Use of Jet fuel in lieu of diesel fuel 9

[EEJaime]

Hello,

In another forum, a question was asked that intrigued me. Someone was asking if there was a need to make a generator location a hazardous rated location if Jet Fuel was used as an emergency fuel source for a diesel engine generator set. While I think I know the answer to that the real question that I had was: Will a diesel engine actually run on Jet A fuel? I would think that the jet fuel would burn much hotter and faster than diesel. Would the engine survive this? Indefinately? Diesel is a Class II combustible liquid, Jet is a Class I Flammable liquid.

Will for example, a Cummins QSK60-G6 NR2 turbocharged aftercooled, 16 cylinder engine run on jet fuel? What modifications might be required? What are the performance and emissions implications? Are there engine life effects?

I am just speaking in general terms. I don't expect an exhaustive response. Just an opinion of those with expertise in engine design and engineering.

Thank you and regards,
EEJaime

 

[dgallup]

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=bcbb316a-9ad8-4cf5-91f7-8bc964f4ed11

 

[EEJaime]

dgallup,
For some reason our firewall won't let me access that page. Is there an alternate location where this information might be found?
Thank you,
EEJaime

 

[ivymike]

as noted, there are aviation diesels.

Many production diesel engines will run on aviation fuels with some penalty in life and a ~10% reduction in power (engine manufacturers recommend using lubricity additives with these fuels to mitigate durability effects): AVTUR FS11, NATO F34, JP8, MIL T83133, DEF STAN 91-87, DERD 2463, AVCAT FS11, NATO F44, JP5, MIL T5624, DERD 2452, AVTOR, NATO F35, JET A1, DEF STAN 91-91, DERD 2494, NATO F43, JET A ( ASTM D1655 ), or ASTM D399 Kerosene.

The sulphur levels for these fuels are typically higher (occasionally much higher) than is commonly allowed with recent-model aftertreatment systems (15ppm for ULSD). I think this would disqualify the fuel from use in those vehicles requiring ULSD per EPA regulations. Emissions compliance would certainly be affected if sulphur levels were much over the allowable limit, and in some cases the higher sulphur can lead to rapid engine damage (if exhaust gas is re-ingested). Engines which don't use exhaust gas recirculation, and which don't have catalysts for aftertreatment, would experience much less harm.

I believe the following fuels are not generally acceptable, regardless of additives: AVTAG, AVTAG FS11, NATO F40, JP4, DERD 2545, JET B ( ASTM D1655 ), BS MA100, JIS K2203 No.2

 

[ivymike]

here's an old presentation on using JP8 w/ CAT engines:

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004tactical/sutton.ppt#515,1,Slide

1

 

[ivymike]

another potentially useful site:

http://www.cat.com/cda/files/602959/7/sebu7003.pdf?m=293097&x=7

(see "characteristics of diesel fuel")

I did a couple of google searches to help with the above... "site:cat.com jp8" and "caterpillar jp8"

 

[EEJaime]

IvyMike,
Lots of very good information. Thank you for your assistance. A star for you sir.
Regards,
EEJaime

 

[btrueblood]

A friend of the family used to operate his (1980's era) Chevy diesel pickup on Jet-A (commercial jet fuel, roughly neat kerosene). He ran an airport refueling business, and so had access to it. Never mind the US road tax implications, he's long since passed beyond the reach of the authorities. It ran "just fine", with less smoke than regular summer diesel, and a teardown/rebuild at 120,000 miles showed no ill effects.

 

[ca2sbl]

EEJaime:

The United States Department of Defense has used military jet fuel (I do not know the specific jp number) for almost 20 years exclusively in all oil burning power plants wheither diesel, oil burning steam boiler or gas turbine in aircraft, ship or land vehicle.

During the first Gulf war, fuel filters were changed after the first tank full in land vehicles that had previously been burning diesel.

Any increased in operating costs are more than offset by the need for only one fuel supply channel instead of three: diesel, military distillate and jet fuel (DOD had long ago eliminated all gasoline burning combat type vehicles).

While the U.S. military has a large operating budget, if exclusive use of jet fuel raised operating costs significantly, either increased maintenance or repair costs, the traditional fuels would have been restored.

Russ

 

[thruthefence]

There are some Aviation ground support vehicles that run on Jet "A". It's a selling point. The Fuel farms have to "waste" quite a bit of fuel during the quality control process, and you are not allowed to just dump the surplus back in the tank. It just becomes a 'hazmat' item. So, they re cycle it into tugs, APU's and so forth. Many years ago I knew a Line guy who returned from his Tour of duty in Germany with one of those old Mercedes diesels, and it ran exclusively on sumped jet fuel. He added a cup of ATF ever so often to lube the injectors.

