aerospace
Article
Experimental Study on Reaction Kinetic Characteristics of RP-3
Fuel Vapor Catalyst
Xiaotian Peng 1 , Donghao Fan 1 , Xuecheng Hu 1 , Shiyu Feng 2, *, Hao Peng 1, * and Chenchen Wang 3
Citation: Peng, X.; Fan, D.; Hu, X.;
Feng, S.; Peng, H.; Wang, C.
Experimental Study on Reaction
Kinetic Characteristics of RP-3 Fuel
Vapor Catalyst. Aerospace 2023, 10,
410. https://doi.org/10.3390/
aerospace10050410
Academic Editor: Carmine Carmicino
Received: 12 March 2023
Revised: 20 April 2023
Accepted: 26 April 2023
Published: 28 April 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10050410
1 Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Process Enhancement and New Energy Equipment Technology,
School of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 211816, China
2 College of Aerospace Engineering, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Nanjing 210016, China
3 Aviation Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on Aero Electromechanical System Integration,
Nanjing Engineering Institute of Aircraft Systems, Nanjing 211106, China
* Correspondence: shiyuf@nuaa.edu.cn (S.F.); phsight1@hotmail.com (H.P.)
Abstract: Oxygen-consuming inerting technology is expected to be the primary method for sup-
pressing aircraft fuel tank fires and explosions in the next generation, with the catalytic reactor
serving as its core component. However, the catalytic properties of the developed catalyst have
yet to be thoroughly studied, and a primary reaction kinetic equation is needed to support further
investigation of the reactor. Thus, this study focuses on the performance of the developed catalyst
for RP-3 fuel vapor, with a test bench built to analyze its reaction kinetic characteristics. Initially, we
tested the steady-state variation in the fuel vapor concentration (FVC) with fuel temperature and
fitted an empirical equation, providing fundamental data for subsequent experiments. Subsequently,
we studied the impact of critical parameters, such as the FVC, oxygen concentration (OC), CO2 con-
centration, and reaction temperature, on the reaction performance. The results demonstrate that the
reaction rate is positively correlated with the FVC, OC, and reaction temperature, while CO2 has no
impact on the catalytic reaction characteristics. Finally, a kinetic equation for the developed catalyst
is summarized based on the experimental data, providing a fundamental equation for simulating
research on the catalytic reactor and the oxygen-consuming inerting system.
Keywords: catalytic oxidation; RP-3 aviation fuel; fuel vapor; inert; reaction kinetics
1. Introduction
Fuel tank explosions and disintegration remain among the primary causes of aircraft
accidents [1,2]. To address this issue, both the Federal Aviation Administration of the
USA (FAA) and the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) have established
airworthiness regulations mandating necessary measures to minimize fuel tank flamma-
bility [3]. Years of research have demonstrated that fuel tank inerting technology, which
reduces the OC in the fuel tank ullage, is the most effective method for mitigating fuel tank
flammability [4–6].
After several years of development, the Hollow Fiber Membrane On-Board Inert
Gas Generation System (HFM-OBIGGS) has become the most commonly used inerting
technology. For instance, the F-22, F-35, Boeing 737, Boeing 747, and Airbus A320 all
employ this technology [7,8]. However, practical application has revealed several issues
with this technology. Firstly, it requires a significant amount of high-pressure engine bleed
air, resulting in increased aircraft compensation loss. Secondly, the membrane separation
performance declines significantly, leading to low nitrogen production efficiency and a
short service life. Thirdly, the release of fuel vapor causes environmental pollution and
violates the global carbon neutrality strategy [9,10].
In light of these issues, researchers have proposed several new inerting methods, such
as adsorption inerting technology [11], cooling inerting technology [12], oxygen-consuming
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace
 In light of these issues, researchers have proposed several new inerting meth
such as adsorption inerting technology [11], cooling inerting technology [12], oxygen-
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 suming inerting technology [13], and others. Among them, the oxygen-consuming 2 of 15

erting technology is the most likely to be applied in the next generation of on-board
tank inerting technology, owing to its high inerting efficiency and enhanced security
inerting technology [13], and others. Among them, the oxygen-consuming inerting technol-
Unlike the “first-generation” oxygen-consuming inerting system in the 1960s, fuel c
ogy is the most likely to be applied in the next generation of on-board fuel tank inerting
lytic inerting
technology, technology
owing to its highcatalyzes the combustion
inerting efficiency of liquid
and enhanced fuel,[14].
security resulting
Unlikein more int
the
reactions with reaction
“first-generation” temperatures
oxygen-consuming reaching
inerting system 700 °C,
in the which
1960s, fueliscatalytic
far more dangerous
inerting
The “second-generation”
technology oxygen-consuming
catalyzes the combustion inerting
of liquid fuel, resulting technology
in more involveswith
intense reactions catalyzing
reaction temperatures reaching 700 ◦ C, which is far more dangerous [15]. The “second-
combustion of fuel vapor, with relatively lower reaction temperatures. For instance
generation” oxygen-consuming
catalytic reaction temperature inerting
of the technology involves catalyzing
Green On-Board Inert Gas theGeneration
combustion of System (
fuel vapor, with relatively lower reaction temperatures. For instance, the catalytic reaction
BIGGS), proposed by the Phyre Company, is approximately 230 °C, lower than the sp
temperature of the Green On-Board Inert Gas Generation System (GOBIGGS), proposed
taneous
by combustion
the Phyre Company, is temperature
approximately of230
RP-3 fuel vapor.
◦ C, lower than theThis translates
spontaneous to enhanced sa
combustion
and reliability.
temperature As illustrated
of RP-3 fuel vapor. in Figure
This 1, thetobasic
translates principle
enhanced ofand
safety GOBIGGS involves
reliability. As ext
ing mixedingas
illustrated from
Figure thebasic
1, the fuelprinciple
tank ullage into a catalytic
of GOBIGGS reactor for
involves extracting low-temperature
mixed gas from c
the fuel tank ullage into a catalytic reactor for low-temperature combustion.
bustion. The reaction consumes fuel vapor and O2, producing CO2 and water. After The reaction
consumes
reaction, thefuel inert
vaporgasandcontaining
O2 , producing COamounts
large 2 and water. ofAfter
N2 andthe CO
reaction, the inert gas
2 flows back to the fuel
containing large amounts of N2 and CO2 flows back to the fuel tank for inerting, after
for inerting, after cooling and drying [16].
cooling and drying [16].

