NEW COST EFFECTIVE WATER INJECTION SYSTEM NEW COST EFFECTIVE WATER INJECTION SYSTEM FOR MARINE DIESEL ENGINESFOR MARINE DIESEL ENGINES

By Dr. Anatoly Mezheritsky, P.Eng.M.A.Turbo/Engine Ltd

Vancouver, BC

Ship emissions are considered by the USA and other Ship emissions are considered by the USA and other countries authorities as a major global problem that rivals countries authorities as a major global problem that rivals landland--based air pollution sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) based air pollution sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and acidand acid--rain causing sulphur. rain causing sulphur.

Therefore, each year Governments and Local Regulators Therefore, each year Governments and Local Regulators raise the bar for emission compliance a little higher. raise the bar for emission compliance a little higher.

EPA has recently enforced NOx regulations proposed by EPA has recently enforced NOx regulations proposed by IMO for new vessels build under American flag.IMO for new vessels build under American flag.

0.960.98

11.021.041.06

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Penalty Free Zone Penalty ZoneEconomical Zone

Rel

ativ

e co

nsum

ptio

n re

duct

ion/

incr

ease

Relationship between Water/Fuel Ratio and relative specific fuel consumption

Water/Fuel Ratio, %

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

NO

x R

educ

tion,

%

Water/Fuel Ratio, %

Theoretical Effect of Water Injection on NOx Formation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1 - Cummins NTC-350

2- Caterpillar 3406E

1

21 PM

NO

x R

educ

tion,

%

Water/Fuel Ratio, %

Influence of Water Injection on NOx and PM Emissions

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 10 20 30 40

1 - Cummins NTC-350

2 - Cat. 3406E

1

2

SFC

Red

uctio

n/In

crea

se, %

Water/Fuel Ratio, %

Influence of Water Injection on Specific Fuel Consumption

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

1 - Cummins NTC-350

2 - Cat. 3406E

1

2

Exh

. Gas

Tem

p. R

educ

tion,

°C

Water/Fuel Ratio, %

Influence of Water Injection on Exhaust Gas Temperature

Emission Reduction on the Ferry of New Westminster

R2 = 0.9839

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Water Flow (L/min)

Em

issi

ons R

educ

tion

(%)

1

2

1 – NOx2 – PM

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

NO

x R

educ

tion,

%

Water/Fuel Ratio, %

NOx Reduction versus WFR(Bebedouro, main engine)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

NO

x R

educ

tion,

%

Water/Fuel Ratio, %

NOx Reduction versus WFR(Bebedouro, auxiliary Wartsila engine)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000

163,324140

NEW TREND

REGULAR TREND

ACTUAL WEAR RATE (with WIS installed)

140,030

M.E. total run hours

Max

wea

r, m

mM/V BEBEDOURO

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700

1 - wit hout wat er inject io n2 - wit h wat er inject ion

2

1

NO

x C

once

ntra

tion,

ppm

Engine RPM

Influence of Water Injection on NOx EmissionsDetroit naturally aspirated engine, ferry Oski

Load, kW

REDUCTION, %

Water/Fuel Ratio, %

Fuel consumption NOx Emission

200 3.26 27.05 30.13

210 3.12 26.01 29.29

220 3.17 25.80 28.46

230 3.26 25.50 27.96

250 3.39 25.00 26.83

Influence of water injection on NOx and fuel consumption; ferry New

Westminster, 3508 Caterpillar auxiliary engine

Vessel

Engine

Main Auxiliary

Power, HP RPM Type Power,

HP RPM

Peter R. Cresswell

MAK 6M552 4,800 500

Cat D399

1,000 1,200Algosoo 10PC2V MK2 5,350 500

Algocape Sulzer 6RD76 9,600 119

Notes:1.Peter R Cresswell and Algosoo are equipped with two main engines, while Algocape has one main engine.2.Algosoo has three auxiliary engines. WIS was retrofitted to all engines.

Type

Algoma Central Marine engines retrofitted with WIS

Vessel Engine Weighted NOx, g/kW-hr IMO/EPA standardg/kW-h

WFR%Without

waterWith water

Algocape Sulzer 6RD76 17.7 (+) 16.2 (-) 17.0 9.7

Algosoo

Pielstick 10PC2V

STBD 14.2 (+) 12.7 (-) 13.5 10.0

PORT 14.2 (+) 2.8 (-) 13.5 10.0

Cat. D399 8.4 (-) 8.10 (-) 10.9 3.2

Peter R.Cresswell

MAK 6M552

STBD 13.6 (+) 12.6 (-) 13.0 8.4

PORT 13.7 (+) 12.4 (-) 13.0 10.2

Algoma Central Marine engines test results

Notes: (+) means results are above IMO/EPA standards; (-) means results are below IMO/EPA standards

