Bio-SPK Research Report 2010 v5

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic
Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)
REPORT
Version 5.0
Prepared by
The Boeing Company

UOP
United States Air Force Research Laboratory
May 2010
Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

Version 3.0
PAGE 1 of 137
This page is intentionally left blank for end-to-end printing

Version 3.0
PAGE 2 of 137
Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic

Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)
Executive Summary
In 2009 a new ASTM specification (D7566-09, Standard Specification for
Aviation Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons) was developed for aviation
turbine fuels. Contained in the D7566-09 specification is a specification for a synthetic
paraffinic kerosene (SPK) blend component made from synthesis gas using the FischerTropsch process commonly referred to as FT-SPK. Also contained in the D7566-09
specification is a specification for a blend of SPK with conventional petroleum based jet
fuel. The specification allows for a maximum of a 50% blend of SPK with conventional
jet fuel.
Its the intent of this report to demonstrate that a suitable SPK can be produced
from a bio-derived source (Bio-SPK) that can satisfy the requirements outlined in D756609. Further, its 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.
In addition to the extensive amount of analytical fit-for purpose testing that was
performed on both the Bio-SPK and FT-SPK neat and fuel blends the report includes
engine ground test data using Bio-SPK fuel blends conducted by GE/CFM and
Honeywell. The engine ground tests included performance, operability, and emission
testing. Data obtained from three Bio-SPK test flights with Air New Zealand, Continental
Airlines, and Japan Airlines are also included in this report. The fuel used for all three
tests flights were a 50% (v) blend of Bio-SPK with conventional jet fuel (Jet A or Jet A1).

Version 3.0
PAGE 3 of 137
This page is intentionally left blank for end-to-end printing

Version 3.0
PAGE 4 of 137
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 11
1.1
Objectives .................................................................................................................... 11
1.2
Approach...................................................................................................................... 12
1.3
Definitions.................................................................................................................... 14
1.3.1 Bio-SPK................................................................................................................... 14
1.3.2 Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (SPK) ...................................................................... 14
1.3.3 Fischer-Tropsch SPK (FT-SPK).............................................................................. 15
1.3.4 Bio-SPK Feedstock Definition ................................................................................ 15
1.3.4.1
Hydroprocessing FT Waxes and Renewable Fats and Oils to Produce SPK.. 16
1.3.4.2
Hydrotreating: Hydrogenation and Deoxygenation of FT Waxes and the Fatty
Acid Derivatives in Animal Fats and Plant Oils .............................................................. 18
1.3.4.3
Cracking and Isomerization ............................................................................ 19
1.3.4.4
Fractionation ................................................................................................... 20
1.3.5 Process Overview of the Fuels Included in this Report........................................... 20
1.3.5.1
Energy & Environmental Research Center HRJ Process Description ............ 20
1.3.5.2
Syntroleum Bio-SPK Process Description...................................................... 20
1.3.5.3
UOP Bio-SPK Process Description ................................................................ 21
2.0
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 23
2.1
Relevance of the Comparative Evaluation of Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuels ...................... 24
2.2
Fuel Properties ............................................................................................................. 26
2.2.1 Chemistry................................................................................................................. 26
2.2.1.1
Hydrocarbon Chemistry.................................................................................. 26
2.2.1.1.1
2.2.1.1.2
2.2.1.2
2.2.1.2.1
2.2.1.2.2
Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 26

50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 29
Trace Materials ............................................................................................... 30

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 31
50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 33
2.2.2 Bulk Physical and Performance Properties.............................................................. 34

2.2.2.1
Boiling Point Distribution............................................................................... 34
2.2.2.1.1
2.2.2.1.2
2.2.2.2
2.2.2.2.1
2.2.2.2.2
2.2.2.3
2.2.2.3.1
2.2.2.3.2
2.2.2.4
2.2.2.4.1
2.2.2.4.2
2.2.2.5
2.2.2.5.1
2.2.2.5.2
2.2.2.6
2.2.2.6.1
2.2.2.6.2
2.2.2.7
2.2.2.7.1
2.2.2.7.2
2.2.2.8
2.2.2.8.1
Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 34

50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 36
Vapor/Liquid Ratio ......................................................................................... 38

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 38
50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 38
Thermal Stability ............................................................................................ 39

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 39
50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 40
Lubricity and Response to Lubricity Improver............................................... 40

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 40
50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 41
Viscosity vs. Temperature............................................................................... 41

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 41
50% (v) SPK blends ............................................................................................... 42
Specific Heat vs. Temperature ........................................................................ 42

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 44
50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 45
Density vs. Temperature ................................................................................. 45

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 46
50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 46
Surface Tension vs. Temperature.................................................................... 47

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 47

Version 3.0
PAGE 5 of 137
2.2.2.8.2
2.2.2.9
50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 48
Bulk Modulus vs. Temperature....................................................................... 48
2.2.2.9.1
2.2.2.9.2
2.2.2.10
Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 49

50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 49
Water Solubility vs. Temperature ................................................................... 50
2.2.2.10.1
2.2.2.10.2
2.2.2.11
Neat SPKs............................................................................................................. 50
50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................. 51
Solubility of Air .............................................................................................. 51
2.2.2.11.1
2.2.2.11.2
Neat SPKs............................................................................................................. 51
50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................. 52
2.2.3 Electrical Properties................................................................................................. 52

2.2.3.1
Dielectric Constant vs. Density....................................................................... 52
2.2.3.1.1
2.2.3.1.2
2.2.3.2
2.2.3.2.1
2.2.3.2.2
Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 53

50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 54
Electrical Conductivity and Response to Static Dissipator............................. 55

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 55
50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 55
2.3
Properties Summary for Neat Bio-SPKs and FT-SPKs ............................................... 56
2.4
Properties Summary for 100% and 50% (v) Blended Bio-SPK and FT-SPK Fuels
Compared to ASTM D7566-09................................................................................................. 57
2.4.1 Material Compatibility Studies................................................................................ 59
2.4.1.1
Material Compatibility of Synthetic Fuels...................................................... 59
2.4.1.1.1
2.4.1.1.2
2.4.1.1.3
2.4.1.2
2.4.1.3
2.4.1.3.1
Background ............................................................................................................ 59
Test Procedure........................................................................................................ 60
Test Results ............................................................................................................ 61
Additional Tests on SYN-R8 .......................................................................... 90

Additional Tests on UOP-x and UOP-xB50 SPKs ......................................... 91
Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 93
3.0
Additional Testing............................................................................................................ 95
3.1
Ground Handling / Safety ............................................................................................ 95
3.1.1 Effect on Clay Filtration .......................................................................................... 95
3.1.2 Filtration (SAE J1488)............................................................................................. 95
3.1.3 Storage Stability ...................................................................................................... 96
3.1.3.1
Peroxides......................................................................................................... 96
3.1.3.2
Potential Gums................................................................................................ 97
3.1.4 Flammability Limits ................................................................................................ 97
3.1.5 Autoignition Temperature ....................................................................................... 98
3.1.6 Hot Surface Ignition Temperature ........................................................................... 98
3.1.7 Minimum Ignition Energy ....................................................................................... 98
3.1.8 Ignition Quality Test (IQT) ..................................................................................... 99
3.2
Cetane Index ................................................................................................................ 99
3.3
Toxicity ...................................................................................................................... 100
3.3.1 Toxicity Evaluation Requirements ........................................................................ 100
3.3.2 Reciprocal Calculation Procedure ......................................................................... 100
3.3.3 Applicability of GGV/RCP Approach to Bio-SPK ............................................... 101
3.3.4 Similar Mixture Approach..................................................................................... 102
3.3.5 Similar Mixtures .................................................................................................... 103
3.3.6 FT-SPK.................................................................................................................. 105
3.3.7 Summary................................................................................................................ 105
3.4
Engine Tests for Bio-SPK Program ........................................................................... 106
3.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 106
3.4.2 Engine and Combustion Rig Testing ..................................................................... 106
Version 3.0
PAGE 6 of 137
3.4.2.1
3.4.2.1.1
3.4.2.1.2
3.4.2.1.3
3.4.2.1.4
3.4.2.1.5
3.4.2.2
3.4.2.2.1
3.4.2.2.2
Honeywell ..................................................................................................... 106

131-9 APU Testing............................................................................................... 106
TPE331-10 Turboprop Testing............................................................................. 108
TFE731-5 Engine Testing .................................................................................... 110
TFE731-5 Combustor Rig Testing ....................................................................... 112
Atomizer Cold Bench Testing .............................................................................. 116
CFM 56-7B Engine Ground Test.................................................................. 118

Engine Operability and Performance ................................................................... 118
Emissions ............................................................................................................. 120
3.4.2.3
Rolls-Royce RB211-524G2-T Engine Ground Run ..................................... 125
3.4.3 Flight Tests on 50% (v) Bio-SPK Blends.............................................................. 126
3.4.3.1
Air New Zealand (ANZ) Test Flight............................................................. 128
3.4.3.1.1
3.4.3.1.2
3.4.3.2
3.4.3.2.1
3.4.3.2.2
3.4.3.2.3
3.4.3.3
3.4.3.3.1
3.4.3.3.2
4.0
5.0
6.0
Flight Crew Observations..................................................................................... 128

Post-Flight Data Analysis..................................................................................... 129
Continental Airlines (CAL) Test Flight ........................................................ 129

Prior to the Test Flight.......................................................................................... 130
Post Flight Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 131
Japan Airlines (JAL) Test Flight................................................................... 132

Post Flight Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 133
Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................... 133

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... 134
References ...................................................................................................................... 135
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Overview: Fuel and Additive Approval Process........................................................................ 12
Figure 1-2. Test Program.............................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 1-3. Fischer-Tropsch Process and Hydrotreating/Hydrocracking Process ........................................ 14
Figure 1-4. Examples of C18 Fatty Acid Derivatives as Feeds for the HRJ Process..................................... 16
Figure 1-5. Comparison of Processes to Produce SPK................................................................................. 17
Figure 1-6. Competing Deoxygenation Mechanisms for the Production of n-Paraffins .............................. 19
Figure 1-7. Bio-SynfiningTM SPK Process ................................................................................................... 21
Figure 1-8. Simplified Overview of the UOP Process to Produce HRJ SPK ............................................... 22
Figure 2-1. Carbon Chemistry of Neat FT and Bio-SPKs. ........................................................................... 28
Figure 2-2. Carbon Chain Distribution of Neat Bio-SPK Samples .............................................................. 29
Figure 2-3. BP Distribution of SPK Fuels by D2887 ................................................................................... 35
Figure 2-4. BP Distribution of Neat SPKs.................................................................................................... 36
Figure 2-5. BP Distribution of SPK Blends.................................................................................................. 36
Figure 2-6. Vapor Pressure vs. Temperature of Neat SPKs ......................................................................... 38
Figure 2-7. Vapor Pressure vs. Temperature of 50% (v) SPK blends .......................................................... 38
Figure 2-8. Lubricity of Neat SPKs and Response to CI/LI ......................................................................... 40
Figure 2-9. SPKs Response to CI/LI Additives............................................................................................ 41
Figure 2-10. Temperature Dependence of the Kinematic Viscosity for Neat Bio-SPKs.............................. 41
Figure 2-11. SPK Blends Viscosity vs. Temperature ................................................................................... 42
Figure 2-12. Temperature Dependence of the Specific Heat Capacity of Neat SPKs .................................. 44
Figure 2-13. SPK Blends Specific Heat Capacity ........................................................................................ 45
Figure 2-14. Neat Bio-SPKs Density vs. Temperature................................................................................. 46
Figure 2-15. SPK B50 Blends Density vs. Temperature .............................................................................. 46
Figure 2-16. Density vs. Temperature Graphs.............................................................................................. 47
Figure 2-17. Surface Tension vs. Temperature of Neat SPKs ...................................................................... 47
Figure 2-18. Surface Tension Characteristics of SPK Blends ...................................................................... 48
Figure 2-19. Isothermal Tangent Bulk Modulus vs. Temperature for Neat SPKs........................................ 49
Figure 2-20. Isothermal Tangent Bulk Modulus vs. Temperature for SPK Blends...................................... 49
Figure 2-21. Neat Bio-SPKs, Water Solubility vs. Temperature.................................................................. 50
Version 3.0
PAGE 7 of 137
Figure 2-22. 50 % (v) Bio-SPK Blends, Water Solubility vs. Temperature................................................. 51

Figure 2-23. Neat Bio-SPKs, Solubility of Air @ 14.7 PSI (1 atm)............................................................. 52
Figure 2-24. 50% (v) Bio-SPK Blends, Solubility of Air @ 14.7 PSI (1 atm) ............................................. 52
Figure 2-25. Neat SPK, Dielectric Constant K vs. Temperature .................................................................. 53
Figure 2-26. Neat SPK, Density vs. Dielectric Constant K .......................................................................... 53
Figure 2-27. 50% (v) SPK Blends, Dielectric Constant K vs. Temperature................................................. 54
Figure 2-28. 50% (v) SPK Blends, Density vs. Dielectric Constant K......................................................... 54
Figure 2-29. Neat SPK, Electrical Conductivity and Response to Static Dissipator .................................... 55
Figure 2-30. 50% (v) SPK Blends, Electrical Conductivity and Response to Static Dissipator................... 55
Figure 2-31. Tensile Strength Results for the Nitrile Bladder Innerliner ..................................................... 63
Figure 2-32. Elongation Results for the Nitrile Bladder Innerliner .............................................................. 65
Figure 2-33. Volume Swell Results for the Nitrile Bladder Innerliner......................................................... 65
Figure 2-34. Tensile Strength Results for the AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant......................................... 72
Figure 2-35. Elongation Results for the AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant.................................................. 72
Figure 2-36. Volume Swell Results for the AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant ............................................ 72
Figure 2-37. Shore A Hardness Results for the AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant ...................................... 73
Figure 2-38. Peel Strength Results for the AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant.............................................. 73
Figure 2-39. Tensile Strength Results for the AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant ......................................... 76
Figure 2-40. Elongation Results for the AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant .................................................. 76
Figure 2-41. Volume Swell Results for the AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant............................................. 77
Figure 2-42. Shore A Hardness Results for the AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant....................................... 77
Figure 2-43. Peel Strength Results for the AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant .............................................. 77
Figure 2-44. O-ring Swell Test R-8........................................................................................................... 90
Figure 2-45. O-ring Tensile Strength R-8................................................................................................... 90
Figure 3-1. Peroxide Formation, SPK Blends .............................................................................................. 97
Figure 3-2. a) 131-9 APU Installed in Test Cell, b) Mobile Emissions Truck, c) Fuel Drums .................. 107
Figure 3-3. 131-9 Exhaust Emissions Relative to Baseline Fuel................................................................ 108
Figure 3-4. TPE331-10 Turboprop Installed in Test Cell........................................................................... 109
Figure 3-5. TPE331-10 Emissions Relative to Baseline Fuel..................................................................... 110
Figure 3-6. TFE731-5 Engine Installed in San Tan Test Cell .................................................................... 111
Figure 3-7. Portable Fuel Tanks at San Tan Test Site ................................................................................ 111
Figure 3-8. TFE731-5 Combustor Rig Installed in C-100 Test Cell .......................................................... 113
Figure 3-9. TFE731-5 Rig Gaseous and Smoke Emissions........................................................................ 113
Figure 3-10. TFE731-5 Rig Lean Blowout Results.................................................................................... 114
Figure 3-11. TFE731-5 Rig Lean Ignition Results ..................................................................................... 115
Figure 3-12. TFE731-5 Rig Lean Ignition Results for Cold Fuel............................................................... 115
Figure 3-13. Comparison of Atomizer Spray Droplet Size ........................................................................ 117
Figure 3-14. Comparison of Atomizer Cold (-40oC) Spray for JP-8 and Biofuel Blend ............................ 117
Figure 3-15. Emissions Set-up.................................................................................................................... 120
Figure 3-16. H/C Molar Ratios for Baseline Jet A, Neat Bio-SPK, and Blends of the Two ...................... 121
Figure 3-17. LTO Emissions and Maximum Smoke Number for Test Blends as % Difference from Jet A
for Lowest (18K) and Highest (27K) CFM56-7B Engine Ratings............................................................. 122
Figure 3-18. LBO Historical Data Comparison.......................................................................................... 123
Figure 3-19. Warm Start Comparison ........................................................................................................ 124
Figure 3-20. Cold Start Comparison........................................................................................................... 124
Figure 3-21. Accel Time Comparison ........................................................................................................ 125
Figure 3-22. Engine Ground-run Data is Shown from a RR RB211-524G2-T Engine Taken at Auckland on
Dec. 30, 2008.............................................................................................................................................. 125
Figure 3-23. Flight Test Program ............................................................................................................... 127
Figure 3-24. Air New Zealand 747-400 Flight Test Profile and Events During the Flight Test ................ 129
Figure 3-25. Continental Airlines 737-800 Flight Test Profile on January 7, 2009 ................................... 130
Figure 3-26. Cruise Snapshots for Previous Continental Airlines 737-800 Flight and Biofuel Flight ....... 132
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Examples of the Fatty Acid Distribution of Different HRJ Feedstocks ...................................... 18

Version 3.0
PAGE 8 of 137
Table 2-1. Identification of the Bio-SPK Jet Fuels Tested ........................................................................... 23

Table 2-2. From ASTM D7566: Detailed Requirements of Aviation Turbine Fuels Containing Synthesized
Hydrocarbons, TABLE 1, Part 1 .................................................................................................................. 24
Table 2-3. From ASTM D7566: Detailed Requirements of Aviation Turbine Fuels Containing Synthesized
Hydrocarbons, TABLE 1, Part 2 .................................................................................................................. 25
Table 2-4. From ASTM D7566: Detailed Batch Requirements; Hydroprocessed SPK, TABLE A1.1........ 25
Table 2-5. From ASTM D7566: Other Detailed Requirements; Hydroprocessed SPK, TABLE A1.2........ 25
Table 2-6. Method Cross-Comparison of Hydrocarbon Types for a Camelina Derived SPK...................... 26
Table 2-7. Breakdown of Hydrocarbon Types for Neat SPK Jet Fuels ........................................................ 27
Table 2-8. Analysis of Neat SPK Samples. .................................................................................................. 28
Table 2-9. ASTM-D5291 Analysis of Neat SPK Samples ........................................................................... 29
Table 2-10. Hydrocarbon Chemistry of B50 Fuels....................................................................................... 29
Table 2-11. Hydrocarbon Types by ASTM D2425 ...................................................................................... 30
Table 2-12. Organic Trace Materials............................................................................................................ 30
Table 2-13. Chemical Analysis of Neat Bio-SPK Jet Fuels ......................................................................... 31
Table 2-14. Metal Analysis by ICP of Neat SPK Jet Fuels by UOP Method 389 ........................................ 32
Table 2-15. Metal Analysis by ASTM D7111 of Neat SPK Jet Fuels.......................................................... 32
Table 2-16. Trace Components in the B50 SPK Jet Fuels............................................................................ 33
Table 2-17. Metal Analysis by ICP of the B50 Bio-SPK Jet Fuels .............................................................. 33
Table 2-18. Principal Elements Detected in Jet Fuels from US Navy Technical Report No. 1845 .......... 34
Table 2-19. Slope of the Boiling Point Curves for Neat SPKs..................................................................... 34
Table 2-20. Calculated D86 Values from D2887 Data for Neat Bio-SPKs.................................................. 35
Table 2-21. Actual D86 Results for 100% SPK Fuels.................................................................................. 35
Table 2-22. Slope of the Boiling Point Curves for 50% (v) SPK Blends ..................................................... 37
Table 2-23. BP Distribution of B50 SPK Blend Samples per ASTM D86................................................... 37
Table 2-24. BP Distribution of B100 and B50 Bio-SPK and Jet A-1 per ASTM D86................................. 37
Table 2-25. Fuel Thermal Stability Tests of Neat Bio-SPKs and FT-SPKs ................................................. 39
Table 2-26. Thermal Stability of Bio-SPK 50% (v) Jet Fuel Blends............................................................ 40
Table 2-27. Reversing Cp for Neat SPKs..................................................................................................... 44
Table 2-28. Reversing Cp for Blended SPKs ............................................................................................... 45
Table 2-29. Speed of Sound in the SPKs...................................................................................................... 50
Table 2-30. Neat Bio-SPKs Properties Against Fuel Specifications ............................................................ 56
Table 2-31. Comparison with Data from Table A1 from D7566, Detailed Requirements of Aviation
Turbine Fuels Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons ................................................................................. 57
Table 2-32. Comparison with Data from Table A1 from D7566, Detailed Requirements of Aviation
Turbine Fuels Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons, Contd .................................................................... 58
Table 2-33. Fuels Used for Fluid Immersions .............................................................................................. 59
Table 2-34. Adhesives .................................................................................................................................. 62
Table 2-35. Nitrile Bladder Innerliner .......................................................................................................... 64
Table 2-36. Polyurethane Bladder Inner Liner ............................................................................................. 66
Table 2-37. Self-Sealing Bladder Material................................................................................................... 66
Table 2-38. Coatings .................................................................................................................................... 67
Table 2-39. AMS-S-4383 Nitrile Coating .................................................................................................... 68
Table 2-40. Dichromate Cured AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant ............................................................... 69
Table 2-41. Manganese Dioxide Cured AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant.................................................. 70
Table 2-42. Manganese Dioxide Cured AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant, Contd..................................... 71
Table 2-43. AMS 3375 Fluorosilicone Sealant ............................................................................................ 74
Table 2-44. AMS 3379 Polyurethane Sealant .............................................................................................. 75
Table 2-45. AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant .............................................................................................. 78
Table 2-46. AMS 3281 Low-Density Polysulfide Sealant ........................................................................... 79
Table 2-47. Noncuring Groove Sealants ...................................................................................................... 80
Table 2-48. Foam ......................................................................................................................................... 80
Table 2-49. Composites................................................................................................................................ 81
Table 2-50. Nitrile O-ring (AMS-P-5315).................................................................................................... 82
Table 2-51. Fluorosilicone O-ring (AMS-R-25988)..................................................................................... 83
Table 2-52. Fluorocarbon GLT O-ring (AMS-R-83485) ............................................................................. 84
Version 3.0
PAGE 9 of 137
Table 2-53. Fluorocarbon O-ring (AMS 7276) ............................................................................................ 85

Table 2-54. Acrylic/Nitrile Hose .................................................................................................................. 86
Table 2-55. Epichlorohydrin Hose ............................................................................................................... 87
Table 2-56. Wire Insulations ........................................................................................................................ 88
Table 2-57. Potting Compound .................................................................................................................... 89
Table 2-58. Sealant BMS5-45 Immersion Test for Neat UOP-3 Bio-SPK................................................... 91
Table 2-59. Elastomer Compatibility Testing: Primary Elastomer Tests for Neat UOP-3 Bio-SPK ........... 91
Table 2-60. Elastomer Compatibility Testing: Primary Elastomer Tests for Neat UOP-3 Bio-SPK ........... 92
Table 2-61. Materials Compatibility UOP-4 ................................................................................................ 92
Table 2-62. Materials Compatibility Comparison, UOP-4, Jet A Fuels ....................................................... 92
Table 2-63. UOP-2B50 Blend, Elastomer Compatibility ............................................................................. 93
Table 2-64. UOP-4B50 Blend, Elastomer Compatibility ............................................................................. 93
Table 3-1. SPK Neat and Blends, Effect on Clay Filtration ......................................................................... 95
Table 3-2. Removal of Emulsified Free Water for SAS-IPK (FT-SPK) ...................................................... 95
Table 3-3. Removal of Emulsified Free Water for UOP-2B50 (Bio-SPK 50% (v) Blend) .......................... 96
Table 3-4. Removal of Emulsified Free Water for Different Fuels SAE J1488 ........................................ 96
Table 3-5. SPK, Neat and Blends, Potential Gum per ASTM D5304 .......................................................... 97
Table 3-6. SPK Neat and Blends, Flammability Limits per ASTM E681.................................................... 97
Table 3-7. SPK Neat and Blends, Autoignition Temperature Test per ASTM E659 ................................... 98
Table 3-8. Hot Surface Ignition Temperature, FTN791-6053 ...................................................................... 98
Table 3-9. Minimum Ignition Energy, E582 ................................................................................................ 98
Table 3-10. Ignition Quality Test (IQT), D6890 .......................................................................................... 99
Table 3-11. Cetane Index for SPKS, Neat or Blended Jet Fuels .................................................................. 99
Table 3-12. Hydrocarbon Class OELs........................................................................................................ 100
Table 3-13. Group Guidance Values .......................................................................................................... 101
Table 3-14. Occupational Exposure Limit Based on GGV/RCP Method. ................................................. 102
Table 3-15. Isoparaffinic Hydrocarbon Solvents Reviewed by Mullin et al. ............................................. 103
Table 3-16. Toxicity Data for Isoparaffinic Solvents and Jet Fuels ........................................................... 104
Table 3-17. Biofuel Blend Analysis at Honeywell, per ASTM D1655 ...................................................... 106
Table 3-18. Atomization Test Fluid Properties .......................................................................................... 116
Table 3-19. Energy Properties for the 50% Blended Fuels, Compared to Nominal Jet Fuel...................... 119

Version 3.0
PAGE 10 of 137
1.0
Introduction
Historically, nearly all of the aviation fuel used in aviation turbine engines has
been produced from crude petroleum feedstocks. Aviation turbine fuel is often referred to
as kerosene or, in general, jet fuel. The crude oils are processed in a refinery to make a
host of useful products; including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, petrochemicals, and asphalt
components. Kerosene is produced as a straight run product but is also produced through
hydroprocesses, especially from heavier crude oil feedstocks. Hydroprocesses are
catalytic processes that convert part of the crude oil into a high quality hydrocarbon
aviation fuel. Crude oil feeds can vary widely in terms of the amount of heavy
components, heteroatom content, and metal content. The modern refinery uses
hydroprocessing to process these different crude oil feeds to produce consistent, high
quality fuels. Kerosene jet fuel is a hydrocarbon fuel composed almost entirely of
hydrogen and carbon elements. The hydrocarbon composition consists mainly of
paraffins (iso and normal), cycloparaffins (naphthenes), and aromatics 1. Aviation jet fuel
produced from different feeds and processes will have different ratios of these
hydrocarbon components.
Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (SPK) made from hydroprocessing bio-derived fats
and oils (Bio-SPK) or products from a Fischer-Tropsh reaction (F-T SPK) typically
consists of normal and isoparaffin components with a relatively small amount of
cycloparaffins. These same components are found in petroleum-derived aviation turbine
fuels. Similarly to petroleum refining, the processes to produce SPK (FT-SPK or BioSPK) minimize the differences in the final product to produce a high quality fuel that can
constantly meet the stringent requirements for aviation turbine fuel.
1.1
Objectives
The objective of this document is to demonstrate that Synthetic Paraffinic
Kerosene is a hydrocarbon fuel with properties indistinguishable from the paraffins found
in petroleum kerosene. SPK is fully miscible with petroleum kerosene in any ratio. The
data in this document will show that the SPK produced from renewable feedstocks (BioSPK) has the same properties as SPK produced through the gasification-Fischer-Tropsch
synthesis process followed by hydroprocessing (FT-SPK). Both routes to SPK (FT-SPK
and Bio-SPK) rely on hydroprocessing followed by fractionation as the final steps to
produce highly branched paraffinic kerosene in the same boiling point range as petroleum
derived jet fuel.
In short, the objectives of this report are:
1. To compare the properties and characteristics of Bio-derived Synthetic Paraffinic
Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs) to SPKs derived from syngas, also called Fischer-Tropsch
SPKs (FT-SPKs).
2. To compare Bio-SPK/petroleum-based jet fuel blends to both FT-SPK/petroleumbased jet fuel blends and to conventional Jet A/Jet A-1, JP-5, JP-8 jet fuels.
3. Demonstrate that the process to produce Bio-SPKs is feedstock agnostic.
4. Demonstrate the suitability of Bio-SPKs made from a variety of feedstocks to be
used in commercial aviation up to a 50% (v) blend ratio.

Version 3.0
PAGE 11 of 137
1.2
Approach
The approach used for completion of this report was to follow the recommended
methodology detailed in the current ASTM D4054-09 2, Standard Practice for
Qualification and Approval of New Aviation Turbine Fuels and Fuel Additives. The
document was created with input from the engine and airframe OEMs as well others in
the aviation industry. The document is based on previous experience and methodology
used in past specification approvals. Figure 1-1 below from the revision of D4054 is a
schematic of the overall qualification process for new fuels.
Figure 1-1. Overview: Fuel and Additive Approval Process
The test program is shown in more detail in Figure 1-2. The first step in
qualification is to show that the new fuel meets specification properties. The second step
is to show the fuel is fit-for-purpose by testing the fuels against the tests in the longer
box, including chemical properties, bulk physical properties, and performance tests.

Version 3.0
PAGE 12 of 137
Figure 1-2. Test Program

Version 3.0
PAGE 13 of 137
1.3
Definitions
1.3.1 Bio-SPK
The Bio-derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK) jet fuels, or sometimes
referred as Hydroprocessed Renewable Jet (HRJ) fuels are generally made in a two-step
process. The first step is the deoxygenation of fatty acid esters and fatty acids. The
second step is either an isomerization or a selective cracking and isomerization process.
Bio-SPKs can be produced from bio-derived feedstocks such as animal fats and vegetable
oils. The feedstock is defined in more detail later. The fatty acid derivatives in the feed
are hydroprocessed to fully remove oxygen, saturate double bonds with hydrogen, crack
paraffins into the jet range and isomerize paraffins to improve cold flow properties. This
product is paraffinic kerosene composed of mostly branched paraffins in the kerosene
boiling point range. It is the intent of this report to show that these Bio-SPK jet fuels are
high quality jet fuels that can be considered as drop-in replacement fuels when blended
up to 50% (v) with standard jet fuels.
1.3.2 Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (SPK)
SPK is a paraffin fuel in the jet fuel boiling point range. SPK can be produced
from products of gasification-Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis processes or from a highly
refined animal fat or plant oil. Both feedstocks are hydroprocessed to completely remove
heteroatoms to produce a highly purified hydrocarbon fuel. As illustrated in
Figure 1-3, both Bio-SPKs and Fischer-Tropsch SPKs rely on similar processes.
Figure 1-3. Fischer-Tropsch Process and Hydrotreating/Hydrocracking Process

Version 3.0
PAGE 14 of 137
1.3.3 Fischer-Tropsch SPK (FT-SPK)

A FT-SPK is a SPK produced from a feedstock derived through a gasification
followed by a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process. The feedstocks for the gasification
route include coal, natural gas, or biomass. The carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced
in the gasification process are combined to form a mixture of products in the Fischer
Tropsch synthesis process, including n-paraffins, oxygenates, and alpha olefins. These
products are either polymerized (alpha-olefins) or further processed by reacting with
catalyst and hydrogen; these processes are collectively known as hydroprocessing. The
oxygen and other heteroatoms are removed, olefins are saturated, long chain paraffins
cracked or isomerized. The final step is fractionization to produce a SPK with suitable
properties to be used in turbine engines.
1.3.4 Bio-SPK Feedstock Definition
The feedstocks for the Bio-SPK process are composed of fatty acid derivatives both fatty acids or fatty acid esters. These molecules have an oxygen functional group at
one end and a long aliphatic chain hydrocarbon with variable amounts and locations of
double bonds on the other. The majority of these fatty acids are attached to a glycerol
backbone and are known as acylglycerols. Most of these are triacylglycerols or
triglycerides, where three fatty acid chains are attached to the glycerol backbone through
ester groups. Smaller amounts of diglycerides and monoglycerides are also present. Some
feeds contain a percentage of free fatty acids (FFA) where the fatty acid chain ends in a
carboxylic acid group rather than the glyceryl ester. Since all the double bonds, ester
groups, and carboxylic acid groups are removed in the Bio-SPK process, all fatty acid
derivatives lead to the same products: n-paraffins. These different types of fatty acid
derivatives are exemplified in
Figure 1-4 for fatty acid derivatives with 18 carbons per fatty acid chain. In this example
the portion of the molecule that remains after deoxygenation to become an n-paraffin is
highlighted in red. The figure begins with a fully saturated (no double bonds) free fatty
acid known commonly as stearic acid. For the next derivative the acid group is replaced
with a methoxy group becoming a fatty acid methyl ester, or FAME, commonly known
as biodiesel. In the next derivative the saturated C18 fatty acid chains are bonded to a
glycerol molecule to form a triglyceride. The next two derivatives have double bonds and
are commonly known as oleic and linolenic acid respectively. The final example shows a
variety of C18 fatty acids with different amounts of double bonds attached to a glycerol
molecule. A diglyceride and monoglyceride are shown as the final two molecules. As the
schematic shows, these features that form the different derivatives - amount of double
bonds and type of oxygen functional group - are removed during the deoxygenation
stage. This stage results in the same product, an n-paraffin. As described in a later
section, the n-paraffin product has the same number of carbons as the original fatty acid
chain or one carbon less depending on the deoxygenation mechanism.

