NEW COST EFFECTIVE WATER INJECTION SYSTEM

FOR MARINE DIESEL ENGINES

By Dr. Anatoly Mezheritsky, P.Eng.

M.A.Turbo/Engine Ltd

Vancouver, BC
Ship emissions are considered by the USA and other
countries authorities as a major global problem that rivals
land-based air pollution sources of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
and acid-rain causing sulphur.

Therefore, each year Governments and Local Regulators

raise the bar for emission compliance a little higher.

EPA has recently enforced NOx regulations proposed by

IMO for new vessels build under American flag.
 Relationship between Water/Fuel Ratio and relative
specific fuel consumption
Relative consumption reduction/increase

1.06
1.04
Economical Zone Penalty Free Zone
1.02 Penalty Zone
1
0.98
0.96
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Water/Fuel Ratio, %
 Theoretical Effect of Water Injection on NOx Formation

50
45
40
35
NOx Reduction, %

30

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Water/Fuel Ratio, %
 Influence of Water Injection on NOx and PM Emissions
40
1 - Cum m ins NTC-350
35
2- Caterpillar 3406E
30
1

25
NOx Reduction, %

20
1 PM
2
15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Water/Fuel Ratio, %
 Influence of Water Injection on Specific Fuel Consumption
2.5
1 - Cummins NTC-350

2 2 - Cat. 3406E
SFC Reduction/Increase, %

1
1.5

2
1

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40
-0.5
Water/Fuel Ratio, %
 Influence of Water Injection on Exhaust Gas Temperature
30
1 - Cummins NTC-350

25 2 - Cat. 3406E
Exh. Gas Temp. Reduction, °C

2
20

15
1

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Water/Fuel Ratio, %
 Emission Reduction on the Ferry of New Westminster
25
1 – NOx 2
R = 0.9839
2 – PM

20
Emissions Reduction (%)

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Water Flow (L/min)
 NOx Reduction versus WFR
(Bebedouro, main engine)
25

20
NOx Reduction, %

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Water/Fuel Ratio, %
 NOx Reduction versus WFR
(Bebedouro, auxiliary Wartsila engine)
35

30

25
NOx Reduction, %

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Water/Fuel Ratio, %
 M/V BEBEDOURO
140,030
140 163,324
4
3.5
REGULAR TREND
3
Max wear, mm

NEW TREND
2.5
2
ACTUAL WEAR RATE (with WIS installed)
1.5
1

0.5
0
60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000
M.E. total run hours
 Influence of Water Injection on NOx Emissions
Detroit naturally aspirated engine, ferry Oski
3000
1 - wit hout wat er inject ion
2500 2 - wit h wat er inject ion
NOx Concentration, ppm

2000

1500
1
1000

500
2
0
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Engine RPM
Influence of water injection on NOx and fuel consumption; ferry New
Westminster, 3508 Caterpillar auxiliary engine

REDUCTION, %
Water/Fuel
Load, kW
Ratio, %
Fuel consumption NOx Emission

200 3.26 27.05 30.13

210 3.12 26.01 29.29

220 3.17 25.80 28.46

230 3.26 25.50 27.96

250 3.39 25.00 26.83

 Algoma Central Marine engines retrofitted with WIS
Engine

Vessel Main Auxiliary

Power, Power,
Type RPM Type RPM
HP HP

Peter R. MAK
4,800 500
Cresswell 6M552

10PC2V Cat
Algosoo 5,350 500 1,000 1,200
MK2 D399

Sulzer
Algocape 9,600 119
6RD76

Notes:
1.Peter R Cresswell and Algosoo are equipped with two main engines, while Algocape has one main
engine.
2.Algosoo has three auxiliary engines. WIS was retrofitted to all engines.
 Algoma Central Marine engines test results
Weighted NOx, g/kW-hr IMO/EPA
WFR
Vessel Engine standard
Without %
With g/kW-h
water water

