Marine Technology, Vol. 19, No. 2, April 1982, pp.

185-196

Experience with Heavy Fuel

Shigeo Mori 1
Beginning in the fall of 1973, the oil crisis created a drastic worldwide change in thinking about oil resources. At the June 1979 OPEC meeting in Geneva, the price of oil was raised substantially, to some 20
U.S. dollars per barrel, and further forecasted to zoom up to more than 30 U.S. dollars in 1980. According
to our study of a 10 000-dwt cargo vessel, the fuel oil cost--even in 1976--already constituted approximately 50 to 60 percent of the overall operating cost (excluding capital costs). In order to combat this undesirable development, the marine diesel engine is strongly needed to materialize energy savings from every
possible angle, and various measures for this purpose have been vigorously advanced. One approach is
the use of heavy fuel instead of the more expensive diesel oil, and this paper introduces one company's
experiences with this energy-saving method, especially in the following items: (1) Heavy fuel limitations-engine types suitable to burn up to 1500 sec and UE engines up to 3500 sec; (2) engine room fuel system
and accessories needed for up to 1500 sec and those for up to 3500 sec; (3) problems still being encountered with heavy fuel; (4) maintenance intervals and w e a r factors compared with running on diesel fuel; and
(5) operation cost savings. Finally, an example is given of a slow-speed diesel versus a medium-speed twin
engine installation for a pusher tug of less than 300 G/T (tug/barge system).

Introduction
FROM the very moment in the fall of 1973 when the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) agreed to decide both
the selling amount and the price ofoil by their own will, the oilconsuming nations of the world were plunged into a severe oil
shock. Even prior to the oil crisis, it was well known t h a t oil resources were limited. People were powerfully aware of the importance of oil, and the crisis deepened further their understanding of the situation as they actually faced not only the expensive price of gasoline for cars and oil for home heat, b u t also
the difficulty of obtaining such fuels.
Furthermore, at the OPEC meeting at Geneva in June 1979
the oil price was raised to some 20 U.S. dollars per barrel and
forecasted to increase further to some $30 by 1980.
As an example of the impact of skyrocketing oil prices, the fuel
oil cost for a 10 000-dwt cargo vessel powered by our 6200-bhp
UE engine burning 1500 sec (Redwood No. I at 100F) heavy fuel
accounted f o r - - e v e n in 1976--approximately 50 to 60 percent
of the overall operating cost (excluding capital costs), according
to the results of an in-house investigation (see Fig. 1).
It is clear t h a t the growing impact of the fuel cost problem on
shipowners, operators, engine manufacturers, and others in the
maritime industry will not disappear. It is also clear that marine
diesel engines are a vital resource to exploit energy savings in
many ways. Accordingly, research and development for this
purpose has been vigorously advanced in marine communities
throughout the world, and the present paper is a record of the
author's experiences with one aspect of this movement, namely,
the use of heavy fuel.

Principal fuel-saving measures for total ship

From the point of view of a total ship, the major actions to take
for energy saving are as follows:
1. To increase the thermal efficiency of the engine itself and
subsequently to reduce the specific fuel oil consumption.
1 General manager, Technical Department, Akasaka Diesels Limited,
Tokyo, Japan.
Presented at the April 18, i980 meeting of the Gulf Section of THE
SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS.

APRIL 1982

2. To develop an engine which can cope with the burning of

a heavier fuel without any particular difficulty in operation or
maintenance and, finally, to produce the merit of fuel cost differential.
3. To increase propulsive efficiency by lowering propeller
speed and thus to lower fuel oil consumption per ship speed.
4. To give impetus to the effective utilization of waste heat
and thereby to decrease total loss energy.
5. To carry out slow-speed operation, case by case, or to
maintain the engine via the diagnostic method and eventually
continue highly efficient engine operation for a long time.
When dealing with energy saving problems, all of the preceding
steps should be thoroughly discussed. This short paper, however,
introduces only our experience with heavy fuel, relating in particular to the heavy fuel limitations of our manufactured engines,
the engine room fuel system and accessories; problems still being
encountered with heavy fuel; maintenance intervals and wear
factors compared with running on diesel oil; and, finally, an example of merit calculation of a slow-speed diesel engine operating
on heavy fuel.

Heavy fuel limitations

Burning a heavier fuel in diesel engines creates problems;
therefore the engine manufacturer has to specify fuel characteristic limits in order to preserve operational reliability, easy
maintenance and long service life of his engine parts. Basically,
the smaller the engine bore and the higher the engine revolutions,
the more difficult it is to burn a heavier fuel.
Tables 1 and 2 give the heavy-fuel limitations for the Akasaka
4-stroke and 2-stroke UE engines, respectively. The data in these
tables are classified only by viscosity base; however, viscosity
itself is no longer a criterion for fuel quality, but determines the
complicated fuel system and accessories of fuel heating and
handling required. Contaminant levels are of decisive importance
in burning heavy fuel. The allowable contaminant levels, given
in Table 3, are based our practical experience and consideration
of future trends in heavy fuels. However, these limitations are
not applicable to small engines which require the use of heavy
fuel less than 1500 sec.

0025-3316/82/1902-0185500.49/0

185

(Asof 1976)

I Transportation Cost I

[ Operation Cost I
I
(F) ... Fuel cost
(F) ... Port & stevedoring

[Direct ship Cost I

(Cw) ... Crew wages & victual
(R) .... Repair cost
(C) .... Consumable parts cost

charge

(L) .... Lubricant cost

(F) = 43.5%~

(F) = 54.1%

"~

...................

