109,000hp engine

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
M

marcoh

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2012
Messages
55
Location
australia
Not really relevant to the engines used in the boats in this forum, but still interesting. What is impressive is the specific fuel consumption compared to typical diesel engines and the efficiency these mammoth engines can achieve

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/01/08/45014/



Configuration Turbocharged two-stroke diesel straight engine, 6 to 14 cylinders
Bore 37.75 inch (960 mm)
Stroke 8.4 feet (2,500 mm)
Displacement 111,063 CI (1,820 litres) per cylinder
Engine speed 22–102 RPM
Mean effective pressure 1.96 MPa @ full load, 1.37 MPa @ maximum efficiency (85% load)
Mean piston speed 8.5 meters per second
Specific fuel consumption 171 g/(kW·h)
Power Up to 5,720 kW per cylinder, 34,320–80,080 kW (46,680–108,920 BHP) total
Torque Up to 7,603,850 newton metres (5,608,310 lbf·ft) @ 102 rpm
Power density 29.6 to 34.8 kW per tonne, 2300 tonnes for the 14-cylinder version
Mass of fuel injected per cylinder per cycle ~160 g (about 6.5 ounces) @ full load(Whole motor uses up to 250 tons of fuel per day.)
Crankshaft weight 300 tons[
Piston weight 5.5 tons
Piston Height 20 feet

535163_644438215699330_1849910960418242898_n.jpg
 
Wouldn't want to be the guy that checks the tire pressures on that trailer.
 
Something else that really surprised me is that 14 of these engines operating all year will emit more pollution than all of the cars in the world combined.

The bunker oil they use is cheap, currently around $262/tonne (I guess when you are using 250 tonnes/day, litres or gallons are just not significant) but the sulphur content of bunker oil is around 2000 times of normal gas/diesel so the sulphur dioxide emissions are huge.
 
Yeah, that's a great big engine and all, but what kind of anchor does he use?
 
marcoh said:
Something else that really surprised me is that 14 of these engines operating all year will emit more pollution than all of the cars in the world combined.

The bunker oil they use is cheap, currently around $262/tonne (I guess when you are using 250 tonnes/day, litres or gallons are just not significant) but the sulphur content of bunker oil is around 2000 times of normal gas/diesel so the sulphur dioxide emissions are huge.
Click to expand...

Still insignificant compared to one volcanic eruption which put out more than all of human history combined.
 
Just played with some numbers. Depending on density of the fuel, came up with about 25 to 27hp per gph. A good little marine engine in the 400hp class at best is 20-21hp per gph. BTU/lb of that heavy fuel is probably a good bit higher than diesel, so that would have some effect.
 
"BTU/lb of that heavy fuel is probably a good bit higher than diesel, so that would have some effect."

Good point , one of the reasons diesels seem to be more efficient than gas , heavy fuel.

The heavy bunker fuel may have sand, pebbles and other items in every ton, and has to be heated just to get it to flow.
 
QB said:
What is the source of your information?

Because this: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014003/media/erl441620suppdata.pdf

And this: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/emissions_0207.pdf

...together indicate that the yearly SO2 output from anthropogenic sources is greater than from any single volcanic eruption in the last century.
Click to expand...

So "yearly SO2 output from anthropogenic sources is greater than from any SINGLE volcanic eruption in the last century."

So you are comparing anthro emissions to a single eruption. Are there not hundreds of eruptions worldwide each year? Some going on near continuously? Is that sneaky wording quoted or a mis-type?
 
Ski in NC said:
Just played with some numbers. Depending on density of the fuel, came up with about 25 to 27hp per gph. A good little marine engine in the 400hp class at best is 20-21hp per gph. BTU/lb of that heavy fuel is probably a good bit higher than diesel, so that would have some effect.
Click to expand...

Funny your should bring this up. Earlier today I went looking at BTU/gal to see what the difference is. #2 diesel is 139,000 btu/gal, and #6 fuel is 152,000/gal. So it accounts for about 10% of the specific fuel consumption improvement, but the rest is the engine. A typical diesel burns around 230 g/kwh, where this monster only burns 171 g/kwh.
 
Owner of the tug company I used to work for opined that roughly one gal of fuel is burned per day (24 hours) per horsepower. Some of their bigger tugs are between 3-5000HP so roughly that much fuel a day is burned in gallons, while towing. They have big tanks too. This was nearly 20 years ago mind you.
 
Ski in NC said:
So "yearly SO2 output from anthropogenic sources is greater than from any SINGLE volcanic eruption in the last century."