Decrease in turbocharger efficiency by 1 per cent results in theDecrease in turbocharger efficiency by 1 per cent results in the following following (under constant engine power):(under constant engine power):

Supercharged air pressure decreases by 1Supercharged air pressure decreases by 1--2%;2%;

Exhaust gas temperature increases by 30Exhaust gas temperature increases by 30--5%;5%;

Exhaust gas emissions increases by 0.5Exhaust gas emissions increases by 0.5--1.0%;1.0%;

Specific fuel consumption increases by 0.2Specific fuel consumption increases by 0.2-- 0.4%0.4%

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1 11 21 1 11 21 1 11 21 31

P, k

g/cm

^2 Pmax = 0.62 kg/cm2

Increase0.12 kg/cm2

P = 0.5 kg/cm2

0.53 kg/cm2

310320330340350360370380390400

1 11 21 1 11 21 1 11 21 31

T, °

C

T = 368 °C

Decrease26 °C

Tmin = 342 °C

360 °C

155157159161163165167169

1 11 21 1 11 21 1 11 21 31

GF,

g/h

ph

GFmin = 160.1 g/hp-h

GF = 165.3 g/hp-h

Decrease5.2 g/hp-h

163.51 g/hp-h

Feb. - May, 1999 June July - October, 1999

Engine Performance Before Overhaul (deposits are not removed)

Engine Performance After OverhaulOverhaul Period(removal of deposits from Turbo, Aftercooler, Air Manifold, etc.)

Auxiliary Engine Yanmar 6GL-DT

19.2

19.4

370

380

70

80

2.1

2.3

May, 01 April, 02

M/V Bebedouro.Main Engine Sulzer 4RTA58

Ps, Kg/cm2

∆PAC

Tc, ˚C

Gf, tonne/day

Savings due to WIS operationSavings due to WIS operationTotal operational main engines power Total operational main engines power -- 16,000HP16,000HPAverage fuel consumption for main engines Average fuel consumption for main engines –– 6,640t/year @ $460/tonne.6,640t/year @ $460/tonne.Cost of fuel for main engines $3,054,400/yearCost of fuel for main engines $3,054,400/yearSavings for main engines due to WIS (1.4%, based on ERMD test rSavings for main engines due to WIS (1.4%, based on ERMD test results) esults) --

$42,760/year$42,760/yearAverage fuel consumption for three auxiliary engines Average fuel consumption for three auxiliary engines –– 600t/year @ 460/tonne600t/year @ 460/tonneSavings for auxiliary engines due to WISSavings for auxiliary engines due to WIS–– $5,500/year$5,500/yearTotal fuel savings Total fuel savings -- $48,200/year$48,200/yearSpare parts savings due to reduced exhaust gas temperature (estSpare parts savings due to reduced exhaust gas temperature (estimated) imated) --$6,000/year$6,000/yearReduction of maintenance cost due to clean air coolers, manifolReduction of maintenance cost due to clean air coolers, manifolds, etc. (estimated) ds, etc. (estimated) --$7,000/year$7,000/yearTotal savings Total savings -- $61,200/year$61,200/year

ExpendituresExpendituresCWI System cost including installation (for four main and threeCWI System cost including installation (for four main and three auxiliary engines) auxiliary engines) --$90,000$90,000Cost of water supplyCost of water supply-- $2,500/year (BC Ferries data)$2,500/year (BC Ferries data)Spare cartridges Spare cartridges -- $ 1,200/year$ 1,200/yearTotal expenditures Total expenditures -- $93,700$93,700Simple back period: 93,700/61,200 = 1.5 year =18 monthsSimple back period: 93,700/61,200 = 1.5 year =18 months

Calculation of simple pay-back period for ferry Queen of New Westminster

01020

3040506070

8090

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

M.A. Turbo/Engine Technology

Curre nt Marke t (direct water injection, catalytic converters, SCR, EGR, HAM, etc.)

Sea Water

Demineralized Water

Fuel/Water Emulsification

Spec

ific

Cos

t, $/

hpSpecific Cost of Different NOx Control Technologies

NOx Reduction, %

Benefits of Water Injection TechnologyIncreased efficiency of the combustion process and reduced fuel consumption up to 5%Exhaust gases temperature reduction up to 25°CReduced formation of NOx up to 30% and smoke emission up to 20%Reduction in peak combustion temperatureMinimized thermal stresses on the engine componentsPrevention of carbon buildup on the cylinder walls, turbochargers, air coolers, suction valves, scavenging manifolds, etc.Increased overhaul periodReduced maintenance cost up to 25%