Benefits by Common Rail injection

Environmental benefits Operational and economical benefits

© Wärtsilä

Benefits by Common Rail_June 2005.ppt 20050606-A D Paro/GHL

1

Environmental benefits by Common Rail

Smokeless operation Nitrogen oxides, compatibility with future rules Particulates Sulphur oxides CO2 emissions

© Wärtsilä

20050606-B

D Paro/GHL

2

Smokeless operation by Common Rail

Minimal smoke at start-up No smoke at steady-state operation No smoke at manoeuvering

© Wärtsilä

20050606-C

D Paro/GHL

3

Wärtsilä standard conditions for determination of smokeless operation
Sun

Exhaust pipe

Skylight intensity: 20000 lux

Shadow

Exhaust pipe dimensions according to Wärtsilä’s regulations
C:\Data\Powerpnt\Smoke\Wärtsilä stand cond for smoke.ppt J Sandelin (GHL) 2.7.2002

© Wärtsilä

4

W46 smoke CR versus conventional

1,4

1,2

Filter Smoke Number (FSN) e

Conventional at IMO -30%
1,0 0,8

Conventional at IMO NOx
0,6

Visibility limit

0,4

0,2

CR

0,0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Engine Load [%]

© Wärtsilä

20050606-D D Paro/GHL

5

Maximum smoke at start-up

Common Rail

Conventional

© Wärtsilä

CRversusConventional.ppt

6

Smoke at 30% load

Common Rail

Conventional

© Wärtsilä

CRversusConventional.ppt

7

Maximum smoke at manoeuvering acc. fastest load ramp

Common Rail

Conventional

© Wärtsilä

CRversusConventional.ppt

8

Coral Princess

copyright:ALSTOM Marine

© Wärtsilä

CoralPrincess_Dec2002

9

Nitrogen oxides versus Common Rail

Next probable regulatory level is IMO -30% The ways to reach that are:
– Dry low NOx combustion Further increased compression ratio and late injection

– Humidification methods, i.e. Combustion Air Saturation

Both methods would increase smoke but Common Rail solves the problem.

© Wärtsilä

20050606-E

D Paro/GHL

10

Trends in Marine Emission Legislation
IMO, EU and US-EPA Proposals for Marine NOx Legislation – Reduction from today´s IMO limit:
110 RELATIVE IMO LIMIT LEVEL (% O 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Example: W46: 1.3 g/kWh (about 100 ppm, dry, 15% O2 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 (about 680 ppm, dry, 15% O2) Example: W46: 9.1 g/kWh Example: W46: 13 g/kWh (about 970 ppm, dry, 15% O2)

30% NOx reduction (IM O, EU, US-EPA discussion papers)

90% NOx reduction from today´s level today s (US EPA proposal for all engines in US waters)

YEAR Confirmed Development Probable Development Proposed development

© Wärtsilä

GHn 16.08.2004

11

Particulates versus Common Rail

US-EPA Tier 2 and EU “Inland waterways” specify particulates less than 0.5 g/kWh from 2007 resp. 2009 for engines up to 30 litres/cyl. The regulation is likely to be extended for larger engines. Current status is ~0.35 g/kWh when measured in dry hot state and operation on fuels with sulphur content ~2.5. ~2 5 BUT EPA and EU specify “dilution method” measurements which means condensation of liquid components and the results are roughly tripled, i.e. the gap is big.

© Wärtsilä

20050606-F

D Paro/GHL

12

Particulates versus fuel choice
mg/Nm3
(15% O2)

g/kWh
Average Heavy Fuel (HF) (as measured)

50 40 30 20 10

(World Bank limit)

0.4

0.3
Distillate fuel (MDO) Dual-fuel engine in gas mode

0.2 0.1

© Wärtsilä

20050427-D

D Paro/GHL

13

The development gap for particulates, HF operation

g/kWh 1

0.5

Today’s status as measured EPA proposal

© Wärtsilä

20050427-C D Paro/GHL

14

Solutions to particulates problems

Alternative fuel, i.e. distillate, is the obvious solution. In order to improve operational economy with alternative fuels the Common Rail injection system is further developed for alternative injection maps. Common Rail injection results in less particulates at all loads. Optimal injection maps for minimized particulate levels are tested 2005 – 2006 (vast matrix of different fuels, running modes and engine parameters).

© Wärtsilä

20050606-G

D Paro/GHL

15

Number of available injection maps in the Wärtsilä Common Rail system
6 5 4 3 2 1
2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

© Wärtsilä

20050606-H

D Paro/GHL

16

Different ways to utilize alternative injection maps
Two fuels
Low-sulphur fuel Smoke optimized NOx optimized Economy optimized High-sulphur fuel Smoke optimized NOx optimized Economy optimized Economy optimized Economy optimized Economy optimized High-sulphur fuel

Three fuels
Low-sulphur fuel Microemulsion

Smoke optimized

Smoke optimized

Smoke optimized

Different choices can be easily implemented.
© Wärtsilä
20050607-A D Paro/GHL

17

NOx reduction by Microemulsion

1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Reference

Relative NO x e

HFO as Microemulsion

Engine load [%]

© Wärtsilä

20050412-A

D Paro/GHL

18

Sulphur oxides versus Common Rail

Sulphur oxides are solely fuel dependent. To meet load restrictions operation on lowsulphur fuel is the obvious solution. Alternative injection maps may improve total fuel consumption by 2-3 g/kWh as an average.

© Wärtsilä

20050607-B

D Paro/GHL

19

CO2 emissions

Lower fuel consumption results in lower CO2 emissions emissions.

© Wärtsilä

20050607-C

D Paro/GHL

20

W6L46C2, 1050 kW/cyl, Const. speed, Std FIE vs CR, SFOC comparison
210,0 SFOC (g/kWh, LHV., ISO corr., 5% tol, with mps) pum 205,0 200,0 195,0

LS180

Std FIE
190,0 190 0 185,0

CR
180,0 175,0

Rate shaping
170,0 0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 Load (%) 80,0 100,0 120,0

© Wärtsilä

20041014-D

21

Operational benefits by Common Rail

Lower fuel consumption in total No risk of smoke penalties Further improved fuel economy by alternative j p injection maps for different fuels Two engines can be maintained in operation without smoke or fuel consumption disadvantages (valid for multiengine ships) Longer lifetime of nozzles and high-pressure pumps

© Wärtsilä

20050607-D

D Paro/GHL

22

Summary of Common Rail benefits

IMAGE

MONEY

(No problems to meet with regulations)

© Wärtsilä

20050607-E

D Paro/GHL

23