So you are comparing anthro emissions to a single eruption. Are there not hundreds of eruptions worldwide each year? Some going on near continuously? Is that sneaky wording quoted or a mis-type?
Click to expand...

Here you go, from the USGS;

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
Click to expand...
Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

Gotta love the Internet ;)
 
We were talking SO2, not CO2.
 
Ski in NC said:
So you are comparing anthro emissions to a single eruption. Are there not hundreds of eruptions worldwide each year? Some going on near continuously? Is that sneaky wording quoted or a mis-type?
Click to expand...

Ski, I was replying to Warwgn who claimed that "one volcanic eruption put out more than all of human history combined".

Still waiting to hear what his source was for that claim.
 
But according to USGS, human activities release at least a hundred times more CO2 every year than all the world’s volcanoes combined.

Since this is said human activities I assume (I know it's dangerous) that includes exhaling. Therefore I have pledged to stop breathing for at least one minute every hour. This way I will not be contributing to the excessive Co2. :angel:
 
Back to the engine...

From my marine engineering source.....

Concerning energy content.....

The engine only cares about the weight of the fuel, that is what specific fuel consumption is about. That is why BSFC is given in g/kWh or lb/hph All this talk about gallons is nonsense. Since petroleum volume changes considerably with temperature and a gallon is not the same volume in all countries it is not used to measure power production.

Also a slight correction.....

"BTU/lb of that heavy fuel is probably a good bit higher than diesel, so that would have some effect."

It has a BTU content of between around 18500 to a bit less than 20000 BTU/LB which is the same as ULSD and maybe a bit less than gasoline.

That engine typically burns what is called IFO 380, an "intermediate fuel oil" which is a mix of heavy fuel oil and a distillate like diesel fuel.

It is thick at room temperature but will usually flow like lube oil. It has a maximum pour point around 30*C or about 85*F and a minimum of around 0*C or 32*F. It is warmed to transfer more easily and is heated to around 250*F to reach about the same viscosity as SAE 40 motor oil just before being delivered to the injectors.

It is most certainly not full of sand, rocks, and pebbles.
 
psneeld said:
Back to the engine...

From my marine engineering source.....

Concerning energy content.....

The engine only cares about the weight of the fuel, that is what specific fuel consumption is about. That is why BSFC is given in g/kWh or lb/hph All this talk about gallons is nonsense. Since petroleum volume changes considerably with temperature and a gallon is not the same volume in all countries it is not used to measure power production.

Also a slight correction.....

"BTU/lb of that heavy fuel is probably a good bit higher than diesel, so that would have some effect."

It has a BTU content of between around 18500 to a bit less than 20000 BTU/LB which is the same as ULSD and maybe a bit less than gasoline.

That engine typically burns what is called IFO 380, an "intermediate fuel oil" which is a mix of heavy fuel oil and a distillate like diesel fuel.

It is thick at room temperature but will usually flow like lube oil. It has a maximum pour point around 30*C or about 85*F and a minimum of around 0*C or 32*F. It is warmed to transfer more easily and is heated to around 250*F to reach about the same viscosity as SAE 40 motor oil just before being delivered to the injectors.

It is most certainly not full of sand, rocks, and pebbles.
Click to expand...

Very cool. Thanks for the research.

So does that mean that all the efficiency gain is from the engine's design? And if so, where does it come from?
 
Thanks but not my research... RickB tutors me on a lot of things so I pass useful tidbits along....:D
 
Yep, BSFC uses terms of weight, so density and gallons does not come into play. I just put it in terms of hp/gph as the magic 20hp/gph is the benchmark for our little engines. Serious engineers stick with g/kWh.

20hp/gph is about 213g/kWh, the big beast is 171g/kWh. My little VW car at absolute best sweet spot on BSFC chart is 196g/kWh.

As engines get larger, it is easier to get better efficiency. As cylinder gets bigger, displacement increases faster than metal surface area, so a smaller fraction of the combustion heat is lost to heat transfer to relatively cooler metal. Flow losses less due to having more time to move gasses around.

Also, the design goals focus on longevity and efficiency, on little engines cost and performance are more primary.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Mainship 2006 34T for sale
Replies
0
Views
2K
Roger L
R
G
Power ratings and a new engine decision: Need some help
Replies
26
Views
3K
OldDan1943
OldDan1943
Deborah Ann
  • Locked
Thompson 34 Offshore Trawler for sale
Replies
4
Views
3K
Deborah Ann
Deborah Ann
K
Ford Lehman Fuel Consumption after Overhaul
Replies
24
Views
6K
Kenhuse
K
R
WOT RPM range - Why?
Replies
11
Views
2K
rslifkin
R

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom