Derating: a solution for

high fuel savings and lower emissions

Rudolf Wettstein
1
& David Brown
2 -
Wrtsil Switzerland Ltd, Winterthur -
Summary
Tis paper sets out ways to achieve worthwhile reductions in the fuel consumption of Wrtsil low-speed engines
when designing newbuildings. Te 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.
Engine power, %R1
Engine speed, %R1
100
90
100
80
70
60
90 80 70
R1
R2
R3
R4
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
BSFC
g/kWh
Higher propulsive
efficiency
Lower
specific
fuel
consumption
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

t
o
r
q
u
e

l
i
n
e

Rx
Fig. 1: Typical layout eld for RTA and RT-ex engines. Te
contracted maximum continuous rating (CMCR) can be
selected at any point, such as Rx, within the layout eld. Te
BSFC is the reduction in full-load BSFC for any rating
point Rx relative to that at the R1 rating.
[08#044]
Introduction
Fuel eciency and environmental friendliness are
high on the list of requirements for ship propulsion
engines from todays shipping- and shipbuilding
industries. Tus 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.
Te concept of the power/speed layout eld for
low-speed marine diesel engines originated in the
1970s. Te 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). Te 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). Te extended elds
oer widened exibility to select the most ecient
propeller speed for lowest daily fuel consumption,
and the most economic propulsion equipment,
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. Tus 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).
Te other principle behind the layout eld is
1-
Rudolf Wettstein is Director, Marketing &
Application Development, Ship Power, Wrtsil
Switzerland Ltd.
2-
David Brown is Manager, Marketing Support,
Wrtsil Switzerland Ltd.
1 Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008 -
Engine power, %R1
Engine speed, %R1
R1+
R2+
R3
R4
100
100
90
80
90 80
R1
R2
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]
Engine power, %R1
Engine speed, %R1
100
90
100
80
70
60
90 80 70
R1
R2
R3
R4
Rx2
Rx1
Rating line
slope =
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. 4: Since the 1980s engine ratings have been selected over
a steadily smaller area of the layout eld. -
[08#051] -
Engine power, %R1
Engine speed, %R1
100
90
100
80
70
60
90 80 70
R1
R2
R3
R4
Area of recent
CMCR selection
Area of CMCR
selection in
the 1980s
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
line (Fig. 3). Tis 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. Te 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. Te 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).
Te 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.
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 -
100
200
300
400
500
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Bunker price, US$/tonne
380cSt HFO
Fig. 5: Bunker prices have considerably increased in recent times. Te chart shows the average price of 380 cSt heavy fuel oil (HFO)
from various ports around the world from 2004 to 2008. Te green bars indicate the mean price for each year. -
- [08#045]
lower fuel consumption.
However, under the pressure of rst costs and
softening bunker prices the strategy was changed and
the selected power/speed combination has, during
the past 15 years or so, been selected to be closer to
the R1 rating (Fig. 4).
Yet, more recently, bunker prices have steadily
climbed, rising by some 85 per cent in the course of
2007 from US$ 270 to US$ 500 per tonne (Fig. 5).
Te 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. Tey can also
justify additional investment cost such as selecting
an engine with an extra cylinder. Te 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 CO
2
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 NO
X
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.
Tese 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.
Te four case studies are for a Suezmax tanker,
a Capesize bulk carrier, a Panamax container ship