Version 3.0
PAGE 15 of 137
O
OH
Stearic Acid (C18)
O
CH3
Methyl stearate (FAME) (C18)
O O
O
Oleic Acids (C18) in

triglyceride structure
O
O
H3C
H
CH4
O
OH
Oleic Acid (C18)
CH3
O
H
O
O
OH
Linolenic Acid (C18)

Deoxygenation
(Hydrotreating)
n-paraffin
O
O
O
Various Acids (C18) in

triglyceride structure
H2
O
O
HO
Diglyceride
O
O
O
HO
Monoglyceride
HO
Figure 1-4. Examples of C18 Fatty Acid Derivatives as Feeds for the HRJ Process
1.3.4.1
Hydroprocessing FT Waxes and Renewable Fats and

Oils to Produce SPK
Hydroprocessing is a term describing catalytic processes that use hydrogen as a
reactant to improve fuel quality and yields. Hydroprocessing consists of two main
processes typically called hydrotreating and hydrocracking. In hydrotreating, hydrogen is
used to saturate olefins and remove heteroatoms contaminants from hydrocarbons. The
technology is used widely in petroleum refineries to remove primarily sulfur and nitrogen
from petroleum feeds. At the more severe hydrocracking conditions, hydrogen is used to
crack heavy components to fuel-range components. Hydrocracking increases the quality
and yield of distillate fuels by cracking large molecules into the diesel and jet range.
Hydroprocessing is also the key technology for the production of high quality SPK due to
the saturation of the double bonds and the removal of heteroatoms resulting in a highly
pure hydrocarbon fuel. As defined above SPK can be produced from both FT 3 and Bio-

Version 3.0
PAGE 16 of 137
SPK feeds through similar hydroprocesses. A general comparison of the two

hydroprocessing pathways is provided in Figure 1-5 to show how SPK is produced from
different feeds using similar hydroprocessing technology.
Pretreatment
(Degumming/
Bleaching)
Plant Oils
Animal Fats
Carbon
Hydrogen
Other
Gasification
CO
H2
FischerTropsch
n-paraffins
(C15 -C20 )
(C8-C22
Future)
Hydrotreating
Isomerization/
Selective
Hydrocracking
Light
Gases
Naphtha
Bio-SPK
Route
FT
Route
n-Paraffins
isomerized to
improve cold-flow
properties
Large molecules
cracked to jet
range
Oxygen
Removed
Olefins
Saturated
n-Paraffins
Alpha-olefins
Oxygenates
(Alcohols,
Carbonyls,
Carboxylic
Acids)
Hydrotreating
n-paraffins
(C11 -C22
Distillate)
(>C22 Wax)
Isomerization/
Selective
Hydrocracking
Fractionation
Biomass
Coal
Natural Gas
Triglycerides
(Esters)
Free Fatty
Acids
(Carboxylic
Acids)
Paraffinic
Kerosene
(FT SPK or
HRJ SPK)
Paraffinic
Diesel
(FT Diesel
or HR
Diesel)
Hydroprocessing
Figure 1-5. Comparison of Processes to Produce SPK
In existing commercial gasification FT pathways (lower section of Figure 1-5),

coal and natural gas are used as feeds to produce syngas, which after clean-up is
converted to a waxy product through FT synthesis. The as-produced FT product contains
mostly n-paraffins along with olefins and oxygenates. The olefins and oxygenates in FT
wax are hydrotreated to produce saturated normal paraffins. However, hydrotreating
alone produces a wide boiling point distribution containing molecules that are typically
too large for jet fuel or SPK. Further hydroprocessing (hydrocracking/isomerization)
followed by a fractionation is often required to produce a suitable jet fuel. The production
of FT-derived kerosene-range isoparaffinic product also requires hydrocracking to
convert long paraffins into the jet range followed by fractionation to remove light and
heavy side products. The upper portion of Figure 1-5 shows that olefins present in
pretreated animal fats and plant oils are also saturated in the deoxygenation, or
hydrotreating, stage of the hydroprocessing unit to produce an n-paraffin rich product.
The Bio-SPK process differs from the FT process here since the carbon distribution of the
n-paraffins produced from most fats and oils is usually much narrower than that of the
wax produced by FT synthesis. As a result, the deoxygenated product is in the dieselrange. Similar to the FT-SPK process further hydroprocessing is required in Bio-SPK
process to produce jet range paraffins.
Version 3.0
PAGE 17 of 137
Because the final processing steps in both SPK pathways include

hydroisomerization and hydrocracking of n-paraffins, the SPK produced from renewable
feedstocks has properties similar to the paraffinic fuels produced by a gasification-FT
route.
1.3.4.2
Hydrotreating: Hydrogenation and Deoxygenation of

FT Waxes and the Fatty Acid Derivatives in Animal
Fats and Plant Oils
The primary heteroatom in FT waxes, animal fats, and plant oils is oxygen. Many
of these feedstocks also contain olefins in a range of concentrations dependent upon the
FT process or source of animal fat and plant oil. A hydrotreating process can remove the
oxygen in such feedstocks and saturate the double bonds to produce a product composed
primarily of n-paraffins. Fischer-Tropsch waxes are composed predominantly of straightchain hydrocarbons with various amounts of oxygenates and olefins 4,5. The
concentrations of olefins and oxygenates are dependent on the FT process and can
therefore vary from about 1-10%. The oxygenates are predominantly alcohols with lesser
amounts of carbonyls and carboxylic acids. The FT process also impacts the carbon chain
length of the straight chain process to produce a carbon number range that can vary from
C5 to greater than C22 (in a low temperature FT process).
The composition of animal fats and plant oils were described previously. The
length of the fatty acid chains (carbon number) varies among feedstocks, as does the
number and positions of double bonds (degree of unsaturation). These features are the
key differentiators between different sources of pretreated feedstocks (e.g., Camelina
versus Palm Oil). Almost all fatty acid chains have even numbered carbon chains. All the
fatty acids contain oxygen atoms. Examples of the characteristics of some different
feedstocks are shown in Table 1-1. Most natural oils have 18 carbons in the majority of
fatty acid chains, with 16 carbons as the second most abundant fatty acid chain. Some
oils also contain significant amounts of C20 and C22 carbon chain lengths.
Wt % Fatty Acid Composition Examples
8:0 10:0 12:0 14.0
16.0
18.0
18:1
18:2
18:3
20:0
20
14.115.3
5.35.6
6
7
3.79.8
2.32.7
2
41
34.345.8
14.016.9
15
31
29.044.2
13.5
16.5
16
34.939.7
39
1.21.5
0
1
20:1 20:2 20:3 22:0 Other Source
Feedstock Natural Oil

Jatropha Curcas
Jatropha Curcas
Camelina Oil
Camelina Oil
Akintayo 6
Gubitz et al. 7
15.1- 1.715.8 2.0
16
2
1.31.7
1
Algal Oil
22
49
10
12
Yellow Grease
17
10
56
10
26
31
31
Myristic
Palmitic
Stearic
Oleic
Linoleic
Linolenic
Arachidic
Gondoic
Eicosadienoic
Eicosatrienoic
Beef Tallow
Abramovic et al. 8
Abramovic et al.8
1
UOP Data
UOP Data
Baileys 9
Erucic
Lauric
Capric
Caprylic
Caproic
Fatty Acid Prefix
2.63.0
4
Table 1-1. Examples of the Fatty Acid Distribution of Different HRJ Feedstocks

Version 3.0
PAGE 18 of 137
When the SPK feeds, including FT paraffins, animal fats and plant oils are
hydrotreated to paraffins, oxygen atoms are removed. In the case of fatty acid derivatives,
the deoxygenation is known to occur through competing mechanisms: decarboxylation
(DeCOx) and hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) as shown in Figure 1-6.
CH 3
HO
CH 3
Fatty Acid Derivative
CH 3
O
CH 3
H2
+
Catalyst
DeCOx
H 3C
CH 3
H 3C
CH 3
H 3C
CH 3
H 3C
CH 3
+
n-Paraffinic
Product
CO + CO 2
HDO
H 3C
CH 3
CH 3
CH 3
H 3C
H 3C
H 3C
H 3C
+
H2O +
Figure 1-6. Competing Deoxygenation Mechanisms for the Production of n-Paraffins
One carbon is removed and lost in the DeCOx reaction producing COx and a
paraffin chain with an odd number of carbon atoms. Hydrogen is a reactant in the
hydrodeoxygenation pathway (shown to the right in Figure 1-5) to produce water and a
long-chain paraffin with the same even number of carbons as found in the fatty acid chain
of the feed. The glycerol portion of a TAG (triacylglycerol) molecule is converted to
propane. The hydrogenation of the double bonds occurs independently of the
deoxygenation mechanism to produce a hydrogen-saturated straight-chain paraffin
product. The final paraffin product after hydrotreating has a carbon-number composition
very similar to the paraffin distribution in the FT feed or the fatty acid carbon-number
distribution of the starting animal fat or plant oil. Hydrotreating of FT products produces
an n-paraffin product whose carbon chain length distribution is similar to the feed
distribution. The feed distribution can vary widely depending on the FT process used, for
example, a low temperature versus high temperature FT process. Hydrotreating of most
plant oils and animal fats produces a narrower n-paraffin product distribution ranging
from nC15-nC22 with the major peaks being nC17-nC18, a product in the diesel fuel range
but too heavy for jet fuel. Further hydroprocessing is necessary to produce a jet range
SPK. Since the normal paraffin products of hydrotreating FT paraffins, animal fats, and
plant oils are straight chain paraffins too heavy for jet fuel, hydrocracking is also
necessary to produce the final SPK product.
1.3.4.3
Cracking and Isomerization
The production of Bio-SPK and FT-SPK requires selective hydrocracking of the
n-paraffin product along with substantial isomerization to produce a SPK product with a
Version 3.0
PAGE 19 of 137
carbon chain distribution of approximately C9-C15. This step is called selective cracking
because overcracking will result in low yields to jet range paraffins and high yields of
light ends (C1-C4) and naphtha (C5-C8), both outside the jet fuel range. Isomerization is
also required to lower the freeze point.
1.3.4.4
Fractionation
The final paraffinic product of the Bio-SPK and FT-SPK routes is fractionated to
meet the boiling point distribution of SPK. The side products after fractionation include
light (low carbon number) and diesel range paraffins. The main control to meet key SPK
specification properties from different feedstocks is the severity of the selective
hydrocracking/hydroisomerization stage and fractionation. This combination controls the
distribution of paraffins in the SPK as well as the iso/normal ratio. The fraction cut will
also control the freeze point and flash point of the final fuel.
1.3.5
Process Overview of the Fuels Included in this Report

1.3.5.1
Energy & Environmental Research Center HRJ

Process Description
The Catalytic Hydrodeoxygenation and Isomerization (CHI) process developed
by Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) uses commercially available
petroleum-refining catalysts to convert triacylglyceride and/or free fatty acid feedstocks
to an isoparaffinic-rich SPK. The CHI process comprises hydrodeoxygenation to yield
normal paraffins, followed by isomerization and distillation to yield a jet fuel-grade SPK.
Feedstocks converted to specification-compliant SPK products via the CHI process
include oils from algae, camelina, canola, coconut, corn, crambe, cuphea, soy, waste
yellow and brown grease, tallow and various mixtures of these.
1.3.5.2
Syntroleum Bio-SPK Process Description
Bio-Synfining is a low capital cost process for producing high quality SPK
from bio-renewable feeds such as fats, greases and algae oils. In Bio-Synfining, fatty
acids and glycerides are converted to SPK in three steps. First, raw feedstocks are treated
to remove catalyst contaminants and water. In the second step, fatty acid chains are
transformed into n-paraffins in a hydrotreater. For most bio-oils, fats and greases, the
hydrotreater liquid product has mainly a C15-C18 n-paraffin composition. In the third step
of the process, these long straight-chain paraffins are hydrocracked into shorter branched
paraffins. The hydrocracked products fall mainly in the kerosene boiling range.

Version 3.0
PAGE 20 of 137
Figure 1-7. Bio-SynfiningTM SPK Process
As shown in the schematic flow diagram of Figure 1-7, the Bio-Synfining

configuration for SPK is a simple single-train hydroprocessing unit. Not shown in Figure
1-7 is feed pretreatment. Syntroleums pretreatment process removes 98+% of the metal
and phosphorus contaminants from fats and greases. The pretreated bio-feed is combined
with the hydrocracker effluent which acts as solvent/diluent for the exothermic
hydrotreater reactions. After separation from hydrogen and light hydrocarbons, the
reaction products are transferred to fractionation. Virtually all the hydrotreated fresh feed,
the C15-C18 n-paraffins, ends up with the heavies recycled to the hydrocracker. The
volumetric yield of SPK from bio-feed depends on severity of hydrocracking. The
process co-products, Bio-LPG and naphtha, are marketable commodities.
1.3.5.3
UOP Bio-SPK Process Description
The commercial development of UOPs process to produce Bio-SPK is still in
progress and is available for commercial license. Two reaction stages are employed to
produce a low freeze point Bio-SPK. A simplified block flow diagram of the process is
provided in Figure 1-8.

Version 3.0
PAGE 21 of 137
Figure 1-8. Simplified Overview of the UOP Process to Produce HRJ SPK
In this process, pressurized feedstock is mixed with hydrogen and then sent to a
catalytic deoxygenation, or hydrotreating reactor (R1) where the bio-renewable oil is
saturated and completely deoxygenated. Conversion of feed is complete and the
volumetric yield of deoxygenated hydrocarbon products is >100%. Selectivity to diesel
boiling-range paraffin is very high. The primary deoxygenation reaction byproducts are
propane, water and carbon dioxide. The effluent from R1 is immediately separated at
reactor pressure to remove carbon dioxide, water and low molecular weight
hydrocarbons. The resultant n-paraffin product is mixed with additional hydrogen gas and
then routed to an integrated catalytic selective cracking/isomerization, or hydrocracking
reactor, R2, wherein the diesel range normal paraffin feed is mildly cracked and
isomerized to maximize the yield of jet range isoparaffins. The highly isomerized product
is the key to achieving the stringent freeze point requirements of aviation turbine fuel.
The cracked and isomerized product is separated from excess hydrogen. The liquid
product is sent to the product recovery section of the process where distillation steps are
employed to maximize the yield of SPK while still meeting specification properties. Also,
this final step removes separate coproducts such as propane and naphtha. Depending on
the severity of the R2 reactor, high value renewable diesel is also produced and separated
in the distillation step.

Version 3.0
PAGE 22 of 137
2.0
Data Analysis
The Bio-SPK fuels and the data were provided by Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL), Boeing, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Energy &
Environmental Research Center (EERC), ENEOS, NESTE Oil, Sasol, Syntroleum, UOP
and The US Navy. Except otherwise specified, when talking about blends, it represents a
mixture of 50-50 (vol. %) biofuel/petroleum-based jet fuel.
Manufacturer
EERC
ENEOS
NESTE Oil
Sasol
Shell
Syntroleum
UOP
ID Number
EER-1
ENE-1
ENE-1B50
NES-1
SAS-GTL-1
SAS-GTL-2
SAS-IPK
SAS-GTL-1B50*
SAS-GTL-2B50*
SAS-IPKB50*
SHE-SPK
SHE-SPKB50M
SHE-SPKB50M*
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8B50
SYN-R-8B50M
SYN-R-8x
SYN-S-8
SYN-S-8B50
SYN-S-8B50M*
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-5
UOP-6
UOP-7
UOP-8
UOP-9
UOP-10
UOP-11
UOP-12
UOP-HRJ-5
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
UOP-SOL-1
Feedstock
Canola
Algae
Algae
Palm
Tallow
Tallow
Tallow
Halophyte
Camelina
Camelina-Jatropha-Algae
Jatropha
Jatropha-Algae
Camelina-Jatropha-Algae
Jatropha
Jatropha-Algae
Camelina
Coconut
Jatropha
Palm
Soy-1
Soy-2
Soy/Canola
Tallow
Camelina
Camelina
Algae
Process
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
FT-GTL
FT-GTL
FT
FT-GTL
FT-GTL
FT
FT-GTL
FT-GTL
FT-GTL
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
FT
FT
FT
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Bio-SPK
Jet Fuel
/
/
Jet A-1
/
/
/
/
Jet A
Jet A
Jet A-1
/
JP-8
JP-8
/
Jet A
JP-8
/
/
Jet A
JP-8
/
/
/
/
Jet A
Jet A-1
Jet A
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
JP-5
/
% (v) Biofuel or FT Blend

100
100
50
100
100
100
100
50
50
50
100
50
50
100
50
50
100
100
50
50
100
100
100
100
50
50
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
100
*Data from CRC project # AV-2-04a

FT-SPK 50% (v) blends approved
FT-SPK
Table 2-1. Identification of the Bio-SPK Jet Fuels Tested

Version 3.0
PAGE 23 of 137
2.1
Relevance of the Comparative Evaluation of Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuels
Just for comparison, all of the neat FT-SPK and Bio-SPK fuels used in this report
were compared to the specifications of ASTM D1655-08a 10, Standard Specification for
Aviation Turbine Fuels (see Table 2-30). The neat and the 50% (v) FT-SPK and BioSPK blends used in this report (see Table 2-1) were compared to the property tables
outlined in ASTM D7566-09 11, Standard Specifications for Aviation Turbine Fuels
Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons (see below Table 2-2 through Table 2-5) for the
up to 50% (v) SPK blends and the 100% SPKs. Data on each individual fuel will be
provided in later sections. Many of the tests were performed by different independent
laboratories. Most of the fit-for-purpose tests have been performed on the neat Bio-SPK
fuels as well, even though the approval is only sought for 50-50% (v) Bio-SPK-Jet A/Jet
A-1 blends. Also included in this report is data on FT-SPKs, displayed on the same
graphs as the Bio-SPK samples. The majority of the data on FT-SPK fuels were run using
the same test methods used for the Bio-SPKs so that the data could be compared directly.
Otherwise the data were extracted from the CRC report No. AV-2-04a 12, Comparative
Evaluation of Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuels.
Table 2-2. From ASTM D7566: Detailed Requirements of Aviation Turbine Fuels Containing
Synthesized Hydrocarbons, TABLE 1, Part 1

Version 3.0
PAGE 24 of 137
Table 2-3. From ASTM D7566: Detailed Requirements of Aviation Turbine Fuels Containing
Synthesized Hydrocarbons, TABLE 1, Part 2
Table 2-4. From ASTM D7566: Detailed Batch Requirements; Hydroprocessed SPK, TABLE A1.1
Table 2-5. From ASTM D7566: Other Detailed Requirements; Hydroprocessed SPK, TABLE A1.2
The volume percent of Bio-SPK in the jet fuel blends was set to 50% (v). From
the data obtained on neat and blended jet fuels, it is possible to estimate some of the
properties of different synthetic fuel/petroleum-based jet fuel blends with different
volume ratio 13.

Version 3.0
PAGE 25 of 137
2.2
Fuel Properties
2.2.1
Chemistry
2.2.1.1
Hydrocarbon Chemistry
The determination of the different hydrocarbon types per ASTM D2425 14 test
method, using mass spectroscopy (MS), was done on the SPK samples. Eleven
hydrocarbon types can be determined with this test method, including paraffins (normal
and iso), non-condensed cycloparaffins, condensed dicycloparaffins, condensed
tricycloparaffins, alkylbenzenes, indanes or tetralins, or both, CnH2n-10 (indenes, etc.),
naphthalenes, CnH2n-14 (acenaphthenes, etc.), CnH2n-16 (acenaphthylenes, etc.), and
tricyclic aromatics. D2425 is a complicated method that was not originally developed for
synthetic fuels. The fuel samples were sent to several independent laboratories for
evaluation purpose. Some discrepancies were observed in the D2425 results. It is now
believed that in D2425 test method, the isoparaffins content contributes to the
cycloparaffins value due to a specific ion overlap. For comparison, some of the samples
were analyzed by two different gas chromatography techniques, GC and GCxGC, and
also by field ionization mass spectrometry (FIMS). The results are shown in Table 2-6.
Analytical Method
Paraffins (n + iso)
Cycloparaffins
Aromatics
GCxGC
wt. %
92.29
7.70
0.02
FIMS
vol. %
91.70
8.2
0.00
D2425
vol. %
75.80
24.2
0.00
Table 2-6. Method Cross-Comparison of Hydrocarbon Types for a Camelina Derived SPK
After some investigation, it was found that all the laboratories were not using the
same calibration procedure and that it was impacting the results. A new calibration
procedure appropriate for hydrocarbon analysis was subsequently proposed and is
currently being validated. In the meantime, the reader should be aware that the
cycloparaffins results for D2425 are anomalously high for SPK samples.
The aromatic content of the jet fuels was measured following ASTM D1319 15 test
method using a glass adsorption column packed with activated silica and silica gel,
containing fluorescent dyes. The hydrocarbons are separated in accordance with their
adsorption affinities. Aromatic content could also be determined by High Performance
Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) following ASTM D6379 16. High-resolution nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR), with 1H and 13C nuclei, was also used to determine the
aromatic content, per ASTM D5292 17.
2.2.1.1.1
Neat SPKs
Table 2-7 shows a compilation of the data obtained with the different methods
described above.

Version 3.0
PAGE 26 of 137
Method
D 1319
D 5292, D2425, *D6379
D 2425,
** difference from D1319
D2425
GCxGC
Description
Aromatics
Aromatics
Unit
vol %
mass %
Paraffins
mass %
Monocycloparaffins
Dicycloparaffins
Tricycloparaffins
Alkylbenzenes
Indanes/Tetralins
Indenes
Naphthalenes
Acenaphthenes
Acenaphthalenes
Tricyclic Aromatics
GC x GC Summary
n-paraffins
isoparaffins
cycloparaffins
aromatics
mononaphthenes
dinaphthenes
Total Naphthenes
Total Aromatics, cal'd vol %
Total Naphthenes, cal'd vol %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
vol %
vol %
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
UOP
3
0.0
0.0
96.9
96.2**
10.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
4
0.0
0.0
96.9
95.9**
10.6
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
10.28
79.93
9.78
0.016
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
19.63
79.36
0.94
0.07
1.903
0.394
2.297
0.00
2.2
12.07
85.49
N/A
0.007
1.997
0.433
2.430
0.01
2.3
1
0.3
0.1
98.6
87.1**
2
0.0
0.1
87.1**
8.8
12.8
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
10.83
81.50
7.660
0.020
7.962
1.420
9.382
0.02
8.8
HRJ-5
<0.2*
91
8
1
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
EER
1
0.2
1.03
80.6
99.3**
GTL-1
0#
-
SAS
GTL-2
0#
-
IPK
0.5
-
SHE
SPK
0.2#
-
R-8
0.0
-
SYN
R-8x
0.7
-
S-8
0#
-
92.0
97.4
97.4
96.0
90.2
87.9
91.0
18.4
7.7
2.6
2.6
4.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
8.9
<1
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
11.2
<1
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
9.0
<1
<1
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
From reference # 12
FT-SPK
Table 2-7. Breakdown of Hydrocarbon Types for Neat SPK Jet Fuels
The previous table shows that the neat Bio-SPKs are mostly composed of iso-paraffins and have extremely low aromatics
content. Camelina-based SPKs contain about twice as much cyclo-paraffins than the other SPKs.

Version 3.0
PAGE 27 of 137
100
90
80
70
Mass %
60
50
40
30
20
10
SA
SG
TL
SA
-1
*
SG
TL
-2
*
SA
SIP
K*
SH
EG
TL
*
SY
N
-S
-8
SA
*
SG
TL
SA
-1
SG
TL
-2
SH
EG
TL
SY
N
-S
-8
EE
R
-1
SY
N
-R
-8
SY
N
-R
-8
x
U
O
P1
U
O
P2
U
O
P3
U
O
PU
4
O
PH
R
J5
FT-SPK
FT-SPK or Bio-SPK Jet Fuel
(iso+n) Paraffin
cyclo-Paraffin
iso-Paraffin
n-Paraffin
* identifies data from CRC project #AV-2-04a. GCxGC data for the UOP-1 to UOP-4
Figure 2-1. Carbon Chemistry of Neat FT and Bio-SPKs.
The carbon chemistry of several neat FT-SPKs and Bio-SPKs is shown in Figure
2-1 whereas Table 2-8 shows the ratio of branched paraffins (i) over normal paraffins (n)
in the SPK samples.
SAS
SHE
SYN
UOP
Sample
i/n
GTL-1*
GTL-2*
IPK*
GTL*
S-8*
0.4
2.8
72.9
1.3
4.8
8.0
8.4
8.7
7.2
* identifies data from CRC project #AV-2-04a

FT-SPK
Table 2-8. Analysis of Neat SPK Samples.
The Bio-SPKs are very consistent and are mainly composed of iso-paraffins. This
is further illustrated in Figure 2-2. The paraffins chain length of the neat UOP-1 to UOP4 Bio-SPKs varies from C9 to C15 with a majority of iso-paraffins.

Version 3.0
PAGE 28 of 137
25
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
20
Wt. %
15
10
-1
7
n17
is
o18
n16
is
o
-1
5
n15
is
o
-1
6
n14
is
o
-1
4
n13
is
o
-1
2
n12
is
o
-1
3
n11
is
o
-1
0
is
o
n10
is
o
-1
1
-9
n9
is
o
-8
n8
is
o
n7
Carbon distribution
Figure 2-2. Carbon Chain Distribution of Neat Bio-SPK Samples
CHN analysis per ASTM D5291 18 was performed on the neat SPK samples.
Table 2-9 shows the CHN elemental analysis results. The Bio-SPK samples are pure
hydrocarbons with a high level of saturation. Hydrogen content can also be determined
by low resolution NMR following the ASTM D3701 19 test method.
%C
%H
% H*
%N
% C+% H
C/H
GTL-1
84.7
15.5
15.2
100.2
5.5
SAS
GTL-2
84.5
15.4
15.5
99.9
5.5
SHE
SPK
85.0
15.7
15.5
100.7
5.4
IPK
84.3
15.4
15.6
99.7
5.5
R-8
86.3
14.1
N/A
100.4
6.1
SYN
R-8x
84.9
15.3
N/A
100.2
5.5
S-8
84.0
15.6
15.2
99.6
5.4
1
85.4
15.1
N/A
<0.10
100.5
5.7
2
85.0
15.0
15.2
<0.10
100
5.7
UOP
3
85.4
15.5
15.3
<0.10
100.9
5.5
4
85.7
15.1
15.4
<0.10
100.8
5.7
HRJ-5
84.5
15.5
N/A
100
5.5
* ASTM D3701 test method

FT-SPK
Table 2-9. ASTM-D5291 Analysis of Neat SPK Samples
2.2.1.1.2
Method
Description
Unit
D 1319
D 1319
IP 156
IP 156
D 1840
Aromatics
Olefins
1-ring aromatics
2-ring aromatics
Naphthalenes
Vol. %
Vol. %
Mass %
Mass %
Vol. %
SAS
IPK-B50
11#
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.63#
SHE
SPK-B50M
8.7#
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50% (v) SPK Blends

SYN
R-8B50M
S-8B50M
9.7
8.3#
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2B50
8.9
0.7
10.1
2.0
1.28
3B50
8.8*
0.7
12.3
0.7
0.44
UOP
4B50
9.2
0.5
12.2
0.4
0.25
HRJ-5B50M
11.0
1.10
N/A
N/A
0.7
* IP 156
#
From reference # 12
Table 2-10. Hydrocarbon Chemistry of B50 Fuels

Version 3.0
PAGE 29 of 137
Description
Paraffins
Monocycloparaffins
Dicycloparaffins
Tricycloparaffins
TOTAL SATURATES
Alkylbenzenes
Indanes/Tetralins
Indenes
Naphthalene
Naphthalene, Alkyl
Acenaphthenes
Acenaphthylenes
Tricyclic Aromatics
TOTAL AROMATICS
Method
Unit
D2425
mass%
UOP-2B50
58.1
16.5
11.2
2.9
88.7
5.3
3.0
0.6
0.4
1.6
0.2
0.2
0.0
11.3
UOP-3B50
63.5
24.6
0.0
0.0
88.1
7.3
3.5
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.0
11.9
UOP-4B50
64.50
24.90
0.00
0.00
89.40
6.40
3.40
0.00
0.30
0.30
0.10
0.10
0.00
10.60
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
62.70
23.50
0.00
0.00
86.20
8.10
3.90
0.20
0.40
1.00
0.10
0.20
0.00
13.90
Table 2-11. Hydrocarbon Types by ASTM D2425
ASTM D2425 is a complicated method that was not originally developed for synthetic
fuels. Some discrepancies were observed in the D2425 and GCxGC results. D2425
results are higher (in red in the previous table) than the real values for cycloparaffins. It is
now believed that in D2425 test method, the isoparaffins content contributes to the
cycloparaffins value due to a specific ion overlap (see 2.2.1.1 for more information).
Results obtained by GCxGC are shown in Table 2-6 and Table 2-32.
When blended up to 50% (v) with petroleum-based jet fuels, the Bio-SPK blends
have essentially the same physical properties and the same carbon distribution as typical
jet fuels.
2.2.1.2
Trace Materials
The amount of oxygen containing species is very low in the Bio-SPKs. It was
quantified by UOP-730 method 20. Otherwise, organic carbonyls can be determined
photometrically per ASTM E 411 test method 21. For alcohols determination, UOP 656 or
EPA 8015B test methods were used. For phenols, EPA 8270C test method and for esters
EPA 8260B test methods were used. For inorganics characterization, ASTM D4629 22 test
method allows determination of the trace total nitrogen naturally found in liquid
hydrocarbons by thermal oxidation. For Trace Elements analysis (Cu, Zn, Fe, Va, Ca,
Li, Pb, P, Na, Mn, Mg, K, Ni, Si), the Bio-SPK samples were analyzed by ICP-AES
(inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy) following the ASTM
D7111 23 or UOP-389 test method. The inductively coupled plasma is used to vaporize the
sample and produce ions and excited atoms that emit radiations that are characteristic of
each element. The intensity of the emission will be proportional to the concentration of
the particular element. For copper content determination, it is also possible to use atomic
absorption spectrometry per the ASTM D6732 24 test method.
Method
EPA 8015B
EPA 8260B
EPA 8270C
Description
Alcohols
Carbonyls, Esters
Phenols
Unit
ppm
ppm
ppm
SYN
R-8
<5
<1
<50
R-8x
<5
<1
<50
HRJ-5
Not detected
4.2ppm
Not detected
UOP
HRJ-5B50M
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Table 2-12. Organic Trace Materials

Version 3.0
PAGE 30 of 137
2.2.1.2.1
From Table A1.2 of ASTM D7566
Method
Description
Hydrocarbon Composition
D2425
Cycloparaffins
D2425
Aromatics
D2425
Paraffins
D5291
Carbon and Hydrogen
No-hydrocarbon Composition
D4629
Nitrogen
D6304
Water
D5453
Sulfur
D2622
Sulfur
UOP 389
Metals
D7359
Halogens
Additional Data
D3227
UOP
U304I
D3703
D381
D1840
D7359
D7359
Mercaptan sulfur
Oxygen
Bromine Index
Peroxide number
Existent gum
Naphthalenes
Chloride
Fluorine
Neat SPKs
Unit
HSPK
Limits
EER
1
GTL-1
SAS
GTL-2
IPK
SHE
SPK
R-8
SYN
R-8x
S-8
UOP
3
HRJ-5
mass %
mass %
mass %
mass %
15 (max)
0.5
report
99.5
18.4
1.03
80.6
100
N/A
N/A
92.0
100.2
N/A
N/A
97.4
99.9
N/A
N/A
97.4
99.7
N/A
N/A
96.0
100.7
8.90
0.9
90.20
100.44
11.2
0.9
87.9
100.2
<1
<0.23**
91.0
99.6
12.8
0.1
87.1
100.5
12.8
0.1*
87.1
100
3.8
0
96.2
100.9
4.1
0
95.9
100.8
8.6
<0.23
97.8
100.03
ppm
ppm
ppm
mass %
ppm
ppm
2 (max)
75 (max)
15 (max)
0.0015 (max)
0.1 per metal
1
<1
2
<1
26
32
40
<1
0.6
0.6
<0.0003
N/A
N/A
<0.1 (See below, Table 2-14)
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
2
25
0.7
N/A
1
28
0.6
N/A
N/A
31
N/A
<0.0003
N/A
18
N/A
<0.0003
<1
22
0.6
N/A
<0.4
26.0
<0.10
<0.0001
<1
19.0
<0.01
0.0001
<0.4
32.0
<0.10
<0.0001
<0.4
34.0
<0.10
<0.0001
0.3
47
0.1
N/A
<0.1
0.1
N/A
N/A
<0.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
mass %
wt %
mg Br/100g
mg/kg
mg/100mL
Vol. %
mg/kg
mg/kg
0.003 (max)
<0.001*
<0.03
N/A
N/A
0.6#
0#
<0.1
<0.1
<0.0003*
<0.03
N/A
N/A
4.2#
0#
<0.1
0.1
0.000
0.000
<0.03
N/A
N/A
<1
0.33
N/A
N/A
0.000*
<0.03
N/A
N/A
0.6#
N/A
<0.1
<0.1
<0.0001
<0.03
11.0
<1.0A
<0.5B
<0.01
<0.1
N/A
<0.0001
<0.03
12.0
<0.1
0.5
<0.01
0.2
N/A
0.0001
<0.03
<10
<0.1
<0.5B
<0.01
<0.1
N/A
<0.0001
<0.03
<10
<1.0A
0.5B
<0.01
<0.1
N/A
<0.0001
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.5
0.00
N/A
N/A
<0.003
<0.01
45
1
<1
0.49
0.3
<0.1
0.0001*
<0.03
N/A
N/A
0.9#
N/A
<0.1
<0.1
0.0001*
<0.03
N/A
N/A
0.6#
N/A
<0.1
<0.1
N/A
N/A
<1
N/A
N/A
N/A
FT-SPK
A
Peroxide number by D2340
B
Existent gum by D381E
#
From reference # 12
* GCxGC
** D6379
Table 2-13. Chemical Analysis of Neat Bio-SPK Jet Fuels
From Table 2-13, it can be seen that the neat SPKs contain ultra low amounts of sulfur or other heteroatoms.
The results of the metal analysis for the different neat SPK samples are shown in Table 2-14 and Table 2-15. ASTM D7566-09
requires metals analysis on 21 elements. For a majority of neat and blended SPKs, we obtained data on 25 different elements and the
data show that all the metal levels are below the maximum concentration limit.

Version 3.0
PAGE 31 of 137
Metals (ppm)
Aluminum
Barium*
Boron
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Palladium
Platinum
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicon*
Silver*
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
TOTAL UOP 389
EER
1
<0.01
N/A
N/A
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
<0.02
N/A
N/A
<0.01
<0.01
<0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
N/A
ENE
1
<0.1
N/A
N/A
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
N/A
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
N/A
N/A
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
N/A
GTL-1
<0.02
<0.1*
N/A
0.006
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.1*
<0.004
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.993*
<0.1*
<0.02
<0.004
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.006
SAS
GTL-2
0.04
<0.1*
N/A
0.044
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.06
0.125*
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.06
<0.02
<0.1*
<0.1*
0.03
<0.005
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0.23
IPK
0.02
<0.1*
N/A
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
0.122*
<0.003
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1*
<0.1*
0.01
<0.003
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.033
SHE
SPK
0.02
<0.1*
N/A
<0.003
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1
0.1*
<0.003
<0.01
<0.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.01
<0.003
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
R-8*
0.101*
<0.1*
N/A
<0.1*
<0.1*
N/A
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
N/A
N/A
N/A
<1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
1.3*
N/A
N/A
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
N/A
SYN
R-8x*
<0.086#
N/A
N/A
N/A
<0.9#
N/A
<0.006
<0.07#
<0.004
N/A
N/A
<0.008
<0.004
<0.008
N/A
N/A
<0.236#
N/A
N/A
<0.004
N/A
N/A
<0.006
<0.014
<0.004
<0.008
N/A
S-8
<0.01
<0.1*
N/A
0.013
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.107*
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1*
<0.1*
0.03
<0.003
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.069
1
<0.009
N/A
N/A
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
0.011
<0.009
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
N/A
N/A
<0.009
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
N/A
FT-SPK
* By ASTM D7111 test method
#
Elevated values due to matrix interference
N/A: Not Available
Table 2-14. Metal Analysis by ICP of Neat SPK Jet Fuels by UOP Method 389
Measured properties
Metals
Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb,, V, Zn
Alkali metals and metalloids
B, Na, K, Si, Li
Unit
Limit
UOP-HRJ-5
ppm
0.5 Total
0.08
ppm
1.0 Total
0.12
Table 2-15. Metal Analysis by ASTM D7111 of Neat SPK Jet Fuels

Version 3.0
PAGE 32 of 137
2
<0.009
N/A
N/A
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
0.075
<0.009
N/A
N/A
<0.009
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
N/A
UOP
3
<0.009
N/A
N/A
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
N/A
N/A
<0.009
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
N/A
4
<0.009
N/A
N/A
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.002
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
0.032
<0.009
N/A
N/A
<0.009
<0.002
<0.01
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
N/A
HRJ-5
N/A
N/A
0.01*
<0.01*
N/A
N/A
0.01*
0.01*
0.01*
<0.01*
0.01*
N/A
0.01*
0.01*
N/A
N/A
<0.01*
0.12*
<0.01*
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<0.01*
<0.01*
N/A
2.2.1.2.2
Method
D3242
D3227
D2622
D5453
UOP
D4629
D6304
D 381
D 3703
Description
Acidity
Sulfur, Mercaptan
Sulfur
Sulfur
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Water
Existent gum
Peroxide number
Unit
mg KOH/g
mass %
mass %
ppm
Wt. %
ppm
ppm
mg/100mL
ppm
SHE
SPKB50M
0.003#
<0.0003#
0.05#
N/A
N/A
N/A
<1#
N/A
50% (v) SPK Blends
R-8B50M
0.003
0.000
0.019
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
<1
N/A
SYN
S-8B50M
0.005#
0.00#
0.029#
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.6#
N/A
2B50
0.002
0.0003
0.0403
0.8
<0.03A
<1.0A
24.0A
<1
0.100
3B50
0.002
0.0004
<0.015
0.6
<0.03A
<1.0A
34.0A
1.0B
<1.0C
UOP
4B50
0.001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.6
<0.03A
<1.0A
25.0A
<1
<0.1
HRJ-5B50M
0.009
<0.0001
N/A
936.4
N/A
3.0
69
2.5
N/A

A
Analyzed at UOP
B
IP540
C
D2340 results
#
From reference # 12
Table 2-16. Trace Components in the B50 SPK Jet Fuels
The results for the metal analysis of the three Bio-SPKs used for the biofuel
demonstration flights are shown below in Table 2-17.
Metals (ppm)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Palladium
Platinum
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
UOP-2B50
<0.05
<0.1*
<0.05
<0.05
N/A
<0.05
0.48
<0.05
N/A
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
N/A
N/A
<0.05
<0.05
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.05
N/A
<0.05
N/A
<0.05
<0.05
UOP-3B50#
<0.01
<0.1*
<0.003
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
N/A
<0.003
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.01
<0.003
<0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
UOP-4B50
<0.05
<0.1*
<0.05
<0.05
N/A
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
N/A
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
N/A
N/A
<0.05
<0.05
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.05
N/A
<0.05
N/A
<0.05
<0.05
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
<0.1*
<0.1*
0.131*
<0.1*
N/A
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
N/A
N/A
N/A
<1*
0.597*
<0.1*
<1*
N/A
N/A
<0.1*
<0.1*
<0.1*
By UOP 389 method

* By ASTM D7111 test method
Table 2-17. Metal Analysis by ICP of the B50 Bio-SPK Jet Fuels
For comparison Table 2-18 illustrated the concentration of the metals that have
been measured in petroleum-based jet fuel.

