Derating: a solution for

high fuel savings and lower emissions

Rudolf Wettstein1 & David Brown2
Wrtsil Switzerland Ltd, Winterthur

Summary
This paper sets out ways to achieve worthwhile reductions in the fuel consumption of Wrtsil low-speed engines when designing newbuildings. The key approach is to use the exibility oered by the full power/speed layout eld to select a better layout point at a derated power with a lower BSFC and also possibly a higher propeller eciency.

Introduction
Fuel eciency and environmental friendliness are high on the list of requirements for ship propulsion engines from todays shipping- and shipbuilding industries. Thus Wrtsil is committed to creating better technology in these areas that will benet both the customers and the environment. Yet it is often forgotten by many ship designers and those specifying low-speed main engines that advantage can be taken of the power/speed layout eld of Wrtsil low-speed engines to select an engine rating point with a still lower fuel consumption. The concept of the power/speed layout eld for low-speed marine diesel engines originated in the 1970s. The layout options were step-by-step widened until, in 1984, our low-speed engines began to be oered with a broad power/speed layout eld. An engines contracted maximum continuous rating (CMCR) can be selected at any point in the power/ speed eld dened by the four corner points: R1, R2, R3 and R4 (Fig. 1). The rating point R1 is the maximum continuous rating (MCR) of the engine. Most recently, the layout elds for certain engines, the RT-ex82C, RTA82C, RT-ex82T and RTA82T, are extended to increased speeds for the R1+ and R2+ points (Fig. 2). The extended elds oer widened exibility to select the most ecient propeller speed for lowest daily fuel consumption, and the most economic propulsion equipment,
1

Engine power, %R1

100 Higher propulsive efficiency R1 0 -1 BSFC -2 g/kWh -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

80

R3 Lower specific fuel consumption

70

on

st

an

90

tt

or qu
Rx

lin

R4

R2

60 70

80

90

100

Engine speed, %R1

Fig. 1: Typical layout eld for RTA and RT-ex engines. The contracted maximum continuous rating (CMCR) can be selected at any point, such as Rx, within the layout eld. The BSFC is the reduction in full-load BSFC for any rating point Rx relative to that at the R1 rating. [08#044]

Rudolf Wettstein is Director, Marketing & Application Development, Ship Power, Wrtsil Switzerland Ltd. David Brown is Manager, Marketing Support, Wrtsil Switzerland Ltd.

namely the propeller, shafting, etc. One basic principle of the engine layout eld is that the same maximum cylinder pressure (Pmax) is employed at all CMCR points within the layout eld. Thus the reduced brake mean eective pressure (BMEP) obtained at the reduced power outputs in the eld results in an increased ratio of Pmax/BMEP and thus lower brake specic fuel consumption (BSFC). The other principle behind the layout eld is
Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008

Engine power, %R1

100 R1 R1+

Engine power, %R1

100 R1

90

Rx2 Rx1

Rating line slope =

90

R3 80

R3

80

70 R4 R2 R2+

R4

R2

80

90

Engine speed, %R1

100

60 70

80

90

100

Engine speed, %R1 Fig. 3: For a given ship, a rating line (slope ) can be applied to the layout eld so that all rating points on that line would give the same ship speed with a suitably optimized propeller. Rating points at lower speeds on the rating line require a larger propeller diameter and give a greater propulsive eciency.

Fig. 2: For the RT-ex82C, RTA82C, RT-ex82T and RTA82T engines the layout elds are extended to the ratings R1+ and R2+ at the same powers as R1 and R2 respectively but with increased shaft speed. [08#049]

that the lower CMCR speeds allow exibility in selection of the optimum propeller with consequent benets in propulsion eciency and thus lower fuel consumption in terms of tonnes per day. One feature to be borne in mind when selecting the rating point for the derated engine is the rating
Fig. 4: Since the 1980s engine ratings have been selected over
a steadily smaller area of the layout eld.
[08#051]
Engine power, %R1
100 Area of recent CMCR selection R1