~rect

shipCo!i~~"

~eet shipJst,': 4"kO?~/~r~

Vessel A

Vessel

Ol~bcr$

o.o6
Vessel C

Fig. I

ship Cost = 40.q ~,2 om~r~

Model analysis

Operating cost of 10 O00-dwt-class vessel (excluding capital or indirect ship

costs)

R e c o m m e n d e d e n g i n e room fuel system and

accessories
Figure 2 is a diagram of a suggested engine room fuel system.
Heavy fuel is pumped by a transfer pump from the double-bottom fuel tank to the heated settling tank. The cleaned fuel is then
changed, via the preheater and purifier, to the service tank. Next,
heavy fuel is gravity fed from the service tank, via the change-over
valve, primary fuel oil (FO) strainer and the flowmeter, to the
lower side of the mixing tube. From there, the fuel is drawn by
the motor-driven fuel supply pump and pumped via the engine
inlet preheater and secondary FO strainer (2ry in Fig. 2) to the
fuel inlet main pipe and then to fuel injection pump. The surplus
volume of fuel flows back to the upper side of the mixing tube via
the pressure-regulating valve.
When starting up and prior to shutdown of the engine (during
departure and arrival standby) and when running on partial loads
under 50 percent, it is preferable to use diesel oil. Therefore,
before stopping the engine, it is necessary to change over to diesel
oil in good time (about 20 to 30 rain) to ensure that all fuel pipe
lines are filled up with diesel oil.
In general, almost similar fuel systems are required for heavy
186

~ect

fuel up to both 1500 sec and 3500 sec, however, some items are
just a bit different for the two kinds of heavy fuel and these are
listed in Table 4.
As shown in Fig. 2, various accessories for burning heavy fuel
m u s t be installed. The current technical thinking on these accessories is discussed in the following subsections.

Heavy fuel settling tank. Previously, the open tank system

was applied and the cleaning effect with heating and settling in
this tank was expected to be considerable. At present, however,
due to the development of a centrifugal oil separator of the automatic sludge-discharging type, the settling tank has come to
be used only as a preheating tank for the process ahead of centrifugal purification. The reasons for this change are that the
continuous bottom cleaning can be carried out by the automatic
sludge-discharging separator and the centrifugal purifying effect
is far more favorable than the heating and settling effects in the
settling tank.
T h e recommended construction of this tank calls for ample
height and a relatively small bottom area, providing the automatic level control device by narrow oil-supplement intervals in
order to avoid fluctuations in oil temperature.
MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Table 1

Heavy fuel limitations of Akasaka 4-stroke engines

C,o~,~on use
Using limit

"---.--..'~,

RW No.l I00~

type
~cStsoOc
(Horse power)

200

400

600

1,OOO

I, 500

2,500

38

50

75

120

180

280

Diesel oil

~/~22, MH23, MH25

AMP4, AM25, U24
(under 950 ps)
DM26, AH26
U26, U28

U28 tested.
t,

(under 1,800 ps )
DM28, AH28, AH28A

AH28A tested.
150 cSI~,I,200 sec.
v'

(under 1,450 ps)

DM30, DM33
AHS0, AH53

DM33 tested.
180 cSt, Ij500

v2

see,

(under 1,8OO ps)

DM}6, DM}8A
AH}6, AH58, AH38A

III I

E~8A tested.
. . . . .

.J%.

(under 2,500 ps)

8eCe

DM40, ~146, DM47, DH47K

DH47M, D~51
"50
(under 8,600 ps)

DM47 I( teste

I ....

Table 2

Heavy fuel limitations of Akasaka-Mitsubishi 2-stroke UE engines

....
~ . ~ ~

EW.No.I 100 ]
Diesel oil

type
~
(Horse power )
UET 45/750, 45180D
" 45/80DS, 52/90C,
" 52/90D, 52/9ODS

"-'~ s,c.

250 cSt, 2,500

500(
Trunk piston

Common use
"~> Using limit

200

1,OOO

1,500

2,500

5,500

38

120

180

280

380

5,000

5oO

impulse sup ~rcharged.

"~>

(tmder 6,500 ps)

UEC 52/I05D, 52/IO5DS

" 60/125DS
" 52/I05E

Cross head, impulse super :harged.

(UEC - E se~ res; Two stL ;e supercharg~ d)

52/I0;I]S tes
ed.
490 cSt, 5,000 s
.

0.

(under 10,650 ps)

UEC 45/115H, 52/125H

" 60/15OH

Cross haad long stroke, slow speed,

constant pr sssure superc mrged.

(under 16,200 ps )

APRIL 1982

187

Table 3

Heav

fuel limitations (contaminant levels)

