4.7 Article

Lower heating value of jet fuel from hydrocarbon class concentration data and thermo-chemical reference data: An uncertainty quantification

期刊

FUEL
卷 311, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122542

关键词

Lower heating value; Sustainable alternative fuel; GC x GC; Thermo-chemical reference data

资金

  1. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Environment and Energy through ASCENT
  2. FAA Center of Excellence for Alternative Jet Fuels and the Environment [065a, 13-C-AJFE-UD-026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A detailed assessment is presented on the calculation and uncertainty of the lower heating value of conventional and sustainable aviation fuels. The study compares calculations using the method described in this paper with measurements using ASTM D4809, and finds consistent results within 95% confidence intervals. The method described in this work exhibits high accuracy and precision for different fuel compositions.
A detailed assessment is presented on the calculation and uncertainty of the lower heating value (net heat of combustion) of conventional and sustainable aviation fuels, from hydrocarbon class concentration measurements, reference molecular heats of formation, and the uncertainties of these reference heats of formation. Calculations using this paper's method and estimations using ASTM D3338 are reported for 17 fuels of diverse compositions and compared against reported ASTM D4809 measurements. All the calculations made by this method and the reported ASTM D4809 measurements agree (i.e., within 95% confidence intervals). The 95% confidence interval of the lower heating value of fuel candidates that are comprised entirely of normal- and isoalkanes is less than 0.1 MJ/kg by the method described here, while high cyclo-alkane content leads to 95% confidence bands that approach 0.2 MJ/kg. Taking a possible bias into account, the accuracy and precision of the method described in this work could be as high as 0.23 MJ/kg for some samples.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据