Vent hole

Fuel tank
Low temperature and Fuel vapor and air
dry mixed inert gas mixture

y y
C x H y +( x + )O 2 → xCO 2 + H 2 O
4 2
CO2,H2O, C xH y ,
CxHy,N2,O2 O2,N2
催化反应器

Cooling dryer Catalytic reactor Fan

Figure1.1.Schematic
Figure Schematicdiagram of GOBIGGS.
diagram of GOBIGGS.
Parker Aerospace has developed a Jet-A fuel GOBIGGS prototype. In 2011, this
Parker
prototype wasAerospace
installed in anhasA-3developed a Jet-A
attack aircraft empty fuel
fuelGOBIGGS
tank with aprototype.
volume of 4.54 In m
2011,
3. this
totype from
Results was the
installed
researchinshowed
an A-3that attack aircraft
the OC in the empty
fuel tankfuel tank
ullage with afrom
decreased volume21% of 4.54
to 9% in only 9.6 min [13]. This new inerting technology presents
Results from the research showed that the OC in the fuel tank ullage decreased several advantages [17]. from
Firstly, there is no need to bleed air from the engine, and the energy
to 9% in only 9.6 min [13]. This new inerting technology presents several advantagesconsumption is much
lower than that of the HFM-OBIGGS system. Secondly, the catalytic reaction temperature
Firstly, there is no need to bleed air from the engine, and the energy consumption is m
is low and can be kept in a controllable range even if the cooling system fails. Thirdly, since
lower than
oxygen that of the
is consumed HFM-OBIGGS
in the system.
reactor, the inerting Secondly,
efficiency theFourthly,
is high. catalyticthereaction
system istempera
is low and
compact, can be kept
lightweight, in a controllable
and highly range minimal
integrated. Finally, even if the
fuel cooling
vapor is system
discharged fails. Thir
since oxygen
outside, makingisitconsumed
environmentallyin the reactor, the inerting efficiency is high. Fourthly, the
friendly.
tem However,
is compact, the compositions
lightweight,ofand various aviation
highly fuels can Finally,
integrated. differ significantly,
minimal and fuelthevapor is
characteristics of different batches may also
charged outside, making it environmentally friendly. vary [18]. RP-3 aviation kerosene is a mixed fuel
composed of various hydrocarbon molecules, mainly alkanes with carbon atoms ranging
However, the compositions of various aviation fuels can differ significantly, and
from 10 to 16, including paraffins, cycloalkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, and olefins, and
characteristics
the components of ofthe
different
fuel vaporbatches mayThe
are similar. also vary
main [18]. RP-3ofaviation
components RP-3 and kerosene
Jet-A fuel is a m
fuelpresented
are composed of various
in Table 1 [19,20]. hydrocarbon molecules, mainly alkanes with carbon at
ranging from 10 to 16, including paraffins, cycloalkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, and
fins, and the components of the fuel vapor are similar. The main components of RP-3
Jet-A fuel are presented in Table 1 [19,20].
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 3 of 15

Table 1. Composition of RP-3 and Jet-A.

Fuel Type Alkane Cycloalkane Aromatic Hydrocarbon Olefin Others

RP-3 53% 37.7% 4.6% 2% 2.7%
Jet-A 39.1% 23.2% 37.4% 0 0.3%

Research in the field of low-temperature catalysis shows that it is difficult to develop a

universal catalyst due to the differences in material composition. Therefore, when applying
the low-temperature catalytic inerting system to China’s RP-3 aviation fuel, it is necessary
to develop other catalysts [21,22]. Studies have shown that some noble metals, particularly
platinum, exhibit the best catalytic activity due to their significant ability to activate C-H
and O-H bonds [23]. ZSM-5 zeolite-supported platinum was found to have superior
performance in the catalytic combustion of toluene by Chen et al. [24], while Liu et al. [25]
investigated the activity of various zeolite-supported Pt catalysts for soot oxidation, and
reported that Pt catalysts can effectively promote the decomposition of hydrocarbons.
Based on these considerations, our research group prepared three types of all-silica-
supported Pt nanoparticles, namely Pt/Si-Beta, Pt/Si-ZSM-5, and Pt/SBA-15, and evalu-
ated their catalytic activity for the flameless combustion of fuel samples. The preliminary
research results indicate that Pt/Si-Beta exhibits the most superior catalytic activity among
these catalysts, enabling the complete combustion of methylcyclohexane and RP-3 aviation
fuel at 166 ◦ C and 241 ◦ C, respectively. This remarkable performance of Pt/Si-Beta can be
attributed to its exceptional hydrocarbon adsorption capacity. Additionally, taking into
account the catalytic performance and cost-effectiveness of the catalyst, we found that a
1.0 wt% loading amount of Pt is suitable to meet the actual requirements of the inerting sys-
tem. Moreover, Pt/Si-Beta showed excellent activity and stability over a prolonged period
in varying humidity and air velocity environments, with a conversion rate of approximately
98% being maintained even after 30 h of continuous use [26].
The catalytic reactor is a crucial component of the low-temperature catalytic inerting
system. However, research on the performance of developed catalysts is still limited. For
instance, in the previous simulation study, the reactor performance was represented by
a single catalytic efficiency since there is no primary reaction kinetic equation to support
it [27]. Additionally, the actual vapor concentration of RP-3 fuel was often not considered,
and the saturated vapor pressure was used instead [28]. The study of reactor performance
and catalytic inerting system performance has been further affected by the lack of investi-
gation on the reaction kinetic performance of the developed catalysts. Perego [29] provided
a practical guide for kinetic studies of specific reaction systems, compared various labora-
tory reactors, and discussed the limitations and pitfalls in analyzing the effects of transport
phenomena due to the flow, catalyst, and reactor geometry. Bakhtiari [30] studied the kinet-
ics of equimolar oxygenated hydrocarbon vapor conversion over a catalyst in a packed-bed
tubular reactor, where intrinsic kinetic data were collected in the absence of heat and mass
transfer limitations. A kinetic model in power function form was developed with reaction
orders of 0.6 and 0.8 for methanol and vapor, respectively, and an activation energy of
99 kJ/mol. Hao [31] investigated the kinetics of the hydrogenation of methylcyclopen-
tadiene dimer (MCPD) to endotetrahydrodimethylcyclopentadiene over a Pd/C catalyst
and analyzed the reactivity of the C=C bond in the MCPD molecule by density functional
theory calculations using the Gaussian 03 series program. The kinetic model proposed is
based on the Langmuir–Hinshelwood mechanism, taking into account the non-competitive
adsorption between organic and atomic hydrogens. Todorova [32] prepared a Pd/Mn2 O3
catalyst with high activity in the complete oxidation reaction of methane. Mn2 O3 acts as
high-capacity storage for oxygen species, keeping palladium in the oxidized state. The
catalyst bed temperature for reaching 50% conversion at a water vapor concentration of
20,000 ppm and a gas time velocity of 25,000 h−1 was 430 ◦ C, demonstrating high activity.
Hence, this study established an experimental platform utilizing the developed low-
temperature catalyst [26] to investigate the kinetic properties of the catalyst using RP-3 fuel,
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 4 of 15

and to establish a kinetic reaction equation that can serve as a reference for simulating the
catalytic reactor and inerting system.