4-stroke engine,
trunk piston

Engine type

Properties
RW No.I at IooOF

Viscosity

sec,

cSt at 50C

2-stroke UE engine
trunk piston

2-stroke UEengine
cross head

1,500
180

2,500

5,000

280

5OO

Specific gravity

15/4C

0.97

0.98

0.99

Water content

vol. %

0.5

0.5

1.o

Sulphur content

).o

3.5

4.~

Ash content

o.o5

0.O8

0.10

Conradson Carbon

10.0

Asohltenes

6.0

15.0

~8.0

6.0

10.0

Vanadium content

pp~

200

200

~00

Sodium content

ppm

5O

50

80

Si

p~u

5O

A1

ppm

3O

to upper
deck
drain trap

~~~deck
1

draln trap
open

,~

___c~'~

I I~--eloil

~o ~ Iee~ice t ~

~ I I~

fo

f]

~O

'

t~'~

Heavy fuel
service

Heavy fuel
settling taJn]

LOWsuction
(60 mesh)
-

Primary F.0
strainer

-l~:,er~,~

~ d~b

Preheaterf o r

/=~

Inlet preheater

; _pu,ifier

straine
)00mesh
-- (300
me

-supply

-=
I ~

Main inlet

~ M aEngniei n

',

Press. regulatingvalve_

~JI .............

j~r__.___J

~I4

.....

.....

"J

(up to 3,500 seo. )

(up to },500 sec.)
Fig. 2

188

Recommended engine room fuel system (up to 1500 sec)

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

Table 4

Fuel system differences, 1500 versus 3500 sec

1,500 sec.

Fuel pipe

all insulated

Oil separator

single stage purifier

3,500 sec.
all trace-heated and
insulated.
two stage in tandem;
purifier --~ purifier or

2ry F.O strainer

auto or hand blow-off

type, insulated

purifier ~
clarifier
aut% blow-off type with
steam jacket and ins~?lated

Fuel injection pump

single inlet type

circulating type (with

inlet and circulating

(attached to engine)

ports)
F.O main pipe

inlet m i n

pipe

Pressure regulating
valve

(attached to

inlet and circulating

main pipes

(attached to engine)
fitted to the end of

fitted to the end of

inlet main pipe

circulating main pipe

F.O main pipe)

F.O mixing tube

insulated

insulated

and t r a c e -

heated if possible

The inner bend as shown in the Fig. 2 must be provided both

for the oil supply port from the double-bottom fuel tank and for
the overflow return port from the service tank so as to pour oil
along the tank wall to avoid oil distraction.
H e a v y fuel p u r i f i e r . As is well known, the effect of a purifier
is to remove water, organic contaminants, etc. from heavy fuel.
That is, the effect is to remove physical impurities to a fair extent.
However, it is almost impossible to remove by centrifugal separation such inorganic materials as vanadium, ash, and sulfur. This
being the case, the main purpose of the purification is to remove
the aforementioned organic impurities, leaving the oil uniform
and fine-grained. Such an effect undoubtedly brings about better
fuel atomization and plays a major role in combustion.
Since continuous bottom cleaning is required, it is recommended that an automatic sludge-discharging purifier be employed for continuous operation at sea and to provide maintenance in port, if required.
The practical flow quantity must be around one second of the
nominal capacity of the separator, and the allowable limit of oil
viscosity must be within 200 sec RW No. 1. The separator capacity, therefore, should be suitably larger than the fuel consumption of an engine in order to ensure adequate purification.
Also, a preheater should be provided that is of sufficient capacity
to lower the oil to an acceptable viscosity.
Water-washing becomes impractical as the specific gravity of
heavy fuel approaches or exceeds 1.00; however, if liquidized
magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) is used as the seal medium, the allowable limit of specific gravity rises to 1.006.
H e a v y fuel s e r v i c e tank. This tank functions not only as the
daily service tank but also as the so-called "cleaned" tank. In the
purifier, the oil is stirred and reduced to a fine grain, and impurities, sludges, etc. are removed to a certain extent. The oil is
then poured into this tank, where the oil is further separated and
precipitated. Therefore, it should be understood that the service
tank is the sludge-removing one too.
The service tank capacity must be equivalent to fuel consumption for at least six h o u r s - - i f possible ten h o u r s - - o f maximum continuous rating (MCR) engine operation. The larger the
capacity, the better the sludge removal. The tank bottom should
be of the sludge-well type, which can effectively remove sludges

and thereby prevent engine trouble due to poor fuel combustion.

The shape of this tank should provide ample height but a relatively small bottom area. The inside of the tank should be free
APRIL 1982

of reinforcement ribs in order to avoid accumulations of sludge,

drain, etc.
At the outlets to the engine from the service tank, two suctions
mechanisms, low end high, should be provided. In principle, the
high suction is always used during engine operation except in the
event that the purifier has to be stopped for several hours due to
trouble.
The overflow pipe to the settling tank should have the inner
pipe located so as to suck up the oil from the tank bottom, and
the top end of the inner pipe should be opened inside the tank
to prevent siphon action. The oil supply port from the purifier
should have the internal bend arranged so that the supply oil