 

[turbomotor]

Hello EEJaime,

I think there are two main problems with using Jet fuel (Jet A, Jet A1, JP8) in a typical compression ignition reciprocating engine, neither of which is insurmountable:

1. The lubricity of Jet Fuel is typically less than that of Diesel Fuel, hence the fuel injection equipment may wear at a greater rate, and

2. Jet Fuels do not typically specify a cetane rating, so ignition of the fuel may be a problem (especially in cold climates). Cesar Gonzalez (retired - Cessna) did tests on Jet Fuels (AvTur) from many different locales around the world, and found a huge variation in cetane number.

But others (such as USAF) have used a common fuel for both turbine engines and compression ignition reciprocating engines, and have done so successfully for years.

Regards,

Dick

 

[Lou Scannon]

Many years ago, I was involved in a project funded by the US Navy that had the objective of determining a "broadened specification distillate fuel", along the lines that ca2sbl indicated. The intent was to determine the broadest possible fuel specification that was adequate, if not ideal, in all aspects for a wide variety of engine types, from large shipboard gas turbines to high speed 2-stroke and 4-stroke reciprocating diesel engines (I believe, but am not 100% sure, that aircraft turbines were included in this range also). The underlying objective was obviously to enable the Navy to procure all its fuel in accordance with single, broad specification, in order to maximize the availability of sources while minimizing cost. There was at least one paper published by ASME in 1991 or 1992 that I could dig up to shed some more light on this.

 

[patprimmer]

Maybe it was to simplify logistic support in the field. Just put the same fuel in all applications without thought, especially in the heat and erratic supply lines when in battle.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[turbomotor]

Hemi,

I did a quick email search and found a 1971 paper that I think addresses the OP
(see link below). However,I did not find the 1991 or 1992 ASME paper that you indicated. Can you give me additional direction to the ASME paper - I am very interested.

Thanks,

Dick

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122238338/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

[thruthefence]

Regarding "aviation diesels"; wasn't the driving force behind this, the uncertain availability of leaded aviation gasoline in the future? Jet fuel is pretty much available all over, but not avgas.

 

[berkshire]

EEJaime (Electrical)
Some years ago I was involved with Petter diesel generator sets, and part of their operating handbook covered running the gen set, if diesel oil was not available.
The recommendation was to use Paraffin ( kerosene) or Jet A with a pint(20 fl oz) of 30 weight lubricating oil added for every 10 gallons of fuel.
B.E.

 

[Lou Scannon]

turbomotor, I have a copy at work. I'll dig it up when I'm there next week.

 

[Lou Scannon]

I thought I had a copy, but I looked and couldn't find anything except a related paper for a different society that dealt solely with the wear measurements and not with the fuel properties. On a quick look at the ASME website, it seems that they have not archived papers going that far back. So we may be SOL here. :-(

 

[DigitalGT]

FWIW. The military, more specifically the Navy still uses separate fuels in the diesel/kerosene range. Occasionally the odd JP-8 fuel sample or seventeen (1 quart jars each) may be dumped into a diesel powered piece of support equipment just to eliminate the HAZWASTE nuisance but in 13 years of Naval Aviation service, I've never seen a JET A or JP pumped into anything other than aircraft.

To the OP: Will a diesel run on Jet A or JP-? Sure it will.....if it is a low to mid performance engine such as one used in a mobile power cart (generator) or support tug. Hell even in a VW TDi. My old turbo diesel used to drink Jet A like a sororistute at a frat party. In a Fire Breathing Holy Mother of God forty meeeeellion pounds of boost hot rod? Not without retuning.

 

[icelander]

Around here running diesel engined road vehicles on kerosene is fairly widespread amongst commercial users, as there is a 25-35% savings in fuel cost pr. litre. The "kerosene" sold from gas station pumps is the same as sold to airlines for their jets, we are told, for purchase commonality reasons. Oil company staff we have asked say it's JP8, although A-1 would seem more logical.

One example is a taxi driver who has used kerosene exclusively for his Mercedes-Benz Sprinters for four years, without being punished yet. He drops in about a liter of 2-stroke oil per tank fill, as do most others concerned about longevity of their Power Stroke, Nissan and other modern diesels. Smell is increased, power is down some, consumption is measurably increased, but considerable savings are still made. Only significant reductions in engine life would negate those savings.

One interesting twist is the addition of precisely metered, small amounts of acetone to the jet fuel, some say 3-5 pro mill, others no more than 1,75%. The result is said to be that power is just about restored to diesel fuel levels. One proponent of this brew runs a small fleet of 7,3 and 6,0 l. Power strokes, keeps a log, and says consumption is reduced enough to fiscally warrant the use of the acetone he buys bulk. Googling acetone addition yields quotes like: "Readily-available chemical added to gas tank in small proportion improves the fuel's ability to vaporize completely by reducing the surface tension that inhibits vaporization of some fuel droplets". When used in normal modern engines run within their design limits, acetone is fairly obviously useless.

As using JP8 is outside the design envelope of modern road car diesel engines and therefore their makers cannot comment, two questions arise: If acetone benefits JP8 users, then how?
And, does lubricity due to the higher sulphur levels in JP8 kerosene partially or completely negate the need for the addition of heavy oil for modern common-rail engines?