2. Experimental Principle and System

2.1. Experimental Principle
The suitable experimental methods for gas–solid phase catalytic reaction kinetics tests
include integral and differential forms [33]. Considering the characteristics of the fuel vapor
catalytic reaction and the available experimental conditions, the differential method was
adopted for the experimental determination of the catalyst reaction kinetic equation. The
basic principle is to determine the parameter value according to the reaction rate measured
under various experimental conditions. Due to the low catalyst loading, the reaction rate
and bed temperature gradient changes are minimal, resulting in nearly equal reaction rates
in the catalytic reactor. Therefore, the data obtained can be considered under the conditions
of isothermal and isoconcentration.
Chemical reaction kinetic equations commonly used include power function and
hyperbolic function types. The power function form is widely used due to its simple
mathematical processing, and the reaction rate constant is a function of temperature and
conforms to the Arrhenius relationship [34]. Therefore, it can be assumed that the reaction
kinetic equation form of RP-3 aviation fuel is represented by Equation (1). As RP-3 aviation
fuel contains dozens of hydrocarbon components, to facilitate calculation and application
and ensure that the total number of carbon atoms remains unchanged, the fuel vapor is
converted into the total hydrocarbon concentration measured by C3 H8 .
E
r = k 0 · e − R· T · nC
m
3 H8
n
· nO 2
(1)

On the other hand, according to the definition of the reaction rate R, we have

1 R·T
r= · nC3 H8 · ·Q·η (2)
Vcat p

The hydrocarbon conversion rate η can be calculated using the following equation:

nC3 H8 − nC3 H8 out

η= (3)
nC3 H8

where r denotes the catalytic reaction rate, mol/(m3 ·s). k0 denotes the pre-exponential
factor, independent of the reaction temperature, and the unit is related to m and n. E denotes
the activation energy, J/mol. R denotes the gas constant, 8.314 J/(mol·K). T denotes the
reaction temperature, K. nC3H8 , nC3H8out denote the molar concentration of fuel vapor
expressed by C3 H8 at the inlet and outlet of the reactor, mol/m3 . nO2 denotes the molar
concentration of O2 , mol/m3 . m, n are the power exponents. V cat denotes the catalyst
volume, m3 . p denotes the reaction pressure, Pa. Q denotes the reaction gas flow rate,
mol/s. η denotes the hydrocarbon conversion rate, no unit.
To obtain the kinetic equation of the reaction, the pre-exponential factor k0 , the
activation energy E, and the power exponents m and n must be determined. Using
Equations (1) and (2), the catalyst volume and reaction gas flow can be fixed, and the
fuel vapor conversion can be measured at the inlet and outlet of the reactor under different
FVC, OC, and reaction temperatures. Subsequently, the four necessary parameters in
Equation (1) can be fitted.

2.2. Experimental System

The system flow chart and experimental setup are depicted in Figures 2 and 3, respec-
tively. The experimental approach involves placing the fuel tank in a water bath (FDL Inc.,
Shanghai, China) maintained at a constant temperature for a prolonged period to ensure
the continuous generation of fuel vapor at a steady rate. A mixed gas flow of adjustable
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 5 of 15

composition comprising O2 , N2 , and CO2 is introduced over the fuel tank to prepare the
reaction gas. The mixed gas stream passes through a gas–liquid separator (JGPC Inc.,
Xinxiang, China) to remove any liquid fuel that may be entrained in the fuel vapor before
preheating to the designated temperature and subsequent introduction into the reactor
for low-temperature catalytic reaction. The FVC at the inlet and outlet of the reactor is
determined using a gas chromatograph (FULI Inc., Taizhou, China) equipped with a Flame
Ion Detector (FID) with a maximum error of ±1% and a minimum detectable value of
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
1 ppm. Using these measurements, the conversion rate and reaction rate of the fuel66vapor
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of 16
of 16
can be calculated.

Aluminum
Breathing T T T T Muffle furnace Aluminum
silicate
Breathing
hole T T Preheater T T Muffle furnace silicate
hole Preheater
Fuel F
Fuel
tank F T
tank T
Gas-liquid Catalyzer V2
Gas-liquid
separator t° Catalyzer t° V2
t° V1 t°
separator V1
Temperature Temperature
Water bath Temperature
controller Sampling Temperature
controller Sampling
Water bath controller Sampling
port controller Sampling
port
port port

Injection
Injection
port
port

CO2 N2 O2 N2
CO2 N2 O2 Gas N2
Computer Data logger Gas
chromatography Hydrogen Air
Computer Data logger chromatography Air
Hydrogen generator
generator
generator generator
Gas Control
Legend： Gas
Mass Needle Ball T Temperature F Flowmeter Pipeline Control
Legend： cylinder
cylinder
Mass
flowmeter
flowmeter
Needle
valve Ball
valve T Temperature
sensor
sensor
F Flowmeter Pipeline line
line
valve valve

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus.

Figure 2.
Figure Schematic diagram
2. Schematic diagram of
of experimental
experimental apparatus.
apparatus.

Data Nitrogen cylinder CO2 Mass Signal

Computer Data
logger Nitrogen
(for cylinder
chromatography) CO2
cylinder Mass
flowmeter Signal
generator
Computer logger (for chromatography) cylinder flowmeter generator
Muffle
Muffle
furnace Needle
furnace Needle
valve
valve
Gas Control
Gas
chromatography Control
cabinet
chromatography cabinet
Preheater Gas-liquid Flowmeter Nitrogen
Preheater Gas-liquid
separator Flowmeter Nitrogen
cylinder
separator cylinder
Water Oxygen
Water
bath Oxygen
cylinder
Hydrogen bath cylinder
Hydrogen
generator
generator

Air
Air
generator
generator

Catalyzer Quartz reactor

Catalyzer Quartz reactor
Figure 3. Experimental system.
Figure
Figure 3.
3. Experimental
Experimental system.
system.
The main equipment parameters of the experiment are shown in Table 2.
The main equipment parameters of the experiment are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Experimental equipment and parameters.
Table 2. Experimental equipment and parameters.
Equipment Manufacturer Location Model Range Precision
Equipment Manufacturer Location Model Range Precision
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 6 of 15

As the gas flow rate is low, the fuel tank ullage replacement frequency is small, and the
experimental fuel tank is placed in a constant-temperature water bath. The heat exchange
of the fuel tank is sufficient, thereby ensuring a constant FVC before the reaction. Based
on the set reaction gas flow, the FVC before the reactor, and the designed O2 and CO2
concentrations at the inlet of the reactor, the required O2 , N2 , and CO2 flows can be
calculated, respectively. The mass flowmeter (SEVENSTAR Inc., Beijing, China) controls
the output flow of each cylinder. Since the filled catalyst volume is only 0.1 mL, the
dosage is minimal, and the reactor diameter is small, there is no longitudinal or transverse
temperature gradient or concentration gradient of reactants. As a result, the gas in the
reactor has a uniform FVC. To maintain a constant temperature in the reactor, a quartz tube
(size DN8 mm × 100 mm) is placed in a muffle furnace, and the temperature controller
(SHENPENG Inc., Shenzhen, China) regulates the temperature of the muffle furnace.
The gas and liquid temperatures of the fuel tank and the gas temperature before the
reaction were recorded by a data logger (HIOKI Inc., Kagoshima, Japan) and processed
by an industrial computer. The gases required for gas chromatography, namely N2 , H2 ,
and air, were provided by a 40 L N2 steel cylinder with a concentration of 99.999%, an H2
generator(HONGYI Inc., Beijing, China), and an air generator(HONGYI Inc., Beijing, China).
The cylindrical fuel tank used in the experiment had a size of DN200 mm × 200 mm. The
preheater was heated by an electric heating belt and controlled by a temperature controller.
For the chromatography test, a static sampling method was employed, and each sampling
gas’ volume was 100 mL to ensure that the flow and pressure of the standard gas and
the sample gas were the same when entering the chromatography instrument. The test
conditions for chromatography were 100 ◦ C for the injection port, 80 ◦ C for the column
oven, 200 ◦ C for the detector, and 80 ◦ C for the auxiliary furnace.
The experiments may have uncertainties or errors arising from various sources, such
as (1) possible deviations in controlling the flow rate of the reaction gas by the mass flow
meter; (2) possible deviations in controlling the temperature of the water bath; (3) possible
errors in measuring the concentrations of oxygen and hydrocarbon with the temperature
sensor(SHENPENG Inc., Shanghai, China) and gas chromatography; and (4) possible errors
in measuring the amount of catalyst used. These factors may lead to some differences
between the actual experimental conditions and the designed conditions. To minimize the
impact of uncertainty on the experimental outcomes, the fuel vapor concentration was
measured three times under the same operating conditions, and the average value was
taken as the final experimental result.
The main equipment parameters of the experiment are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Experimental equipment and parameters.