90 Area of CMCR selection in the 1980s

80

R3

line (Fig. 3). This is the line through a CMCR rating point such that any point on the line represents a new power/speed combination that will give the same ship speed in knots. The points on the rating line all require the same propeller type but with dierent adaptations to suit the power/speed combination. In general, lower speeds of rotation require larger propeller diameters and thereby increase the total propulsive eciency. Usually the selected propeller speed depends on the maximum permissible propeller diameter. The maximum diameter is often determined by operational requirements, such as design draught and ballast draught limitations, as well as class recommendations concerning propellerhull clearance (pressure impulse induced by the propeller on the hull). The slope of the rating line () depends broadly upon the ship type. It can range from 0.15 for tankers, bulk carriers and general cargo ships up to about 10,000 tdw to 0.22 for container ships larger than 3000 TEU and 0.25 for tankers and bulk carriers larger than 30,000 tdw.

70

R4

R2

Changing engine selection strategies

When the broad layout eld was introduced in RTA engines in 1984 it was widely welcomed by shipowners and shipbuilders. Afterwards RTA engines were frequently selected at ratings in the lower part of the layout eld to gain the benets of
2 Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008

60 70

80

90

100

Engine speed, %R1

Bunker price, US$/tonne 380cSt HFO 500

400

300

200

100 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fig. 5: Bunker prices have considerably increased in recent times. The chart shows the average price of 380 cSt heavy fuel oil (HFO)
from various ports around the world from 2004 to 2008. The green bars indicate the mean price for each year.
[08#045]

lower fuel consumption. However, under the pressure of rst costs and softening bunker prices the strategy was changed and the selected power/speed combination has, during the past 15 years or so, been selected to be closer to the R1 rating (Fig. 4). Yet, more recently, bunker prices have steadily climbed, rising by some 85 per cent in the course of 2007 from US$ 270 to US$ 500 per tonne (Fig. 5). The result is that bunkers are now the dominant part of ship operating costs. Such drastic increases in bunker prices give a strong impetus to reduce fuel costs. They can also justify additional investment cost such as selecting an engine with an extra cylinder. The consequent fuel saving may make for an acceptable payback time on the additional investment cost. It would justify any eorts to increase the overall eciency of the complete propulsion system. Further impetus to implementing such changes in engine selection strategy will come from a future need to cut CO2 emissions. If a carbon trading

scheme is imposed on shipping it would give further economic advantage to reducing fuel consumption and further help to pay for any necessary extra investment costs. In addition it is important to bear in mind that the fuel savings measures discussed here will also result in lower NOX emissions in absolute terms.

Derating engines for greater fuel savings

In the following pages are some case studies for ship installations for which an engine is selected with an extra cylinder without increasing the engines power. These cases demonstrate that such engine derating can be an advantageous solution with remarkable saving potential. Depending on bunker costs, such a strategy can have a very attractive pay-back time. The four case studies are for a Suezmax tanker, a Capesize bulk carrier, a Panamax container ship and a Post-Panamax container ship. They include estimations of the respective pay-back times for the additional engine costs.

Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008

Case 1: Suezmax tanker & Capesize bulk carrier

In this case, a typical Suezmax tanker might be specied with a six-cylinder Wrtsil RT-ex68-D main engine. However, if a seven-cylinder engine is employed instead, the daily fuel consumption can be reduced by some 3.4 per cent. In the engine/propeller layout for this ship as shown in gure 6, the CMCR points for the two alternative engines are on the same rating line ( = 0.3) through a common design point for the same ship service speed (knots). The calculation of annual fuel costs given in table 2 is based on 6000 hours running with heavy fuel oil
Table 1: Typical ship parameters for a Suezmax tanker

costing US$ 500 per tonne. The resulting payback time for the extra cost associated with the additional engine cylinder is estimated to be between 3.5 and six years depending on the bunker price of US$ 600400 per tonne respectively (Fig. 7). The calculations of the payback are based on an interest rate of eight per cent. A similar case may be made for a Capesize bulk carrier as it would be similar in size and speed to a Suezmax tanker and would thus require a similar engine.