Version 3.0
PAGE 33 of 137
Metals
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Niobium
Potassium
Scandium
Selenium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zirconium
JP-5* (ppb)
2144
9
5256
9
82
210
5
1056
10
6
ND
118
12
ND
70
450
48
35
3
14
Jet A (ppb)
ND
3
555
26
5
210
11
ND
6
ND
ND
ND
11
ND
12
1220
10
100
ND
16
JP-8 (ppb)
9360
38
31120
18
6
1144
10
5840
25
6
2
207
11
21
351
1690
102
1056
18
39
* JP-5 values shown are the higher of two JP-5 sample values.
ND = Not Detected
Table 2-18. Principal Elements Detected in Jet Fuels from US Navy Technical Report No. 1845 25
2.2.2
Bulk Physical and Performance Properties
2.2.2.1
Boiling Point Distribution
The boiling point distribution by distillation per ASTM D86 26 was performed on
all the samples and a comparison was made to data published in the CRC World Survey
for minimum and maximum values. For the simulated distillation data, GC (Gas
Chromatography) data were collected according to ASTM D2887 27.
2.2.2.1.1
SPK Fuel
EER-1
SAS-IPK*
SAS-GTL-1*
SAS-GTL-2*
SHE-GTL*
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
SYN-S-8*
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-6
UOP-7
UOP-8
UOP-9
UOP-11
UOP-12
UOP-HRJ-5
UOP-SOL-1
CRC World Fuel Survey*
Neat SPKs
T50 T10 (oC)
31
7
17
30
7
48
37
39
24
19
20
23
39
20
39
38
25
23
18
37
14 to 42
T90 T10 (oC)

66
29
40
60
22
85
84
89
64
62
59
69
89
51
57
79
59
54
40
95
55 to 85

FT-SPK
Table 2-19. Slope of the Boiling Point Curves for Neat SPKs
Version 3.0
PAGE 34 of 137
The boiling point distribution of the neat SPK fuels in Figure 2-3 shows that there
is a continuous distribution of hydrocarbons in these samples.
280
UOP-1
UOP-3
UOP-4
260
240
T ( C)
220
200
180
160
140
120
0
10
20
30
40
50
Mass %
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 2-3. BP Distribution of SPK Fuels by D2887
Table 2-20 contains D2887 values converted to D86 values as required in the
ASTM D7566 specification for aviation fuel containing synthesized hydrocarbons. Table
2-21 contains the actual D86 values. The values deviate the most at the ends of the BP
distributions.
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
164.5
167.9
167.9
171.8
175.7
188.3
200.6
210.8
226.6
241.6
254.9
164.1
163.1
164.4
168.7
173.3
186.6
203.2
216.7
233.2
245.2
256.1
(C)
Mass %
IBP
5
10
20
30
50
70
80
90
95
FBP
162.6
162.2
162.3
167.2
171.7
186.4
200.6
211.5
226.0
238.4
251.2
162.8
162.5
163.1
167.8
172.6
187.1
201.3
211.9
226.2
238.6
251.6
Table 2-20. Calculated D86 Values from D2887 Data for Neat Bio-SPKs
Mass %
IBP
5
10
15
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
FBP
EER-1
SYN-R8
SYN-R8x
UOP-1
N/A
N/A
173
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
204
N/A
N/A
N/A
239
N/A
254
156.4
171.7
177.7
181.8
188.3
196.8
207.1
217.5
227.7
238.7
250.5
263.0
270.9
273.9
153.6
167.2
171.5
175.9
180.5
189.0
199.3
208.8
219.0
229.5
241.1
255.6
266.0
267.9
N/A
N/A
163
N/A
167
N/A
N/A
183
N/A
N/A
N/A
224.5
N/A
242
UOP-2
(C)
N/A
N/A
165
N/A
169
N/A
N/A
184
N/A
N/A
N/A
226
N/A
248
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
UOP-SOL-1
N/A
N/A
168.5
N/A
171.5
N/A
N/A
186
N/A
N/A
N/A
225
N/A
248
N/A
N/A
165
N/A
168
N/A
N/A
184
N/A
N/A
N/A
232
N/A
248
192.0
198.5
200.5
203.0
205.0
208.5
212.5
218.0
222.0
227.0
233.0
240.0
245.5
255.5
130.9
N/A
164.9
N/A
172.8
N/A
N/A
201.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
259.6
N/A
296.7
Table 2-21. Actual D86 Results for 100% SPK Fuels

Version 3.0
PAGE 35 of 137
350
Spec Limit:
max 300oC at 100% recovery
300
Spec Limit:
Temperature ( C)
250
200
Specification LIMIT
SAS-IPK
SAS-GTL-1
SAS-GTL-2
SHE-GTL
SYN-S-8
EER-1
SOL-1
SYN-R8
SYN-R8x
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
150
CRC Project # AV-2-04a
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage Recovered
Figure 2-4. BP Distribution of Neat SPKs
2.2.2.1.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
350
Spec Limit:
300
Spec Limit:
Temperature ( C)
250
200
Specification LIMIT
Sasol IPK Jet A-1
Sasol GTL-1 Jet A
Sasol GTL-2 Jet A
Shell GTL JP-8
Syntroleum S-8 JP-8
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage Recovered
Figure 2-5. BP Distribution of SPK Blends

Version 3.0
PAGE 36 of 137
T50 T10 (oC)

22
32
14
17
36
33
29.5
19.9
23.5
17.2
14 to 42
SPK Fuel
SAS-GTL-1 / Jet A*
SAS-GTL-2 / Jet A*
SAS-IPK / Jet A-1*
SHE-GTL / JP-8*
SYN-S-8 / JP-8*
SYN-R-8B50M
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
CRC World Fuel Survey*
T90 T10 (oC)

68
70
49
45
83
77
69
56.5
57.5
43.8
55 to 85
Table 2-22. Slope of the Boiling Point Curves for 50% (v) SPK Blends
SAS
Description
10% recovered
50% recovered
90% recovered
Final boiling point
Distillation residue, %
Distillation loss, %
SHE
SYN
UOP
GTL-1B50*
GTL-2B50*
IPK-B50*
SPK-B50M*
R-8B50M
S-8B50M*
2B50
3B50
4B50
C
160
182
228
257
1.2
0.2
C
183
215
253
265
1.0
0.2
C
183
197
232
257
1.0
0.5
C
171
188
216
236
1.0
0.3
C
179
212
256
270
1.4
1.4
C
170
206
253
275
1.3
1.1
C
171.0
200.5
240.0
258.0
1.2
0.2
C
170.4
190.3
226.9
246.8
1.2
0.4
C
170.5
194.0
228.0
248.5
1.2
0.2

Table 2-23. BP Distribution of B50 SPK Blend Samples per ASTM D86
Temperature in oC
Initial Boiling Point
10 % Recover
20 % Recover
50 % Recover
90 % Recover
Final Boiling Point
UOP-3
157.6
168.2
171.6
184.3
228.4
239.1
Jet A-1
153.1
169.6
176.1
193.4
228.7
240.6
UOP-3B50
155.7
168.3
173.3
189.1
228.2
240.3
Table 2-24. BP Distribution of B100 and B50 Bio-SPK and Jet A-1 per ASTM D86

Version 3.0
PAGE 37 of 137
HRJ-5B50M
o
C
195.5
212.7
239.3
253.7
1.4
1.0
2.2.2.2
Vapor/Liquid Ratio
The temperature dependence of the true vapor pressure of several samples was
measured using ASTM D6378 28 test method.
2.2.2.2.1
Neat SPKs
6
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
5
Vapor Pressure (psia)
SAS-IPK
SYN-R-8
4
SYN-R8x
T-1, TS-1, Russian
Jet A, Jet A-1, JP-8

CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel
Properties - Jet A, Jet A-1, JP-8
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Temperature ( C)
Figure 2-6. Vapor Pressure vs. Temperature of Neat SPKs
UOP-HRJ-5 has a lower vapor pressure than typical Jet A; it was produced to meet the
JP-5 flash point specification.
2.2.2.2.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
5
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
4
Vapor Pressure (psia)
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
SYN-R-8B50
T-1, TS-1, Russian
CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel

Properties - Jet A, Jet A-1, JP-8
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Temperature ( C)
Figure 2-7. Vapor Pressure vs. Temperature of 50% (v) SPK blends

Version 3.0
PAGE 38 of 137
Vapor pressure of both FT-SPK and Bio-SPK jet fuels are very similar. Their values are
between the values published in the CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties for Jet
A, Jet A-1 and JP-8 and the value of a TS-1 Russian jet fuel 29. The data at low
temperatures are being investigated since it seems to deep below TS-1 values. Note that
FT-SPK and Bio-SPK jet fuels behave the same way. All samples of SPKs used in this
report (FT or Bio) are being retested along Jet A and TS-1 samples. Two independent
labs are running the tests of each sample. The results will be amended to this report as
soon as available.
2.2.2.3
Thermal Stability
The thermal stability of the Bio-SPKs was checked by fuel thermal stability test,
formerly known as JFTOT, ASTM D 3241 30 test method, Appendix X.2. The
breakpoint is the highest control temperature at which the fuel meets tube rating and
DP specification requirements.
2.2.2.3.1
Neat SPK Fuel
LIMIT
EER-1
SAS-GTL-1*
SAS-GTL-2*
SAS-IPK*
SAS-IPK
SHE-GTL*
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
SYN-R-8x
SYN-S-8*
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
UOP-SOL-1
Temperature, oC
325
325
260
260
260
340
260
340
260
260
260
340
340
340
340
340
260
Neat SPKs
Filter dP, mm Hg
25 (max)
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0.1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tube deposit
<3
2
<1
<1
<1
>2
1
>2
<2**
2A
1
<1
1
1
1
<2
<1
Pass/Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
Failed
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
* Data from CRC project # AV-2-04a

** Results were obtained at 345oC, which was determined to be the breakpoint of the fuel
FT-SPK
Table 2-25. Fuel Thermal Stability Tests of Neat Bio-SPKs and FT-SPKs
Note: Some of the fuel thermal stability tests were done before ASTM D7566
specification was published. Consequently, some of the results for FT-SPKs, SYN-R-8x
and UOP-SOL-1 are listed in the previous table with a temperature limit of 260oC per
ASTM D1655. It can be noted that breakpoints temperatures for FT-SPKs referenced in
the CRC project # AV-2-04a are >340oC or higher.
Per ATSM D7566-09, the fuel thermal stability minimum requirement for SPK is
325oC. Except for EER-1 where due to sample size limitation, the fuel thermal stability
test was run at 325oC, all fuel thermal stability tests of neat Bio-SPKs presented here
passed at 340oC. No attempt has been made to determine the breakpoint.
One of the samples of SYN-R-8x failed the test at 260oC due to abnormal
coloration. However, the initial test done by AFRL on the SYN-R-8x passed at 260oC,

Version 3.0
PAGE 39 of 137
with the tube deposit rating done at 345oC, which was determined to be the breakpoint of
the fuel (see Table 2-25).
2.2.2.3.2
Temperature, oC
260
260
260
260
260
260
260
300
290
300
265
Sample
LIMIT
SAS-GTL-1B50*
SAS-GTL-2B50*
SAS-IPK-B50*
SHE-GTL-B50M*
SYN-S-8B50M*
SYN-R-8B50M
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
50% (v) SPK Blends

Filter dP, mm Hg
25 (max)
0
<1
0
0
5
0
0.2
0
0
0
Tube deposit
<3
0
<1
<1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pass/Fail
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass

Table 2-26. Thermal Stability of Bio-SPK 50% (v) Jet Fuel Blends
All of the 50% (v) SPK blends passed the fuel thermal stability test at 260oC per ASTM
D 3241 (see Table 2-26).
2.2.2.4
Lubricity and Response to Lubricity Improver
The lubricity of the samples and the response to Corrosion Inhibitor/Lubricity
Improver additives was tested by BOCLE tests, ASTM D5001 31. The test assesses wear
aspects of the boundary lubrication properties of the sample on rubbing steel surfaces.
2.2.2.4.1
Neat SPKs
BOCLE Lubricity Rating (mm)
1.0
SAS-IPK
SHE-SPK
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
UOP-4
ASTM D1655 Limit
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0
10
15
20
Lubricity Additive Concentration (mg/L)
Figure 2-8. Lubricity of Neat SPKs and Response to CI/LI

Version 3.0
PAGE 40 of 137
2.2.2.4.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
BOCLE Lubricity Rating (mm)
0.9
0.8
SAS-GTL-1B50
SAS-GTL-2B50
SAS-IPKB50
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
ASTM D1655 Limit
0.7
0.6
0.5
0
10
15
20
Lubricity Additive Concentration (mg/L)
Figure 2-9. SPKs Response to CI/LI Additives
All the blended SPKs were below the maximum limit of 0.85 and their lubricity
rating was decreasing with increased concentration of CI/LI additive.
2.2.2.5
Viscosity vs. Temperature
The temperature dependence of the kinematic viscosity of the samples was
determined using a calibrated glass capillary viscometer, ASTM D445 32 test method. The
dynamic viscosity can be obtained by multiplying the kinematic viscosity by the density
of the sample.
2.2.2.5.1
Neat SPKs
Kinematic Viscosity (cSt)
100
SAS-IPK
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
SYN-S-8
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties
ASTM D1655 - Max at -20oC
10
0
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
Temperature ( C)
Figure 2-10. Temperature Dependence of the Kinematic Viscosity for Neat Bio-SPKs
Version 3.0
PAGE 41 of 137
2.2.2.5.2
50% (v) SPK blends
Kinematic Viscosity (cSt)
100
SYN-R8B50
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
SAS-GTL-2B50
SAS-IPK-B50
SHE-GTL-B50M
SAS-GTL-1B50
CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties
ASTM D1655 - Max at -20oC
10
0.1
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
Temperature ( C)
Figure 2-11. SPK Blends Viscosity vs. Temperature
The viscosity of the SPK fuels (neat or blend) is very similar than the viscosity of
petroleum-based jet fuels. All are below the limit of 8cSt at -20oC as limited per ASTM
D7566.
2.2.2.6
Specific Heat vs. Temperature
The temperature dependence of the specific heat capacity of the Bio-SPK samples
was obtained by using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) following ASTM test
method E1269 33. The difference in heat flow between the sample tested and a reference
material is continually monitored and recorded.
The specific heat capacity (Cp) was determined using Modulated Differential
Scanning Calorimetry (MDSC) on a TA Instruments Q200 MDSC for FT-SPK and BioSPK, 100% and 50% blends. Sapphire was used as the heat capacity calibration material.
All runs were performed at a ramp rate of 3C/min from -45C to approximately 155C,
using modulation parameters of 0.716 per 90 seconds. The specimens were run in
hermetically sealed aluminum pans. Also plotted on Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13 are data
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), data from CRC 34,39 and
one reference on Jet fuel found in the literature 35.
Some questions arise from the discrepancy of the specific heat capacity data seen
in the CRC handbook, the CRC fuel sampling program, and data generated by
independent labs. NIST, Boeing and The Fuels & Lubricants Department of the Swiss
Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA)35 have good
agreements in their test results and in their methodology, NIST being the reference in
quality of measurement and understanding of the measurements. All the DSC parameters
Version 3.0
PAGE 42 of 137
and calibrations are extensively checked, weight loss during the tests is checked and the
possible contribution of heat of vaporization has been checked. Also, it can be noted that
two different measurements done on two different control Jet A fuels done in 1996 by
EMPA (Thermochimica Acta, Volume 287, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 203-212) and in
November 2009 by Boeing agree very well (see Figure 2-12), and Cp values are higher
than the values reported by the CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties
It is difficult at this time to discuss about the validity of the data from the CRC
Fuel Sampling Program without having all the information in hand. However, we would
like to point out that when doing DSC or modulated DSC experiments a lot of parameters
have to be really well controlled. A modulated DSC if used correctly is a better
instrument that a typical DSC as it allows us to get the reversible and non-reversible heat
flow. A few examples of potential issues are listed below:
1. Temperature calibration correctly done
2. Correct heat capacity calibration (Sapphire)
3. Correct purge gas used to favors fast heat transfer to the pans. Helium is preferred
because of its high thermal conductivity so as to obtain maximum temperature
uniformity across the test specimen, hence enhancing the accuracy.
4. Weight matching of reference and sample pans to at least 0.1mg.
5. DSC run in the same conditions as calibration runs were done
6. Correctly sealed pan (it should be hermetically sealed; any weight loss will result
in an artificially low Cp. It is easily checked by measuring the weight of the
sample pan before and after experiment)
7. Is heat of vaporization affecting the results? This should be checked.
8. For modulated DSC, are we at steady state? i.e. are we using the correct
modulation parameters? The only way to check is to plot the Lissajous curves (see
the instrument manual for explanation)
9. Correct sample size, etc
The constant heating rate should be in the range 1-5oC/min. The maximum practical
heating rate for modulated DSC experiments is 5oC/min. The heating rate should ensure
at least four complete temperature oscillations (periods) over the temperature range of
each transition studied (recommendations from TA Instrument).
Lissajous Curves
The Lissajous plot of modulated heat flow versus modulated heating rate provides an
indication of whether the sample is able to follow the imposed temperature regime. The
Lissajous plot is useful in that it can provide diagnostic information concerning the
stability of the MDSC measurement.
All of the previous parameters have been checked in our experiments on the SPK
fuels.

Version 3.0
PAGE 43 of 137
2.2.2.6.1
Neat SPKs
3.0
CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties - Jet A / Jet A-1
CRC Fuel Sampling Program - Max
CRC Fuel Sampling Program - Min
Jet A
Jet Fuel, Ref: Zanier & Jackle, Thermochimica Acta 287 (1996) 203-212
EER-1
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
SYN-S-8
JP-8
-1
-1
Specific Heat (kJ.kg .K )
2.5
2.0
CRC - Fuel Sampling Program Range
1.5
1.0
-50
50
100
150
Temperature ( C)
Figure 2-12. Temperature Dependence of the Specific Heat Capacity of Neat SPKs
Sample
EER-1
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
SYN-S-8
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
-40C
2.035
2.011
2.052
Ave: 2.03
2.054
1.977
2.029
Ave: 2.02
2.092
2.055
2.074
Ave: 2.07
Ave: 2.16
1.924
1.965
1.956
Ave: 1.95
1.911
1.939
1.931
Ave: 1.93
1.957
1.914
1.996
Ave: 1.96
1.987
1.951
1.991
Ave: 1.98
2.068
1.996
2.120
Ave: 2.06
0C
2.144
2.110
2.168
Ave: 2.14
2.166
2.088
2.128
Ave: 2.13
2.216
2.168
2.181
Ave: 2.19
Ave: 2.27
2.043
2.078
2.074
Ave: 2.07
2.030
2.054
2.047
Ave: 2.04
2.065
2.025
2.102
Ave: 2.06
2.110
2.064
2.102
Ave: 2.09
2.174
2.122
2.251
Ave: 2.18
Cp, Specific Heat Capacity (J/g.C)

25C
50C
2.314
2.234
2.288
2.200
2.348
2.263
Ave: 2.32
Ave: 2.23
2.354
2.261
2.286
2.188
2.310
2.218
Ave: 2.32
Ave: 2.22
2.417
2.318
2.371
2.267
2.383
2.279
Ave: 2.39
Ave: 2.29
Ave: 2.34
Ave: 2.41
2.237
2.137
2.263
2.166
2.277
2.174
Ave: 2.26
Ave: 2.16
2.217
2.123
2.244
2.146
2.240
2.142
Ave: 2.23
Ave: 2.14
2.242
2.151
2.219
2.120
2.288
2.194
Ave: 2.25
Ave: 2.16
2.308
2.207
2.254
2.156
2.288
2.194
Ave: 2.28
Ave: 2.19
2.350
2.265
2.328
2.223
2.475
2.361
Ave: 2.38
Ave: 2.28
100C
2.477
2.457
2.493
Ave: 2.48
2.539
2.481
2.491
Ave: 2.50
2.614
2.568
2.572
Ave: 2.58
Ave: 2.56
2.431
2.449
2.478
Ave: 2.45
2.415
2.434
2.432
Ave: 2.43
2.442
2.406
2.467
Ave: 2.44
2.505
2.445
2.480
Ave: 2.48
2.534
2.528
2.692
Ave: 2.58
150C
2.666
2.624
2.673
Ave: 2.65
2.729
2.670
2.668
Ave: 2.69
2.809
2.775
2.764
Ave: 2.78
Ave: 2.70
2.568
2.631
2.663
Ave: 2.62
2.583
2.603
2.610
Ave: 2.60
2.619
2.571
2.643
Ave: 2.61
2.682
2.627
2.653
Ave: 2.65
2.727
2.728
2.897
Ave: 2.78
Equation
Cp = 0.0033*T + 2.1516
Cp = 0.0036*T + 2.1431
Cp = 0.0038*T + 2.2035
Cp = 0.0028*T + 2.2746
Cp = 0.0036*T + 2.0807
Cp = 0.0036*T + 2.0564
Cp = 0.0035*T + 2.0796
Cp = 0.0036*T + 2.1064
Cp = 0.0039*T + 2.1937
FT-SPK
Table 2-27. Reversing Cp for Neat SPKs

Version 3.0
PAGE 44 of 137
2.2.2.6.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
The test results of the Specific Heat Capacity of the 50% (v) SPK blends are
presented in Table 2-28 and Figure 2-13.
Sample
-40C
2.029
1.945
1.963
Ave: 1.98
1.946
1.909
1.851
Ave: 1.90
1.801
1.866
1.926
Ave: 1.86
1.856
1.998
1.944
Ave: 1.93
1.921
1.972
1.914
Ave: 1.94
SYN-R-8B50
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
Cp, Specific Heat Capacity (J/g.C)

0C
25C
50C
100C
2.507
2.320
2.223
2.132
2.426
2.241
2.144
2.054
2.404
2.232
2.141
2.057
Ave: 2.45
Ave: 2.26
Ave: 2.17
Ave: 2.08
2.437
2.245
2.147
2.056
2.394
2.205
2.110
2.017
2.390
2.186
2.081
1.976
Ave: 2.41
Ave: 2.21
Ave: 2.11
Ave: 2.02
2.309
2.119
2.018
1.919
2.389
2.189
2.087
1.987
2.455
2.252
2.148
2.045
Ave: 2.38
Ave: 2.19
Ave: 2.08
Ave: 1.98
2.407
2.205
2.094
1.989
2.498
2.304
2.205
2.111
2.448
2.255
2.157
2.059
Ave: 2.45
Ave: 2.25
Ave: 2.15
Ave: 2.05
2.438
2.239
2.140
2.044
2.506
2.309
2.204
2.102
2.385
2.211
2.121
2.027
Ave: 2.44
Ave: 2.25
Ave: 2.16
Ave: 2.06
150C
2.691
2.612
2.578
Ave: 2.63
2.619
2.574
2.584
Ave: 2.59
2.498
2.600
2.657
Ave: 2.59
2.613
2.698
2.644
Ave: 2.65
2.637
2.688
2.565
Ave: 2.63
Equation
Cp = 0.0035*T + 2.0953
Cp = 0.0037*T + 2.0305
Cp = 0.0039*T + 1.9949
Cp = 0.0039*T + 2.0637
Cp = 0.0037*T + 2.0720
Table 2-28. Reversing Cp for Blended SPKs

3.0
Jet A
SYN-R-8B50
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
Specific Heat (kJ.kg-1.K-1)
2.5
Jet Fuel, Ref: Zanier & Jackle, Thermochimica Acta 287 (1996) 203-212
CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties - Jet A / Jet A-1
CRC Fuel Sampling Program - Max
CRC Fuel Sampling Program - Min
2.0
CRC - Fuel Sampling Program Range
1.5
1.0
-50
50
100
150
Temperature (oC)
Figure 2-13. SPK Blends Specific Heat Capacity
The Cp values of the Bio-SPK blends are typically 2 to 6% higher than the Cp
values of the control Jet A (see Figure 2-13).
2.2.2.7
Density vs. Temperature
The density of each sample and their temperature dependence was measured
using a digital density analyzer per ASTM D4052 36 test method.

Version 3.0
PAGE 45 of 137
2.2.2.7.1
Neat SPKs
880
860
CRC Report #647

World Fuel Sampling Program
840
Density (kg/m3)
820
800
780
760
740
D1655 Limits @ 15oC

D7566 Limits @ 15oC
Jet A
Jet A-1
Jet A-1 Synth
JP-8
JP-5
SAS-IPK
SAS-GTL-1
SAS-GTL-2
SHE-GTL
SYN-S-8
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
SAS-IPK
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
SYN-S-8
720
700
-50
50
100
Temperature (oC)
Figure 2-14. Neat Bio-SPKs Density vs. Temperature
As seen in Figure 2-14, none of the neat SPKs meet the ASTM D1655 standards
for the density. But all of the neat SPKs do meet the density requirements for
hydroprocessed fuels per the new ASTM D7566-09 standard.
2.2.2.7.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
While density of the neat Bio-SPKs does not meet ASTM D1655 standards, the
50% (v) blends of Bio-SPK jet fuels meet the requirements. In Figure 2-15, we can see
that only two FT-SPK blends, reported in previous research reports, do not meet the
required density12.
880
CRC Report #647
World Fuel Sampling
860
840
Density (kg/m3)
820
800
780
D 1655 Limits at 15oC

Jet A
Jet A-1
Jet A-1 Synth
JP-8
JP-5
SAS-IPK-B50
SAS-GTL-1B50
SAS-GTL-2B50
SHE-GTL-B50M
SYN-S8B50M
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
SYN-R-8B50
760
740
720
-50
50
100
Temperature ( C)
Figure 2-15. SPK B50 Blends Density vs. Temperature

Version 3.0
PAGE 46 of 137
The density of the petroleum-based jet fuel used to obtain a SPK blend is very
important in order to meet the density specification, as it is illustrated in Figure 2-16.
0.860
D 1655 Limits at 15oC
Jet A-1
0.840
UOP-3B50
UOP-3
Density (g/cm )
0.820
0.800
0.780
0.760
0.740
0.720
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Temperature (oC)
Comparison is made between neat Bio-SPK, 50% (v) blend and Jet A-1 fuels used for one demonstration flight
Figure 2-16. Density vs. Temperature Graphs
When the components are fully miscible, the density of a solution is the sum of
the mass concentrations of the components of that solution. As a crude estimate,
assuming that we are mixing two ideal solutions, the density of the 50% (v) blended jet
fuel will be as a first approximation the average of the density of the two solutions mixed.
The density of all blended Bio-SPKs met ASTM D1655 specifications.
2.2.2.8
Surface Tension vs. Temperature
The temperature dependence of the surface tension was measured using a du
Nouy precision tensiometer following ASTM D1331 37.
2.2.2.8.1
Neat SPKs
Surface Tension (mN/m x 10^4)
30
25
20
SAS-IPK
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
UOP-HRJ-5
CRC World Fuel Survey - Average
CRC Hanbook of Aviation Fuel Properties - Jet A or Jet A-1
15
-40
-20
20
40
60
Temperature ( C)
Figure 2-17. Surface Tension vs. Temperature of Neat SPKs

Version 3.0
PAGE 47 of 137
2.2.2.8.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
30
Surface Tension (mN/m x 10^4)
29
28
27
26
25
24
UOP-2B50
23
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
22
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
CRC World Fuel Survey - Average
21
CRC Hanbook of Aviation Fuel Properties - Jet A or Jet A-1
20
-40
-20
20
40
60
Temperature ( C)
Figure 2-18. Surface Tension Characteristics of SPK Blends
All neat and blended SPKs have surface tension characteristics that are very
similar to typical petroleum-based jet fuels (see Figure 2-17 and Figure 2-18).
2.2.2.9
Bulk Modulus vs. Temperature
The isothermal secant bulk modulus KT of the Bio-SPK samples was measured
following ASTM D6793 38 test method. Several different temperature measurements were
made to investigate the temperature dependence of the bulk modulus. The bulk modulus,
usually labeled K, of a substance defines its resistance to uniform compression. In other
words it is a material property characterizing the compressibility of a fluid. It is defined
as the pressure increase needed to have a given decrease in volume. As an example,
suppose that a jet fuel with a bulk modulus of 1500 MPa has to be reduced in volume by
0.5%. This would require a pressure increase of 0.0051500 MPa = 7.5 MPa (~1,088
psi). A large bulk modulus indicates a relative incompressible fluid. Adiabatic (KS) and
isothermal (KT) tangent bulk modulus are related through the following equation:
K S CP
39
=
1.15 for jet fuels
KT CV
Where CP and CV are the heat capacity or the specific heat capacity at constant pressure
and constant volume respectively. Isothermal secant ( KT ) and tangent ( K T ) bulk
modulus are related through the following equation:
KT
K T ( K T P)
K To
Where K To is the isothermal secant bulk modulus at zero pressure (P), obtained by linear
extrapolation. In a fluid, with the bulk modulus K (Pa) and the density (kg/m3), we can
determine the speed of sound C (m/s) with the relationship C = K

Version 3.0
PAGE 48 of 137
This is a particularly important property to know for any airplane that has a Fuel
Quantity Indicating System (FQIS) operating with ultrasonic probes.
2.2.2.9.1
Neat SPKs
The isothermal tangent bulk modulus vs. temperature data for several 100% SPKs
are shown in Figure 2-19. The bulk modulus data presented in the CRC Handbook of
Aviation Fuels39 are adiabatic tangent bulk modulus values.
2300
2200
Isothermal Tangent Bulk Modulus, MPa
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
Jet A_30oC
1300
SAS-IPK_30oC
30oC
SYN-R-8_30oC
1200
Jet A_60oC
60 C
1100
SAS-IPK_60oC
1000
SYN-R-8_60oC
900
CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties:

JP-5, JP-8, Jet A, Jet A-1
800
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pressure, MPa
Figure 2-19. Isothermal Tangent Bulk Modulus vs. Temperature for Neat SPKs
2.2.2.9.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
The isothermal tangent bulk modulus vs. temperature data for several 50% (v)
blended SPKs are shown in Figure 2-20.
2300
2200
Isothermal Tangent Bulk Modulus, MPa
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
Jet A_30oC
1500
UOP-2B50_30oC
UOP-3B50_30oC
1400
30oC
1300
UOP-4B50_30oC
Jet A_60oC
1200
60oC
UOP-2B50_60oC
1100
UOP-3B50_60oC
1000
UOP-4B50_60oC
900
CRC Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties:

JP-5, JP-8, Jet A, Jet A-1
800
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pressure, MPa
Figure 2-20. Isothermal Tangent Bulk Modulus vs. Temperature for SPK Blends

Version 3.0
PAGE 49 of 137
The bulk modulus values in Figure 2-19 and Figure 2-20 are slightly higher than
the values for jet fuels (JP-5, JP-8, Jet A and Jet A-1) referenced in the CRC Handbook
of Aviation Fuel Properties39. Nevertheless since the control Jet A used in the
experiments has the characteristics of a typical Jet A fuel, it is possible to draw
conclusions from this test. Calculated speed of sound values for several SPKs are
presented in Table 2-29. The calculated values of speed of sound in SPKs are similar to
the one in the control Jet A (1,314 m/s @ 30oC).
[K (MPa) = a * P (MPa) + b]
Isothermal Tangent Bulk Modulus
data @ 1atm (~0.1013MPa)
Bulk Modulus (30oC), MPa
Density equation, kg/m3
Density (30oC), kg/m3
Speed of sound in fuel @ 30oC, m/s
Bulk Modulus (60oC), MPa
Density (60oC), kg/m3
Speed of sound in fuel @ 60oC, m/s
SAS
SYN
IPK
R-8
2B50
3B50
1381
1258
1337
1358
1340
1347
-0.7308x +
821.7*
-0.7308x +
821.7*
y = -0.6644x +
771.6
-0.6975x + 773.7
-0.7387x + 800.1
-0.748x + 790.7
-0.7414x + 790.8
800
1117
872
778
1059
800
1314
1223
778
1254
752
1293
1027
732
1184
753
1333
1139
732
1247
778
1322
1163
756
1240
768
1321
1116
746
1224
769
1323
1142
746
1238
Jet A
CRC
Jet A
Control
998
UOP
4B50
* From CRC - World Fuel Sampling Program, for a typical Jet A, D=800 kg/m3 at 30oC and D=778 kg/m3 at 60oC
FT-SPK
Table 2-29. Speed of Sound in the SPKs
2.2.2.10 Water Solubility vs. Temperature

For several samples, the water solubility and its temperature dependence was
studied by coulometric Karl Fischer titration. See ASTM D6304 40. The fuels were
saturated with water at 0oC, 5oC, room temperature and 50oC.
2.2.2.10.1
Neat SPKs
400
Jet A-1
UOP-2
Water Content (saturation) (ppm)
350
Jet A
Jet A-1
JP- 8
UOP-3
UOP-4
300
UOP-HRJ-5
CRC hanbook of Aviation Fuel Properties
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Temperature (oC)
Figure 2-21. Neat Bio-SPKs, Water Solubility vs. Temperature
As expected, due to their chemical composition (i.e. non-polar alkanes and very
low aromatic concentration), the neat Bio-SPKs should have a lower saturation point than
a typical petroleum-based jet fuel. A test on a control Jet A-1 was run in the same
conditions (see Figure 2-21).
Version 3.0
PAGE 50 of 137
2.2.2.10.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
400
Jet A-1
Water Content (saturation) (ppm)
350
UOP-2B50
Jet A
Jet A-1
JP- 8
UOP-3B50
300
UOP-4B50
250
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Temperature (oC)
Figure 2-22. 50 % (v) Bio-SPK Blends, Water Solubility vs. Temperature
When blended at 50% (v), the Bio-SPK blends were shown to have a slightly
lower saturation point than a typical petroleum-based jet fuel at higher temperature (see
Figure 2-22). At Lower temperature, saturation points are about the same. The similar
behavior was expected as the blended fuels contain 50% (v) of petroleum-based jet fuel.
2.2.2.11 Solubility of Air
The majority of air (over 99%) is composed of oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2),
therefore, the solubility of air in jet fuel can be examined by looking at the solubility of
O2 and N2 in the jet fuel. Per the fit-for-purpose requirements, both the temperature
dependence of the true vapor pressure of the jet fuel, see paragraph 2.2.2.2, and the
temperature dependence of the density of the jet fuel, see paragraph 2.2.2.7, need to be
known. With these data, it is possible to calculate the Ostwald and Bunsen coefficients to
estimate the solubility of O2 and N2 gases vs. temperature in the Bio-SPK jet fuels,
following ASTM D 2779 41 test method.
2.2.2.11.1
Neat SPKs
Ostwald and Bunsen coefficients vary with temperature and density. The
solubility of the gas depends on pressure. The solubility of O2 and N2 gases in neat SPKs
is presented in Figure 2-23. Since the density of neat SPKs is lower than the density of
typical petroleum-based jet fuels, it was expected that the solubility of air in SPKs would
be higher than in typical petroleum-based jet A.

Version 3.0
PAGE 51 of 137
Air Solubility (ppm) @ 14.7 PSI (1 atm)
600
500
O2
400
300
200
N2
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
SAS-IPK
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
Jet A, JP-8
Jet A-1
100
CRC hanbook of Aviation

Fuel Properties
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Temperature (oC)
Figure 2-23. Neat Bio-SPKs, Solubility of Air @ 14.7 PSI (1 atm)
2.2.2.11.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
The solubility of O2 and N2 gases in 50% (v) blended SPKs is presented in Figure
2-24. As expected, the solubility of air in the 50% (v) blended SPKs is very similar to the
solubility of air in typical petroleum-based jet fuels.
Air Solubility (ppm) @ 14.7 PSI (1 atm)
450
O2
350
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
50-50% (v) Blends
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
SYN-R-8B50
Jet A, JP-8
Jet A-1
250
N2
150
50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Temperature (oC)
Figure 2-24. 50% (v) Bio-SPK Blends, Solubility of Air @ 14.7 PSI (1 atm)
2.2.3
Electrical Properties
2.2.3.1
Dielectric Constant vs. Density
The dielectric constant K of the samples was measured over the temperature range
o
-40 C to +60oC. ASTM D 924 42 test method can be used as a guideline. The dielectric
constant of the jet fuel and its density are used in most aircrafts Fuel Quantity Indicating
System (FQIS). The linear density-dielectric constant correlation of typical petroleum-

Version 3.0
PAGE 52 of 137
based jet fuels is used by the systems software to accurately determine the volume of
fuel onboard. Generally, any airplane not equipped with a densitometer will only rely on
the compensator (hence dielectric constant) to infer density from a Regression Line
Density (RLD),
K 1
DC =
a + b ( K 1)
It is essential that the dielectric constant-density correlation of the SPK blends
matches the correlation of typical jet fuel in order to be considered as drop-in
replacement jet fuels.
2.2.3.1.1
Neat SPKs
2.30
CRC Report #635
Handbook of Aviation Fuel
Properties
2.25

JP-5
Jet A-1
SAS-IPK
2.20
SYN-R-8
Dielectric Constant K
UOP-1
UOP-2
2.15
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
2.10
2.05
2.00
1.95
1.90
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Temperature ( C)
Figure 2-25. Neat SPK, Dielectric Constant K vs. Temperature
860
Jet A, JP-8
Jet A-1
840
CRC Report #635

Properties
JP-5
Jet A-1
820
SAS-IPK
Density (kg/m3)
SYN-R-8
800
UOP-2
UOP-3
780
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
760
740
720
700
1.90
1.95
2.00
2.05
2.10
2.15
2.20
2.25
Dielectric constant
Figure 2-26. Neat SPK, Density vs. Dielectric Constant K

Version 3.0
PAGE 53 of 137
The dielectric constant of the neat SPKs is lower than the dielectric constant of
typical petroleum-based jet fuels. If neat SPK were to be used as is, it could potentially
lead to errors with the fuel gauging system functioning with capacitance probes.
2.2.3.1.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
2.30
CRC Report #635
Properties

JP-5
Jet A-1
2.25
SYN-R-8B50
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
2.20
UOP-4B50
Dielectric Constant K
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
2.15
2.10
2.05
2.00
1.95
-60
-40
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
Temperature (oC)
Figure 2-27. 50% (v) SPK Blends, Dielectric Constant K vs. Temperature
When Blended at 50% (v) with Jet A, Jet A-1, JP-5 or JP-8, the Bio-SPK based jet
fuel blends have similar dielectric properties than typical jet fuels.
860
Jet A, JP-8
JET A-1
840
CRC Report #635

Properties
JP-5
Density (kg/m )
Jet A-1
820
SYN-R-8B50
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
800
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
780
760
740
2.00
2.05
2.10
2.15
2.20
2.25
Dielectric constant
Figure 2-28. 50% (v) SPK Blends, Density vs. Dielectric Constant K

Version 3.0
PAGE 54 of 137
2.2.3.2
Electrical Conductivity and Response to Static

Dissipator
The electrical conductivity of several samples with and without a static dissipator
additive was performed per ASTM D2624 43 test method. All the SPK fuels (neat or
blend) respond well to the addition of static dissipator.
2.2.3.2.1
Neat SPKs
3500
ASTM D1655 Spec Limit - low
ASTM D1655 Spec Limit - high
Electrical Conductivity (pS/m)
3000
SYN-R-8
Jet A
2500
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
2000
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
1500
1000
500
0
0
Stadis 450 Concentration (mg/L)
Figure 2-29. Neat SPK, Electrical Conductivity and Response to Static Dissipator
2.2.3.2.2
50% (v) SPK Blends
2500
ASTM D1655 Spec Limit - low
ASTM D1655 Spec Limit - high
SAS-GTL-1B50
SAS-GTL-2B50
SAS-IPK-B50
SHE-GTL-B50M
Electrical Conductivity (pS/m)
2000
SYN-S-8B50M
SYN-R-8B50
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
Jet A
1500
1000
500
0
0
2
3
Stadis 450 Concentration (mg/L)
Figure 2-30. 50% (v) SPK Blends, Electrical Conductivity and Response to Static Dissipator

Version 3.0
PAGE 55 of 137
2.3
Properties Summary for Neat Bio-SPKs and FT-SPKs
The intent of Table 2-30 is to show that the properties of neat Bio-SPKs are very similar and that they are feedstock agnostic.
Specification Requirements
Jet A or Jet
JP-5 44
JP-8 45
A-110
Property
EER
SPK
R-8
R-8x
S-8
HRJ-5
0.015
0.005
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.015
Max
Max
Max
25
26.5
0.003
25
25
0.002
0.002
0.2
0.71
<0.003
Sulfur, total mass %
Max
0.30
0.30
0.30
<0.0003
205
report
report
300
22
205
157-205
168-229
183-262
300
None
173
204
239
254
66
Freezing point, C
Max
Viscosity 20C, mm2/s H

COMBUSTION
Max
40 Jet A
47 Jet A-1
8.0
Net heat of combustion, MJ/kg
Min
42.8
Hydrogen content, mass %