and a Post-Panamax container ship. Tey include
estimations of the respective pay-back times for the
additional engine costs.
3 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).
Te calculation of annual fuel costs given in table
2 is based on 6000 hours running with heavy fuel oil
costing US$ 500 per tonne.
Te 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). Te 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.
Table 1: Typical ship parameters for a Suezmax tanker
Length overall: about 274 m
Beam: 4650 m
Design draught: 16 m
Scantling draught: 17 m
Sea margin: 15 %
Engine service load: 90 %
Table 2: Main engine options -
Alternative engines: 6RT-ex68-D 7RT-ex68-D
Cylinder bore, mm: 680 680
Piston stroke, mm: 2720 2720
Stroke/bore ratio: 4:1 4:1
MCR, kW / rpm: 18,780/95 21,910/95
CMCR, kW / rpm: 18,780/95 18,460/89.7
BMEP at CMCR, bar: 20.0 17.9
CSR at 90% CMCR, kW/rpm: 16,902/91.7 16,614/86.6
BSFC at CMCR, g/kWh:
100% load: 169.0 164.8
90% load: 165.6 162.6
Daily fuel consumption, tonnes/day:
ISO fuel, LCV 42.7 MJ/kg: 67.2 64.8
LCV 40.5 MJ/kg: 70.8 68.4
As percentage, %: 100 96.6 3.4%
Annual fuel costs, US$: 8,853,000 8,544,000
Fuel saving, US$: 0 309,000
Engine length, mm: 8690 9870
Engine mass, tonnes: 472 533
4 Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008 -
7RT-flex68-D
= 0.3
Constant ship speed
CMCR
18,460 kW
Design point
CMCR = R1
18,780 kW, 95 rpm
6RT-flex68-D
89.7 rpm
CSR
CSR
16,902 kW
16,614 kW
86.6 rpm
91.7 rpm
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]
Engine power, kW
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
75 80 85 90
Engine speed, rpm
95 100
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]
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
Millions US$
Bunker price, HFO:
$600/tonne
$500/tonne
$400/tonne
Investment approx. ($)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Years
Case 1: Suezmax tanker & Capesize bulk carrier -
5 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).
Te calculation of annual fuel costs given in table
4 is based on 6000 hours running with heavy fuel oil
costing US$ 500 per tonne.
Te 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). Te calculations of the
payback are based on an interest rate of eight per
cent.
Table 3: Typical ship parameters for a Panamax
container ship
Length overall: about 295 m
Beam: 32.2 m
Design draught: 12 m
Scantling draught: 13.5 m
Sea margin: 15 %
Engine service load: 90 %
Table 4: Main engine options
Alternative engines: 8RT-ex82C 9RT-ex82C
Cylinder bore, mm: 820 820
Piston stroke, mm: 2646 2646
Stroke/bore ratio: 3.2:1 3.2:1
MCR, kW / rpm: 36,160/102 40,680/102
CMCR, kW / rpm: 36,160/102 35,480/97.5
BMEP at CMCR, bar: 19.0 17.5
CSR at 90% CMCR, kW / rpm: 32,544/98.5 32,250/94.3
BSFC at CMCR, g/kWh:
100% load: 169.0 166.6
90% load: 166.5 164.6
Daily fuel consumption, tonnes/day:
ISO fuel, LCV 42.7 MJ/kg: 130.0 127.4
LCV 40.5 MJ/kg: 137.1 134.3
As percentage, %: 100 98 2.0%
Annual fuel costs, US$: 17,138,000 16,790,000
Fuel saving, US$: 0 348,000
Engine length, mm: 14,055 16,500
Engine mass, tonnes: 1020 1140
6 Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008 -
Fig. 8: Engine/propeller layouts for a
typical Panamax container ship with
a derated nine-cylinder RT-ex82C
engine compared with an eight-
cylinder engine at the full MCR
power and speed.
[08#062]
Engine power, kW
42,000
40,000
38,000
36,000
34,000
32,000
85
8RT-flex82C
9RT-flex82C
= 0.2
Constant ship speed
90 95 100 105
Engine speed, rpm
CMCR
35,850 kW
97.5 rpm
Design point
CMCR = R1+
36,160 kW, 102 rpm
CSR
32,544 kW
98.5 rpm
CSR
32,250 kW
94.3 rpm
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]
Millions US$
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
Bunker price, HFO:
$600/tonne
$500/tonne
$400/tonne
Investment approx. ($)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Years
Case 2: Panamax container ship -
7 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).
Te calculation of annual fuel costs given in table