Equipment Manufacturer Location Model Range Precision

Mass flowmeter SEVENSTAR Inc. Beijing, China CS200 0–2 L/min ±1.0%
Water bath FDL Inc. Shanghai, China DC-8030 −40–100 ◦ C ±0.1 ◦ C
Temperature sensor SHENPENG Inc. Shanghai, China WRNK-191 0–800 ◦ C ±0.1 ◦ C
Gas–liquid separator JGPC Inc. Xinxiang, China AFR2000 —— ——
Temperature controller WK Inc. Shenzhen, China KHDN11C0 Full range ——
Hydrogen generator HONGYI Inc. Beijing, China HYH-300B —— ——
Air generator HONGYI Inc. Beijing, China HY-3A 3L —— ——
Gas chromatograph FULI Inc. Taizhou, China GC9790plus —— ——
Data logger HIOKI Inc. Kagoshima, Japan LR8432 —— ——

The experimental procedure is described as follows:

1. Chromatography setup: Turn on the N2 cylinder, H2 generator, and air generator in se-
quence. Set the chromatographic conditions and ignite after reaching the set requirements.
2. Gas distribution: Turn on the N2 , O2 , and CO2 cylinders in sequence and adjust the
mass flowmeter or needle valve to achieve the required experimental conditions,
 Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 7 of 15

which is a total flow rate of 200 mL/min. Adjust the needle valve before the reactor to
ensure consistent flow rates at the reactor inlet and outlet.
3. Setting experimental conditions: Turn on the constant temperature water bath and
set the temperature value according to the experimental conditions. Turn on the
muffle furnace and preheater heating and set the temperature value according to the
experimental conditions.
4. Experiment and measurement: Start the experiment after completely replacing the
gas in the fuel tank ullage and the pipeline. Turn on V1 and turn off V2, measure the
FVC before the reaction, and repeat the measurement three times. Then, turn on V2
and turn off V1, measure the FVC at the outlet of the catalytic reactor, and repeat the
measurement three times.
5. Changing experimental conditions: Change the fuel temperature, reaction tempera-
ture, preheating temperature, and gas distribution concentration of each gas according
to the experimental working conditions to be carried out, and repeat step 4.
6. Experiment conclusion: Close the valves of the chromatography instrument, muffle
furnace, preheater, constant-temperature water bath, and gas distribution cylinder
when the experiment is completed.

2.3. Chromatographic Calibration

Measuring the content of each element in aviation fuel is challenging due to its complex
composition. Therefore, measuring the content of total hydrocarbons is more accessible
and suitable for engineering applications. To measure the total hydrocarbons, the area
normalization method was utilized. The basic principle of this method is that the total
chromatographic peak area has a linear relationship with the FVC [35]. To calibrate the gas
chromatograph, C3 H8 standard gas of 0.1% and 1.5% concentrations was used. To ensure
the accuracy of the calibration and eliminate accidental errors, the gas chromatograph was
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16
calibrated three times every 24 h for a total of 48 h. Figure 4 displays the chromatogram of
the chromatographic workbench, where the prominent peak appearing 0.72 min after the
start of injection detection is generated by the combustion of C3 H8 .

800 10000
10,000
9000 Peak height: 9495.677 pA
Peak height: 647.826 pA
700 Peak area: 9579.632 pA·s
Peak area: 655.693 pA·s 8000
600
Current value/pA

7000
Current value/pA

500 6000
400 5000
4000
300
3000
200 2000
100 1000
0
0
−1000
-1000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Time/min Time/min

(a) 0.1% C3H8 (b) 1.5% C3H8

Figure 4. Gas
Figure chromatography
4. Gas chromatographycalibration
calibrationchromatogram.
chromatogram.

Figure
Figure 5 illustratesthe
5 illustrates thereliable
reliablecalibration
calibration results
results as the
the peak areaofofCC
peakarea 3H 8 8standard
3H standard
gas with the same concentration remaining stable. Based on the calibration resultsofofthe
gas with the same concentration remaining stable. Based on the calibration results the
chromatography, an uncertainty analysis of the fuel vapor concentration test is conducted.
The A-type uncertainty S can be expressed using Equation (4):
w

 (C − C )
i
(4)
S= i =1
w( w − 1)

The B-type uncertainty u can be expressed as in Equation (5):

 Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 8 of 15

chromatography, an uncertainty analysis of the fuel vapor concentration test is conducted.

The A-type uncertainty S can be expressed using Equation (4):
v
u w
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW u ∑ (Ci − C ) 9
u
S = i =1
t
(4)
w ( w − 1)

18
0.1% C3H8 Day1
15 0.1% C3H8 Day2
Peak area×103/(pA·s)

1.5% C3H8 Day1

12 1.5% C3H8 Day2

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Calibration times
Figure 5.5.Gas
Figure Gaschromatography calibration
chromatography results.results.
calibration
The B-type uncertainty u can be expressed as in Equation (5):
Based on the results shown in Figure 5, the linear relationship between the FVC
∆
the peak area can be expressed as inu Equation (7) by taking the average value.
= √ (5)
3
𝐶 − 0.1% 𝐴 − 662.310
= σ, which accounts for both the A-type
1.5% − 0.1% 9444.669 − 662.310
Equation (6) expresses the combined uncertainty
uncertainty S and the B-type uncertainty u.
where CC3H8 denotes the fuel vapor volume
p
fraction that converts into C3H8, %. A den
the peak area of gas chromatography,
σ = pA·s.
S + u2
2 (6)

