Low-And High-Pressure Dual-Fuel Technology Comparison: Daniel Strödecke

Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel
technology comparison
Daniel Strödecke
Agenda
1 Introduction
Introduction
2 Technical aspects
Technical aspects
3 Case study – LNG
LNG carrier
carrier
4 Case study –– LNG
LNG fuelled
fuelledvessel
vessel
5 Conclusion
Conclusion
2 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Introduction

Basic dual-fuel technologies
Low-pressure technology: High-pressure technology:
Otto cycle Diesel cycle

43 years perfecting low pressure technology
1972 – launch of 7RNMD90, Low-Pressure DF Engine

for 29,000 m3 LNGC, ‘MV Venator’, Moss Yard, Norway
2-stroke Perfecting
1992 – Low-Pressure
gas engines with
Spark-Ignited Engine low-pressure dual-
4-stroke fuel technology
1995 – Low-Pressure
Dual-Fuel Engine
Break through in marine segment
4-stroke
1986 – testing High-Pressure 2013 – Low-Pressure
DF Engine 6RTA84 at IHI, Japan Dual-Fuel Engine
2-stroke 2-stroke
ready for the future
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Beginning introducing
modern gas engines with
well known diesel process
(high-pressure) 1987 – High-Pressure
Gas-Diesel Engine
4-stroke

Environmental aspects
Low-pressure technology: ++
Benchmarking environmentally-friendly
High-pressure technology:
Some environmental benefit
+
low-pressure technology!
è please refer to separate low-pressure
dual-fuel engine presentation
++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −− : significant drawback

Technical aspects

Development challenges
Low-pressure technology:
-
++
Gas admission to combustion
High-pressure technology:
-
ü
Providing high-pressure (≥300 bar)
chamber gas to engine, i.e. gas supply system
- Ensuring proper homogeneous lean - Handling of high-pressure gas on
gas-air mixture engine
è Managed with fully electronically- è High-pressure will always

controlled engines be a challenge

Safety
Same concept of gas safe engine room for both technologies, i.e. same level of
safety as with conventional diesel engines
Low-pressure technology: ++ High-pressure technology: +

- Bigger gas pipes, but with lower gas - Smaller gas pipes, but with higher
pressure/density, i.e. similar gas gas pressure/density, i.e. similar
amount in engine room as with high- gas amount in engine room as with
pressure technology low-pressure technology
- Low risk of leakages - Higher risk of leakages
- In case of pipe-to-pipe connection - In case of pipe/pipe connection
rupture less expansion energy of rupture higher expansion energy of
gas gas, i.e. long jet flame, if ignited.
Gas safe engine room

èRefer to separate low-pressure dual-fuel engine
presentation)

Engine performance
Power output
Low-pressure technology: ü High-pressure technology: ++
- Reduced power output, compared to - Same power output as conventional
conventional diesel engine diesel engine
à However, in most cases acceptable

as conventional diesel engines are
usually derated for fuel-saving
reasons, while low-pressure DF
engines have very similar
performance in the whole rating
field, even slightly better in the top
area

Engine performance
Methane number dependency
Low-pressure technology: ü High-pressure technology: ++
- Dependency on methane number - No dependency on methane number
à However, service speed can be
reached with commonly available
fuel gas with MN70-90
Typical LNG
Typical operating
range

Efficiency
Just considering the 2-stroke main engine as such, the difference in efficiency/brake specific
energy consumption per brake power output needs to be considered:
Low-pressure technology: ++ High-pressure technology: ++
At high loads a low-pressure Otto cycle engine has the same or better efficiency than a high-
pressure Diesel cycle engine. At part-load a high-pressure engine has better efficiency.
Ultimately overall system performance has to be considered instead of just main engine
performance as stand-alone, as considered in the following case studies.

