Presented by Hongdong Yu

Transcription

1 Presented by Hongdong Yu Authors: Hongdong Yu 1, Jonathan Heslop 1, Rikard Mikalsen 1, Yaodong Wang 1 & Anthony P. Roskilly 1 (1) Swan Centre for Energy Research, Newcastle University

2 Contents Introduction Slow Speed Steaming Modelling & Simulation Engine Model Validation Engine Optimisation Extreme De-Rated Engine Simulation Extreme De-Rated Engine Optimisation Benefits of Slow Speed Steaming Conclusions

3 Introduction ULYSSES Project Ultra Slow Ships EU FP7 funded project Three phases to investigate Retrofitting of existing ships (up to 2020) Design of new build ships (2020) Design of new concept ships (up to 2050) Development of advanced holistic models Engine and propulsion drive Hydrodynamic ship form On board systems

4 Introduction (cont.)

5 Slow Speed Steaming Benefits of slow speed steaming Reduced fuel consumption Reduced costs Reduced CO 2 emissions Drives to adopt slow speed steaming Higher fuel costs Emissions legislation Low shipping demand & over supply Improved technologies & techniques

6 Slow Speed Steaming (cont.) Correlation between ship speed, fuel consumption and engine power Source: Wiesmann (2010)

7 Modelling & Simulation Aims of modelling Simulation & optimisation of an advanced two-stroke engine model for ultra-slow streaming Development of the model A model of WÄRTSILÄ 7RT-flex50 engine Manufacturers design data Engine test bed data Diesel-RK engine modelling software Accurate modelling of fuel inject profile & fuel-to-air mixture Simulations Normal engine operational range (25%- 100%MCR) Ultra slow speed steaming (10%- 30%MCR) Wärtsilä 7RT-Flex Engine Cylinder bore 500 mm Engine speed rpm Piston stroke 2050 mm BMEP 19.5 bar Mean piston speed 8.5 m/s Max. Power 10,890kW

8 Engine Model Validation Comparison of simulated results & test bed data Engine power Specific fuel consumption (SFC)

9 Engine Model Validation (cont.) Power deviation range 25%MCR 100%MCR SFC deviation range 25%MCR 100%MCR

10 Engine Optimisation Engine parameters investigated Start of fuel injection(soi) Compression ratio (CR) Swirl ratio (SR) Intake port opening (IPO)

11 Extreme De-Rated Engine Simulation load % Engine revolution rpm Engine power kw FC kg/h

12 Extreme De-Rated Engine Simulation Power standard 25% < = 4.1% SFC standard 25% < = 3.7%

13 Extreme De-Rated Engine Start of fuel injection (SOI) Optimisation Optimal engine setting: 4 CA BTDC: engine power=2876kw: SFC=183.3g/kWh: improvement of 1.2%.

14 Extreme De-Rated Engine Compression ratio (CR) Optimisation (cont.) Optimal engine setting: CR=20: engine power=2872kw: SFC=183.6g/kWh: improvement of 1.1%.

15 Extreme De-Rated Engine Swirl ratio (SR) Optimisation (cont.) Optimal engine setting: SR=6: engine power=2857kw: SFC=184.6g/kWh: negligible improvement.

16 Extreme De-Rated Engine Optimisation (cont.) Intake port opening (IPO) Optimal engine setting: 29 CA BBDC: engine power=2857kw: SFC=184.6g/kWh: small improvement of 0.5%.

17 Benefits of Ultra Slow Steaming Comparison of SFC & hourly fuel consumption rates with respect to engine load SFC (g/kwh) Hourly Fuel Consumption (kg/h) Specific Fuel Consumption Hourly Fuel Consumption Load (%) 0

18 Benefits of Ultra Slow Steaming Comparison of engine at 85%MCR & 25%MCR Average ship speed Average number of days at sea Yearly fuel consumption SFC Ship speed Sailing time Yearly fuel consumption g/kwh knots days Tons (cont.) Annual CO 2 emissions Annual fuel costs Annual CO 2 Emissions Annual Cost ($US) Low High (Tons) (Tons) 150 $US/Ton 700 $US/Ton 85%MCR $1,040, $4,856, %MCR $569, $2,657, Optimized SOI $561, $2,619, Optimized CR $562, $2,623,350.24

19 Conclusions Significant improvement achieved with SOI=4-5 CA BTDC and CR= 20 Limited effects with SR and IPO. Reduced annual fuel consumption, CO2 emission & fuel costs with ultra slow steaming Further improvements through optimization of de-rated engines.

20

21 Thank You! Any Questions?