Min
One of the following requirements shall be met:
(1) Smoke point, mm, or
Min
(2) Smoke point, mm, and
Min
Naphthalenes, vol, %
Max
CORROSION
Copper strip, 2 h at 100C
Max
THERMAL STABILITY
Fuel thermal stability (2.5h at control
temperature)
Temperature, C
Min
Filter pressure drop, mm Hg
Max
Tube deposits less than
CONTAMINANTS
Existent gum, mg/100 mL
Max
Microseparometer, L Rating
Without electrical conductivity
Min
additive
With electrical conductivity additive
ADDITIVES
Electrical conductivity, pS/m
Lubricity (BOCLE)
186
UOP
IPK
0.10
205
report
report
300
1.5
1.5
38E
0.775-0.840
SYN
GTL-2
Max
300
SHE
GTL-1
COMPOSITION
Acidity, total mg KOH/g
Aromatics
1. Aromatics, vol %
2. Aromatics, vol %
Sulfur, mercaptan, C mass %
VOLATILITY
Distillation:
Distillation temperature, C:
10 % recovered, temperature (T10)
Max
Final boiling point, temperature
Max
T90 - T10
Min
Max
Max
Max
Max
Flash point, C
Min
Density at 15C, kg/L
FLUIDITY
SAS
SOL-1
D3242
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0001
0.0000
6
0.0001
<0.001
<0.0003
0.000
<0.0003
0.000
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
0.00006
0.00007
0.00006
0.00003
0.00006
0.00006
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.00001*
<0.001
196
226
256
266
60
181
188
210
232
29
160
168
183
195
23
178
218
263
274
85
172
209
256
268
84
167
206
256
275
89
163
183
225
242
64
163
187
226
252
63
169
186
225
248
59
165
184
232
248
69
201
218
240
256
40
165
202
260
297
95
162
186
226
251
1.3
0.2
42.0
0.753
163
187
226
252
1.2
0.3
42.0
0.752
168
188
227
255
1.3
0.1
46.5
0.749
164
187
233
256
1.2
0.3
41.0
0.748
153
170
194
208
41
330
1.5
1.5
60
0.788-0.845
157-205
168-229
183-262
300
1.5
1.5
38-68
0.775-0.840
1.3
1.0
56
0.767
0.4
1.0
48
0.735
-46
-47
-54
8.5
8.0
0.4
0.6
70
0.762
1.4
0.4
53
0.765
1.0
1.0
43
0.736
0.8
0.2
48
0.763
1.5
1.1
47
0.761
1.5
0.9
45
0.756
-52.5
-62
<-65
-53.8
-49.1*
-52.3*
-51
-63.5
-63.5
-57.0
2.43
6.09
3.23
2.49
5.11
5.08
4.9
3.336
3.353
3.663
1.3
0.6
39
0.787
-54.5
-59.5
-60.5*
D5972 (*), D7153,

D7154 or D2386
3.510
6.218
4.45
D445
42.8
44.2
44.3
44.2
44.0
44.2
43.8
44.1*
43.9
44.0
44.2
44.3
44.2
44.0
43.2
13.4
15.4
15.4
15.5
15.4
15.7
15.3
15.2
15.6
15.1
15.0
15.5
15.1
15.2
14.7
25
18
3.0
19
25
19
3.0
22
0.49
29
NR
28
NR
42
0
>50
0
>40
41
0.33
42
NR
No. 1
No. 1
No. 1
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A
260
25
3
25
3
25
3
325
0
2
260
0
<1
260
0
<1
340
X
X
370
X
X
340
X
X
260
0
X
370
X
X
<1
0.9
0.6
0.6
4.2
<1
<0.5
99
85
--
98
NR
NR
Min
70
97
--
95
99
Max
0.85
NR
NR
0.76
0.92
<1
340
0
1
340
0
1
<0.01
340
0
1
D4529, (*)D3338 or
D4809
D5291, D3701
D1322
D1322
D1840
1A
340
0
<2
D56 or D3828 D93

D1298 or D4052
D130
340
0
<2
260
0
<1
D3241
0.6
0.5
6.7
D381, IP 540
NR
99
D3948
NR
0
0.92
0
0.94
0.58
FT-SPK
Table 2-30. Neat Bio-SPKs Properties Against Fuel Specifications

Version 3.0
<0.01
D 86
0.6
0.9
67
0.766
42.6
<0.01
D1319
D6379
D3227
D1266, D2622,
D4294 or (*)D5453
D2887
13.4
<0.01
ASTM test
PAGE 56 of 137
0.97
D2624
D5001
2.4
Property
Properties Summary for 100% and 50% (v) Blended Bio-SPK and FT-SPK Fuels Compared to ASTM D7566-09
Limit
Specification Requirements
Jet A or Jet
JP-544
JP-8 46
10
A-1
SPK concentration, vol. %

Blended with
Part 1: Basic Requirements
COMPOSITION
Aromatics
1. Aromatics, vol %
2. Aromatics, vol %
Sulfur, mercaptan, C mass %
Sulfur, total mass %
VOLATILITY
Distillation:
Initial BP, oC
Flash point, C
0.015
EER
ENE
NES
SHE
1B50
1B50
1B50
SPKB50M*
R-8B50M
SYN
S-8B50M*
2B50
3B50
UOP
4B50
HRJ-5B50M
50
Jet A-1
50
JP-8
50
JP-8
50
JP-8
50
Jet A
50
Jet A-1
50
Jet A
50
JP-5
0.02
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.002
0.002*
0.001
0.009
8.9
N/A
0.0003
0.0403
8.8*
N/A
0.0004*
<0.015*
9.2
N/A
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.09364
Max
0.10
0.015
Max
Max
Max
Max
25
26.5
0.003
0.30
25
25
10.4
8.7
9.7
8.3
0.002
0.30
0.002
0.30
<0.0003
0.0005
<0.0003
0.05
0.000
0.0190
0
0.029
11.0
ASTM Test Method
D3242, (* IP354)
D1319, (* IP156)
D6379
D3227, (* IP342)
D1266, D2622, (*)D4294, D5453
D2887
Max
Max
Max
Max
Min
Density at 15C, kg/m3
205
report
report
300
1.5
1.5
38
775 to 840
DD
or D86
300
1.5
1.5
38
180
208.5
238
258
1.0
0.0
50.5
171
188
216
236
1.0
0.3
50
159
179
212
256
270
1.4
1.4
50
170
206
253
275
1.3
1.1
48
171.0
200.5
240.0
258.0
1.2
0.2
44.5
170.4
190.3
226.9
246.8
1.2
0.4
45.0*
170.5
194.0
228.0
248.5
1.2
0.2
45.0
184.8
195.5
212.7
239.3
253.7
1.4
1.0
61.0
D56 or D3828 , (* IP170)
775 to 840
787.5
773
783
782
789
779*
780
790
D1298 or D4052, (* IP365)
205
205
300
1.5
1.5
60
788 to
845
FLUIDITY
Freezing point, C
Max
2
Max
Viscosity 20C, mm /s
COMBUSTION
Net heat of combustion, MJ/kg
Min
(1) Smoke point, mm, or
Min
(2) Smoke point, mm, and
Min
Naphthalenes, vol, %
Max
CORROSION
Copper strip, 2 h at 100C
Max
THERMAL STABILITY
Fuel thermal stability (2.5 h at control temperature)
Temperature, C
Min
Max
CONTAMINANTS
Existent gum, mg/100 mL
Max
Microseparometer, L Rating
Without electrical conductivity additive
Min
With electrical conductivity additive
Min
ADDITIVES
H
40 Jet A
47 Jet A-1
8.0
-46
-47
-70.5
-61
-51
-52
-55.5
-62.5
-61.0
-57.2*
8.5
8.0
4.693
3.6
5.1
4.6
4.305
3.606*
3.817
5.81
42.8
42.6
42.8
43.6
43.5
43.8
43.4
43.5
43.6*
43.7
43.5*
25
18
3.0
19
25
19
3.0
30
34
33
34
28.6
33
27.7
19.5
1.2
N/A
0.2
0.7
D1322
D1322
D1840
No. 1
No. 1
No. 1
1A
1A
1A
1A
1A*
1A
1A
D130, (* IP154)
260
25
3
25
3
260
0
0
260
0
1
260
0
1
260
5
1
300
0.2
1.0
300
3.0
1.0
300
0.0
1.0
265
0
1
D3241
25
3
<1
<1
0.6
<1
1.0*
<1
2.5
D381, IP 540 (*)
99
98
99
93
D3948
305
0
<1*
89
123.0*
0
<1*
85
70
Electrical conductivity, pS/m

Part 2: Extended Requirements
COMPOSITION
1. Aromatics, volume %
2. Aromatics, volume %
Distillation:
T50-T10, C:
T90-T10, C:
Lubricity, mm
0.5
D5972 (*), D7153, D7154 or D2386

D445, (* IP71)
D4529, D3338 (*) or D4809
75
150 to 600
230
195
265
Min
Min
8
8.4
10.4
8.7
8.3
8.9
8.8
9.2
11.0
Min
Min
Max
15
40
0.85
15
40
0.85
28.5
58
0.55
17
45
0.54
36
83
0.54
29.5
69
0.66
19.9
56.5
0.64
23.5
57.5
0.65
17.9
44.8
0.75
0.56
D2624,
o
(* IP274 at 19 C)
D1319
D6379
D2887 or D86
D5001
Table 2-31. Comparison with Data from Table A1 from D7566, Detailed Requirements of Aviation Turbine Fuels Containing Synthesized
Hydrocarbons
Version 3.0
PAGE 57 of 137
Detailed Batch Requirements:

COMPOSITION
Max
VOLATILITY
Simulated Distillation:
Max
Max
T90-T10, oC
Min
Flash point, C
Min
3
Density at 15C, kg/m
Freezing point, C
Max
Fuel thermal stability (2.5 h at control temperature)
Temperature, C
Min
Max
ADDITIVES
Antioxidants, mg/L
Min
Max
Other Detailed Requirements:
Hydrocarbon Composition
Cycloparaffins, mass %
Aromatics, mass %
Paraffins, mass %
Carbon and Hydrogen, mass %
Non-Hydrocarbon Composition
Nitrogen, mg/kg
Water, mg/kg
Sulfur, mg/kg
Sulfur, mass %
Metals (Al, Ca, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Mo,
Na, Ni, P, Pb, Pd, Pt, Sn, Sr, Ti, V, Zn), mg/kg
Halogens, mg/kg
HSPK
JP-8 47
EER-1
ENE-1
NES-1
SHE-SPK
SYN-R-8
SYN-S-8
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
0.015
0.015
0.005
0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.001
D2887, D86
205
report
report
300
22
38E
730 to 770
-40
325
25
3
205
751 to 840
-47
173
204
239
254
66
56
767
-54
203
220.5
239
253
36
69
763.3
<-75
191.6
257.1
275.4
284.7
83.8
50.5
767.8
-46.1
160.8
168#
183.3#
195.2#
22.5#
43
736
-53.8
175
212
260
274
85
48
763
-49
167
206#
256#
275#
89#
45
756
-51
163
187
226
252
63
42
752
-63.5
168
188
227
255
59
46.5
749
-57
164
187
233
256
69
41
748
-54.5
200.5
218
240
255.5
39.5
67
766
-59.5
325
25
3
325
0
2
325
0
0
325
0
1
370#
340
0.1
>2
370#
340
0
<2
340
0
1
340
0
1
340
0
1
EER-1
ENE-1
NES-1
SHE-SPK
SYN-R-8
SYN-S-8
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
2
0.0
98.0
99.9
0.3
0.0
99.7
99.4
4.0
0.0
96.0
100.71
8.9
(0.34)
90.2
100.44
9.0
0.0
91.0
99.57
9.8*
0.016*
90.2*
100.00
10.6, 0.94*
0, 0.07*
96.9, 99.0*
100.90
10.6
0, 0.007*
96.9, 97.6*
100.80
8.6
<0.23*
97.8
100.03
300
22
17
24
Min
15
0.5
report
99.5
99.5
18.4##
1.03
80.5
100
Max
Max
Max
Max
2
75
15
0.0015
2
75
15
0.0015
<1
26
<1
<0.0003
<1
22
6
0.0006
<1
N/A
<1**
N/A
1
28
0.6
0.00006
0.1
31
N/A
N/A
<1
22
0.6
0.00006
<1
19
<0.01
0.0001
<0.4
32
<0.1
<0.0001
<0.4
34
<0.1
<0.0001
0.3
47
0.1
Max
0.1 per metal
0.1 per metal
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1*
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Max
0.3
<1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
15
0.5
0.1
From reference # 12
##
Value artificially too high (see 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.1.2). GCxGC data have been requested
** Before the distillation NExBTL sulphur <1ppm
FT-SPK
Table 2-32. Comparison with Data from Table A1 from D7566, Detailed Requirements of Aviation Turbine Fuels Containing Synthesized
Hydrocarbons, Contd

Version 3.0
D56 or D3828 , (* IP170)

D1298 or D4052, (* IP365)
D5972 (*), D7153, D7154, D2386
D3241
24
19.2
HSPK
Max
Max
D3242, (* IP354)
PAGE 58 of 137
D2425, (*)GCxGC
D2425, (*)GCxGC, (D6379)
D2425, (*)GCxGC, (D6379)
D5291
D4629
D6304
D5453
D2622
UOP 389, (*) NM122 and D5185
D7359
2.4.1 Material Compatibility Studies

The purpose of these tests is to evaluate the compatibility of several synthetic
fuels with nonmetallic engine and airframe materials. Tests were performed by AFRL,
Boeing and independent laboratories. The majority of testing and evaluation were done
by the University of Dayton Research Institute for the Air Force Research
Laboratory/Materials Integrity Branch (AFRL/RXSA) to determine the material
compatibility of R-8 and other synthetic fuels with nonmetallic fuel system materials. For
this section, some data and comments were taken from two AFRL reports, AFRL/RXS
10-002 48 and AFRL/RXS 10-003 49. These reports were both approved for public release.
2.4.1.1
Material Compatibility of Synthetic Fuels
The materials that were tested were exposed for 28 days at elevated temperatures.
Twelve different fuels were used for testing, two JP-8 fuels, two 100% Fischer-Tropsch
(F-T) fuels and two 50% (v) FT-SPK blends with JP-8, three 100% Bio-SPK fuels and
three 50% (v) Bio-SPK blends with JP-8.
2.4.1.1.1
Background
Previous compatibility testing for the initial JP-8 +100 program and other
alternative fuel (FT-SPK) and fuel additive programs allowed for the development and
refinement of a short list of materials to test. These materials were chosen to represent the
types of materials exposed to the fuel, This report also contains data for a nitrile bladder
innerliner, an AMS-S-4383 nitrile coating, an AMS-S-8802 manganese dioxide cured
polysulfide sealant, and an AMS 3277 polythioether sealant. These materials were tested
unaged, as well as after aging for 28 days at elevated temperatures in the fuels listed in
Table 2-33.
Fuel Name
JP-8
JP-8
R-8
JP-8/R-8 Blend
EERC
JP-8/EERC Blend
UOP
JP-8/UOP Blend
Shell F-T
JP-8/Shell F-T Blend
Sasol F-T
JP-8/Sasol F-T Blend
ID
POSF 4751
POSF 5699
POSF 5480
POSF 5645
POSF 5910
POSF 5911
POSF 5912
POSF 5913
POSF 5832
POSF 5834
POSF 5654
POSF 5666
Report ID
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8B50M
EER-1
UOP-2
UOP-2 blended with JP-8
SHE-SPK
SHE-SPK-B50M
SAS-IPK
Fuel Type
HRJ
FT

FT-SPK
Table 2-33. Fuels Used for Fluid Immersions

Version 3.0
PAGE 59 of 137
2.4.1.1.2
Test Procedure
All testing was in accordance with ASTM and SAE test procedures outlined
below. The materials tested comprised adhesives, fuel bladder materials, coatings,
sealants, noncuring groove sealants, composites, conductive foam material, specific types
of O-rings, hose materials, wire insulation materials and potting compound.
Adhesives
Lap Shear
Static Shear
ASTM D 1002
MIL-R-46082, Method A
Fuel Bladders
Tensile Strength and Elongation

Volume Swell
ASTM D 412
ASTM D 471
Pencil Hardness
Tape Adhesion
ASTM D 3363
ASTM D 3359, Method A
Coatings
Sealants and Potting Compound
Peel Strength
Hardness, Shore A
Volume Swell
SAE AS5127/1
ASTM D 2240, SAE AS5127/1
Noncuring Groove Sealants
Volume Swell
ASTM D 471
Composites
Inter-laminar Shear
ASTM D 6272

Resistivity
ASTM D 412
ASTM D 257
Hardness, Shore M
Compression Set
Volume Swell
ASTM D 2240
ASTM D 1414
ASTM D 395
ASTM D 471
Foam
O-rings
Hose Material
Hardness, Shore A
Volume Swell
ASTM D 2240
ASTM D 412
ASTM D 471
Wire Insulation

Version 3.0
ASTM D 412
PAGE 60 of 137
The test parameters were similar to other material compatibility testing programs
conducted for AFRL and baseline (no soak) was taken from the other programs. The
standard 28 days of fuel soak at elevated temperatures in JP-8, 100% SPK and the 50/50
blend of JP-8 and SPK fuels was coupled with standard physical properties testing to
measure the effects of the fuels on the materials. A duration of 28 days was selected for
the fuel soak to provide some long-term indication of the materials degradation and
performance when exposed to the various fuels.
In analyzing the data, a logical evaluation criterion was to compare the results
after aging in JP-8 fuel with results after aging in the JP-8/R-8 blend fuel to identify any
significant differences. For each test, allowable variations were determined based on
standard deviations in the test methods. Differences greater than these allowable
variations indicate increased possibility variations in the data are significant and cannot
be attributed to normal data scatter for this type of test. When this occurred, the data
required closer examination to determine if additional testing was needed or if the data
clearly indicated a failure. For some materials there are specification limits, expressed as
maximum or minimum values, that can help determine if the material still meets certain
requirements after aging. Test requirements noted in the data tables were based on
specification limits, when available. Otherwise, test requirements provided were based on
experience and previous test programs. In the tables, a value outside the allowable
variation from JP-8 is marked in red, as is a failure to meet the test requirements.
However, a red marking in the tables does not necessarily mean the material
tested is incompatible with the fuel. Final determination of compatibility must consider
the overall test results for a given material and the implications of these results for inservice aircraft.
2.4.1.1.3
Test Results
The completed test results are contained in Table 2-34 through Table 2-57 and
their accompanying figures. Results after fuel aging in various alternative fuels and
blends are compared against the JP-8 baseline specimens, and the differences have been
calculated and noted in the tables. Since there were two different JP-8 fuels used, the
alternative fuels allowable variations are compared against the closer JP-8 value.
Additionally, a relatively large number of materials have already been tested in F-T fuel
and the JP-8/F-T blend, with the risk level determined to be minimum and/or acceptable.
Therefore, the test results after aging in the various Bio-SPK (HRJ) fuels and blends are
also be compared against the F-T and JP-8/F-T blend results. Values for the unaged
materials are also listed for reference. Failures are listed in red. When results do not
meet the test requirements and are outside of the allowable variations from the JP-8
baseline data, the overall test results are closely considered.
Table 2-34 through Table 2-57 also contain previous test results obtained after
aging the materials in 100% Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) fuel or a 50/50 blend of F-T and JP-8
fuels. These data have been included to provide additional points of comparison because,
after processing, the R-8 fuel is very similar in composition to fuel derived from coal or
natural gas utilizing the F-T process. Neither F-T nor R-8 fuels contain any aromatic
compounds, which are known to facilitate the swelling of some elastomeric materials.
All of the results for the adhesives tested met the test requirements. Only lap shear
Version 3.0
PAGE 61 of 137
strength of the nitrile epoxy film after aging in R-8 and the 50/50 blend of JP-8 and R-8
fuels fell outside of the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline (Table 2-34).
Material Description
Allowable Variation from
Conditioning
Requirements
Results
Un-aged
>1500 psi
3755 psi1
~.
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>1500 psi
3509 psi1
28d/200F/F-T
>1500 psi
3632 psi1
250 psi decr.
+ 123 psi
28d/200F/[JP-8/F-T Blend]
>1500 psi
3392 psi1
250 psi decr.
- 117 psi
28d/200F/R-8
>1500 psi
3663 psi
250 psi decr.
+ 154 psi
28d/200F/[JP-8/R-8 Blend]
>1500 psi
3376 psi
250 psi decr.
- 133 psi
Un-aged
>1500 psi
3153 psi2
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>1500 psi
3178 psi2
28d/200F/F-T
>1500 psi
3051 psi2
250 psi decr.
- 127 psi
>1500 psi
3036 psi2
250 psi decr.
- 142 psi
28d/200F/R-8
>1500 psi
3399 psi
250 psi decr.
+ 221 psi
>1500 psi
3337 psi
250 psi decr.
+ 159 psi
Un-aged
>1500 psi
3132 psi1
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>1500 psi
1803 psi1
28d/200F/F-T
>1500 psi
1645 psi1
250 psi decr.
- 158 psi
>1500 psi
2315 psi1
250 psi decr.
+ 512 psi
28d/200F/R-8
>1500 psi
2916 psi
250 psi decr.
+1113 psi
>1500 psi
2712 psi
250 psi decr.
+ 909 psi
Un-aged
>1500 psi
3165 psi2
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>1500 psi
3534 psi2
28d/200F/F-T
>1500 psi
4098 psi2
250 psi decr.
+ 564 psi
>1500 psi
3771 psi2
250 psi decr.
+ 237 psi
28d/200F/R-8
>1500 psi
3387 psi
250 psi decr.
- 147 psi
>1500 psi
4120 psi
250 psi decr.
+ 586 psi
Un-aged
>1500 psi
5914 psi2
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>1500 psi
5391 psi2
28d/200F/F-T
>1500 psi
5605 psi2
250 psi decr.
+ 214 psi
>1500 psi
5456 psi2
250 psi decr.
+ 65 psi
28d/200F/R-8
>1500 psi
4933 psi
250 psi decr.
- 458 psi
>1500 psi
4730 psi
250 psi decr.
- 661 psi
Un-aged
>1200 psi
2474 psi1
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>1200 psi
2281 psi1
Static
28d/200F/F-T
>1200 psi
3212 psi1
250 psi decr.
+ 931 psi
Shear
>1200 psi
2198 psi1
250 psi decr.
- 93 psi
28d/200F/R-8
>1200 psi
3711 psi
250 psi decr.
+ 1420 psi
>1200 psi
3978 psi
Data taken from Evaluation of Material Compatibility of Fischer-Tropsch Fuel 50
2
Data taken from Fischer-Tropsch Fuel Compatibility with Selected Epoxy Adhesives 51
250 psi decr.
+ 1697 psi
Vinyl Phenolic
Epoxy Paste
Nitrile Phenolic
Epoxy Paste
Nitrile Epoxy Film
Methacrylate
Test
Lap Shear
Lap Shear
Lap Shear
Lap Shear
Lap Shear
Baseline (JP-8)
Variation from JP-8

FT-SPK
Table 2-34. Adhesives
Table 2-35 contains the test results for the nitrile bladder innerliner material. All
of the tensile strength and volume swell results for this material met the listed test
requirements and were within the allowable variations from the JP-8 baseline. However,
the elongation results failed to meet the test requirements after aging in all of the fuels.
Version 3.0
PAGE 62 of 137
The only instance in which the material met the elongation requirement was for the
unaged material. There were also two instances in which the elongation test results were
outside of the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline: after aging in 100% EERC and
100% Sasol F-T. All of the elongation results after aging in the JP-8/synthetic blend fuels
were very consistent, from 252% to 263%. Figure 2-31 to Figure 2-33 have been included
to provide graphical perspectives of the data. The red line on each graph represents the
test requirement, and the yellow shaded region represents the allowable variation from
one of the JP-8 aged test results.
Since all of the elongation results after fuel immersion failed to meet the test
requirement, the material was examined more carefully. After further analysis and
discussion with the company that manufactures the bladders, it was discovered the
material needs to be oiled to maintain its conditioning and full flexibility, otherwise it
tends to become hard and brittle. Additionally, the material is slightly isotropic, so the
orientation of the test coupons must be notated. From separate additional test results of
in-house material, tensile strength tested 10% higher and elongation 13% lower between
longitudinal and transverse directions.
Figure 2-31. Tensile Strength Results for the Nitrile Bladder Innerliner

Version 3.0
PAGE 63 of 137
Material
Description
Test
Conditioning
Test
Requirements
Test Results
Variation
Baseline (JP-8)
from JP-8
Nitrile
Tensile
Unaged
> 1500 psi
1463 psi
~.
Bladder
Strength
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 1500 psi
1561 psi
Innerliner
Elongation
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
> 1500 psi
1683 psi
200 psi decr.
28d/160F/R-8
> 1500 psi
1859 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 298 psi
> 1500 psi
1643 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 82 psi
28d/160F/EERC
> 1500 psi
1775 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 214 psi
28d/160F/[JP-8/EERC Blend]
> 1500 psi
1755 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 194 psi
28d/160F/UOP
> 1500 psi
1816 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 255 psi
28d/160F/[JP-8/UOP Blend]
> 1500 psi
1610 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 49 psi
28d/160F/Shell F-T
> 1500 psi
1776 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 215 psi
28d/160F/[JP-8/Shell F-T Blend]
> 1500 psi
1720 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 159 psi
28d/160F/Sasol F-T
> 1500 psi
1692 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 131 psi
28d/160F/[JP-8/Sasol F-T Blend]
> 1500 psi
1563 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 2 psi
Unaged
> 300%
387%
~.
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 300%
278%
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
> 300%
283%
40% decr.
~
- 24%
28d/160F/R-8
> 300%
254%
40% decr.
> 300%
254%
40% decr.
- 24%
28d/160F/EERC
> 300%
222%
40% decr.
- 56%
> 300%
255%
40% decr.
- 23%
28d/160F/UOP
> 300%
256%
40% decr.
- 22%
> 300%
254%
40% decr.
- 24%
28d/160F/Shell F-T
> 300%
240%
40% decr.
- 38%
> 300%
263%
40% decr.
- 15%
28d/160F/Sasol F-T
> 300%
232%
40% decr.
- 46%
> 300%
252%
40% decr.
- 26%
Volume
Unaged
< 25%
~.
Swell
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
< 25%
- 2%
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
< 25%
- 5%
+ 5%
28d/160F/R-8
< 25%
- 10%
+ 5%
- 5%
< 25%
- 7%
+ 5%
- 2%
28d/160F/EERC
< 25%
- 10%
+ 5%
- 5%
< 25%
- 6%
+ 5%
- 1%
28d/160F/UOP
< 25%
- 9%
+ 5%
- 4%
< 25%
- 5%
+ 5%
0%
28d/160F/Shell F-T
< 25%
- 9%
+ 5%
- 4%
< 25%
- 7%
+ 5%
- 2%
28d/160F/Sasol F-T
< 25%
- 9%
+ 5%
- 4%
< 25%
- 5%
+ 5%
0%

FT-SPK
Table 2-35. Nitrile Bladder Innerliner

Version 3.0
PAGE 64 of 137
Figure 2-32. Elongation Results for the Nitrile Bladder Innerliner
Figure 2-33. Volume Swell Results for the Nitrile Bladder Innerliner
For the polyurethane inner liner, all of the results after aging in the R-8 and JP8/R-8 blend were within the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline. Based on a
comparison of the overall results, the polyurethane bladder inner liner does not appear to
pose any concern (Table 2-36).

Version 3.0
PAGE 65 of 137
Material
Description
Polyurethane
Test
Conditioning
Tensile
Unaged
Strength
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)

28d/200F/F-T
Elongation
Test Results
Variation
Baseline (JP-8)
from JP-8
> 1500 psi
3292 psi1
> 1500 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 610 psi
> 1500 psi
2607 psi
3217 psi
> 1500 psi
2897 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 290 psi
28d/200F/R-8
> 1500 psi
3597 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 990 psi
> 1500 psi
3299 psi
200 psi decr.
+ 692 psi
Unaged
> 300%
449%
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 300%
490%1
> 300%
410%
40% decr.
- 80%
40% decr.
- 26%
28d/200F/F-T
Volume Swell
Test
Requirements
> 300%
464%
28d/200F/R-8
> 300%
454%
40% decr.
- 36%
> 300%
514%
40% decr.
+ 24%
Unaged
< 25%
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
< 25%
23.2%
28d/200F/F-T
< 25%
3.5%
+/- 5%
- 19.7%
< 25%
23.2%1
+/- 5%
0%
28d/200F/R-8
< 25%
19.7%
+/- 5%
- 3.5%
< 25%
27.5%
+/- 5%
+ 4.3%

FT-SPK
Table 2-36. Polyurethane Bladder Inner Liner
The volume swell results for the self-sealing layer of a MIL-T-5578 bladder after
aging in R-8 and the JP-8/R-8 blend were outside the allowable variation from the JP-8
baseline results; however, the swell of the materials in all cases was significant (42.7% to
58.0%) (Table 2-37).
Material
Description
Test
Conditioning
Test Requirements
Test Results
Allowable Variation
Variation
from Baseline (JP-8)
from JP-8
MIL-T-5578
Volume
Un-aged
(Self-sealing layer)
Swell
30min/75/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
58.0%
30min/75F/R-8
42.7%
+ 5%
- 15.3%
30min/75F/[JP-8/R-8 Blend]
48.8%
+ 5%
- 9.2%
Table 2-37. Self-Sealing Bladder Material
For the coatings, the only result for pencil hardness outside the allowable
variation from the baseline JP-8 was for BMS 10-39 after aging in R-8. In this instance a
slight softening of the coating occurred relative to the results obtained after aging in each
of the other fuels (Table 2-38).

Version 3.0
PAGE 66 of 137
Material
Variation
Baseline (JP-8)
from JP-8
> 6H1
> un-aged
> 6H1
28d/200F/F-T
> un-aged
>6H1
+ 1 pt
> un-aged
>6H1
+ 1 pt
28d/200F/R-8
> un-aged
>6H
+ 1 pt
> un-aged
>6H
+ 1 pt
Tape
Un-aged
Pass
Passed1
Adhesion
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Pass
Passed1
28d/200F/F-T
Pass
Passed1
Pass
Passed1
28d/200F/R-8
Pass
Passed
Pass
Passed
Test
Conditioning
Test Requirements
Test Results
AMS-C-27725
Pencil
Un-aged
(nitrile)
Hardness
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Description
BMS 10-20
Pencil
Un-aged
> 6H1
(epoxy)
Hardness
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> un-aged
> 6H1
28d/200F/F-T
> un-aged
>6H1
+ 1 pt
> un-aged
>6H1
+ 1 pt
28d/200F/R-8
> un-aged
>6H
+ 1 pt
> un-aged
>6H
+ 1 pt
Un-aged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Pass
Pass
Passed1
Passed1
~
~
~
~
28d/200F/F-T
Pass
Passed1
Pass
Passed1
28d/200F/R-8
Pass
Passed
Pass
Passed
Un-aged
> 6H1
+ 1 pt
Tape
Adhesion
BMS 10-39
Pencil
(epoxy)
Hardness
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> un-aged
> 6H
28d/200F/F-T
> un-aged
>6H1
> un-aged
>6H
+ 1 pt
28d/200F/R-8
> un-aged
5H
+ 1 pt
-2
> un-aged
>6H
+ 1 pt
Tape
Un-aged
Pass
Passed
Adhesion
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Pass
Passed1
28d/200F/F-T
Pass
Passed1
Pass
Passed1
28d/200F/R-8
Pass
Passed
Pass
Passed
MIL-DTL-
Pencil
Un-aged
> 6H1
24441
Hardness
28d/120F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> un-aged
> 6H1
(epoxy-
28d/120F/F-T
> un-aged
>6H1
1 pt decrease
polyamide)
> un-aged
>6H1
1 pt decrease
28d/120F/R-8
> un-aged
>6H
1 pt decrease
> un-aged
>6H
1 pt decrease
Tape
Un-aged
Pass
Passed1
Adhesion
28d/120F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Pass
Passed1
28d/120F/F-T
Pass
Passed1
Pass
Passed1
28d/120F/R-8
Pass
Passed
Pass
Passed
6B 5B 4B 3B 2B B HB F- H 2H 3H 4H 5H 6H
1
Softer

FT-SPK
Harder
Table 2-38. Coatings

Version 3.0
PAGE 67 of 137
Table 2-39 contains the test results for the AMS-S-4383 nitrile coating. All of the
pencil hardness results met the listed test requirement and were within the allowable
variation from the JP-8 baseline, however, many of the tape adhesion tests resulted in
failures. All of the results shown are based on two panels aged in each fuel. The only
instances in which both panels passed the tape adhesion test were the un-aged case and
after aging in 100% Sasol F-T. One of the two panels passed after aging in the two JP-8
fuels and the 100% EERC synthetic fuel. The application procedures and tape adhesion
test method used are being reviewed to determine the root cause of these failures in all of
the fuels. It is also notable the pencil hardness results after aging in the two JP-8s varied
from each other by greater than the allowable amount.
Material
Description
Test
Conditioning
Test
Test Results
Allowable Variation
Variation
Requirements
(Panel 1 / Panel 2)
from JP-8
AMS-S-4383
Pencil
Unaged
> unaged
HB / HB
(nitrile)
Hardness
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> unaged
H/H
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
> unaged
3H / 3H
1 pt. decrease
28d/160F/R-8
> unaged
>6H / >6H
1 pt. decrease
> +5
> unaged
5H / 5H
1 pt. decrease
+4
28d/160F/EERC
> unaged
5H / 5H
1 pt. decrease
+4
> unaged
6H / 6H
1 pt. decrease
+5
28d/160F/UOP
> unaged
4H / 4H
1 pt. decrease
+3
> unaged
3H / 3H
1 pt. decrease
+2
28d/160F/Shell F-T
> unaged
4H / 4H
1 pt. decrease
+3
> unaged
3H / 3H
1 pt. decrease
+2
28d/160F/Sasol F-T
> unaged
3H / 3H
1 pt. decrease
+2
> unaged
3H / 3H
1 pt. decrease
+2
Unaged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Pass
Pass
Passed / Passed
Failed / Passed
~
~
~
~
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
Pass
Failed / Passed
28d/160F/R-8
Pass
Failed / Failed
Pass
Failed / Failed
~
~
Tape
Adhesion
28d/160F/EERC
Pass
Passed / Failed
Pass
Failed / Failed
28d/160F/UOP
Pass
Failed / Failed
Pass
Failed / Failed
28d/160F/Shell F-T
Pass
Failed / Failed
Pass
Failed / Failed
28d/160F/Sasol F-T
Pass
Passed / Passed
Pass
Failed / Failed
6B 5B 4B 3B 2B B HB F- H 2H 3H 4H 5H 6H
Softer
Harder

FT-SPK
Table 2-39. AMS-S-4383 Nitrile Coating
The majority of results for the dichromate cured polysulfide (AMS-S-8802) met
the test requirements, with the exception of volume swell after aging in F-T fuel, R-8
fuel, and the JP-8/R-8 blend. The elongation results after aging in all of the alternative
fuels and blends, as well as the tensile strength results after aging in R-8 and the JP-8/R-8
Version 3.0
PAGE 68 of 137
blend, were outside the allowable variations from the baseline (Table 2-40).
Material
Allowable Variation
Variation
from JP-8
Test
Conditioning
Test Requirements
Test Results
AMS-S-8802
Tensile
Un-aged
> 200 psi
518 psi1
(Polysulfide)
Strength
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 200 psi
406 psi1
(Dichromate
28d/200F/F-T
> 200 psi
395 psi1
35 psi decrease
-11 psi
cured)
> 200 psi
390 psi1
35 psi decrease
- 16 psi
Description
Elongation
28d/200F/R-8
> 200 psi
365 psi
35 psi decrease
- 41 psi
> 200 psi
309 psi
35 psi decrease
- 97 psi
Unaged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 150%
> 150%
507%1
347%1
~
~
~
~
28d/200F/F-T
> 150%
261%1
25% decrease
- 86%
> 150%
258%1
25% decrease
- 89%
28d/200F/R-8
> 150%
214%
25% decrease
- 133%
> 150%
171%
25% decrease
- 176%
Volume
Unaged
Swell
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
0% to 20%
4.0%1
28d/200F/F-T
0% to 20%
-0.4%1
5% increase
- 4.4%
0% to 20%
0.1%1
5% increase
- 3.9%
28d/200F/R-8
0% to 20%
-4%
5% increase
- 8.0%
0% to 20%
-2%
5% increase
- 6.0%
Unaged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 35 pts
> 35 pts
621
621
~
~
~
~
28d/200F/F-T
> 35 pts
641
+ 5 pts
+2
> 35 pts
581
+ 5 pts
-4
28d/200F/R-8
> 35 pts
62
+ 5 pts
> 35 pts
62
+ 5 pts
Unaged
>20 lbs / 100%
36 lbs/100%1
Hardness,
Shore A
Peel Strength
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>20 lbs / 100%
40 lbs/100%1
28d/200F/F-T
>20 lbs / 100%
42 lbs/100%1
8 lbs decrease
+ 2 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
39 lbs/100%1
8 lbs decrease
- 1 lb
28d/200F/R-8
>20 lbs / 100%
36 lbs/100%
8 lbs decrease
-4 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
33 lbs/100%
8 lbs decrease
- 7 lbs

FT-SPK
Table 2-40. Dichromate Cured AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant
Table 2-41 contains the test results for the AMS-S-8802 manganese dioxide cured
polysulfide sealant. All of the results met the test requirements, except for volume swell
after aging in all of the fuels and percent cohesive failure in peel strength testing after
aging in the JP-8/Shell F-T blend, Sasol F-T, and the JP-8/Sasol F-T blend. Although the
volume swell results failed to meet the test requirement of 0 to 20% after aging, they
were all relatively consistent and within the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline.
Additionally, although failure modes were not 100% cohesive (within the sealant) after
aging in the JP-8/Shell F-T blend, Sasol F-T, or JP-8/Sasol F-T blend, the strength values
still met the test requirement and were within the allowable variation from the JP-8
baseline. It is possible and more likely for adhesive failures to occur when there is
insufficient cleaning and surface preparation of the substrate than from an attack of the
Version 3.0
PAGE 69 of 137
fuel through the sealant on the sealant/substrate interface, and retests were not performed
since the strength values were acceptable. The only other instances in which the results
were outside of the allowable variation from the baseline were for elongation after aging
in Shell F-T and Sasol F-T, as well as Shore A hardness after aging in R-8, EERC, the
JP-8/EERC blend, and Sasol F-T.
Material
Description
Test
Conditioning
Test
Requirements
Test Results
Allowable Variation
Variation from JP-8
AMS-S-8802
Tensile
Un-aged
> 200 psi
497 psi
~.
(Polysulfide)
Strength
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 200 psi
419 psi
(Manganese-
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
> 200 psi
419 psi
35 psi decrease
dioxide cured)
28d/200F/R-8
> 200 psi
437 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 18 psi
> 200 psi
430 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 11 psi
28d/200F/EERC
> 200 psi
474 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 55 psi
> 200 psi
438 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 19 psi
+ 23 psi
Elongation
28d/200F/UOP
> 200 psi
442 psi
35 psi decrease
> 200 psi
411 psi
35 psi decrease
- 8 psi
28d/200F/Shell F-T
> 200 psi
426 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 7 psi
> 200 psi
433 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 14 psi
28d/200F/Sasol F-T
> 200 psi
423 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 4 psi
> 200 psi
413 psi
35 psi decrease
- 6 psi
Un-aged
> 150%
269%
~.
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 150%
206%
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
> 150%
196%
25% decrease
28d/200F/R-8
> 150%
173%
25% decrease
- 23%
> 150%
188%
25% decrease
- 8%
28d/200F/EERC
> 150%
188%
25% decrease
- 8%
> 150%
196%
25% decrease
0%
- 16%
28d/200F/UOP
> 150%
180%
25% decrease
> 150%
194%
25% decrease
- 2%
28d/200F/Shell F-T
> 150%
168%
25% decrease
- 28%
> 150%
198%
25% decrease
+ 2%
28d/200F/Sasol F-T
> 150%
168%
25% decrease
- 28%
> 150%
203%
25% decrease
+ 7%
Volume
Un-aged
~.
Swell
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
0% to 20%
- 3%
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
0% to 20%
- 3%
5% increase
28d/200F/R-8
0% to 20%
- 6%
5% increase
- 3%
0% to 20%
- 5%
5% increase
- 2%
28d/200F/EERC
0% to 20%
- 7%
5% increase
- 4%
0% to 20%
- 5%
5% increase
- 2%
28d/200F/UOP
0% to 20%
- 6%
5% increase
- 3%
0% to 20%
- 5%
5% increase
- 2%
28d/200F/Shell F-T
0% to 20%
- 5%
5% increase
- 2%
0% to 20%
- 4%
5% increase
- 1%
28d/200F/Sasol F-T
0% to 20%
- 6%
5% increase
- 3%
0% to 20%
- 4%
5% increase
- 1%

FT-SPK
Table 2-41. Manganese Dioxide Cured AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant

Version 3.0
PAGE 70 of 137
Material
Description
Test
Conditioning
Test
Requirements
Test Results
Allowable Variation
Variation from JP-8
AMS-S-8802
Hardness,
Un-aged
> 35 pts
64
(Polysulfide)
Shore A
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 35 pts
59
(Manganese-
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
> 35 pts
59
+ 5 pts
dioxide cured)
28d/200F/R-8
> 35 pts
65
+ 5 pts
+6
> 35 pts
64
+ 5 pts
+5
28d/200F/EERC
> 35 pts
65
+ 5 pts
+6
> 35 pts
52
+ 5 pts
-7
28d/200F/UOP
> 35 pts
63
+ 5 pts
+4
> 35 pts
60
+ 5 pts
+1
28d/200F/Shell F-T
> 35 pts
51
+ 5 pts
-8
> 35 pts
56
+ 5 pts
-3
28d/200F/Sasol F-T
> 35 pts
64
+ 5 pts
+5
+4
> 35 pts
63
+ 5 pts
Peel
Un-aged
>20 lbs / 100%
58 lbs / 100%
Strength
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>20 lbs / 100%
39 lbs / 100%
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
>20 lbs / 100%
38 lbs / 100%
28d/200F/R-8
>20 lbs / 100%
42 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 4 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
40 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 2 lbs
28d/200F/EERC
>20 lbs / 100%
41 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 3 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
42 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 4 lbs
28d/200F/UOP
>20 lbs / 100%
41 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 3 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
47 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 9 lbs
28d/200F/Shell F-T
>20 lbs / 100%
40 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 2 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
35 lbs / 80%
8 lbs decrease
- 3 lbs
28d/200F/Sasol F-T
>20 lbs / 100%
38 lbs / 95%
8 lbs decrease
0 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
38 lbs / 70%
8 lbs decrease
0 lbs

FT-SPK
Table 2-42. Manganese Dioxide Cured AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant, Contd
To better clarify and analyze these results, graphs of the data are contained in
Figure 2-34 through Figure 2-38. The red line (or red shaded area if the requirement is a
range) on each graph represents the test requirement, and the yellow shaded region
represents the allowable variation from one (or both) of the JP-8 aged test results. As the
graphs depict, most of the test results were relatively consistent, and those that were not
within the allowable variations from the baseline were only slightly outside of the
allowable region.