where
3. Ci denotes
Results the measured value and C denotes the average value of the fuel vapor
and Discussion
concentration, %. The parameter w denotes the number of experiments, and ∆ denotes the
3.1. Relationship
minimum between
detectable limit ofRP-3 FVC and%.
the apparatus, Temperature
The uncertainty of the calibration results for
both standard gasesstudy
The present was calculated to be 0.58%.
investigated the relationship between the FVC in the ullage o
Based on the results shown in Figure 5, the linear relationship between the FVC and
RP-3 fuel tank and the fuel temperature under steady-state conditions. The results pro
the peak area can be expressed as in Equation (7) by taking the average value.
a reference for preparing reaction gas in experiments. To achieve this, the fuel tank t
perature was controlledCby − 0.1% the A
C3 H8adjusting water bath temperature, and the FVC in the
− 662.310
= (7)
1.5% − 0.1% 9444.669
lage was measured using a gas chromatograph when − 662.310
the fuel temperature was stable.
measurement was the
where CC3H8 denotes repeated fivevolume
fuel vapor times,fraction
and thethataverage
converts value
into C3was taken.
H8 , %. The results
A denotes
presented inofFigure
the peak area 6. These experimental
gas chromatography, pA·s. results were compared with the concentra
values of RP-3 fuel calculated via the saturated fuel vapor pressure [36]. It is obser
from Figure 6 that the FVC of RP-3 fuel increases with the rise in temperature, and
approximate exponential relationship is consistent with the changing trend of the ca
lated value. However, the actual FVC of RP-3 fuel is far less than the estimated value ba
on the saturated vapor pressure. For instance, when the fuel temperature is 40 °C, the
concentrations converted into C3H8 are 2.24% and 19.30%, respectively, with a differe
of 8.6 times. Therefore, the saturated vapor pressure cannot be used to calculate the F
 Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 9 of 15

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Relationship between RP-3 FVC and Temperature
The present study investigated the relationship between the FVC in the ullage of
an RP-3 fuel tank and the fuel temperature under steady-state conditions. The results
provide a reference for preparing reaction gas in experiments. To achieve this, the fuel
tank temperature was controlled by adjusting the water bath temperature, and the FVC
in the ullage was measured using a gas chromatograph when the fuel temperature was
stable. The measurement was repeated five times, and the average value was taken. The
results are presented in Figure 6. These experimental results were compared with the
concentration values of RP-3 fuel calculated via the saturated fuel vapor pressure [36]. It is
observed from Figure 6 that the FVC of RP-3 fuel increases with the rise in temperature,
and the approximate exponential relationship is consistent with the changing trend of
the calculated value. However, the actual FVC of RP-3 fuel is far less than the estimated
value based on the saturated vapor pressure. For instance, when the fuel temperature
is 40 ◦ C, the two concentrations converted into C3 H8 are 2.24% and 19.30%, respectively,
with a difference of 8.6 times. Therefore, the saturated vapor pressure cannot be used to
calculate the FVC. Additionally, this paper uses the expression equation of saturated vapor
pressure for reference to fit the equation of the experimental FVC value of RP-3 with the
fuel temperature, as shown in Equation (8).

471788.063
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW lg CC3 H8 = −109.922 − (8) 10
t − 4319.001
where t denotes the liquid fuel temperature, ◦ C.

30
Experimental value
FVC (Converted into C3H8) /%

25 Calculated value by
saturated vapor pressure
20

15

10

0
-20 −10
−20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Fuel temperature/°C
Figure
Figure6. Variation in RP-3
6. Variation FVC with
in RP-3 FVCtemperature.
with temperature.
3.2. The Effects of Key Parameters on Kinetic Characteristics
471788.063
Understanding the law of influence of the OC, FVC, and reaction temperature on the
lg(𝐶 ) = −109.922 − kinetic equation. Therefore,
catalyst reaction kinetics is crucial for obtaining the reaction 𝑡 − 4319.001
this paper conducted a cross-experimental study with the experimental parameters shown
inwhere
Table 3.t The
denotes the liquid
fuel vapor fuel temperature,
concentration was measured°C.using the gas chromatograph at the
inlet and outlet of the reactor, and the conversion rate and reaction rate were calculated.
3.2. The Effects of Key Parameters on Kinetic Characteristics
Understanding the law of influence of the OC, FVC, and reaction temperature o
catalyst reaction kinetics is crucial for obtaining the reaction kinetic equation. Ther
this paper conducted a cross-experimental study with the experimental param
 Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 10 of 15

Table 3. Experimental conditions.

Sequence Number OC/% FVC/% Reaction Temperature/◦ C CO2 Concentration/%

1 2 0.32138 150 0
2 5 0.67884 175 2
3 10 1.28735 200 5
4 20 2.23992 225 10
5 50 3.89684 250 20
6 80 — — —

3.2.1. Effect of Reaction Temperature

Figure 7 depicts the reaction schematic diagram, which provides a better understand-
ing of the mechanism of catalytic reactions. Initially, the mixture of hydrocarbons and
oxygen diffuses through the gas film outside the catalyst particles and reaches the catalyst
x FOR PEER REVIEW surface or enters the internal pores. Under the influence of the catalyst, the catalytic
11 reaction
of 16
takes place and breaks down into CO2 and H2 O. The reaction products then diffuse out of
the pores and exit the reactor with the airflow. The experimental data were plotted with the
FVC as the abscissa under different OCs and reaction temperatures, as shown in Figure 8.
movement and the enhanced As shown in Figure 8, theperformance
catalyst conversion andat reaction
higherrates increase with resulting
temperatures, the increaseininan
reac-
tion temperature. This outcome can be attributed to the intensified molecular movement
increase
Aerospace in the
2023, 10, x FOR PEERconversion
REVIEW and reaction rates. Under the experimental conditions, the 11 max-
of 16
and the enhanced catalyst performance at higher temperatures, resulting in an increase
imum conversioninrate of fuel vapor
the conversion and ranges
reaction from
rates. 0.056
Undertothe0.192 as the reaction
experimental temperature
conditions, the maximum
rises from 150 °Cconversionto 250 °C.rate of fuel vapor ranges from 0.056 to 0.192 as the reaction temperature rises
movement
from and
150 ◦ C to the◦ C.
250 enhanced catalyst performance at higher temperatures, resulting in an
increase in the conversion and reaction rates. Under the experimental conditions, the max-
imum conversion rate of fuel vapor ranges from 0.056 to 0.192 as the reaction temperature
CH3
rises from 150 °C to 250 °C.
R O R Reactant species

R CH3 Gas film

O R O
O2 R Reactant species
C
R OH RR CH3O Gas film
RH R O2
Pt/Si-
C
RH R R OH R CH3 Beta Pt/Si-
Product species Beta
Product species
CO2, H2O Catalyst
CO2, H2O Catalyst

Figure 7. Reaction Figure

schematic
Figure Reaction
7. 7. schematic
diagram.
Reaction schematicdiagram.
diagram.