Fuel-gas handling system
Compressors
Low-pressure technology:
- A wide range of compressor types
++ High-pressure technology:
- Currently only piston type
ü
and makers is available: compressors are available from a
- centrifugal type limited number of makers
Cryostar
- screw type
Kobelco (skid solution)
- piston type
Picture: Burckhardt Compression
Burckhardt Compression
++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −: signiﬁcant drawback
Compressor skid example
Cryostar Burckhardt Compression
LP turbo-compressor set HP piston compressor set (damping vessels

(no damping needed) needed: suction & delivery)
- 6-stage, 16 bar - 300 bar
- drive power ̴ 850 kW - drive power ̴ 1400 kW
- L x W x H: 5.2 x 3 x 2.2m è ≈1.6 to1.7 x LP power
- Weight: ̴ 20 tons - L x W x H: 13 x 7 x 5.2m
è ≈14 x LP volume
- Weight: ̴120 tons
è 6 x LP weight

LNG pumps
Low-pressure technology: ++ High-pressure technology: ü
- Centrifugal pumps: - Centrifugal supply pumps
- Simple, just rotors turning - Damping vessel
on a common shaft - Piston pumps:
- Low maintenance requirement - Moving pistons, suction & delivery
- Submerged solution for LNG- valves
fuelled vessels available - High maintenance requirement
- Damping vessel
OR AND
Vanzetti Engineering Vanzetti Engineering Cryostar

Case study – LNG carrier

Case study LNG carrier
Configuration
- Main engines 18,500
Engine Power [kW]

18,000 W5X72DF
LP: 2x 5X72DF
5G70ME-C9.5-GI
17,500
Design point
17,000
HP: 2x 5G70ME-GI 16,500
CMCR: 2x 12,500 kW at 69.0 rpm 16,000
15,500
CSR: 90% CMCR 15,000

14,500
14,000
- Gensets 13,500
13,000
LP: 2x 8L34DF + 2x 6L34DF

CMCR
12,500
12,000
HP: 2x 9L34DF + 2x 6L34DF 11,500 CSR
11,000
10,500
- Main gas components 10,000

55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0
Engine Speed [rpm]
90.0 95.0
LP: 2x Centrifugal compressor

HP: 2x Piston compressor
1x HP LNG piston pump

Operating profile – main engine
Operating mode Ship Voyage non ECA ECA Non ECA ECA zone Main fuel Pilot fuel Main Pilot
speed type zone technology non ECA non ECA fuel in fuel in
technology ECA ECA
2x W5X72DF
kn RH RH
Service speed US waters 19.5 laden 15 DF LNG MGO
Service speed passage 19.5 laden 455 DF LNG MDO
Slow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 laden 5 DF LNG MDO
Service speed passage 19.5 ballast 455 DF LNG MDO
Service speed US waters 19.5 ballast 15 DF LNG MGO
Slow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 ballast 5 DF LNG MDO
2x 5G70ME-GI
kn RH RH
Service speed US waters 19.5 laden 15 DF EGR T.III LNG MGO
Service speed passage 19.5 laden 455 DF LNG HFO
Slow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 laden 5 DF HFO
Service speed passage 19.5 ballast 455 DF LNG HFO
Service speed US waters 19.5 ballast 15 DF EGR T.III LNG MGO
Slow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 ballast 5 DM HFO -
total distance 9215 nm
Technology abbreviations:
DF: gas mode operation
DF EGR T.III: gas mode operation with EGR for Tier III compliance
DM: diesel mode operation

Operating Ship Voyage Engine power Relative Engine El. Total Extra el. load specification of technology
mode speed type predicted with engine speed hotel el. due to
β = 3.5 power load load technology
(2 engines) selected
2x W5X72DF
kn [kW] [%] [rpm] [kWe] [kWe]
Service speed US waters 19.5 laden 22500 90% 66.6 2000 2825 825 kWe compressor
Service speed passage 19.5 laden 22500 90% 66.6 2000 2825 825 kWe compressor
Slow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 laden 2173 9% 30.6 2000 3275 1275 kWe compressor (incl. GCU supply) + GCU (part load)
Service speed passage 19.5 ballast 22500 90% 66.6 2000 2835 835 kWe compressor + LNG supply pump
Service speed US waters 19.5 ballast 22500 90% 66.6 2000 2835 835 kWe compressor + LNG supply pump
Slow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 ballast 2173 9% 30.6 2000 2835 835 kWe compressor (incl. GCU supply)
2x 5G70ME-GI
Service speed US waters 19.5 laden 22500 90% 66.6 2000 3450 1450 kWe compressor + EGR (blower only)
Service speed passage 19.5 laden 22500 90% 66.6 2000 3300 1300 kWe compressor
Slow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 laden 2173 9% 30.6 2000 2900 900 kWe compressor GCU supply + GCU
Service speed passage 19.5 ballast 22500 90% 66.6 2000 3025 1025 kWe compressor (part load) + HP pump
Service speed US waters 19.5 ballast 22500 90% 66.6 2000 3175 1175 kWe compressor (part load) + HP pump + EGR (blower only)
Slow steaming Panama Canal 10.0 ballast 2173 9% 30.6 2000 2000 0 kWe pure diesel operation (GCU operation not needed)
total distance 9215 nm

