International. ASTM D1655-12, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2012. (2) British Ministry of Defence (MOD). Turbine Fuel, Kerosine Type, Jet A-1 NATO Code: F-35 Joint Service Designation: AVTUR. Defence Standard 91-91; MOD, Defence Equipment and Support, U.K. Defence Standardization: Glasgow, U.K., 2011. (3) Coordinating Research Council (CRC). Handbook of Aviation Fuels Properties; CRC: Alpharetta, GA, 2004; CRC Report 635. (4) ASTM International. ASTM D4054-09, Standard Practice for Qualification and Approval of New Aviation Turbine Fuels and Fuel Additives; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2012. (5) Air Force Petroleum Agency (AFPA/PTPT). MIL-DTL-83133H, Detail Specification Turbine Fuel, Aviation, Kerosene Type, JP-8 (NATO F-34), NATO F-35, and JP-8 + 100 (NATO F-37); AFPA/PTPT: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 2011. (6) ASTM International. ASTM D7566-11a, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2012. (7) ASTM International. Evaluation of Bio-derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs); ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2011; Research Report D-02-1739. (8) Llamas, A.; Al-Lal, A.-M.; Hernandez, M.; Lapuerta, M.; Canoira, L. Biokerosene from babassu and camelina oils: Production and properties of their blends with fossil kerosene. Energy Fuels 2012, 26 (9), 5968−5976. (9) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Fuel: Jet Fuel Containing FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Ester); FAA: Washington, D.C., 2009; FAA Aircraft Certification Service, Special Air Worthiness Information Bulletin NE-09-25. (10) European Committee for Standardization (CEN). European Standard DN 14214:2008, Automotive FuelsFatty Acid Methyl Esters (FAME) for Diesel EnginesRequirements and Test Methods; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. (11) ASTM International. ASTM D3241-11a, Standard Test Method for Thermal Oxidation Stability of Aviation Turbine Fuels; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2012. (12) Wilson, G. R., III. Diesel Lubricity Additive Effect on Jet Fuel Thermal Oxidative Stability with Supplementary Information on Fatty Acid Methyl Ester and Jet Engine Nozzle Performance; Coordinating Research Council (CRC): Alphretta, GA, 2011; CRC Report AV-0304. (13) ASTM International. ASTM D240, Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2012. (14) ASTM International. ASTM D4809-09a, Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb 966
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef301888b | Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 962−966