6 is based on 6000 hours running with heavy fuel oil
costing US$ 500 per tonne.
Te 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). Te calculations
of the payback are based on an interest rate of eight
per cent.
Table 5: Typical ship parameters for a Post-Panamax
container ship
Length overall: about 325 m
Beam: 42.8 m
Design draught: 13 m
Scantling draught: 14.5 m
Sea margin: 15 %
Engine service load: 90 %
Table 6: Main engine options -
Alternative engines: 11RT-ex96C 12RT-ex96C
Cylinder bore, mm: 960 960
Piston stroke, mm: 2500 2500
Stroke/bore ratio: 2.6:1 2.6:1
MCR, kW / rpm: 66,330/102 72,360/102
CMCR, kW / rpm: 66,330/102 65,919/98.9
BMEP at CMCR, bar: 19.6 18.4
CSR at 90% CMCR, kW / rpm: 59,697/98.5 59,327/95.5
BSFC at CMCR, g/kWh:
100% load: 171.0 168.0
90% load: 166.8 163.8
Daily fuel consumption, tonnes/day:
ISO fuel, LCV 42.7 MJ/kg: 239 233.2
LCV 40.5 MJ/kg: 252 245.9
As percentage, %: 100 97.6 2.4%
Annual fuel costs, US$: 31,500,000 30,738,000
Fuel saving, US$: 0 762,000
Engine length, mm: 21,550 23,230
Engine mass, tonnes: 1910 2050
8 Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008 -
Fig. 10: Engine/propeller layouts for
a typical Post-Panamax container
ship with a derated 12-cylinder RT-
ex96C engine compared with an
11-cylinder engine at the full MCR
power and speed.
[08#127]
Engine power, kW
72,000
70,000
68,000
66,000
64,000
62,000
60,000
58,000
Engine speed, rpm
90 95 100 105
11RT-flex96C
12RT-flex96C
= 0.2
Constant ship speed
CSR
59,697 kW
98.5 rpm
CMCR
65,919 kW
98.9 rpm
Design point
CMCR = R1
66,330 kW, 102 rpm
CSR
59,327 kW
95.5 rpm
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]
Millions US$
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0
Bunker price, HFO:
$600/tonne
$500/tonne
$400/tonne
Investment approx. ($)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Years
Case 3: Post-Panamax container ship -
9 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.
Tus 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.
Tere 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. Te overall dimensions of the D
version are identical to those of the B and original
versions of the RT-ex50. Tere would, however, be
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.
Te concept would be to set up the engine for
the derated output at the chosen reduced service
speed. Ten 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. Te result is great exibility in engine
setting, bringing benets in lower fuel consumption,
lower minimum running speeds, smokeless operation
Table 7: Options for the Wrtsil RT-ex50 engine type
Alternative engines: 6RT-ex50 6RT-ex50-D
Cylinder bore, mm: 500 500
Piston stroke, mm: 2050 2050
S/B ratio: 4.1:1 4.1:1
MCR, kW / rpm: 9720/124 10,470/124
CMCR, kW / rpm: 9720/124 9720/124
BMEP at CMCR, bar: 19.5 19.5
CSR at 90% CMCR, kW / rpm: 8748/119.7 8748/119.7
BSFC at CMCR, g/kWh:
100% load: 171 165.7
90% load: 167.6 163.0
Daily fuel consumption, tonnes/day:
ISO fuel, LCV 42.7 MJ/kg: 35.2 34.2
LCV 40.5 MJ/kg: 37.1 36.2
As percentage, %: 100 97.3 2.7%
Annual fuel costs, US$: 4,637,000 4,513,000
Fuel saving, US$: 0 124,000
10 Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008 -
at all running speeds, and better control of other
exhaust emissions.
Not only do RT-ex engines have a lower part-
load 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 NO
X
emissions, there is always the possibility
that fuel saving measures will have an impact on
NO
X
emissions. As with all new marine engines
nowadays, Wrtsil RTA and RT-ex engines are all
fully compliant with the NO
X
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 NO
X
reduction
level Tier II.
Conclusion
Te paper shows that there are techniques to achieve
worthwhile reductions in the fuel consumption
of Wrtsil low-speed engines when designing
newbuildings. Te 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
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.
11 Wrtsil Corporation, June 2008 -
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