Power generation – genset operation
Operating mode Operating Ship Enviro. Voyage Total electric Genset type gas MDO/MGO
time [RH] speed area type load consumption [t] consumption [t]
2x 5X72DF Wärtsilä 8L34DF Wärtsilä 8L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DF

kn 3690 3690 2770 2770
Service speed US waters 15 19.5 Tier III laden 2825 kWe 77% - - - 6.8 0.1
Service speed passage 455 19.5 Tier II laden 2825 kWe 77% - - - 206.7 3.5
Slow steaming Panama Canal 5 10.0 Tier II laden 3275 kWe 89% - - - 2.6 0.0
Service speed passage 455 19.5 Tier II ballast 2835 kWe 77% - - - 207.3 3.5
Service speed US waters 15 19.5 Tier III ballast 2835 kWe 77% - - - 6.8 0.1
Slow steaming Panama Canal 5 10.0 Tier II ballast 2835 kWe 77% - - - 2.3 0.0
2x 5G70ME-GI Wärtsilä 9L34DF Wärtsilä 9L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DF

kn 4150 4150 2770 2770
Service speed US waters 15 19.5 Tier III laden 3450 kWe 83% - - - 8.2 0.1
Service speed passage 455 19.5 Tier II laden 3300 kWe 80% - - - 239.9 4.0
Slow steaming Panama Canal 5 10.0 Tier II laden 2900 kWe 70% - - - 2.4 0.0
Service speed passage 455 19.5 Tier II ballast 3025 kWe 73% - - - 223.5 4.1
Service speed US waters 15 19.5 Tier III ballast 3175 kWe 77% - - - 7.7 0.1
Slow steaming Panama Canal 5 10.0 Tier II ballast 2000 kWe - - 72% - 1.6 0.0
Port operation not considered

Max
Case study LNG carrier Fuel
type
Fuel price LHV sulphur
content
[USD/ton] [$/mmBTU] kJ/kg [%]
Fuel consumption – by type & mass LNG 450 9.5 50,000 0.0%
– round trip MGO

MDO
850
650
21.0
16.1
42,800
42,707
0.1%
0.5%
HFO 450 11.7 40,500 3.5%
Fuel consumption
3,500 t
3,000 t
2,500 t
2,000 t
1,500 t
1,000 t
500 t
0t
2x 5X72DF 2x 5G70ME-GI
gas MGO MDO HFO
X72DF solution: benchmarking low liquid fuel consumption

Max
Case study LNG carrier Fuel
type
content
Fuel consumption costs – round trip LNG 450 9.5 50,000 0.0%
MGO 850 21.0 42,800 0.1%
MDO 650 16.1 42,707 0.5%
HFO 450 11.7 40,500 3.5%
Fuel costs
1,750 kUSD
1,500 kUSD
1,250 kUSD
1,000 kUSD
750 kUSD
500 kUSD
250 kUSD
0 kUSD
2x 5X72DF 2x 5G70ME-GI
Main engines Gensets
Not considered additional costs

- HFO treatment system operation of HP solution,
- Gas burned by the GCU (higher amount for HP solution)

Fuel consumption costs – LNG price influence
Fuel costs: different LNG prices

2,500 kUSD
2,000 kUSD
1,500 kUSD
1,000 kUSD loss 7 kUSD

saving 9 kUSD
500 kUSD saving 24 kUSD
0 kUSD
2x5X72DF: 2x5G70ME-GI: 2x5X72DF: 2x5G70ME-GI: 2x5X72DF: 2x5G70ME-GI:
300 $/t 300 $/t 450 $/t 450 $/t 600 $/t 600 $/t

Indicative investment costs

160%
140% 30 mUSD
120%
100%
20 mUSD
80%
60%
10 mUSD
40% Gas system
EGR
20%
Gensets
0% 0 mUSD Main engines
Alt. 1 2 x 5X72DF Alt. 2 2x5G70ME-C9.5-GI
Two sets of compressors for both solutions