Length overall: Beam: Design draught: Scantling draught: Sea margin: Engine service load:

about 274 4650 16 17 15 90

m m m m % %

Table 2: Main engine options

Alternative engines: Cylinder bore, mm: Piston stroke, mm: Stroke/bore ratio: MCR, kW / rpm: CMCR, kW / rpm: BMEP at CMCR, bar: CSR at 90% CMCR, kW/rpm: BSFC at CMCR, g/kWh: 100% load: 90% load: Daily fuel consumption, tonnes/day: ISO fuel, LCV 42.7 MJ/kg: LCV 40.5 MJ/kg: As percentage, %: Annual fuel costs, US$: Fuel saving, US$: Engine length, mm: Engine mass, tonnes:

6RT-ex68-D 680 2720 4:1 18,780/95 18,780/95 20.0 16,902/91.7 169.0 165.6 67.2 70.8 100 8,853,000 0 8690 472

7RT-ex68-D 680 2720 4:1 21,910/95 18,460/89.7 17.9 16,614/86.6 164.8 162.6 64.8 68.4 96.6 8,544,000 309,000 9870 533

3.4%

Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008

Case 1: Suezmax tanker & Capesize bulk carrier

Engine power, kW
22,000 7RT-flex68-D

20,000 Constant ship speed = 0.3 CMCR 18,460 kW 89.7 rpm

Design point CMCR = R1 18,780 kW, 95 rpm 6RT-flex68-D

Fig. 6: Engine/propeller layouts for a typical Suezmax tanker with a derated seven-cylinder RT-ex68-D engine compared with a six-cylinder engine at the full MCR power and speed. [08#052]

18,000

16,000

CSR 16,614 kW 86.6 rpm

CSR 16,902 kW 91.7 rpm

75

80

85

90

95

100

Engine speed, rpm

Millions US$ 3.0

Bunker price, HFO: $600/tonne $500/tonne $400/tonne

2.0

Fig. 7: Variation of payback times from fuel savings according to bunker costs for the derated engine with an extra cylinder for a typical Suezmax tanker. [08#144]

Investment approx. ($)

1.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Years

Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008

Case 2: Panamax container ship

In this case, a typical Panamax container ship with a container capacity of up to 5000 TEU might be specied with an eight-cylinder Wrtsil RT-ex82C main engine. However, if a nine-cylinder engine is employed instead, the daily fuel consumption can be reduced by some two per cent. In the engine/propeller layout for this ship as shown in gure 8, the CMCR points for the two alternative engines are on the same rating line ( = 0.2) through a common design point for the same ship service speed (knots).
Table 3: Typical ship parameters for a Panamax container ship

The calculation of annual fuel costs given in table 4 is based on 6000 hours running with heavy fuel oil costing US$ 500 per tonne. The resulting payback time for the extra cost associated with the additional engine cylinder is estimated to be between four and seven years depending on the bunker price of US$ 600400 per tonne respectively (Fig. 9). The calculations of the payback are based on an interest rate of eight per cent.

Length overall: Beam: Design draught: Scantling draught: Sea margin: Engine service load:

about 295 32.2 12 13.5 15 90

m m m m % %

Table 4: Main engine options

Alternative engines: Cylinder bore, mm: Piston stroke, mm: Stroke/bore ratio: MCR, kW / rpm: CMCR, kW / rpm: BMEP at CMCR, bar: CSR at 90% CMCR, kW / rpm: BSFC at CMCR, g/kWh: 100% load: 90% load: Daily fuel consumption, tonnes/day: ISO fuel, LCV 42.7 MJ/kg: LCV 40.5 MJ/kg: As percentage, %: Annual fuel costs, US$: Fuel saving, US$: Engine length, mm: Engine mass, tonnes:

8RT-ex82C 820 2646 3.2:1 36,160/102 36,160/102 19.0 32,544/98.5 169.0 166.5 130.0 137.1 100 17,138,000 0 14,055 1020

9RT-ex82C 820 2646 3.2:1 40,680/102 35,480/97.5 17.5 32,250/94.3 166.6 164.6 127.4 134.3 98 2.0% 16,790,000 348,000 16,500 1140

Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008

Case 2: Panamax container ship

Engine power, kW
42,000

40,000

9RT-flex82C 38,000 CMCR 35,850 kW 97.5 rpm Design point CMCR = R1+ 36,160 kW, 102 rpm

Fig. 8: Engine/propeller layouts for a typical Panamax container ship with a derated nine-cylinder RT-ex82C engine compared with an eightcylinder engine at the full MCR power and speed. [08#062]

