Benefits by Common Rail injection

Environmental benefits

1© Wärtsilä Benefits by Common Rail_June 2005.ppt20050606-A D Paro/GHL

Operational and economical benefits

Environmental benefits by Common Rail

Smokeless operation

Nitrogen oxides, compatibility with future rules

Particulates

2© Wärtsilä 20050606-B D Paro/GHL

Particulates

Sulphur oxides

CO2 emissions

Smokeless operation by Common Rail

Minimal smoke at start-up

No smoke at steady-state operation

3© Wärtsilä 20050606-C D Paro/GHL

No smoke at manoeuvering

Wärtsilä standard conditions for determination of smokeless operation

Sun

Exhaust pipe Skylight intensity:

4© Wärtsilä

ShadowExhaust pipe dimensions according to Wärtsilä’s regulations

20000 lux

C:\Data\Powerpnt\Smoke\Wärtsilä stand cond for smoke.pptJ Sandelin (GHL) 2.7.2002

W46 smoke CR versus conventionale

Num

ber (

FSN

)

0,8

1,0

1,2

1,4

Conventional at IMO NOx

Conventional at IMO -30%

5© Wärtsilä 20050606-D D Paro/GHL

Engine Load [%]

Filte

r Sm

oke

0,4

0,6

0,0

0,2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Conventional at IMO NOxVisibility limit

CR

Maximum smoke at start-up

Common Rail Conventional

6© Wärtsilä CRversusConventional.ppt

Smoke at 30% load

Common Rail Conventional

7© Wärtsilä CRversusConventional.ppt

Maximum smoke at manoeuvering acc. fastest load ramp

Common Rail Conventional

8© Wärtsilä CRversusConventional.ppt

Coral Princess

9© Wärtsilä CoralPrincess_Dec2002

copyright:ALSTOM Marine

Nitrogen oxides versus Common Rail

Next probable regulatory level is IMO -30%

The ways to reach that are:

– Dry low NOx combustionFurther increased compression ratio and late injection

10© Wärtsilä 20050606-E D Paro/GHL

– Humidification methods, i.e. Combustion Air Saturation

Both methods would increase smokebut Common Rail solves the problem.

Trends in Marine Emission Legislation

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

O L

IMIT

LEV

EL

(%

Example: W46: 13 g/kWh (about 970 ppm, dry, 15% O2)

30% NOx reduction(IMO, EU, US-EPAdiscussion papers)Example: W46: 9.1 g/kWh

(about 680 ppm, dry, 15% O2) 90% NOx reductionfrom today´s level

IMO, EU and US-EPA Proposals for Marine NOx Legislation – Reductionfrom today´s IMO limit:

11© Wärtsilä

0

10

20

30

40

50

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

YEAR

RELA

TIV

E IM

O

Confirmed Development Probable Development Proposed development

from today s level(US EPA proposalfor all engines inUS waters)

Example: W46: 1.3 g/kWh(about 100 ppm, dry, 15% O2

GHn 16.08.2004

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

12© Wärtsilä 20050606-F D Paro/GHL

state and operation on fuels with sulphur content ~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.

Particulates versus fuel choice

50

Average Heavy Fuel (HF)

mg/Nm3

(15% O2)

40

g/kWh(as measured)

0.4

0.3

(World Bank limit)

13© Wärtsilä 20050427-D D Paro/GHL

30

Dual-fuel enginein gas mode

20

10

Distillatefuel (MDO)

0.2

0.1

The development gap for particulates, HF operation

Today’sstatus

g/kWh

1

14© Wärtsilä 20050427-C D Paro/GHL

EPAproposal

asmeasured0.5

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.

15© Wärtsilä 20050606-G D Paro/GHL

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).

Number of available injection maps in the Wärtsilä Common Rail system

6

5

4

3

16© Wärtsilä 20050606-H D Paro/GHL

3

2

1

2005 2006 Year2003 2004

Different ways to utilize alternative injection maps

Low-sulphur fuel

High-sulphur fuel

Smoke optimized

Smoke optimized

High-sulphur fuel Microemulsion

Smoke optimized

Smoke optimized

Low-sulphur fuel

Two fuels

Smoke optimized

Three fuels

17© Wärtsilä 20050607-A D Paro/GHL

NOx optimized NOx optimized

Economy optimized

Economy optimized

optimized optimized

Economy optimized

Economy optimized

optimized

Economy optimized

Different choices can be easily implemented.

NOx reduction by Microemulsione

NO

x

Reference

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

HFO as Microemulsion

18© Wärtsilä

Engine load [%]

Rel

ativ

e

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

20050412-A D Paro/GHL

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Sulphur oxides versus Common Rail

Sulphur oxides are solely fuel dependent. To meet load restrictions operation on low-sulphur fuel is the obvious solution.

19© Wärtsilä 20050607-B D Paro/GHL

Alternative injection maps may improve total fuel consumption by 2-3 g/kWh as an average.

CO2 emissions

Lower fuel consumption results in lower CO emissions

20© Wärtsilä 20050607-C D Paro/GHL

in lower CO2 emissions.

W6L46C2, 1050 kW/cyl, Const. speed, Std FIE vs CR, SFOC comparison

190 0

195,0

200,0

205,0

210,0

ISO

cor

r., 5

% to

l, w

ith

mps

)

LS180

Std FIE

21© Wärtsilä 20041014-D

170,0

175,0

180,0

185,0

190,0

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

SFO

C (g

/kW

h, L

HV.

, pu

m

CR

Rate shaping

Operational benefits by Common Rail

Lower fuel consumption in total

No risk of smoke penalties

Further improved fuel economy by alternative injection maps for different fuels

22© Wärtsilä 20050607-D D Paro/GHL

j p

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

Summary of Common Rail benefits

IMAGE MONEY

23© Wärtsilä 20050607-E D Paro/GHL

(No problems to meet with regulations)