0.20 12
150°C 175°C 200°C 225°C 250°C 12 150°C 175°C 200°C 225°C 250°C
Reaction rate (mol/m /s)

150°C 175°C 200°C

0.16 225°C 250°C 150°C
10 175°C 200°C 225°C 250°C
Reaction rate (mol/m /s)

3
Conversion rate

10
3

8
0.12
8 6
0.08
4
6
0.04 2
4
0.00 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
FVC /%
2 FVC/%

(a) Conversion rate (OC = 2%) 0 (b) Reaction rate (OC = 2%)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.20 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
2.0 0.0 0.5 121.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
FVC /% Figure 8. Cont. FVC/%
Reaction rate (mol/m3/s)

0.16 10
Conversion rate

(a) Conversion rate (OC = 2%) (b) Reaction

8
rate (OC = 2%)
0.12
12 6
rate (mol/m3/s)

0.08
10 4
0.04 2
8
0.00 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
6 FVC/%
FVC /%
 Reaction rate (mol
8

Conversion r
0.12
6
0.08
4
0.04 2
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410
0.00 0 11 of 15
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
FVC /% FVC/%

(a) Conversion rate (OC = 2%) (b) Reaction rate (OC = 2%)
0.20 12

Reaction rate (mol/m3/s)

0.16 10
Conversion rate

8
0.12
6
0.08
4
0.04 2

0.00 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
FVC /% FVC/%

(c) Conversion rate (OC = 5%) (d) Reaction rate (OC = 5%)
0.20 12

Reaction rate (mol/m 3/s)

0.16 10
Conversion rate

8
0.12
6
0.08
4
0.04 2
0.00 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Aerospace 2023, 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 12 of 16
FVC /% FVC/%
(e) Conversion rate (OC = 10%) (f) Reaction rate (OC = 10%)
0.20 12
Reaction rate (mol/m 3/s)

0.16 10
Conversion rate

8
0.12
6
0.08
4
0.04 2

0.00 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
FVC /% FVC/%
(g) Conversion rate (OC = 20%) (h) Reaction rate (OC = 20%)
0.20 12
Reaction rate (mol/m 3/s)

10
0.16
Conversion rate

8
0.12
6
0.08
4
0.04
2
0.00 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
FVC /% FVC/%
(i) Conversion rate (OC = 50%) (j) Reaction rate (OC = 50%)
0.20 12
Reaction rate (mol/m3/s)

0.16 10
Conversion rate

8
0.12
6
0.08
4
0.04 2

0.00 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
FVC /% FVC/%
(k) Conversion rate (OC = 80%) (l) Reaction rate (OC = 80%)
Figure 8. Experimental results of the effects of key parameters on catalytic performance.
Figure 8. Experimental results of the effects of key parameters on catalytic performance.

3.2.2. Effect of OC
Furthermore, the conversion rate and reaction rate exhibit an increasing trend with
the increase in OC, and the numerical relationship resembles an exponential function with
a power index of less than 1, under the condition that the reaction temperature and FVC
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 12 of 15

3.2.2. Effect of OC
Furthermore, the conversion rate and reaction rate exhibit an increasing trend with
the increase in OC, and the numerical relationship resembles an exponential function with
a power index of less than 1, under the condition that the reaction temperature and FVC
remain constant. This can be attributed to the fact that when the FVC remains constant, the
increase in OC leads to more oxygen being adsorbed on the catalyst surface, resulting in
more fuel vapor being consumed in the reactor. Moreover, three repetitions of each working
condition were carried out, and the relative errors of the experimental values within the
same group were all within 10%.

3.2.3. Effect of FVC

It is evident that the reaction rate increases gradually with the increase in FVC, and the
relationship between them is approximately linear. This is attributed to the fact that a higher
fuel vapor concentration corresponds to a greater concentration of vapor participating in
the reaction, resulting in a higher amount consumed per unit time. However, as shown
in Figure 8, the relationship between conversion and FVC is dependent on the reaction
temperature and OC. When the reaction temperature is below 175 ◦ C, a lower FVC leads to
a higher conversion rate. However, when the reaction temperature exceeds 200 ◦ C and the
Aerospace 2023,
OC10,surpasses
x FOR PEER REVIEW
a critical value, the conversion rate increases with the increase in FVC, and 13 of 16

the critical OC decreases as the reaction temperature rises. For instance, when the reaction
temperature is 200 ◦ C and the OC is 2% and 5%, the conversion rate decreases as the fuel
°C and the OC surpasses a critical value, the conversion rate increases with the increase in
temperature increases. Nevertheless, when the reaction temperature is 250 ◦ C, only when
FVC, and the critical OC decreases as the reaction temperature rises. For instance, when
the OC is 2% doesthe thereaction
conversion decrease with the fuel temperature increase. This result is
temperature is 200 °C and the OC is 2% and 5%, the conversion rate decreases
due to the weak reaction
as the fuelintensity
temperaturewhen the reaction
increases. temperature
Nevertheless, when the isreaction
relatively low. Despite
temperature is 250 °C,
the increase in fuel onlyvapor
when theconcentration,
OC is 2% does thetheconversion
amount of fuel vapor
decrease that
with the fuelcan participate
temperature increase.
in the reaction isThislimited,
result causing a decline
is due to the in the
weak reaction conversion
intensity rate.
when the At this
reaction point, even
temperature a
is relatively
low concentration low.
of Despite the increase
O2 is sufficient toin fuel vapor
fulfill concentration,
the amount of O2 the amountfor
required of fuel
the vapor that can
reaction.
Furthermore, as the participate
reactionintemperature
the reaction is exceeds
limited, causing
200 ◦ C,a decline in the conversion
the catalyst’s activity israte. At this point,
enhanced,
even a low concentration of O2 is sufficient to fulfill the amount of O2 required for the
and more fuel vapor can react, indicating an increasing trend in the conversion rate with
reaction. Furthermore, as the reaction temperature exceeds 200 °C, the catalyst’s activity
the FVC increase.isHowever,
enhanced, and thismore
trend isvapor
fuel subject
canto the indicating
react, availability of O2 to participate
an increasing in
trend in the conver-
the reaction. sion rate with the FVC increase. However, this trend is subject to the availability of O2 to
participate in the reaction.
3.2.4. Effect of CO2 Concentration
The catalytic3.2.4. Effectsystem
inerting of CO2 Concentration
consumes fuel vapor and O2 , generating CO2 and water
vapor. Therefore, it is The catalytic
crucial inerting system
to investigate consumes
the effect fuel on
of CO 2
vapor
theand O2, generating
catalyst. Figure CO 2 and water
9 depicts
vapor. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate the effect of CO2 on the catalyst. Figure
the conversion rate and reaction rate of fuel vapor at a constant fuel temperature of 20 ◦ C,9 de-
picts the conversion rate and reaction rate of fuel vapor at a constant fuel temperature of
O2 concentration 20of °C,
20%, and residual N at different reaction temperatures. It is observed
O2 concentration of 220%, and residual N2 at different reaction temperatures. It is
that the maximum error relative
observed to the average
that the maximum value to
error relative ofthe
each group
average is 5.78%,
value of each indicating
group is 5.78%,
that CO2 does notindicating
significantly impact
that CO thesignificantly
2 does not catalytic performance of theperformance
impact the catalytic catalyst. The slight
of the catalyst.
deviation in the outcome may have
The slight deviation resulted
in the outcomefrom
maygas
havedistribution
resulted fromand chromatography
gas distribution and chroma-
tography measurement errors.
measurement errors.
0.24 2.5
150°C 175°C 200°C 225°C 250°C 150°C 175°C 200°C 225°C 250°C
Reaction rate/(mol·m−3·s−1)

0.20 2.0
Conversion rate

0.16
1.5
0.12
1.0
0.08

0.04 0.5

0.00 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
CO2 concentration/% CO2 concentration/%

(a) Conversion rate (b) Reaction rate

Figure
Figure 9. Effect of CO 9. Effect of CO2 concentration on catalytic performance.
2 concentration on catalytic performance.