flows in along the tank wall.
The air vent pipe must be extended to the upper deck. It is a
matter of course that the drain oil must not flow inversely in the
service tank.
As mentioned earlier, the heavier the fuel, the shorter the
separating or discharging effect of sediments by the purifier.
Therefore, the idea of using the service tank as a kind of sludgeremoving tank has recently become popular. In this sense, it is
advantageous to provide a bottom blow-off valve or to use the
existing stripper valve for this purpose and to carry out bottom
blow-off at regular intervals (once every four hours). Blowing-off
of oil little by little is not effective; great quantities should be
blown off rapidly. The oil is usually blown off to the one of the
double-bottom fuel tanks, which normally function as receptacles
for the overflow from all fuel tanks in the engine room, and also
for the return of the stripped oil from these tanks.
M i x i n g tube. The main function of this tube is the separation
of air from the fuel oil system. Since the capacity of the fuel oil
supply pump generally is about two to three times greater than
the required fuel oil consumption, the surplus volume is returned
to the mixing tube and once again supplied from its bottom.
The capacity of this tube is reached within 20 min of fuel
consumption under MCR operation, and if it is too large, it takes
a long time for the changeover between diesel oil and heavy fuel.
This tube must be approximately 1 to 2 m higher than the service
tank and the top end must be as high as that of the service tank;
thus the outlet pipe can be positioned about 1 to 2 m lower than
the low suction of the service tank.
P r e h e a t i n g of h e a v y fuel. Preheating of heavy fuel is necessary to reduce the viscosity. For the double-bottom fuel tank,
preheating is required to maintain pumpability, and the heating
189

Table 5

Preheating capacity and tank capacity (lOOO-hp base)

!,OOO sec.
120 cSt

1,500 sec.
180 cSt

Table 6

Transition in practical use of heavy fuel(as ofthe end of 1979)

As of the end of 1979

3,500 sec.
580 cSt

type

Double bottom fuel tank;

temperature rise (C)
temp. diff. (C)
heating capacity (keal/h)

fm 0 to 25

fm 0 to 30

25

3o

6,700

8,200

fm O to 55-40

4-stroke engine

2-stroke UE eng.

2-stroke UE eng.

trunk piston

trunk piston

cross head

2,500- 4,000 ps.

3,800-6,500 ps.

5,400-10,650 ps.

55-40
11,ooo

tank capacity (m 5)

Manufacturing

Settling tank;
temperature rise (C)

fm 25 to 60

fm 50 to 65

fm 35 to 70

temp. diff. (C)

35
6,400

35
6,500

55
6,600

1.7

1.7

1.7

beating capacity (kcal/h)

tank capacity (m3)
Purifier preheater;
temperature rise (C)
temp diff. (C)
heating capacity (kcal/h)
Servicetank;
temperature rise (C)
temp diff. (C)
heating capacity (kcal/h)
tank capacity (m3)

fm 60 to 90

fm 65 to 95

1966 - 1979

1962 - 1979

1971 - 1979

year

D~esel oll

30.2
(fishing boats)

O%

O%.

6.6 %

2.2 %

O%

fm 70 to 98

30

30

50

3,900

5,900

3,9O0

fm 75 to 85

fm 80 to 90

fm 85 to 95

IO

10

10

I, 900

I,900

1,900

1.7

1.7

1.7

(RW. No.l IO0F)

below 400 sec.

4 0 0 - 999 sec.

15.3

12.1

1,000 - 1,499 sec.

38.1%

65.2 %

34.7 %

0%

~hg. inlet preheater;

temperature rise (C)

fm 85 to 100

fm 90 to 105

temp diff. (C)

15
1,600

15
1,6OO

heating capacity (kcal/h)

Trace heating;
heating capacity (kcal/h)

fm 93 to 125
32
5,500
about
I,OOO

20,500

22,100

27,900

52

56

72

1,500 - 3,500 sec.

9.8 %

20.5 %

65.5 %

Numbers of unit

236

261

9~

Total preheating energy;

heating capacity (kcal/h)
steam capacity (kg/h)
Remarks:
I)
m
z
ill
-I
m
0
2:
Z
0
tO
,,<

Heavy fuel flow = 0.25 m31hl1,000 ps.

Purifier flow = 0.5 mS/h/l,O00 ps.

From double bottom = 0.25 x 2.5 = 0.625 m3/h/1,O00 ps.

Tank heating = by 4 hours heating up.
2)

Heating capacities for L.O settling t~k, L.O purifier, the blow-in
steam for jacket water war,ring, etc, are not included.

1. Supplying ample air, complete combustion can be obtained under burning a low-grade heavy oil.
0 ) IL~creased air amoun~

h_____~Low fuel

~lete

] _ ~ j F u a l cost

Half round diffuserl I

type gas passage. ~
IMain parts have
If [Low exh.gasl
~
IMaintenance
mn.loes o# e~. IM ~ple air su~ LJcomplete interchan-LV~t~erat~4--7
Jint~als.
~--~rspair coet I
{energy
II[ ply to cylinderV~geability between ~ .
V---~Long service I Isaving
I
" l~ & AH series.
I ~ Low t h e r m a l ~
~life
]
......
toEXCellentVTR
Turbo-matching~lJ
qstress
~
-'
charger
~
I
~ for operation safety{
/ a n d reliability
I

(2)

(3)

Low fuel ~___~'Suitable

[_~ Increase in
L ~ Complete ~____~'LOw fuel
cost
consumptionI ~ injection rate I ~cycle efficiency~combustion I
- [consumption l__~Fuel
] - {saving
cam
{
I and duration

Moisture ~ _ ~
separator '

Reject of
1 IAvoid breakage
Imoisture due to ~-~of oil film
air cooled
I Ibetween piston
| & liner

II

I ILow wear of ringl ILong overha~ I [Maintenance,1

~-~& l i n e r
~-~intervals
~--~spare parts &]
I IAvoid piston
I ILong service I {repaircost
~| I scuffing
I llife
]
leaving
l

2. Owing to considerable design improvements, excellent reliability and durability are preserved under burning a low-grade
heavy oil.