Version 3.0
PAGE 71 of 137
Figure 2-34. Tensile Strength Results for the AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant
Figure 2-35. Elongation Results for the AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant
Figure 2-36. Volume Swell Results for the AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant

Version 3.0
PAGE 72 of 137
Figure 2-37. Shore A Hardness Results for the AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant
(last three data points appear in lighter blue since they did not fail 100% cohesively)
Figure 2-38. Peel Strength Results for the AMS-S-8802 Polysulfide Sealant
The majority of results for fluorosilicone sealant (AMS 3375) met the test
requirements, with the exception of volume swell after aging in both alternative fuels and
their blends, and in the previous testing, elongation after aging in the JP-8/F-T blend. The
results that fell outside of the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline were as follows:
tensile strength after aging in F-T, R-8, and the JP-8/R-8 blend; elongation after aging in
the JP-8/F-T blend; and Shore A hardness after aging in the JP-8/F-T and JP-8/R-8 blends
(Table 2-43).

Version 3.0
PAGE 73 of 137
Material
Test
Allowable Variation
Variation
from JP-8
643 psi1
> 200 psi
394 psi1
28d/200F/F-T
> 200 psi
345 psi1
35 psi decrease
- 49 psi
> 200 psi
405 psi1
35 psi decrease
+ 11 psi
28d/200F/R-8
> 200 psi
294 psi
35 psi decrease
- 100 psi
> 200 psi
312 psi
35 psi decrease
- 82 psi
Un-aged
> 150%
355%1
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 150%
173%1
28d/200F/F-T
> 150%
164%1
25% decrease
- 9%
> 150%
113%1
25% decrease
- 60%
28d/200F/R-8
> 150%
176%
25% decrease
+ 3%
> 150%
184%
25% decrease
+ 11%
Un-aged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
~
0% to 20%
~
1.1%1
~
~
~
~
28d/200F/F-T
0% to 20%
-0.6%1
5% increase
- 1.7%
0% to 20%
-0.2%1
5% increase
- 1.3%
28d/200F/R-8
0% to 20%
-2%
5% increase
-3.1%
0% to 20%
-1%
5% increase
-2.1%
Hardness,
Un-aged
> 35 pts
451
Shore A
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 35 pts
401
28d/200F/F-T
> 35 pts
421
+ 5 pts
+2
> 35 pts
611
+ 5 pts
+ 21
28d/200F/R-8
> 35 pts
45
+ 5 pts
+5
> 35 pts
47
+ 5 pts
+7
Un-aged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>10 lbs / 100%

>10 lbs / 100%
14 lbs/100%1
11 lbs/100%1
~
~
~
~
28d/200F/F-T
>10 lbs / 100%
24 lbs/100%1
8 lbs decrease
+ 13 lbs
>10 lbs / 100%
14 lbs/100%1
8 lbs decrease
+ 3 lbs
28d/200F/R-8
>10 lbs / 100%
19 lbs/100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 8 lbs
>10 lbs / 100%
18 lbs/100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 7 lbs
Test
Conditioning
AMS 3375
Tensile
Un-aged
> 200 psi
(Fluorosilicone)
Strength
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Description
Elongation
Volume
Swell
Peel Strength
Requirements
Test Results

FT-SPK
Table 2-43. AMS 3375 Fluorosilicone Sealant
The majority of results for the polyurethane sealant (AMS 3379) met the test
requirements, with the exception of volume swell after aging in R-8 fuel, and percentage
cohesive failure in the peel strength testing after aging in all of the fuels and blends.
Results that fell outside of the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline were as follows:
tensile strength and elongation after aging in F-T fuel in previous testing; and Shore A
hardness after aging in the all of the alternative fuels and blends.
It is important to note the tensile strength and elongation results after aging in R-8
were acceptable (Table 2-44).

Version 3.0
PAGE 74 of 137
Material
Test
Allowable Variation
Variation
from JP-8
451 psi1
> 200 psi
654 psi1
28d/200F/F-T
> 200 psi
440 psi1
35 psi decrease
- 214 psi
> 200 psi
669 psi1
35 psi decrease
+ 15 psi
28d/200F/R-8
> 200 psi
932 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 278 psi
> 200 psi
1004 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 350 psi
Unaged
> 150%
863%1
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 150%
615%1
28d/200F/F-T
> 150%
382%1
25% decrease
- 233%
> 150%
671%1
25% decrease
+ 56%
28d/200F/R-8
> 150%
710%
25% decrease
+ 95%
> 150%
812%
25% decrease
+ 197%
Unaged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
~
0% to 30%
~
13.9%1
~
~
~
~
28d/200F/F-T
0% to 30%
7.0%1
5% increase
- 6.9%
0% to 30%
11.5%1
5% increase
- 2.4%
28d/200F/R-8
0% to 30%
-1%
5% increase
- 14.9%
Test
Conditioning
AMS 3379
Tensile
Unaged
> 200 psi
(Polyurethane)
Strength
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Description
Elongation
Volume
Swell
Requirements
Test Results
0% to 30%
5%
5% increase
- 8.9%
Hardness,
Unaged
> 35 pts
671
Shore A
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 35 pts
461
28d/200F/F-T
> 35 pts
641
+ 5 pts
+ 18
> 35 pts
541
+ 5 pts
+8
28d/200F/R-8
> 35 pts
64
+ 5 pts
+ 18
Peel Strength
> 35 pts
64
+ 5 pts
+ 18
Unaged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>20 lbs / 100%

>20 lbs / 100%
27 lbs/100%1
25 lbs/28%1
~
~
~
~
28d/200F/F-T
>20 lbs / 100%
25 lbs/71%1
8 lbs decrease
>20 lbs / 100%
26 lbs/85%1
8 lbs decrease
+ 1 lb
28d/200F/R-8
>20 lbs / 100%
24 lbs/35%
8 lbs decrease
- 1 lb
>20 lbs / 100%
33 lbs/35%
8 lbs decrease
+ 8 lbs

FT-SPK
Table 2-44. AMS 3379 Polyurethane Sealant
Table 2-45 contains the test results for the AMS 3277 polythioether sealant.
Results met the test requirements with the exception of elongation after aging in JP-8
(POSF 4751 only), EERC, UOP, the JP-8/UOP blend, Shell F-T, and Sasol F-T.
However, all of these results were within the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline.
There were no tensile strength, elongation, or volume swell results outside of the
allowable variations from the JP-8 baseline. For Shore A hardness, the variations from
both JP-8s are listed to show that all of the results after aging in the alternative fuels and
blends were within the allowable variation from one or both of the JP-8 baselines. As was
the case with the AMS-S-8802 sealant, the data are presented in graphs in Figure 2-39
Figure 2-43 to provide a visual perspective of the results.
As noted previously for the AMS-S-4383 material, there were instances in which
the AMS 3277 results after aging in the two JP-8s were outside of the allowable variation
from one another. These occurred for tensile strength, elongation, and Shore A hardness.

Version 3.0
PAGE 75 of 137
To better clarify and analyze these results, graphs of the data are contained in
Figure 2-39 through Figure 2-43. The red line (or red shaded area if the requirement is a
range) on each graph represents the test requirement, and the yellow shaded region
represents the allowable variation from one (or both) of the JP-8 aged test results. As the
graphs depict, most of the test results were relatively consistent and were within the
allowable variation from at least one of the JP-8 baseline fuels.
Figure 2-39. Tensile Strength Results for the AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant
Figure 2-40. Elongation Results for the AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant

Version 3.0
PAGE 76 of 137
Figure 2-41. Volume Swell Results for the AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant
Figure 2-42. Shore A Hardness Results for the AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant
Figure 2-43. Peel Strength Results for the AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant

Version 3.0
PAGE 77 of 137
Material
Test
Description
Conditioning
Test Requirements
Test Results
Allowable Variation
Variation
from JP-8
AMS 3277
Tensile
Unaged
> 200 psi
436 psi
~.
(Polythioether)
Strength
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 200 psi
258 psi
Elongation
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
> 200 psi
392 psi
35 psi decrease
28d/200F/R-8
> 200 psi
386 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 128 psi
> 200 psi
323 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 65 psi
28d/200F/EERC
> 200 psi
311 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 53 psi
> 200 psi
289 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 31 psi
28d/200F/UOP
> 200 psi
349 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 91 psi
> 200 psi
256 psi
35 psi decrease
- 2 psi
28d/200F/Shell F-T
> 200 psi
253 psi
35 psi decrease
- 5 psi
> 200 psi
339 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 81 psi
28d/200F/Sasol F-T
> 200 psi
270 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 12 psi
> 200 psi
350 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 92 psi
Unaged
> 150%
231%
~.
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 150%
143%
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
> 150%
184%
25% decrease
28d/200F/R-8
> 150%
170%
25% decrease
+ 27%
> 150%
164%
25% decrease
+ 21%
28d/200F/EERC
> 150%
123%
25% decrease
- 20%
> 150%
163%
25% decrease
+ 20%
28d/200F/UOP
> 150%
141%
25% decrease
- 2%
> 150%
133%
25% decrease
- 10%
28d/200F/Shell F-T
> 150%
149%
25% decrease
+ 6%
> 150%
155%
25% decrease
+ 12%
28d/200F/Sasol F-T
> 150%
146%
25% decrease
+ 3%
> 150%
164%
25% decrease
+ 21%
Volume
Unaged
~.
Swell
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
0% to 25%
8%
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
0% to 25%
6%
5% increase
28d/200F/R-8
0% to 25%
1%
5% increase
- 5%
0% to 25%
4%
5% increase
- 2%
28d/200F/EERC
0% to 25%
2%
5% increase
- 4%
0% to 25%
5%
5% increase
- 1%
28d/200F/UOP
0% to 25%
1%
5% increase
- 5%
0% to 25%
3%
5% increase
- 3%
28d/200F/Shell F-T
0% to 25%
2%
5% increase
- 4%
0% to 25%
5%
5% increase
- 1%
28d/200F/Sasol F-T
0% to 25%
2%
5% increase
- 4%
0% to 25%
3%
5% increase
- 3%
Hardness,
Unaged
> 35 pts
63
Shore A
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 35 pts
43
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
> 35 pts
50
+ 5 pts
28d/200F/R-8
> 35 pts
46
+ 5 pts
+3/-4
> 35 pts
46
+ 5 pts
+ 3 / -4
28d/200F/EERC
> 35 pts
49
+ 5 pts
+ 6 / -1
> 35 pts
41
+ 5 pts
- 2 / -9
28d/200F/UOP
> 35 pts
48
+ 5 pts
+5/-2
> 35 pts
47
+ 5 pts
+ 4 / -3
28d/200F/Shell F-T
> 35 pts
50
+ 5 pts
+7/0
> 35 pts
47
+ 5 pts
+ 4 / -3
28d/200F/Sasol F-T
> 35 pts
50
+ 5 pts
+7/0
> 35 pts
50
+ 5 pts
+7/0

FT-SPK
Table 2-45. AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant

Version 3.0
PAGE 78 of 137
Material
Test
Description
AMS 3277
Peel Strength
(Polythioether)
Conditioning
Test Requirements
Test Results
Allowable Variation
Variation
from JP-8
Unaged
>20 lbs / 100%
55 lbs / 100%
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>20 lbs / 100%
23 lbs / 100%
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 5699)
>20 lbs / 100%
28 lbs / 100%
28d/200F/R-8
>20 lbs / 100%
42 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 19 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
38 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 15 lbs
28d/200F/EERC
>20 lbs / 100%
38 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 15 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
44 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 21 lbs
28d/200F/UOP
>20 lbs / 100%
45 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 22 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
42 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 19 lbs
28d/200F/Shell F-T
>20 lbs / 100%
36 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 13 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
46 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 23 lbs
28d/200F/Sasol F-T
>20 lbs / 100%
34 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 11 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
40 lbs / 100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 17 lbs

FT-SPK
Table 2-45. AMS 3277 Polythioether Sealant, Contd
The majority of results for the low density polysulfide sealant (AMS 3281) met
the test requirements, with the exception of volume swell after aging in all fuels.
Material
Allowable Variation
Variation
from JP-8
266 psi1
> 200 psi
257 psi1
28d/200F/F-T
> 200 psi
288 psi1
35 psi decrease
+ 31 psi
> 200 psi
259 psi1
35 psi decrease
+ 2 psi
28d/200F/R-8
> 200 psi
256 psi
35 psi decrease
- 1 psi
> 200 psi
234 psi
35 psi decrease
- 23 psi
Unaged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 150%
> 150%
596%1
258%1
~
~
~
~
Test
Conditioning
Test Requirements
Test Results
AMS 3281
Tensile
Unaged
> 200 psi
(Low-Density
Strength
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Description
Polysulfide)
Elongation
Volume Swell
Hardness,
Shore A
Peel Strength
28d/200F/F-T
> 150%
221%1
25% decrease
- 37%
> 150%
235%1
25% decrease
- 23%
28d/200F/R-8
> 150%
234%
25% decrease
- 24%
> 150%
166%
25% decrease
- 92%
~
Unaged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
0% to 20%
- 4.4%1
28d/200F/F-T
0% to 20%
-5.7%1
5% increase
- 1.3%
0% to 20%
-3.9%1
5% increase
+ 0.5%
28d/200F/R-8
0% to 20%
-3%
5% increase
+ 1.4%
0% to 20%
-1%
5% increase
+ 3.4%
Unaged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 35 pts
> 35 pts
381
431
~
~
~
~
28d/200F/F-T
> 35 pts
501
+ 5 pts
+7
> 35 pts
471
+ 5 pts
+4
28d/200F/R-8
> 35 pts
48
+ 5 pts
+5
> 35 pts
47
+ 5 pts
+4
Unaged
>20 lbs / 100%
36 lbs/100%1
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>20 lbs / 100%
30 lbs/100%1
28d/200F/F-T
>20 lbs / 100%
27 lbs/100%1
8 lbs decrease
- 3 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
29 lbs/100%1
8 lbs decrease
- 1 lb
28d/200F/R-8
>20 lbs / 100%
22 lbs/100%
8 lbs decrease
- 8 lbs
>20 lbs / 100%
33 lbs/100%
8 lbs decrease
+ 3 lbs

FT-SPK
Table 2-46. AMS 3281 Low-Density Polysulfide Sealant

Version 3.0
PAGE 79 of 137
The results that fell outside of the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline were:
elongation after aging in the JP-8/R-8 blend and elongation and shore A hardness after
aging in F-T fuel (Table 2-46).
All results for the two noncuring groove sealants met the volume swell test
requirements. The only result that was not within the allowable variation from the JP-8
baseline was the volume swell of the fluorosilicone (MIL-S-85334) sealant after aging in
R-8 fuel (Table 2-47).
Material
Test
AMS 3283
Volume
(Polysulfide)
Swell
MIL-S-85334
Volume
(Fluorosilicone)
Swell
Conditioning
Requirements
Results
Allowable Variation from Baseline (JP-8) Variation from JP-8
Unaged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
1% to 12%
4.1%1
1% to 12%
3.5%
+ 5%
- 0.6%
28d/160F/R-8
1% to 12%
2%
+ 5%
- 2.1%
1% to 12%
4%
+ 5%
- 0.1%
Unaged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
1% to 12%
10.7%1
+ 5%
- 2.4%
1% to 12%
8.3%
28d/160F/R-8
1% to 12%
4%
+ 5%
- 6.7%
1% to 12%
7%
+ 5%
- 3.7%
Data taken from Fischer-Tropsch Compatibility with Selected B-1B Materials 52

Table 2-47. Noncuring Groove Sealants
All results for the foam material after aging in R-8 and the JP-8/R-8 blend met the
test requirements and were within the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline. Also,
the elongation values after aging in F-T and the JP-8/F-T blend were outside the
allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline (Table 2-48).
Conditioning
Requirements
Results
MIL-F-87260
Material
Test
Unaged
> 10 psi
15 psi1
(Conductive)
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 10 psi
10 psi1
Tensile
28d/200F/F-T
> 10 psi
10 psi1
5 psi decr.
0 psi
Strength
> 10 psi
9 psi1
5 psi decr.
- 1 psi
28d/200F/R-8
> 10 psi
12 psi
5 psi decr.
+ 2 psi
> 10 psi
12 psi
5 psi decr.
+ 2 psi
Unaged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 100%
> 100%
118%1
134%1
~
~
~
~
28d/200F/F-T
> 100%
109%1
15% decr.
- 25%
> 100%
99%1
15% decr.
- 35%
28d/200F/R-8
> 100%
132%
15% decr.
- 2%
> 100%
124%
15% decr.
- 10%
Unaged
< 1.0E+12
1.3E+111
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
< 1.0E+12
2.5E+101
28d/200F/F-T
< 1.0E+12
4.6E+101
+ 2.1E+10
< 1.0E+12
5.3E+101
+ 2.8E+10
28d/200F/R-8
< 1.0E+12
3.1E+10
+ 6.0E+9
< 1.0E+12
3.5E+10
+ 1.0E+10
(Polyurethane)
Elongation
Resistivity
Allowable Variation from Baseline (JP-8) Variation from JP-8

~

FT-SPK
Table 2-48. Foam

Version 3.0
PAGE 80 of 137
The test results after aging in F-T and the JP-8/F-T blend were reviewed and there
was a concern about the validity of the test. As a result of the review it was determined
that the test needed to be re-run. After the retest, the foam was deemed to be compatible
for use in the JP-8/F-T blend and in the R-8 fuel.
All results for the four composite materials tested met the test requirements listed,
and all results were within the allowable variation from the baseline (Table 2-49).
Allowable
Material Description
Test
Conditioning
Test Requirements
Test Results
Variation from
Baseline (JP-8)
Graphite / Epoxy
Graphite / BMI
Graphite / Epoxy
Graphite / Epoxy
Variation
from JP-8
Interlaminar
Un-aged
>5000 psi
11,141 psi
Shear
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>5000 psi
6867 psi1
28d/200F/F-T
>5000 psi
7573 psi1
500 psi decr.
+ 706 psi
>5000 psi
8546 psi1
500 psi decr.
+ 1679 psi
28d/200F/R-8
>5000 psi
7670 psi
500 psi decr.
+ 803 psi
>5000 psi
7227 psi
500 psi decr.
+ 360 psi
Interlaminar
Un-aged
>5000 psi
12,330 psi1
Shear
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>5000 psi
8798 psi1
28d/200F/F-T
>5000 psi
10,090 psi1
500 psi decr.
+ 1292 psi
>5000 psi
10,360 psi1
500 psi decr.
+ 1563 psi
28d/200F/R-8
>5000 psi
10,970 psi
500 psi decr.
+ 2172 psi
+ 341 psi
>5000 psi
9139 psi
500 psi decr.
Interlaminar
Un-aged
>5000 psi
8110 psi
Shear
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>5000 psi
8120 psi
28d/200F/R-8
>5000 psi
9645 psi
500 psi decr.
+ 1525 psi
>5000 psi
9824 psi
500 psi decr.
+ 1704 psi
Interlaminar
Un-aged
>5000 psi
9993 psi
Shear
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>5000 psi
8702 psi
28d/200F/R-8
>5000 psi
9244 psi
500 psi decr.
+ 542 psi
>5000 psi
9392 psi
500 psi decr.
+ 690 psi

FT-SPK
Table 2-49. Composites
All results for the AMS-P-5315 nitrile O-ring material met the test requirements.
However, there were several instances in which the results were outside the allowable
variation from the JP-8 baseline. The volume swell results after aging in F-T fuel and R-8
fuel, and the compression set results after aging in both alternative fuels and blends were
outside the allowable variations from the JP-8 baseline. Similar to previous conclusions
concerning 100% F-T fuel, the volume swell results would be a cause for concern if the
100% R-8 fuel was used. However, the results for 50/50 blends of R-8 and F-T with JP-8
were similar and indicate less likelihood of leaks occurring (Table 2-50).

Version 3.0
PAGE 81 of 137
Material
Description
Test
Conditioning
Allowable
Test
Test Requirements
Results
1
Variation from
Baseline (JP-8)
Variation
from JP-8
AMS-P-5315
Tensile
Un-aged
> 1000 psi
1783 psi
(Nitrile)
Strength
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 1000 psi
1233 psi1
28d/160F/F-T
> 1000 psi
1390 psi1
125 psi decr.
+ 157 psi
> 1000 psi
1290 psi1
125 psi decr.
+ 57 psi
28d/160F/R-8
> 1000 psi
1504 psi
125 psi decr.
+ 271 psi
> 1000 psi
1242 psi
125 psi decr.
+ 9 psi
Unaged
> 200%
309%1
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 200%
251%1
28d/160F/F-T
> 200%
238%1
35% decr.
- 13%
> 200%
237%1
35% decr.
- 14%
28d/160F/R-8
> 200%
230%
35% decr.
- 21%
> 200%
217%
35% decr.
- 34%
Unaged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
~
0% to 25%
~
15.5%1
~
~
~
~
28d/160F/F-T
0% to 25%
1.0%1
+ 10%
- 14.5%
0% to 25%
7.0%1
+ 10%
- 8.5%
28d/160F/R-8
0% to 25%
1%
+ 10%
- 14.5%
Elongation
Volume
Swell
0% to 25%
7%
+ 10%
- 8.5%
Hardness,
Unaged
68
Shore M
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
+ 5 pts from unaged
70
28d/160F/F-T
+ 5 pts from unaged
73
+ 5 pts
+3
+ 5 pts from unaged
72
+ 5 pts
+2
28d/160F/R-8
+ 5 pts from unaged
73
+ 5 pts
+3
+ 5 pts from unaged
68
+ 5 pts
-2
Unaged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
~
< 50%
~
25.7%1
~
~
~
~
28d/160F/F-T
< 50%
34.3%1
5% increase
+ 8.6%
< 50%
35.6%1
5% increase
+ 9.9%
28d/160F/R-8
< 50%
35%
5% increase
+ 9.3%
< 50%
31%
5% increase
+ 5.3%
Compression
Set

FT-SPK
Table 2-50. Nitrile O-ring (AMS-P-5315)
All results for the fluorosilicone O-ring material conforming to AMS-R-25988

met the test requirements and were within the allowable variations from the JP-8 baseline
(Table 2-51).

Version 3.0
PAGE 82 of 137
Material
Test
Variation
Results
Baseline (JP-8)
from JP-8
> 500 psi
984 psi1
28d/225F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 500 psi
540 psi1
28d/225F/F-T
> 500 psi
718 psi1
125 psi decr.
+ 178 psi
> 500 psi
717 psi1
125 psi decr.
+ 177 psi
28d/225F/R-8
> 500 psi
702 psi
125 psi decr.
+ 162 psi
> 500 psi
694 psi
125 psi decr.
+ 154 psi
Unaged
28d/225F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 125%
> 125%
195%1
129%1
~
~
~
~
28d/225F/F-T
> 125%
164%1
35% decr.
+ 35%
> 125%
163%1
35% decr.
+ 34%
28d/225F/R-8
> 125%
161%
35% decr.
+ 32%
Test
Conditioning
Test Requirements
AMS-R-25988
Tensile
Unaged
(Fluorosilicone)
Strength
Description
Elongation
> 125%
167%
35% decr.
+ 38%
Volume
Unaged
Swell
28d/225F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
0% to 25%
10.5%1
28d/225F/F-T
0% to 25%
9.3%1
+ 10%
- 1.2%
0% to 25%
9.9%1
+ 10%
- 0.6%
28d/225F/R-8
0% to 25%
9%
+ 10%
- 1.5%
0% to 25%
10%
+ 10%
- 0.5%
Unaged
28d/225F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
~
- 20 pts from unaged
691
691
~
~
~
~
28d/225F/F-T
701
+ 5 pts
+1
701
+ 5 pts
+1
28d/225F/R-8
72
+ 5 pts
+3
Hardness,
Shore M
71
+ 5 pts
+2
Compression
Unaged
Set
28d/225F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
< 65%
41.4%1
28d/225F/F-T
< 65%
38.6%1
5% increase
- 2.8%
< 65%
34.2%1
5% increase
- 7.2%
28d/225F/R-8
< 65%
24%
5% increase
- 17.4%
< 65%
39%
5% increase
- 2.4%

FT-SPK
Table 2-51. Fluorosilicone O-ring (AMS-R-25988)
All results for the fluorocarbon Good-Low-Temperature (GLT) O-ring material

conforming to AMS-R-83485 met the test requirements. Additionally, all results for the
R-8 and JP-8/R-8 blend were within the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline.
(Table 2-52).

Version 3.0
PAGE 83 of 137
Material
Test
Allowable Variation
Variation
Results
from JP-8
> 1000 psi
1644 psi1
28d/325F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 1000 psi
1110 psi1
28d/325F/F-T
> 1000 psi
1198 psi1
125 psi decr.
+ 88 psi
> 1000 psi
1232 psi1
125 psi decr.
+ 122 psi
28d/325F/R-8
> 1000 psi
1293 psi
125 psi decr.
+ 183 psi
> 1000 psi
1235 psi
125 psi decr.
+ 125 psi
Unaged
28d/325F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 150%
> 150%
166%1
202%1
~
~
~
~
Test
Conditioning
Test Requirements
AMS-R-83485
Tensile
Unaged
(Fluorocarbon
Strength
Description
GLT)
Elongation
Volume Swell
Hardness,
Shore M
28d/325F/F-T
> 150%
203%1
35% decr.
+ 1%
> 150%
199%1
35% decr.
- 3%
28d/325F/R-8
> 150%
196%
35% decr.
- 6%
> 150%
187%
35% decr.
- 15%
~
Unaged
28d/325F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
0% to 10%
6.6%1
28d/325F/F-T
0% to 10%
4.4%1
+ 10%
- 2.2%
0% to 10%
6.4%1
+ 10%
- 0.2%
28d/325F/R-8
0% to 10%
5%
+ 10%
- 1.6%
0% to 10%
5%
+ 10%
- 1.6%
Unaged
28d/325F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
~
+ 5 pts from unaged
761
741
~
~
~
~
28d/325F/F-T
+ 5 pts from unaged
751
+ 5 pts
+1
+ 5 pts from unaged
671
+ 5 pts
-7
28d/325F/R-8
+ 5 pts from unaged
76
+ 5 pts
+2
+ 5 pts from unaged
76
+ 5 pts
+2
Compression
Unaged
Set
28d/325F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
< 60%
32.9%1
28d/325F/F-T
< 60%
34.3%1
5% increase
+ 1.4%
< 60%
28.4%1
5% increase
- 4.5%
28d/325F/R-8
< 60%
35%
5% increase
+ 2.1%
< 60%
29%
5% increase
- 3.9%

FT-SPK
Table 2-52. Fluorocarbon GLT O-ring (AMS-R-83485)
All results for the fluorocarbon O-ring material conforming to AMS 7276 met the
test requirements. Additionally, all results were within the allowable variation from the
JP-8 baseline except for elongation after aging in both alternative fuels and blends; and in
the previous testing, Shore M hardness and compression set after aging in the JP-8/F-T
blend. The Shore M hardness and compression set results did not show an indication of a
problem with R-8 or the JP-8/R-8 blend (Table 2-53).

Version 3.0
PAGE 84 of 137
Material
Allowable Variation
Variation
from JP-8
1799 psi1
> 1000 psi
1369 psi1
28d/325F/F-T
> 1000 psi
1586 psi1
125 psi decr.
+ 217 psi
> 1000 psi
1386 psi1
125 psi decr.
+ 17 psi
28d/325F/R-8
> 1000 psi
1434 psi
125 psi decr.
+ 65 psi
> 1000 psi
1388 psi
125 psi decr.
+ 19 psi
Unaged
28d/325F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 150%
> 150%
229%1
342%1
~
~
~
~
Test
Conditioning
Test Requirements
Test Results
AMS 7276
Tensile
Unaged
> 1000 psi
(Fluorocarbon)
Strength
28d/325F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Description
Elongation
28d/325F/F-T
> 150%
233%1
35% decr.
- 109%
> 150%
216%1
35% decr.
- 126%
28d/325F/R-8
> 150%
254%
35% decr.
- 88%
> 150%
241%
35% decr.
- 101%
~
Volume
Unaged
Swell
28d/325F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
0% to 10%
6.7%1
28d/325F/F-T
0% to 10%
4.8%1
+ 10%
- 1.9%
0% to 10%
5.5%1
+ 10%
- 1.2%
28d/325F/R-8
0% to 10%
4%
+ 10%
- 2.7%
0% to 10%
5%
+ 10%
- 1.7%
Unaged
28d/325F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
~
+ 5 pts from unaged
761
741
~
~
~
~
28d/325F/F-T
+ 5 pts from unaged
761
+ 5 pts
+2
+ 5 pts from unaged
68
+ 5 pts
-6
28d/325F/R-8
+ 5 pts from unaged
77
+ 5 pts
+3
Hardness,
Shore M
+ 5 pts from unaged
76
+ 5 pts
+2
Compression
Unaged
Set
28d/325F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
< 60%
22.9%1
28d/325F/F-T
< 60%
24.3%1
5% increase
+ 1.4%
< 60%
40.2%1
5% increase
+ 17.3%
28d/325F/R-8
< 60%
24%
5% increase
+ 1.1%
< 60%
27%
5% increase
+ 4.1%

FT-SPK
Table 2-53. Fluorocarbon O-ring (AMS 7276)
All of the results for the acrylic/nitrile hose material conforming to MIL-H-4495
met the test requirements. However, in many cases the results after aging in the
alternative fuels and blends were outside the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline
(Table 2-54). Although there were instances of results outside of the allowable variation,
another standard practice for determining the compatibility of hose materials with various
fluids is to use the following criteria: tensile strength and elongation results must be
greater than -45% from the un-aged results. Additionally, the hardness value cannot
decrease by more than 15 points from the un-aged results, and the volume swell is
required to be between 0 and 25%. The only results that failed to meet these criteria were
for volume swell after aging in the four alternative fuels and blends.

Version 3.0
PAGE 85 of 137
Material
Allowable Variation
Variation
from JP-8
1684 psi1
> 1200 psi
1627 psi1
28d/160F/F-T
> 1200 psi
1649 psi1
125 psi decr.
+ 22 psi
> 1200 psi
1534 psi1
125 psi decr.
- 93 psi
28d/160F/R-8
> 1200 psi
1538 psi
125 psi decr.
- 89 psi
> 1200 psi
1400 psi
125 psi decr.
- 227 psi
Unaged
> 150%
250%1
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 150%
207%1
28d/160F/F-T
> 150%
187%1
25% decr.
- 20%
> 150%
199%1
25% decr.
- 8%
28d/160F/R-8
> 150%
175%
25% decr.
- 32%
> 150%
167%
25% decr.
- 40%
Unaged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
~
< 8%
~
2.3%1
~
~
~
~
28d/160F/F-T
< 8%
-9.6%1
+ 5%
- 11.9%
< 8%
-4.9%1
+ 5%
- 7.2%
28d/160F/R-8
< 8%
-10.5%
+ 5%
- 12.8%
Test
Conditioning
Test Requirements
Test Results
MIL-H-4495
Tensile
Unaged
> 1200 psi
(Acrylic/Nitrile)
Strength
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Description
Elongation
Volume
Swell
< 8%
-6.0%
+ 5%
- 8.3%
Hardness,
Unaged
661
Shore A
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
+ 5 pts from unaged
621
28d/160F/F-T
+ 5 pts from unaged
771
+ 5 pts
+ 15
+ 5 pts from unaged
681
+ 5 pts
+6
28d/160F/R-8
+ 5 pts from unaged
70
+ 5 pts
+8
+ 5 pts from unaged
64
+ 5 pts
+2

FT-SPK
Table 2-54. Acrylic/Nitrile Hose
After aging in R-8 and the JP-8/R-8 blend, all results for the epichlorohydrin hose
material conforming to MIL-DTL-26521 53 met the test requirements. The only result that
did not meet the test requirements was the tensile strength after aging in the JP-8/F-T
blend for a previous evaluation. This result was also outside the allowable variation from
the JP-8 baseline. The only other two results which were outside the allowable variation
from the JP-8 baseline were the Shore A hardness results after aging in F-T fuel and the
JP-8/R-8 blend (Table 2-55).

Version 3.0
PAGE 86 of 137
Material
Description
Test
Conditioning
Test Requirements
Allowable
Test
Results
1
Variation from
Baseline (JP-8)
Variation
from JP-8
MIL-DTL-26521
Tensile
Unaged
> 1500 psi
1806 psi
(Epichlorohydrin)
Strength
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 1500 psi
1684 psi1
28d/160F/F-T
> 1500 psi
1575 psi1
125 psi decr.
- 109 psi
> 1500 psi
1383 psi1
125 psi decr.
- 301 psi
28d/160F/R-8
> 1500 psi
1718 psi
125 psi decr.
+ 34 psi
> 1500 psi
1674 psi
125 psi decr.
- 10 psi
Unaged
> 300%
538%1
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 300%
320%1
28d/160F/F-T
> 300%
317%1
25% decr.
- 3%
> 300%
525%1
25% decr.
+ 205%
28d/160F/R-8
> 300%
511%
25% decr.
+ 191%
> 300%
491%
25% decr.
+ 171%
Unaged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
~
< 8%
~
2.7%1
~
~
~
~
28d/160F/F-T
< 8%
-2.1%1
+ 5%
- 4.8%
< 8%
2.4%1
+ 5%
- 0.3%
28d/160F/R-8
< 8%
-2.2%
+ 5%
- 4.9%
< 8%
1.7%
+ 5%
- 1.0%
Hardness,
Unaged
621
Shore A
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
+ 5 pts from unaged
651
28d/160F/F-T
+ 5 pts from unaged
721
+ 5 pts
+7
+ 5 pts from unaged
611
+ 5 pts
-4
28d/160F/R-8
+ 5 pts from unaged
63
+ 5 pts
-2
+ 5 pts from unaged
58
+ 5 pts
-7
Elongation
Volume
Swell

FT-SPK
Table 2-55. Epichlorohydrin Hose
All results for the four wire insulation materials met the test requirements.
However, there were several instances in which the results were outside the allowable
variation from the JP-8 baseline: tensile strength of the Teflon film after aging in 100%
F-T; elongation of the polyethylene film after aging in 100% F-T, 100% R-8, and the JP8/R-8 blend; tensile strength of the Kapton film after aging in the JP-8/F-T blend, 100%
R-8, and the JP-8/R-8 blend; and elongation of the Kapton film after aging in the JP-8/FT blend. Due to potential issues with the F-T fuel, actual wire insulations were tested.
This testing indicated no issues with the F-T or JP-8/F-T blend, so the likelihood R-8 fuel
would cause any serious issues is minimal (Table 2-56).