3.3. Reaction Kinetic Equation

The kinetic reaction equation was fitted using experimental data with an OC of no
more than 20%, as the OC in the fuel tank ullage is not expected to be higher than this in
the air. Equation (6) shows the resulting equation, which was determined using the 1stOpt
3
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 13 of 15

3.3. Reaction Kinetic Equation

The kinetic reaction equation was fitted using experimental data with an OC of no
more than 20%, as the OC in the fuel tank ullage is not expected to be higher than this
in the air. Equation (6) shows the resulting equation, which was determined using the
1stOpt software. The pre-exponential factor k0 of the equation is 6902.863 mol/(m3 ·s), the
activation energy E is 28,749.160 J/mol, and the power exponents m and n are 0.996 and
0.238, respectively.
28749.160
r = 6902.863 · e− R· T · n0.996 0.238
C3 H8 · nO2 (9)
The experimental data and the calculated theoretical values were plotted in the same
image, as shown in Figure 10. The error was found to be within 20%. Since the catalytic
reactor typically operates in the low OC range, neglecting the working condition at high O2
Aerospace 2023, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16
concentrations will lead to even smaller errors, making it suitable for subsequent reaction
simulation calculations.
Reaction rate fitting value/(mol·m−3·s−1)

10 Reaction rate
20% error line

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Reaction rate experimental value/(mol·m−3·s−1)
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Comparison
Comparison between
between fitting
fitting value
value and
and experimental
experimental value.
value.

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
•• The
The results
results of of this
this study
study indicate
indicate that
that the
the FVC
FVC ofof RP-3
RP-3 increases
increases with
with temperature,
temperature,
although
although its value is much lower than the value calculated based on the saturated
its value is much lower than the value calculated based on the saturated
vapor ◦ C, the difference is as much as 8.6 times. Thus, using the satu-
vapor pressure.
pressure. At 40 °C,
At 40 the difference is as much as 8.6 times. Thus, using the satu-
rated
rated vapor
vapor pressure
pressure for for FVC
FVC calculation
calculation isis not
not feasible.
feasible. Moreover,
Moreover, the the experimental
experimental
data reveal that the relationship
data reveal that the relationship between between the RP-3
the RP-3 FVC FVC and
and fuel
fuel temperature
temperature can
can be be
471788.063


expressed by the equation
expressed by the equation lg(𝐶 C3 )H= lg C = − 109.922
8 −109.922 −
−
.
t.−These . These findings
4319.001findings have practical have
practical implications for the accurate calculation of. the FVC and the optimization of
implications for the accurate calculation of the FVC and the optimization of the de-
the design and operation of fuel systems.
sign and operation of fuel systems.
•• The critical parameters
parametersthat thataffect
affectthe
thecatalytic
catalytic reaction
reaction characteristics
characteristics have
have beenbeen in-
investigated. It was found that increasing the
vestigated. It was found that increasing the FVC, OC, and reaction FVC, OC, and reaction temperature is
beneficial to the catalytic reaction. Furthermore, it was
beneficial to the catalytic reaction. Furthermore, it was determined that CO22 determined that CO does not
have a significant impact impact on on the
the catalyst
catalyst performance.
performance.
•• The
The derived
derived kinetic
kinetic reaction
reaction equation
equation for
for the
the catalyst
catalyst developed
developed for for the
the RP-3
RP-3 aviation
aviation
.
28749.160
fuel oxygen-consuming inerting system can be summarized as r = 6902.863 · e 𝑒 R·T⋅ ·⋅
fuel oxygen-consuming inerting system can be summarized as 𝑟 = 6902.863 −
⋅
C 0.996⋅ 𝐶·0.238
𝐶C3H8
0.996
CO 0.238
. This equation
. This equation provides
providesa fundamental
a fundamentalbasis basisfor
forsimulating
simulating the the catalytic
C3H8 2
reactor and
reactor and the the inerting
inerting system.
system.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.P. and S.F.; methodology, X.P. and H.P.; software, X.P.
and X.H.; validation, X.P., X.H. and C.W.; formal analysis, S.F.; investigation, D.F. and X.H.; re-
sources, S.F. and H.P.; data curation, D.F.; writing—original draft preparation, X.P. and D.F.; writ-
ing—review and editing, S.F. and H.P.; visualization, C.W.; supervision, S.F. and H.P.; project ad-
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 14 of 15

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.P. and S.F.; methodology, X.P. and H.P.; software, X.P.
and X.H.; validation, X.P., X.H. and C.W.; formal analysis, S.F.; investigation, D.F. and X.H.; resources,
S.F. and H.P.; data curation, D.F.; writing—original draft preparation, X.P. and D.F.; writing—review
and editing, S.F. and H.P.; visualization, C.W.; supervision, S.F. and H.P.; project administration,
C.W.; funding acquisition, X.P. and S.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Jiangsu Funding Program for Excellent Postdoctoral
Talent and the National Natural Science Foundation of China Civil Aviation Joint Fund (Grant
No. U1933121). And the APC was funded by Postdoctoral funding of Nanjing Tech University.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Abbreviations
FVC Fuel Vapor Concentration
OC Oxygen Concentration
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
CAAC Civil Aviation Administration of China
HFM-OBIGGS Hollow Fiber Membrane On-Board Inert Gas Generation System
GOBIGGS Green On-Board Inert Gas Generation System
MCPD Methylcyclopentadiene Dimer
FID Flame Ion Detector