Algocape Sulzer 6RD76 17.7 (+) 16.2 (-) 17.0 9.7

Pielstick
10PC2V

STBD
14.2 (+) 12.7 (-) 13.5 10.0
Algosoo
PORT 14.2 (+) 2.8 (-) 13.5 10.0

Cat. D399 8.4 (-) 8.10 (-) 10.9 3.2

MAK 6M552
Peter R.
Cresswell
STBD 13.6 (+) 12.6 (-) 13.0 8.4

PORT 13.7 (+) 12.4 (-) 13.0 10.2

Notes: (+) means results are above IMO/EPA standards;

(-) means results are below IMO/EPA standards
Decrease in turbocharger efficiency by 1 per cent results in the following
(under constant engine power):

Supercharged air pressure decreases by 1-2%;

Exhaust gas temperature increases by 30-5%;

Exhaust gas emissions increases by 0.5-1.0%;

Specific fuel consumption increases by 0.2- 0.4%

 P, kg/cm^2 0.7

0.6 Pmax = 0.62 kg/cm2

Increase
0.53 kg/cm 2
0.5 0.12 kg/cm 2
P = 0.5 kg/cm 2
0.4
1 11 21 1 11 21 1 11 21 31
400
390
380 T = 368 °C
370 360 °C
T, °C

360 Decrease
350 26 °C
340
330 Tmin = 342 °C
320
310
1 11 21 1 11 21 1 11 21 31

169
167 GF = 165.3 g/hp-h
GF , g/hph

165 163.51 g/hp-h

163 Decrease
161 5.2 g/hp-h
159 GFmin = 160.1 g/hp-h
157
155
1 11 21 1 11 21 1 11 21 31
Feb. - May, 1999 June July - October, 1999
Engine Performance Before Engine Performance After Overhaul
Overhaul (deposits are not
removed) Overhaul Period
(removal of deposits from Turbo,
Aftercooler, Air Manifold, etc.)

Auxiliary Engine Yanmar 6GL-DT

 M/V Bebedouro.
Main Engine Sulzer 4RTA58
19.4 Gf, tonne/day
19.2
Tc, ˚C
380
370
80 ∆PAC
70
2.3 Ps, Kg/cm2
2.1

May, 01 April, 02
Calculation of simple pay-back period for ferry Queen of New Westminster
Savings due to WIS operation
Total operational main engines power - 16,000HP
Average fuel consumption for main engines – 6,640t/year @ $460/tonne.
Cost of fuel for main engines $3,054,400/year
Savings for main engines due to WIS (1.4%, based on ERMD test results) -
$42,760/year
Average fuel consumption for three auxiliary engines – 600t/year @ 460/tonne
Savings for auxiliary engines due to WIS– $5,500/year
Total fuel savings - $48,200/year
Spare parts savings due to reduced exhaust gas temperature (estimated) -
$6,000/year
Reduction of maintenance cost due to clean air coolers, manifolds, etc. (estimated) -
$7,000/year
Total savings - $61,200/year

Expenditures
CWI System cost including installation (for four main and three auxiliary engines) -
$90,000
Cost of water supply- $2,500/year (BC Ferries data)
Spare cartridges - $ 1,200/year
Total expenditures - $93,700
Simple back period: 93,700/61,200 = 1.5 year =18 months
 Specific Cost of Different NOx Control Technologies

100
Cu rre n t Marke t (direct water
90 injection, catalytic converters, SCR,
EGR, HAM, etc.)
80
70
Specific Cost, $/hp

60
Fuel/Water Emulsification
50
40
Sea Water
M.A. Turbo/Engine
30
Technology
20
Demineralized
10 Water

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

NOx Reduction, %
 Benefits of Water Injection Technology
¾ Increased efficiency of the combustion process
and reduced fuel consumption up to 5%
¾ Exhaust gases temperature reduction up to
25°C
¾ Reduced formation of NOx up to 30% and
smoke emission up to 20%
¾ Reduction in peak combustion temperature
¾ Minimized thermal stresses on the engine
components
¾ Prevention of carbon buildup on the cylinder
walls, turbochargers, air coolers, suction valves,
scavenging manifolds, etc.
¾ Increased overhaul period
¾ Reduced maintenance cost up to 25%