(1)

|Increase in shakingI {Low temperature on

_~ effect. Uniform
~-~ the piston top and
ICollet type ~-~ cooling around
I ltop ring land
Ipistn coling# I Ipistn"
J :
|
I'No error for
LjNo

o i l pasea~, in

-Ipistn pin

~replaoe~ent of

I | No stick of
1 ~ S m a l l L.O
~
ring. Low wear~j~splash-up
] Iof ring and ~ ~
'
I liner
) I i Lng piston
r
I I verha~l
/
[_~intervals.

~ jpiston pin.
ll(
oiproof> II

I [NO stress
] I
~consentration
~ l ~ No trouble
{ a r o u n d oil holes J
of piston
pin

(2)

] JL.O cost
~--~saving
I
I
~_~

ic,
Ill i f eng,a
o f ring
l& liner.
---~Long l l f e of
| p i s t o n pin

I
)
l
~

~etal

I
/

fl [Maintenance, I
~_~epare parts
I I & repair costI
[ lea,i~
J
'

[Low deformation of I 'No gas blow.liner in operation,l _ by.~nall L.O ....

.....
[ }Uniform cooling
~-~ splash-up
Increase in 1 IHigh temp.cooling I I Iaround liner
[
- - |
Low wear of ][Long overhaul[ .
Jacket cooling~--~ by fresh water ~
~~
I.ring & liner.[lintervale. { IHaintenance,
[effect
I
' I IHigh water velocity~ temperature I Avoid piston ~Long service ~ tspare parts I
L~ Avoid air accumula-L~ corrosive
scuffing lllife
J ~& repair

{in

(~)

-~Rigid valve
Cage

~ Low deformation

_~0 ring on top

~ s h
INewly designed ~Clean
~
[exhaust valve ] lexhaust valve

c o
j

~with

I
]

Conical seat.

I IWater-coled valve I
[Jseat.
I
-I Rote-cap.
~
|(Aboves are assort-{
Led case by case) J
[
Fig. 3

APRIL 1982

Avoid corrosion [
Jacket side j

rain.oil ~

~Long service7
'{life of bush.I
INo corrosion~ IMaintenance, 1
~ o r spring. I ~spere parts I
~ &
repair coet~
l leaving
I
L ILOng overhaulI I
V | intervals f I I
~valve & e e a t ~
{Long service|
[[life.

J E a s y draw-out of
I ~valve cage
]. ~
r-~ valve & seat.
i I Low thermal load.
]
~
I I Auto lapping of valve1
~ & seat in operation.
-I Uniform temperature
of valve face
I

Akasaka 4-stroke diesel engines: design features and countermeasures for burning heavy fuel

191

Comparisons of maintenance levels

Table 7

Unit
4-stroke
L-------~
~"'"~I
Diesel oil

2-stroke

slow speed

Remark
1500 sec.

1500 sec

5500 sec.
As required

F.O & L.O strainers

As required

As required

As required

Fuel injection

5O00 -

6OOO

2OO0 -

30OO

2000 -

5000

1500 -

2000

Cleaning

Exhaust valve

6OOO -

90OO

5ooo-

60o0

5OO0-

6OOO

2000 -

3000

Lapping

Air intake valve

9000 - 12000

60oo-

9OO0

Startin~

valve

12000-

valve

Safety vlave
Indicator

valve

do~-

9000 - 12000

9000 - 12000

do.-

180OO - 24000

do.-

do.-

18000 - 24000

180O0 - 2400O

12000 - 15000

9000 - 120OO

9OO0 - 120OO

6OOO-

90OO

5000 -

50oo -

3ooo-

6ooo

5000 -

Crank arm deflection

driving

no valve

6000

50oo

5ooo
gear

Piston rings & liner

6000

6ooo

6000 - 12000

6000 - 12000
not needed

Inspection
Inspection

3OOO

5ooo

from the peep hole

Piston and rings

18000-

24000

12000 - 18000

12000 - 18000

9000 - 12000

Cleaning & replacement

2nd rings

Cylinder

18000-

24000

12000 - 18000

12000 - 18000

9000 - 12000

Liner wear measurement

1800O - 24000

12000 - 18000

12000 - 18000

9OOO - 12OOO

Cleaning

Crank pin, piston pin

o T cross pin and
main bearing

18000 - 24000

12000 - 18000

12000 - 18000

12000 - 18000

Inspection,
if needed

F.O injection

18000 - 24000

15000 - 180OO

15000 - 18000

12000 - 15000

Inspection & replacement

plunger barrel if needed

12000 - 18000

12OOO - 18OOO

4 stroke;
2 stroke;

Cylinder

liner
cover

test

Inspection

6000 - 12000

6000 - 12000

press,

Measurement

3oOO

300o

not needed

& injection

of valve & seat

9000 - 12000

no valve

180OO - 24000

Moving parts in
crank case
Camshaft

15000

(hours)

UE

of combustion

top &

face

BearinCs;

pump

clearance

check

of

Turbocharger;
replacement
inspection

~ear~

60oo-

90oo

6000-

9000

Blower side

6ooo -

90o0

5000 -

60OO

500O -

6OOO

2OOO-

~000

Water washing

Turbine

not needed

6000 -

9000

6OOO-

9OOO

3OOO-

6OOO

Water washing

12000 - 18000

12000-

18000

side

180OO-

Overhaul

24000

18000 - 2 4 0 0 0 12000 ~ 18000

Air cooler

030

Cleaning

- 12000

9000

Max. wear factor

Mean wear factor

'o08

I
i

OO

(chemical)

m,,n

Inspection

12000 - 18000

12000 - 18000

(ball)
(plain)

0.o6 .......

c
@
0
'

0.04.

~0 . . . .
O

o
He,~

0.0Z

0 U

6
Run hours.

Fig. 4

192

~"

4o

12

14

103

Cylinder liner wear factor (UEC52/lO5D)

MARINE TECHNOLOGY

capacity is considerably affected by ambient seawater temperature. For the settling tank, purifier and service tank, preheating
is also required to promote cleaning, and for the engine inlet fuel,
preheating is required to reduce the viscosity to about 70 to 80
sec RW No. 1 in order to ensure satisfactory fuel injection.
Heavy fuel preheating can be carried out by a low-pressure
steam generated in the auxiliary boiler or in the exhaust gas
economizer. (If the economizer is employed, the preheating energy cost at sea can be reduced significantly.) Electric heating is
limited for heavy fuel of less than 600 sec; otherwise the generator
output power must be greatly increased. Table 5 gives examples
of recommended preheating capacity and tank capacity.

Problems still being encountered with heavy fuel

Table 8