References
1. Smith, D.E. Fuel tank Inerting Systems for Civil Aircraft. Master’s. Thesis, College of Engineering, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2014.
2. Anderson, J.; Scholz, D. Oil Fumes, Flight Safety, and the NTSB. Aerospace 2021, 12, 389. [CrossRef]
3. Dadia, D. Modeling Wing Tank Flammability. Ph.D. Thesis, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2009.
4. Summer, S.M. Limiting oxygen concentration required to inert jet fuel vapors existing at reduced fuel tank pressures. J. Rheumatol.
2003, 1, 148–149.
5. Tian, W.; Wang, L.N.; Han, Z.Q.; Chu, Y.L.; Wang, X.; Xia, Q. Effects of Combustion Parameters on Emissions of Diesel,
Diesel/n-Butanol, and Diesel/n-Butanol/2-Ethylhexyl Nitrate Fuels at Different Intake-Oxygen Concentrations in a Diesel
Engine. J. Energy. Eng. 2020, 1, 04020081-1. [CrossRef]
6. Liang, H.; Liu, C.; Chen, K.; Kong, J.; Han, Q.; Zhao, T. Controller fatigue state detection based on ES-DFNN. Aerospace 2021,
12, 383. [CrossRef]
7. Reynolds, T.L.; Bailey, D.; Lewinski, D. On-Board Inert Gas Generation System/on-Board Oxygen Gas Generation System
(OBIGGS/OBOGGS) Study Part1: Aircraft System Requirement; US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Aviation Research: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
8. Peng, X.T.; Feng, S.Y.; Li, C.Y.; Chen, C.; Liu, W.H. Effect of fuel type on the performance of an aircraft fuel tank oxygen-consuming
inerting system. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2020, 3, 82–93. [CrossRef]
9. Cavage, W.M. The Cost of Implementing Ground-Based Fuel Tank Inerting in the Commercial Fleet; DOT/FAA/AR-00/19
Report. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235029132_The_Cost_of_Implementing_Ground-_Based_
Fuel_Tank_Inerting_in_the_Commercial_Fleet (accessed on 14 October 2022).
10. Dalmau, R.; Prats, X.; Baxley, B. Sensitivity-based non-linear model predictive control for aircraft descent operations subject to
time constraints. Aerospace 2021, 12, 377. [CrossRef]
11. Gupta, A. The Boeing Company, Assignee. Fuel Vapor Removal Methods and Systems for Flammability Reduction. United States
Patent US 20,130,255,493, 3 October 2013.
12. Gupta, A. Method and system for making a fuel-tank inert without an inert gas. SAE Int. J. Aerosp. 2009, 1, 75–82. [CrossRef]
13. Walker, S.; Jung, W.; Robertson, S. Demonstration of a novel catalyst based green on board inert gas generation system (GOBIGGS)
for fuel tank inerting. In Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society 69th Annual Forum, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 10 January 2013.
14. Parker Aerospace. Catalytic Inerting Technology: Next Generation Fuel Tank Inerting Solution. Available online: https://mms.
businesswire.com/media/20160711005076/en/533772/1/PHYRE_brochure.pdf (accessed on 11 July 2016).
Aerospace 2023, 10, 410 15 of 15

15. Wainright, R.B.; Perlmutter, A. Generation of Inerting Gases for Aircraft Fuel Tanks by Catalytic Combustion Techniques; Air Force Aero
Propulsion Laboratory: Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, USA, 1969; Rep. No. AFAPLTR-69-68.
16. Stuart, R.; Wesley, J.; Donald, K. Development of Green on-Board Inert Gas Generation System (GOB-IGGSTM). Available
online: https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2007conference/files/Fuel_Tank_Safety/ThursPM/LimayeGOBIGGS/LimayeGOBIGGS-
Abs.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2022).
17. Peng, X.T.; Wang, H.M.; Huang, L.; Peng, H.; Wang, Y.Y.; Feng, S.Y. Experimental study on RP-3 aviation fuel tank using
oxygen-consuming inerting technology. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2022, 1, 06021008. [CrossRef]
18. Zimmerman, S.P.; Keneshea, T.J. Handbook of Aviation Fuel Properties; Coordinating Research Council: Alpharetta, GA, USA, 1983;
CRC Rep. No. 635.
19. Mze-Ahmed, A.; Hadj-Ali, K.; Devar, P.; Dagaut, P. Kinetics of oxidation of a reformulated jet fuel (1-hexanol/jet a-1) in a
jet-stirred reactor: Experimental and modeling study. Combust. Sci. Technol. 2012, 79, 1039–1050. [CrossRef]
20. Zheng, D.; Yu, W.; Zhong, B. RP-3 aviation kerosene surrogate fuel and the chemical reaction kinetic model. Acta Phys.-Chim. Sin.
2015, 4, 636–642.
21. Peng, X.; Wang, H.; Huang, L.; Liu, G.; Wang, C.; Feng, S. Performance of an oxygen-consuming inerting system for an aircraft
fuel tank with RP-3 aviation fuel in flight. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2022, 123, 107446. [CrossRef]
22. Choi, J.; Chung, J. Preparation and characteristics of novel cobalt oxide catalysts for hydrogen generation from metal borohydride
solution. J. Energy. Eng. 2016, 142, 04015026–1. [CrossRef]
23. Peng, X.; Wu, Z.; Deng, J.; Liu, Y.; Xie, S.; Guo, G.; Dai, H. Catalytic performance enhancement by alloying Pd with Pt on ordered
mesoporous manganese oxide for methane combustion. Chin. J. Catal. 2017, 38, 92–105.
24. Chen, C.; Wang, X.; Zhang, J.; Bian, C.; Pan, S.; Chen, F.; Meng, X.; Zheng, X.; Gao, X.; Xiao, F.S. Superior performance in catalytic
combustion of toluene over mesoporous ZSM-5 zeolite supported platinum catalyst. Catal. Today 2015, 258, 190–195. [CrossRef]
25. Liu, S.; Wu, X.; Weng, D.; Li, M.; Ran, R. Roles of acid sites on Pt/H-ZSM5 catalyst in catalytic oxidation of diesel soot. ACS Catal.
2015, 5, 909–919. [CrossRef]
26. Zhao, W.; Dai, Y.; Cheng, X. All-silicon zeolite supported pt nanoparticles for green on-board inert gas generation system. Combust.
Sci. Technol. 2020, 193, 2009–2022. [CrossRef]
27. Feng, S.Y.; Li, C.Y.; Shao, L. Analysis on ground-based inerting performance of a fuel tank green on-board inert gas generation
system. J. Aerosp. Power 2017, 32, 268–274.
28. Shao, L. Theoretical and Experimental Study of Oxygen Consumed Inerting Technology for Aircraft Fuel Tank. Ph.D. Thesis,
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China, 2018.
29. Perego, C.; Peratello, S. Experimental methods in catalytic kinetics. Catal. Today 1999, 52, 133–145. [CrossRef]
30. Bakhtiari, M.; Zahid, M.A.; Ibrahim, H.; Khan, A.; Sengupta, P.; Idem, R. Oxygenated hydrocarbons steam reforming over
Ni/CeZrGdO2 catalyst: Kinetics and reactor modeling. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2015, 138, 363–374. [CrossRef]
31. Hao, M.; Yang, B.; Wang, H.; Guan, Y.; Qi, S.; Lv, Y. Kinetic study of the catalytic hydrogenation of the methylcyclopentadiene
dimer over Pd/C catalyst. React. Kinet. Mech. Catal. 2015, 115, 311–319. [CrossRef]
32. Todorova, S.; Naydenov, A.; Kolev, H.; Ivanov, G.; Ganguly, A.; Mondal, S.; Saha, S.; Ganguli, A.K. Reaction kinetics and
mechanism of complete methane oxidation on Pd/Mn2 O3 catalyst. React. Kinet. Mech. Catal. 2018, 123, 585–605. [CrossRef]
33. Sun, S. Physical Chemistry: Part Two; Xiamen University Press: Xiamen, China, 2008; pp. 150–196.
34. Guo, K.; Tang, X.; Zhou, X. Chemical Reaction Engineering; Chemical Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2008; pp. 84–131.
35. ASTM D7833-20; Standard Test Method for Determination of Hydrocarbons and Non-Hydrocarbon Gases in Gaseous Mixtures
by Gas Chro-matography. Publications & Standards: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.astm.org/d783
3-20.html (accessed on 26 June 2020).
36. Liu, J. China Jet Fuel; China Petrochemical Press: Beijing, China, 1991; pp. 52–103.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.