The Standard Fuel Program is designed to allow refineries to certify their blends using a cooperative of up to 30 participants.
The samples are distributed to the participating members, they are analyzed using both ASTM Methods D2699 and D2700 for
Octane Determination, and their results are submitted. Compiled reports are distributed through the member group so the
originating refinery has a common consensus on the rating of the fuel, and the participating members have an analysis of
how their engines rate in comparison with other refineries in the cooperative.
The Standard Fuel Program provides a convenient, cost-effective means for calibrating standard fuels. The program
is a cooperative exhange among many program members. Sixteen or more independent ratings Research and Motor method
are obtained for each fuel. The program is supported through members' cooperation in rating exchange samples. A
service fee is charged for each fuel submitted to cover administrative costs.
Core Laboratories, as the standard fuel exchange program coordinator, prepares two statistical data reports for
each fuel. Included in the first report is; the calibrated octane number, number of results submitted, number of
results rejected, confidence limits, average deviation, standard deviation, and the range of the results. The second
report includes all of the results, coded for confidentiality, ranked by deviation so you can compare your results
to the rest of the exchange members. In addition, we also provide a ranked annual report of your submitted results
which can be used to compare your results to other members.
A major advantage of the Refinery Systems exchange program is that fuels may be submitted for ratings whenever needed.
Typically, other exchange groups provide only limited opportunities to submit fuels. Also, the large number of
participants in our program provides for the required statistical confidence in the results. Our program was recently
revamped to include the Extreme Studentized Deviation (ESD) method for outlier detection and rejection. We feel that
this method is superior than other methods of rejection, for it identifies groups of outliers as opposed to single