turbochargers conference review
Turbochargers are reliable, albeit sensitive machinery
Contrary to popular perception, turbochargers are not the weakest link in the machinery chain. However, single-stage turbocharging may have reached the limits of its technical application
D
ay one of the Riviera Maritime Media World Turbocharger Conference was characterised by lively debate with the
concept of two-stage turbocharging proving a notable talking point. The event was held for the second time in Hamburg in association with ABB. Christoph Rofka, ABB Turbo Systems, set the
scene for the first day with initial views covering future opportunities for two-stage turbocharging and the need for more bespoke turbocharging solutions to meet future engine requirements. Further presentations reinforced these views but with the options for aftertreatment also being outlined. A lively debate followed, covering these issues and aspects such as the reliability of turbocharging equipment. The Shipowners/Ship Operators’ Forum
panel session produced diverse views on condition based monitoring (CBM) and the use of reverse-engineered parts. Owners and operators were in broad agreement that CBM technology was of potential benefit, but effectiveness was highly dependent upon the approach of chief engineers. The overall view was that CBM did not substitute the benefits derived from competent equipment operation and correct maintenance. Chief engineer, Stephen Balls of Mexican operator Cotemar pointed out the dangers of “information overload” and also that the benefits of CBM could be limited by the ability of the crew to take action on the data. There was also limited enthusiasm for the use of reverse-engineered parts although some views expressed by delegates were much more supportive, especially where proper due diligence on the parts had been carried out. Comments regarding turbocharger failure
modes were again raised and impeller wheel failures were highlighted as an issue alongside bearing problems. Positive views regarding improvements in turbocharger reliability were nevertheless maintained as were those on the
www.tankershipping.com
benefits of turbocharger upgrades for older engine types. The first afternoon session covered developments including the Mitsui Turbo- Hydraulic energy recovery system and the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MET-MAG products. This provided further focus to the important aspect of energy efficiency in marine propulsion equipment. Markus Kahi of ABB Turbo Systems then delivered a clear picture of single stage turbocharging systems and the practical limitations of these products. He informed the packed auditorium that “the A100 Series products would be the company’s last single stage development”. Remaining on a practical perspective, Tero Raikio, manager of turbocharger systems, Wärtsilä, emphasised the detailed aspects of turbocharger and engine integration important for successful application and reliable field operation. “Good turbocharger vibration characteristics and minimum use of pipework will limit the potential for field failures,” he said. The final session of the first day provided
delegates with comprehensive views on current and future turbocharging requirements, given by a panel of experts representing engine manufacturers. An earlier show of hands had indicated a majority view that two- stage turbocharging was inevitable for future applications but a partially contrasting view emerged, suggesting that there was still potential for single stage configurations combined with exhaust aftertreatment. The debate continued, covering topics such as use of gas fuels in emission control areas and the opportunities for flexibility of operation between areas with different emissions limits. The second day of the conference saw
opening presentations on the ABB valve control management system (VCM) and the MAN Diesel and Turbo energy recovery systems, which were stated as capable of delivering payback on investment in 2 to 4 years. A clear picture of the ABB technology was provided and the benefits which it can deliver in fuel consumption and Nox reduction. Klaus Buchmann of KBB then covered the company’s solutions for IMO I and II products paying specific attention to detailed rotordynamic and burst containment work carried out on ST27 products. He then continued, covering progress on two-stage products. “Draft designs are now available and testing will start in the second quarter of 2012.
IMO Tier III requirements were scrutinised at the conference
First engine testing will commence in the third quarter of 2012”. As was expected, the service and maintenance
session stimulated an enthralling debate. Simon Laerke of A.P. Moller-Maersk demonstrated the prompt and structured approach that the company had taken to address slow steaming operation. As a result of this work, the support of engine manufacturers had been secured and no difficulties had been found with equipment operation. Napier Turbochargers evaluation of the risks of using non-original parts - always a contentious issue - ignited several pointed exchanges in the open question and answer session. The example given was for an impeller and from evidence presented Ian Pinkney, chief design engineer, Napier Turbochargers, the use of non-original parts “….will result in increase operating costs as well as performance issues and failure risks”. The final presentation covered turbocharger failure. Kay Wetzel, staff surveyor, Association of Hanseatic Marine Underwriters (VHT) provided considerable comfort for manufacturers in pointing out that many turbocharger failures were consequential and some mechanisms, such as bearing failures, had seen a noticeable reduction in recent years. The final Turbocharger OEM panel again saw
debate on the risks of complexity introduced by future products. The consensus was that the limits of single stage turbocharging had now been reached. A bold view from ABB’s Christoff Rofka was that “engine manufacturers who do not progress with two-stage turbocharging will find themselves in a different league”. TST
Tanker Shipping & Trade I October/November 2011 I 53
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68