The US military is looking to bolster fuel efficiency by creating a so-called "super engine" that runs on one type of fuel and can power a number of vehicles, including ground transport, generators, and small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
The US Army Research Laboratory (ARL) has been working on this task since the Department of Defense established a Single Fuel Forward policy in the late 1980s. The policy supported the use of a kerosene-based fuel called JP-8 to reduce the logistical burden involved in transporting and supplying different sources of energy to vehicles in combat areas and other locations, according to the Army.
Over the years, researchers have faced compatibility issues between the different engines, the Army said. Its research began with the use of turbine engines, but has now moved on to exploring the use of combustion engines.
Two international contractors inspect a sample of JP-8 fuel in Kuwait in 2010. The Army hopes to use the fuel as the basis for a "super engine" that can power a number of ground and air vehicles, as well as generators using this fuel. (Source: US Army Sgt. David Reardon, 1st Sustainment Brigade Public Affairs, US Army)
Incompatibility issues are chiefly in engine lubrication, large variation in Cetane numbers -- or the measurement between the start of fuel injection and the start of engine ignition or combustion -- and the fact that none of the engines that use JP-8 are designed and calibrated for the fuel, said Dr. Chol-Bum Kweon, acting team lead of the Engines Team of ARL’s Vehicle Technology Directorate, in a press release.
The main reason for these issues is that there is not enough information readily available about the specific combustion characteristics associated with the use of JP-8 in intermittent combustion engines, Kweon added.
The opening of a new lab this summer, the ARL Combustion Research Laboratory, should help speed up this research, particularly with respect to fuel spray and combustion, two critical areas key to the creation of a JP-8 engine. According to Kweon:
Fuel spray liquid penetration, quenching, vaporization, and mixing characteristics must be precisely understood to properly design combustion chambers and fuel injection systems because a fundamental understanding of fuel spray and combustion is essential in optimizing combustion processes of JP-8 -- fueled engines to improve fuel efficiency, engine performance, and reliability.
ARL’s Combustion Research Laboratory is a state-of-the-art, high- temperature and high-pressure combustion chamber that contains a combination of high temperatures up to 1,000 Kelvin and high pressure up to 150 bar. These metrics can simulate the operations of a real engine, minus its fluid motion aspect. The lab gives scientists a realistic proving ground for, in particular, uninterrupted spray and combustion processes that allow for the study necessary to create a JP-8 fuel-injection engine.
In addition to supporting the development of a JP-8 engine, researchers will also use the lab to test the performance of heavy fuel injection systems for diesel, bio, and synthetic fuels, as well as assess the impact of fuel properties on spray and combustion processes on engine performance and efficiency.
Researchers also can determine the impact of older fuel-injection systems on engine performance and fuel efficiency, especially for the Army’s ground vehicles, and evaluate various iterations of JP-8 fuels being developed throughout the DoD, Kweon said, going on to explain: "This laboratory has a unique capability to assess the various JP-8 surrogate fuels and to compare the results with the combustion mechanisms developed by various universities and government lab or atories."
All of this work to develop a universal combustion mechanism for JP-8 supports a trend across the US military to create more energy efficiency, and find alternative and better sources and uses of fuel. Other efforts include the Navy’s development of a biofuel made of seawater; the Air Force’s use of vortex surfing -- or flying planes in tight formation so they can draft off each other -- to conserve fuel; as well as other Army projects such as developing more fuel-efficient electricity generators.
Here is a good summary of the Department of Defense's single-fuel concept.
In spite of the single-fuel concept, it appears that the Department of Defense recognizes the value of multi-fuel engines. The outboard engines used by the U.S. military are capable of running on gasoline, kerosene, Jet A, Jet B, JP-4, JP-5, and JP-8, among others.
Have to agree. Look at the start of Desert storm. The US bombed the crap out of Bagdad. Even using precision ordinances, the media (which by some odd reason was in Bagdad reporting hits) made political hay out of every missed target!
You remember the results, those infamous elite republican gaurds of Saddam that would put up a severe fight. Somehow the US military fell prey to the media and politicans. Now the best we can hope for is a technological edge to keep us in the game. The enemy jihadist can now just wait it out until the media propaganda turns public opinion. So I guess this research, if even belated and illogical must add some value to advancing our technology.
Respectfully, the only difference is how many maniacs must be killed to allow the reasonable people to assert themselves. Unfortunately, when you go past some arbitrary number, people start crying genocide. The thought that we can wage war in a way the respects our enemy's culture, when it is that culture that sustains them is asinine.
In the case of Sherman - Yes; it is easier when your enemy is rational, or shares some level of common culture that makes them more predicatable.
IMO, you set your goals to win the conflict and execute the mission to maximum effect until the enemy concedes or ceases to exist. The 'low impact' approach puts you into these protracted engagements where you still kill a lot of bad guys, but risk losing more friendlies. It also reduces the impact of the war to our own people, which politicians love. But then people begin to grow comfortable and even forget that we have a war going on aside from the monetary cost.
I agree; there are a lot of things that make our lives better that may never have happened without an R&D project that made no sense to most people. I guess I just have the 'sequestration jitters' :)
I think the trade off here is whether to simplify the fuel logistics tail or simplify fuel sourcing. I am as suprised as some of the other commenters that we haven't done this type of research back when JP-8 was developed.
My second ship had LM2500 Gas Turbines that could run JP-5 or diesel. We also had 5 diesel generators, that if I recall correctly, could run either fuel as well. Effieciency was not as big a driver as the price and availablility of fuel, but that was back in the late 80s and early 90s.
I hear what you are saying, Watashi, and on some level agree with you. But I think the military acting as an R&D institution, even if technology that's explored or invented doesn't make it into practical military application, is a worthwhile endeavor.
While General Sherman was a quite effective fighter at the time, the huge difference is that the enemy troops that he fought were fairly rational humans. They did not intend to die, they would choose to avoid death, in fact. Not that his enemies were chicken, or cowardly, but that they were rational.
The maniac jihadists that we are fighting tody are NOT RATIONAL human beings, but instead they are brainwashed maniacs, and many are devoid of any of the value of life that both Sherman AND his enemies felt. So the war is quite different now.
As for the "one fuel for all" drive, it certainly would be convenient if all the engines ran on the same fuel. My guess is that JP8 is a descendant of JP4, which ran both rockets and some tanks in the 1960s, as I recall. That stuff had been deemed OK for diesel engines of that era, although I don't know how they handled the issue of lubrication by fuel. It did not work very well in spark-ignition engines, although it could be mixed with gasoline and run in some two-stroke motorcycles, at least in warm weather. It would probably work quite well in most diesel type engines, but it seems that the military needs to know just how well it would work.
A multi-fuel engine does have advantages. When the gains outweigh the costs and disadvantages, the multi-fuel engines will be adopted. With that, it is still not feasible that one engine can serve all needs.
You are right. A "one size fits all" is not a rational approach. Perhaps the article slightly misreported the actual goal. BMW is pursuing using a "one size" cylinder displacement for a variety of engines with varying number of cylinders.
In general, the military does not have a stirling record of powerplant innovations. For a look at how federal regulations crippled develoment of an advanced reciprocating aircraft engine in WWII read "Chrysler Aircraft Engines," by Kimble D. McCutcheon, 2012.
A new battery design, which replaces lithium with abundant and low-cost elemental sulfur, is still in its nascent stages but shows real promise for giving batteries more energy potential.
The push to achieving more intelligent, integrated manufacturing is putting a strong focus on networking and connectivity as key enabling technologies.
Now that solar and wind harvesting technologies are a thriving market, researchers are seeking other environmentally related energy sources for which they can create harvesting devices.
Surveillance, reconnaissance, and search and rescue in military and first responder situations are popular applications for aerial robots. Yet not all the robots are considered unmanned aerial vehicles.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
7 