Case study –
LNG-fuelled vessel

Case study LNG-fuelled vessel
Configuration
- Main engines
10,500
Engine Power [kW]

W6X52DF
6G50ME-C9.5-GI
LP: 1x 6X52DF
10,000
Design point
HP: 1x 6G50ME-GI
9,500
CMCR: 7,800 kW at 95.0 rpm

9,000
CSR: 90% CMCR

8,500
8,000 CMCR
- Gensets 7,500
LP: 3x 6L20DF 7,000

CSR
HP: 3x 6L20DF 6,500
- Main gas components

6,000
Engine Speed [rpm]
LP: 2x LNG centrifugal pump

5,500
70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0
HP: 2x LNG centrifugal supply pump

HP: 2x LNG HP piston pump
- LNG tanks
Both: 2x 700 m3 single shell LNG
Both: tanks with 10 bar(a) design
Both: pressure

Case study LNG fuelled vessel
Operating mode Ship non ECA ECA Non ECA ECA zone Main fuel Pilot fuel Main Pilot
speed zone technology non ECA non ECA fuel in fuel in
technology ECA ECA
6X52DF
kn RH RH
Service speed US waters 14.5 4200 DF LNG MGO
Service speed non US waters 14.5 1500 DF LNG MDO
Slow steaming US waters 10.0 150 DF LNG MGO
Slow steaming non US waters 10.0 150 DF LNG MDO
6G50ME-GI
kn RH RH
Service speed US waters 14.5 4200 DF EGR T.III LNG MGO
Service speed non US waters 14.5 1500 DF LNG HFO
Slow steaming US waters 10.0 150 DF EGR T.III LNG MGO
Slow steaming non US waters 10.0 150 DF LNG HFO
Calculated for one year operation - in total 6000 RH
Technology abbreviations:
DF: gas mode operation
DF EGR T.III: gas mode operation with EGR for Tier III compliance

Operating Ship Engine power Relative engine Engine Electric Total
Extra electric
mode speed predicted with power speed hotel electric
load due to
β = 3.5 load load specification of technology
technology
(2 engines)
selected
6X52DF
Service speed US waters 14.5 7020 90% 66.6 500 505 5 kWe LNG pump
Service speed non US waters 14.5 7020 90% 66.6 500 505 5 kWe LNG pump
Slow steaming US waters 10.0 1912 25% 43.2 500 505 5 kWe LNG pump
Slow steaming non US waters 10.0 1912 25% 43.2 500 505 5 kWe LNG pump
6G50ME-GI
Service speed US waters 14.5 7020 90% 66.6 500 590 90 kWe LNG pumps + EGR (blower only)
Service speed non US waters 14.5 7020 90% 66.6 500 540 40 kWe LNG pumps
Slow steaming US waters 10.0 1912 25% 43.2 500 555 55 kWe LNG pumps + EGR (blower only)
Slow steaming non US waters 10.0 1912 25% 43.2 500 540 40 kWe LNG pumps
Calculated for one year operation - in total 6000 RH

Power generation – genset operation
Operating Operating Ship Enviro. Total electric Genset type gas MDO/MGO
mode time [RH] speed area load consumption [t] consumption [t]
6X52DF Wärtsilä 6L20DF Wärtsilä 6L20DF Wärtsilä 6L20DF

kn 1065 1065 1065
Service speed US waters 4200 14.5 Tier III 505 kWe 47% - - 451.1 20.9
Service speed non US waters 1500 14.5 Tier II 505 kWe 47% - - 161.1 7.4
Slow steaming non US waters 150 10.0 Tier II 505 kWe 47% - - 16.1 0.7
6G50ME-GI Wärtsilä 6L20DF Wärtsilä 6L20DF Wärtsilä 6L20DF

kn 1065 1065 1065
Service speed non US waters 1500 14.5 Tier II 540 kWe 51% - - 169.8 7.6
Slow steaming non US waters 150 10.0 Tier II 540 kWe 51% - - 17.0 0.8
Port operation not considered

Max
Case study LNG fuelled vessel Fuel
type
content
Fuel consumption – by type & mass LNG 450 9.5 50,000 0.0%
– per year MGO