Maintenance man-hours for Akasaka-Mitsubishi UE engine

W
ORKN
IG
TIME

MAINTENA~CEWORK

(HOUR)

removal V
EXHAUST
and
ALVE installationof an
removal and installation of

NUMBER 0~
WORKERS

STARTINGAIR VALVE

INDICATORVALVE

~
The heavy fuel limitations of our manufactured engines are removal and installation of a
as indicated in Tables 1-3; however, in practice on existing PUEL INJECTIONVALVE
shipboard engines, the fuels have not been so distinctly heavy.
Table 6 shows the transition in the practice of heavy fuel use in
recent years.
The reasons why heavy fuels of significantly low quality are
still not being used are that the bunkering stations for such fuels
are greatly limited in the United States and Europe and that the ~YLINDER COVER
price differential between fuels is not so great if their viscosity
exceeds 1500 sec RW No. 1. However, since fuel cost occupies
almost 50 to 60 percent of overall operating cost, as mentioned (withbeing a cylinder cover reraoved)
earlier, it is evident that shipowners and operators require
~
~
lower-cost fuels. Accordingly, the use of heavier, cheaper fuels extraction and installation of a
will become popular in near future for marine diesel engines of CYLINDER LINER (withbeing a cylinder
cover and a pistonremoved)
fairly high speed.
Since various improvements have been introduced to cope with
unnecessary
heavy fuel, neither serious damage nor engine trouble due to fuel cleaning of CYLINDERLINER PORTS
quality has ever been caused in our engines so long as the specifled heavy fuels were used. For reference, our 4-stroke engine's
design features and countermeasures for burning heavy fuel are
~ : Shows one hour
shown in Fig. 3. Similar as well as additional countermeasures
have also been completed on our 2-stroke UE engines; thus the
heavy fuel listed in Table 3 could be used without any particular
: Showsone worker
difficulties. Nevertheless, the influence of the changed properties
of heavy fuels should be thoroughly understood in order to
properly operate and maintain diesel engines.
As already mentioned, the higher the viscosity of the heavy
Table 9 Man-hours for one complete cylinder assembly
fuel, the higher the preheating necessary to reduce viscosity in
transferring, purifying, etc.; therefore, the oil pressure of the fuel
Item
m a n x hrs.
Total man-hours
system should be raised (2.0 to 3.0 kg/cm2 for 1500 sec and 3.0 to
5.0 kg/cm 2 for 3500 sec) in order to prevent vapor lock.
1. E x h a u s t v a l v e
2x0.5
1.0
Increased water in heavy fuel could be discharged sufficiently
2.
S
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
v
a
l
v
e
i
x
0
.
5
0.5
by the conventional water-washing method so long as the specific
gravity is kept within 0.99. However, purifier capacity should be
3. I n d i c a t o r v a l v e
ix0.5
0.5
increased somewhat to obtain far more effective cleaning.
4. F u e l i n j e c t i o n
Sulfur, which increases the risk of low-temperature corrosion,
valve
1 x 0.5
0.5
could be neutralized by alkaline cylinder oil. It is said that the
dew point of sulfuric acid lies at about 200C; therefore the cyl5. S a f e t y v a l v e
ix0.5
0.5
inder liner, the gas passage of the cylinder cover and the turbo6. C y l i n d e r c o v e r
3x2
6.0
charger gas casing, which are directly in contact with combustion
gas, should be above this temperature so as to prevent corrosion.
7. P i s t o n
3xi.5
4.5
The jacket cooling water temperature should be kept at the
8. C y l i n d e r l i n e r
3xl
3.0
highest allowable limit (70 to 80C) where possible.
Higher carbon residue and asphalt content in heavy fuel may
Total
16.5 hrs.
lead to lower combustion efficiency due to a long ignition lag, high
boiling point, long combustion duration, etc. and, as a result, may
9. S t u f f i n g b o x
2 x 1
2.0
cause carbon deposit around the combustion components. For
10. C r o s s h e a d
3 x 1
3.0
such fuel, it would be important to preserve suitable viscosity at
the fuel injection nozzle and to raise the injection pressure with
ii. C r a n k p i n b e a r i n g
2 x 1
2.0
a sufficient volume of air in the cylinder.
12.
M
a
i
n
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
2
x
1
2.0
High vanadium content, particularly in combination with high
sodium, may decrease the melting point of iron, causing highOne complete
temperature corrosion damage to the piston crown and exhaust
a s s e m b l y total
25.5 hrs.
valve. To cope with this trouble, the piston as well as the exhaust
APRIL 1982

193

Ship A

Ship B

Ship C

'11

L_ln
0

I I J J

O,O5 "~"
Wear factor

Fig. 5

o, o 5

O. ~ '~'~

mm/10 3 hrs.

Cylinder liner wear mode (UEC52/105D)

mm

~o.3
%

Ring m a t e r i a l ;

-- ~ Uballoy

Top & 2nd -ITarkalloy

Below ~ r d .'Uballoy
f

0.2
D

~ 0.1

~ITarkalloy
ll Uballoy
top

ring

2nd
Position

Fig. 6

5th-

4th

3rd
of piston

rlng

Piston ring wear (UEC52/105D)

valve should be so designed as to preserve favorable temperature

levels. Excellent piston cooling should be provided as well as a
water-cooled exhaust valve seat. It is noteworthy t h a t cylinder
oil in which the ashless additive is contained is effective in governing high-temperature corrosion.
Poor thermal stability as well as incompatibility may cause