Version 3.0
PAGE 87 of 137
Material
Test
Variation
Baseline (JP-8)
from JP-8
1937 psi1
> 500 psi
1973 psi1
28d/160F/F-T
> 500 psi
1767 psi1
150 psi decr.
- 206 psi
> 500 psi
2001 psi1
150 psi decr.
+ 28 psi
28d/160F/R-8
> 500 psi
4006 psi
150 psi decr.
+ 2033 psi
> 500 psi
4401 psi
150 psi decr.
+ 2428 psi
Un-aged
> 25%
208%1
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 25%
122%1
28d/160F/F-T
> 25%
142%1
15% decr.
+ 20%
> 25%
181%1
15% decr.
+ 59%
28d/160F/R-8
> 25%
261%
15% decr.
+ 139%
Test
Conditioning
TFE Teflon
Tensile
Unaged
> 500 psi
Film
Strength
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
Description
Elongation
Requirements
Test Results
> 25%
324%
15% decr.
+ 202%
Polyethylene
Tensile
Un-aged
> 500 psi
3818 psi1
Film
Strength
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 500 psi
3076 psi1
28d/160F/F-T
> 500 psi
3209 psi1
250 psi decr.
+ 133 psi
> 500 psi
3279 psi1
250 psi decr.
+ 203 psi
28d/160F/R-8
> 500 psi
3847 psi
250 psi decr.
+ 771 psi
> 500 psi
3814 psi
250 psi decr.
+ 738 psi
Un-aged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 25%
> 25%
343%1
672%1
~
~
~
~
28d/160F/F-T
> 25%
179%1
50% decr.
- 493%
> 25%
640%1
50% decr.
- 32%
28d/160F/R-8
> 25%
102%
50% decr.
- 570%
Elongation
Nylon 101 Film
> 25%
93%
50% decr.
- 579%
Tensile
Unaged
> 500 psi
10,431 psi1
Strength
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 500 psi
11,824 psi1
28d/160F/F-T
> 500 psi
12,438 psi1
850 psi decr.
+ 614 psi
> 500 psi
12,265 psi1
850 psi decr.
+ 441 psi
28d/160F/R-8
> 500 psi
12,981 psi
850 psi decr.
+ 1157 psi
> 500 psi
12,766 psi
850 psi decr.
+ 942 psi
~
~
Elongation
Kapton Film
Unaged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 25%
> 25%
360%
35%1
~
~
28d/160F/F-T
> 25%
42%1
5% decr.
+ 7%
> 25%
71%1
5% decr.
+ 36%
28d/160F/R-8
> 25%
35%
5% decr.
0%
> 25%
114%
5% decr.
+ 79%
Tensile
Unaged
> 500 psi
24,719 psi1
Strength
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 500 psi
25,203 psi1
28d/200F/F-T
> 500 psi
28,268 psi1
1800 psi decr.
+ 3065 psi
> 500 psi
22,047 psi1
1800 psi decr.
-3156 psi
28d/200F/R-8
> 500 psi
22,419 psi
1800 psi decr.
- 2784 psi
> 500 psi
20,719 psi
1800 psi decr.
- 4484 psi
Unaged
28d/200F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 25%
> 25%
48%1
42%1
~
~
~
~
28d/200F/F-T
> 25%
63%1
5% decr.
+ 21%
> 25%
28%1
5% decr.
- 14%
28d/200F/R-8
> 25%
65%
5% decr.
+ 23%
> 25%
56%
5% decr.
+ 14%
Elongation

FT-SPK
Table 2-56. Wire Insulations

Version 3.0
PAGE 88 of 137
All results for the potting compound material met the test requirements after aging
in R-8 and the JP-8/R-8 blend with the exception of elongation. In previous testing, both
the tensile strength and elongation results after aging in JP-8 and the JP-8/F-T blend did
not meet the test requirements. The only results that were outside the allowable variation
from the JP-8 baseline were the Shore A hardness results after aging in 100% R-8 and the
JP-8/R-8 blend. Based on overall results and comparison with the previous testing, it does
not appear the R-8 fuel or JP-8/R-8 blend should be a cause for concern for the potting
compound material (Table 2-57).
Material
Test
Allowable Variation
Variation
from JP-8
Conditioning
MIL-PRF-8516
Tensile
Unaged
> 100 psi
215 psi1
(Type II, Class 1)
Strength
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 100 psi
36 psi1
> 100 psi
46 psi1
35 psi decrease
+ 10 psi
28d/160F/R-8
> 100 psi
134 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 98 psi
> 100 psi
160 psi
35 psi decrease
+ 124 psi
Unaged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 150%
> 150%
192%1
72%1
~
~
~
~
> 150%
82%1
25% decrease
+ 10%
28d/160F/R-8
> 150%
119%
25% decrease
+ 47%
+ 68%
(Polysulfide)
Elongation
Requirements
Test Results
Test
Description
> 150%
140%
25% decrease
Volume
Unaged
Swell
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> -20%
-17.0%
> -20%
+ 10%
28d/160F/R-8
> -20%
-13.4%
+ 10%
+ 3.6%
> -20%
-11.4%
+ 10%
+ 5.6%
Unaged
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
> 20 pts
> 20 pts
451
551
~
~
~
~
> 20 pts
541
+ 5 pts
-1
28d/160F/R-8
> 20 pts
33
+ 5 pts
- 22
> 20 pts
36
Hardness,
Shore A
Peel Strength
+ 5 pts
- 19
Unaged
>10 lbs / 100%
14 lbs/100%
28d/160F/JP-8 (POSF 4751)
>10 lbs / 100%
22 lbs/100%1
>10 lbs / 100%
21 lbs/100%1
8 lbs decrease
- 1 lb
28d/160F/R-8
>10 lbs / 100%
16 lbs/100%
8 lbs decrease
- 6 lbs
>10 lbs / 100%
18 lbs/100%
8 lbs decrease
- 4 lbs
Data taken from Fischer-Tropsch Compatibility with Selected C-17 Materials 54

Table 2-57. Potting Compound

Version 3.0
PAGE 89 of 137
2.4.1.2
Additional Tests on SYN-R8
O-ring Type
Figure 2-44. O-ring Swell Test R-8
O-ring Type
Figure 2-45. O-ring Tensile Strength R-8

Version 3.0
PAGE 90 of 137
2.4.1.3
UOP-BSPK B100
Environmental Exposure
None
UOP-3 SPK
Jet A
Additional Tests on UOP-x and UOP-xB50 SPKs
Sealant test
Similar to jet A
ID
Tensile Strength (psi)
Elongation (%)
NS 1
NS 2
NS 3
Ave:
1B
2B
3B
Ave:
4B
5B
6B
Ave:
1A
2A
3A
Ave:
4A
5A
6A
Ave:
249.74
256.82
256.77
254.44
288.25
281.20
288.23
285.89
289.63
289.14
288.13
288.97
272.96
282.04
274.76
276.58
277.96
276.59
278.87
277.81
329.83
344.51
352.68
342.34
249.45
223.73
259.94
244.37
252.3
254.93
240.2
249.14
249.39
274.11
251.77
258.42
265.04
262.09
280.25
269.13
Weight (g)
Before Immersion
After Immersion
NR
NR
NR
NR
12.945
13.030
13.031
NR
NR
NR
NR
12.352
12.440
12.454
12.826
12.750
12.881
12.255
12.171
12.303
12.921
13.125
12.858
12.391
12.592
12.342
13.056
13.134
13.031
12.530
12.611
12.527
%Weight Loss
Flexibility
Before immersion
After immersion
NR
NR
NR
NR
4.580
4.530
4.430
4.513
4.452
4.541
4.490
4.494
4.100
4.060
4.010
4.057
4.030
3.980
3.870
3.960
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
No crack
No crack
No crack
No crack
No crack
No crack
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
No crack
No crack
No crack
No crack
No crack
No crack
NR = Not required
Table 2-58. Sealant BMS5-45 Immersion Test for Neat UOP-3 Bio-SPK
Sealant test results show essentially no change in properties of sealant immersed in UOP-3 compared to
typical Jet A. The test conditions were 14 days immersion at 140oF.
Fluid
Elastomer
UOP-3
Fluorosilicone
UOP-3
Nitrile
Jet A (local Jet A )
Nitrile
%Vol Change
5.30
6.99
5.49
5.93 Ave
1.01
1.11
0.77
0.96 Ave
8.78
12.19
12.17
11.04 Ave
Durometer
Before
72
72
72
72 Ave
65
66
65
65
73
75
75
75 Ave
7 day soak at 75oF

Table 2-59. Elastomer Compatibility Testing: Primary Elastomer Tests for Neat UOP-3 Bio-SPK

Version 3.0
PAGE 91 of 137
After
66
66
67
66 Ave
67
68
68
68
67
68
68
68 Ave
Fluid
Tensile (PSI)
(Break Stress)
951.5
939.7
927.7
927.2
887.3
880.3
1348.9
1311.8
1197.7
991.9
1210.6
1325.2
Elastomer
Jet A (control )
Fluorosilicone
UOP-3
Fluorosilicone
Jet A (control )
Nitrile
UOP-3
Nitrile
Elongation (%)
(Break Strain)
234.8
242.7
244.7
248.6
256.3
252.5
404.7
404.9
375.4
325.5
344.2
361.9
7 day soak at 75oF

Table 2-60. Elastomer Compatibility Testing: Primary Elastomer Tests for Neat UOP-3 Bio-SPK
Fuel and Material tested
Test
%Vol Change
1
2
3
1
2
3
Durometer
Before
After
5.30
6.99
5.49
5.93 Ave
72
72
72
66
66
67
66 Ave
1.01
1.11
0.77
0.96 Ave
65
66
65
67
68
68
68 Ave
UOP-4
Fluorosilicone
UOP-4
Nitrile
7 Days/Room Temperature Immersion
Table 2-61. Materials Compatibility UOP-4
Test
Tensile (PSI)
Break Stress
Elongation (%)
Break Strain
1
2
3
1
2
3
951.5
939.7
927.7
1348.9
1311.8
1197.7
234.8
242.7
244.7
404.7
404.9
375.4
1
2
3
1
2
3
927.2
887.3
880.3
991.9
1210.6
1325.2
248.6
256.3
252.5
325.5
344.2
361.9
Jet A , typical jet fuel

Fluorosilicones
Nitrile
UOP-4
Fluorosilicones
Nitrile
7 Days/Room Temperature Immersion
Table 2-62. Materials Compatibility Comparison, UOP-4, Jet A Fuels

Version 3.0
PAGE 92 of 137
Test
Tensile (psi)
(Break Stress)
Elongation (%)
(Break Strain)
1
2
3
1
2
3
951.5
939.7
927.7
1348.9
1311.8
1197.7
234.8
242.7
244.7
404.7
404.9
375.4
1
2
3
1
2
3
896.8
561.8
826.1
1136.2
1090.4
1189.2
257.3
245.4
235.5
331.9
296.3
260.3
Control
Fluorosilicone
Nitrile
UOP-2B50
Fluorosilicone
Nitrile
7 days Room Temperature
Table 2-63. UOP-2B50 Blend, Elastomer Compatibility
Test
Tensile (PSI)
(Break Stress)
Elongation (%)
(Break Strain)
1
2
3
1
2
3
951.5
939.7
927.7
1348.9
1311.8
1197.7
234.8
242.7
244.7
404.7
404.9
375.4
1
2
3
1
2
3
976.7
953.9
936.3
1216.2
1097.6
1215.0
270.9
272.0
263.8
290.6
288.2
312.8
Jet A , Reference fuel

Fluorosilicones
Nitrile
UOP-4B50
Fluorosilicones
Nitrile
7 days Room Temperature

Table 2-64. UOP-4B50 Blend, Elastomer Compatibility
2.4.1.3.1
Conclusions
From the data obtained in this effort, the various alternative fuels whether F-T
derived or Bio-SPK (HRJ) appear to affect the materials similarly. Likewise, the 50/50
blend of each alternative fuel with JP-8 also appear to affect the various materials
similarly. In both cases, this was expected because the SPKs produced by each process
(or feedstock) are very similar. It does not appear the 50/50 blend of any of the
alternative fuels degraded the materials evaluated more than JP-8 alone. However, similar
to previous studies, it cannot be concluded that the 100% alternative fuels would be
suitable for use. There does not appear to be any serious compatibility concerns for these
materials with the 50/50 blend of any of the alternative fuels tested.
The nitrile bladder innerliner material failed to meet the elongation requirement of
300% after aging in all of the fuels. However, all results after aging in the various 50/50
blends were within the allowable variation from the JP-8 baseline, so no further testing is
Version 3.0
PAGE 93 of 137
needed at this time. It does not appear the 50/50 blend of any of the alternative fuels
degraded the AMS-S-4383 nitrile coating more than did JP-8 alone. All of the results for
the AMS-S-8802 manganese dioxide cured polysulfide and AMS 3277 polythioether
sealants were relatively consistent, and it does not appear the Bio-SPK (HRJ) alternative
fuels and blends degraded their properties any more than did the JP-8s, F-Ts, and JP-8/FT blends.
It is notable that there were some instances in which the results after aging
materials in the two JP-8 fuels were outside of the allowable variation from one another.
This potentially indicates the allowable variation values used for these materials are too
restrictive. However, further studies should continue to use the same test requirements
and allowable variations for these materials to ensure any potentially increased
degradation is identified. It is important to remember a material failing to meet the test
requirement and/or allowable variation for one particular test does not necessarily mean
there is a compatibility issue. The overall test results and potential on-aircraft
implications of the results must always be considered before a final determination on
compatibility is made.

Version 3.0
PAGE 94 of 137
3.0
Additional Testing
3.1
Ground Handling / Safety
3.1.1 Effect on Clay Filtration

This test method, ASTM D3948 55 covers a rapid portable means for field and laboratory
use to rate the ability of aviation turbine fuels to release entrained or emulsified water
when passed through fiberglass coalescing material. This test method provides a measure
of the presence of surfactants in aviation turbine fuels.
ASTM D3948
SAS-IPK
SYN-R-8x
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
MSEP Rating
99
99
99
98
99
93
FT-SPK
Table 3-1. SPK Neat and Blends, Effect on Clay Filtration
3.1.2 Filtration (SAE J1488)

The SAEJ 1488 56 emulsified water removal test is an alternative to the more expensive
API 1581 57 test, Specifications and qualification procedures for aviation jet fuel
filter/separators (it requires ~12,000 US Gallons of fuel per test). The objective is to
determine the ability of a fuel/water separator to separate emulsified or finely dispersed
water from fuels.
SAS-IPK
M1
#1
Test Fluid
Filter ID
Test No
Pressure
Vacuum / Pressure
Test Temperature, C 26.6
7.6
74.50
Test Fluid Flow Rate (lpm)
Water Saturation
Fuel/Water Interfacial Tension (mN/m)
38.68
Before
MSEP
99
Before
Sample ID
Test Time Upstream Downstream Water Content Pressure Drop Water Drained from Test Filter
(minutes)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(kPa)
(ml)
Measured
Adjusted
1
10
508.3
113.70
39
9.61
0
2
30
2820
139.70
65
10
52
3
50
2480
81.02
7
10.22
440
4
70
2260
49.46
0
11.1
320
5
90
2850
37.69
0
11.2
480
6
110
3270
31.47
0
11.39
570
7
130
3190
24.59
0
11.34
385
8
150
1800
63.79
0
11.39
380
2397
Average Water Content (ppm)
100
Time Weighted Average Water Removal Efficiency (%)
2627
Total Water from Test Housing (ml)
0
Water from Cleanup Filters (ml)
FT-SPK
Table 3-2. Removal of Emulsified Free Water for SAS-IPK (FT-SPK)

Version 3.0
PAGE 95 of 137
UOP-2B50 Filter ID
M1
#2
Test Fluid
Test No
Pressure
Vacuum / Pressure
Test Temperature, C 26.6
7.6
112.83
Water Saturation
Test Fluid Flow Rate (lpm)
Fuel/Water Interfacial Tension (mN/m)
35.8
Before
MSEP
93
Before
Sample ID
Test Time Upstream Downstream Water Content Pressure Drop Water Drained from Test Filter
(minutes)
(ppm)
(ppm)
(kPa)
(ml)
Measured
Adjusted
1
10
2490
53.48
0
7.5
74
2
30
2760
77.69
0
8.4
305
3
50
1980
47.94
0
9.8
300
4
70
2080
52.90
0
10.4
415
5
90
2600
55.62
0
10.5
475
6
110
2950
73.42
0
10.5
410
7
130
2980
55.38
0
11.1
320
8
150
2540
61.17
0
11.2
315
2548
Average Water Content (ppm)
100.0
2540
Total Water from Test Housing (ml)
0
Water from Cleanup Filters (ml)
Table 3-3. Removal of Emulsified Free Water for UOP-2B50 (Bio-SPK 50% (v) Blend)
Sample
SAS-IPK
SHE-IPK w/additives
SHE-IPK-B50M w/additives
SYN-SPK
SYN-SPK-B50M w/additives
UOP-2B50

100.0
98.3
99.6
98.8
99.6
100.0
JP-8
JP-8 w/ Di-EGME
JP-8 w/ Tri-EGME
FT-SPK
99.4
99.5
99.3
Fuel
JP-8
JP-8
Jet A
Table 3-4. Removal of Emulsified Free Water for Different Fuels SAE J1488
The filtration results are similar for FT-SPK or Bio-SPK jet fuels (neat or blend) and
petroleum-based jet fuels.
3.1.3 Storage Stability
Peroxides and gum formation usually occur during long-term storage.
Antioxidants can be added to prevent peroxides and gum formation. Petroleum-based
fuels generally contain natural antioxidants unless they have been removed by
hydrotreating.
3.1.3.1
Peroxides
Peroxide formation was tested according to ASTM D3703. The results of
accelerated storage tests for peroxides formation in the Bio-SPKs are presented in Figure
3-1. The Bio-SPKs did not contain any antioxidant additive. Per ASTM D4625, six
Version 3.0
PAGE 96 of 137
weeks of storage at 65C correspond to 96 weeks (~1.8 years) of storage at 21C. The
results for the FT-SPKs from reference 12 are presented for comparison. All FT-SPK
fuels contained an approved antioxidant. For instance, Sasol added 20 mg/l to the IPK
and to the GTL blends.
15
SAS-GTL-1B50
SAS-GTL-2B50
SAS-IPK-B50
SHE-GTL-B50M
SYN-S-8B50M
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
Peroxide Concentration (mg/kg)
10
0
0
Storage Time @ 65 C (week)
Figure 3-1. Peroxide Formation, SPK Blends
3.1.3.2
Potential Gums
The Bio-SPKs were evaluated for potential gum formation following ASTM
D5304 test method. The jet fuel samples were stored at 100C for 16 hours under 800kPa
of oxygen. This is equivalent to a storage of 40 months at ambient conditions according
to Appendix X1 of ASTM D5304 test method. The data are shown in Table 3-5.
Storage Stability Test
Potential Gums, 16 hours
Units
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
mg/100mL
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.7
Table 3-5. SPK, Neat and Blends, Potential Gum per ASTM D5304
3.1.4
Test
Upper Explosion Limit (UEL),
@100C
Lower Explosion Limit (LEL),
@100C
Flammability Limits
SAS-IPK
SYN-R-8
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
5.4 %
4.3 % @150C
6.0 %
3.5 %
5.8 %
0.4 %
0.4 % @100C
0.3 % @150C
0.5 %
0.5 %
0.4 %
FT-SPK
Table 3-6. SPK Neat and Blends, Flammability Limits per ASTM E681
The results of the test indicates that the FT-SPK and Bio-SPK neat and blends have
similar flammability limits.

Version 3.0
PAGE 97 of 137
3.1.5
Autoignition Temperature
Autoignition Temperature Test
Unit
SAS-IPK
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8B50
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
Hot Flame Autoignition Temp.
247
222
227
230
226
233
Hot Flame Lag Time
19
163
175
225
111
N/A
Cool Flame Autoignition Temp.
N/A
N/A
224
N/A
N/A
Cool Flame Lag Time
N/A
N/A
216
Barometric Pressure
mm Hg
741
740.3
736.4
738.9
736.7
737.3
Reaction Threshold Temp.
217
201
213
218
217
221
FT-SPK
Table 3-7. SPK Neat and Blends, Autoignition Temperature Test per ASTM E659
The result of the test indicates that the FT-SPK and Bio-SPK neat and blends performed
essentially the same in the test.
3.1.6
Hot Surface Ignition Temperature
Sample
SYN-R-8
UOP-HRJ-5
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
Hot surface ignition (oC)

677
649 < HSI 663
649
621
677
663 < HSI 677
Table 3-8. Hot Surface Ignition Temperature, FTN791-6053
3.1.7
Minimum Ignition Energy
Sample
SAS-IPK
SYN-R-8
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
FT-SPK
Minimum ignition energy (mJ)

0.51
0.63
0.46
0.46
0.46
Table 3-9. Minimum Ignition Energy, E582

Version 3.0
PAGE 98 of 137
3.1.8
Ignition Quality Test (IQT)
Sample
SAS-IPK
UOP-4
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
FT-SPK
Ignition Delay (ms)

6.9
3.47
4.25
4.18
4.13
Derived Cetane Number

31.3
57.5
46.9
47.6
48.1
Table 3-10. Ignition Quality Test (IQT), D6890
3.2
Cetane Index
Data for cetane index were obtained per ASTM D6890 (IQT) or ASTM D613.
The cetane index was also calculated per ASTM D976 (from ASTM D86 distillation
data).
Sample
Cetane Number
(ASTM D613)
EER-1
SAS-GTL-1
SAS-GTL-2
SAS-IPK
25.4
SHE-GTL
SYN-R-8
SYN-R-8x
SYN-S-8
UOP-1
UOP-2
UOP-3
UOP-4
UOP-HRJ-5
64.6
UOP-SOL-1
SHE-GTLB50M
SYN-S-8B50M
UOP-2B50
UOP-3B50
UOP-4B50
UOP-HRJ-5B50M
JP-8
FT-SPK
Derived Cetane Number

(ASTM D6890)
31.3
59.0
59.6
53.8
N/A
N/A
57.5
50.7
51.6
46.9
47.6
48.1
Calculated Cetane Index

(ASTM D976)
60.2
59.2
70.6
54.1
57.6
67.4
63.8
66.1
57.3
59.7
60.7
60.2
66.1
50.7
50.5
54.4
49.2
49.0
50.2
53.7
Calculated Cetane Index

(ASTM D4737)
60.5
64.4
69.4
60.2
64.8
65.0
63.2
64.2
61.3
62.2
64.3
63.9
67.4
51.5
55.4
54.7
51.2
53.5
53.6
56.5
44.4
Table 3-11. Cetane Index for SPKS, Neat or Blended Jet Fuels

Version 3.0
PAGE 99 of 137
3.3
Toxicity
3.3.1 Toxicity Evaluation Requirements

For Toxicity evaluation requirements, ASTM D40542 refers to the Department of
Defense Aerospace Fuels Certification Handbook 58, Appendix E. Appendix E lists seven
(7) minimum toxicity tests, Five (5) additional tests, and an optional physiologicallybased pharmacokinetic model development effort. The minimum tests include in vitro
and in vivo genotoxicity, acute inhalation, skin irritation, and inhalation studies of 2week and 90-day duration, a typical initial toxicity screen. The present analysis must
diverge from the Appendix E process because there are currently no toxicology test data
for Bio-SPK. Appendix E does not address a process that could be used in the absence of
data on the fuel of interest. An alternative approach is necessary due to the lack of
toxicity testing on Bio-SPK. This review discusses available alternative methods, applies
appropriate methods to Bio-SPK, and reviews the toxicology literature to support the
resulting evaluation.
3.3.2 Reciprocal Calculation Procedure
Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL) have generally been developed for specific
chemicals or for defined mixtures based on toxicological data for the chemical or mixture
of interest. Because exposure to mixtures of chemicals is typical in occupational settings,
the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) developed
and has recommended a Reciprocal Calculation Procedure (RCP) for mixtures (since
1940, according to ECETOC 59). The RCP is a calculation of a mixture exposure limit
based on the weighted exposure limits of the individual components. It can be applied to
an airborne sample or to the composition of a liquid mixture. Application of the RCP
assumes that the components of a mixture have similar toxicity and act in an additive
manner. The RCP approach is limited in its application to Bio-SPK or similar
hydrocarbon mixtures because of the number of chemically distinct components, and the
lack of chemical specific OELs for the components. The need for a more generalizable
approach was addressed in the petroleum refining industry, where many different
mixtures of varying composition are produced, with their composition depending of the
starting material, the processing steps, and the finishing steps used. Although petroleum
derived hydrocarbon mixtures have numerous components, they are primarily aliphatics
(paraffins) and aromatics. In view of the similarity of the toxicity of many individual
chemicals within these classes, and lack of toxicity data on most, the UK Health and
Safety Executive developed OELs for the hydrocarbon classes (aliphatics,
cycloaliphatics, aromatics) that could be used in the RCP calculation to develop a mixture
OEL for a hydrocarbon solvent, fuel, or refinery stream 60 61. The chemical categories and
their respective group OELs are in Table 3-12.
Chemical group
C5-6 aliphatics*
C7-15 aliphatics
C5-6 cycloaliphatics*
C7-16 cycloaliphatics
Aromatics*
60
OEL (mg/m3)
1800
1200
1800
800
500
*excluding those with specific OELs; from HSE

Table 3-12. Hydrocarbon Class OELs
Version 3.0
PAGE 100 of 137
These OEL values are used in the RCP calculation along with the OELs for
specific chemical components of the mixture such as hexane, cyclohexane, and several
aromatics. The chemicals with specific OELs were often those for which the assumption
of additivity was not justified due to different toxic endpoints, potency, or mode of toxic
action (common examples cited in this context are n-hexane, benzene, cyclohexane, and
naphthalene), and for this reason they often had lower OELs.
A critical review of the available methods and data for hydrocarbon mixture
assessment59 concluded that the group OEL values assigned by HSE were reasonable,
and that the RCP approach was the best available. McKee et al. 62 presented an updated
assessment of the applicability of the RCP and group OELs for hydrocarbon mixtures.
They developed chemical group guidance values (GGV, e.g., OELs for chemical groups
analogous to the hydrocarbon class OELs used by HSE) based on central nervous system
effects. To do this, they incorporated new toxicological information and recent changes in
established OELs, and also performed new research on acute exposures in animals and
humans to representative chemicals from each group. The group classifications and
guidance values recommended by McKee et al.62 are shown in Table 3-13.
Chemical group
C5-8 aliphatics/cycloaliphatics
C9-15 aliphatics/cycloaliphatics
C7-8 aromatics
C9-15 aromatics
62
OEL (mg/m3)
1500
1200
200
100
From McKee et al.
Table 3-13. Group Guidance Values
There are several differences between the McKee et al.62 and the UK-HSE60
recommendations. McKee et al.62 recommended slightly different category definitions
(carbon number ranges), slightly lower OEL values for the same aliphatics, and
considerably lower OEL values for the aromatics. McKee et al.62 also compared different
aliphatic chemical classes and concluded that there was no clear difference between iso-,
normal, and cyclic aliphatics, so they do not derive different values for cycloaliphatics
and aliphatics. They also note that some data supports a general increase in toxicity with
increase in carbon number, but that there is limited data for 9-carbon compounds or
larger. ACGIH 63 added a new appendix to the TLV documentation describing the group
guidance value/RCP (GGV/RCP) approach for hydrocarbon solvent mixtures. ACGIH63
considers this method to be applicable when there is no OEL for the specific mixture of
interest or OELS for all components, and they cite the UK-HSE60 and McKee et al.62
recommendations as examples.
3.3.3 Applicability of GGV/RCP Approach to Bio-SPK
Although the GGV/RCP approach was developed to facilitate evaluation of
petroleum refinery streams, generally hydrocarbons with 5-15 carbon atoms that boil at
temperatures from <50 to >300oC, it is useful for refined hydrocarbon mixtures
regardless of source. A primary limitation of the method is its application to mixtures
which contain components that do not meet the assumptions of additivity and similar
mode-of action. Its applicability to Bio-SPK is more straightforward and less uncertain
than for petroleum derived mixtures in this regard. Chemicals whose presence in a
mixture make the GGV/RCP method inapplicable, or at least suspect, are low molecular
Version 3.0
PAGE 101 of 137
weight compounds (hexane, cyclohexane) or aromatic compounds (benzene, naphthalene,

methylnaphthalene), and are not present in Bio-SPKs. Based on the conclusions of
McKee et al.62, ACGIH 200963, and ECETOC 199759, the assumption of additivity for the
components of Bio-SPKs is reasonable. In Table 3-14, the GGV/RCP approach is applied
to SPK and jet fuels using both sources of GGVs discussed above. The estimates are
similar for Bio-SPK based on the GGVs from two sources, but the values differ for the jet
fuels due to their different GGV for aromatics. Detailed isomer composition data were
not available for the jet fuels, so these calculations assume all hydrocarbons in the fuels
are C9 or greater. These methods predict much lower toxicity for Bio-SPK than for jet
fuel. The ACGIH TLV for jet fuel is 200 mg/m3 64.
Fuel
SPK
Bio-SPKs 1-4,
Figure 2-1
Jet A
JP-8
JP-8
Composition
100% aliphatics
90-99% iso- or n-aliphatics
1-10% cycloaliphatics
81% aliphatics
18.1% aromatics
50% n-, iso-paraffin,
30% cyclic, 20% aromatic
50% n-, iso-paraffin,
30% cyclic, 20% aromatic
Mixture OEL (mg/m3)

1200
1142-1194
GGV Source
McKee et al.62
HSE60
Composition Source
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-1
402
McKee et al.62
CRC39
375
McKee et al.62
NRC 65
839
HSE60
NRC65
Table 3-14. Occupational Exposure Limit Based on GGV/RCP Method.
The application of this method to Bio-SPK is uncertain due to the lack of toxicity
test data for many of the chemicals in the mixture, including compounds with C-9 or
greater. The assumption of common toxicological mode of action and additivity needs to
be verified as new toxicological research is done. Specific questions of ongoing interest
are whether new information supports combining normal-, iso- and cyclo-paraffins as
was done by McKee et al.62, and whether the group OEL values for C5-8 and C9-15
compounds are supported. To investigate these questions, toxicology literature was
searched for 73 C7-15 paraffins (search included CCOHS, RTECS, HSDB, TOXLINE,
US EPA High Production Volume Information System, European Chemical Substances
Information System and other public sources). Several recent studies have evaluated
individual components of jet fuel with regard to properties related to inducing
inflammation or inflammatory mediators in cultured cells or animal skin. These studies
do not provide a sufficient basis for assessment of the overall toxicity of related mixtures.
No new data were found that would challenge the assumptions used in the analysis of
McKee et al.62, namely that iso-, normal-, and cyclo-paraffins in the C9-15 range are
similar and additive. No data were found to suggest that any chemicals in these groups
have unique toxic effects, such that they should be treated separately. However, there
remains limited data, especially on the longer chain hydrocarbons, so this approach to
analysis of Bio-SPK is inherently uncertain.
3.3.4 Similar Mixture Approach
The EPA 1986 66, risk assessment guidelines for mixtures proposed a 3-tier
approach to assessing the human health hazard of a chemical mixture. Toxicological data
on the mixture of interest is preferred. If not available, data for a toxicologically similar
mixture could be used. If no sufficiently similar mixture is available, data on individual
components could be used. EPA 2000 67 discusses the data requirements to determine if a
Version 3.0
PAGE 102 of 137
mixture is sufficiently similar. Since there is no toxicological data on Bio-SPK, and

inadequate data on its components, the best option, as described by EPA is to evaluate a
similar mixture. Several paraffinic hydrocarbon mixtures have been tested for toxicity
and the results of those tests may be applicable to Bio-SPK if the mixtures are
sufficiently similar. Similarity of a mixture is assessed in terms of chemical composition
and toxicological action. McKee et al.62 concluded that iso-, normal-, and cyclo-paraffins
in the C9-15 range are all toxicologically similar and additive. Saturated hydrocarbons
have no metabolically active or chemically reactive chemical sites and are relatively
stable under physiological conditions. As described above, no data has been found that
contradicts the conclusion that iso-, normal-, and cyclo-paraffins in the C9-15 range are
similar and additive. Therefore, to be sufficiently similar toxicologically to serve as a
surrogate for Bio-SPK, another mixture would need to be mostly C9-16 paraffins.
3.3.5 Similar Mixtures
Purified paraffinic solvent products have been available commercially for many
years and toxicity testing has been done on some of these mixtures. In general, these
products contain defined distillation cuts of paraffinic hydrocarbon mixtures.
Composition and toxicity data on several were reviewed by Mullin et al. 68, and Table
3-15 shows their identity and properties.
Manufacturer
/
Product
Exxon
Isopar G
Isopar H
Isopar K
Isopar L
C10-11
C11-12
C11-14
C11-13
64742-48-9
64742-48-9
64742-48-9
64742-48-9
149
160
164
171
155-176
169-193
174-197
185-206
Naphtha (petroleum),
hydrotreated heavy
Hydrotreated petroleum fraction with C6-13;

boiling in the range of approximately 65-230C
Isopar M
C12-15
64742-47-8
191
205-254
Distillates (petroleum),
hydrotreated light
Hydrotreated petroleum fraction with C9-16,

boiling in the range of approximately 150-290C
Phillips
Soltrol 100
Soltrol 130
Soltrol 170
Shell
C9-11
C10-13
C10-14
68551-16-6
68551-17-7
68551-19-9
142
158
185
157-173
176-208
218-238
C9-11 Isoalkanes
C10-13 Isoalkanes
C12-14 Isoalkanes
Shell Sol 71
C9-12
64741-65-7
158
179-202
Naphtha (petroleum),
heavy alkylate
Predominantly branched chain saturated

hydrocarbons; C9-12, boiling range of ~ 150220C, from reaction products of isobutane with
monoolefins
Shell Sol TS
Texaco
C8-C12 isoparaffin
Texsolve S-2
C9-10
64742-88-7
135
156-157
Solvent naphtha
(petroleum), medium
aliph.
Predominantly saturated hydrocarbons; C9-12,

boiling range of ~140-220C, from distillation of
crude oil
Product Carbon #
CAS #
Product
Ave. Mol Wt
Boiling
range (oC)
CAS # TSCA name
CAS # TSCA definition
Table 3-15. Isoparaffinic Hydrocarbon Solvents Reviewed by Mullin et al.68
The data discussed above and by McKee et al.62 does not suggest differences
between subsets of C9-15 paraffins, so further chemical characterization of these
products in terms of iso-, normal-, and cyclic paraffins, and distribution of carbon chain
length are not needed. All of the products listed in Table 3-15 are similar to Bio-SPKs
based on the discussion above, so data on any of the products could be used as a
surrogate for Bio-SPKs. The toxicity data for the paraffinic solvents are summarized in
Table 3-16 along with similar data for jet fuels.

Version 3.0
PAGE 103 of 137
Test
Oral LD50, g/kg, rat
Dermal LD50, g/kg, (rabbit)
Inhalation LC50, 4 hr (rat)
Skin irritation (rabbit)
Skin sensitization
Eye irritation (rabbit)
Respiratory irritation
(mouse)
Neurotoxicity
Systemic toxicity
inhalation (rats)
Systemic toxicity - oral
(rats)
Isoparaffinic solventsa,b
>10 (G, L, M); >25 (100, 130, 71); >8000 (71, Shell 69).
>3.2 (G, L, M); >15 (100, 130); >5 (71); >4000 (71, Shell69)
>2000 ppm (G); >715 ppm (L); >3684 ppm (100); >1227 ppm
(130); >592 ppm (71); >290 ppm (vapor); >5991 mg/m3 (vapor +
aerosol) (M).
Slight (G, L, 100); Mild 0.5 ml occluded (M); Slight on intact
skin, severe on abraised skin (130); Moderate (71)
No sensitization, phototoxicity, or photosensitization 50% in
petrolatum (G, L, M); not sensitizing - 30% (M); human data.
Slight (G, L, 100); Not irritating (M)
No irritation ~420 ppm (G); slight - >1000 ppm vapor (C), no
irritation saturated vapor, some irritation 1728-49919 mg/m3
(vapor + aerosol (M).
No effect - 100 ppm x 6 hr (TS) 71
Mild liver effect, reduced body wt 900 ppm x 6 hr/d x 5 d/wk x
12 wk; no effect 300 ppm (G); Reduced body wt, increased liver,
spleen wt 1444 ppm x 6 hr/d x 5 d/wk x 13 wk; no adverse effect
737 ppm (TD) 71
Signs of anemia, increased rel liver, adrenal gland wt 2500 and
5000 mg/kg/day x 13 wk, no effect 500 or 1000 mg/kg/d
(hydrotreated, light petroleum distillate) 72.
Subchronic dermal toxicity

Reproductive toxicity in
rats:
No fetotoxicity or developmental effects 900 ppm x 6 hr/day on

gestation days 6-15 (G); No maternal or fetal effects 1200 ppm x
6 hr/d on gestation days 6-15 (C).
Genotoxicity
Negative Ames test (G, L, M, 130); negative E. coli bacterial

mutation assays (G); negative for mutagenicity in vivo in mouse
micronucleus test and/or rat dominant lethal test (G, M, C);
negative mutations in mouse lymphoma cells, Sister chromatid
exchanges in CHO cells (130) .
OEL
300 ppm (M, G; ~2000 mg/m3) 73, 74 400 ppm (C) 75 based on
product toxicity data; 1200 mg/m3, (G, M, H); 1400 mg/m3 (C)
based on GGV/RCP method 76, 77
Jet Ac
>20
>4
>5 mg/L for straight run
kerosene, vapor and aerosol
JP-8d
>5
>2
>3.43 mg/L(vapor); >4.39 mg/L (vapor and
aerosol)
Slight
Nonirritating to slight irritation - 0.5 ml

occluded
Nonsensitizing to weakly sensitizing (guinea
pig)
Nonirritating - 0.1 ml (rabbit).
RD50 (30 min exposure) - 2876 mg/m3
Negative
Moderate to severe.
Dead. kerosene: RD50 - >0.1
mg/L (vapor); 6900 mg/m3
(vapor + aerosol (mouse) 70
Decreased body wt 500 and 1000 mg/m3 x 90

d (male rat), ~68 and 135 ppm, based on ave.
MW = 180.
Decreased body wt, incr. liver enzymes - 750,
1500 or 3000 mg/kg/d x 90 d (rat).
Severe skin irritation, organ
damage 6.4 g/kg/d x 3 d/wk x 4
wk (rabbit).
No maternal toxicity or
developmental effects 100 or
400 ppm on gestation days 6-15
(rat).
Negative - Ames test;
micronuclei in the bone marrow
or peripheral blood; dominant
lethal assay; Positive mouse
lymphoma assay; chromosomal
aberrations in bone marrow cells.
200 mg/m3 (~29 ppm, based on
ave mol wt = 170) 78
Reversible skin lesions 0.16 mL/day

nonoccluded x 4 weeks (rat).
Maternal toxicity 1000 mg/kg/d; fetal
toxicity 1500 mg/kg/d; no malformations
2000 mg/kg/d, gestation days 6-15; No
reproductive effects on males 3000 mg/kg/d
for 70 d (rat).
Neg - Ames test, mouse lymphoma assay,
dominant lethal assay in rats and mice,
mammalian micronucleus test; Positive in UDS
Assay.
200 mg/m3 58
Numbers in parentheses refer to the solvent product (Isopar G, L, M, C, Soltrol 100, 130, Shell Sol 71, TD, TS)
Tox data on Isoparaffinic solvents from Refs 71, 72, 73, 79, 80
c
Jet A data is from reference # 70; it cites several API studies for Jet A-+
d
JP-8 data is from reference # 58, Appendix E
b
Table 3-16. Toxicity Data for Isoparaffinic Solvents and Jet Fuels
Using the data for similar isoparaffinic solvents, it can be concluded that Bio-SPK
has very low acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity. It is likely to be a slight skin
irritant, but may be a moderate or severe irritant on damaged skin. It is not a skin
sensitizer. It is expected to be a slight eye irritant and is not a respiratory irritant. Long
term exposure is expected to cause mild liver effects and reduced body weight in animals
exposed to 900 ppm or more for 12 weeks, with no effect at 300 ppm. Subchronic oral
dose could cause liver, and blood effects at 2500 mg/kg/d or more, with no effect at 5001000 mg/kg/d. Bio-SPK is not expected to cause genotoxicity, reproductive effects, or
carcinogenicity. The available data for similar isoparaffinic solvents address all of the
testing required in DOD, 2004, Appendix E 58. Direct comparison of toxicity test results
for similar isoparaffinic solvents and current jet fuels allows only very general
conclusions due to differences in experimental protocols. The acute toxicity data is not
helpful because the lethal doses were higher than the tested doses for jet fuels and
paraffinic solvents. Likewise, comparison of the irritation and sensitization data does not
show clear differences because of different protocols and mild effects. There are data
suggesting that the jet fuel may be a stronger eye irritant, and have some potential for
skin sensitization, but the results are not consistent for Jet A and JP-8 tests. Sub-chronic
inhalation and oral studies indicate that relatively mild effects occur at lower oral doses
Version 3.0
PAGE 104 of 137
or inhalation concentrations of jet fuel compared with paraffinic solvents. The

genotoxicity data also indicates some positive results for jet fuels and consistently
negative results for paraffinic solvents. The similar mixture approach would lead to the
adoption of OELs based on data for similar mixtures to Bio-SPK. Exxon recommended
occupational exposure limits of 300 ppm for Isopar M and G 73, 74 and 400 ppm for Isopar
C75, based on the toxicological data for the specific mixtures shown in Table 3-16.
Similarly, a recommended OEL of 400 ppm was set for Soltrol 200, a C13-C17 isoalkane
mixture 81. These exposure limits and the data that they are based on indicate substantially
lower toxicity of isoparaffinic mixtures compared with jet fuel. More recently, Exxon has
elected to use the GGV/RCP approach as described by McKee et al.62, to develop OELs
for and has adopted occupational exposure limits of 1,200 mg/m3 for the Isopar G, H, and
M, and 1400 mg/m3 for the Isopar C.
3.3.6 FT-SPK
The US Air Force is in the process of completing toxicological studies on a
natural gas derived SPK made using the Fischer Tropsch (FT) process 82. When the results
of these studies are available, they will provide data on another similar mixture and the
toxicological data for FT-SPK will be applicable to Bio-SPK based on the similar
mixture approach.
3.3.7 Summary
No toxicological data is yet available for SPK derived from biological sources.
Available methods for evaluation of complex mixtures, were reviewed and applied to
Bio-SPK. A method based on addition of groups of chemically related components
(GGV/RCP), and an approach that uses compositionally and toxicologically similar
mixtures, are both applicable to the evaluation of Bio-SPKs. Occupational exposure
limits developed from these methods were of a similar magnitude and were much higher
than the current limits for jet fuel. The GGV/RCP approach, yielded occupational
exposure limits of 1,1001,200 mg/m3. The use of a similar mixture leads to use of an
exposure limit recommendation of 300 ppm, equal to approximately 2,000 mg/m3, using
data from paraffinic solvent products. This evaluation leads to the conclusion that BioSPKs would be expected to be considerably less toxic that current jet fuels. It is expected
to have very low acute toxicity, to be mildly irritating to the skin, although exposure to
damaged skin or for long durations might cause more severe irritation. Finally, long-term
inhalation exposure is expected to be a very mildly toxic hazard with possible liver and
CNS effects. These conclusions are supported by considerable data on similar mixtures,
some data on components, and by the relatively simple nature of the mixture. The
conclusion is limited by the fact that most of the data on similar mixtures are relatively
old comparisons of results from different studies on different materials and is made
difficult by differences in methods and technology used and limited toxicity testing is
available for paraffins with nine or more carbons.

Version 3.0
PAGE 105 of 137
3.4
Engine Tests for Bio-SPK Program
3.4.1 Introduction
Sections of 3.4.2.2 to 3.4.3 have been published in a paper submitted to The
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 83.
3.4.2 Engine and Combustion Rig Testing
Off-wing engine ground tests occurred at the Honeywell Aerospace facility in
Phoenix, Arizona, and at GE Aviations Peebles Testing Operations facilities at Peebles,
Ohio. The tests included performance, operability, emissions and post-test inspection of
the hardware for any engine degradation.
3.4.2.1
Honeywell
Rig and engine testing of a biofuel blend was completed at the Honeywell
Aerospace facility in Phoenix, Arizona. The purpose of the testing was to evaluate the
effect of a 50% (v) Bio-SPK fuel blend on the performance, operability, and emissions of
aircraft gas turbine engines. The biofuel was a 50-50% (v) blend of a Bio-SPK, produced
from Jatropha/algae oil feedstocks, and conventional petroleum based Jet A. The biofuel
blend was provided by UOP/Boeing and was analyzed as received (see Table 3-17
below).
0.781
Specific gravity
44
Flash point (oC)
-61
Freeze point (oC)
43.5
Lower heating value (MJ/kg)
4.3
Viscosity @ -20oC (cSt)
7.8
Aromatics (vol. %)
171
Distillation (oC)
T10
194
T50
230
T90
250
Final BP
Table 3-17. Biofuel Blend Analysis at Honeywell, per ASTM D1655
The following evaluation tests were completed on the biofuel blend:

131-9 APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) - performance, operability, and emissions
TPE331-10 turboprop engine - performance and emissions
TFE731-5 turbofan engine - performance, operability, and lean blowout
TFE731-5 combustor rig - performance, lean blowout, ignition, and emissions
Atomizer cold spray bench tests
3.4.2.1.1
131-9 APU Testing
The objectives of this test were to determine the effects of the Bio-SPK blend on
the performance, operability, and emissions of the 131-9 APU. The 131-9 APU is a small
gas turbine engine used in a number of commercial (B737, A320) and military (C-40)
applications. The 131-9 APU is a constant speed, load compressor type engine with a
pressure ratio of approximately seven, and a reverse flow annular combustion system.

Version 3.0
PAGE 106 of 137
APUs are used to provide aircraft secondary power (bleed air for cabin conditioning and
generator load for electrical power) and main engine start capability.
A new production 131-9B APU was installed in a base level test cell (Figure 3-2 a), and
the tests were conducted from May 11 to 14, 2009. The engine inlet air temperature was
conditioned to 100oF for all testing, to minimize variability in the data. An inlet
bellmouth was installed for the testing to allow an accurate measurement of engine inlet
airflow.
Engine performance, along with gaseous and smoke emissions, was taken over a
range of load conditions from RTL (ready-to-load) to maximum load conditions MES
(main engine start) and ECS (environmental control system). Emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (UHC), and smoke were
measured using a mobile emissions truck (Figure 3-2 b). Emissions were sampled from
the engine tailpipe using standard averaging probes.
All results have been compared to a baseline run with Jet A fuel conducted just
prior to the biofuel testing. The Jet A was provided from the laboratory fuel supply, while
the biofuel was supplied from 55-gallon drums (Figure 3-2 c). The lower heating value
(LHV), specific gravity, and aromatic content of the biofuel blend were 43.7 MJ/kg
(18808 Btu/lb), 0.781, and 7.9 vol.% respectively, while the baseline Jet A values were
43.0 MJ/kg (18513 Btu/lb), 0.816, and 16.9 vol.%.
131-9 APU
Emission Probes in Tailpipe
Figure 3-2. a) 131-9 APU Installed in Test Cell, b) Mobile Emissions Truck, c) Fuel Drums
Test results showed no difference in engine performance or exhaust gas

temperature (EGT) due to fuel type. The fuel flow with the Bio-SPK blend was 1.3%
lower at the MES condition on a mass basis, due to the higher LHV of the biofuel.
Operability testing consisted of stabilizing the engine at MES conditions, and then
rapidly dropping the bleed and generator load (step unload test). The fuel control has to
rapidly cut back fuel flow to the minimum fuel schedule to maintain constant speed.
There were no instabilities noted with either fuel during the operability testing.
Figure 3-3 presents APU emissions at the various load conditions, with data
shown as percent change from baseline Jet A values. The NOx emission indices (gm/kg
fuel) were approximately 5% higher with the biofuel blend, but would be slightly less on
a kg/hr basis due to the lower biofuel blend fuel flow. The UHC and CO emissions were
very low at the loaded conditions, and were significant only at the RTL condition. There
was a 25% reduction in UHC emissions and a 20% reduction in CO emissions at RTL,
indicating a small improvement in combustion efficiency. Smoke emissions for the 131-9
were very low, so small changes in smoke number can result in a large percent change.

Version 3.0
PAGE 107 of 137
40
NOx EI
30
CO EI
20
% Diff Relative to Jet A
Smoke No.
10
0
-10
MES
ECS
NL
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
Condition
Figure 3-3. 131-9 Exhaust Emissions Relative to Baseline Fuel
There was a 60% reduction in SAE smoke number at the high power conditions
(MES and ECS) with the biofuel due to the lower aromatic content. Smoke emissions at
the RTL condition were at the equipment detection limit and not accurate.
3.4.2.1.2
TPE331-10 Turboprop Testing
As part of the Biofuel evaluation, performance and exhaust emissions were
measured on a TPE331-10 turboprop engine. The TPE33-10 turboprop is used on a
number of general aviation applications, with a rated output power of 1,000 hp. The
engine has a pressure ratio of approximately 10, with a reverse flow annular combustor.
The test matrix covered a range of typical operating conditions from ground idle to takeoff power. The measurements included engine performance and both gaseous and smoke
emissions.
The tests were performed on the Bio-SPK fuel blend, with a JP-8 fuel used as a
baseline. JP-8 is a low freeze point kerosene-type fuel with properties similar to Jet A,
but with required military additives including an anti-oxidant (AO), static dissipator
additive (SDA), fuel system icing inhibitor (FSII), and corrosion inhibitor/lubricity
improver (CI/LI). The additives have no effect on engine performance or exhaust
emissions.
Performance and emissions testing was conducted in the dynamometer test cell
905 at the Honeywell laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona on August 5th and 6th, 2009. Engine
inlet air temperature was controlled to 59oF during the performance calibration to reduce
variability. Performance was measured at normal production engine conditions, which
consist of load line calibrations at 100% engine speed. Test results were corrected to sea
level, standard day, and 100% speed.
The engine is shown installed in the test cell in Figure 3-4. The emissions
sampling rake can be seen installed in the engine exhaust on the left side of the picture.
Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons
(UHC), and smoke were measured using a mobile emissions truck.

Version 3.0
PAGE 108 of 137
Emission Rake
Figure 3-4. TPE331-10 Turboprop Installed in Test Cell
All results have been compared to the baseline run with JP-8 fuel conducted just
after the biofuel testing. The JP-8 was provided from the laboratory fuel supply, while the
biofuel was supplied from a 500-gallon portable fuel tank. The measured LHV, specific
gravity, and aromatic content of the biofuel blend were 43.6 MJ/kg (18774 btu/lb), 0.781,
and 9.0 vol.% respectively, while the baseline JP-8 values were 43.2 MJ/kg (18598
btu/lb), 0.792, and 13.8 vol.% respectively.
Test results showed no difference in engine performance or EGT due to fuel type.
The TPE331-10 engine performance results showed an average of 0.9% lower fuel flow
(mass basis) and specific fuel consumption (SFC) when the biofuel blend results were
compared to the baseline fuel. This is consistent with the higher LHV of the biofuel blend
relative to the baseline JP-8 fuel. Pre-test and post-test performance checks with the
baseline fuels showed no engine performance degradation due to the biofuel testing.
Gaseous and smoke emissions were measured over a range of load conditions
from ground idle to take-off power. Emissions tests were conducted with the engine inlet
air temperature conditioned to 59oF to reduce variability. Test conditions included ground
idle (GI), taxi, take-off (TO), climb, cruise, flight idle and approach conditions.
There was no significant difference between the NOx levels from the biofuel or
the baseline JP-8 at any power setting (Figure 3-5). NOx emissions were slightly higher
at some conditions, and slightly lower at others. This is also true for the CO data except
at the lowest power setting where the biofuel produces a slightly lower CO level. CO and
UHC emissions are very low at the higher power settings, and small changes can result in
large percent changes. Unburned hydrocarbons were only significant at the lowest power
settings, where they were 5 to 20% lower with the biofuel.
Smoke was the main differentiation between the emissions of the two fuels: the
biofuel produced consistently lower smoke emissions across the range of power settings.
At the highest power levels the smoke was approximately 15% lower for the biofuel
blend. Lower smoke emissions with the biofuel are consistent with the lower aromatic
content. Smoke emissions at the lower power settings were at the equipment detection
limit and not accurate.
Version 3.0
PAGE 109 of 137
10
% Emiss Relative to Baseline
5
0
GI
Taxi
Approach
FI
Climb
TO
Cruise
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Nox EI
CO EI
UHC EI
Smoke No.
-30
-35
Test Condition
Figure 3-5. TPE331-10 Emissions Relative to Baseline Fuel
Test results showed there was no adverse effect of the Bio-SPK blend on
TPE331-10 performance or emissions, with a 0.9% reduction in fuel flow and SFC
compared to JP-8, a 15% reduction in smoke emissions at high power, and small
reductions in UHC and CO emissions at low power.
3.4.2.1.3
TFE731-5 Engine Testing
This test was conducted to determine the effects of the Bio-SPK fuel blend on
the performance and operability of the TFE731 turbofan engine. Test results are
compared to results using standard petroleum derived JP-8 fuel. The TFE731-5 is a twinspool turbofan engine with a rated take-off thrust of 4,750 lb, and a pressure ratio of
approximately 15. The combustion system features a reverse-flow annular combustor and
radially inserted dual-orifice fuel atomizers.
A development TFE731-5BR engine was staged and installed in San Tan base
level test cell C963 (Figure 3-6), and testing conducted from May 13th to 19th, 2009. San
Tan is a remote engine test site in the Phoenix, Arizona, area. All performance and
operability testing was completed with a standard fuel control unit, while the lean
blowout testing was completed with a special low flow fuel control and DEEC (Digital
Electronic Control Unit). Performance and operability testing with each fuel was
completed per the standard production acceptance test instructions at prevailing ambient
conditions.
The biofuel was supplied from portable 800-gallon fuel tanks (Figure 3-7), while
the JP-8 was provided from the standard laboratory fuel supply. The measured lower
heating value (LHV), specific gravity, and aromatic content of the biofuel blend were
43.6 MJ/kg (18777 btu/lb), 0.780, and 7.5 vol.% respectively, while the baseline JP-8
values were 43.3 MJ/kg (18648 btu/lb), 0.791, and 13.3 vol.% respectively.

Version 3.0
PAGE 110 of 137
TFE731-5 Engine
Inlet Screen & Bellmouth

Figure 3-6. TFE731-5 Engine Installed in San Tan Test Cell
Portable Fuel Tanks
Boost Pump Cart

Figure 3-7. Portable Fuel Tanks at San Tan Test Site
Engine performance was measured over six thrust setting from ground idle to
take-off power at Phoenix ambient conditions. Performance results were corrected back
to sea level 25oC (77oF) day conditions and standard corrected N1 speeds to allow a
comparison of fuel effects. There was no fuel effect on engine performance, with the
same corrected thrust and other performance parameters with the biofuel blend and the
baseline fuel. The engine EGT was approximately 6oC (10oF) lower with the biofuel
blend, which is not considered significant. There was a 0.9% reduction in fuel flow (mass
basis) and TSFC (thrust specific fuel consumption) at the higher power settings with the
biofuel blend, due to the higher LHV of the biofuel. Pre-test and post-test performance
Version 3.0
PAGE 111 of 137
checks with the baseline fuel showed there was no performance degradation due to the
biofuel testing. Performance was also measured in manual mode, where the engine DEEC
is disabled and the engine controlled by the backup hydro-mechanical unit. The engine
met all performance requirements in manual mode, with no fuel effect noted. A similar
reduction in fuel flow (mass basis) and SFC with the biofuel was measured in manual
mode as in normal operating mode.
Operability tests were conducted to determine the effect of the Bio-SPK blend on
engine response to throttle transients. Standard production accelerations and decelerations
tests were completed including five seconds acceleration checks and seven second decal
checks. For the acceleration check, the engine is stabilized at flight idle then the throttle
is snapped to the maximum position, and the target thrust has to be captured within five
seconds. For the deceleration check, the engine is stabilized at take-off thrust and the
throttle snapped to idle position, and the engine has to capture idle within seven seconds.
There was no fuel effect on operability, with the same acceleration and deceleration rates,
same control settings, and no instabilities noted with either fuel. Operability checks were
also completed in manual mode, with similar acceptable transient response with both
fuels, and no adverse effect of the biofuel noted.
Lean blowout (negative fuel pulse) testing was completed to determine fuel
effect on blowout margin. The test was conducted by stabilizing the engine at two
different steady state N2 speeds while varying both the magnitude and duration of a
negative fuel pulse. Progressively larger negative fuel pulses were run with a constant
pulse duration until a combustor blow out was noted. Once blowout was achieved, the
negative fuel pulse magnitude and duration were varied to map the blowout line for the
given fuel. There was no significant difference in blowout margin (difference between
required to run fuel schedule and blowout line) for the biofuel blend and the baseline fuel.
3.4.2.1.4
TFE731-5 Combustor Rig Testing
TPE731-5 combustor rig testing was completed to determine the effect of the
biofuel blend on combustion system performance. A full scale TFE731-5 combustor rig
was installed in the combustion test facility (Figure 3-8) in Phoenix, Arizona, and tests
completed from April 20th to April 30th, 2009.
The biofuel was supplied from 55-gallon drums, while the JP-8 was provided
from the standard laboratory fuel supply. The measured lower heating value (LHV),
specific gravity, and aromatic content of the biofuel blend were 43.7 MJ/kg (18808
btu/lb), 0.781, and 7.5 vol.% respectively, while the baseline JP-8 values were 43.2
MJ/kg (18612 btu/lb), 0.792, and 14.1 vol.% respectively.
Performance tests were completed over a range of operating conditions from idle
to take-off thrust conditions. Lower power settings are run at actual engine conditions,
while the higher power settings are run at scaled conditions. Fuel flows were adjusted to
provide a constant heat input (MJ/hr) to the combustor, to account for the varying fuel
LHV. There was no significant fuel effect on combustor performance including pattern
factor and radial profile, which are a measure of the temperature distribution at the
turbine stator inlet plane.

Version 3.0
PAGE 112 of 137
Inlet
Instrumentation
Rake
Exhaust
Figure 3-8. TFE731-5 Combustor Rig Installed in C-100 Test Cell
Gaseous and smoke emissions were measured during combustor performance

testing using a water cooled sampling rake and a mobile emissions truck. Combustor
NOx, CO, UHC, and smoke emissions were measured over a range of conditions
including ground idle (7% thrust), take-off (100% thrust), approach (30% thrust), and
cruise (75% thrust) conditions. The data reported were averages of the samples taken
during a 360 scan of the combustor exhaust (turbine inlet plane). Test results with the
biofuel blend are presented as percent change from the emissions with the baseline fuel.
A summary of the rig emission results is shown in Figure 3-9 at each load
condition.
20
%Difference Relative to JP-8
0
Idle
Approach
Cruise
T/O
-20
-40
NOx
-60
CO
UHC
-80
Smoke
-100
Test Condition
Figure 3-9. TFE731-5 Rig Gaseous and Smoke Emissions

Version 3.0
PAGE 113 of 137
The NOx, CO, and UHC emissions were very comparable at all conditions for the
biofuel blend and the baseline fuel. The CO and UHC emissions were significant only at
the idle condition, where there was a small (approximately 2%) reduction due to the
lighter more volatile biofuel. There was no significant difference in combustion
efficiency at any power condition. There was a 3.5% increase in NOx emissions at the
cruise condition, but no significant difference at the other load conditions. Smoke
emissions were reduced 25% to 50% at the higher power conditions, due to the lower
aromatic content of the biofuel. Smoke emissions at low power conditions were very low,
at the instrument detection limit, and not accurate. Test results showed no adverse effect
of the biofuel blend on engine gaseous emissions, with a significant reduction in high
power smoke emissions, which could improve local air quality near the airport.
Lean blowout tests were run at simulated engine idle conditions ranging from sea
level static cold day to 27,500 feet altitude, Mach 0.7. After stabilizing at each condition,
the fuel flow rate was slowly decreased while holding combustor inlet conditions
constant and continuously recording data. Blowout was detected when the measured
combustor exit temperatures suddenly dropped.
Blowout test results were correlated against a corrected reference velocity
(corrected airflow). Test results (Figure 3-10) showed no significant difference in lean
blowout fuel-air ratios due to fuel type over the range of test conditions, and no loss in
blowout margin (difference between minimum fuel schedule and lean blowout line).
Decel Schedule
Fuel/Air Ratio
Historical LBO Line

JP-8
Biojet
Corrected Reference Velocity, fps
Figure 3-10. TFE731-5 Rig Lean Blowout Results
Lean blowout characteristics with both the baseline and biofuel blend were
consistent with expectations based on previous Honeywell rig and engine testing.
Lean ignition tests were run at simulated engine ground start and altitude relight
conditions. Altitude relights were run at 15,000 and 30,000 feet windmill conditions with
varying ambient temperature and aircraft Mach number (0.27 to 0.6). After stabilizing at
each condition, an ignition attempt was performed at varying fuel flows until the
minimum fuel flow for acceptable ignition delay is found. Ignition delay is the time from
when the fuel is introduced and the igniter switched on until ignition was detected by a
Version 3.0
PAGE 114 of 137
rise in combustor exit temperature. The lean ignition fuel-air ratio is reported as a
function of corrected reference velocity (corrected airflow). Test results (Figure 3-11)
showed no significant difference in lean ignition fuel-air rations due to fuel type over the
range of test conditions.
90
JP-8, SL
Biojet, SL
80
JP-8, Altitude
Relight Start Schedule
Biojet, Altitude
Fuel/Air Ratio
70
60
T + 459.67 PT 3.0 ft
VR = VREF * 3.0
*

518.7 14.696 s
50
40
Historical SL Lean Ignition Line
30
20
10
00
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

Figure 3-11. TFE731-5 Rig Lean Ignition Results
There was also no loss of margin between the start fuel schedule and the lean
ignition line. Ignition characteristics with the baseline and biofuel blend were consistent
with expectations based on previous Honeywell rig and engine testing.
80
Cold JP-8
70
Fuel/Air Ratio
Cold Biojet
Warm JP-8
60
50
40
30
20
0
00
20
40
60
80
10 0
12 0
14 0
16 0

Figure 3-12. TFE731-5 Rig Lean Ignition Results for Cold Fuel
Several altitude relight conditions were repeated with cold fuel, simulating a
relight after the engine was shutdown for an extended period of time. Test results (Figure
3-12) showed an increase in lean ignition fuel-air ratio with cold fuel compared to
ambient fuel as expected, due to the effect of the cold fuel temperatures on atomization.
The ignition characteristics with the biofuel were as good as or better than the baseline

Version 3.0
PAGE 115 of 137
fuel, as the relevant fuel properties (flash point, distillation, and viscosity) were similar.
Note that the scales are different in Figure 3-11 and Figure 3-12.
3.4.2.1.5
Atomizer Cold Bench Testing
Onboard Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) are required to provide reliable cold and
high altitude starting if there is a main engine generator failure or an in-flight shutdown
of a main engine. Since the APU is normally off in-flight, the APU and its fuel supply
can be cold-soaked which makes atomization of the fuel critical to reliable starting. In
contrast, most main engines have a fuel-oil heat exchanger which warms the fuel prior to
the inlet fuel filter. The APU and main engine have similar ground cold start
requirements.
Honeywell completed atomizer cold bench spray tests to determine fuel effects on
atomization and spray quality, and by inference, APU cold ignition. Pressure atomizers
typical of those used on APUs and small propulsion engines and an air-blast atomizer
typical of those used on propulsion engines were selected for testing. Atomizer
performance parameters, including flow number, spray droplet size and spray
characteristics were measured over a range of conditions. Three pressure atomizers were
used for testing. Atomizer A was a small flow number (FN) atomizer typical of those
used on newer transport and military APUs. Atomizer B was a mid-sized FN atomizer
typical of primary atomizers used on older commercial and military transport APUs, and
smaller APUs used on regional aircraft. Atomizer C was a large FN atomizer typical of
secondary atomizers used on older commercial and military transport APUs or on cantype combustion systems. Atomizer D was a small thin-sheet type air-blast atomizer,
typical of those used on propulsion engines.
Four test fluids were used for testing, standard calibrating fluid (MIL-PRF-7024
Type II), JP-8 (MIL-DTL-83133), the 50-50% (v) biofuel blend and a 100% HRJ SPK.
Table 3-18 summarizes fuel properties important to atomization. Each atomizer was
tested over a range of conditions representative of typical engine start conditions. For the
pressure atomizers, this required a range of inlet fuel pressures. The air-blast atomizer
was tested over a range of fuel flows and air-blast air pressure drops representative of
light-off and acceleration conditions. The fuels were all run at 27oC (80oF) and -40oC (40oF) fluid temperatures. The performance evaluation was based on the spray Sauter
mean diameter (SMD) as a measure of atomization quality. SMD measurements were
obtained with a Malvern Spraytec particle analyzer.
Fluid
7027 II
JP-8
Biofuel Blend
HRJ SPK
Specific Gravity
0.770
0.792
0.781
0.751
Viscosity (cSt at 25oC)

1.22
1.40
1.48
1.38
Viscosity (cSt at -20oC)
Surface Tension (dynes/cm at 25oC)
4.20
24.1
3.60
26.4
Table 3-18. Atomization Test Fluid Properties
Test results are presented with test fuel data normalized to 7024 II calibrating
fluid. The atomization and spray characteristics using cold biofuel blend was similar the
cold JP-8 fuel due to similar fuel properties. For the pressure atomizers, the biofuel blend
and JP-8 fuel had similar spray opening pressures, spray angles, and spray quality. Figure
3-13 shows the biofuel blend had similar spray droplet size (SMD) for atomizer B at all

Version 3.0
PAGE 116 of 137
fuel pressures. The droplet size with the HRJ SPK (100% biofuel) were lower than the
baseline fuel or biofuel blend at all conditions due to the lower density and viscosity.
AtomizerBRelativeSMD
1.8
Relative SMD, SMD/SMD 7024 II
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
JP-8
Cold JP-8
0.6
Biofuel Blend
0.4
Cold Biofuel Blend

HRJ SPK
0.2
Cold HRJ SPK
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Fuel P, psid
Figure 3-13. Comparison of Atomizer Spray Droplet Size
Similar results were produced with the other pressure atomizers, although the
biofuel blend did have a slightly higher droplet size for atomizer C at low fuel pressure
conditions (not significant). Figure 3-14 compares the sprays for cold (-40oC) biofuel
blend and JP-8 at 50 psig. The photographs show the sprays are both fully developed with
similar spray angles. Test results indicate the biofuel blend would have no adverse effect
on APU cold and altitude starting, or cold ground starting for propulsion engines that use
pressure-type start atomizers.
JP-8
Biofuel Blend
Figure 3-14. Comparison of Atomizer Cold (-40oC) Spray for JP-8 and Biofuel Blend
For the air-blast atomizer (atomizer D), the SMD was correlated with a standard
parameter based on air-fuel ratio, air density, and air velocity. The test results were

Version 3.0
PAGE 117 of 137
similar for all fuels, with no significant fuel effects on spray droplet size for the air-blast
atomizer noted.
3.4.2.2
CFM 56-7B Engine Ground Test
The purpose of the biofuels testing conducted at Peebles, Ohio, was to evaluate
the impact of jatropha and algae-derived Bio-SPK on engine performance, operability,
hardware and emissions on the ground prior to testing on aircraft. The ground test was
performed on a CFM56-7B development engine on November 4th6th, 2008. Testing
consisted of performing back-to-back runs comparing Jet A (baseline fuel) to two biofuel
blends (25% Bio-SPK and 50% Bio-SPK). A simulated one-hour flight cycle was also
performed to evaluate the 50% blend which was the identical fuel and blend ratio used
during the Continental Airlines flight demonstration. The results are referenced as
changes relative to the ones acquired with the baseline fuel.
Engine performance measurements were conducted for all emissions test points,
as well as during mechanical checkout, and test site inbound and outbound power
calibration runs. The test sequence and scope of performance data are recorded as
follows:
Mechanical Checkout, (10/28/08)
Inbound Emissions Power Cal (with Baseline Jet A) (11/03/08)
Operability - Lean Blowout (LBO), Accel Time (with Peebles Jet A fuel) (11/04/08)
o
Establish Jet A baseline
25% Jatropha/algae, 75% Baseline Jet A (11/04/08)
o
Operability - LBO, Accel Time
o
Emissions
o
Cold Start
50% Jatropha/algae, 50% Baseline Jet A (11/05/08)
o
Emissions
o
Operability - LBO, Accel Time
o
Cold Start
1 Hour Simulated Flight Cycle, 50% Jatropha/algae, 50% Baseline Jet A (11/05/08)
o
Run to corrected fan speed
Site Exit Standard Performance Power Cal, Peebles Jet A (11/06/08)
o
Standard Performance Power Calibration
1 Hour Flight Cycle and Site Exit Power Cal were run without emissions rake behind
engine
Total Run Time: 12:57 (hours:minutes)
3.4.2.2.1
Engine Operability and Performance
Three power calibrations were run over the course of this test, each with a
different fuel blend. The Jet A was run first followed by the blend of 25% Bio-SPK, then
the blend of 50% Bio-SPK. The same Jet A was used in both of the Bio-SPK/Jet A
blends. It was noted that an increased percentage of Bio-SPK decreased the density and
viscosity of the fuel, and increased the heat of combustion. The Bio-SPK blends show an
improvement in specific fuel consumption (SFC) and fuel flow when compared to Jet A.
Both the 25% and 50% Bio-SPK blends showed improvement (i.e., reduction) in fuel
flow by 0.7% and 1.2%, respectively, consistent with the heat of combustion differences
Version 3.0
PAGE 118 of 137
of 0.6% and 1.1% (Table 3-19). The exhaust gas temperature (EGT) was within +/- 1C
(i.e., engine quality/health remained constant throughout testing).
Net Heat of Combustion-mass (MJ/kg)

% Difference from Jet A/A-1 (mass basis)
Density (kg/m3)
Net Heat of Combustion-volume (MJ/m3)
% Difference (volume basis)
Nominal Jet A/A-1

43.2 (42.8 Min)
804.3 (775-840)
34761
ANZ 50%
43.6
0.9%
779.0
33964
-2.3%
CAL 50%
43.7
1.1%
780.0
34086
-1.9%
JAL 50%
43.5
0.7%
789.0
34322
-1.3%
Table 3-19. Energy Properties for the 50% Blended Fuels, Compared to Nominal Jet Fuel
The operability portion of the testing consisted of combustor LBO comparisons;

engine starting comparisons and engine acceleration response comparisons. These tests
were chosen because detrimental effects on engine operation, safety or life cycle due to
fuel properties would be evident via this testing. Each of these operability tests were
performed using three different fuel mixtures:
100% Jet A fuel (supplied by GE from the Peebles Test Operations fuel tanks)
25% Bio-SPK (supplied by Boeing and Continental Airlines)
50% Bio-SPK (supplied by Boeing and Continental Airlines)
LBO occurs when the combustor fuel/air ratio (FAR) reaches a level where there
is not enough fuel to sustain combustion. LBO margin is the delta between the combustor
LBO FAR lean limit and the minimum fuel/air ratio scheduled by the Full Authority
Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) during a transient engine deceleration. Sufficient
LBO margin must be maintained to prevent engine flameout during rapid throttle
maneuvers in service over the life of the engine. LBO margin is determined by
conducting a series of rapid engine decelerations from part power with successively
leaner fuel control schedules, until an engine flameout is obtained. The results of the
LBO tests - relative to a baseline Jet A from Peebles facilities - show that LBO margin
was slightly improved with the 25% blend, and unchanged with the 50% blend. The
improvement obtained with the 25% blend is only slightly above typical LBO test-to-test
variation (~10%), therefore both blends can be viewed as equivalent to baseline with
respect to LBO margin.
Engine starts were performed under cold-soaked and warm thermal state
conditions with the baseline fuel and the two blends. A cold-soaked engine is defined as
one that has been shut down for at least 8 hours since prior operation. A warm engine has
been run at 60% power for 10 minutes, shut down and then immediately restarted. These
two conditions cover the extreme range of potential engine starting conditions. The
results of the warm engine starting comparisons show that higher percentages of blends
yielded slightly slower start times. There were no significant changes in peak EGT with
either blend compared to the baseline Jet A. Conversely, the results of the cold engine
starting comparisons show that higher blend ratios yielded slightly faster start times.
There were also slight improvements (i.e., reductions) in peak starting EGT with the
blends compared to the baseline Jet A.
Another measure of engine starting performance is the time interval between
introduction of fuel into the combustor and fuel ignition, referred to as light-off delay.
Version 3.0
PAGE 119 of 137
There were no significant changes in light-off delay for either of the bio blends compared
to the baseline Jet A. Additionally, engine accels were performed from stabilized 15%
power to maximum power with each of the three fuels. There were no significant changes
in engine acceleration response time or peak EGT with the blends.
3.4.2.2.2
Emissions
The emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbon
(HC), and smoke were measured for the baseline Jet A, and the 25% and 50% Bio-SPK
blends. The blends contained the same Jet A that was used as baseline fuel. The
emissions test hardware (Figure 3-15), the data reduction and the test/analysis procedures
closely approximated, and in most cases were identical with, the emissions certification
testing hardware and procedures. The exhaust sampling system consisted of one
stationary rake with three sampling orifices (probes) of equal size located at the core exit.
The portion of each sampling system outside the core exhaust stream was heated, as were
the transfer lines, which led to the gas analysis equipment in the emissions trailer to avoid
condensation.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(a) Emissions Trailer, (b) Emissions Installation, (c) Emissions Probes

Figure 3-15. Emissions Set-up
The test point schedule for general thrust settings at which emissions test data was
collected included the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) take-off, climb,
approach, and idle thrust settings (i.e., 100%, 85%, 30%, and 7%) that will be referred to
as the landing and take-off (LTO) cycle herein after. The same point schedule was
followed for the baseline fuel and the blends.
The gaseous emissions data was interpreted in terms of the Emissions Index (EI),
which is calculated on the basis of grams of emission for a kilogram of burned fuel
(g/kg). For each of the tests, the recorded EIs and the sampled FARs were obtained from
the ganged-element gas samples gathered from the gas sample rakes. The ratio between
the measured exhaust sample FARs and the calculated FARs derived from the measured
fuel flow and computed engine core airflow was less than 8%, well within the limits (+/10% at take-off, climb, and approach; +/- 15% at idle) specified by ICAO 84. The
variation in ambient conditions such as the temperature and wind conditions were small
enough that their potential impact on results can be considered within the overall

Version 3.0
PAGE 120 of 137
uncertainty of the test. The procedure to get from raw measured emissions to engine
characteristic emissions is given below in simplified form:
1) Correct EI values for variation in operating conditions for pressure and humidity in
the case of NOx, and for variation in operating conditions for pressure in the cases
of CO and HC.
2) Multiply emissions index (EI) by time in each flight mode (0.7 minutes for takeoff, 2.2 minutes for climb, 4.0 minutes for approach, and 26.0 minutes for idle) and
cycle fuel flow (kg fuel/hour) to obtain grams of pollutant.
3) Add grams of pollutant for 100%, 85%, 30%, and 7% for total mission pollutants.
4) Divide total grams of pollutant by thrust (kN) to obtain characteristic emissions
(g/kN).
The smoke emissions were characterized by means of SAE Smoke Number (SN).
The highest SN from the four LTO ICAO points, typically the take-off value, is taken to
be the characteristic SN for a particular engine rating. The results depicted in Figure 3-17
for 18K and 27K engine ratings reveal a reduction in NOx and smoke emissions with
Bio-SPK addition to the conventional jet fuel, although the impact on NOx emissions
(~1-5%) can be considered quite small, especially considering the level of uncertainty
associated with the test. This impact on NOx and smoke is consistent with expectations
as NOx generation in the gas turbine combustor is known to be thermal in nature (i.e.,
thermal-NOx is dominant over prompt-NOx and no fuel-bound NOx is present as fuels in
consideration are Nitrogen-free), and the addition of Bio-SPK increases the
Hydrogen/Carbon ratio (H/C) of the overall blend as is shown in Figure 3-16, decreasing
the flame temperature and the thermal-NOx with it 85.
100% Jatropha-Algae
50% Jatropha-Algae,
50% Continental Jet-A
25% Jatropha-Algae,
75% Continental Jet-A
UOP
GE
AFRL
Continental Jet-A
1.75
1.80
1.85
1.90
1.95
2.00
2.05
2.10
H/C Molar Ratio
NB: collected by various Labs
Figure 3-16. H/C Molar Ratios for Baseline Jet A, Neat Bio-SPK, and Blends of the Two
This observation seems to be supported by the observed slight reductions in the

EGT in the ground engine test during the emissions testing sequence. Similarly, smoke
generation is inversely proportional with H/C, and directly proportional with the aromatic
content, the former increased with the Bio-SPK addition, and the latter reduced with the
addition as the Bio-SPK is aromatic-free. Thus the observed reduction in smoke is not
unexpected either.
Version 3.0
PAGE 121 of 137
50%
50%
40%
25/75 Jatropha-Algae/Jet A
50/50 Jatropha-Algae/Jet A
CFM56-7B27
CFM56-7B18
40%
30%
10%
0%
NOx
-10%
CO
HC
Smoke #
% Change wrt Jet A
% Change wrt Jet A
30%
20%
20%
10%
0%
NOx
-20%
CO
HC
Smoke #
-10%
-30%
-40%
-20%
Figure 3-17. LTO Emissions and Maximum Smoke Number for Test Blends as % Difference from
Jet A for Lowest (18K) and Highest (27K) CFM56-7B Engine Ratings
The impact on NOx is more pronounced with the 50% blend compared to the 25%
blend most likely due to the resulting lower flame temperatures with further Bio-SPK
addition due to the H/C ratio differences between the baseline and the Bio-SPK. The
smoke data however, indicates that the impact of blending 50% compared to 25% does
not change the smoke reduction for higher thrust rating. The reason behind this is not
easily anticipated and would require further investigation. CO and, to a greater extent,
HC emissions are highly variable because the emissions levels are low (near the
instrument calibration limit for HC), and these emissions can be influenced by small
variations in engine state and ambient conditions. For example, considerable hysteresis
has been noted as the engine warms up. Therefore, the large variation in HC levels
cannot necessarily be attributed to fuel properties. However, in addition to the possible
test variation the observed increase in CO and HC emissions might also be explained by
the reduction in flame temperature, as the level of these emissions typically increase with
decreasing flame temperature, stemming from the fact that colder temperatures will lead
to more incomplete carbon oxidation. The impact of Bio-SPK addition appears to be
more severe for the HC than the CO, but yet was still within regulatory requirements. A
peculiar trend between CO and HC is also observed. While the CO emissions increase as
more Bio-SPK is added (i.e., 50%/50% vs. 25%/75%) the opposite is true for the HC, as
its emissions seem to get lower (Figure 3-17). This observation is not easy to understand,
however, it should be remembered that the flame temperature is not the only mechanism
that impacts the CO and HC emissions. The CO and HC emissions generation is very
local in nature and known to be heavily impacted by the fuel spray (atomization) quality,
which depends on surface tension, viscosity, and specific gravity of the fuel, all of which
being different for each blend to a certain extent. In fact, changes in fuel surface tension
and viscosity can be significant as the engine warms up, because there is a fuel-oil heat
exchanger that heats the fuel as the oil heats up. Even in the case where the spray quality
is the same, the flame location may differ due to flame speed differences possibly
impacting emissions. Currently, the impact of the Bio-SPK addition on the atomization
and the flame location, and respective effects of these modifications on the emissions of

Version 3.0
PAGE 122 of 137
Fuel Flow Ratio
CO vs. HC is not well known, but these tests indicate the impact could be significant, and
is worthy of further study.
To summarize the emissions results, the addition of the Bio-SPK to the
conventional jet fuel was found to have insignificant effects on emissions. The resulting
emissions values for the test blends meet the current regulatory requirements. There was
a slight reduction in NOx (~1-5%), and an increase in the CO (~5-9%) and HC emissions
(~20-45%). While some parts of the observed changes to emissions are due to
measurement variability, they are primarily explained by the anticipated reduction in the
flame temperature. Additionally, the impact on spray quality and flame location is also
expected to play a major role for emissions levels, especially for CO and HC. Lower
smoke emissions (~13-30%) were also observed. Some part of this is understood as a
result of the reduction in the aromatic content of the blends compared to the conventional
jet fuel. The emissions may vary among various Bio-SPKs and the current results should
be taken to be specific to the Bio-SPK tested. However, the variation in emissions among
various Bio-SPKs is not expected to be extensive based on the consistency of the
compositions reported for currently available Bio-SPKs. Further studies on the impact of
the modifications of physical and chemical properties of the jet fuel by Bio-SPK addition
on emissions are encouraged.
==============================================================
Increasing
LBO Margin
-7B Production Engines
874-026/4A - Jet A
874-026/4A - 25%/75% Blend
874-026/4A - 50%/50% Blend
Corrected Core Speed

Figure 3-18. LBO Historical Data Comparison
The LBO margin of Jatropha fuels is comparable to typical production engines.

Version 3.0
PAGE 123 of 137
Corrected Core Speed (N2)

EGT
Fuel Flow (Wf)
Jet A
25%/75% Blend
50%/50% Blend
N2
EGT
Wf
Time
Figure 3-19. Warm Start Comparison
The warm start characteristics are unchanged.
Corrected Core Speed (N2)

EGT
Fuel Flow (Wf)
Jet A
25%/75% Blend
50%/50% Blend
N2
EGT
Wf
Time
Figure 3-20. Cold Start Comparison
The cold start characteristics are slightly improved with Jatropha mixes.

Version 3.0
PAGE 124 of 137
Corrected Fan Speed (N1)

EGT
Fuel Flow (Wf)
Throttle Angle (TRA)
TRA
N1
EGT
Wf
Jet A
25%/75% Blend
50%/50% Blend
Time
Figure 3-21. Accel Time Comparison
The acceleration characteristics are unchanged.

3.4.2.3
Rolls-Royce RB211-524G2-T Engine Ground Run
A series of engine ground runs were conducted on an Air New Zealand Boeing
747-400 aircraft equipped with Rolls-Royce RB 211-524G2-T engines prior to the test
flight including a switch of fuel at various progressions of Engine Pressure Ratio (EPR)
settings. The engine showed no change in behavior from the operational perspective.
12300
ANZ Biofuel ground run 29 Dec 08
12200
Engine #1 Fuel flow analysis for

ground test during the switch
between 50% bio-SPK blend and
Jet A-1 @ 1.4 EPR
Fuel Flow lbs/hour
12100
Running on 50%
bio-SPK blend
Running on Jet A1
Running on 50%
bio-SPK blend
12000
11900
11800
11700
Difference by ANOVA
analysis method is 1.07%
11600
1350
1370
1390
1410
1430
1450
1470
Time (seconds)
1490
1510
1530
1550
The data shows a reduction in fuel flow, due to the higher heat of combustion of the 50% Bio-SPK blend.
Figure 3-22. Engine Ground-run Data is Shown from a RR RB211-524G2-T Engine Taken at
Auckland on Dec. 30, 2008

Version 3.0
PAGE 125 of 137
A small subset of the Digital Flight Data Recorder/Quick Access Recorder

(DFDR/QAR) data from the 1.4 EPR condition, representative of the steady state
performance results, is shown in Figure 3-22.
The ANOVA (analysis of variance) method was used to correctly establish if
there was a statistical difference between the engine measurement data. ANOVA plainly
looks at the data presented and therefore generally accounts for all the possible factors
present within the dataset; in this case variations in EPR, EGT, throttle angle and
measurement variations. During the 1.4 EPR power setting condition, a 1.07% lower fuel
flow was observed on the engine run of the Bio-SPK blend which is consistent with the
1.08% higher energy density per unit mass of the Bio-SPK fuel blend, which was
determined experimentally. This engine-to-lab results comparison gives a practical
difference of 1% (1.08/1.07) which when compared to the 95% confidence limits (from
ANOVA) of 1.0-1.13% confirms the fuel flow effect seen is real and accurate.
3.4.3 Flight Tests on 50% (v) Bio-SPK Blends
The series of flights for three commercial aircraft using the Bio-SPK blends
occurred in late 2008 and early 2009 with Air New Zealand, Continental Airlines, and
Japan Airlines (see Figure 3-23). For all flights, a detailed analysis was carried out for the
following parameters from each engine, as applicable: altitude, airspeed (VCAS), engine
pressure ratio (EPR), N1%, N2%, N3%, EGT, P3, fuel flow, and throttle angle. Also,
boroscope analyses were conducted before and after each test to detect any potential
engine deterioration.

Version 3.0
PAGE 126 of 137
Figure 3-23. Flight Test Program

Version 3.0
PAGE 127 of 137
3.4.3.1
Air New Zealand (ANZ) Test Flight
An ANZ 747-400 equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211-524G2-T engines was used
to test the 50% Bio-SPK blend in an engine ground run on December 29th, 2008 and an
experimental flight from Auckland, New Zealand, which occurred on December 30th,
2008. The biofuel was kept separate from the other aircraft systems and only fed to
engine No. 1, in a direct tank-to-engine configuration. Onboard observers monitored the
performance of engine No. 1 during all stages of the test flight. Evaluation of the DFDR
data was conducted to gain a better understanding of the fuel performance. The flight
lasted approximately 2 hours, and consisted of a climb to FL350, and thereafter included
engine windmill restarts at FL260/300kts as well as using starter-assist at FL180/220kts.
Acceleration and deceleration checks were carried out at FL350, Mach 0.84. A simulated
approach-and-go-around was conducted at 10,000 ft.
3.4.3.1.1
Flight Crew Observations
Based on the pilots' comments, the following observations were made:
Start and light-off - Engine No. 4 was started in accordance with normal procedures.
Engine No. 1 was then started using normal procedures followed by engines No. 2 and
No. 3. Engine No. 1 start was as expected with no noticeable difference in starting
characteristics. Idle checks were carried out on engine No. 1 and normal operating
conditions were observed.
Take-off - A full power (for the day's atmospheric conditions) takeoff was carried out.
Power was advanced to approx 1.1 EPR while aircraft brakes were held on. Brakes
were released and the engines advanced to full rated thrust. Engine No. 1 spooled up
as other engines. Takeoff roll was approximately 1800 feet with Vr at 121kts
Climb During climb at approximately FL200 the No. 1 fuel tank boost pumps were
switched OFF to verify suction feed to engine No. 1. Operation was normal. At
approximately FL250 the No. 1 fuel tank boost pumps were switched back ON. AntiIce was used above FL260 as conditions required
Rapid accels/decels - After establishing stable conditions at FL350 and recording
stable cruise data the aircraft was configured for accel/decel tests. Engine No. 1
throttle was quickly reduced to idle and the engine responded normally. The engine
was allowed to stabilize, then the throttle was quickly advanced to maximum EPR.
The engine responded smoothly and reached the commanded EPR in a normal time.
There was no sign of instability or hang up.
Relights Aircraft descended to FL180/260kts where two Starter assisted relights
were carried out. Both restarts were normal.
Take Off Go Around The aircraft descended and a landing configuration was
established for a simulated approach to a way point runway at 8,000 ft. From this
point a missed approach and go around was carried out. All engine operations were
normal.
Landing and Reverse Thrust - A normal approach and landing were then carried out
with Full Reverse thrust used on all 4 engines. Normal operation was observed.
Taxi and shutdown Aircraft was taxied to the shut down point where all 4 engines
were shut down. Engine No. 1 shutdown was normal. After allowing time for EGT to

Version 3.0
PAGE 128 of 137
drop, engine No. 1 was restarted and allowed to stabilize. Start was normal. Engine
No. 1 was then shutdown normally.
3.4.3.1.2
Post-Flight Data Analysis
The data was analyzed for the engine ground run and the test flight. No issues
arose during the test flight with the engine No. 1 running on 50% Bio-SPK blend. The
aircraft and engine performance were as expected and the fuel blend gave similar results
in operation to those found during ground-based testing. Figure 3-24 shows the flight
profile for this flight, consisting of approximately 2 hours cruising at FL350. In general,
the data is of good quality, and the engines are very well matched on main parameters.
There was an engine change just prior to this biofuel test, so no reference flight data is
available with Jet A-1 on test engine. There were no obvious signs of Bio-SPK blend
impacting engine operation.
40000
350
Slam
maneuvers at
FL350
35000
Engine relights
300
30000
250
20000
200
15000
150
VCAS - kts
ALT - ft
25000
10000
100
Simulated
missed
approach
5000
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
-5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0
time - sec
ALT
VCAS
Figure 3-24. Air New Zealand 747-400 Flight Test Profile and Events During the Flight Test
Post-flight hardware checks included the inspection of 24 fuel nozzles (Parker),

fuel management unit and fuel pump, and the low pressure fuel filter. There were no
apparent effects from use of the Bio-SPK blend.
3.4.3.2
Continental Airlines (CAL) Test Flight
A 737-800 equipped with CFM56-7B engines was used to test 50% jatropha/algae
based Bio-SPK blend in an engine ground run on January 6th, 2009, and an experimental
flight from Houston, Texas on January 7th, 2009. The flight lasted approximately 2 hours,
and consisted of a climb to FL 390, engine accelerations and decelerations at FL390,
Mach 0.78, a windmill engine restart at FL250/280 kts, a starter assisted restart at
FL250/230 kts, and a simulated go-around maneuver at 10,000 ft.

Version 3.0
PAGE 129 of 137
3.4.3.2.1
Prior to the Test Flight
No physical modifications were made to the aircraft or systems, no special
instrumentation was installed and boroscope inspections were performed on engine
No. 2.
Engine No. 1 and the APU were supplied with Jet A from fuel tank No. 1. The aircraft
fuel system was configured in a tank-to-engine configuration for starting, taxiing and
flight to ensure that only the engine No. 2 received biofuel from the tank No. 2.
The following No. 2 engine ground tests on biofuel were performed: engine start time,
power assurance and accels.
3.4.3.2.2
Onboard observers monitored the performance of the engine No. 2 during all
stages of the test flight. The aircraft and engine performance were unaffected by the
biofuel and performance differences were undistinguishable from the engine No. 1
running on Jet A. Engine No. 2 performance matched its characteristics when run prior
on Jet A. The pilots performed the following flight procedures:
Engine start and taxi
Takeoff
Climb to cruise altitude and stabilize engine readings
Rapid throttle excursions
In flight restarts
Descent with simulated go-around
Final descent and landing
40000
350
Engine Acceleration /
Deceleration Procedure
35000
300
30000
250
200
20000
Engine relights
(windmill & crossbleed)
150
VCAS - kts
ALT - ft
25000
15000
100
10000
Simulated Go-Around
50
5000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0
7000
6000
time - sec
PRESALT
CAS
Figure 3-25. Continental Airlines 737-800 Flight Test Profile on January 7, 2009

Version 3.0
PAGE 130 of 137
The mission profile is shown in Figure 3-25. The aircraft and engine performance
were as expected and the fuel blend gave similar results in operation to those found
during ground-based testing.
3.4.3.2.3
Post Flight Data Analysis
The QAR data was analyzed for the engine ground run and the test flight. A
manual rolling thrust set was used and both engines achieved the target 10% derate
takeoff thrust 26 seconds into the takeoff roll. Slight differences in throttle angle were
evident between the two engines due to the manual thrust set, which resulted in slightly
different N1 speeds during the take-off acceleration. The acceleration rate of engine No.
2 running on biofuel matched the acceleration rate of the engine running on Jet A. Both
engines behaved similar with respect to EGT and the peak EGT achieved by both engines
were identical. To allow for the most representative comparison of the Bio-SPK blend
and Jet A consumption, an analysis was performed using two flight segments each (climb
and cruise) from the previous revenue service flight and the biofuels flight. The flight
segments were chosen where the flight parameters (i.e., altitude, Mach number, total air
temperature, fan speed) were stable in order to eliminate variation due to throttle
movements. The engine quality/health difference (between engines No. 1 and No. 2) was
first established from the previous flight with the typical Jet A fuel. The flight test fuel
flow rate is acquired using the engines mass flow meter. The precision of this fuel flow
measurement is approximately +/- 0.5. Several climb segments were used to compare the
previous revenue service flight (with Jet A) to the biofuels test flight. The previous flight
showed an improved fuel flow for engine No. 2 versus engine No. 1 of 0.6%. This
generalizes the difference in fuel burn performance of engine No. 2 relative to engine
No.1 for the same fuel. During the biofuel test of engine No. 2, a fuel flow improvement
of 1.8% was observed. The engine performance difference from the previous flight (0.6%) was then subtracted from the biofuels result (-1.8%) to compute 1.2% fuel flow
improvement from the biofuel only. Similar analysis was also conducted for the cruise
segment of the biofuels flight. The observed 2.1% improvement was adjusted for the
0.6% performance difference as previously discussed. The net improvement due to the
biofuel is seen to be 1.5%. The analysis is shown graphically in Figure 3-26. Both the
climb and cruise segments match the expected fuel flow reduction of -1.1% as shown in
Table 3-19 fairly well.

Version 3.0
PAGE 131 of 137
Previous Flight
Biofuel Flight
Linear (Previous Flight)
Linear (Biofuel Flight)
Delta Fuel Flow %; (Engine 2 - Engine 1) / Engine 1
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
Previous Flight shows a fuel flow delta of ~-0.6%
0.0%
-0.5%
-1.0%
-1.5%
1.5% Fuel Flow Improvement seen with Biofuel at Cruise
-2.0%
Biofuel Flight shows a fuel flow delta of ~-2.1%
-2.5%
-3.0%
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Cruise Snapshot [s]
Figure 3-26. Cruise Snapshots for Previous Continental Airlines 737-800 Flight and Biofuel Flight
As part of verifying the operability of the Bio-SPK blend, rapid throttle

excursions were performed during the test flight. Engine No. 2, running on the Bio-SPK
blend, had its power reduced from a cruise setting to idle. Once the engine had stabilized
at idle, a snap acceleration to maximum continuous thrust was commanded. Engine No.
2, running the Bio-SPK blend, responded as expected with no thrust delay or other
anomaly noted in the data; this is consistent with crew reports after the flight. Two
stabilized engine restarts were performed during the flight test, a windmill restart and a
starter assisted restart. Engine No. 2, running on the Bio-SPK blend, responded as
expected and was within experience for engine windmill and starter assisted restarts.
After extensive precautionary maintenance, inspections, and analyses, including
defueling, change of fuel filter, and boroscope examination, the aircraft returned to
service the next day. The engine and airframe have been monitored, and nothing
abnormal has occurred.
3.4.3.3
Japan Airlines (JAL) Test Flight
The JAL 747-300 flight test, equipped with Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines was
used to test a 50% camelina/jatropha/algae Bio-SPK blend in a ground run on January
29th, 2009, and a flight in Tokyo, Japan on January 30th, 2009. The Bio-SPK blend was
kept separate from the other aircraft systems and only fed to engine No. 3, in a direct
tank-to-engine configuration. The flight lasted approximately 2 hours, and consisted of a
climb to FL 390, engine accelerations and decelerations at FL350, Mach 0.80, as well as
at FL200, 280kts, and an engine windmill restart at FL250, 300kts.

Version 3.0
PAGE 132 of 137
3.4.3.3.1
Onboard observers monitored the performance of the engine No. 3 during all
stages of the test flight. The flight crew observed that aircraft and engine performance
was unaffected by the blend and performance differences were indistinguishable from the
engine No. 2 running on Jet A-1. The engine No. 3 performance qualitatively matched its
characteristics when run prior on Jet A-1. This was possible, as the same flight crew was
on the previous revenue flight of the test aircraft.
3.4.3.3.2
Post Flight Data Analysis
Flight test data was reviewed for indications of engine surge, flameout, and
accel/decel capability differences from the engines operating with Jet A-1. The operation
of engine No. 3 was compared across the ferry flight using Jet A-1 and the test flight with
Bio-SPK blend. In addition, engine No. 3 operation was compared to the operation of the
other three engines running with Jet A-1. As the ferry flight and the Bio-SPK blend flight
were different missions, only certain portions of the flight data are directly comparable.
The Bio-SPK blend flight also included transient operation of the engine No. 3 that was
not included in the ferry flight. A review of the data showed no indication of compressor
stall or flameout. The acceleration and deceleration characteristics of the engines indicate
no capability difference with the Bio-SPK blend. It is apparent that the test engine ran
considerably hotter (~50C higher EGT at idle) than the other engines. This is a sign of
engine deterioration (the reference flight had the same behavior). Throughout the flight,
the engine showed consistent operation for the data recorded including N1, N2, EPR and
fuel flow. Portions of the flight included transient operations (accelerations,
decelerations, starting) of the engine No. 3. During all portions of the Bio-SPK blend
flight, the engine No. 3 performed as expected with no operability related events noted.
The 747-300 Airborne Integrated Data System data was analyzed for the engine ground
run and the test flight. No issues arose during the test flight with the engine No. 3 running
on the 50% Bio-SPK blend. The aircraft and engine performance were as expected and
the fuel blend gave similar results in operation to those found during ground-based
testing.
There was no obvious difference of main parameters between engine No. 3 and
other engines. However, the engines are not well matched on main parameters due to
horsepower extraction, bleed air, and primarily engine deterioration. There was no
obvious sign that the Bio-SPK blend had any adverse effect on engine response. The
aircraft was returned to service within one week, after subject engine change. The
airframe has been monitored, and nothing abnormal has occurred.
4.0
Conclusions and Recommendations

A variety of Bio-SPK fuels made from six different fuel producers using a wide
variety of feedstocks at 100% and 50% (v) blends with conventional jet fuel were
evaluated in this report. The result of the evaluation is that all the SPKs (Bio and FT)
behaved similarly and should be considered as fit-for-purpose jet fuels for use in turbine
engines. The data presented in this study support a recommendation to modify the
D7566-09 synthetic jet fuel specification to include Bio-SPK fuels produced by processes
described in this report.

Version 3.0
PAGE 133 of 137
5.0
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the UOP, Syntroleum, Energy and Environmental
Resource Center, ENEOS, and Neste Oil for developing the technology to produce BioSPK and providing fuel samples for evaluation. In addition, the authors would like to also
thank the numerous companies, airlines and government agencies that have contributed to
the preparation of this report. Without your help and cooperation the preparation of this
report would not have been possible.

Version 3.0
PAGE 134 of 137
6.0
References
G. Hemighaus, T. Boval, J. Bacha, Fred Barnes, M. Franklin, L. Gibbs, N. Hogue, J. Jones, D. Lesnini, J. Lind and J.
Morris. Chevron Aviation Fuels Technical Review (FTR-6). 2006 Chevron Corporation, p 24.
2
ASTM D4054-09, Standard Practice for Evaluating the Compatibility of Additives with Aviation-Turbine Fuels and
Aircraft Fuel System Materials
3
DARPA Project completed for BAA06-43, Agreement Number W911NF-07-C-0049
4
Wiley Critical Content - Petroleum Technology, Vol. 1-2., pp: 599, John Wiley & Sons. Available online at:
http://knovel.com/web/portal/browse/display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_bookid=2125&VerticalID=0
5
R.L. Freerks, P.A. Muzzell. Production and Characterization of Synthetic Jet Fuel Produced from Fischer-Tropsch
Hydrocarbons. Prepr. Pap. Am. Chem. Soc., Div. Pet. Chem. V 49(40) 407-410, 2004
6
E.T. Akintayo. Characteristics and composition of Parkia biglobbossu and jatropha curcas oils and cakes. Bioresource
Technology, (92)307-310, 2004
7
G.M. Gubitz, M. Mittelbach, M. Trabi. Exploitation of the tropical oil seed plant Jatrophas curcas L. Bioresource
Technology, (67)73-82, 1999
8
H. Abramovic, V. Abram. Physico-Chemical Properties, Composition and Oxidative Stability of Camelina sativa oil.
Food Techno. Biotechnol, (43)(1)63-70, 2005
9
Bailey's Industrial Oil and Fat Products, 6th Edition, F. Shahidi, Editor, Volumes 1-6, pp: 604-612, John Wiley &
Sons. Version available online at:
http://knovel.com/web/portal/browse/display?_EXT_KNOVEL_DISPLAY_bookid=1432&VerticalID=0
10
ASTM D1655-08a, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels
11
ASTM D7566-09, Standard Specifications for Aviation Turbine Fuels Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons
12
CRC Project No. AV-2-04a, Comparative Evaluation of Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuels, 2008
13
Partial least-squares predictions of non-petroleum-derived fuel content and resultant properties when blended with
petroleum-derived fuels, Cramer J., Morris R., Giordano B., Rose-Pehrsson S., Energy & Fuels, 23, 894-902, 2009
14
ASTM D2425, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Middle Distillates by Mass Spectrometry
15
ASTM D1319, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator
Adsorption.
16
ASTM D6379, Standard Test Method for Determination of Aromatic Hydrocarbon Types in Aviation Fuels and
Petroleum DistillatesHigh Performance Liquid Chromatography Method with Refractive Index Detection
17
ASTM D5292, Standard Test Method for Aromatic Carbon Contents of Hydrocarbon Oils by High-Resolution
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
18
ASTM D5291, Standard Test Methods for Instrumental Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in
Petroleum Products and Lubricants
19
ASTM D3701, Standard Test Method for Hydrogen Content of Aviation Turbine Fuels by Low Resolution Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Spectrometry
20
UOP-730 method: total oxygen in liquid hydrocarbon by pyrolysis. UOP methods are published by ASTM and are
available through the ASTM website.
21
ASTM E 411, Standard Test Method for Trace Quantities of Carbonyl Compounds with 2,4-Dinitrophenylhydrazine
22
ASTM D4629, Standard Test Method for Trace Nitrogen in Liquid Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Syringe/Inlet
Oxidative Combustion and Chemiluminescence Detection
23
ASTM D7111, Standard Test Method for Determination of Trace Elements in Middle Distillate Fuels by Inductively
Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry (ICP-AES)
24
ASTM D6732, Standard Test Method for Determination of Copper in Jet Fuels by Graphite Furnace Atomic
Absorption Spectrometry
25
Trace Element and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Analyses of Jet Engine Fuels: Jet A, JP-5 and JP-8, US NAVY
Technical Report 1845, December 2000.
26
ASTM D86, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure
27
ASTM D2887, Standard Test Method for Boiling Range Distribution of Petroleum Fractions by Gas
Chromatography
28
ASTM D6378, Standard Test Method for Determination of Vapor Pressure (VPX) of Petroleum Products,
Hydrocarbons, and Hydrocarbon-Oxygenate Mixtures (Triple Expansion Method)
29
Explosion of Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Vapors, NTSB12-97-SP-0127, Washington DC, 1997
30
ASTM D3241, Standard Test Method for Thermal Oxidation Stability of Aviation Turbine Fuels (AFTOS
Procedure)
31
ASTM D5001, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Lubricity of Aviation Turbine Fuels by the Ball-onCylinder Lubricity Evaluator (BOCLE)
32
ASTM D445, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of
Dynamic Viscosity)
33
ASTM E 1269 05, Standard Test Method for Determining Specific Heat Capacity by Differential Scanning
Calorimetry

Version 3.0
PAGE 135 of 137
34
World Fuel Sampling Program, CRC Report No. 647, Coordinating Research Council, 2006
A. Zanier, H. W. Jackle, Fuels & Lubricants Department of the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and
Research (EMPA), Switzerland, Thermochimica Acta, Volume 287, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 203-212
36
ASTM D4052, Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter
37
ASTM D1331, Standard Test Methods for Surface and Interfacial Tension of Solutions of Surface-Active Agents
38
ASTM D6793, Standard Test Method for Determination of Isothermal Secant and Tangent Bulk Modulus
39
Handbook of aviation fuel properties, CRC Report No. 635, Coordinating Research Council, 2004
40
ASTM D6304, Standard Test Method for Determination of Water in Petroleum Products, Lubricating Oils, and
Additives by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration
41
ASTM D2779, Standard Test Method for Estimation of Solubility of Gases in Petroleum Liquids
42
ASTM D924, Standard Test Method for Dissipation Factor (or Power Factor) and Relative Permittivity (Dielectric
Constant) of Electrical Insulating Liquids
43
ASTM D2624, Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity of Aviation and Distillate Fuels
44
MIL-DTL-5624U, Detail Specification - Turbine Fuel, Aviation, Grades, JP-4 (NATO F-40) and JP-5 (NATO F-44),
Table I
45
MIL-DTL-83133F, Detail Specification - Turbine Fuel, Aviation, Kerosene Type, JP-8 (NATO F-34), NATO F-35,
and JP-8+100 (NATO F-37), Table 1
46
and JP-8+100 (NATO F-37), Table 2 - Chemical and physical requirements and test methods for JP-8 with up to 50%
SPK blend component
47
and JP-8+100 (NATO F-37), Table 2 - Chemical and physical requirements and test methods for JP-8 with up to 50%
SPK blend component
48
AFRL/RXS 10-002 (January 2010), Material Compatibility of R-8 Synthetic Fuel (Materials Evaluation)
49
AFRL/RXS 10-003 (January 2010), R-8 Synthetic Fuel Material Compatibility Phase II Testing (Materials
Evaluation)
50
AFRL/MLS 06-103 (September 2006), Evaluation of Material Compatibility of Fischer-Tropsch Fuel
51
AFRL/RXS 08-025 (April 2008), Fischer-Tropsch Fuel Compatibility with Selected Epoxy Adhesives
52
AFRL/RXS 08-017 (April 2008), Fischer-Tropsch Compatibility with Selected B-1B Materials
53
MIL-DTL-26521K (3), Detail Specification Hose Assembly, Nonmetallic, Fuel, Collapsible, Low Temperature
with Non-Reusable Couplings
54
AFRL/RXS 07-083 (December 2007), Fischer-Tropsch Compatibility with Selected C-17 Materials
55
ASTM D3948-08, Standard Test Methods for Determining Water Separation Characteristics of Aviation Turbine
Fuels by Portable Separometer
56
SAE J1488, Emulsified Water/Fuel Separation Test Procedure
57
API/IP 1581, Specifications and qualification procedures for aviation jet fuel filter/separators, 5th Edition
58
Department of Defense Handbook, Aerospace Fuel Certification, MIL-HDBK-510-1 (USAF), 2008
59
ECETOC, Occupational exposure limits for hydrocarbon solvents, Special Report No 13, European Centre for
Ecotoxicity and Toxicology of Chemicals; Brussels, Belgium, 1997
60
HSE, EH40/2000 Workplace Exposure Limits; Containing the list of workplace exposure limits for use with the
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended). UK Health and Safety Executive.
(Originally published as: HSE. 1995. EH40/95 Occupational Exposure Limits), 2005
61
Occupational hygiene limits for hydrocarbon solvents, Farmer T.H., Annals of Occup. Hygiene,(40)237-242, 1995
62
A proposed methodology for setting occupational exposure limits for hydrocarbon solvent, McKee R.H., Medeiros
A.M., Daughtrey W.C., J. Occ. Env. Hygiene, (2)524-542, 2005
63
ACGIH, Appendix H, Reciprocal Calculation method for certain refined hydrocarbon solvent vapors. In:
Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances, 7th ed., 2009 Supplement, American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; Cincinnati, Ohio, 2009
64
ACGIH, Kerosene/Jet Fuels, Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances, 7th ed., 2003
Supplement, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2003
65
Toxicologic Assessment of Jet-Propulsion Fuel 8, National Research Council; Committee on Toxicology;
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2003
66
Guidelines for the health risk assessment of chemical mixtures, EPA/630/R-98/002; Risk Assessment Forum
Technical Panel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1986.
67
Supplementary Guidance for conducting health risk assessment of chemical mixtures, EPA/630/R-00/002, Risk
Assessment Forum Technical Panel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2000
68
Toxicology Update Isoparaffinic Hydrocarbons: A Summary of Physical Properties, Toxicity Studies and Human
Exposure Data, Mullin Linda S., Ader Allan W., Daughtrey Wayne C., Frost Debra Z., Greenwood Michael R., J.
Appl. Toxicol., (10)135-142, 1990
69
MSDS; Solvent 715 CC; Calgary, Alberta Canada: Shell Chemicals Canada Limited; 1997
70
Kerosenes/jet fuels, Product Dossier No. 94/106, Petroleum Products and Health Management Groups, CONCAWE,
Brussels, Belgium, 1995
35

Version 3.0
PAGE 136 of 137
71
Toxicology Update Isoparaffinic Hydrocarbons: A Summary of Physical Properties, Toxicity Studies and Human
Exposure Data, Mullin Linda S., Ader Allan W., Daughtrey Wayne C., Frost Debra Z., Greenwood Michael R., J.
Appl. Toxicol., (10)135-142, 1990
72
CCOHS - Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, http://ccinfoweb.ccohs.ca/
73
Exxon. 1990. Isopar G MSDS. Exxon Chemical; PO Box 3272; Houston TX. 5/8/90.
74
Exxon. 1993. Isopar M MSDS. Exxon Company; PO Box 2180; Houston TX; 1/7/91.
75
Exxon. 1999. Isopar C MSDS. Exxon Company; Houston, TX. 3/22/99.
76
ExxonMobil; 2007a. Isopar G Fluid MSDS. ExxonMobil Chemical Company; P.O. Box 3272; Houston, TX. 4-2707.
77
ExxonMobil; 2007b. Isopar M Fluid MSDS. ExxonMobil Chemical Company; P.O. Box 3272; Houston, TX. 3-2-07.
78
ACGIH, Kerosene/Jet Fuels, Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances, 7th ed., 2003
Supplement; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2003.
79
MSDS; Solvent 715 CC; Calgary, Alberta Canada: Shell Chemicals Canada Limited; 1997.
80
Ellsworth, J. 2007. Petition for inclusion of Isopar M on the National List under synthetic substances allowed for use
in organic crop production, 205.601; http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5072824
10/10/07.
81
Chevron 1998. Soltrol 200, C13-C17 Isoalkanes MSDS. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company; Houston, TX;
11/30/98.
82
D. Mattie, personal communication
83
Sustainable Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosene (Bio-SPK) Jet Fuel Flights and Engine Tests Program
Results, Rahmes T.F., Kinder J.D., Henry T.M., Crenfeldt G., LeDuc G.F., Zombanakis G.P., Abe Y., Lambert D.M.,
Lewis C., Juenger J.A., Andac M.G., Reilly K.R., Holmgren J.R., McCall M.J., Bozzano A.G., 9th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (ATIO), September 21st 23rd, 2009, Hilton Head, SC
84
Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Environmental Protection, Volume II, Aircraft Engine
Emissions, ICAO. 2nd Edition - July 1993, including Amendment 4, effective November 4th, 1999
85
Fuel Character Effects on J79 and F101 Engine Combustor Emissions, Gleason C.C., Martone J.A., Journal of
Energy, Vol. 4, No. 5, 1980.

Version 3.0
PAGE 137 of 137

Bio-SPK Research Report 2010 v5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bio-SPK Research Report 2010 v5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic

The Boeing Company

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

This page is intentionally left blank for end-to-end printing

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

This page is intentionally left blank for end-to-end printing

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 26

Trace Materials ............................................................................................... 30

2.2.2 Bulk Physical and Performance Properties.............................................................. 34

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 34

Vapor/Liquid Ratio ......................................................................................... 38

Thermal Stability ............................................................................................ 39

Lubricity and Response to Lubricity Improver............................................... 40

Viscosity vs. Temperature............................................................................... 41

Specific Heat vs. Temperature ........................................................................ 42

Density vs. Temperature ................................................................................. 45

Surface Tension vs. Temperature.................................................................... 47

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

50% (v) SPK Blends............................................................................................... 48

Bulk Modulus vs. Temperature....................................................................... 48

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 49

Water Solubility vs. Temperature ................................................................... 50

Solubility of Air .............................................................................................. 51

2.2.3 Electrical Properties................................................................................................. 52

Neat SPKs .............................................................................................................. 53

Electrical Conductivity and Response to Static Dissipator............................. 55

Additional Tests on SYN-R8 .......................................................................... 90

Honeywell ..................................................................................................... 106

CFM 56-7B Engine Ground Test.................................................................. 118

Flight Crew Observations..................................................................................... 128

Continental Airlines (CAL) Test Flight ........................................................ 129

Japan Airlines (JAL) Test Flight................................................................... 132

Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................... 133

Figure 2-22. 50 % (v) Bio-SPK Blends, Water Solubility vs. Temperature................................................. 51

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

Table 2-1. Identification of the Bio-SPK Jet Fuels Tested ........................................................................... 23

Table 2-53. Fluorocarbon O-ring (AMS 7276) ............................................................................................ 85

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

Figure 1-1. Overview: Fuel and Additive Approval Process

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

Figure 1-2. Test Program

Figure 1-3. Fischer-Tropsch Process and Hydrotreating/Hydrocracking Process

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

1.3.3 Fischer-Tropsch SPK (FT-SPK)

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

Stearic Acid (C18)

Methyl stearate (FAME) (C18)

Oleic Acids (C18) in

Oleic Acid (C18)

Linolenic Acid (C18)

Various Acids (C18) in

Hydroprocessing FT Waxes and Renewable Fats and

Evaluation of Bio-Derived Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosenes (Bio-SPKs)

SPK feeds through similar hydroprocesses. A general comparison of the two

In existing commercial gasification FT pathways (lower section of Figure 1-5),

Because the final processing steps in both SPK pathways include

Hydrotreating: Hydrogenation and Deoxygenation of

20:1 20:2 20:3 22:0 Other Source

Feedstock Natural Oil

Fatty Acid Prefix