36,000

Constant ship speed = 0.2

34,000

8RT-flex82C CSR 32,250 kW 94.3 rpm 85 90 95 CSR 32,544 kW 98.5 rpm

32,000 100 105

Engine speed, rpm

Millions US$ 4.0

Bunker price, HFO: $600/tonne

3.0 2.0 1.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

$500/tonne $400/tonne

Fig. 9: Variation of payback times from fuel savings according to bunker costs for the derated engine with an extra cylinder for a typical Panamax container ship. [08#145]

Investment approx. ($)

14 Years

Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008

Case 3: Post-Panamax container ship

In this case, a typical Post-Panamax container ship with a container capacity of around 7000 TEU might be specied with an eleven-cylinder Wrtsil RT-ex96C main engine. However, if a 12-cylinder engine is employed instead, the daily fuel consumption can be reduced by some 2.4 per cent. In the engine/propeller layout for this ship as shown in gure 10, the CMCR points for the two alternative engines are on the same rating line ( = 0.2) through a common design point for the same ship service speed (knots).
Table 5: Typical ship parameters for a Post-Panamax container ship

The calculation of annual fuel costs given in table 6 is based on 6000 hours running with heavy fuel oil costing US$ 500 per tonne. The resulting payback time for the extra cost associated with the additional engine cylinder is estimated to be between two-and-a-half and four years depending on the bunker price of US$ 600 400 per tonne respectively (Fig. 11). The calculations of the payback are based on an interest rate of eight per cent.

Length overall: Beam: Design draught: Scantling draught: Sea margin: Engine service load:

about 325 42.8 13 14.5 15 90

m m m m % %

Table 6: Main engine options

Alternative engines: Cylinder bore, mm: Piston stroke, mm: Stroke/bore ratio: MCR, kW / rpm: CMCR, kW / rpm: BMEP at CMCR, bar: CSR at 90% CMCR, kW / rpm: BSFC at CMCR, g/kWh: 100% load: 90% load: Daily fuel consumption, tonnes/day: ISO fuel, LCV 42.7 MJ/kg: LCV 40.5 MJ/kg: As percentage, %: Annual fuel costs, US$: Fuel saving, US$: Engine length, mm: Engine mass, tonnes:

11RT-ex96C 960 2500 2.6:1 66,330/102 66,330/102 19.6 59,697/98.5 171.0 166.8 239 252 100 31,500,000 0 21,550 1910

12RT-ex96C 960 2500 2.6:1 72,360/102 65,919/98.9 18.4 59,327/95.5 168.0 163.8 233.2 245.9 97.6 2.4% 30,738,000 762,000 23,230 2050

Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008

Case 3: Post-Panamax container ship

Engine power, kW

72,000 12RT-flex96C 70,000 Design point CMCR = R1 66,330 kW, 102 rpm

68,000

Constant ship speed = 0.2

66,000

CMCR 65,919 kW 98.9 rpm

Fig. 10: Engine/propeller layouts for a typical Post-Panamax container ship with a derated 12-cylinder RTex96C engine compared with an 11-cylinder engine at the full MCR power and speed. [08#127]

11RT-flex96C 64,000

62,000

60,000

CSR 59,327 kW 95.5 rpm

58,000 90 95

CSR 59,697 kW 98.5 rpm

100

105

Engine speed, rpm

Millions US$ 8.0 6.0

Bunker price, HFO: $600/tonne $500/tonne $400/tonne

Fig. 11: Variation of payback times from fuel savings according to bunker costs for the derated engine with an extra cylinder for the typical Post-Panamax container ship. [08#146]

4.0 2.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Years

Investment approx. ($)

Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008

Case 4: Derating without adding an engine cylinder

It is also feasible to apply a derated engine to obtain fuel savings in such a way that an additional engine cylinder is not required. An example of this can be seen with the Wrtsil RT-ex50 engine. In October 2007, the D version of this engine was announced, in which the engine power was increased by 5.1 per cent and the BSFC at full-load was reduced by 2 g/kWh compared with the B version. Thus if a -D engine is derated to the same cylinder power output as the original version of the RT-ex50, then the BSFC at full load is reduced by 4.5 g/kWh, or 2.7 per cent (see Table 7). For a typical bulk carrier with a six-cylinder RT-ex50 engine this can translate into annual savings of US$ 124,000 when operating for 6000 running hours a year with heavy fuel oil costing US$ 500 per tonne. Even greater savings are possible if the engine is derated to a lower running speed (rpm) at the derated power to gain the benets of a better propulsion eciency. There are already a number of standard ship designs delivered and on order with RT-ex50-B or even the original RT-ex50 engine. So it would be perfectly feasible to install a derated RT-ex50-D in further newbuildings to the same ship designs and obtain the benet of the substantial savings in operating costs. The overall dimensions of the D version are identical to those of the B and original versions of the RT-ex50. There would, however, be
Table 7: Options for the Wrtsil RT-ex50 engine type

a modest increase in cost of the D version for the higher-eciency turbochargers used, but the extra cost would soon be repaid by the fuel cost savings.

Derating with exibility to full rating

Although derating oers attractive economics, it can be frustrating to buy more engine than seems necessary. Yet there is an interesting option to retain an ability to utilise the full available installed engine power, even up to the full R1 rating for future use to obtain higher ship service speeds. The concept would be to set up the engine for the derated output at the chosen reduced service speed. Then for a later date, the engine could be re-adapted to the higher output. However, this needs corresponding provisions in the selection and design of the propeller, shafting and ancillary equipment to meet the requirements of the envisaged higher power. Furthermore the engine would need to be tested and approved by the Classication Society for both ratings with all the necessary emissions certication.

RT-ex technology as an important contribution to fuel saving

Wrtsil RT-ex technology plays an important role in fuel saving. Wrtsil RT-ex low-speed engines incorporate the latest electronically-controlled common-rail technology for fuel injection and valve actuation. The result is great exibility in engine setting, bringing benets in lower fuel consumption, lower minimum running speeds, smokeless operation

Alternative engines: Cylinder bore, mm: Piston stroke, mm: S/B ratio: MCR, kW / rpm: CMCR, kW / rpm: BMEP at CMCR, bar: CSR at 90% CMCR, kW / rpm: BSFC at CMCR, g/kWh: 100% load: 90% load: Daily fuel consumption, tonnes/day: ISO fuel, LCV 42.7 MJ/kg: LCV 40.5 MJ/kg: As percentage, %: Annual fuel costs, US$: Fuel saving, US$:

6RT-ex50 500 2050 4.1:1 9720/124 9720/124 19.5 8748/119.7 171 167.6 35.2 37.1 100 4,637,000 0
10

6RT-ex50-D 500 2050 4.1:1 10,470/124 9720/124 19.5 8748/119.7 165.7 163.0 34.2 36.2 97.3 2.7% 4,513,000 124,000
Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008

at all running speeds, and better control of other exhaust emissions. Not only do RT-ex engines have a lower partload fuel consumption than RTA engines but they can be adapted through Delta Tuning so that their part-load fuel consumtion is even lower. [1] Owing to the interaction between fuel economy and NOX emissions, there is always the possibility that fuel saving measures will have an impact on NOX emissions. As with all new marine engines nowadays, Wrtsil RTA and RT-ex engines are all fully compliant with the NOX emission regulation of Annexe VI of the MARPOL 1973/78 convention. Moreover, the engines in the Wrtsil portfolio will be adapted to meet the coming IMO NOX reduction level Tier II.

also possibly a higher propeller eciency. It must also not be forgotten that any fuel savings achieved at the ship design stage will have benets in also reducing exhaust emissions. If you have a project for which you wish to explore the fuel-saving possibilities through derating as set out in this paper, then please contact your nearest Wrtsil oce. Our experts will be delighted to calculate various alternatives for your evaluation.

References
1. German Weisser, Fuel saving with RT-ex, Wrtsil Switzerland Ltd, July 2004.

Conclusion
The paper shows that there are techniques to achieve worthwhile reductions in the fuel consumption of Wrtsil low-speed engines when designing newbuildings. The key approach is to use the exibility oered by the full power/speed layout eld to select a better layout point with a lower BSFC and

Published June 2008 by: Wrtsil Switzerland Ltd PO Box 414 CH-8401 Winterthur Tel: +41 52 262 49 22 Fax: +41 52 262 07 18 www.wartsila.com
11 Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008