carbon deposit clogging in the line filters (primary and secondary
strainers), which can result in corrosion. At present, the fairly
large-capacity purifier, the periodical bottom blow-off from the
service tank, and the automatic blow-off strainer are among the
major accessories to cope with this problem. Therefore it might
be necessary to add an homogenizer or the like to the fuel system.
Anyway, if possible, it is recommended that mixing of fuels from
different bunkering stations be avoided unless the fuel characteristics are known to be similar.

Maintenance intervals and wear factor compared

w i t h r u n n i n g on d i e s e l oil
Maintenance intervals. In the case of 4-stroke slow-speed
diesel engines of bore greater than 400 mm and output of over
2500 bhp, only fishing boats (mainly middle-sized trawlers) are
running on diesel oil. All other diesel vessels such as Japanese
domestic, Asian domestic and oceangoing vessels are commonly
operating with heavy fuel.
On the other hand, no 2-stroke slow-speed UE engines are
operated with diesel oil. The most popular heavy fuel for the
trunk piston type is 1000 to 1500 sec R W No. 1, while for the
194

Metric Conversion
1 dwt
1 gross ton (100 f t 3)
1m
1 mm
1 kg/cm 2
C
1 bhp

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

Table
1.016 047 metric tons
2.831 685 m :~
3.28 ft
0.04 in.
14.2 psi
5/9 (F -32)
0.7457 kW

. = 100%

110

~o5

lOO

I
1,000

I
2,000

I
3,000

I
4,000

Viscosity (RW No.1 at IO0F)

Fig. 7

Fuel price factor

M A R I N E TECHNOLOGY

Main engine;

Slow speed

M.C.R
(Max. continuous rating)
S.C.R

Medium speed

6,000 ps

6,000 ps

165 rpm

(Service cont. rating)

9OO/160 rpm

5,500 ps

Specific F.O consumption

5,500 ps

159 g/psh

165 g/psh

(Hu = 10,200 kcal/kg)

Kind of fuels

1,500 sec.

diesel oli

specific gravity

0.96

0.85

lower calorific value

9,800 k c a l / k g

10,200 kcal/kg

19.89 kl/day

25.60 kl/day

F.O consumption per day

(kl/day, US gal/day)

5,255

US$ gal/day I 6,770 US gal/day

Diesel Generator;
M.C.R

250 kw x 1,200 rpm

S.C.R

200 kw = 300 ps

Specific F.O consumption

170 g/psh

F.O consumption per day

1.44 kl/day

(kl/day, US gal/day)

380 US gal/day

Preheating steam;
Required heat

131,700 kcal/h

Boiler F.O consumption for

not necessary

preheating (diesel oil)

0.456 kl/day

(kl/day, US gal/day)

120 US gal/day

Total F.O consumption per day

1,500 sec. heavy fuel

20 kl/day

5260 US gal/day
Diesel oil

2 kl/day

27.O4 kl/day

500 US gal/day
Table 10 Fuel and lubricant cost calculation

7150 US gal/day

Fuel cost per year;

Reference conditon;

Service days .......... 545 days

1,5OO sec. F.O cost ... 0.61 US$/gal
Diesel oil cost ....... 0.91

1,5OO sec. F.O cost

1.107 million US$

Diesel oil cost

0.157

"

1,264

"

Total F.O cost per year

Fuel cost saving by Slow speed engine;

"

! 2,245 million US$

2,245

"

2.245 - 1,264
2.245
x 100 = 45.7 = 44 %

Lubricant cost per year;

Specific L.O consumption;
cylinder oil

0.8 g/psh

system oil

0.1

"

I. 5 g/psh

L.O cost
cylinder oiI,TBN = 70

3.3 us$/gal

system oil, TBN = 10-15

2.8

specific gravity

0.93

"

Main eng. L.O consumption per day;

cylinder oil
system oil

115.5 I / d a y
i

14.2

"

0
212.9 1/day

Diesel Generator L.O consumption

per day
Total L.O cost per year
cylinder oil
system o11

11.6 1/day
34.140 US$/year

11.6 1/day

6.585

"

57.296 US$/~ear

Total L.O cost per year

i 40.725
Lubricant cost saving by Slow speed engine;

"

57.296

57.296 - 40.725

"

x 1OO = 28.9 = 29 %

57.296

APRIL 1982

195

crosshead type it is 1500 to 2300 sec. Accordingly, maintenance

intervals of 4-stroke engines can be compared only with two kinds
of fuel. Comparisons of maintenance intervals are given in Table
7.
Because there is little investigative data for running on 3500
sec heavy fuel, it is still not evident at this stage what impact this
fuel would have on maintenance intervals. However, if the engine
design, fuel system control, cylinder oil including ashless additive,
etc., are carefully considered, maintenance intervals could be kept
about 20 percent or so more than those for the 1500 sec heavy fuel.
As an example, maintenance man-hours for the UE engine are
roughly illustrated in Table 8.
For the case of the crosshead-type UE engine, the man-hours
necessary to overhaul one complete cylinder assembly set are
given in Table 9. As the table shows, one set can be replaced with
a new one in at least 30 hr. However, this time value has a wide
tolerance.
It is noteworthy that the crosshead-type slow-speed engine
rarely requires the overhaul of one complete cylinder assembly
set, though engine trouble of any sort may occur during operation.
Perhaps Maintenance Items i to 8 in Table 9 may correspond to
the complete cylinder assembly set of the trunk piston type. In
this sense, the required man-hours may be almost the same for
the two types of engine.
Another problem is that when the slow-speed engine is periodically overhauled in dock, it n e e d s - - i f a 6-cyl engine--almost
200 hr, while the medium-speed engine r e q u i r e s - - i f a 12- or
16-cyl engine--almost twice as many hours as the slow-speed
engine. Thus, as far as maintenance man-hours are concerned,
the slow-speed fewer-cylinder engine is much more advantageous
than the medium-speed multicylinder engine.
According to the results of an investigation by several Japanese
shipowners, it may safely be said that the annual maintenance
cost of the 6200-bhp-class slow-speed UE engines is somewhere
between 25 000 and 50 000 U.S. dollars as of 1979, though it varies
widely from ship to ship. Although this evaluation is by the
highest cost, the annual maintenance cost would perhaps be a
favorable one.
W e a r factor. The typical components that are subject to wear
include the cylinder liner and piston ring. The wear factor of these
components has a most important effect upon the overhaul frequency of the piston and its maintenance cost.
Figure 4 shows the wear characteristics of the cylinder liner
of our UE engines based on the investigative results of many ships
already in service. Generally speaking, as far as the commonly
used 1500 sec heavy fuel is concerned, though the wear factor
varies widely from ship to ship, the maximum wear factor in the
initial wear zone would be 0.08 to 0.06 mm per 1000 run-hours
and in constant wear zone about 0.05 to 0.04 mm. Of course, the
mean wear factor would correspond to only a half of these figures,
(0.03 to 0.02 mm per 1000 hr).
Assuming that the mean value of the maximum wear factor per
1000 hr is 0.05 mm and that the available limit of the liner wear
is the diameter plus 0.5 percent, the expected life of the liner
would be 52 000 hr, or about 8 to 9 years.
In the case of burning heavy fuel up to 3500 sec, there would
perhaps be not so much change in the wear factor, if sufficient
care is taken in the engine design, fuel system control, cylinder
oil with ashless additive, and so forth.
Figure 5 shows the measuring positions and the wear mode per
cylinder on the basis of wear factor of three typical operating

196

ships. When the run-hours are still within 4000, the mutual
abrasive wear, due obviously to the "running-in" of the piston
rings, is observed. As the run-hours accumulate further, an almost
ideal corrosive wear mode begins to appear.
T h e t y p i c a l wear factor of a p i s t o n ring is s h o w n in Fig. 6. O n

this type of engine, comparatively unfavorable wear of the top

ring was found in 18 units made in the early days. It is also true
that there was something unstable in the wear of the top ring for
the two years of nonoverhaul. Therefore, the material of the top
and second rings was changed from Uballoy to Tarkalloy, which
is excellent in wear-proof characteristics.
As a result, the wear factor of piston rings has been remarkably
reduced and the instability in the wear has been eliminated, even
though the overhaul interval has been extended to as long as three
years.
Assuming that the available wear limit of a piston ring is up
to 12 percent of the ring thickness, it is possible to continue use
for about 18 000 run-hours. In other words, the two-year overhaul
interval is still too soon for the replacement of piston rings.

Operating cost savings w i t h h e a v y f u e l

In Fig. 7 the fuel price factor is plotted against the viscosity.
Of course this curve cannot be regarded as final, because oil prices
are dependent on the bunkering stations. It is noteworthy,
however, that the heavier the viscosity, the more fiat the price
factor becomes. This is one of the major reasons that the 1500 sec
or so heavy fuel is still favored for the comparatively large-bore,
slow-speed diesel engines even in this challenging time of energy
saving.
Table 10 gives an example of calculated fuel and lubricant costs
for a slow-speed 6000-bhp engine using 1500 sec heavy fuel
compared with the costs of a medium-speed engine of the same
power using diesel oil. This comparison is what was once seriously
considered for a smaller than 300-G/T U.S. costal pusher tug.
From these calculations, it is clear that excellent cost savings
can be achieved by the slow-speed engine using heavy fuel. As a
m a t t e r of course, the initial investment cost for heavy fuel, interest, depreciation, etc. should also be seriously taken into
consideration.
Moreover, it should be understood that there are a lot of difficult problems to solve in the application of a slow-speed engine
to a small boat, namely, heavy engine weight and considerable
height, engine balancing and vibration excitation maneuverability, engine room fuel system and accessories, etc. To cope with
these difficulties, engine and ship builders in conjunction with
naval architects should have a clear role to play in developing
such an energy-saving concept from the point of view of the total
ship.

Conclusion
Most of the author's experience with heavy fuel has been discussed briefly herein, and yet much more remains to be discussed.
A fuel which has been forecasted to appear in the marine bunkering market in near future is certainly a problem we shall have
to deal with. However, we are just now standing on the starting
line to challenge this problem of converting to heavy fuel. The
author's company is, therefore, determined to make greater efforts to study how to use such a significantly lower-quality
fuel.

MARINE TECHNOLOGY