MDO
850
650
21.0
16.1
42,800
42,707
0.1%
0.5%
HFO 450 11.7 40,500 3.5%
Fuel consumption
7,000 t
6,000 t
5,000 t
4,000 t
3,000 t
2,000 t
1,000 t
0t
6X52DF 6G50ME-GI
gas MGO MDO HFO
X52DF solution: benchmarking low liquid fuel consumption

Max
Case study LNG fuelled vessel Fuel
type
content
Fuel consumption costs – per year LNG 450 9.5 50,000 0.0%
MGO 850 21.0 42,800 0.1%
MDO 650 16.1 42,707 0.5%
HFO 450 11.7 40,500 3.5%
Fuel costs
5,000 kUSD
4,500 kUSD
4,000 kUSD
3,500 kUSD
3,000 kUSD
2,500 kUSD
2,000 kUSD
1,500 kUSD
1,000 kUSD
500 kUSD
0 kUSD
6X52DF 6G50ME-GI
Not considered additional costs:

- HFO treatment system operation of HP solution

Fuel consumption costs – LNG price influence
Fuel costs: different LNG prices

7,000 kUSD
6,000 kUSD
5,000 kUSD
4,000 kUSD
3,000 kUSD loss 40 kUSD
2,000 kUSD saving 4 kUSD
saving 48 kUSD
1,000 kUSD
0 kUSD
6X52DF: 6G50ME-GI: 6X52DF: 6X50ME-GI: 6X52DF: 6X50ME-GI:
500 $/t 500 $/t 700 $/t 700 $/t 900 $/t 900 $/t


120%
15 mUSD
100%
80%
10 mUSD
60%
40% 5 mUSD Gas system

LNG tank(s)
20% EGR
Gensets
0% 0 mUSD Main engine
Alt. 1 6X52DF Alt. 2 6G50ME-GI

Conclusion

Conclusion
Low-pressure dual-fuel technology is the industry standard
Low-pressure High-pressure
technology technology
Environmental-
++ +
friendliness
Fuel-gas handling ++ ü
OPEX (fuel costs +

++ +
maintenance)
CAPEX ++ −−/−*)
*) −− for LNGC, − for LNG fuelled vessel

Low-And High-Pressure Dual-Fuel Technology Comparison: Daniel Strödecke

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Low-And High-Pressure Dual-Fuel Technology Comparison: Daniel Strödecke

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel

2 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

3 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Low-pressure technology: High-pressure technology:

Otto cycle Diesel cycle

4 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

1972 – launch of 7RNMD90, Low-Pressure DF Engine

5 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −− : significant drawback

6 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

7 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

è Managed with fully electronically- è High-pressure will always

++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −− : significant drawback

8 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Low-pressure technology: ++ High-pressure technology: +

Gas safe engine room

++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −− : significant drawback

9 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

à However, in most cases acceptable

++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −− : significant drawback

10 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −− : significant drawback

11 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Low-pressure technology: ++ High-pressure technology: ++

++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −− : significant drawback

12 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Kobelco (skid solution)

Cryostar Burckhardt Compression

LP turbo-compressor set HP piston compressor set (damping vessels

14 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Vanzetti Engineering Vanzetti Engineering Cryostar

++: great benefit, +: benefit, ü: meets requirements, −: drawback, −− : significant drawback

15 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

16 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Engine Power [kW]

CMCR: 2x 12,500 kW at 69.0 rpm 16,000

CSR: 90% CMCR 15,000

LP: 2x 8L34DF + 2x 6L34DF

- Main gas components 10,000

LP: 2x Centrifugal compressor

17 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

total distance 9215 nm

18 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

total distance 9215 nm

19 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

2x 5X72DF Wärtsilä 8L34DF Wärtsilä 8L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DF

2x 5G70ME-GI Wärtsilä 9L34DF Wärtsilä 9L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DF Wärtsilä 6L34DF

Port operation not considered

20 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

– round trip MGO

gas MGO MDO HFO

X72DF solution: benchmarking low liquid fuel consumption

21 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Main engines Gensets

Not considered additional costs

22 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Fuel costs: different LNG prices

1,000 kUSD loss 7 kUSD

Main engines Gensets

23 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke

Indicative investment costs

Two sets of compressors for both solutions

24 © WinGD, 2015-09-08, Low- and high-pressure dual-fuel technology comparison / D. Strödecke